[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 21, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1156-H1161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     GASOLINE PRICES OUT OF CONTROL

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if I could move to another subject. I want 
to visit with my colleagues a little more, and I have read with some 
interest about the administration's policy on these high gasoline 
prices. I am not sure and, in fact, I would guess that the President 
and the administration and probably all of the cabinet officials, I 
would be surprised if they pump their own gas.
  Mr. Speaker, I have news for my colleagues out there. Somebody better 
take a look at that price at the gas pump. Now, I know our economy is 
in the best shape it has been in the history of the country, and we 
could go into that in some detail. So it gives cause to some people to 
say oh, well, it is just something we have to live with. But there are 
a lot of people out there who have jobs, who are just getting by, and 
that high gasoline price has a huge impact on them. The cost of oil 
does not just affect gasoline in one's vehicle, by the way, it affects 
everything we use, everything we use in this country: medicine, 
production, plastics, rubber, generation of heat, generation of energy, 
you name it, the list could go on and on and on. This high price of 
gasoline is something that the administration's policy, in my opinion, 
needs to be more focused upon.
  Now, it is not like they are ignoring it, but they are not standing 
up to the cartel. What do you mean the cartel? What is the cartel? Let 
us talk about what a cartel is first.
  I pulled it out of the dictionary. A cartel: a combination of 
independent, commercial or industrial enterprises, a combination of 
industrial or commercial enterprises designed to limit competition and 
fix prices.
  Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, talked about a cartel, and the cartel, 
of course, as my colleagues know, is OPEC. So first of all, let us 
define what we are dealing with out there and then we will move on, 
because that helps us have a clear focus on the problem and then we can 
move on to what I think some of the solutions are.
  Let me point out that I think the administration understands, 
somewhat, the problem. I think they have discounted it because we have 
such a good economy, and I do not think the administration, the 
Democrat administration has moved to come up with any kind of solution. 
I will point out that the policy of the Secretary of Energy is to go 
over to OPEC and negotiate with them, and the Department expects the 
price to fall sometime in the future. It actually fell a little today. 
Well, that does not take a rocket scientist. I think OPEC is realizing, 
and they are right about at the point where the ball will bounce to 
bring it down just a little. These negotiations are not going to result 
in something coming down. The price of oil is probably going to go down 
anyway in the next couple of months, but not to the extent that it 
should. That cartel still operates.
  How do we deal with a cartel? That is what the administration ought 
to be looking at. That is the key here. How do we deal with a cartel 
like OPEC? Let us go back just for a moment, because I know it is 
somewhat boring, perhaps, but let us look at the books. Probably, in my 
opinion, one of the greatest philosophers and writers about capitalism 
in this country, or in the history of the world was Adam Smith. Adam 
Smith says a cartel, he did not use the word cartel, he called it a 
monopoly, ``A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading 
company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The 
monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never 
fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above 
the natural price, and raise their compensation, whether they consist 
in wages or profit, greatly above the natural rate.''

  So we have a system in balance out there. The natural rate is what 
Adam Smith refers to. But the monopoly allows one to exceed the natural 
rate.
  ``The price of a monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which 
can be gotten. The natural price, or the price that is the result of 
the market, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon 
every occasion, but for any considerable time together. That is the one 
that is struck by competition. The one that is upon every occasion the 
highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which, it is 
supposed, they will consent to give. The other is the lowest which the 
sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time that the 
sellers can afford to take, but at the same time continue their 
business.'' That is an important last few words, continue their 
business.
  My colleagues may be able to pay this price of oil for some period of 
time, but can we continue our course of business?
  ``Such enhancements of the market price may last as long as the 
regulations of police which give occasion to them.
  ``Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management.'' Let me 
repeat that. ``Monopoly is a great enemy to good management, which can 
never be universally established but in consequence of that free and 
universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse to it for 
the sake of self defense.''
  What does all that say? What it says is we have a system in balance 
out there and if we allow the cartel to proceed on the basis of which 
this cartel called OPEC is proceeding, these gas prices which are not 
their natural price, they are the highest price you can pull out, when 
you allow that cartel to exist without some type of repercussion, it 
upsets the apple cart, it upsets the market cart, and that is where it 
comes down. The interpretation is maybe not for those of you who are 
wealthy, but for those people in this society who are not wealthy, they 
are the ones that are stung first and they are the ones that are stung 
the hardest.
  I can tell my colleagues that many times in the chamber we deal 
perhaps with the wealthier class of society, but there is huge part out 
there that we cannot ignore. There are a lot of people out there that 
this gas price is hurting and it is stinging, and the administration 
has an obligation to stand up to this cartel. The administration's 
policy should be very clear on its action.
  The United States has allowed itself to become more and more 
dependent on foreign oil over the years. There are a number of 
different reasons. One, the United States has become much less friendly 
in exploration on its own continent. In fact, many other countries are 
saying, why should we allow the United States to come into our country 
to do exploration for oil and take our oil while they are reluctant to 
do exploration in their own country. That is one factor that has caused 
our dependence, more dependence on foreign oil.
  The other, in my opinion, is that the administration's policy is 
asleep at the gas pump, let us put it that way. They have been awakened 
recently, not suddenly; it is kind of like a bear that is

