[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 13, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H863-H870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NIGHTSIDE CHAT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cantor). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different subjects 
that I would like to address tonight.
  Let me begin, first of all, by thanking all of my colleagues for 
their support for the successful passing of the legislation, the 
willing seller, willing buyer legislation for our national trails.
  The specific trail that I focus really on a lot in the State of 
Colorado is the Continental Divide Trail. It is kind of ironic that 
years ago a piece of legislation was amended to put in place that a 
property owner who wishes to sell their land, a private property owner 
who wishes to sell their land to a trails committee or to the 
government for a trail like the Continental Divide Trail was prohibited 
from doing so even though the seller wanted to sell.

[[Page H864]]

  It was an amendment that made no sense. Today a great trail like the 
Continental Divide Trail, and we all know a little bit about the 
history of that, that trail is being prevented in essence from being 
finished for its preservation, because willing sellers, not 
condemnation, condemnation has no place in putting a trail like this 
for a historic basis, but a willing seller does have a place.
  That legislation that was almost unanimously approved this evening, I 
think we probably had three no votes off the entire floor, allows that 
now to proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of people, my good friend, Steve 
Fossel out in Colorado out in Silverthorne, Colorado, very aggressive 
on his support of this.
  He is a citizen. He is very active in conservation issues. He is also 
a private property owner. He is a rancher. He feels very strongly about 
private property rights. This is the kind of legislation as a private 
property advocate that he could support. He got way behind it. He has 
worked very hard.
  Of course, we also have Bruce and Pamela Ward. Bruce and Pamela Ward 
are the directors of the Continental Divide Trail, and they have done a 
tremendous task over the years of putting together everything from 
voluntary maintenance crews to go out and work on the Continental 
Divide Trail to putting together records for the historical purposes, 
the paper trail on the Continental Divide Trail, no pun intended, and 
all the other numerous tasks that are involved to preserve such a great 
part of our history.
  Mr. Speaker, I openly congratulate Bruce and Paula Ward for their 
hard and difficult work, but this is the accomplishment that we got.
  I also, of course, want to thank all of my colleagues for their 
support this evening in the passage of that.
  Let me move on to my second subject that I wish to address tonight. I 
say this with a great deal of pride. As most of my colleagues know, my 
district is in the fine State of Colorado. My district is larger 
geographically than the State of Florida. Essentially, I have almost 
all of the mountains in Colorado. So any of my colleagues that have 
skied in Colorado or if they have been to Aspen or Snowmass or 
Steamboat or the Colorado National Monument in Grand Junction or the 
Four Corners down there in Durango or the ski area down there or the 
San Luis Valley and the agricultural fields, any of that country in 
Colorado belongs in the 3rd Congressional District.
  We take a great deal of pride from what we have to offer as far as 
the physical beauty of that particular district, and we have just been 
recognized by the Travel Channel.

  Glenwood Springs, that is where I was born and raised. Glenwood 
Springs is a wonderful community, about 35 minutes from Aspen, 
Colorado, about 45 minutes from Vail, Colorado, and about an hour and 
10 minutes from Grand Junction, Colorado, so you can kind of 
triangulate in there exactly where Glenwood Springs is.
  Glenwood Springs was named by the Travel Channel as the number one 
spot in the Nation for cooling off. So if my colleagues have an 
opportunity to go to Glenwood Springs, my colleagues will see there the 
most world famous hot springs pool, which is the largest natural spring 
water pool in the United States.
  It is a great resort, and it certainly is deserving of the honor that 
it received by the Travel Center. We have gotten a lot of calls at the 
local chamber who want to find out how to visit Glenwood Springs.
  But when you go out to visit the 3rd Congressional District, take a 
look, because the 3rd Congressional District actually is a textbook 
example of a district that has huge amounts of public lands, of a 
district that is totally reliable, totally reliable on the concept of 
multiple use, on a district that has seen as much or more activity as 
any district in the Nation in regards to wilderness areas.
  Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have put a couple of wilderness areas in 
place, a district where the water in Colorado, 80 percent of the water 
in Colorado is in the 3rd Congressional District, 80 percent of the 
population resides outside the 3rd Congressional District.
  Colorado is the only State in the Union where it has no free-flowing 
water for its use to come into Colorado. It all goes out. Water is a 
key ingredient of the 3rd Congressional District.
  The reason I say it is a textbook example is because you have the 
issues of public lands. You have the issues of private property 
ownership. You have the issues of national parks. We have four 
wonderful national parks in Colorado, all of which are either totally 
contained or partially contained. In fact, three of the four are 
totally contained within the 3rd Congressional District, and the 
fourth, a good portion of it, is in the 3rd Congressional District.
  You have the issue of water. You have a number of different issues 
that we hear about. Here in the East, for example, you do not 
experience that to any kind of large extent, except if you are in the 
Appalachian Trail or down in the Everglades, the concept of public 
lands, because essentially from the eastern border of the 3rd 
Congressional District In the State of Colorado to the Atlantic Ocean, 
you have very, very little Federal land ownership or government land 
ownership.
  From that eastern border of the 3rd Congressional District to the 
Pacific Ocean, you have lots of Federal and public land ownership. 
There is a lot of history to that.
  I intend to take an hour on this floor here in the not-to-distant 
future to talk about the concept of multiple use, to talk about the 
grub-staking of the 1800s, to talk about why you have huge quantities 
of Federal lands in the West and very little Federal lands in the East. 
There is a reason for it. But it was by the luck of time that the East 
frankly escaped a lot of government land ownership and the West got 
saddled with it.
  There are a lot of decisions that are made in the East where the pain 
of public land, in particular, examples is not felt, but it certainly 
is felt in the West, and that is why you see the West get a little 
parochial about the fact. We feel the pain out here. There are a lot of 
issues like water.
  In a lot of the areas in the East, your big factor is to get rid of 
water. You have too much of it. In the West, we are an arid area. We 
have to store our water. We have to use our water for hydropower. We do 
not have a lot of water. We are arid States. There are any number of 
different issues.
  I hope as you consider visiting some of our vacation spots which are 
located in the 3rd Congressional District, for example, Aspen, Beaver 
Creek, Vail, Steamboat, Telluride, Durango, Grand Junction, Pueblo, all 
of these areas, they are all in that 3rd Congressional District. When 
you go out there, take a look, spend just a little time, colleagues, 
and study the concepts of public land ownership, of private ownership 
of water in the West and why it differs from water in the East as far 
as the dynamics of ownership and the dynamics of the system that 
permits water usage out there.

