Tom Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Does anyone really believe that a majority of the teachers out there, a majority of administrators out there today are looking for ways around doing a good job? That they are trying to figure out what they can possibly do not to have children succeed? In fact, we know that is not true, that in most cases, in 90 percent or more certainly of the cases out there, everybody is working as hard as they possibly can to make sure that children learn. Something is wrong in the system. We are going to give people the ability to address those problems and come back to us and say, ``Here is how we can make this work. You gave us the freedom, here is now what we have been able to show as the success.'' That is all we are suggesting happen here, give them the freedom to make this thing work.

Mr. TANCREDO. Also, Mr. Chairman, let me say that it has been my experience that for ages now we have been debating whether or not we should have any confidence in the local administrator, in our local schools, in the local teachers who confront our children every single day. Really what this bill does is it tests that theory. My friends on the other side of the aisle, I know, believe that people in the system are doing their level best, that everybody is trying as hard as they possibly can.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to this amendment, as if it were passed we would have to change the name of the Ed-Flex bill to the Education Inflexibility bill because, of course, that is exactly what happens here. I was a former public school teacher, I was the regional director for the U.S. Department of Education for 11\1/2\ years, and I have certainly experienced firsthand the Federal Government's bureaucratic overregulation of our country's educational system. While I was with the U.S. Department of Education, we published a document called ``What Works'' in which we identified all of the activities, all of the programs that apparently had some positive impact on the educational experience of children. What we also could have done, however, is write another book that was called ``What Doesn't Work.'' We could have identified the hundreds of elementary and secondary education programs at the Federal and State level, thousands of Federal program administrators and State agencies, millions of hours of paperwork requirements produced by the Department every year. We could have identified all of those things as being examples of what does not work and we could have pointed to all of the children who had not learned as a result of all of this bureaucratic intervention. We know what does not work. It is fascinating to me, because I have been a strong supporter of school choice programs, including vouchers and tuition tax credits. I have said what the gentleman from Tennessee said a little bit ago. I was astounded, as a matter of fact, to hear the gentleman from Tennessee use this very language when he said that he wants schools to either do a good job or be closed. Public schools, he was talking about. He wanted to see that kind of accountability. He wanted to make sure that if they were not operating and actually producing the kind of educational experience that would be best for the kids, that they would close. Those were his words. Great words. Absolutely accurate words. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the reasons why I can support this Education Flexibility Act and oppose this amendment, because in fact there are a lot of things happening around the country today that do give pause to public school administrators and teachers in the realm of choice because we now know what works, we now know that charter schools and giving parents the ability to make selections from a wide variety of educational opportunities works. We know that works. And so there is accountability in the public school system today. The only reason why we are seeing as much concern expressed on the part of public school administrators today is because in fact there is a little more choice in the system. So I certainly support the concept of choice, and I support the ability of schools to make a lot of decisions here because in fact there are consequences if they do not make those correct decisions. Children do go other places. That is okay. We can watch and see what exactly is going to happen here. I certainly hope that we do not pass the Miller-Kildee amendment as it will, as I say, change the whole concept of this bill to the Education Inflexibility Act.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman. It truly was. Of the 25 or more years that I have spent in public life, this was perhaps the most significant and most moving experience I think I have had. I visited a class, a fourth and fifth grade class at Highline Community School in my district. It is a public school in the Cherry Creek School District. Why this school is unique, and it certainly is unique, and that is a word that gets thrown around a lot, oftentimes misused, because it really means nothing else like it. But I can use it appropriately and correctly in describing this particular school. Actually, this particular class and their teacher, Mrs. Vogel, about a year ago this class studied or actually had to just read a little tract that was discussing the situation in the Sudan, particularly the situation of slavery in the Sudan. The Sudan, as we know, is a troubled country with a history of civil war now that has gone on for about 8 or 10 years that has cost almost 2 million lives. More people have died in this struggle than in any war since World War II. This is absolutely amazing that we pay so little attention to it. That was really the concern raised by the students and the teacher. They said, how can this be happening? How can slavery be happening in this day and age, medieval slavery be occurring in the world someplace today, and nobody knows or no one cares? So they set about to do something about it. They started an organization that they now call STOP. It has now become an international organization, and, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that this fourth and fifth grade classroom of Mrs. Vogel's has now raised over $100,000 worldwide, and has redeemed, has purchased freedom, for over 1,000 people in the Sudan. It is an absolutely incredible story. This classroom has done more for human rights in the Sudan than this administration, I assure the Members, than this government, has done. They are not finished yet. When I was there