[[Page H1157]]

in hibernation: Kind of a slow awareness that there is a gas price 
problem out there on the market. There is a gas price problem for the 
average working American, and it impacts their families and it impacts 
education and it impacts jobs and it impacts our economy.

                              {time}  2215

  What do we do about OPEC? Well, let us talk about OPEC first of all. 
What are the countries of OPEC? I think we should take a look at that: 
Algeria, Libya, Indonesia, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, 
UAE, Venezuela. But there are few of them I want to point out 
specifically. That is the cartel. Those are the countries.
  Remember one of the countries I mentioned, Kuwait. Remember how, just 
a few short years ago, it was American forces that got together and led 
international forces to take Iraq and force them out of their invasion 
of this country, Kuwait. We lost American soldiers. We lost young 
American soldiers, men and women, for this country Kuwait. This is how 
they show appreciation; they become a member of a cartel to stick it to 
the United States.
  Now, I am not saying they are not entitled to a fair price. The 
market determines a fair price. Everybody is entitled to a fair price 
if the product has demand and if you supply what the consumers want. 
But to go outside the model of the marketplace and put together a 
monopoly which, by the way, is illegal in our country under most 
circumstances, to put that together under the form of a cartel, that is 
where we are out of kilter here.
  Now, what do we do? What kind of relationship do we have with some of 
these countries? Well, some of these countries, we do not trade with 
them. Iran, although my colleague, I believe the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), noted that last week the Clinton 
administration's new policy is on caviar and some other products, the 
United States has now opened the market to Iran. So while this cartel 
is forcing gas prices to unprecedented highs in this country, the 
administration's policy is opening up more free trade with Iran.
  Let us talk a little about some of the exports. This is kind of a 
two-way street. In my opinion, the Democratic policy here is kind of 
close your eyes, it will go down here by its natural self. Let us 
pretend it is not happening. Stall for a few weeks. Then if we get in a 
real crisis right before the election, our policy ought to be stand 
forward and hammer it. But right now, let us just kind of hope it goes 
away on its own. Well, even if the price drops a little, even if this 
price goes down, this thing is not going to go away.
  We have got to use some leverage. Do not be mistaken. All of the 
leverage does not belong to OPEC. It does not belong to that cartel. 
The United States of America and other free countries in this world 
have some leverage in this situation.
  Number one, we ought to go back to our friends, like Kuwait and say, 
how many years ago was it that we came into your country and gave you 
your country back? It cost American lives. It cost Americans billions 
of dollars. But we did it, one, because it was the right thing to do; 
but, two, we think there should be some appreciation in the future, not 
to put together this cartel. So that is one point of leverage, we can 
go to Kuwait.
  But we can go to any number of countries. We can go to Algeria. We 
can go to Indonesia. We can go to Iraq. We can go to Nigeria. We can go 
to Saudi Arabia. We can go to the UAE and say, hey, do you know what, 
we do buy oil from you, but you buy products from us. You buy American 
products. Then we ought to take a look at what those American products 
are.
  Do my colleagues know a lot of the oil that comes out of the ground 
that OPEC takes out of the ground, they do it with American ingenuity. 
It is American ingenuity that takes a lot of that oil out of that 
ground over there in the OPEC nations. So they are using our product.
  Take, for example, the steel casing that they put into the well, the 
drill bits that they go down into the well, the engineering technology 
of how to make it all come together, a lot of that is American product.
  In my opinion, the administration has some leverage there. The 
Democratic administration needs to stand up and say, wait a minute, 
what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You guys want to 
stick it to us on the price of oil. Maybe we ought to stand back up and 
renegotiate what the price of engineering services from America are. 
Maybe we ought to talk about the price of American products upon which 
you are dependent. Maybe we ought to do a little negotiation on 
products versus products.
  Oh, it is great to send over a Secretary and have a cup of coffee and 
talk to them and say, look, you are really offending us. Let us lower 
these prices. You have got to get tough. This is the business world out 
there.
  Do not discount this cartel. These are smart people. They figured out 
America is pretty easy to stick it to because they do not fight back. 
It is pretty easy to negotiate with this administration because they do 
not stand up and get tough on some of these issues. I am saying you 
have got to change that policy.
  I think we here in the House should encourage the Clinton 
administration to be more direct, more forthright, and more forceful, 
especially stress on the last, more forceful on the leverage that we 
have with these OPEC nations. Our consumers will be better for it.
  Now, I know that the President's policy came out in the last couple 
weeks and says, well, we need more energy conservation, and we need 
more solar energy, and we need more efficiency. That is all well and 
good. I mean, that is fine. I agree with some of those things. That is 
not going to happen tomorrow. That is not going to happen next week.
  We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to do that 
right now. Do my colleagues know what, the Government has really never 
come up with the solution. The people that have come up with the best 
solutions are the people that have the most to lose. Car efficiencies 
are not determined by the Government or invented by the Government. 
They are created by the car manufacturers who know that the consumers 
out there want more efficiency in their automobiles.
  But the point I am trying to make here is that this administration, 
with our support, ought to stand up to OPEC and say, hey, we are going 
to talk about these American products. Maybe we ought to put a special 
fee on American products, maybe 1,000 percent fee or something on those 
products until you begin to negotiate a little on your oil prices.
  As I said, these are smart people. The only way, in my opinion, you 
can negotiate with tough people is you send tough people in to 
negotiate with them. You cannot go in to a tough negotiator, show your 
hand, and frankly, act weak. They smell weakness. They can see it a 
mile away. They are like a good poker player. They can sense it a long 
time before you know they have sensed it.
  We do not have any reason to go in there with weakness. The United 
States of America is a strong country. It is a country that has a lot 
of leverage on this cartel. It is a country that ought to use it so we 
can bring those gasoline prices down at the pump so that we can get a 
barrel of oil down to a price that we are not going to impact 
everything from education to our economy.
  Now, we say education. Now that we get education in here, I just saw 
it the other day that some school has had to curtail their field trips 
because of the price of fuel to take their buses on these trips. They 
have had to cut back. That is the only place they thought they could 
cut back. It is having an impact, I say to the President. The 
administration ought to know this.
  Now, I know in Washington, D.C., there is a lot of black limousines 
and big fancy cars, and the price of gasoline may not be such a big 
deal with a lot of the people in the Government. But I am telling my 
colleagues, even here in Washington, D.C., there is a lot of people 
that go to work every day that do not drive in a black limousine; and 
there is a lot of people being impacted by these prices. I think the 
administration has an obligation to be tough, to get in there and 
wrestle with these people.
  Take a look at what we ship Kuwait, for example. Again, as a 
reminder, this is the country that we went to war for a few years back, 
7 or 8 or 9 years ago. It is a country that we gave lives for.