                              {time}  2015

  There are a lot of interesting things, national parks and the 
maintenance of national parks. The wildlife issues. My particular 
district, the Third Congressional District, has the largest herds of 
elk in North America. We have huge populations of mule deer. In fact, 
this morning I was running. I just came to Washington today. I was 
running at 4 o'clock this morning in Grand Junction. I saw a coyote and 
fox in one run. This is in the community. We have a lot of wildlife.
  It is a wonderful, wonderful district to represent. It is a great 
district to go visit. But there are a lot of complex issues that I 
would urge my colleagues to become a little more acquainted with them 
if they are not already acquainted with them as it pertains to the 
West.
  Let me move on to another subject that I think is important. We keep 
hearing about this tax cut that President Bush has proposed. It seems 
to me that there are some of my colleagues on this floor who have now 
made it their life duty to kill the tax cut regardless of the 
ramifications to the economy as a whole. I need to tell my colleagues, 
we have got to keep in mind what happens.
  I had an interesting flight today as I came into Washington D.C. I 
sat next to a gentleman named Bill. Bill asked me, Well, if you keep 
the money in

[[Page H865]]

Washington, D.C., and by the way, even under the tax cut of President 
Bush's proposal, most of the money is kept in Washington, D.C., but 
going back to the question that Bill had, if you keep the money in 
Washington, D.C., does that money automatically reduce the debt?
  My answer to Bill is, that is the problem. If you keep the money in 
Washington, D.C., if you keep those surplus dollars here in Washington, 
it is going to get spent. It does not just sit around here. It is too 
tempting.
  It is like somebody who is on a diet but can be tempted very easily. 
And I happen to be a good example of that. I like sweets. If I were on 
a diet, you know, I do not have a lot of resistance towards sweets. If 
you put me in a candy store on a diet, I cannot help it, I grab some 
candy.
  That is what happens with money in Washington, D.C. It is not just 
because you have congressional people that are weak. That is not true. 
In fact, most of my colleagues that I am acquainted with, which are 
most of them here on the floor, are pretty strong individuals.
  But the fact is we have constituents who continually come to the 
great halls of Congress and want money, and the programs that they want 
money for happen to be not bad programs. We do not get proposals very 
often for bad programs. We get proposals for good program after good 
program after good program. The problem is you do not have enough to do 
it all. The problem is you have got to have the ability to say no.
  If you have got a big pile of money sitting behind you, how do you 
look at somebody who has a good program but maybe not a necessary 
program? And there is a big difference between a good program and a 
necessary program. Some good programs are necessary, but some good 
programs are not necessary.
  So the problem that we have here is, when we have good programs, and 
constituents, whether it is senior citizens, whether it is young 
people, whether it is any welfare, any kind of program, and they come 
to us and they say, Look, why can you not fund this new program for us? 
You have got all this money. You have got all this surplus.
  So we are under a lot of pressure back here by our own constituents 
who want us to fund their programs. They understand the fact that we 
have to control spending, unless of course that control impacts their 
particular program.
  So the best thing one can do when you have got an economy that is 
going south like our economy is currently headed, the best thing one 
can do is put some dollars back into the pocket of the people who sent 
the dollars here in the first place.
  Remember, here in Washington, D.C., this is the one city in the 
entire Nation, there is no other city like it in the Nation, that is 
totally dependent upon taxpayer dollars. If you go to Denver, Colorado, 
if you go to Portland, Oregon, if you go to Laredo, Texas, or Hays, 
Kansas, or Lansing, Michigan, those communities are not totally 
dependent like Washington, D.C. is on the transfer of money. Not the 
creation of wealth, mind you, not the creation of wealth, which is 
necessary in Laredo or Hays or in Denver and so on. Washington, D.C. is 
totally dependent on taking money from people who work and transferring 
it to a bureaucracy in this huge city.
  So here in this city, which is totally dependent on these excess 
dollars, spending these dollars, do my colleagues think it is safe to 
leave excess money laying around? Do my colleagues know where that 
money is best used? Not here in Washington, D.C. for redistribution 
through the bureaucracy.
