[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 110 (Monday, September 18, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7713-H7719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NIGHTSIDE CHAT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Until the end of Congress, I am going to be here to 
rebut the gentleman from New Jersey who employs the doctrine of fear. 
He likes to get up here in front of the microphone and speak to all of 
you and give these misstatements, misleading statements, inaccurate 
statements. Less than 5 minutes ago, I just heard the gentleman from 
New Jersey say, and I quote, The Republican leadership, speaking of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, they used the 
word ``cruel,'' they throw a few bucks at the insurance companies. And 
then these Democrats talk about the dream team, about how everybody is

[[Page H7714]]

going to be caught in this wonderful net, and all of your needs, your 
prescription needs, your medical needs will all be met by this 
Democratic Congress and by this Democratic Gore plan. Have you ever 
heard of the proposition, You don't get nothing for free? Somewhere 
somebody has got to pay for it. You better figure out what the problem 
is. I think we can agree on the problem. The Democrats that were up 
here, they would like you to believe that they are the only ones that 
understand that there are prescription service problems out there in 
our society and that they are the ones with the solution and their 
solution is very simple.
  It tracks the Canadian health care plan. It is nationalized health 
care. It is socialized health care. The Republicans and frankly some 
conservative Democrats are saying, Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Before 
we jump into this pool of nationalized medicine, what you tried to do 
with Hillary Clinton about 6 or 7 years ago, 7 or 8 years ago, let's 
take a look at what the ramifications are; let's study other nations 
that have jumped into the same pool that you want us to jump into, for 
example, Canada, and take a look at what the Canadian system has that 
is better than our system.
  That is what I propose you do. Before you jump into the pool, take a 
look at what the unintended consequences are. Maybe there are some 
things in the Canadian health care system that are better than the 
American health care system. But I would tell you this, that in America 
you still get the best health care of anywhere in the world. When they 
like to come up here and talk about the uninsured Americans, remember 
that there are different categories. You may have somebody that is 
uninsured; but no matter where you are in America, you can never be 
denied emergency care at a hospital if that hospital receives 
government funds. And I do not know any hospital, I am sure there are a 
couple of them out there but not very many more that do not operate on 
government funds.
  The fact is, the prescription drugs in this country, the prices that 
are being charged for them are in my opinion outrageous. There is no 
question that the angel here is not the pharmaceutical companies. But 
let me tell you, there is also something to be said about the research 
that these pharmaceutical companies ought to be doing so that we have 
better medicines.
  You take a look at the kind of medicines we have today, just in the 
last few years. I can remember 3 years ago when you got diarrhea, you 
drank that junk, that pink junk, you drank it. You drank a whole thing 
of it to try to get rid of the diarrhea. Today you buy a little packet 
about this big with little pills, you pop one pill and that is it. Our 
country is the country that makes advancements. We have got to do 
something about these outrageous prices that have snuck in here. For 
example, I do not know why the Democrat from New Jersey, instead of up 
here bashing and misleading all of you by saying that the Republicans, 
the leadership, have planned this cruel hoax on the Americans. Really, 
honestly, is there anybody you have ever met in elective office that 
wants to go out and play a cruel hoax on the constituents they 
represent? Is that an exaggeration? Of course it is an exaggeration.
  But the fact that we come back to is this: What do we do to bring the 
pharmaceutical prices into line without bringing in nationalized health 
care? The Democrats are very easy to stand up here in front of you, 
ladies and gentlemen, and stand in front of my colleagues and promise 
you the Moon, the magic cure, greener fields on the other side of the 
fence. All I am saying is before you jump on the other side of the 
fence, take a look at the consequences of the plan that they are 
proposing.
  Where do you think Al Gore, the Vice President, is going to get his 
money from this? It comes out of that surplus. Remember, this is the 
first time in 30 years we have had that surplus. As I say, clearly 
there is a problem out there. We need to address that problem. But the 
Gore approach and the Democratic Congress approach or at least the 
liberal side of it, I have got to say, I have got to restrain myself 
because we have several conservative Democrats who do not agree with 
the liberal approach as just espoused by the gentleman from New Jersey. 
But the liberal Democratic approach is the Hillary Clinton approach, 
nationalized health care, socialized health care. I can tell a lot of 
you right now, 64 percent of the people in America, as I understand, 
have some kind of prescription care service.
  You better figure out what the gentleman from New Jersey is proposing 
to do with the service of those of you that have prescription care in 
moving that to the people that do not have prescription care service. 
There are lots of consequences to what the Democrats, the liberal 
Democrats, are proposing when they offer you something for nothing.