[[Page H1158]]

 Here is what Kuwait buys from us: aircraft and associated equipment, 
civil engineering products, contractor products, pumps, air or other 
gas compressors, fans, motor vehicles, chemical products, analysis and 
measuring tools, instruments, heating and cooling equipment, pumps for 
liquids.
  Every category I just mentioned to my colleagues is necessary for the 
production of oil. Yet, the administration has not mentioned one of 
those products to the best of our knowledge in their negotiations with 
OPEC about this cartel that has been formed to stick it to the free 
world.

  So I hope that, although I am not sure, I would hope that some 
message gets through to the administration that we have got to be a 
little tougher on these prices, that these prices are having a huge 
impact, a huge impact on the consumer in America.
  Today, we just saw the interest rate go up another quarter of a 
percent. Well, this is just the beginning of our problems if we do not 
do something about that gasoline price and the cost of oil.
  This last weekend, Mr. Speaker, there was an interesting article in 
the Denver Post. We are moving to a new subject. I want to talk about 
guns here for a little while. Last week, I talked about guns. I talked 
about OPEC as well, because I have not seen anything positive happen in 
regards to OPEC.
  But let us talk about guns. It is a sensitive issue. It is an issue 
that everybody in the country is concerned about. It is an issue that 
responsible gun owners are concerned about. It is an issue that 
manufacturers of guns are concerned about. It is an issue that the 
Government talks about being concerned about. It is an issue that every 
one of us in these Chambers are concerned about.
  What is responsibility in gun ownership? What is government 
responsibility in regards to gun ownership? What is the manufacturer's 
responsibility in regards to gun ownership? Let us visit for a few 
minutes about that.
  Let me begin by saying that the Denver Post ran an article this last 
weekend. In the Federal Government, we have an agency whose focus is to 
look and to inspect on behalf of the Government people who sell guns, 
illegal weapons, and so on. It is called the Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms, not an agency that has a good reputation, as my colleagues 
know, because of the disaster at Waco and a number of other issues. 
They do not exactly have the kind of reputation that the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation enjoys.
  But the ATF, that is the agency we are talking about, they have 
responsibilities. As I mentioned to my colleagues, when we talk about 
guns, we want to look at a number of different responsibilities: first, 
the gun owner; second, the gun manufacturer; third, the gun retailer; 
and, fourth, the Government.
  So the Government's primary agency here is the ATF. Those are the 
people that go out into the field. They go, for example, to a gun shop 
and see if the owner of the gun shop, the proprietor of the gun shop, 
is in compliance with the law.
  Well, the Denver Post is a major newspaper in the State of Colorado. 
We have two major papers statewide, the Rocky Mountain News and the 
Denver Post. The Denver Post ran, I guess, a full disclosure or full 
story on the ATF and what they have done in Colorado. I will tell my 
colleagues, when they are done reading that story, it is the prime 
example of bureaucrats that are not doing a darn thing in my opinion. 
That is a bureaucracy that we ought to take a very close look at.
  Look, I am not one of these fanatics that says, get rid of the ATF, 
or the Government does not have a role in responsible gun ownership. We 
do have a role in responsible gun ownership. But we ought to begin by 
cleaning our own house. My colleagues ought to read this story about 
the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the State of Colorado.
  Let me go through some of it for my colleagues. The title of the 
story, ``Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms called slow to act.''
  ``Federal regulators let two Colorado gun stores stay in business 
long after investigators reported they had sold guns to criminals and 
were operated by men forbidden to possess the weapons.''
  So the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, this bureaucrat agency that we 
