[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 3, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H920-H928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 KEY OBJECTIVES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is 
recognized for

[[Page H921]]

60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be joined in this special 
order with a number of Republican colleagues, two from my home State of 
Colorado and one from the great State of Michigan, and I would invite 
other members of our conference to come join us as well as we spend a 
little bit of time sharing with each other and with our colleagues on 
the opposite side of the aisle and indeed the American people the 
values and beliefs that we stand for and that we, as a Republican 
party, hope to move forward on the floor of the House.
  Among those are key objectives of this session: tax relief for the 
American people, a strong national defense, a world-class education 
system, and Social Security reform in a way that guarantees and 
safeguards the Social Security system.
  Mr. Speaker, part of that discussion also entails some international 
issues that I know at least one Member is prepared to talk about, and 
with that I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) who had 
a unique experience with one of his elementary schools in his district 
that I think all of us would benefit learning more about.

                              {time}  1330

  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. SCHAFFER. It is a remarkable example of what a classroom can be, 
given the liberty and freedom to teach under the direction of a 
professional educator. For those students in particular, they are 
getting quite an education in international affairs, about how 
government works, about human rights, and so on.
  Those young kids also ought to be concerned about their retirement 
and their savings, another topic that Republicans care deeply about.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) to talk about why 
those kids should care about the Social Security Administration.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) for organizing this one-hour session. When I yield to the 
gentleman from Colorado, I want you all to feel free to respond.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just give my impression of what has happened, how 
it happened, and maybe what we have to look forward to.
  In 1995, Republicans took the majority in this House, the U.S. House 
of Representatives. After being a minority for 40 years, we came in 
quite aggressively trying to promote the philosophy on what we thought 
was going to be good for our future and for our kids and our grandkids.
  We decided, with a great deal of determination, that we were going to 
balance the budget. We cut out $70 billion of projected spending that 
first year, in 1995. We pledged among ourselves that we were going to 
be very frugal in cutting down the size of this government in order to 
balance our budget, in order to not pass on the debt of this country to 
our kids and our grandkids.
  I am a farmer. Where we grew up in Addison, Michigan, our goal was to 
pay off the farm so we could leave the farm to our kids, so they had a 
better chance of making it and surviving. We should do the same thing 
as a country.
  We were successful. The only reason that we went from a $300 billion 
deficit projected for as far as we could see, $200 billion on out, was 
that we became very frugal in slowing down the increase in spending. 
Now we have succeeded. We have an overall unified budget surplus. Most 
all of that is coming from the social security surplus.
  The question is, what do we do now? If part of the goal is to have a 
smaller, less intrusive government, should we reduce taxes? Should we 
pay down this $5.5 trillion debt? Should we somehow make the 
adjustments into capital investments, hopefully in individuals' names 
for social security, to start solving the social security problem?
  Let me tell the Members what I think the fear is as Republicans try 
to make these tough decisions. The fear is that if we do not get this 
money, if you will, extra money out of town, the spenders, the tax and 
spenders, are going to use it for expanded government spending.
  Just a comment on the President's budget. He is suggesting over $100 
billion of increased spending, almost $100 billion over the caps that 
we passed in 1997 for increased spending. We could say that is coming 
out of the social security surplus, because that is where it is coming 
from.
  What do we do? If we could be guaranteed that the spenders that want 
a bigger government, that want to tell the people of this country how 
they should act and where they should go and how they should do it by 
increasing the taxes and taking the money out of their pockets, if I 
could be convinced that we could hold the line on spending and the 
growth of this intrusive government, then I say the first choice is to 
pay down the public debt.
  Not only does that increase the economy by reducing interest rates, 
but I think there is a danger of the spenders saying, look, we need 
this money for all of these good things, and therefore we are going to 
reach into that pot, if you will, of social security trust fund money 
and start spending it like they have for the last 40 years.
  So let us look at a balance. Let us say that everything coming in 
from social security should be saved for social security. One way to do 
that is to pay

[[Page H922]]

down the debt. Hopefully we will have the guts, the intestinal 
fortitude, to move ahead on social security. But let us also look at 
the other general fund surpluses to put that money back where it came 
from, in the pockets of this country's taxpayers.