                              {time}  2130

  There is a price to be paid, and I think it is incumbent upon the 
gentleman from New Jersey and his colleagues when they stand up here 
and trash and cut down more conservative Democrats or the conservative 
Republicans. I think it is incumbent on them to kind of have an 
openness requirement. Tell the people what the consequences are of 
nationalized health care. Tell people what the consequences are of a 
Canadian-type of system. Talk about it. Tell the people what the 
consequences are of research for better medicines.
  Know this is why this Congress just does not jump up and sign the 
blank check offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. We are not going 
to jump up and sign a blank check, at least enough of us on both sides 
of the aisle are saying wait a minute, what are we doing, what are the 
consequences. Clearly, we all agree on the problem.
  Despite what the gentleman from New Jersey says, nobody is patting 
the pharmaceutical companies on the back and saying be proud of 
yourself. They have not done a good job in some regards with medicine, 
but frankly it appears that there is some gouging going on out there.
  But before my colleagues address that problem, take a very careful 
look at what the Democrat, the liberal Democrat approach is, because I 
can assure my colleagues in the long run, first of all, they promise it 
will only be 10 percent of the surplus and a much, much smaller percent 
of the budget and nothing will grow and grow and grow; and it is the 
open door for socialized medicine in this country, for a national 
health care, and there are a lot of people who, in my opinion, will 
suffer under a national health care plan.
  Nobody should be forgotten and nobody should be left behind, but 
there are ways to address that without going into a Hillary Clinton-
type of health care plan. So my discussion here tonight was not 
intended to be on health care, but there is nobody else that stands 
here to rebut these gentlemen, as they speak here unrebutted for 1 hour 
about the so-called quote cruel hoaxes by the Republican leadership.
  Those words ought to be stricken from the Record. They are 
inaccurate. They are misleading. The gentleman from New Jersey and some 
of his colleagues, they know that the cruel hoax by the leadership. I 
did not say there is a cruel hoax by the Democratic leadership. Come 
on, we have more protocol on this floor. We can be more ladies and 
gentlemen in talking about the problem.
  The people that suffer while this partisan bickering goes on back 
here are the senior citizens that do not have prescription care or, by 
the way, anybody that does not have the ability to care for themselves. 
But do not address it by waving the magic wand and saying look, 
citizens, we have got something for nothing. We are going to take care 
of all of your health care needs. We are going to take away your 
personal responsibility and the government is going to assume it.
  Remember, every time, and I cannot say this strong enough, every time 
the government assumes one of your responsibilities, every time the 
government takes a burden of yours and makes it a burden of theirs, 
they take something with it. It comes with a price. Somewhere we are 
losing a freedom. Somewhere we are going to lose the ability to have 
choice in the future.
  So in summary on this health care plan, let me say, I am discouraged 
by the comments that were made previous to my speaking here this 
evening. We do not get anywhere, and I direct my remarks at the liberal 
Democrats. Look, we are not going to get anywhere with a nationalized 
health care

[[Page H7715]]

plan. We are not going to get anywhere with socialized medicine.
  Why do you not sit down instead of talking about how leadership has 
this cruel conspiracy going on by throwing a few bucks at insurance 
companies? Why do you not put the election-year rhetoric aside and sit 
down with us and help us try and figure out what a solution is.
  Every day that we use that kind of rhetoric, there are people out 
there who are suffering because my colleagues are not willing to sit 
down and put their heads together to come up with a solution. And there 
is a solution.
  I am optimistic that we can have a solution. We do have a great 
country, and we have made wonderful strides in health care. But clearly 
we have got some problems in that system, but we can fix it without 
having our health care provided by the United States of America, which 
means they are going to oversee what doctors you see. They are going to 
oversee what kind of prescriptions you get. They are going to oversee 
what kind of treatments you get. They are going to oversee how often 
you are going to get to see this doctor or that doctor. Socialized or 
national medicine is not the magic answer it appears to be.
  Tonight it is very easy to buy into this, very easy to buy into this, 
because the Democrats, the liberal side over here, not all Democrats, I 
stand corrected, the liberal Democrats over here, they think you are 
going to get something for nothing. And they are saying, look, it is 
easy for us to afford it, no problem. Remember, you do not get 
something for nothing.