  If you question my analysis on that, ask anybody you want, ask any of 
your friends. Use this example, say to your friends, Hey, if you just 
won $10 million in the lottery, and you feel like you want to give it 
to charity or you want to put it out in society to help people, would 
you bring your $10 million to Washington, D.C. for redistribution to 
the American people? Of course you would not. You would redistribute 
that yourself. Why? Because you think you would be much more 
productive. You think you could get that money put to a much better use 
out in your local communities.
  Therein lies the problem. The tax cut that the President is proposing 
is a very important leg on a three-legged stool for the survival of our 
economy, not the survival, that is an overstatement, but for the health 
of our community, for the health of our economy.
  That three-legged stool consists of a tax cut, putting dollars back 
to the people who are paying these dollars. They have paid too much. 
When somebody pays too much, they are entitled to a refund. That is 
number one. We have got to get those tax, at least a portion of those 
taxpayer dollars without jeopardizing the future of our country. We are 
not jeopardizing our defense. We are not jeopardizing our education. We 
are not jeopardizing the health of this economy or this Nation by 
giving a portion of those dollars back to the people who paid too much 
in. But that is leg number one on the stool.
  The second leg is our monetary policy; and that, as all of my 
colleagues know, is driven by Alan Greenspan. Now, we do not control 
Alan Greenspan here in the United States Congress, nor do they in the 
other House. Alan Greenspan acts independently. I think he has acted 
with pretty reserved judgment.
  I can tell my colleagues that, a year ago, nobody was criticizing 
Alan Greenspan when NASDAQ was at an all-time high, the DOW was at an 
all-time high, the S&P was at an all-time high. Let Mr. Greenspan do 
his job. His job right now is to put some money back into that economy, 
not put more money back in Washington, D.C., put more money back in the 
economy, which he does by lowering the interest rates. He is doing his 
job. I fully expect a half-percent cut in the rate next week at their 
next hearing.
  Of course the third leg of that stool, which is so important for us 
to help restore the health to our economy, is we have got to control 
spending. One of the easiest tools to control spending is limit the 
amount of dollars that are sitting around here in a bucket waiting for 
us and our constituents to spend. If the money is laying around, how do 
we tell people that it is not available for use for a good program? 
Again, remember, our choices in Washington, D.C. are not between good 
and bad programs. That is a pretty easy choice to make. Our choice is 
between good and good programs. We have got to control spending.
  So to recap, this stool must have all three legs on it for one to sit 
on it, for our economy to stabilize. We have got to control spending, 
number one. Alan Greenspan has got to bring down those rates. He is 
doing that, number two.
  But number three, again, it falls back on our shoulders here in these 
fine Chambers. We need to put some of those tax dollars back into the 
people's pockets, in their local communities, so it stays in the local 
community.
  I will give my colleagues an example. You take any town in America 
and take a dollar, a dollar in that community. You keep the dollar, 
this is in any town in America, you keep the dollar in that community; 
and that dollar circulates in that community. It works in that 
community.
  What you do with taxes, you take that dollar out of the community, 
and you move it to Washington, D.C. where it circulates clear across 
the country in some cases. You think that dollar in Washington, D.C. 
that came from this community goes back to this community? Of course it 
does not. Of course it does not. It is very important for us to realize 
what a dollar does in the local community.
  Now of course this theory is all shot to pieces if, in fact, the 
people in the local community take their dollars, go out in their 
backyard, and literally bury it in the ground. But short of that, a 
dollar in a community has a lot more opportunity to create wealth than 
a transfer of wealth from your local community to Washington, D.C.
  These people back here in Washington, including the U.S. Congress, we 
thrive on dollars that we did not have to go out and compete for those 
dollars. The government does not have to go out and figure out a 
creative product. They do not have to invent a better mouse trap or 
come up with a cure for the common cold to create dollars in 
Washington, D.C. All they do is look at people across the country, our 
work force, and they say, well, we need a little more food in 
Washington. We need a little more, you know, juice in Washington. So we 
are going to raise your