have got, knew that the owners or the proprietors of these gun shops, 
one, should not be selling guns, had violated criminal statutes, and, 
yet, they continue to allow them to operate in their operation.
  Two examples. One of them happens to be in my district, by the way. 
Lakewood, Colorado, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 
granted a new firearms license to one Lawrence Lockert after State 
investigators concluded he had repeatedly sold handguns to people 
disqualified on background checks, including the convicted felon found 
running his shop.

                              {time}  2230

  Lockert kept the license, despite a 1998 restraining order 
prohibiting him from having weapons as well as bond conditions 
regarding that restraining order and a 1999 guilty plea to domestic 
violence charge.
  A further comment on that: The records show that the ATF was informed 
that Lockert sold handguns to people with criminal records nearly 4 
years before the agency took action.
  So in this Lakewood case, they knew there was a problem. The Colorado 
Bureau of Investigation, which is a good solid agency in Colorado, 
informed Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms that the problem existed, Alcohol, 
Tobacco & Firearms knew that the problem existed, and they sat on it 
for 4 years. For 4 years.
  How can we in Washington, how can those of us in elected office from 
our local States talk about responsibility of the gun owners when the 
government itself continues to drop the football on the very basic laws 
that are already in existence? How can we talk about rushing to the 
House floor to pass more and more gun laws when the current gun laws we 
have are being ignored by our own agencies? We need to clean house, and 
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms is a place to start.
  Let me go further. In CBI, which I mentioned before is the Colorado 
Bureau of Investigation, they found 10 instances in Lakewood in 18 
months in which customers had acquired handguns despite being denied 
criminal background checks. So, remember, we put in criminal background 
checks. I happen to agree with that. I do not have a problem with 
background checks. We put that in effect and, despite the fact that is 
in place, this dealer ignored it on 10 different occasions. Alcohol, 
Tobacco & Firearms found out he ignored it on 10 different occasions 
and just turned the other way.
  Now, when they were asked for a response, they gave two excuses. One 
of the excuses was, well, we just kind of lost track of the case. Now, 
that sounds reassuring. That sounds pretty good to hear from the 
government. We have a problem out there. We have somebody who ought not 
to be selling guns, it is against the law, who violated the law on a 
number of occasions, and they just kind of lost track of the case.
  The second excuse here, and I should point out here that I used to be 
a police officer, and I know when there is a problem, when a mistake is 
made, the easiest thing to do, as a cop, is to blame it on lack of 
resources. It is kind of like education. We never hear about the fact 
we need higher standards. People say, well, we did not have enough 
money. And that is exactly what Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms said to the 
Denver Post. We had very limited resources.
  Well, that does not work this time. Does not work, Alcohol, Tobacco & 
Firearms. That agency has received increase after increase after 
increase in their budget, and they are still negligent out there with 
some pretty critical cases.
  Let me talk about the second case. Delta, Colorado, in my district. 
It is a great community. I hope some of my colleagues have an 
opportunity to visit. But let me talk about the situation with a gun 
dealer out there. In Delta, State and Federal agents discovered in 1996 
that a man in prison three times on kidnapping and weapons charges was 
operating a store with a Federal license to sell guns. The ATF let the 
shop, licensed in the names of his wife and son, sell guns until its 
license expired more than a year later. Despite the fact there were 
clear grounds for charges, no charges were filed.
  I mean, come on. We need to go after these people. And we need an 
agency that can do it. Look, I represent the