  Mr. Speaker, that is sort of my speech. I think the challenge is 
really ahead of us. I just encourage, Mr. Speaker, everybody that is 
listening to contact their Congressman, contact their United States 
Senator, to give them your ideas and thoughts as we move ahead. The 
danger is that this government is going to continue to grow, it is 
going to continue to be more intrusive, it is going to continue to be a 
weight or a burden on economic expansion and development.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Back home in Colorado, there is no question that the 
majority of constituents that we hear from in my State are very 
strongly behind the belief that the era of big government is over. When 
we look at the President's proposed budget plan, it does entail 
escalated rates of spending here in Washington, additional tax 
increases in that budget, and just tremendous growth of the bureaucracy 
and the regulatory structure in Washington.
  My district is on the eastern half of Colorado. My colleague from the 
other half of Colorado is here representing the western slope. I yield 
to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to change the subject for a 
moment, although I do recognize and appreciate the gentleman from 
Michigan's comments on social security.
  The good news about our country is that people are living to a longer 
age. That is as a result of our good health in this country and the 
medicine and so on. But they have never adjusted anything in social 
security to account for that. The average couple on social security 
right now draws out $118,000 more than they have put into the system. 
On an actuarial basis, the system is broke.
  The Republicans have said for years that we have to fix it. I note 
that the President, in the State of the Union Address, said that he 
wanted to reserve a certain percentage. We have agreed to reserve that 
percentage. I am glad that the President has joined our long-term 
efforts in saying we can do it in a balanced budget way. But as the 
gentleman has said, I think very accurately, we have to make sure we 
keep the big spenders, keep their fingers out of the cookie jar.
  I would like to shift for a moment, because I know my colleagues 
would like to talk about it, and invite the gentleman from Michigan to 
join us as well. That is topic of the national defense.
  In Colorado, all three of us border an area called the NORAD Command 
Center. What they actually did in Colorado, they went into a mountain 
full of granite, they hollowed it out, our country did, and we put a 
command center inside that mountain in Colorado Springs, actually in 
the district of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Joel Hefley), who is 
considered around here as an expert in defense.
  This center, among other responsibilities, detects missile launches 
from around the country. As many of us know, and we have been very 
active in complaining about this, unfortunately, the need for a strong 
military has been somewhat diluted because we have been in fairly 
peaceful times. I can assure the Members, as my colleagues would agree, 
that that is a very dangerous attitude to get into.
  We are respected throughout the world and we are the superpower 
throughout the world in part because of the strong military that we 
have. There are a lot of people in this world who would like to take 
things that we have, and they will take it by force, if they ever have 
that opportunity. We can never afford to be second in the strength of 
our military.
  In order to maintain or actually regain, at this point in time, the 
strength in our military, we have to do several things. One, the 
quarters that these military people sleep in and the pay that they have 
is very low. I last week toured a number of military barracks, and I 
will tell the Members, it looks like poverty housing in a large city. 
It is disgraceful.
  We owe these young men and women that are serving in our military 
more than that. We need to make a commitment to put money in to bring 
those barracks up to at least decent living standards.
  The second thing, of course, and the Republicans have taken the 
initiative on this, that is a pay increase for our people who serve in 
the military. So we have to worry about personnel. We have to get our 
personnel built back up again. We have got to give them benefits that 
will encourage our personnel to stay in the military for a career. We 
have to get the excitement back in the personnel that we put in there 
about the defense of this country.
  We have very dedicated, very hardworking people that serve us today 
in the military, but we are testing their patience when we ask them to 
live in the kind of facilities they are in, and when we pay them the 
kind of pay we are giving to them.
  The second issue that I touched on at the beginning of my remarks is 
the NORAD Command Center, and frankly, what we call missile defense.
  For years the Democrats, and I will make this very clear, for years 
the Democratic administration and the Democrats in most part have 
opposed the Republicans' urging that we install a missile defense 
system in this country.
  President Ronald Reagan was ridiculed, ridiculed, by the liberal 
media and by the liberals in the United States Congress and around 
parts of this country when he said, this country needs a missile 
defense system. The most logical way to have a missile defense system 
is a space-oriented system.
  All of a sudden, in the last year, the Democratic Party and the 
administration has turned a new leaf. They have now stepped forward and 
said, we are willing to have a missile defense system. It is amazing in 
this country how few of us out there know that this country has no 
missile defense system.
  When I speak with my average constituent, I say, tell me, do you 
think the United States, if we detect a missile launch, which we detect 
in the NORAD facility in Colorado Springs, and by the way, our 
detection can tell us the size of the missile, the speed of the 
missile, the destination of the missile, time of firing, et cetera, et 
cetera.
  When I tell my constituents that then the only other thing we can do 
is call up on the phone to the destination and say, you have an 
incoming missile, say a prayer, that is all we can do for you, they are 
stunned. Because a lot of my constituents know that we provide missile 
defense for the country of Israel. We provide missile defense for some 
of our allies' ships, because under the antiballistic missile treaty we 
can do that, but we do not provide it for ourselves.
  Is that the finest example of ludicrous behavior we have ever seen? 
It is important that we put in place in this country, not just talk 
about it, although talking about it is an important first step. I am 
glad that the Democrats have joined us to talk about it. They have come 
over to the Republican position that the defense of this country is 
necessary, that we need to put missile defense in.
  But we have to get beyond talking. What about a land-based system? In 
my opinion, the only realistic missile defense that we can put in in 
this country is going to have to be space-oriented. Why? A land-based 
system, with the technology that we have today, cannot pick up a 
threatening missile at the launchpad of another country. It can only 
pick it up once that missile is within a certain range. Maybe 100, 200 
miles is when the radar picks it up and actually fires a missile 
against it, probably within 100 miles of the target over the land.
  So if our missile here from a land-based system goes up and connects 
with the enemy missile, and by the way, they told me when I went and 
looked at our land-based system that the odds of these two missiles 
coming together at the same time are about the same as throwing a 
basketball out of Cincinnati, Ohio, and making it through the hoop in 
Washington, D.C.
  You get about one chance on a land-based system, and if you happen to 
hit the incoming missile, you blow it up over the United States. If, 
for example, we had an incoming missile into Kansas City, they might 
connect with the missile somewhere over Colorado and we would have this 
nuclear explosion.