[[Page H866]]

taxes. Well, we did raise their taxes. And do you know what? The 
taxpayer has overpaid.
  For a period of time, we have instability in our economy. The best 
way to pull stability back to the economy is to put dollars back in 
those taxpayers' pockets.
  Now we will hear some of my colleagues on this floor, colleagues who 
say, Well, wait a minute. You should not give money back to a taxpayer 
if that taxpayer happens to be making any kind of money, say if they 
are middle income or higher income. You should give that dollar to 
people at the very lowest end of our economic society.
  Well, now, wait a second. A tax refund should go to the people who 
pay taxes. If you are not paying taxes, you should not get a tax 
refund. You should not get a tax credit.
  Now, granted, we do have the lower economic part of our society; and 
that is why we have welfare. But let us call a welfare system welfare. 
Do not mix it up or interchange it with the taxing system. The taxing 
system takes money from productive working people and moves that to 
Washington. It also takes money, which is later refunded because those 
people do not pay taxes, and puts it back in there.
  But my point here very clearly is, you do not gain the economic 
stability, that stimulus that you need by taking dollars and giving 
them to people, giving it to people who have not paid taxes. A tax cut 
is for those people who have paid the taxes.
  Now, am I concerned about different economic brackets? Of course I 
am. But what is my primary focus here? My primary focus is to 
strengthen the economy for everybody. If we can go out and stimulate 
certain parts of the economy, for example, the agriculture community, 
if we can go out and strengthen them, and everybody in the economy 
benefits because the entire economy is strengthened, what is there to 
criticize?
  I think that it is fundamentally unfair for any of my colleagues to 
automatically say, Oh, this tax cut is for the rich. That is a bunch of 
propaganda in my opinion. Or, Oh, the tax cut, we cannot afford the tax 
cut. Leave the money in Washington. Trust us here in Washington, D.C. 
with your extra dollars. It will go to reduce the debt. Promise, we 
will not spend it on new programs or additional spending.
  You cannot resist it back here in Washington, D.C. in part because 
your own constituents will not let you resist spending that money. 
Again, if your constituents sense that you, as an elected 
Representative, have access to dollars, they will come after them.
  Last week I had legitimate requests just in one day. It involved the 
space program. It involved the new program for education. It involved 
the seniors' program. I think it involved the military request. I had a 
request in the period of about 3 hours of meetings for over $900 
million. That is in a typical day of a typical Congressman here in 
Washington, D.C. Do you think I could have said no to those people, 
they are all good programs, if I had had $900 million sitting behind me 
in my office for distribution?
  That is why it is important that we give a fair and legitimate look 
to President Bush's proposal. I am telling you, this vote counts. This 
issue counts. This economy needs to be stabilized. This is not a 
laughing matter. There is no juggling a couple political balls in the 
air.
  What we are involved with here is clearly in the next period, short 
period of time, trying to stimulate that economy, to curb it from its 
downward spiral, to put consumer confidence back out there. The best 
way to put consumer confidence back into the marketplace is to put 
dollars into the taxpayers' pockets. Because unless they bury it in the 
ground, as I said earlier, those taxpayers will use it for creation of 
capital and stimulation.
  Now, I want to move on from this point, from the tax cut and from 
President Bush. I have got to tell my colleagues something. In my 
opinion, he is doing a tremendous job. He is traveling the country. He 
believes it in his heart. He is convinced that the way to stabilize 
this economy is through his program. I think it is incumbent upon every 
one of us in these Chambers to give that at least a fair evaluation.

                              {time}  2030

  I am telling you because if we do not, if we trash the President's 
program for the sake of trashing it or if we trash it for the sake of 
partisan politics, then we may very well be responsible for not putting 
that third leg on the stool.
  Furthermore, our responsibility goes not only beyond working with the 
President of the United States and his leadership in trying to put that 
tax policy in place, but we also have our own independent 
responsibility of controlling spending. Last year, out of these 
Chambers spending went out at 8-9 percent. This year we have to hold it 
around 4 percent. If we do not, we will have contributed to signing off 
on another leg of that three-legged stool.
  This is not a joking matter. All you have to do is ask anyone who has 
been in the stock market how they felt yesterday at 4:00 Eastern time 
when the stock market closed. We have a problem with consumer 
confidence. This is not the Depression of the 1930s. This is not 
December 7 or December 8 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. We have had 
much worse crises. It is not November 23, 1963 when President Kennedy 
was assassinated. But if we do not pay attention to it, it could move 
into the ranks of a much more serious problem than it is today, and I 
hope that we look at it very seriously.
  Let me talk now, I really was spurred to action not too long ago when 
I read an ad in the New York Times. Let me talk for a few moments about 
what that ad said. First of all, let us talk about the tax policy in 
this country.
  One of the taxes, a specific tax that we have in this country, not a 
lot of countries in the world have this, in fact a lot of countries do 
not do this, but in the United States, around the turn of the century 
as a result of a lot of class warfare and jealousy by what some people 
would say are the haves and the have-nots, they created a new tax in 
the United States, and that tax was to tax somebody on their death 
called the death tax.
  Now, remember in the United States you are taxed at every stage of 
your life. You are taxed when you eat and when you drive. You are taxed 
when you work, you are taxed when you warm your house, you are taxed 
when you fill your bathtub with water, when you buy a piece of 
property, any kind of property, and finally just to kind of round it 
off, our taxing system, let us go ahead and tax Americans at death to 
make sure that we squeeze every ounce of blood we can before citizens 
go on to the next world.
  That tax came about, in part, to go after the Carnegies and the Fords 
and the rich people to kind of teach them a lesson for being 
successful. This is a country where we say you invent the better 
mousetrap, you are rewarded. Go out there and live your dreams, and the 
jealousy factor kicks in and here comes Uncle Sam, time to tax you on 
your death.
  Let me tell you what has happened over the years. That death tax has 
devastated many small families in America. By small, I am not talking 
about the wealthy families. I am not talking about Bill Gates' father 
or Warren Buffett or David Rockefeller or George Soros or the Cooks or 
Russells or the Roosevelts or the Paul Newmans and some of these 
others, I am talking about the Smiths, the Brobachs, the Strobobs, the 
Soros, the Neslantics.
  I could go through family after family after family who are not 
billionaires, who are out there living their life's dream, who are out 
there in hopes that their hard work will allow them to give the 
generation behind them a little opportunity to get ahead in life. Just 
a little opportunity to continue the family business for one more 
generation. Who would have ever dreamed that in the United States of 
America the government itself, Uncle Sam itself, would be in the 
practice of discouraging family business from going from one generation 
to the next generation. Would be in the business of punishing family 
farms and ranches from going from one generation to the next 
generation.
  One of the famous statements that we have heard in the propaganda 
where my colleagues try to justify the death tax, it only affects 2 
percent of our society. It only affects 2 percent of the wealthiest 
people of our society. You know something, that is blatantly 
misleading; and most of the people that say it say it out of ignorance 
or they