  Let me switch subjects and talk about something much, much more 
pertinent, I think, really because of the Olympics. I hope some of you 
have are having the opportunity to watch it. In fact, I was over at the 
office before I came over this evening watching the Olympics, how 
exciting that is, even if it is taped NBC or whoever does that. The 
reality of it is look what we get to see clear across the ocean in 
Sydney and watch those Olympics, and I am very proud of those people.
  I want to tell you I heard an advertisement, I will not tell you the 
name of the company the other day, but I heard an advertisement about 
the Olympics, and it said our young men and women that go over there to 
compete in the Olympics, they will come home heroes. And I thought to 
myself, you know, they will come over celebrities. I would like to have 
their autographs. I am proud of them.
  But I think using the word heroes is somewhat of a delusion. I think 
the real word of heroes is used in a different type of setting. There 
are sports celebrities, and there are heroes.
  I have a perfect example. I am not just up here talking without 
giving you an example. It is happening this week in Pueblo, Colorado. 
First of all, on my way over I real quickly grabbed a dictionary, and I 
looked up the word hero. Hero, a mythological or a legendary figure 
often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability, an 
illustrious warrior, a man admired for his noble qualities, one that 
shows great courage, an object of extreme admiration and devotion with 
courage.
  With that said, let me read an editorial from one of the leading 
newspapers in the State of Colorado, the Pueblo Chieftain. It is called 
Patriots Week. What is Patriots Week about? This is a celebration of 
heroes.
  This week, we anticipate more than 110 Americans, more than 110 
Americans who have been decorated with the Medal of Honor, which is the 
highest honor our country can give out, 110 of them will be in Pueblo, 
Colorado, to be honored by a city which was recently designated as one 
of the four finest communities to live in this country. Pueblo, 
Colorado, picked out of hundreds of communities. It was picked in the 
top four.
  This week Pueblo is hosting 110 medal of honor winners, and they are 
calling their week Patriots' Week. I am going to go through my poster 
here in a few minutes with you and show you some of the interesting 
things about what this week is going to consist of.
  First of all, let me read the editorial out of the Sunday Chieftain 
Star and Journal, my good friend Bob Rawlings, who is the publisher and 
editor, this is Patriots Week, the home of heroes in Pueblo, Colorado. 
On Tuesday, the National Medal of Honor Society convenes here for its 
annual convention. Pueblo is home to four medal of honor recipients, 
the most of any city at least in modern times.
  On Thursday, larger-than-life bronze sculptures of the four Puebloans 
who won this will be unveiled at the Pueblo Convention Center. They are 
Carl Sitter, William Crawford, Drew Dix, and Jerry Murphy. Mr. Sitter 
and Mr. Crawford died this year, but not before they got to see their 
sculptures taking form. Also included is a display of all medal of 
honor recipients dating back to the Civil War, when the Nation's 
highest honor was approved by the United States Congress.
  A black tie patriot dinner on Friday will bring five greats from the 
world of sports to Pueblo. Golfer Arnold Palmer; gold glove baseball 
player Brooks Robinson; NBA center David, The Admiral, Robinson; one-
time boxing champion Gene Fullmer; and the NHL hockey star Pat 
LaFontaine will receive the Society's Patriot Award for the joy and 
support they have given to our military forces. Also commentator Paul 
Harvey and World War II cartoonist Bill Maudlin will receive special 
awards from the Medal of Honor Society.
  Two other veterans organizations are in Pueblo this in week in 
conjunction with the Society's convention. Two days ago, the 50th 
anniversary reunion of the 578th Combat Engineering Battalion began. 
Later this year, the crew of the Peachy, a B-29 piloted by Puebloan 
Bill Haver that flew raids over Japan, will meet for its annual get-
together. Mr. Haver named the plane, a replica of which is at the 
aircraft museum at the Memorial Airport in honor of his sister Peachy 
Wilcoxson, and I know Peachy. Today is Constitution Day. All of these 
patriots spot for the ideals embodied in the United States 
Constitution, and many of their comrades perished in that effort.
  So let each and every one of us reflect on that remarkable document 
and re-dedicate ourselves to the cause of liberty and justice. Well, 
how exciting. In Pueblo alone, for example, I would like to just to 
kind of, for a moment, go over who are the four members who are from 
Pueblo, Colorado.
  As I mentioned in my comments, unfortunately, two of our members, two 
of our citizens of Pueblo, passed away earlier this year. Mr. Crawford, 
who was in the Army, you can see right here, and Mr. Sitter, right 
here, but we still have surviving Drew Dix, the gentleman right here 
with the red dot, and Jerry Murphy, who was in the Marines in Korea.
  This is the plaza that Pueblo, Colorado, has dedicated and put 
together through contributions from the local community. Here is a 
community that came together, did not come to the United States 
Congress and ask for money, did not expect the government to do it; 
they got together in their community of Pueblo, Colorado, to honor all 
medal of honor recipients, but specifically to put something that will 
be a long-lasting recognition of the four medal of honor winners from 
Pueblo, Colorado. That is what that little plaza is going to look like. 
The statues, here is one of Jerry Murphy, 8\1/2\ feet tall; that is the 
completed statute there honoring Jerry.
  Here, so you have an idea, there is Bill Crawford before he passed 
away as he stands with the statue of him, which is also about 8\1/2\ 
feet high. This is going to be an exciting week in Pueblo.
  What I thought I would do is share with my colleagues four of the 
stories of these medal of honor winners. I can tell you that I have had 
the occasion, and I consider it amongst the highest privileges of my 
congressional career, if I were to kind of recapture my memories of 
serving in the United States Congress, where I felt the most fortunate 
to meet somebody or the most privileged to be able to shake their hand, 
I would have to put it in the order of, I am Catholic, the Pope, and 
Mother Theresa, and right behind them, our medal of honor winners.
  In fact, I was in a parade in Pueblo not very long ago, and I had the 
opportunity in that parade to shake the hands of two medal of honor 
winners who were watching the parade. You feel so much pride, because 
these people are such heroes. They really are what heros are, the word. 
They do not cause any delusion to the word hero.

[[Page H7716]]

 They embody hero in its fullest envisions.
  Let me talk about Drew Dix. I will point out Drew here. Drew right 
here. By the way, a special hello to his mother, a very sweet person in 
Pueblo, Colorado. Let me talk a little about Drew, Drew D. Dix, U.S. 
Army Special Forces Vietnam, citation for conspicuous gallantry in the 
action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.
  Sergeant Dix distinguished himself by exceptional heroism by serving 
as a unit advisor to heavily armed Vietcong battalions attacked the 
providence capital of Chau Phu resulting in complete breakdown and 
fragmentation of defenses of the city.
  Sergeant Dix with a patrol of Vietnamese soldiers was recalled to 
assist in the defense of the city. Learning that a nurse was trapped in 
a house near the center of the city, Sergeant Dix organized a relief 
force, successfully rescued the nurse and returned her safely to the 
tackle operations center; but that is not all.
  Being informed that now there were other trapped civilians within the 
city, Sergeant Dix voluntarily led another force to rescue eight 
civilian employees located in a building which was under heavy mortar 
and small arms fire. Sergeant Dix then returned to the center of the 
city. Upon approaching a building, he was subjected to intense 
automatic rifle and machine gun fire from an unknown number of 
Vietcong. He personally assaulted the building, killing six of the 
Vietcong and rescuing two Philippinos. The following day, Sergeant Dix, 
still on his own volition, assembled a 20-man force, and though under 
intense enemy fire, cleared the Vietcong out of the hotel, the theater 
and other adjacent buildings within the city.