[[Page H923]]

  What makes sense on a defensive missile system is a space-oriented 
system that can pick up and either destroy the missile before it leaves 
the launchpad, or has any number of windows as the missile is coming 
over to our country to hit that missile.

                              {time}  1345

  And our odds of being able to come in on the directional altitude of 
that missile with a laser are a lot higher than the hopeful or lucky 
shot from a land-based system.
  So, I know that I and my colleagues, we have had many discussions on 
it. Our constituents are concerned about it in Colorado where the 
detection takes place. But it is a subject that all of us have to put 
to the forefront so that we can offer the next generation, those young 
people that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) went and 
visited, we want to assure not only the ability to free slaves, but 
assure that the next generation has the best possible defense out there 
for these rogue nations that are willing to use a missile or a nuclear 
weapon against the United States of America.
  The best way to do it, and finally recognized by that side of the 
aisle, is for us to sit down, not just talk about it, put money where 
our mouth is, and build that system as soon as we can. I am sure my 
colleagues may want to comment on it.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the topic is certainly a relevant one, but 
not a new one here in Congress. For years, the Republicans have been 
trying to point out this fact that the North American continent has no 
defense against a single, incoming intercontinental ballistic missile. 
We cannot stop it presently.
  The strategy that we have suggested over the years involves several 
different strategies, trying to get at least two shots at a missile 
launched at the North American continent. I had a tour of NORAD, I have 
been on a few of them over the years, but just a few months back. And 
one of the simulations that I had seen, just in terms of the timing, is 
important to realize. We are talking about a missile launched from the 
interior of China takes about a half-hour to get to the North American 
continent. A half-hour is all the time we have.
  What NORAD does is approximately within the first few minutes, they 
can identify the type of missile that is launched, can identify a 
potential path in the early first few minutes, can identify potential 
targets, and over about the first 15 minutes gets closer and closer to 
narrowing and defining the specific targets. It takes about 15 minutes 
to identify the exact city that is being targeted in such a launch.
  But what a space-based laser system would allow us to do is basically 
shoot down those missiles in the boost phase. The technology, people 
think this is some technology that does not exist. This is technology 
that we have today. We just have not spent the money to deploy this 
technology. And it is now becoming an expensive proposition. If we 
would have been on track and moving forward on a missile defense system 
over the last 6 years that the Clintons have held the White House, the 
cost of this would be substantially less than what we are confronted 
with today.
  But when it comes to the reality that we are virtually defenseless 
after an attack has been initiated, it really causes us to put this 
within the context of priorities. We are spending billions of dollars 
in Washington on things that really do not affect the day-to-day lives 
of the American people. But defending our borders is one of those 
priorities that we need to get more serious about here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time coming for the President to 
stand here, as he did just recently, and say all of the sudden he 
realizes we need to develop a system to defend our country. It is a 
realization that I think is a step in the right direction, but it is 6 
years too late, frankly, and it puts the American people at some peril.
  What the White House has tried to convince the Congress over the 
years is that we can maintain national security through reliance on our 
intelligence-gathering community throughout the world. But Pakistan and 
India showed how reliable that system is, when Pakistan detonated five 
nuclear devices, frankly, when we were looking right at the site and 
had not figured out what was occurring.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman pointed out that he just 
recently toured NORAD, NORAD is probably the most sophisticated 
intelligence-gathering facility in the world. The other sophisticated 
ones happen to be under the control of the United States or on American 
territory also. So we have the intelligence capability.
  But the intelligence does not do a lot of good once we figure there 
is an incoming missile, as the gentleman said. We can have all the 
intelligence in the world about where that missile is coming, but if we 
do not have a missile defense, what good is the intelligence?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. That is exactly right. With the technology we have 
today, if it were to be employed, it virtually makes the prospect of 
nuclear weapons becoming obsolete a very real one. Think about that for 
a moment. The prospect of having nuclear weapons become obsolete 
basically by stepping forward and deploying the technology that makes 
it possible to knock down those missiles at a reliable rate in the 
offender's airspace before these missiles finish the boost phase or 
leave the enemy territory and airspace.
  Mr. McINNIS. And where the missile would discharge in the country of 
the person launching the missile. Then they would think twice about 
launching it if they knew, for example if China or Russia right now, 
where our big concern about Russia is an accidental launch, but if 
Russia decided to launch against the United States but they knew that 
we could destroy that missile at some point over Russia, so we may pick 
a point where it has the maximum impact on Russia. They would be 
reluctant to launch that missile if they knew on its course it was 
going over Moscow and we could use a laser beam and destroy it there 
and have nuclear impact there. There is some serious thought about 
that.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the other aspect that I think needs to be 
understood by more Members of Congress and the American people is that 
the threat of this kind of warfare is really getting broader, not more 
constrained. Even though the Berlin Wall fell and the old line 
communists have lost power in Russia, in the old Soviet Union, it is 
the expansion of rogue nations accumulating and developing nuclear 
technology that we need to be more concerned about.
  In fact, it was Korea that launched the Taepodong missile, the three-
stage rocket, and really announced to the world that they had the 
capacity within a 600-mile radius to reach the North American continent 
in less than a half-hour. That was a real shock to all of us, but I 
also think it sends up a signal for all of us that we do need to 
elevate the level of priority in this Congress, and express that 
concern to the White House, that defending our borders is a high 
priority.
  It is the reason that we, as a Republican Conference, have made this 
among our top four objectives in this Congress. I yield to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  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

