[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 116 (Thursday, September 9, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8090-H8096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRIBUTE TO THE HEROES OF THE GRAND JUNCTION SHOOTING
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, my district is in the
[[Page H8091]]
State of Colorado. I represent the Third Congressional District of the
State of Colorado, which is essentially the mountains of Colorado. My
home is Grand Junction, Colorado.
Over the weekend, my home in Grand Junction Colorado got a very, very
special gift, a gift of heroes. Over the weekend, we had two of our
citizens who lost their lives in an unfortunate failed attempt to save
another person's life.
These two individuals, Hobert Franklin, Jr. and David Gilcrease, both
were individuals of normal working people. Nothing really set them out
from the crowd until that moment of the call for courage. At that
moment, both of these individuals stepped forward at the expense of
their lives to try and save this other life.
The incident was a very violent incident. It was a domestic dispute.
It took place in a grocery store in Grand Junction, in fact, the
grocery store that my wife shops in, a grocery store that a lot of my
neighbors shop in.
A man went in and grabbed a woman by her hair, dragged her out of the
store, he had a gun in his hand, took her into the parking lot. When
Hobert Franklin saw that happening, he ran out of the store to go to
her aid.
Now, what we need to keep in mind with both of these individuals is
that they had a very clear choice to make. There were lots of
directions they could run. There were lots of directions that they
could go away from the assailant. But Hobert decided not to do that.
Hobert ran at the assailant to help the victim, and the assailant shot
him dead.
David in the meantime saw what happened to Hobert. So he then knew
that this guy was going to kill somebody. He just did kill somebody, in
fact. He had an opportunity as well to go a different direction. Nobody
could criticize the people that went different directions. This was a
very terrifying incident.
But at that special moment, David decided that he had to intercede
and stop this event from occurring. He ran towards the fellow, the
assailant. The assailant raised the weapon at him. David puts his hands
up. The assailant put his hand down. David backed off. He went back
around the van.
I have got tell my colleagues about David. Do my colleagues know how
much David weighed? David weighed 90 pounds. Ninety pounds. Think about
it. Ninety pounds.
He came back around the van, and he tackled the assailant. Now, he is
a tough guy, David, but he was not that tough. He was not that strong
to take the assailant and knock him out of commission, so to speak. So
the assailant knocked David off his back, and he turned around, and he
killed David in cold blood.
Now, what is special about these two people is that David who was a
father, by the way, of two young boys, terrific young children, and his
wife Kim, his last words from David, as witnessed by the people who
were trying to save his life was, ``Yes, Jesus is my savior.''
He was a small man, but as they said at his service yesterday, he was
a giant when it comes to heart and to will. This small-framed man, and
I am quoting from Bob Carter who read a poem in David's memory, ``This
small-framed man was the biggest man my heart has been blessed with
knowing.''
David was a wonderful guy. He blessed Grand Junction with his gift of
heroism this last weekend.
Hobert, they talk about he is 50 years old. They said his half a
century of life really boiled down to one defining moment; that is what
his nephew told people at the service on Wednesday. ``No matter what he
did, he will be remembered most for what he did in the last few moments
of his life,'' Travis Coley told the gathering at the service.
Coley is in the seminary or just graduated from the seminary. Hobert
was his uncle, and this is the first funeral service that Pastor Coley
was to give.
Franklin had two sons, John and T.J. I got to meet both John and T.J.
My colleagues would be very proud of these young men. They are very
proud of their father because they knew, at that last defining moment,
their father made a decision, a decision to try and save somebody
else's life even though it probably meant imminent death for him.
Franklin is also survived by his wife Judy, his father and his
brother and his sister. Franklin, too, blessed Grand Junction with that
gift of heroism.
So as we go about in our every day lives, I just ask, because
throughout our country we have a lot of good people out there, we have
a lot of people of strong character, we have a lot of people that are
the core of what makes this country great, and these are two of those
individuals, and tonight in front of all of my colleagues and in front
of all of the people of the United States of America, this country pays
its due respect.
Issues Facing America
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of different topics that I
would like to cover this evening. I think probably one of them that is
at the heart of a lot of debate that has been taking place here regards
taxes. The gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) is here to comment
on that.
I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that I think probably that the character of
a lot of the people in his Congressional District is much like that of
those that I represent in the State of South Dakota. Understanding that
his district is very much like mine, very rural, and the gentlemen that
he described this evening I think probably my colleagues would find
them walking down the main streets in many places across South Dakota
as well. It is a great privilege and honor to represent people with
that kind of character.
I presume that, during the course of the August break, the gentleman
from Colorado, like I did, had the opportunity to travel across his
district. I had the opportunity to visit, on one particular trip, 36
counties across my State culminating with almost a week at the South
Dakota State fair.