[[Page H1159]]

West, and we have a very independent nature out there. We are not sold 
that we need big government coming into our back yard there to help us. 
We are not sold that we need more and more regulations. We happen to 
believe there are a lot of laws on the books that if enforced could go 
a long ways towards solving the tragedies that we all acknowledge exist 
out there. But, dadgummit, every one of us have a right to look at 
these agencies and tell these bureaucrats to get off dead center.

  Today, I am sure that the director of the ATF had on his desk a copy 
of the article from the Denver Post yesterday morning when he got in, I 
would hope by 9 a.m. in the morning. When he got in and looked at that 
article, he should have been on the phone 2 hours later saying, all 
right, which agents were responsible for this? What kind of action have 
these agents taken? What is being done by the supervisor for the 
Colorado region to make sure it never happens again? What is being done 
to make sure it does not repeat itself? I mean this guy ought to be, or 
this gal, ought to be enraged. Whoever runs that agency ought to be 
enraged.
  My bet is not much has happened over there at the slow moving 
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. Now, I am not talking about all of the 
agents. We have some good people that work for that agency out there. 
But we have to look at the historical basis. We look at performance. We 
look at standards. In my opinion, the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, on a 
number of occasions, whether we talk about Waco or any number of cases, 
but when we talk about Colorado, the ATF has failed us. They have 
failed the people of the State of Colorado and they have failed the 
people they work for, which are the people of the United States. We are 
not enforcing the laws that are on the books.
  Well, that moves me into the next subject, a subject that is dear to 
my heart. We will have a bill introduced tomorrow by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), the prime sponsor. It is a good bill and it 
highlights a project that I talked about last week, but I think it is 
important enough to talk about it again. We are trying to do everything 
we can and all of us, colleagues, every one of us in this chamber, we 
need to help step up public awareness of this project.
  This project, Colorado Project Exile, now, obviously the bill the 
gentleman from Florida is introducing tomorrow is Project Exile from a 
national level, but I want to talk a little more about what we are 
doing in Colorado. We all know that the Columbine situation that 
occurred there. We know the sensitivities that are happening across 
this country. So Colorado is a good place to talk about. It is a State 
that prides itself on its independence. It is a State in which a lot of 
its citizens own weapons. It is a State that has belief in the second 
amendment of the Constitution, but it is also a State that has stepped 
forward and taken a very aggressive stance on its Project Exile.
  Colorado's Project Exile has received bipartisan support from 
Democrats and Republicans. Our Democrat Attorney General Ken Salazar 
and his staff, very competent, they are in the lead on this. Tom 
Strickland, Democrat U.S. Attorney, he is the guy that put this project 
together in the State of Colorado. Our governor, who in my opinion is 
the finest governor in the history of the State of Colorado, Bill 
Owens, and his cabinet, they are behind us 100 percent and helping us 
with resources. Every sheriff's department, to the best of my 
knowledge, every police department, every newspaper in the State of 
Colorado, has endorsed this project.
  The beauty of this project is it does not require one more law. Not 
one more law. It is not saying, U.S. House of Representatives get 
together and put together some more gun legislation. It is not going to 
the State legislature of the State of Colorado and saying we do 
not have enough laws on guns. It is a focused effort to take a look at 
the laws we have and how can we enforce that to bring about 
responsibility.