[[Page H924]]

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. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago the President stood up there 
at the podium during his State of the Union address and boasted at the 
time that there were no nuclear weapons pointed at the United States of 
America. Just a year later, there were no less than 13 targeted at the 
United States by China, and done so presumably with the targeting 
technology and satellite communication equipment that they ended up 
with through the signing of the six waivers, that have been mentioned, 
by the Clinton administration, the President himself.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, that is 
exactly the point. We do not need to argue with the administration 
about whether or not there are missiles pointed at this country. We 
know. And what we have tried to convince the administration is that we 
should not go on the assumption that Russia is telling us the truth 
that they are no longer targeting the United States. We should not go 
on the assumption that China says, ``Don't worry. We are not interested 
in targeting the United States.''
  In fact, we should go on the opposite assumption. The fact is that 
throughout the world, whether it is Russia or China or some terrorist 
organization, there will be at some point in the future of this country 
a threat or a missile launched against this country. We can today 
prepare for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am one of the leading critics of the Clinton 
administration and what they have done to our defense and to our 
military. But I have determined that I am going to put my resources not 
as a critique of the Clinton administration necessarily, but to say to 
the Clinton administration, all right, the administration is finally 
acknowledging, as we have all discussed, thank you for finally 
acknowledging that we need to put money into this military. Real money 
into a real military. Thank you for acknowledging that we need real 
missile defense in this country.
  We should assume that the proliferation of nuclear weapons will 
continue. We should assume that we cannot unilaterally disarm. And we 
should assume that at some point in time somebody might try and take us 
on. There is a reason that they call our Trident submarines, for 
example, ``peacekeepers.'' Because if we are strong and we remain 
number one, we minimize the chances of us getting into an engagement. 
But we must, nonetheless, be prepared.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it was George Washington who said the best way 
to avoid a war is to always be prepared for war. Well, as we have said 
here, the best way to avoid an incoming missile is to always be 
prepared for an incoming missile. That is our best defense. That is all 
we are asking of the administration. Put money in so that the best way 
to protect the next generation from an incoming missile is to be 
prepared for an incoming missile.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the delegation from Colorado. 
Just an observation: The air in Colorado may be thin, but its 
representation in Congress is very strong.
  Mr. McINNIS. Our snow is good.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, as somebody who 
represents San Diego which actually is one of the largest if not the 
largest military complex in the world, we always think about the fact 
that since the sacking and burning of Washington in 1814, Americans 
have basically perceived themselves as being insulated from attack from 
across the ocean. The trouble right now is that we sort of make that 
assumption that our Capitol is safe. In fact I think, more importantly, 
we would like to make the assumption that our wives and our children 
and our families back at home are safe from foreign aggression.
  The sad fact about it is that is not true. And I will just ask 
anybody if they want to think that this is not an important issue to do 
as I was able to do. Talk to the parents who lived in Tel Aviv at the 
time the scuds were coming into Tel Aviv in Israel, and talk to those 
parents about the difference of being soldiers in the field as opposed 
to being parents at home and the fear of their children having missiles 
rained down on them. That really made an impression on me and really 
changed my attitude a lot of ways about missile defense capabilities.
  Now, I have got to say that when I came here a few years ago to 
Washington, I was really shocked, in fact dumbfounded, that there were 
people here in Congress who sat on a certain side of the aisle that 
would vote for a missile defense system if that missile defense system 
would defend another country. But at the same time there would be a 
motion made by somebody on the Republican side, and I hate to do this 
but it tended to draw along partisan lines, if somebody proposed that 
the missile defense systems that we were developing would be used to 
defend our own children or our own families, they voted against that 
funding.
  I just shook my head. I have to say this as somebody who believes in 
rights and responsibilities, that if the taxpayers of the United States 
are going to bear the responsibility of developing missile defense 
systems, how in the world can those who claim to represent those 
taxpayers not allow that defense system to defend those taxpayers?

                              {time}  1400

  It is astonishing how shortsighted people can be. For a long time, 
people did not think about the fact that our troops could have missiles 
rain down on them when they were in a tactical situation. All at once, 
now it is universally accepted by Democrat, Republican, Independent, 
left and right, that a theater defense system is not only appropriate, 
it is essential if we are going to defend our troops in the field.
  What is sad is, are we going to wait until the missiles land in our 
neighborhood before the same enlightenment applies for defending our 
sovereign territory here in North America? What is really scary is, 
what does it take to learn.
  I think that maybe what it takes to learn is that a lot of Americans 
before 1814 thought the Capitol was safe because of our big Atlantic 
Ocean. After the sacking and burning of this Capitol and this city, 
there was a lot different attitude about national defense.
  I hope that we are able to learn from other countries' experiences 
rather than having to wait for those disasters to actually end up in 
our own neighborhood.
  Let me point out, I will say this clearly, and I think any Member of 
Congress will say this, the only thing worse than seeing our Capitol 
destroyed would be watching our neighborhoods at home destroyed. We 
have a responsibility to defend that and to add that. I do not think it 
is something that is pie in the sky. I do not think it is something 
that is outside.
  I think we saw what American ingenuity did with a glorified P.C. 
computer and a missile defense system that was never meant to be a 
missile defense system. It was supposed to go after airplanes. But 
Americans and American ingenuity can conquer this problem and defend 
our neighborhoods. I think we have to have the trust and commitment to 
get the job done.