on Monday, they had just received a fax copy of a front page article that appeared in a Tokyo newspaper about this class. It is truly an extraordinary situation. I brought them a flag, and each one of the students in the class had written me a note. I have introduced them into the Congressional Record. But I want to keep talking about this, Mr. Speaker, because few other people are. This is a land that needs our attention. I am on the Committee on International Relations. We had the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, in a week ago to discuss foreign policy issues. As it turns out, in a half-hour presentation, in a 30-page written document about foreign policy, every foreign policy issue we have, every country was named where we have an interest, where there is a concern, except for one. I scanned it thoroughly to watch for it, to look for it. Not one time was there a mention of the Sudan. There are horrendous things happening there that need to be brought to the attention of the American public. The attention is being brought by classrooms like this one; no, in fact, just this classroom. I wish there were more, and there will be before we get done with this.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for our colleagues to understand and for the people listening to understand that those rogue nations are indeed becoming much more dangerous and they now pose the greatest threat to the security of the United States that has actually existed since the end of the Cold War. One of the reasons why that is the case today is because they have technology. They have been able to improve their missile systems, they have been able to improve their guidance systems as a result of a technology that we provided for them and also as a result of the President's Executive orders that were signed that allowed that transfer of technology to go on. Since I am the newest Member here, I had several great opportunities to discuss issues like this during various retreats and prior to actually coming and taking over or getting sworn in, and I asked every single person that came in, every single person who had a foreign policy or foreign relations or some expertise in this area, I asked them four questions: Is it true that we have transferred technology to the Chinese? Is it true that transfer was illegal? Is it true that it has jeopardized our security? And is it true that that was made as a result of these Executive orders signed by the President? Mr. Speaker, each case, to a person, liberal, conservative, and this was at the Kennedy School at Harvard, we had four liberal people in front of us, foreign policy specialists, and to a person they all said yes. We never had one person that disagreed with that. When we look at the situation that we face, not only is there more nations out there with the capacity to strike the United States; now we are even more unprepared than we were in the past because of what this administration has done to our military. Not just our missile defense system, but the general preparedness of the military which has degraded dramatically over the last several years. And not only has the preparedness degraded, our ability to respond all over the world degraded, but out responses everywhere around the world. Troops continue to be sent all over the place. There a proposal to send 4,000 to Kosovo, along with the United Nations troops, that would not be under American command. Troops that would be under blue berets. These things are being asked of American troops and boys and girls, citizens who are in the armed forces. To put their life on the line. To go in harm's way. We are not providing the support that we need to both in the housing and also in the actual equipment of war that they need to protect their lives. And we put not just them but the entire Nation at risk by the fact that we do not have the defense system that we need.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Well, I would just say that I have learned a lot of things in this last month and a half from my experience here in the Congress, and I must tell my colleagues that one of the scariest realizations that I have come to is that there is the possibility that there are, I do not know, certainly a large number, maybe a majority of the people even in this body who believe that, in fact, the government is not big enough; that, in fact, we have not paid enough taxes and that we need to pay more. I keep thinking to myself that either I am certainly out of touch or the rest of these people are. My colleague from Colorado knows, because we have spoken to some of the same groups, I can go home and there is a group called the Jefferson County Men's Club and there is the Arapaho County Men's Club, and I always think to myself when I hear people say things like this, that taxes are not high enough, that government is not big enough, I think how would this play in front of the Jefferson County Men's Club or the Arapaho County Men's Club? What would they say if I came back to them and said there are a lot of people there who think government is not big enough and ask them what they think. I can tell my colleagues I know what they would say; that we are out of our minds. And sometimes it sounds like it.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a tax that every American should be concerned about. Not only that, the idea that the only people who pay it are the wealthy, I mean, go and look at the farmers of America today. Find me, this wealthy farmer out there who has wealth, as I say, yes, he has got wealth in the land, but it is just in the land. In order to transfer that wealth into true, hard, honest dollars, he has to dispose of it or his heirs do in order to pay this tax. So it is bogus to suggest it is Daddy Warbucks, as the liberals and the Democrats want to suggest. That is the kind of picture they want to conjure up when we talk about eliminating the inheritance tax or the death tax. Well, it is not. It is the family farmers in Kansas and Colorado and Oklahoma and throughout this land that work every single day to put food on our tables. So my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), is absolutely right in that respect.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I have certainly been hearing a great deal. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that I can put it more succinctly or more profoundly than a constituent from Aurora who writes, ``The American dream has always been to get married and raise a family, to own your own business, to own your own farm, to build a secure and better future for your children to enjoy, to pass on what you have worked so hard for and paid taxes along the way for the next generation. ``For the past 20 years, I have successfully built several dealerships, providing jobs and revenue to several communities. These past years, I have given my all to build and make a secure future for my heirs. This can all be taken away from them if I should die and they should have to pay 55 percent on the estate. Would they have to liquidate or sell to be able to pay the estate tax? What would happen to everything that I worked so hard to provide for them? I support the estate tax reform so that not just me but all who have worked hard and built a nest egg for the future generation can keep it, not the government.'' Now I say, Mr. Speaker, again, a profound communication from a constituent who understands fully the implications of this. I recognize that, for years, the idea behind an estate tax or let us call it what it is, it is a death tax, the idea behind that, it is a class envy thing, to a certain extent, where people felt, well, if people amass too much, we should actually just take it away from them and divvy it up again; that is only fair. Well, it is not fair. Again, this idea of fairness, to whom is it fair? It is not fair to this gentleman. It is not fair to his family. Another thing, if one cannot accumulate for oneself and for one's heirs, for whom will one accumulate? The government? Would we be expecting the people in this country to go out and work day in and day out, again, creating real value, something the government knows very well about the actual creation of value? Do we expect John and Jane Q. Citizen to go out every single day to do that, only to give it away upon their death so they cannot pass it on to their heirs? No, of course not. This is as socialistic a tax as we have in this country, and it should be done away with; as well as all tax reform efforts I think on the part of this Congress should move forward dramatically.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, my friend and colleague, for yielding to me. I certainly concur with the remarks that have been made to date with regard to the issue of taxation, the impact it has on the country, the effect it has on productivity, the ability for this Nation to move ahead, to create jobs, to create wealth. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that whatever we tax, we get less of; whatever we subsidize, we get more of. The fact is that when we tax productivity, when we tax jobs, we are going to get less of them. It is not, as they say, ``rocket science'' to realize that this is the effect of overtaxation. We are now at a rate of taxation in this country that has never before been seen. Many people do not realize that because times are good. We hear it all the time: Times are good. And so there is an assumption that if everybody is employed, that everybody enjoys paying a high level of taxes just because they have a job. But, Mr. Speaker, they do not. As a matter of fact, even those people who are employed and making good wages deserve a tax break, deserve a tax reduction. Even those people who are on farms and who have spent a lifetime investing in the land and bring food to our tables, those people need a tax break. Those people need to have the abolishment of the inheritance tax. This is something that this Republican Congress is going to put forward. It is one of the many issues that we will drive forward to attempt once again to bring into line this Federal Government that is, in fact, oppressive enough to actually raise almost 20 percent of the GDP now going to taxes. Most families in this country are paying upwards of 40 percent of their income in taxes. I cannot believe that there are people even here in this body, but certainly on that side of the aisle, who would suggest that that is anything even remotely near fair. There is nothing fair about taking 40 cents out of every single dollar that a man or woman working in this Nation makes and giving it to the government. There is nothing fair out of that. We do not get that much out of it.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it is so true that the perception that is held by so many people, even here in this town, certainly on the other side of the aisle and over at the White House, is that the country will actually not only survive another tax increase but we can get away with it because, again, as I say, times are good. Somehow this blanks out everything else. We assume that we can then start promising everything to everybody again. We can come up with how many hundred programs were mentioned, how many hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditures were suggested by the President in his budget? All of this, with keeping a straight face and suggesting that we are not going to, quote, bust the budget; we are going to maintain an agreement. Of course, the only way that he could possibly make that statement, Mr. Speaker, the only way is because he was able to play a shell game with the Social Security issue. He was able to suggest that we could take, as he says, 62 percent, the President of the United States in his State of the Union message, and since then has suggested that we could take 62 percent of the ``Social Security surplus,'' apply it toward Social Security and, somehow or other, that would solve our problem; and that would allow for, of course, us to do other things. It would create other programs. Well, we know why, my friends, is because if we are talking about not correcting and not reforming the Social Security system, if we are talking about not actually building a firewall between the Social Security fund and the rest of the government expenditures, then we can do it. Because what he is really suggesting is an increase over whatever 62 percent represents of this ``surplus'', however much money that is. That is what he is suggesting he is going to do to increase the Social Security debt. Because it is truly debt. It is not money. When our friends and neighbors pay money to the government, when they send in their FICA taxes, they think they are actually putting money in a bank. That is the thought, because it is a fund. It is called the Social Security fund. Well, that is not it at all. There is nothing in the fund. There are no dollars in the fund. There are $750 billion worth of papers stamped nonnegotiable bonds. That is the only place an instrument like that is in use in this whole Nation. Nonnegotiable bonds. Well, what the President is suggesting is that he is going to correct this by adding 62 percent of the surplus to that debt, to those nonnegotiable bonds, and take the actual revenues, bringing it into the general fund again and creating more new programs. It is a shell game. But he is masterful at it, there are no two ways about it. So I suggest to my colleagues that we should clear up this issue and we should bring to the attention of the American public the facts regarding Social Security and tax reduction. We should, in fact, create that fire wall between the Social Security fund and the general fund, and we should still move, I think quickly and dramatically, toward tax reduction and reform.