During the course of those travels, I heard about a lot of topics,
one of which, of course, in my State is agriculture which is in
desperate straits. I hope that this institution will, the Congress,
come together on a solution for that problem to address many of the
concerns, many of the very serious problems structurally that are
occurring in agriculture today.
I hope that before the session is out that we will pass disaster
relief assistance, and market loss assistance, that we will pass
mandatory price reporting, Federal legislation to that effect, that we
will pass crop insurance reform, which is desperately needed to make
sure that producers have the risk management tools that will allow them
to succeed in the current market place, and other issues that I think
will come up, one of which is market concentration.
One of the things that I heard repeatedly in my travels across South
Dakota is this increasing concentration in the agricultural industry.
We are seeing it, whether it is grain buyers, whether it is livestock
packers, whether it is soybean crushers, flour mills, you name it,
there are fewer and fewer buyers of raw agricultural products in this
country. It is having a profound and very serious effect on producers
across South Dakota and I think across this entire country, and it is
an issue which needs the attention of the United States Congress.
The other thing that I heard, like a lot of people, I think,
traveling across this country and traveling across my State and others
who traveled in their districts, was this surplus and talking about how
do we deal with what is this $3 trillion plus projected surplus. I am
sure the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has heard a lot of about
that as well. As I was traveling across South Dakota, it was an issue
that came up frequently. We had an opportunity to talk about how do we
do it.
First of all, I think a lot of people are very skeptical that there
is a surplus in the first place. Frankly, they ought to be.
{time} 2145
I think that myself. I have a hard time dealing with trillions of
dollars, billions of dollars, even millions of dollars. So we have to
break it down into terms I think that all of us can understand.
But the reality is that for a lot of reasons we are projecting over
the course of the next 10 years about $3.1 trillion in surpluses. And
everybody
[[Page H8092]]
says, well, what caused that. I think it was a lot of things. I think
it was the fact that, before I arrived on the scene, think the
Republican Congress passed welfare reform; that there are 3.3 million
more Americans working today and paying taxes; the fact that we were
able to enact tax relief legislation in 1997, which I think has
increased government revenues and lowering the capital gains rate.
People took realizations, paid taxes on those realizations and
increased government revenues.
I also think that control over federal spending has something to do
with it. Since we assumed power here in the Congress, we have gotten
tighter control over federal spending. And I think that fiscal
responsibility has helped generate some of the surpluses. And,
obviously, monetary management at the Federal Reserve. But in the end
it is the hard work of the American people that has generated these
surpluses. And so when we have this debate about how to best use these
surpluses, we have to remember that it is their money we are talking
about.
Again, trying to break this down into denominations that people can
understand, $3 trillion is a lot. But if we broke it down into, say $4,
and there has been a lot of discussion about how to do this, but what
our plan does, and frankly this has been misrepresented and confused,
and the other side has tried I think in many respects to mislead people
about what this is all about, but, frankly, if the surplus was $4, we
are taking $3 out of the $4 and setting it aside for Social Security
and Medicare and to pay down the federal debt.
One of the things I heard in South Dakota over and over again is why
do we not just pay down the federal debt. I think that is an admirable
quality and one, I think, that speaks well of the people of South
Dakota that they are interested in fiscal responsibility and making
good on their debts. The reality is that $3 out of the $4, if we think
of the surplus as being $4, 3 of the 4 goes to Social Security,
Medicare and to pay down the federal debt. What we are talking about in
terms of the tax bill is this last dollar. And the reality is, whether
we like it or not, I do not believe that this last dollar is going to
get used to pay down the federal debt.
Now, in a perfect world, that would be great. But we all know we do
not live in a perfect world. We live in Washington, D.C., which is
anything but a perfect world. Now, if this was done in South Dakota, we
might be able to do this. But the reality is, whether it is Republicans
or Democrats, this is a Washington problem. Politicians spend money.
The only question on this final dollar, and if we think of this as
being the payroll tax, that FICA tax, Social Security and Medicare,
that is $3, and the last dollar is the income tax surplus. When those
income tax surpluses start rolling in here to Washington, there are
going to be a lot of designs on how to spend it.
What we have said as a matter of policy is that we believe the
American people can spend this last dollar better than can Washington,
D.C. So we went ahead and designed a tax package which I think strikes
at the very heart and the very soul of what makes America tick.
Everybody says, well, this is tax cuts for the rich. Well, in South
Dakota we have a lot of farmers and ranchers and small business people.
And when I ask them if they like the death tax, they say no. The death
tax punishes people for saving for their kids and grandkids. We ought
to get rid of it. Not only that, it is an inefficient tax. Sixty-five
cents out of every dollar that is collected on the death tax goes to
the cost of collecting the tax. It is an inefficient tax.