                              {time}  2145

  During this portion of the attack, Army Republic of Vietnam soldiers, 
inspired by the heroism and success of Sergeant Dix, rallied and 
commenced firing upon the Viet Cong. Sergeant Dix individually captured 
20 prisoners, including a high ranking Viet Cong official. He then 
attacked enemy troops who had entered the residence of the deputy 
providence chief and was successful in rescuing the official's wife and 
children.
  Sergeant Dix's personal heroic actions resulted in 14 confirmed Viet 
Cong killed in action and possibly 25 more. The capture of 20 
prisoners, 15 weapons and the rescue of 14 United States and free world 
civilians. The heroism of Sergeant Dix was in the highest tradition and 
reflects great credit upon the United States Army.
  Raymond Jerry Murphy, and if you ever go to Pueblo, Colorado, you 
will see Murphy Boulevard. I mean, these guys are real heroes. Their 
community loves them. Our country has deep respect for Medal of Honor 
winners. Excuse me. Not winners they did not win it. Medal of Honor 
recipients, and I stand corrected on that.
  Raymond Jerry Murphy, United States Marine Corps, Korea, citation for 
conspicuous gallantry at the risk of his own life, above and beyond the 
call of duty as a platoon commander of Company A, an action against 
enemy aggressor forces. Although painfully wounded by fragments from an 
enemy mortar shell while leading his evacuation platoon in support of 
assault units attacking a cleverly concealed and well-entrenched 
hostile force occupying commanding ground, Second Lieutenant Murphy 
steadfastly refused medical aid and continued to lead his men up a hill 
through a withering barrage of hostile mortar and small arms fire; 
skillfully maneuvering his force from one position to the next and 
shouting words of encouragement. Undeterred by the increasing intense 
enemy fire, he immediately located casualties as they fell and made 
several trips up and down the fire swept hill to direct evacuation 
teams to the wounded, personally carrying many of the stricken Marines 
to safety.
  When reinforcements were needed by the assaulting elements, Second 
Lieutenant Murphy employed part of his unit as support and during the 
ensuing battle personally killed two of the enemy with his own pistol.
  With all of the wounded evacuated and the assaulting units beginning 
to disengage, he remained behind with a carbine to cover the movement 
of friendly forces of the hill, and although suffering intense pain 
from his previous wounds he seized an automatic rifle to provide more 
firepower when the enemy reappeared from the trenches.
  After reaching the base of the hill, he organized a search party and 
again ascended the slope for a final check on missing Marines, locating 
and carrying the bodies of machine gun crew back down the hill. Wounded 
a second time, while conducting the entire force to the line of 
departure through a continuing barrage of enemy small arms artillery 
and mortar fire, he again refused medical assistance until assured that 
every one of his men, including all of the casualties, had preceded him 
to the main lines.
  His resolute and inspiring leadership and exceptional fortitude and 
great personal valor reflect the highest credit upon Second Lieutenant 
Murphy and enhance the finest traditions of the United States Marine 
Corps.
  William Crawford, our third Pueblo citizen, United States Army, World 
War II, for conspicuous gallantry at the risk of life and above and 
beyond the call of duty in action, with the enemy in Italy, 13 
September 1943, when Company I attacked an enemy-held position on hill 
424, the third platoon in which Private Crawford was a squad scout 
attacked as a base platoon for the company. After reaching the crest of 
the hill, the platoon was pinned down by intense enemy machine and 
small arms fire. Locating one of these guns, which was dug in on a 
terrace on his immediate front, Private Crawford, without orders, and 
on his own initiative, moved over the hill under enemy fire to a point 
within a few yards of the machine gun emplacement and single-handedly 
destroyed the machine gun and killed three of the crew with a hand 
grenade; thus enabling his platoon to continue its advance.
  When the platoon, after reaching the crest, was once more delayed by 
enemy fire, Private Crawford again, in face of intense fire and on his 
own volition, advanced directly to the front midway between two 
hostile, two this time, hostile machine gun nests located on a higher 
terrace and placed in a small ravine. Moving first to the left, with a 
hand grenade he destroyed one gun emplacement and killed the crew. Then 
he worked his way to the right and under continuous fire from the other 
machine gun emplacement, he used one hand grenade and the use of his 
rifle and he killed one enemy and blew out the machine gun nest and 
forced the remainder of the enemy to flee.
  Seizing the enemy machine gun that was left from the one emplacement, 
he fired on the withdrawing Germans and facilitating his company's 
advance.
  These are remarkable individuals.
  Carl Sitter, United States Marine Corps Korea, for conspicuous 
gallantry at the risk of his own life, above and beyond the call of 
duty as a commanding officer of Company G, in action against enemy 
aggressor forces, ordered to break through enemy infested territory to 
reinforce his battalion the morning of 29 November. Captain Sitter 
continuously exposed himself to enemy fire as he led his company 
forward, and despite 25 percent casualties suffered in the furious 
action, he succeeded in driving the group to its objective.
  Assuming the responsibility of attempting to seize and occupy a 
strategic area, occupied by a hostile force of regiment strength, 
deeply entrenched on a snow covered hill, commanding the entire valley 
southeast of town, as well as the line of march of friendly troops 
withdrawing to the south, he reorganized his depleted units the 
following morning and boldly led them up that steep frozen hillside 
under blistering fire, encouraging and redeploying his troops as 
casualties occurred, and directing forward platoons as they continued 
the drive to the top of the ridge.
  During the night when the vastly outnumbered enemy launched a sudden 
vicious counterattack, setting the hill ablaze with mortar, machinegun 
and automatic weapons fire and taking a heavy toll in troops, Captain 
Sitter visited each foxhole and gun position, coolly deploying and 
integrating reinforcing units consisting of service personnel 
unfamiliar with infantry tactics