[[Page H867]]

know that they are intentionally misleading you.
  Let us go back to my cup example. Somewhere in the third district in 
the State of Colorado you have got somebody, and here is what it takes 
to become subject to the death tax. Say you have a contractor out there 
who owns a bulldozer, free and clear; a dump truck, free and clear; a 
backhoe, free and clear; and a shop, free and clear; and let us say 
that property is located in Vail, Colorado or Glenwood Springs, 
Colorado. You know what, that person is subject to the death tax. You 
know what happens, no matter who earns the money in the community, the 
fact is that you have a dollar that is earned, whether it is a wealthy 
person or that contractor, you have a dollar in any town U.S.A. in that 
local community, colleagues, that dollar is in that community. What the 
death tax says is hey, because they have been successful in this 
community, we are going to take the dollar, not just from the family 
that earned the dollar, we are going to take that dollar from the 
entire community and transfer it to a community called Washington, D.C. 
in the East.

  Now you tell me that only 2 percent of the people in that community 
are impacted by that. I will give you an example, Cortez, Colorado. 
Down there we had a very prominent citizen, not somebody who just came 
into town and had all of this money showered on them. It was somebody 
that lived the American dream. They worked 7 days a week, and their 
dream was to have a family business where his sons and daughters could 
work with him, where his sons' and daughters' sons and daughters could 
work in the family business.
  Unfortunately, due to an untimely death, his dream never came true. 
Was it because he had not been successful? No. He had been successful. 
It was because Uncle Sam came into that community of Cortez, Colorado 
and said this person has been too successful. We do not care about the 
fact that he is the largest contributor to jobs in this community. We 
do not care about the fact that he is the largest contributor to the 
local charities or the dollars he makes are not circulated in 
Washington with the exception of taxes, Uncle Sam says we do not care 
that removing this money not only from the family, but removing it from 
the community of Cortez, Colorado, to Washington, D.C., we do not care 
that that hurts that community. The fact is that we have an American 
citizen who has been too successful and we should punish him.
  That is exactly what the death tax does and do not let them tell you 
that it only affects 2 percent of the people. ``Only'' may mean in the 
very end after all of the wealthiest people in the country through the 
protection of their foundations and floors of lawyers, it may mean that 
actually writing the check may be only 2 percent, and actually I think 
it is higher, but take a look at what it does to the local communities. 
Look at what it does in Third Congressional District of Colorado, where 
we see farms and ranches that have to be broken into subdivisions out 
of open space so Uncle Sam can be paid his ransom to make sure that the 
next generation cannot ranch, and I am going to give you some examples.
  I read an ad lately in The New York Times, and I use this word 
reluctantly but I think it is the most hypocritical ad I have seen in a 
long time. It is called ``The Responsible Wealth,'' and it is a group 
of multicentury millionaires and billionaires, and they signed this ad 
and said do not do away with the death tax, it is good for society. 
Now, it is all signed, and I will give you some examples of people who 
signed it, William Gates, Sr., Bill Gates' father. By the way when he 
was interviewed, he did this interview in the foundation office. What 
does the foundation do, it is a tool to protect your assets from the 
death tax. Let us mention a couple names. Steven Rockefeller; David 
Rockefeller; George Soros; Peter Barnes; Paul Newman, the actor; Frank 
and Jinx Roosevelt.
  Do you think for one moment that any one of the people that signed 
this ad have not already hired some of the best death tax attorneys in 
the country to make sure that any death tax they are liable for is 
minimized. Don't you think it is a little hypocritical that someone 
would say do not do away with the death tax when they have already 
protected themselves from the brunt of the death tax.
  I would ask Mr. Newman and Mr. Gates, how many of my ranchers in 
Colorado, how many of my local hardware store owners in Colorado can 
afford the attorneys that you have so they do not have to pay the death 
tax? How much punishment do you think that it is to these families. You 
know, we have had a vote on this floor on the death tax, and my bet is 
that anybody on this floor who is worth more than a million dollars 
that voted to keep the death tax in place, in other words they support 
the death tax, number one, and number two they are worth more than a 
million dollars, I bet none of my colleagues who fits in those two 
categories that has not already done their death tax or estate planning 
so that the taxes against them personally are minimized.
  This death tax has a tremendous negative impact on communities across 
this country, whether it is Sacramento, California or in Michigan, or 
down in Florida, or even in the East in Virginia. This death tax 
punishes people and it punishes families. This is the United States of 
America. This is a country where we encourage or theoretically, we are 
supposed to encourage the family unit. A lot of times the family unit 
is brought together by the family farm or family ranch or the family 
business. Why is it the business of this government to go out and 
punish these people because they have been successful? Why?
  Let me tell you a few things that I think are very important, and I 
think the best way to talk about this is to actually bring up some 
true-life examples. Since I have been talking about the death tax here 
on the floor, colleagues, as all of you know when we broach a subject 
like this, we often get letters from our constituents pertaining to 
this subject. Let me visit with you and share with you some of the 
letters I have received in my office about what this death tax has done 
to their families.
  This letter is from Harold and Roberta Schaeffer. My guess is that 
Mr. Gates has never seen or has no idea of what kind of exposure this 
small family, the Schaeffers, has to the death tax.