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, last week, we had Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in front of the Committee on International Relations delivering an address detailing activities of the Department of State over the last year, identifying all of the hot spots in the world where American interests were at stake, identifying what the United States of America was doing about them. It was intriguing, Mr. Speaker, because, in over half an hour of a normal presentation and certainly maybe 20 or 30 pages of written presentation that discussed in every way all of the issues that we could possibly confront in foreign policy position, there was one that was conspicuous for its absence, one spot in the world that was never mentioned, one nation that was never brought to the attention of the Committee on International Relations or, as a matter of fact, it has not been brought to the attention of this Nation by this administration, and that is the nation of Sudan. There, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said so eloquently a little bit ago, in the last 15 years, over 2 million people have died in that civil war. That is more than have died in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda combined. Yet, in the face of this tragedy, what we have seen has been a lackluster attempt on the part of this administration to deal with it. Mr. Speaker, I was asked by a teacher at Highline Community School, which is in the Cherry Creek School District in my District, a class again to which my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, referred, I was asked by her to deliver a message to the Secretary of State; and I did. The message was in the form of a question from Ms. Vogel, the teacher of this class, this fourth and fifth grade class, to the Secretary of State; and it said essentially this, ``Why is it that you, the government of our own country, and members of the world community, have decided to turn a blind eye to the tortured land of the Sudan?'' And I communicated that concern to the Secretary and I got a response, a written response, from someone in her office. I delivered that response yesterday to the school in my district. It was one of the most incredible experiences of the time I have spent in public life; to look at these children and this teacher, who have committed and dedicated themselves to the ominous task of raising money to free human beings that have been dragged into slavery in a country all the way around the world. This class read about this situation over a year ago and became so concerned that they organized a group that is now worldwide. They call it STOP, Slavery That Oppresses People. It has raised over $100,000. This 4th grade class in Highline Community School has raised $100,000 and purchased the freedom of over 1,000 individuals in the Sudan. Mr. Speaker, in the entire world we have been able to muster enough support to purchase the freedom the a total of 5,000, yet 1,000 come from this one classroom, this one elementary school. It is really quite extraordinary, and it was an extraordinary day yesterday. I will enter them into the Record, but I want to read a couple of the cards I received yesterday. Each student wrote a personal card, a personal message to me, and some of them are really quite moving. I will not go through them all, but just some of them. And, remember, these are, again, 5th graders. ``Our hearts are noble, so we use the noble heart to do good for others.'' By Dong Cho. ``Dear Congressman: Hi, I'm Christina Manalostas. We bring love and courage from our life, and give it to others in sadness.'' ``God must have put us here on earth for a reason. That reason was not to put people in slavery or to separate races. He put us here to live free, to have freedom. He just wanted to give everyone an opportunity for everything. Love, Charles.'' ``There is nothing worse than seeing a person suffer for what they believe in.'' Deven Eastman. I can go on and on like that, Mr. Speaker, but I will not. I will enter them into the Congressional Record. I will tell my colleagues that what these children have done and what they are continuing to do far surpasses the efforts that the whole government of the United States has put forward to date, and I simply want to commend them and thank them from the bottom of my heart for such an inspirational day as I spent yesterday. The personal messages referred to above are as follows: I thank God for using these children to remind me of the true spirit of giving! We have love for all people in the world! Barb Vogel.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, in just 64 days, the dreaded April 15 will be here. Well, I should clarify that. April 15 is not a dreaded day at all by some Americans. In fact, April 15 is the single most glorious day of the year for our liberal friends in the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party believes in an activist government and believes that if the government just took a little more money out of your paycheck the politicians will make life better for people. How truly ironic it is that the party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson has categorically rejected the vision of those early American heroes who believed in the strength of the common man to manage his own affairs without the interference from Washington, D.C. It is now the Republican Party that represents the interests of common people, of average middle class families that work hard, play by the rules and who will believe in the right to pursue the American dream without the Federal Government standing in the way. Sixty-four days until Tax D-day, a dark day for Republicans, a day to rejoice for Democrats.