[[Page H7717]]

into a coordinated combat team and instilling in every man the will and 
determination to hold his position at all costs.
  With the enemy penetrating his lines, in repeated counterattacks 
which often required hand-to-hand combat, and on one occasion 
infiltrating to the command post with hand grenades, he fought 
gallantly with his men in repulsing and killing the fanatic attackers 
in each encounter. Painfully wounded in the face, wounded in the arms 
and wounded in the chest by bursting grenades, he staunchly refused to 
be evacuated, and he continued to fight on until a successful defense 
of the area was assured with a loss of the enemy by more than 50 
percent of their troops dead or wounded or captured. His valiant 
leadership, superb tactics and great personal valor throughout 36 hours 
of bitter combat reflect the highest credit upon Captain Sitter and the 
U.S. Naval service.
  These four gentlemen that I just described as heroes who got the 
Medal of Honor are from Pueblo, Colorado, but I want to remind all of 
my colleagues there is what we call the Medal of Honor Society, and 110 
members of that society will be in Pueblo, Colorado, this week to be 
honored by our community and to be honored by our Nation for what they 
have done.
  Those four stories I told are but a drop in the bucket of the stories 
of valor, the stories of courageous brave men and women, who stepped 
out above the call of duty because they believed in America. They 
believed in freedom and they were willing to lay their life down for 
it.
  This weekend I had a wonderful opportunity to spend with my wife and 
my parents in Meeker, Colorado, and we were up at the cemetery, an old 
cemetery, we were in the old section of the cemetery, and I walked by a 
grave and it was a young man, not much on the gravestone, had the 
gentlemen's name, had his birth. He was 22 years old, and all it said 
on the gravestone was he died for his country.
  As we know, we have thousands and thousands and thousands of men and 
women in this country who have died for their country, and we have 
hundreds of thousands of men and women who have fought bravely for what 
this country stands for, for the freedom of this country, for the 
benefit of all of us.
  We cannot acknowledge everybody with a Medal of Honor, so we know 
that there are brave and courageous individuals out there who should 
have received the Medal of Honor, who earned the Medal of Honor but did 
not receive it, but we do know we still have a group of individuals who 
did receive the Medal of Honor, and they truly should own lock, stock 
and barrel the title of hero.


       What Kind Of Violence Are We Educating Our Children With?

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to move on. It is election 
year so in the last week and a half we all of a sudden begin to hear 
about a problem that, frankly, I addressed over a year ago. Not that I 
knew that I could foresee this problem, we had a lot of people talking 
about it after the Columbine High School tragedy in Colorado, and that 
is, what kind of violence are we educating our young people with?
  We know that at tender ages, at younger ages, that is an opportunity, 
probably the maximum opportunity, to mold a young person, to influence 
a young person, to set him upon a direction in the life that they are 
beginning. Unfortunately, for example, the tobacco companies took full 
advantage of that. They marketed their products to very, very young 
individuals because they knew, frankly, that they could get them 
addicted. They knew what the disease was that they would cause. They 
knew the evils of tobacco, but nonetheless they knew their customer 
base had to constantly be renewed and the best way to renew it was to 
go into this fragile age, say 14, or maybe 12 to about 17, and get them 
hooked on the product that you wanted them to buy.
  Well, we see the same kind of thing happening today in the video game 
industry. There is actually a market out there not for what I would 
consider bad entertainment but what I would consider trash. Now, look, 
I am not up here bashing Hollywood. I go to the movies like all the 
rest of you. I enjoy them. In fact, I watch Titanic any time I get an 
opportunity to. I have lots of favorite movies. So do you. There are a 
lot of neat things about Hollywood. In fact, I think films in America 
really speak freedom throughout the world. It is amazing on my 
international travels what kind of influence America has because there 
is American music in these countries, in China, for example, or when 
the American movie industry starts to creep into China, freedoms, 
people see what freedoms are about. So I think Hollywood has a very 
strong place in our society, and I think that under our First Amendment 
they have constitutional privilege, and 99 percent of the product that 
comes out of there is good product, but unfortunately 1 percent of it 
is being ignored by the other 99 percent.
  Now I am not talking about entertainment that I do not like. Look, 
there are movies out there that I would not watch. There is music out 
there that I am not entertained by. I can assure you that my three 
children, who are all now in college, are not exactly entertained by 
the kind of music I listen to and they are not necessarily entertained 
by the kind of movies I like to go to. So I am not talking about music 
that is not entertaining to my ears or to my sight. What I am talking 
about is violence that is being marketed in a retail sense clear across 
America.
  Now some people have said, well, what should government do about it? 
I do not think we need what is called a recreation or an entertainment 
czar. I do not think we need that any more than we need socialized 
medicine in this country. Our country prides itself on saying to the 
individuals, look, you have personal responsibility. The people in 
America still exercise a great deal of personal responsibility. So what 
can the government do about this? I think we in the government have an 
obligation for an awareness, to put out as much as we can about what we 
think is going on out there so that we can communicate a message to the 
maximum amount of our constituents.
  For example, I had not been in a video arcade in a long time before 
last year. After Columbine, I was at the Denver International Airport 
and I decided to go into the video arcade, and I think out of the 27 
games in that video arcade in Denver, Colorado, well over half of them 
were games of killing somebody; violence; games of shooting each other.
  Now to the credit, Mayor Wellington Webb of Denver, Colorado, I 
called the city and I said, hey, I have just become aware of this. We 
do not have anything in the government that prohibits the City of 
Denver from leasing this video arcade to have this kind of 
merchandising of violence, but the mayor took it upon himself and 
within I would say half a day those games were out of that video 
arcade.