  Now, I can say, and I should say, to do credit to Richmond, Virginia, 
that is where Project Exile got kind of its original start, to the best 
of my knowledge. What happened in that community is that in 1997, 
Richmond, Virginia, suffered the second highest per capita murder rate 
in the country. They implemented this project, what they called Project 
Exile. And why the words Project Exile? Obviously, project is self-
explanatory. Exile is, hey, you do the crime, you do the time kind of 
philosophy; except here, you break the law, we exile you to prison. You 
are going to pay the price. There is going to be a consequence for 
breaking the law.
  And there ought to be a consequence. And the consequence in Richmond, 
Virginia, is going to be immediate. It is going to be severe and it 
will mean something. And in Richmond, Virginia, we are going to go out 
and do public awareness. And in Virginia we are going to go out and 
have the public help us with public awareness. Just like the crime 
marches program. We want the people to get the word out.
  The second amendment is an amendment worth standing up for. But if 
someone abuses the responsibility, if they are violating the law, they 
are going to pay a price for it because we do not want to tolerate it. 
It is kind of like good cop, bad cop. The best thing good cops could 
do, the best thing good cops could do, having been a former cop, is get 
rid of the bad cops. That is the best thing to do. It is the same thing 
here. The best those of us who believe in the second amendment could do 
is do something about the people who violate the law. And that is what 
Project Exile is about.
  In 1998, after they initiated this, their homicides dropped by a 
third. Almost immediately their homicides dropped by a third. Their 
project involved Federal, State and local authority, and so does ours 
in Colorado, and we will go through that in a little more detail here 
in a bit. Under Project Exile in Virginia, 390 defendants were 
prosecuted in Federal Court in a very short period of time.
  What we did in Colorado is we have adopted the same program, and this 
is a poster that I have here that is a duplicate of billboards that we 
have gone out with throughout the State of Colorado. And let me tell my 
colleagues that we have also had not just participation from Tom 
Strickland and Ken Salazar and Bill Owens and Russell George and Ray 
Powers, who is president of the Senate, president of the House 
respectively, we have also got help from the business community. We 
have got help from the citizens of Colorado.
  We have made this a partnership. We have got assistance from the 
Federal government. And the McCollum bill, which will be introduced 
tomorrow on Project Exile, will go a long ways in helping make the 
Federal Government a bigger partner. But we have taken the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, who has coordinated it with the State Attorney 
General's office, with the State governor, and then we have gone to the 
business community and said help us fund this advertising campaign; 
help us get out the message that in Colorado if you break the law, you 
pay the price, and help us pay the price.
  That is why I am so upset with the ATF. They have dropped the ball in 
Colorado and, darn it, they ought to get back there and do their job. 
They have an obligation to us to do their job.
  Well, what our exile law does, and, as I said, it does not require 
one more new law, no more new laws, it goes out and says, hey, first of 
all, we want to make sure every police officer in the State of Colorado 
knows what the Federal gun laws are. We are going on the assumption, 
and it is a good assumption to make, that every police officer in the 
State of Colorado already knows what their municipal laws are in 
regards to guns, they already know what their State laws are in regards 
to guns, but they probably do not, understandably, know quickly what 
the Federal gun laws are. So we are giving them each a laminated 
placard, just like this, and very briefly it states what the Federal 
gun laws are. So if they make a stop or they have a contact with a 
suspect who has a weapon, they can very quickly scan this card. And if 
they see a violation, they can do something with it.