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with encouragement that this House just passed the Mandates Information Act, which will help to safeguard us from making unfunded mandates to the private sector. Well, I am here today to do just that, to address an unfunded mandate that our constituents pay for every month in their phone bills, the E- rate program, sometimes known as the ``Gore Tax,'' because it has garnered the Vice President's support. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the intent of the ``Gore Tax'' is to ensure that every school and library is connected to the Internet. But the FCC pays for this program by getting mandatory contributions from phone companies and others. If you look at your phone bill, you will see that mandatory contribution passed on to you, the consumer, as part of the Universal Service Charge. Mandatory contributions. Mr. Speaker, let us be honest. If it looks like a tax, it quacks like a tax, it is a tax. We can say that our annual ``mandatory contributions'' to the government are due on April 15th, but we know different. I have a chart here that shows how it works. First the FCC forces this mandatory contribution on long distance phone companies and others; second, those companies make their massive contributions to the Universal Service Corporation here. That is currently capped at $2.25 billion each year, this mandatory contribution. Only here, only in government, only at the Federal Government, could we actually come up with these oxymoronic statements, that this is a mandatory contribution. But what the Vice President and other E-rate supporters do not want you to know is that this is a hidden tax. Consumers are forced to pay this charge through their monthly phone bills. This is where the hidden tax is found, and I would like to eliminate it. Mr. Speaker, Americans today are taxed at the highest levels in history. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office recently reported that Federal tax revenues have reached a peacetime record level of 20.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. But, Mr. Speaker, this is not just a hidden tax, it is also an unnecessary tax. I have some statistics here from the Congressional Research Service that came before the ``Gore Tax'' was created. Now, remember this tax was put on, it was snuck through essentially in order to provide technological support and technology support for schools, in order to encourage them to get on to the Internet and to put computers in classrooms. But before this tax was ever passed, according to the Congressional Research Service, the 1997 student-to-computer ratio in this country was 8-to-1. Also in 1997, 78 percent of all schools were connected to the Internet, remember, before this tax ever came into existence. Mr. Speaker, the President has just asked for another $766 million in his Department of Education's budget for education technology alone. That is three-quarters of $1 billion, and I quote his own budget summary, ``as a part of the President's proposal to connect all schools to the Internet and put a computer in every classroom.'' Mr. Speaker, this is the ``Gore Tax,'' and what is this ``Gore Tax'' program? Is there not some duplication in a multibillion-dollar effort to put Internet in the schools? In fact, there are over 20 Federal programs aimed toward this effort, not to mention hundreds of State and local private initiatives. Last year, the Committee on Appropriations reported that the Department of Education cannot account for the money it now spends in education technology. They cannot explain where this money goes. In fact, the Committee on Appropriations said that it fears millions of dollars might go unspent each year. Today, I am introducing the E-Rate Termination Act, and I would like to thank the 13 original cosponsors of this bill for recognizing the dire need for change. By eliminating this hidden tax, we can focus on honest and realistic ways to address our schools' and libraries' technological needs, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the education of our children ranks as a top concern of the American people and as a top priority of the Congress, we need to look at the innovative proposals that empower parents to give their children the best possible education. Rather than creating new Federal programs run by new Federal bureaucrats, we need to put responsibility and resources in the hands of our Nation's parents. Today the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) and I are introducing the Children's Education Tax Credit Act. It provides American families with over $150 billion in help in meeting the unique educational needs of their children. Our proposal would create a $1,000 tax credit for elementary and secondary education expenses, including textbooks, tutoring, tuition, and other resources children need to excel in schools. Too often today parents must make tough choices within the family budget and little extra that can be spent on children's education must instead go to pay the bills. With this tax credit, parents will have the means and the freedom to provide the unique support their children need to learn at their very best. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) and me in making this tax credit for American families a reality.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, although the rules of the House prevent me from donning this beautiful chapeau, I will hold it here nonetheless for the world to see. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday in front of 75,000 fans in Miami and before around 800 million or so around the globe, a group of men from Colorado gave a clinic in the art of football. Of course I am speaking of the world champion Denver Broncos who convincingly passed, ran, and kicked for a 34 to 19 Super Bowl victory. In a football season where many were calling on the NFL to bring back the instant replay, the Broncos did, and they have matching trophies to prove it. This does not surprise anyone from my home State, but others had to learn the hard way that you cannot beat a balanced attack or a defense that only allows 25 points during the entire post season. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleagues that no NFL team has ever won three Super Bowls in a row. Next year, however, this standard of dominance could finally fall, but only to one team, the Denver Broncos. Speaking as a Coloradan, this is how it should be. I look forward to coming back to the floor one year from today and honoring the Broncos again.