                              {time}  2200

  It did not take government action; it did not take a U.S. Congressman 
coming back here with his colleagues and passing laws to get it out of 
the arcade. It took the responsibility, the personal responsibility of 
the people of Denver, led by their mayor and the mayor's staff, and 
they stood up to it and they took it out in about a half a day.
  Well, I think we as congress people, we have to take this message to 
our constituents and say hey, go visit your local video arcade, see 
what is going on in your neighborhood. For example, I had one of my 
constituents give me the magazine that his then 13-year-old boy bought 
off the counter. I am going to show my colleagues this magazine in a 
few minutes and what it markets. This magazine right here. It markets 
terror, it markets violence, it markets death, and it markets it in 
such a way that it knows that the typical 13-year-old or 14-year-old 
will grab this and begin to become influenced and molded by what they 
are reading, and what they are seeing, and pretty soon, what they are 
playing when they buy the video game.
  For example, on this chart here, this is a video game that is 
advertised in this magazine. This magazine is called, Next Generation. 
This is the ad, a full, 2-page center-fold ad. The name of the game and 
the name of this ad is ``You're Going to Die.'' This is what is being 
marketed out there: ``You're Going to Die.''
  Now, in the last week, Hollywood has gotten defensive, and I have 
heard some artists say well, you cannot impede on the right of free 
speech and an

[[Page H7718]]

artist's opportunity to have free thought. Come on. We have to have 
some peer enforcement. We have to exercise responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree with Hollywood; I do not think the 
government ought to have an entertainment czar. But I do think, and I 
would say to my colleagues that if we have constituents in the 
entertainment industry, that we have to emphasize upon them that, look, 
we all have a duty, a responsibility to our young people. This incident 
that occurred at Columbine High School, it did not occur because of 
this magazine, but let me tell my colleagues, there are some violent 
things out there, in my opinion, that have occurred as a result of this 
kind of game.
  Let me show my colleagues. I have blown up the ad. This ad is 
available to our children and our constituents. Any constituent out 
there that has children, they can go to the store and pick up this 
magazine, no problem.
  Now, take a look at this ad. This is the video game that we can buy. 
``You're Going to Die.'' You will see right here to my left the 
individual, this is a person who has been shot, that red is obviously 
blood. Let me tell my colleagues what the game offers. It offers its 
player to zoom in, to zoom in on this game, right up here, one can zoom 
in on one's computer, and one can target specific body parts and 
actually see the damage done, including exit wounds. They do not have 
to show a lot. All you have to be is a kid with some money and you go 
in the video store and you buy this game. You can steal a bike or hop a 
train just to get around town. Even the odds by recruiting the gang 
members you want on your side. Talk to people the way you want, talk to 
them any way you want on the video game. Actual game play screens, 
built on top of the revolutionary Quake 2 engine, includes multi-player 
gang bang death match for up to 16 thugs. Life of crime. Unbelievable.
  I pulled it up tonight. I web to the web site. Needless to say, a 
year ago, when my constituent came to me with this after we were 
discussing what had occurred at the Columbine High School in Colorado, 
I was amazed.
  I contacted the executives of one of the magazines that advertises 
this type of advertising and then too, I contacted the producers of 
this game, and I asked those executives; in fact, I disclosed their 
names on the House Floor, I asked those executives about their own 
children. Believe it or not, on the web sites, on their web sites they 
disclosed their background, or maybe on financial documents under 
public corporation disclosure, they described their families.
  So I wrote them and I said, Mr. Executive, Mr. Big Corporation 
Executive, do you allow your children to go buy the product that you 
are trying to market intensely to every other child in America? I will 
bet any amount of money, I say to my colleagues, that not one of the 
executives of this company allows their own children to possess this 
game that they, in turn, are marketing to every other American family 
that has children the same age they have, young children. Not one of 
those executives puts that trash in their own children's hand. Do we 
know why? Because they know the impact of what this influence means. 
They know what the result will be if we continue to allow these kids to 
play game after game after game where one can focus in and see the 
damage of exit wounds, where they are encouraged to steal a bike, where 
they tell you to go in and gang bang death and talk smack.
  When the tobacco companies first came forward and said oh, this is 
not addicting; when the tobacco companies first came forward and said, 
kids have the right to choice, this is not addictive to young kids, we 
are not targeting young kids, it was a lie, and it is the same thing 
here. Do not let this company tell us they are not trying to grab that 
young kid, that young boy or girl, the future leaders of our country, 
the future citizens, the members of our families, I say to my 
colleagues, we know darn well what this company is trying to do with 
this videotape. Stuff cash in their pockets at the expense of the right 
and wrong of our children.
  I pulled up the web site tonight, I wanted to see if this company had 
changed anything since I had written to them. They have not changed 
much.
  Let me tell my colleagues how they describe that. I pulled it off the 
web, it is called a story off their web site. ``Somewhere in the past 
that never existed lies the world of kingpin'', that is the name of 
this game, ``a landscape of burned out buildings and urban decay where 
local gangs rule the street. Begin your rise to the top, assembling 
your own gang of thugs. If a new member turns out to be a punk, waste 
him. Waste him, and make room for new blood. Moving up in the world is 
sure to attract the attention of kingpin. Eventually, you are going to 
have to take him down, but you knew that anyway.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is awful. I pulled that off the web site tonight 
before I came over here to speak. This company has not slowed down one 
bit.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate. I contacted Imagine 
Publishing, and Imagine Publishing, by the way, is the magazine that 
puts this stuff out. I asked Imagine, I talked to some of their 
executives about a year ago, why do you put this kind of stuff in? 
Well, they start to give me the freedom of speech and the First 
Amendment. I said, wait a second, wait a second. Why do you put this 
stuff in there? Would you let your own children play with it? Well, no, 
but that is not the point, they said. The point is that really we do 
not censor.
  Essentially, anybody that wants to put something in one of the 
Imagine publications, why, this is just fine. Do they have any sense of 
responsibility to the community that they maybe ought to say no? I did 
not get any idea at all, I did not get any feeling that the Imagine 
Publishing Corporation cared at all about any kind of community 
responsibility to the young people that picked up their magazine called 
Next Generation right here and saw this ad and went out to buy that 
kind of video game.
  Now, of course I contacted Interplay, as I mentioned earlier in my 
remarks. I contacted Interplay, and as I mentioned earlier in my 
remarks, I said to them, do you let your own children do it? Why do you 
go out to America, why do you go out to our communities and market this 
kind of crap? Why do you do it? Look at this garbage. Do you think it 
is a distortion of reality? Do you think that you, in effect, are 
brainwashing our young people, that violence is the answer? And to 
think nothing of killing and to think nothing of being proud of the 
exit wounds the size of the exit wound that you create in a body, and 
that if you want to get around town you just steal a bike or a train, 
and then if you have a gang member you do not get along with, waste 
him, you are going to do it anyway? I did not get any sense of 
responsibility out of that corporation called Interplay.
  So my conclusion is this, I say to my colleagues. We have to shoulder 
a responsibility to go into our communities. We should go and look in 
our local arcades. Most of the video arcade dealers that I have talked 
to, and prior to last year I had not gone into video arcades since my 
kids were that big playing pinball machines, and they have changed a 
lot. And my bet is most of my colleagues have not gone into their own 
districts and stopped just at a regular video arcade store to take a 
look at the games that are being played. But I have done that in the 
last year, and I can tell my colleagues that most of the video arcade 
owners that I have talked to responded much the same way that the city 
of Denver responded saying, wow, we really were not paying attention to 
it. We will get the game out of there.