[[Page H925]]

  We spend billions and billions to go all over the world to protect 
everybody else's neighborhood. Doggone it, we have the responsibility 
to do the same for our own.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Patriot System we 
all watched during the Desert Storm conflict was something that we 
celebrated, and I think most Americans found to be rather remarkable. 
But we had the ability in a theater missile defense structure to have a 
relatively high success rate of shooting down incoming missiles with 
respect to the attacks on Israel.
  But once again, the discussion about a national missile defense 
system as it relates to an intercontinental scenario is a defense 
system that we just do not have and does not exist today.
  Again, the scientists, those who are involved just from the research 
and technology side, have developed the technology to defend our 
country. It is just a matter of making it a priority and putting the 
pieces in place here politically to make that defense system a reality. 
That is what we are going to be pushing for this year.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield just very 
briefly, I am sure that, when we get back to our office, somebody will 
call up and say, ``Are you guys aware of what is called the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty?"
  Just very quickly, to run through that again, the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty, the basis or premise for it was that Russia got 
together with the United States and said, ``All right, the best way for 
us to provide security that we will not have a conflict between each 
other is neither one of us will build a missile defense system. That 
way, we will be hesitant to attack each other because we do not have 
anything to defend ourselves.''
  For example, the United States, under the theory of this treaty, 
would not attack Russia because they would not have any way to defend 
themselves from Russia's retaliation.
  Well, those days of that treaty are over. If one reads the treaty, 
the treaty can be abrogated by the United States and by Russia. It is 
foolish for us to continue under the pretense that this treaty is going 
to preserve us from an incoming missile attack at some point in time by 
some rogue nation.
  At the time this was signed, technology was different, the thoughts 
were different, the atmosphere was different, and the number of 
countries that had this kind of weaponry was different.
  So I think it is important, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) and I have discussed, do not let that ABM Treaty be a 
diversion from what is a necessary and, frankly, an obligation of this 
Congress and to the people of this country for this generation and 
future generations to defend our country.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we, in discussing what 
should be higher priorities here in this Congress, not only with 
respect to our attention, but also with respect to budgeting and the 
finances, many may wonder how it is that the gentleman and I and others 
like us believe that we should balance the budget and do it 
continuously, second, establish the priorities that allow us to rescue 
the Social Security system, provide for a world class education system 
and defense system, as well as provide tax relief for the American 
people.
  I want to kind of switch the subject by talking about another issue 
we are concerned about, but it really is all within the context of 
priorities. The President, in his latest budget, has proposed $10 and a 
quarter billion for what amounts to a land grant, the Federal 
Government purchasing more land, primarily in our State and out in the 
West under the Lands Legacy Initiative.
  This is one of the things, when the President and others who believe 
what he does, that the Federal Government should increase the ownership 
of property, decreasing the amount of private ownership of property in 
America, that some are inspired by that. There is no question about 
that.
  But, in reality, what proposals like this do is, first of all, it 
takes valuable land out of private ownership. These lands are taxed by 
our local school districts, by local communities, provide necessary 
funds for education, for street, and road improvements, for county 
budgets, and so on.
  But the other thing it does, by removing that land from private 
ownership and putting it into the government's pocket, it results in 
restricted liberty and freedom of the American people.
  For the gentleman and I who represent a great western State, our 
heritage is built upon the land and land ownership and sound management 
of natural resources in a way that has really created a thriving 
economy among western States.
  So I use that as an example, and perhaps the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. McInnis) and I would talk further just about the effect of the 
Clinton administration, the Federal Government's perspective on these 
western land-related issues.
  But, once again, I point out that this is an area where the 
administration's priorities are different than the Congress'. We 
believe in defending the country, creating great schools. The 
President obviously believes in having the Federal Government purchase 
more land that is better managed under private ownership.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank gentleman for yielding to me. This 
issue of course crosses party lines. It is a bipartisan issue. It is 
the question of how much land should the Federal Government be allowed 
to continue to buy up, take out of the private marketplace, and to put 
under government hands and government management.
  I have often heard some of the special interest environmental groups 
try and educate the American public thinking that the government every 
day sells away land and gives land to mining companies and timber 
companies, and the land is being destroyed by millions of acres. In 
fact, just the opposite is true. You see dwindling industries, not just 
because of this, but in part related to this, you see dwindling 
industries in timber and so on.
  What you see is the government acquiring land. The government is a 
net acquirer. In other words, the government acquires more land than it 
gets rid of by many, many, many multiples. The government does not sell 
very much land. If they sell, it is for a right-of-way or they may do a 
land swap or something like that.
  But if one takes a look across this country, when one looks at the 
different lottos that are used to buy open space, the different kind of 
funds that local municipalities and areas have dedicated of taxpayers' 
money to buy land from the private marketplace and to put it into the 
government hands, and then you consider proposals when the President of 
the United States is willing to go out and spend billions and billions 
of dollars to take more land away from the American people and put it 
into the government, I mean, I am not sure that is the right answer.
  Clearly, all of us with today's technology have to be more concerned 
about what do we do for the preservation for future generations of the 
land we have. But I think the best managers of the land most obvious, 
not always, but most often are the people that live the land, the 
people that live off the land, the people that work the land, the 
people that enjoy the beauty of the land.
  You must always be suspicious when the government shows up and says 
we are here to help. We have better ideas than you do. The better ideas 
come out of Washington, not out of Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Absolutely.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as the government buys, for example, 
wilderness areas, the first thing you do is you take away local 
control. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and I have 
discussed this on a number of issues.
  The gentleman has a vast district in eastern Colorado, some of the 
most beautiful, I think, some of the most beautiful plains in the 
United States. I adjoin him, and I have the western part of the State 
of Colorado which we think are the most beautiful set of mountains. We 
share those beautiful mountains with States like Utah, Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming, but the Rocky Mountain range.
  There are certain areas there that are owned by the government, and 
the government should retain the ownership of that. But we must make 
sure that the concept of multiple use stays