  What we have decided to do under our Project Exile is, any time a 
suspect is arrested with a gun violation or some kind of criminal 
activity that involves a gun, we immediately coordinate our municipal 
laws that are already in existence, our local laws, county laws that 
are already in existence, and our State and Federal laws

[[Page H1160]]

 that are already in existence. We then send it over to what we call 
our gun squad. The gun squad is a squad made up of prosecutors in these 
different agencies, primarily led by the U.S. Attorney's Office, again 
Tom Strickland. And what they do is they quickly do an evaluation on 
these violations and say, hey, this fella violated a Federal law. We 
can be tougher under the Federal law than we can the State law, so let 
us prosecute this in the Federal courts.
  In other words, what we are doing is we are putting an awareness 
campaign out there that if a violation of the law in Colorado in 
regards to guns, is going to be met with the toughest law we have on 
the books, we are going after that violator with the toughest law we 
have on the books. Why? Because the people who are breaking the law, 
frankly, are putting a bad reputation on those who are following the 
law.
  And, remember, possession of the weapon is not the big problem, it is 
misuse of the weapon. A lot of times in these chambers what we focus on 
is possession of the weapon. It is a diversion. It is a red herring. 
What we need to focus on is the misuse. And that is what Project Exile 
does.
  Now, in our public awareness campaign we put, pack an illegal gun, 
pack your bags for prison. Report illegal guns, and we give a 1-800 
number. One of the more successful programs we have had, as my 
colleagues know in their own neighborhoods, is crime watchers.

                              {time}  2245

  You call up, we give 1-800 names to turn in people. We offer rewards. 
We do not have to know your name; Crime Stoppers, different programs, 
Project Thief, things like that.
  We think we can reach the same kind of success here. If we know 
somebody has a fully automatic weapon, it is obviously illegal. Call us 
on the 1-800 number, we will go after them. We have got response teams. 
We are going to respond to this, just like we respond to bank robbers. 
The alarm goes off, we respond. We hit it hard. We hit it fast.
  There was a day where bank robberies were out of control in this 
country. We put together a responsive effort; that is what we are 
attempting to do here too. We have got some bad characters out there 
who are abusing the responsibilities, who are breaking the law, abusing 
the responsibilities as a citizen; we want to make them pay the price.
  Project Exile in Colorado is working, and it is only a few months 
old. We have seen dramatic results. We have seen excellent cooperation 
between the different law enforcement agencies. It is working. We did 
not pass the new law in Colorado in regards to this. We have gone into 
the books, we dusted them off, and it is working.
  We are also advocating and going after, and kudos to the Denver Post 
in Colorado for looking at the Federal agencies that are responsible 
and have a responsibility in this partnership who are sitting on their 
duffs, and that is exactly what the ATF in Colorado has done.
  You can be assured that when I go to Colorado, the ATF is not going 
to be very happy with me. I do not care. Do your job. You have got an 
obligation.
  Back to Project Exile. Let me say a few concluding remarks. This is 
important. This will work. I know that there has been a lot of 
propaganda out there. There has been a lot of people on both sides of 
the aisle. You have got the handgun control outfits. You have got the 
NRA, all of these people.
  There has been a lot of discussion out there about guns. Most of the 
discussions that are taking place out there, especially in regards to 
more laws, and more laws are not going to have the kind of impact that 
we are led to believe they will have. Do not be misled. It feels good. 
A lot of the propositions that come before us on this House floor are 
feel-good propositions. They make you think that you are doing 
something to help address this gun violence problem we have in this 
country.
  There is not a Member in this Chamber that does not want to do 
something about this violence. We are sickened by it just like our 
constituents. We want to do something, but do not be misled on some of 
these feel-good bills. This is not a misleading deal. This is not feel-
good.
  This is, where is the meat? There is the meat right there. Project 
Exile has the meat. Project Exile raises the stakes for the people that 
want to break the law. Project Exile incorporates a partnership, our 
citizens, our constituents, our businesses, to help us pay for those 
billboards, our law enforcement agencies, in coordination to go after 
these people. It will work, give it a chance.
  It worked in Richmond, Virginia. It is working in Colorado. It is 
going to work clear across this country as more and more communities 
adopt the Project Exile philosophy.
  Let me move to an entirely different subject, one I want to visit for 
a minute about the death tax. It is kind of interesting. I met a young 
person today. I guess this young person was about 15 years old. He 
talked to me about his family, his grandpa. Apparently, his grandfather 
is sick or has passed away; and he said, my family is getting hit real 
hard with this tax. Can you tell me a little about the tax?