  Mr. Speaker, I can also tell my colleagues that I went to the 
advertisers. I figured I was not going to get this publisher to do 
anything, because he wanted the cash; and, by the way, there was a she 
too, a she executive, and they wanted the cash in their pocket. They 
could care less, in my opinion, about community responsibility towards 
our youth and violence.
  So I went to the advertisers, and I tried to encourage the 
advertisers not to buy advertising in this magazine. I set up meetings; 
it did not require Federal law, it did not require U.S. congressional 
action. I set up meetings with Target, with City Market, King Supers 
Corporation, with Wal-Mart Corporation, with J.C. Penney Corporation. 
Every one of those retailers was responsive and every one of those 
retailers has taken not large steps, but

[[Page H7719]]

small steps and, in some regards, some aggressive steps towards doing 
something about making sure that this kind of stuff, this kind of true 
violence is taken off of those retail shelves, is not being offered for 
sale by some of these retailers.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what I am speaking here tonight about. I think 
we have an obligation.
  I know that in the last week Al Gore prided himself on taking on 
Hollywood. I think we have to go to the grass-roots. I think each one 
of us, each one of my colleagues, we need to go into our communities, 
take it by the grass-roots, just like we are doing in our political 
campaigns in the next 5 or 6 weeks and talk to our local video arcades, 
talk to our local parent-teacher organizations, talk to our local 
churches and say, hey, here is somebody over here, we ought to ask them 
to take this stuff off of their shelves. We ought to go to the local 
Wal-Mart or local Target or local K-Mart, or the bookstore, and if they 
have this kind of stuff, we ought to ask them to take it off. I think 
we would get a pretty positive response. Because most citizens out 
there, unlike the executives of Interplay, and unlike the executives of 
Imagine, most people out there that are proprietors that have their own 
businesses and who are operating these businesses and have more 
community responsibility. After all, they are a part of the community.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I think we can be successful, and I do not think we 
need to take the kind of action that requires Federal oversight.


                       Eliminating the Death Tax

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, let me move on to another subject very 
quickly. I am going to wrap up with a letter that I got after our last 
discussion. In our last night side chat, we talked about the death tax. 
We talked about the fact that the President at that time was going to 
veto, and has subsequently vetoed; not only supports death as a taxable 
event, but that the Clinton-Gore administration actually proposed this 
year in their budget a $9.5 billion increase in the death tax.
  Now, it was amazing how much I heard, the rhetoric, about how the 
death tax only hits 2 percent of the community. It hits the entire 
community. Because to summarize, what happens with the death tax is we 
take the money out of a community and we transfer that money, 
regardless of whose money it is, it is still money that circulates 
within that community, and we move it from that community to 
Washington, D.C. to the bureaucracy and the U.S. Federal Government for 
redistribution. I can assure my colleagues that not a fraction of what 
we send in goes back to our community.
  I got a very interesting letter subsequent to that and I would like 
to read just parts of it.