[[Page H926]]

in place. We have to be careful because, what else happens, is when the 
government buys land, they drive up the price for everybody else.
  It is very hard today to find one's children or my children desire to 
go out and be a farmer, especially in our areas where the government 
has driven up the price of land because they are out acquiring the 
land. We have to encourage good and prudent management of the land, 
whether it is in the government hands or whether it is in private 
hands.
  But I am not sure the answer is always to take it out of private 
hands and put it into government hands and one is going to end up with 
better management. Sometimes that might be the answer, but not always.
  The American people need to be aware of how many thousands of acres 
every day across this country, through one government agency or 
another, at one level, local, clear up to national, go from private 
hands into public hands.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the best 
stewards of the land, the best environmentalists are the farmers, the 
ranchers, the private landowners who have a future at stake in the 
ownership of that land. This is what they want to hand down to their 
children.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a heritage, like the gentleman said.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, it absolutely is. For us in Colorado, this 
is what defines our State. This is part of our culture in the western 
States. We have some of the most beautiful vistas and greatest natural 
resources, some private, some public, but in all cases, these are 
resources that, when managed well, the extraction of minerals or the 
sound timber management actually improves the environmental quality, 
particularly with respect to timber.
  Let me talk about that for a moment, because the timber industry in 
the west, after, not only the poor policies that are put forward by the 
Forest Service these days, but also the misapplication of the 
Endangered Species Act, there are very, very few mills left in States 
like ours.
  But what we are discovering is that active forest management, from a 
scientific perspective, actually improves overall forest health. What 
we are seeing out in the West today are devastating forest fires that 
burn far more intensely than ever before. We are seeing the pine beetle 
infestation in western States, which is an infestation at escalated 
levels primarily as a result of the poor condition of government-owned 
forests in western States.
  When these trees begin to grow too closely together, they start 
competing for nutrients, for water. They prevent the snowpack from 
getting to the surface of the forest floor, and it respirates much 
quicker than would be natural.
  As a result, these trees begin to undergo a certain amount of stress. 
Once they become stressed, these beetles move in, these trees die, they 
become brittle, they become dry. It really sets up the West for some of 
these devastating forest fires that get worse and worse year after year 
after year.
  But there is one interesting thing about these forest fires. 
Sometimes they tend to stop along straight lines. I have flown over 
some of the old burned areas, and I have never seen anything like it 
before. It is really remarkable.
  These forest fires will burn, and they will stop along pretty much a 
straight line in some cases. The difference between the side that 
burned to the ground and the side that is still green and standing and 
flourishing and providing habitat for wildlife is that the government 
owns the land that was not well managed and not well taken care of. 
Private owners are managing the land that is still green today, 
still providing critical habitat for wildlife and so on.