                              {time}  2045

  Nor am I convinced that this Mr. Gates cares about it. Nor am I 
convinced any of the other 200 people, including Paul Newman and some 
of the other very wealthy individuals, really give a hoot about some of 
the people that have sent me these letters.
  These people are not billionaires. These people are not movie stars. 
These people do not have foundations. These people do not have trusts. 
These people do not have the attorneys to get them around it. And they 
are going to have to face up to one of the most punitive, unjustified 
taxes in the history of the American taxing system.
  Let us go on.
  Dear Scott. And these people are from Colorado. Roberta and I just 
finished watching your estate tax speech on TV. We are both very proud 
because you stated our real concerns and our problems that we face with 
this unfair taxation.
  As you well know, farming and ranching out here in western Colorado 
is no slam dunk. If our farm is ultimately faced with this death tax 
burden, there is absolutely no way we could ever afford and justify 
holding on to our farm. This in turn will prevent us from keeping it as 
a farm for future generations, keeping it from becoming just one more 
development out in the middle of the countryside, keeping it available 
to the deer and the elk, and I saw over 600 head of elk just this 
afternoon on the property, keeping it available for unencumbered 
natural gas production.
  Scott, we are only able to meet the daily operating costs of our farm 
under the present economic conditions of agriculture. Unless there is 
positive action taken by Congress on the death tax problem, we will try 
to start making necessary plans to arrange our affairs so that my 
family is the ultimate winner of a lifelong struggle, the lifelong 
struggles of my parents and Roberta and me. There is no way we will 
allow the IRS and Washington, D.C., to take it all away. They just flat 
don't

[[Page H868]]