  Well, I did not have an opportunity to visit with the young person, 
but I hope to later. Let me tell you what this country does. As you 
know, we have to have taxes. Obviously, we have to have taxes in this 
country. We need to fund our defense. We need to fund our 
transportation, et cetera, et cetera. But years and years ago, because 
some people in this country thought that other people in this country 
were too wealthy and that we really ought to transfer wealth instead of 
through work or instead of through the Adam Smith philosophy, we ought 
to transfer wealth by going to the wealthy people and saying we taxed 
you throughout your life; but upon death, we are going to go ahead and 
tax property that has already been taxed. That is a clever way to 
redistribute wealth.
  Let us just defy the age-old proven theory of Adam Smith and the open 
market. Let us just transfer, redistribute wealth by taking from the 
rich and giving to the poor, the old Robin Hood philosophy. That is 
kind of the beginnings of the death tax in this country.
  Is the death tax justified? No. It defies the logic of what our 
system is built upon. We all carry a fair share, but redistribution of 
wealth through taxation does not work. What does the death tax do?
  I will tell what kind of impact, and colleagues you know this. If you 
do not, go out there and look at any small business in this country, if 
they have been in business very long, if their business has grown very 
fast, or if the homes that your constituents reside in for very long, 
they can easily be facing the punitive action of the Federal Government 
coming in upon their death and imposing a tax on their estate. It is 
called the death tax. It is unfair.
  Now, remember it would be fair, I would guess, if you had some 
property out there where the fair share of tax had not been paid on it 
and you came in and said, you know, you have not paid your fair share 
of tax, so we are going to assess a tax. But that is not what happened 
in the death tax. In the death tax, you are being taxed, with the 
exception of some IRA accounts; but that is very limited. You are being 
taxed on property that you have already paid taxes on at least once, 
probably two or three times.
  It is devastating. In districts like mine, where we have lots of 
ranches; we have lots of small family operations. These families cannot 
go out and afford the life insurance. I had one fellow say to me, look, 
just tell these ranchers to go out and buy life insurance, so when they 
pass away they can still pass the property on to their family, because 
the life insurance pays for the taxes.
  I said wake up, you are going on the assumption that there is enough 
money made in ranching and farming and small business to pay the kind 
of premiums that are necessary to give the Government that kind of 
money. It does not happen.
  And what happens in Colorado? For example, take a ranch, take a 
family ranch, one of the things that we are proud of in Colorado, you 
are proud of in Pennsylvania, you are proud anywhere that you have got 
open space, is we have families who have generation after generation 
worked and tilled the land that they support themselves and their 
neighbors off of, and they take a lot of pride in that.
  Now, they face all kinds of obstacles in being a small rancher, a 
farmer, the

[[Page H1161]]

market, number one, the commodity prices falling, the costs of doing 
business. Do you think on top of it we ought to give them the biggest 
obstacle of all, and that is their own government coming in and saying, 
upon your death, we are going to tax you again on this property?

  In Colorado, when you go into a small ranch and you do that, you know 
what then, instead of ranching being, perhaps, the use of the property 
that is desired, it then develops into highest and best use theory, 
which means you take that 3,000-acre ranch and divide it up into 35-
acre partials and build homes all over it. It is the only way really in 
a lot of circumstances, if you do not have the wealth to afford life 
insurance, you can get out of this taxation.
  I want people to be aware that there is a distinct difference between 
the Democrats, the administration's policy on the estate tax, the death 
tax, and the Republicans. The Republicans have, and I am not trying to 
be partisan here, but this is a partisan issue. This death tax has 
become a partisan issue. The Republicans are saying that this is an 
unfair tax on its face.
  It is punitive on its face. The Democratic administration has come in 
and now this year in their budget, in the Clinton-Gore budget, they 
have proposed an increase in the estate tax, an increase, not help us 
get rid of it. I mean, the least they could do is help neutralize it or 
not raise it, but the Clinton-Gore administration has come in and said 
we are going to raise the estate tax.
  And for any of my colleagues that might shake their heads, cannot 
believe it, take a look at the budget proposal. It is in there, a $9.5 
billion increase. The estate tax is fundamentally unfair, and we should 
do something about that.
  In conclusion, as you know, we covered a bunch of different topics 
this evening. If I were to say what was the most important, it is, one, 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, get out there and do your job in 
Colorado. You have got the resources. Do not use it as an excuse. The 
people deserve more from your agency.
  Number two, Project Exile will work. Help us. Adopt it in your 
States; talk to your constituents about Project Exile. And, 
congratulations, by the way, to all of the partners in our Project 
Exile partnership in Colorado, whether it is Tom Strickland; Ken 
Salazar; my friend, Bill Owens; Ross George; Ray Powers; whoever it is 
out there, you are doing a good. We are going to make it work.

                          ____________________