  The bottom line is the Federal Government owns far more land than it 
is able to effectively take care of, and that is irresponsible. That is 
an antienvironmental record that our Federal Government is moving 
itself into by acquiring more land than we have the capacity to care 
for.
  I would also make one other observation. Since the fall of communism 
and the old Soviet Union, many of the republics have had a difficult 
time making the full transition to free market capitalism and ensuring 
democracies in their new countries.
  One of the key provisions that comes back to us over and over again 
in observations is that what these countries need to do to make the 
last step toward free market capitalism is guarantee private property 
ownership. These are countries that understand they need to move toward 
private property ownership, not away from it.
  We here in the United States, enjoying the greatest economy on the 
planet right now, are moving with great speed in the exact opposite 
direction, having taxpayers wealth confiscated from the American 
people, sitting here in Washington, D.C. so the Clinton administration 
and others who agree with him can then go back and purchase at above-
market prices land that should remain in private property ownership, 
putting it into the hands of the government which, as I mentioned, is 
incapable of doing an effective job of taking care of it.
  So it is quite a problem. It is one that, when we hear the term the 
``war on the west,'' the gentleman and I understand that term very 
well. But for others who have heard the term may not understand what 
that means. It essentially means the Federal Government coming into a 
great State like ours, not only purchasing the property rights, but the 
mineral rights that go with it, and affecting directly the water 
rights, water being the most precious natural resource that our economy 
depends on.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. McINNIS. If I might, the gentleman is correct. And let me make it 
very clear. There are some areas, and my colleague and I have talked 
about this, there are some areas where timbering is not appropriate. 
There are some areas, regrettably, where in our history some people 
have abused the timber rights. They have gone out and clearcut areas 
where they should never have clearcut. And part of that, by the way, 
was the irresponsibility of the Federal Government's supervising that 
type of thing.
  But what has happened is they have taken that section of misbehavior 
and said, and there are actual groups out there that have said, we 
never want another piece of timber taken off Federal lands. We have the 
national Sierra Club, whose number one goal of their president is to 
take down the dam at Lake Powell, drain Lake Powell, which is one of 
the most critical resources in the western United States.
  What I am trying to say here is that, just as we have an obligation 
as citizens of this country to build a missile defense system for the 
next generation and just as we have a like obligation to provide a good 
solid education system for the next generation and just as we have a 
similar obligation to provide a retirement system for the next 
generation, we also have an obligation for this next generation to 
enhance the environment that we are in. But the answer for the 
enhancement of the environment is not necessarily, and in most cases 
not at all, to take away the right and the dream of private property 
ownership.
  Now, I should add, and some night we should just come and discuss 
that, how when the government decides they do not have the money to go 
in there, what they will do is go in and regulate. That way they never 
have to buy the land. They just go in on private property and regulate 
it so no one can move.
  In the State of Colorado we had, I think it was the jumping mouse.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse.
  Mr. McINNIS. The jumping mouse, and on the eastern range, which had 
never been seen, never been spotted, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, 
and they were going to regulate that as an overriding land issue.
  My bottom line is, we owe it to the next generation to protect our 
environment, but we owe it to this next generation to do it in a 
common-sense way that also preserves, as my colleague has very 
accurately defined, the fundamental philosophy of this country, and 
that is, as a citizen of this country we all dream someday of owning 
our own house or owning our own piece of the pie. And if we take care 
of that pie, we can all have at that opportunity. Do not let 
Washington, D.C., dictate and do not let Washington, D.C., try to 
convince the American people that they know what is best.

[[Page H927]]

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Sustaining our heritage and preserving our legacy is 
really a matter of keeping this land in private ownership. Many of the 
old farmers and ranchers who are reaching retirement age now and 
planning their estates realize they are going to have to deal with the 
inheritance tax.
  Mr. McINNIS. The death tax.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. This is another aspect that we are trying to address 
and trying to eventually get to the point of eliminating the death tax 
overall. And I think that the Congress ought to view death tax 
elimination in environmental terms as well. Keeping these properties in 
the hands of the families that have worked this land for many, many 
years is something that we want to see more of, rather than moving 
toward more government ownership.
  I know this is an issue in our State of Colorado. It is also an 
important issue in the State of South Dakota, and I see the gentleman 
from South Dakota has joined us for the remaining couple of minutes 
that we have left. The inheritance tax is a big issue for his 
constituents, and we will finish this special order up with just a 
brief discussion on inheritance taxes.
  Mr. THUNE. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank both my friends and colleagues 
from the great State of Colorado for taking this issue up. This is an 
issue which is important, obviously, to anybody who makes their living 
off the land.
  And one of the things I find is one of the biggest insults to people 
who actually are in the actual day-to-day business of farming and 
ranching and involved in natural resource industries is to suggest that 
they are not concerned about conservation. When the gentleman was 
discussing the environmental burdens and the regulations that the 
government imposes on people who are trying to make a living at that, I 
could not help but think of a lot of the small independent farmers and 
ranchers in my State of South Dakota and the cost that is associated 
with those burdens. We talk right now about prices being in the tank, 
which they are, and it is very difficult for small independent farmers 
and ranchers to make a living today. And, obviously, that is something 
that we are going to have to address as well.
  Frankly, one of the reasons we are not doing so well is because we 
have failed in a couple of important things, and one is opening export 
markets. We made a commitment, when the last farm policy was put in 
place, that we would aggressively open export markets. We have not done 
that. We do not utilize the tools that are in place and, furthermore, I 
think that this is a basic failure in our farm policy today. And, as a 
result, we are seeing the depressed prices because we do not have the 
demand that we need out there.
  But the second thing that is really important, as the gentleman 
mentioned, is regulation and taxes. Again, that was another thing that 
was promised under the new farm policy a couple of years ago, which 
happened before the gentleman and I arrived here, but it was clear one 
of the things we said we would do is regulatory reform. That has not 
happened. There are still enormous costs associated with production 
agriculture.
  And, again, as the gentleman, my friend from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), 
also noted, there is the tax burden. Today, when someone dies, we 
basically have to deal not only with the undertaker but with the IRS. 
And that is a real liability in terms of trying to provide a framework 
for passing on the family farm, the family ranch, the family business 
to the next generation of Americans. The tax burden continues to 
strangle folks who are in the business of production agriculture.
  So I think this is something that needs to be addressed. I hope we 
will do it in this Congress as part of our agenda, as we address the 
needs that are out there and talking about, for the first time in a 
generation, the politics of surplus, a surplus that has come about as a 
result of decisions that we made a couple of years ago in the balanced 
budget agreement. We were able at that time to bring some tax relief, 
but we need to bring additional tax relief after we have addressed 
Social Security and coupled that with paying down the national debt, 
which is an important priority for myself and a lot of Members I think 
on our side of the aisle, and hopefully a lot of Members in the whole 
Congress, but also to look at ways that we can continually streamline 
regulations and lessen the tax burden on America's working families.
  I cannot think of any working family today that is having a tougher 
time making a living and making ends meet than people who are in the 
day-to-day business of agriculture.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The farm economy is really going to be strained this 
year. The administration's failure to aggressively and assertively open 
up foreign export markets is really leaving American producers high and 
dry in many cases.
  Also, the debacle in Brazil, for example, with the devaluing of the 
currency and the role indirectly that our government played, is going 
to result in cheap soybeans swamping the U.S. market. Now, we have some 
soybean growers out in our parts of the country, it is going to be a 
bigger issue perhaps in the Midwest, but for agriculture in general 
these kinds of realities over the next months are going to, 
unfortunately, result in a very troubled agricultural economy in 
America. And I think we are going to feel the brunt of it around 
August, September, and October, in those months, and on into the year 
2000.
  But at a time when we know that competitiveness issues, that 
regulatory issues are going continue to be hitting hard on American 
farmers and ranchers we need to seize on that opportunity to focus on 
the other government-imposed fixed costs of doing business, the 
inheritance tax certainly being one of them. Capital gains tax relief 
is something else that could make the difference between farmers 
declaring bankruptcy and selling out versus remaining in production 
agriculture and hopefully passing these productive agricultural assets 
on to their children.