When I ask constituents whether they like the marriage penalty; do
they like the fact that we penalize people and that they pay higher
taxes for the privilege of being married, they say, no, we do not like
that. That is a policy change that this bills makes. It is long
overdue. We ought not penalize people in this country for being
married. We ought to encourage that.
When I ask if they think we should tax capital gains on inflation,
well, no, they do not think that sounds like a very good idea. Well, we
make a change and index inflation in this bill so that it is not
subject to a capital gains tax.
I have also asked if farmers, ranchers, and small business people
ought to be able to deduct health insurance premiums. And that too,
again, I think strikes at the very heart of those who are contributing
to this society, helping generate this surplus and, frankly, in many
cases, at least in my State, are very hard pressed. Farmers, ranchers,
and small business people are trying to make ends meet in what is a
very, very difficult agricultural economy.
These are policy changes which I think are very positive and they are
long overdue. They are things that the American people could benefit
from. And the alternative, as I said, is that this dollar gets spent in
Washington. That is just reality. And I think we have to say honestly
to the American people that all this talk and propaganda coming out of
the White House and this administration about, boy, if they cut taxes
it is going to cut farmers, it is going to cut veterans, it is going to
cut water projects, it is going to cut education, I do not know where
that comes from, because we are talking about surplus dollars.
We all agreed in 1997 to a balanced budget agreement which spends at
a certain rate through the year 2002, and we assume beyond that, for
the balance of this agreement, certain inflationary increases in
spending. How they can argue that somehow this is going to rob or cut
all these programs is beyond me. We are talking about surplus dollars.
And I think the American people need to understand clearly what this
argument is about. It is about the fact that we are using $3 out of $4,
if we can put this in small terms again, $3 out of $4 to preserve and
protect Social Security and Medicare and to pay down the federal debt.
And the debate we are having in America today is about whether
Washington spends this last buck or whether the American family spends
it on things that they need; whether it is education, college education
for their children, whether it is on mortgage payments, whether it is
on school supplies or Christmas presents, whatever. We believe as a
matter of principle and as a matter of policy that the American people
are in a better position to make that decision about their futures and
how best to use this last dollar.
I think it is important in the course of this debate and discussion
that we debunk a lot of the myths that are being propagated by the
other side. There is a lot of propaganda, a lot of rhetoric and
demagoguery, as there always is in scare tactics that are used,
because, again, the reality is in Washington, if we take this away from
the politicians, it is money they cannot spend. And that is why they
are trying so desperately to hang on to it. We believe, again as a
matter of principle, as a matter of policy and practice, that this
dollar is better spent by the American people, by the American family.
So I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding this evening to
me. I think we probably concur because I believe his district is very
much like mine; that those he represents are very much like those I
represent. They are hard working people. They understand that this, the
dollars they pay the Federal Government, is their money. We understand
it is their money. We want them to keep more of it. That is what this
debate is about. And I hope as it continues that we are able to
convince the American people. And as they understand more clearly what
we are talking about, I believe there will be a huge groundswell of
support for what we are trying to accomplish here, which is to give
them more power.
I believe when the American people have more in their pocket, they
have the power. When Washington has the money, Washington has the
power. We want the American people to have more power and more control
over their future.
So I appreciate very much the gentleman from Colorado yielding some
of his time this evening. I know he would like to talk some more about
this issue and I would certainly yield back to him.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I want to add to
the gentleman's comments.
That dollar that the administration says ought to stay in Washington,
D.C. does one simple thing, it grows the size of the Government. There
has never been a time in the history of politics, because of the human
demands upon the politicians, that a pool of money can be left sitting
in the Capital of a
[[Page H8093]]
State or in Washington, D.C. and think that the politicians are going
to keep their hands off that and use that for some future reduction of
the federal debt. It is not going to happen.
I think what else is important to my colleague, as he mentioned, is
that there are some myths out there that need to be debunked. The
Republicans said, look, we can take care of Social Security, we can
take care of Medicare, and we need to do something with education, we
need to do something with the military, we have to increase our
spending with regard to the military, and we need to reduce the federal
debt. We think that we can do all five of those things and still take
that dollar, which is a small part of the $4 that the gentleman had
there, take that dollar and give it back to the taxpayers.
Now, our proposal to do that alarmed the administration. The
President decided he could not let the Republicans get credit for
giving back the people their money that came from them. He had to come
up with a proposal. And he did come up with a proposal. And when it was
scored by the Congressional Budget Office, it actually resulted in a
tax increase. If we want to look at a bill that really reduces the
debt, look at the history of the two parties and which party is
carrying the bill that is really going to reduce that debt. We had 40
years of Democratic control in the United States Congress. Forty years
the Democrats were in control. In that period of time I think they had
one 2-year period where they had a balance.