deserve it. This, of course, will make it necessary to begin the 
destruction or the development of one of the largest open space areas 
in all of Garfield County, Colorado.
  Again, we appreciate your efforts.
  What did this letter say? Think about what the letter said. If you 
continue, Uncle Sam, on your track of coming after us, we are not a 
billionaire family. Again, this is not the Rockefellers or the Gates or 
the Carnegies, people like that, or Paul Newman. This is a small 
agricultural family who has worked very hard, the generation before 
him, his father and mother, and now he and his wife want to pass it on 
to the next.
  But what is the summary of the letter? Let me repeat.
  If the death tax is kept in place, this is the impact that he talks 
about in this letter. He has four things. Number one, I cannot keep it 
as a farm for future generations. Number two, keeping it from becoming 
just one more development out in the middle of the countryside. Number 
three, keeping it available to the deer and elk. And he says in this 
very letter that he saw 600 head of elk on his property just the 
afternoon that he wrote me this letter. You think they are going to be 
there after the government is done with the death tax and that becomes 
a subdivision? Think again. And keeping it available for unencumbered 
natural gas production.
  This is a real letter from some people out there. They do not have a 
floor full of lawyers. They do not have a foundation. They do not have 
a trust. All they have got is a hardworking family, and the dreams that 
all of us dream, that something we do in our life can pass on to the 
kids in the next life.
  It is interesting. I see Warren Buffett and some of these other 
people say, ``Well, I'm giving all away but a small percentage of my 
estate.'' Let me tell you, when you are worth several billion dollars, 
even 2 percent, that does not sound like a lot until you figure out the 
calculation. Those lawyers protect the true foundations.
  Again, remember, these foundations were not put out there just 
because these wealthy people wanted to take a little time and create 
some more paperwork and create another structure in their life to have 
to worry about. These were created so that the very wealthiest could 
avoid the death tax or minimize the death tax. Yet they have the 
audacity to come out to the rest of us and sign this ad.
  Mind you, this is not all the wealthy people that have signed it 
clearly, and many of my good friends have this kind of wealth. They did 
not sign that ad.
  But understand what a death tax does. Remember, a death tax does not 
have a time span between it. In other words, if you have dad who is 
working on the ranch with son who has the grandson, or this son's son 
or the grandson here, so we have three generations. If grandpa dies and 
the property then passes to his son or his daughter, and that son or 
daughter, they then pay the estate tax. Let us do it here. I think it 
is easier to follow.
  Here is generation A, generation B, and generation C. Generation A 
dies. Estate tax right here. The death tax right there to B. So B has 
to come up with the money to pay off this estate tax so that he in 
hopes or she in hopes can pass this on to their next generation.
  But what happens if, after A dies, B unfortunately is killed in a car 
accident at a young age? Let us say B is killed at age 50 in a car 
wreck. Do you know what happens? Even though his father may have died 
just a few months before, you have the death tax there, and the minute 
B dies, you have got it again, even if it is in a short period of time. 
What do you think the odds of survival of that ranch or that small 
business are?
  Remember that the people that signed this ad that say a death tax is 
good for our country, these people protect themselves. Let us call it B 
for billionaire. They protect themselves with lawyers and lawyers and 
foundations and foundations, so that when Uncle Sam comes in, they 
cannot quite pierce it. They cannot get in there. So it is real easy to 
stand with a big chest and say, ``By gosh, this death tax ought to stay 
in place.'' It is about time that person went up and visited that 
little family business or that little family farm or that contractor 
who owns a dump truck and a bulldozer and a building.
  Let us be realistic. Our common goal in these Chambers is to preserve 
the family unit, and a part of the family unit is to preserve from one 
generation to the next generation those small businesses and those 
family dreams.
  Let me read on. Here is a letter I got I think last week.
  Dear Mr. McInnis, I am writing to encourage you to keep the repeal of 
the death tax on the front burner. As an owner of a family business, it 
is extremely important that, upon our death, the business be able to be 
passed to our son and to our daughter, both of whom work in the 
business, without a threat of having to liquidate to pay the death 
taxes on assets that have already been taxed once.
  This letter brings up a good example. Remember that this property, 
the property that you own, that you are going to get taxed on upon your 
death, you have already paid taxes on it. So this property, with this 
small exception of some IRAs, and they should be taxed, but with that 
small exception, the property that is hit by the death tax has already 
had its taxes paid. It is double or triple or even worse taxation and, 
as is pointed out here, without a threat to liquidate to pay 
inheritance tax or death taxes on assets that have already been taxed 
once. Of all of the taxes we pay, this tax, the death tax, is truly 
double taxation and unfair.
  I am aware that several wealthy people, i.e., William Gates, Sr., 
George Soros, et cetera, have come out against repeal of the death tax. 
This is one of the most self-serving demonstrations I have ever seen. 
They have theirs in trusts, in foundations, in offshore accounts, et 
cetera, and will pay no or minimum tax. Whatever their political 
motivations are, they certainly do not represent or speak for the vast 
majority of farmers and ranchers and small business owners in this 
country.
  Again, I urge you to push hard for the repeal of the death tax. 
Signed, Anthony Allen.
  This letter came out of California.
  This letter came out of the West: My wife and I graduated and got 
married and started farming in 1961. Our children and us have worked 
from daylight till after dark with very few days off for the last 40 
years. We have paid sales taxes, we have paid property taxes, we have 
paid income taxes, and we have paid Federal taxes on all of our trucks, 
on our trailers, on our properties, to mention just a few of the taxes 
that we have really had to pay.

  After all of the years, we have built up enough equity to earn a 
decent income. Now we want to start planning for old age and death with 
estate planning and life insurance that we can afford. We hope that the 
Federal Government will not force our children to sell this farm to pay 
that death tax. The State of Colorado has given us some relief, but now 
it is time for the United States Government to do the same.
  Let us go on. I am not going to read every letter here, but I want 
you to get the gist.
  Here is one. This guy's name is Chris Anderson. He is 24 years old. 
This is this new generation, the young men and women of my children's 
age. This young generation offers more promise than any generation in 
the history of this country. This generation is going to bring more to 
this country and contribute more to this country than any other 
generation in the history of this country. I have never had more 
confidence in a generation than I do in the 20-something-year-olds 
right now.
  Are we going to go out there and start them out by saying, look, your 
dad and mom want to contribute to your success, your dad and mom want 
to help you continue to make this country greater and so, therefore, 
Uncle Sam is going to step in between your folks and you and penalize 
by a death tax? Is that really the theory that we want to operate under 
in this country?
  Listen to this. Here is a 24-year-old young man.
  I am Chris Anderson. I am 24 years old, and I run a small mail order 
business. I listened with great interest when you talked about the 
death tax. In all likelihood, I will not face the problems you are 
outlining, at least not in the near future. I am not in line to inherit 
a business. However, I am soon to be married and look forward to having 
a family; and perhaps one day my children will want to follow in my 
footsteps.