  The important thing to remember when we talk about eliminating the 
inheritance tax, or the death tax, we hear many of our critics on the 
Democratic side of the aisle who will claim this is a tax cut for the 
rich. We have all heard that. And many farmers and ranchers, when 
calculating the present value of their land and equipment and so on, it 
sounds like an awful lot of money. But that wealth is all tied up in 
the land. It cannot be extracted easily at all.
  And what we are talking about is the children, the heirs of the 
present farm land owners, having to fork over upwards of 50 percent of 
the value of that asset over to the Federal Government when it changes 
hands between the parents to the children. Fifty percent of the value 
of an asset value of a farm means that that farm goes on the auction 
block, that it is sold. It is over. It is out of business. And that is 
why the inheritance tax relief that we are trying to push forward is so 
critical for agriculture today.
  Mr. THUNE. It is. And what people do not realize is that agriculture 
is a very capital-intensive business. It is not uncommon for a small 
independent producer to have a lot of investment in equipment in order 
to try and do all the things they have to do to raise a crop and then 
be able to market it.
  So the gentleman is exactly right in that people, when they talk 
about this being something that favors people in the higher income 
categories, I can tell my colleague one thing, the farmers and ranchers 
I know and visit with in South Dakota are not people I consider to be 
cutting the fat hog. In fact, right now, they are having a very, very 
difficult time.
  And if we want to keep them on the land, if we want to keep that 
small family farm, independent producer, the thing that I think has 
helped establish and build the values in this country that we cherish, 
if we want to keep them on the land, we have to make it easier to 
transfer that farm or that ranch to the next generation of Americans. 
And that is why I think, again, as we look at what we can do in terms 
of trying to assist the agricultural economy today, rolling back the 
estate tax, the death tax, dealing with capital gains, as the gentleman 
noted, is important as well, and also trying to figure out a way to 
make it less costly to be in production agriculture.
  Because, again, there are enormous costs to these regulations. I hear 
ludicrous examples of this all the time. And probably the most recent 
one I heard was a small business in South Dakota that wanted to sell, 
and they

[[Page H928]]

were trying to get a buyer. And the buyer, before they could consummate 
the sale, had to go through an environmental analysis. Well, they 
discovered in one of the buildings there was an air conditioner hanging 
out in the back, as there often is in our State of South Dakota, 
because the summers get to be a little hot, but that air conditioner, 
as air conditioners are prone to do, was dripping a little bit of 
water. And the EPA said, well, I am sorry, we cannot have that. That is 
disrupting the vegetation. Ironically, their solution to that was to 
come up with a one foot by one foot square slab of concrete to place 
down there. Not that that would disrupt the vegetation.
  There are ludicrous, frivolous examples of these regulations all the 
time. And I will not say for a minute that there are not needs in terms 
of safety and health reasons why we have regulations, but there are 
certainly a lot of frivolous ones. And as they apply to agriculture, we 
should look at what we can do to make it less costly.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The American public is looking to Congress for somebody 
here to listen and to resolve many of these issues, and I am proud to 
be part of the Republican conference that will continue to push forward 
for a strong economy, for maintaining and protecting Social Security, 
providing a strong national defense, providing for a world-class 
education system and, ultimately, trying to provide for some tax relief 
for the American people.

                          ____________________