What is the history of this? The Republicans' bill, and I am not
trying to be partisan here, but we need to draw the lines where the
lines have been drawn in these chambers, the Republican bill does more
to reduce the federal debt than any other bill out there, period. Now,
take a look historically. We have had the Democrats in control and ran
deficits for 38 out of the 40 years. The Republicans took control just
5 years ago, and since then they brought up the balanced budget
amendment. It was a Republican bill. Welfare reform; it was a
Republican bill.
Now, how many of the Democrats, even the most liberal Democrats in
this country, are complaining about the tax cut we gave 2 years ago? As
the gentleman from the Dakotas knows, 2 years ago we went out to
homeowners, homeowners regardless of their income, all they had to do
was own a home, in the gentleman's district or in my district or in
Mississippi or Massachusetts or in Florida or in Texas. We went out to
the homeowners in this country, and we used the same argument and we
got the same kind of disagreement from the Democrat leadership. Not all
Democrats, because there are a lot of conservative Democrats who
understand where this money comes from. But the Democrat leadership and
the administration fought us on this homeowner deal.
What did we do with the homeowners? We went to every homeowner in
this country and told them that from this point on when they sell their
home, and if they sell their home for a profit, not net equity but
actually net profit, they get to take that, up to $250,000 per person,
$500,000 per couple, they get to take that money, tax free, regardless
of their age, and put it in their pockets.
So those Americans out there who have heard some of this bunk about
Republicans and their tax plans, they should not forget that when they
sell that home that they live in right now, thanks to the Republican
leadership, they are going to get, with some rare exceptions,
for instance, if an individual is very, very wealthy and they sell it
for more than $500,000 profit, otherwise anybody that sells it for a
dollar profit up to $500,000 profit per couple puts that money in their
pocket. And it is money they will spend in their community. They will
donate some to the church, they will go out and buy a new car, maybe
buy another house. That money recirculates in the communities, not back
here in the Washington, DC community.
So I appreciate and invite the gentleman to continue participating if
he wishes, but I think the gentleman's example is right on point. I am
glad he showed that dollar bill, because that dollar bill is right now
in Washington, DC. What the gentleman has proposed and our colleagues
have proposed is taking that dollar bill and putting it back in the
local community. Because we think a dollar bill in Glenwood Springs,
Colorado, or in the Dakotas, up there somewhere in the Dakotas, or in
Miami, Florida, or in Los Angeles or in Seattle, Washington, or Salt
Lake City, we think putting that dollar back into the local community
is going to have a much more efficient use, be much more productive, be
much more helpful for capital, much more helpful for the communities
and the nonprofits and the schools than taking that dollar and keeping
it right here in these House Chambers and sending it out to the Federal
agencies. That is what the gentleman is saying and the gentleman is
right, and I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. THUNE. Well, I thank the gentleman for continuing to yield. As I
have tried to present this, I have asked the people of South Dakota one
basic question, and that is this question: Do you think that the
Federal Government in Washington is too small? Do you think that the
Federal Government in Washington is too small?
Now, if the answer is yes to that question, obviously that person is
going to like the President's plan to grow the size of government by
spending the surplus. But I would suspect that most people, in fact
when I ask this question across my State, I do not see any hands get
raised. I am guessing if the gentleman asks that question in his
district in Colorado he would get the same response. Most people in
this country understand the Federal Government is big enough.
In fact, we believe, and I think most people believe, that we ought
to continue this process that we have begun of shifting power out of
Washington and back to those communities that the gentleman talked
about, back to school districts, back to families, back to individuals
so they can do more for their communities. We need for Washington to do
less and the American people to do more.
Again, it does come back, and I want to say this so the American
people do not miss this as we have this debate, what we are talking
about, if we were to take that surplus and put it into small terms that
people understand, $3 goes to Social Security, to Medicare, and to pay
down the Federal debt, and $1, we think, basically 25 percent of the
surplus, goes back to the American people. It is their money. And it is
a ludicrous notion to think that if this money comes to Washington it
is not going to get spent.
Mr. McINNIS. And reclaiming my time once again, that $1 that the
gentleman held up, we hear from the Democratic leadership, through the
propaganda going across this country, that that dollar is going to be
used to reduce the Federal debt. What the gentleman said, and he is
absolutely correct, if we leave that $1 here in Washington, DC, it will
not go for reducing the national debt; it will go for new programs and
for new spending.
When we leave money around here, the new spending is a temptation. I
am sure the gentleman knows this, at least as it applies to me, when I
have people come into my office asking for new spending, these usually
are not bad programs. They usually sound great.