                              {time}  2215

       Although my own personal experience seemingly pales in 
     comparison to the families in Colorado and Idaho who lost 
     ranches and farms in order to pay estate taxes, I can still 
     easily relate to the frustrations that those families are 
     experiencing. I am just one of the growing number of middle-
     class Americans who feel that they have literally been 
     ``screwed'' by their own government, and I encourage you to 
     continue in your efforts to repeal our country's death tax 
     laws now to prevent more of us from having to experience what 
     my own family recently experienced.
       My mother fought a valiant battle against breast cancer for 
     a few years, but passed away in 1996. Sadly, she had just 
     turned 65 years old. She was a full-time mother and also 
     worked hard as a nurse for many years to pay college tuition 
     for my sister and I. Dad worked most of his life for a 
     defense contractor as an aerospace engineer. You can see that 
     both of my parents were not farmers or ranchers, but they 
     worked at jobs that many ordinary Americans work at. Both of 
     my parents were also raised in families that survived the 
     Great Depression, and, as a result, they acquired a deep 
     appreciation for the value of a dollar. They both worked hard 
     and they were also great ``savers.''
       They were wealthy in many ways, but they certainly were not 
     rich. When mom and dad were in their early thirties they 
     purchased a dream home in a typical middle-class track 
     neighborhood on Long Island for about $16,000. They resided 
     there for 40 years, and last year my sister and I had to sell 
     the house, which we sold for many many times what my folks 
     bought it for, and every penny we got from that House went to 
     the Federal Government to pay for the death tax.
       Dad passed away unexpectedly. We knew that my folks had 
     planned all their lives for retirement, but we didn't have 
     any idea how they really had saved all those years. They did 
     not have an extravagant lifestyle, but they lived 
     comfortable, as many middle-class American families do. Upon 
     retirement, dad and mom wanted to ensure that they could 
     continue to live the comfortable standard of living they had 
     come to enjoy as middle-class Americans during their prime 
     earning years. Unfortunately, neither one of my parents got 
     to reap a dime from their IRAs, their pension account, their 
     savings or from the proceeds of the sale of their home. 
     Rather, as I just mentioned, my sister and I were forced to 
     sell the home soon after my dad's passing in order to pay the 
     death taxes on the estate that was left to us.
       There aren't as many farms anymore, for many reasons. Many 
     baby-boomers, like my sister and I, who are now just 
     beginning to inherit the wealth of a previous generation, 
     were born and raised in suburban cities and subdivisions. 
     Even here in Colorado Springs, my own kids are far removed 
     from the rural farming communities that you had referred to 
     in Colorado and Idaho. But, nonetheless, many city folks from 
     previous generations also worked hard all of their lives. 
     While they do not have farms or ranches to leave to their 
     children, they do have other kinds of assets to bequeath.
       While the estates of middle-income Americans often will not 
     qualify them to be included among the rich and famous, these 
     estates are, nonetheless, considered sizable to most of us. 
     Many suburban and city dwellers save so they can retire 
     comfortably, as my parents had planned, and many, like my 
     parents, many intended their estates to be passed to their 
     own children and to their grandchildren, estates that had 
     already paid the taxes on the property, and they wanted to 
     have enough money to send their grandkids to college. But 
     they did not intend upon their death for 55 percent of their 
     estate to be handed over to the government because death is a 
     taxable event. It is absolutely ludicrous and unconscionable 
     to think that this could happen in America, but it is a 
     reality.
       I was amused by your comments in which you indicated that 
     the current administration would most likely, once they left 
     office, seek out the expertise of tax attorneys and 
     accountants to advise them how to best shelter their assets 
     on their estates to avoid paying the death taxes. How true 
     that is. But the irony is that many of these folks probably 
     are already sheltering their assets in various tax deferred 
     plans so their heirs can avoid paying these taxes.
       If my father would have lived for a couple more years and 
     had gotten into the retirement routine, he probably would 
     have tried to seek advice too. But he just never got around 
     to it. My dad used to laugh, ``don't worry, I won't spend 
     your inheritance on fancy sports cars and other expensive 
     toys. There will be something for you.''
       I am sure millions of Americans haven't gotten around to it 
     either, and I know these folks would be equally distraught to 
     know how much that they would have passed on to their 
     children instead automatically goes to the Internal Revenue 
     Service.
       My sister nor I never felt we were owed or entitled to an 
     inheritance. Our parents provided for us and we were raised 
     to be independent. We also knew that both of our parents 
     fully intended to have what they worked so hard for to be 
     conveyed to their children, as was directed in their wills. 
     My parents were known for their generosity to their family, 
     their church and their community, but we never knew that they 
     would have contributed 55 percent of their entire estate to 
     the Federal Government.

       So, you know, I know there has been a lot made about the 
     death tax and the President says and the vice president, 
     well, it is a tax for the rich. This is middle-class America. 
     As I said earlier in my comments, few are a contractor, all 
     you have to do is own a dump truck, a pickup, a bulldozer and 
     a backhoe, and if you own it, you are subject to that death 
     tax. It has a very punitive way of working against 
     communities. And what bothers me the most is not, of course, 
     the Kennedys and the Fords and the Carnagies and all those 
     people. They have lawyers to plan to save their estate. But 
     what bothers me the most is the small communities, where 
     somebody who has been successful in that community and that 
     money is working in that community, either through 
     contributions to charity or jobs or otherwise, and that money 
     is taken by the Internal Revenue Service and transferred to 
     Washington, D.C. for redeployment through government 
     programs.
       It simply can be summed up in a couple or three words: It 
     is not fair.

                          ____________________