{time} 2200
But the question is, can we afford them? So the temptation to spend
those dollars will fall on Republicans and Democrats back here. It is a
strong temptation. We have a lot of our constituents out there who, if
that dollar stays here, they say the dollar is going to stay in
Washington, let us spend it for this program or let us spend it for
that program. We all know that if we leave that dollar here it will
grow the size of the Government.
What the Republicans are pushing for, and we are having a tough time
getting our message across because it is very easy to spend it in 15
seconds, what the gentleman from the Dakotas and myself are trying to
explain in 30 minutes, but the fact is if we leave that dollar in your
pocket, in your community, it would work much better.
The only way that theory would not work is if when keeping that
dollar in your community, in your pocket, you went out and buried it in
the ground, literally put it in the ground other than it is either
going to a bank, which will loan it back out to the community, it is
going to be spent for goods and services, which circulate in the
community.
Do my colleagues know what they should do? Sometimes some of these
[[Page H8094]]
companies have to pay taxes. They should pay their employees in $2
bills, we still have a $2 bill out there, pay in $2 bills and see how
often and how many places those $2 bills show up in your community and
how many weeks those $2 bills are showing up in stores and all kinds of
different places in your community versus coming back here to
Washington.
I hope the gentleman stays. I want to point out a couple of other
things on taxes we have just gotten from the Tax Foundation, and the
Tax Foundation has a lot of credibility back here. It is a nonpartisan
organization. We have just received in 1999 what Americans per capita
will spend on things such as food, clothing, and shelter.
I want to show my colleagues some very stunning numbers. I will write
them here very quickly for you.
On food in 1999, $2,693. That is what the average per capita
expenditure in the United States will be for food. For clothes, that
will be $1,404. So for food per capita, we are going to spend $2,693.
For clothes, we are going to spend $1,404. And for shelter, we will
spend $5,833.
Now, if we add that up, assuming my math is right, that is $9,930 per
capita. So food is $2,693. Clothes are $1,404. And shelter is $5,833.
That is what you spend for those priority items in your family.
Guess what you will pay for taxes? $10,298. In other words, the per
capita expenditure per family in this country you will pay more for
taxes than you do for your food, your clothes, and your shelter
combined. Again, let me repeat that. We will all pay more in taxes than
we will pay for our food, our clothes, and our shelter.
Now, we will also, another interesting thing, when you look at these
numbers put out by the tax group, on Federal taxes alone, we will spend
more than any other major budget item.
I want to put some examples out here. For housing, we will spend the
$5,833; for health care, $3,829; for food, $2,693; for transportation,
$2,568; for recreation, $1,922; for clothing, $1,404. For Federal taxes
alone, just for Federal taxes, here is what we spend for Federal taxes:
$7,000.
So think about your budget, think about what you are spending in your
family budget. These are roughly the figures that you will come up
with: Housing $5,833. You spend more in taxes than you do in housing
for your family. Health care for your family, you will spend about
$3,829. This is per capita. You will spend a little over twice that for
taxes, not quite twice, $7,026. For food to feed the family, per
capita, $2,693 compared to what you are going to have to pay in taxes,
$7,026. For recreation, $1,922 compared to the $7,000 you are going to
pay in taxes. For clothing, $1,404 to clothe your family per capita,
and you are going to spend over $7,000 in taxes.
My point is this: There has been a lot of rhetoric lately about if we
do not provide some kind of tax relief for the American people then we
hear from the Democratic party leadership that the Federal debt will
only increase and they all of a sudden, the Democrat leadership, after
40 years of running deficits in this country, now, some of my
colleagues do not like to hear partisanship and I am not trying to be
partisan, but the fact is the Republicans did not run this House for 40
years, they have run it for 5 years; and we have had surpluses on
almost all of those years.
We have had welfare reform. We had the tax cut I spoke about earlier.
But the reality, what people do not want you to hear is that, guess
what, when we reduce your taxes, when we allow you to keep those
dollars in your pockets, guess what happens? The economy improves.
Take a look at any major tax relief or tax reduction in this century
or in the century before it but since income tax came in this century,
take a look at any one of them. Immediately after a tax reduction, the
economy improved. When those dollars, again, unless you bury your
dollars in the ground and you never see them again or you hide them and
do not circulate them in your community, then in any other circumstance
that will, one, keep down the size of government and, two, bring up the
health of the economy.
Now, we have got a pretty good economy. Not everybody. My good friend
from the Dakotas talks about the agriculture and the suffering, and
they are suffering out in the farm belt. But there are a lot of people
who are enjoying the healthiest, many of them, they will ever
experience in their entire life. So they do not worry so much about
taxes. Well, you pay a little tax here, you pay a little tax here.
Let me tell you what is happening while some of you are asleep. The
governments, whether it is a local government, whether it is a local
district, whether it is a State government, or whether it is the
Federal Government, is sneaking into your house while you are asleep
and those taxes are going up.
Most of the increase that you have seen in your taxes, the total tax
package, has occurred since 1981. Most of that increase, 45 percent, 45
percent of the taxes that you pay are as a result of tax increases
since 1981. All we are saying here is let us not fall asleep while the
tax man sneaks in behind us.
Now, are taxes necessary? Of course they are necessary. We have
certain responsibilities that belong to the Federal Government, a
strong military. I think we have a fundamental obligation for good
education in this country. We do have some health care obligations. We
have transportation obligations for the interstate highways, interstate
commerce. We have a justice system that has to be maintained.
So there are some fundamental obligations that the Federal Government
must maintain. There are certainly obligations that the State
government must maintain. We agree with those. Our local districts, our
school districts have a very heavy burden in providing what we want and
that is quality education. Those dollars have to go in.
But it does not mean we should overpay and it does not mean when we
pay our tax we should not ask our elected officials, am I paying too
much? Am I getting a fair shake for my dollar? Am I getting efficient
use out of that dollar? Is that dollar more productive in Washington,
D.C., or is it more productive in my home State of Santa Clara,
California, or Salt Lake City, Utah, or Kansas City, Kansas, or
Carbondale, Colorado? Is this where those dollars are most efficient?
So, my colleagues, I am just trying to say to my colleagues here as
this rhetoric goes on about the tax cut and how it is going to add to
the Federal debt, take a look at the details. Read the fine print.
When you read the fine print, you are going to find out, frankly,
really there are two choices. One, continue to grow the Government or,
two, give back a portion of the surplus, not all of the surplus, but
give back a portion of the surplus to the people who earned it.
Tax dollars are taxed to spend. That is the only reason we get taxed.
It is the only reason our constituents out there get taxed. The only
reason you are being taxed is so that some governmental body can spend
that money. And as we said earlier, some of those expenses are
justified. Some of them are necessary. But if you tend to allow
accountability to become lax or the old saying that ``when the cat is
away, the mice will play,'' if you do not keep the cat in the barn, the
mice pretty soon get out of control.
What we are saying here is let us exercise prudent financial
management and let us tell our clients, the constituents, the
taxpayers, you overpaid for this product. You deserve a little of it
back. We still want to give you a fine product. You deserve it from the
Government. But at this point you have overpaid a little, not a lot.
The tax decrease we are talking about does not do a lot but it still
keeps a few of those dollars in your pocket.
I have had a recent opportunity about 3 years ago, and this is
exciting regardless of what party you are in regardless of your bent
toward partisan politics, I have got something that I hope all of my
colleagues take a very careful look at. It has been a tremendously
successful program in my district, and I would like to explain it to my
colleagues. It is called the S.E.E.D.S. program.
I actually started that program in the Third Congressional District
of Colorado with the help of a lot of people Susan Smith, the City of
Pueblo, County of Pueblo, several school districts, Pueblo Community
College, Roger Gomez, a number of different people.
We all got together; and we found out that under the Federal
regulations,
[[Page H8095]]
you can ask Federal agencies for their excess computer equipment. In
other words, we have, for example, the Department of Energy who has
been very cooperative with us. They have excess computer equipment.
Some of this equipment is almost brand new.
Now, this is not state-of-the-art computer equipment. But most
schools in our country do not have state-of-the-art computer equipment.
In fact, in my district there were a number of schools that did not
have really any computer equipment.
So what we did on our drive to cut down Government waste is we went
to these different agencies and we said we would like you to ship those
computers to a warehouse, which, by the way, was donated to our cause
in Pueblo, Colorado, send them to our warehouse. We got students from
Pueblo Community College to come in and help us put part A of the
computer with part B, so on and so forth.
We got citizens to help us haul away the trash. We got citizens to
help come down and do the mechanical work. We got citizens to volunteer
and come down and help us match up the computers with schools that
needed these computers. And before you know it, our program was off and
running.
What were the results of our program? In our program in Colorado now,
we are up to 200 sets of computers a week that we give to local
schools, not just public schools, private schools, home schoolers,
senior citizens. It is an exciting project. It provides a need for
education which we think is very important.
Nobody disagrees that education is not important. And it takes away
budget waste, Government waste, wasteful spending, which I think most
of us would agree is not necessary. We take that waste, and we convert
it to a good, positive use. It is called the S.E.E.D.S. program.
I am here this evening to tell my constituents, to tell my colleagues
here on the House floor this is a program you should adopt, you should
take a look at.
{time} 2215
I would like to cover another area tonight. There has been some
recent press, publicity, about a stand I have taken in regards to our
military academies.
Let me precede my comments on the academies with the statement about
the military. We need in this country the strongest military second to
none in the world. Do not let people kid you. It would be a very
terrible mistake for us to allow our military to fall into shambles and
to become the second toughest kid on the block. You cannot be the
second toughest kid on the block. You cannot be the third toughest kid
on the block. You have got to be the toughest kid on the block.
It does not mean you go pick fights, but it does mean you will be in
less fights because people will not want to fight you. It also means
that you can go out and help those people that are less fortunate
because of your strength.
I believe in a strong military, and all of us should believe in a
strong military. For too many years, the military has not received the
kind of priority that is necessary, although the military for too many
years has been called to different missions all over the world. I think
right now we are stationed in 164 different locations.
So I have great respect for the military, but I also believe that the
military has accountability.
I want to talk for a couple of minutes about our service academies.
It is a great honor to be selected to go to the United States service
academies, West Point, the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy, the
U.S. Coast Guard. The students that go there are not the cream of the
crop. I repeat that. They are not the cream of the crop. They are the
cream of the cream of the crop.
We take our very best students, and when we focus in on the students
that we want to send to those military academies, I think there are a
lot of things we need to look at and list in order of priority.
Leadership skills, obviously intelligence capabilities, and maybe
somewhere on the list, further down on the list, there are sports
abilities or their celebrity status on sports.
Here is what is happening. This is my point that I disagreed very
strongly with on some of the academies. When someone enters, say, the
Air Force Academy, you make a commitment to the United States of
America. You sign a deal with them. It is fully disclosed. There is
nothing hidden about it. You tell the United States, in this case Air
Force Academy, I will serve so many years in exchange for those 4 years
of college education that the American people are giving me as a
privilege, and it is a privilege. We pick great young men and women to
be in the service, but you sign this commitment and just to be sure you
fully understand that commitment, after 2 years of being in, say the
U.S. Air Force Academy, we say to the students, look, you can walk
away, no strings attached or we want you to make sure that you make an
informed decision that if you continue at the Air Force Academy and
complete your 4 years' education, you will have a commitment of
service, you will have an obligation, you will have a duty. These
students, by the way, live under an ethical code or a military code or
an academy code that says, service to the Nation over self.
Well, what I have discovered is happening is, if you are in a very
special class of people at the Air Force Academy, for example, you get
treated differently than the other cadets. What am I talking about? If
everyone was listening to me earlier this evening, I talked about
heroes. We had two heroes in Grand Junction, Colorado. They lost their
lives. I like sports. I enjoy the Broncos. I am a fan of the Broncos,
but even my favorite sports person, to me, is a celebrity, not a hero.
But what happens at the academies, if you are a celebrity sports
person, for example, an outstanding football player who has an
opportunity to be drafted by the pros, you are going to get special
treatment or some of them have received special treatment by the Air
Force Academy, for example, that lets them walk away from their service
commitment.
Now, they have to serve some time in the reserves, but they are not
treated like every other cadet out there. Now, some people say, well,
it is good publicity for us. It is necessary that we allow these
academy graduates to walk away or be waivered, that is the keyword,
that is the buzz word, be waivered from their duty and their service so
that we get publicity in the pro football circuit.
My comment to that was, well, if we need publicity, why do we not
just go ahead and let United Airlines, for example, or any airline, I
fly United a lot, let any airline go to the Air Force Academy and say
we would like your top pilots, go ahead and waive their service, we
will pay them money, even though these athletes are not having to pay
their $120,000 which is the payback financially to the Government, we
will go ahead, we like your top pilots. Do you think the Air Force
Academy would release those pilots? Not on your life.
If Dow Chemical Corporation or some other chemical company, and I
like Dow Chemical, if they went to the Air Force Academy and said we
would like your top chemists, give us your top chemist students, do you
think they would waiver those students out of there? Not on your life.
Let me read from an editorial, Rocky Mountain News. A Perk for
Military Athletes. ``Roger Staubach graduated from the Naval Academy,
served his obligatory 4 years on active duty, and still enjoyed an 11-
year career with the Dallas Cowboys that put him in the pro football
Hall of Fame.
``Times have changed. Beau Morgan, the Air Force Academy's star
quarterback from the class of 1997, was let out of what is now a 5-year
commitment after only 2 years so he could try out with the Dallas
Cowboys this summer.
``It is part of a trend that apparently began in 1989 when the Naval
Academy graduate David Robinson was released after just 2 years' active
duty, enabling him to play with the NBA's San Antonio Spurs. Now an
angry U.S. Representative Scott McInnis, Republican of Colorado, is
threatening to introduce legislation that would put an end to this
practice. `When these kids go to the academy, we try and teach them
that you put your Nation above yourself, but that is not what is
occurring here.'
``There are a number of other examples. Steve Russ, a line backer
with the Denver Broncos, was released from his military commitment in
1997, 2 years after his Air Force Academy graduation. Air Force Academy
grad Dan
[[Page H8096]]
Palmer also got an early out to try out with the Chicago Bears as an
offensive lineman.
``For 2 years, McInnis has been trying to use the Freedom of
Information Act to get a complete list of those who received waivers
from service academies for athletic purposes, but he is having a hard
time of it.''
``It is easy to understand why the military schools might be tempted
to fudge the rules in order to entice more athletes. For decades they
played at the top levels of intercollegiate athletics, but that is no
longer true. A military career is just not as attractive to top
athletes as it once was. Frustrated academy graduates who are now
generals and admirals want to do what they can to slow or reverse the
trend. The military tries to justify the current policy by saying that
their star athletes serve effectively as academy recruiters upon their
early release, but we suspect the kids they mainly recruit are other
outstanding athletes who will also expect early releases.
``Those who get releases, after signing pro contracts, do not have to
repay the $120,000 cost of their education and they do not have to go
back to active duty even if they are later cut by their teams. Their
only obligation is to spend 6 years in the Reserves.
``If pro athletes serve as effective recruiters, says McInnis, why
not let United Airlines recruit the top pilots from the Air Force
Academy, so long as they say on the airplane, `You are being flown by
an Air Force Academy graduate.'
``McInnis dismisses the suggestion that early releases might be all
right if the graduate or his employer simply repays the Government the
cost of his or her education. The economics of professional athletes
are such that $120,000 is merely, quote, what professional teams spend
on refreshments at weekend resorts, unquote.
``The point, says McInnis, is that academy athletes deserve no
privileges that other graduates cannot get. `It is just wrong,' he
says, of the early-release policy. `It makes me mad.'
``Considering the athletes the major state universities recruit, how
little some of them study and how few of them ultimately graduate, the
service academies should not be ashamed that their cadets can no longer
compete at that level. If they have to play smaller schools, it is no
disgrace.
``But the early-out policy for their athletes is a disgrace, and
should be stopped.''
Folks, my point is very clear. We are proud of these academies. The
Air Force Academy and West Point and the Coast Guard and the Naval
Academy have served this country very well. Our great military leaders,
some of our presidents, many of our great leaders in this country have
come from those academies. Why? Because when you go to an academy, it
is a pretty special place. It has the highest of standards, and it has
the highest of ethical codes.
I think we are diluting that. I think we are diluting the reputation
of all the preceding graduates of these academies for the entire
history of those academies by taking a special class of athletes and
treating them differently, by letting them out of their obligations
early. Again, remember, we do not do it for any other class of Air
Force or Naval or West Point or Coast Guard Academy graduate. It is
wrong. We should stand up and say to the American people, you can
expect more from our academies.
I want to mention a couple of other things in conclusion this
evening. First of all, as I said earlier, I come from the third
district of Colorado. This is a very special season coming up in
Colorado so I am going to do a little promotion. I hope all of my
colleagues have an opportunity to go out and see our colors in the
Aspen trees. The district I represent is the highest district in the
United States. They have a lot of beautiful communities, a lot of great
ski resorts, Aspen, Sonoma, Steamboat, Telluride. I will get in trouble
because I do not name them all, but virtually every ski resort in
Colorado is in that district.
So if my colleagues get an opportunity, we invite them to come out to
Colorado. Come and visit us. Come and see what beauty we have out
there. But I also want to point out something else. When my colleagues
head out of this city, take a look at how important it is that we allow
the average working Joe and the average working Jane in this country to
be promised and to expect fair treatment by their Government when it
comes to taxes.
Every Government leader out there should understand that they have a
fiduciary duty, an obligation, to try and deliver the most efficient
services the Government can at the least amount of cost, and every
Government official out there has an obligation to you, the working Joe
and the working Jane, the people that provide these dollars, there is
an obligation on behalf of every elected or every Government employee
or every Government official to make sure that you are not being
overcharged.
There is an obligation by every one of us in these chambers to look
at that taxpayer and we ought to say thank you to them. We ought to say
thank you to the working people of this country, because if it were not
for the 8 or 12 or 14 hours they work every day 5 or 6 or 7 days a
week, that money to provide for the programs that we run out of these
chambers would not be here. We owe them a big thank you, and we also
owe them the duty to make sure that when we spend those dollars we
spend them effectively, that we are fair to the taxpayer.
Our system needs taxes. It has to operate with taxes, but our system
has a fundamental requirement of fairness and openness to the people
that send that money to Washington. And when we have an opportunity to
send that money and put it back in the pocketbooks of those hard
working Americans that provide those dollars, we should take it.
____________________