[[Page H869]]

  Here is a 24-year-old young man who is about to be married, he is not 
going to inherit a business, he has his own small business which he has 
started, and Chris is saying to me, look, someday maybe I can realize 
my dream of passing it on to our children.
  Chris goes on. I hope and pray that they will not face the additional 
grief caused by death tax. A 55 percent tax is, at best, a huge burden 
on the family business and the loved ones of the deceased. At worst, it 
can be a death blow that ruins what could otherwise have been the 
future of yet another generation.
  Here is a 24-year-old young man. You see what I talk about when I say 
how great this generation is. At 24 years old, frankly, when I was 24 I 
am not sure I was thinking about the next generation. But here this 
young man at 24 years, he and his financee are thinking about the next 
generation, and they are thinking many years into the future. When they 
talk about, at worst this death tax could be the death blow that ruins 
what otherwise could have been the future of yet another generation, 
this letter is not a plea for help. I just wanted to let you know that, 
although I am not a victim of this tax, I appreciate and applaud the 
fight against it.
  I firmly believe that Congress and the government at large need to 
recognize that America's future is and will always be firmly rooted in 
the success of small businesses. Many of these businesses are family-
owned with the need for the next generation to continue them into the 
future.
  I spent a few years working for a small family-owned business. Not 
just myself but several workers depended on the income they derived 
from working for this small family business.

  So Chris is saying here I spent many years working for a small 
business, and many of us, including his fellow employees, depended on 
the success of that business owner for their employment. This addresses 
directly the point, that these people who signed that ad say it only 
affects 2 percent. It affects an entire community when you take that 
money out of the community and transfer it to Uncle Sam's headquarters 
in Washington, D.C., for redistribution.
  I fear for those workers, Chris says, when the tax man comes 
knocking. This tax has claws that rip at many more people than the 
immediate family of the deceased.
  This is critical. Mr. Speaker, this is critical. This death tax, as 
said by Chris in his letter, has claws that reach beyond the person 
that is being taxed. It reaches and impacts the workers, the entire 
community. He says it here. He says claws that rip at many more people 
than the immediate family of the deceased. It has a huge negative 
impact on the employees of these family businesses. I hope that your 
constituents recognize this, and they will continue to put their trust 
in working to do away with this death tax.
  This was Chris Anderson. Chris is from New Jersey. My district is in 
Colorado. This is a young man who took time, he and his fiance, to send 
me a letter to say how punitive and what this death tax does.
  We are in a society where tax is necessary. Obviously, we want the 
best schools we can fund. We want a strong military. We want a 
transportation system. But do we have to reach to the point that we 
have got to go to double or triple taxation and to a tax that on its 
face is unfair? Can you imagine what our forefathers would have thought 
that we were going to tax not only every stage of life but, upon death, 
to tax death, death as a taxable event?
  Here is another one.
  Dear Scott, I wish there were some way I could help you get this tax 
eliminated. They are discriminatory and socialistic taxes. I can't for 
the life of me understand how they got passed. How can anyone advocate 
taxing somebody twice?
  I can answer your question, John. Back here in the Capitol or in the 
government, they depend on taxing for revenue, not going out and 
setting up a business and creating capital. They will tax you at every 
opportunity they can, unless we have a balance, and the balance we have 
out there, colleagues, are your constituents and the harm that we are 
doing to the very people we represent if we put punitive and unfair 
taxes on their shoulders.

                              {time}  2100

  If we do not recognize the fact that they have overpaid their taxes, 
if we do not recognize the fact in tough economic times, we should not 
keep their dollars, as President Bush says, in Washington, D.C. to 
spend on more Federal programs; but we should take their dollars and 
give it back to the people who earned it.
  Now, John, some people would say that tonight I get emotional when I 
speak here at the podium, but I firmly believe that the punishment that 
we are dealing out here to families in America and communities in 
America by this death tax, by not refunding some of this surplus, is 
unstabilizing. It has negative impacts that some of the people who may 
have signed that New York Times ad have never tasted in their life, but 
a lot of small families in America and a lot of small communities in 
America have that bitter taste.
  Let us go on with John's letter: ``Why should a family who has worked 
for 45 years and paid their taxes on time every year, year after year 
after year; who has worked in their family business; who has built up a 
dream for their next generation, be taxed in this manner?''
  John, the only answer I can give you is that it is unfair. We know 
that. I am addressing my colleagues' constituents.
  Finally, let me wrap up here. Let us just look at a real quick one 
here. Derrick Roberts, his family's ranch in northern Colorado for 125 
years. Listen to this letter. I ask my colleagues to listen. Derrick 
Roberts: ``My family has ranched in Colorado for 125 years. My sons and 
daughters are the sixth generation to work this land.'' The sixth 
generation. ``We want to continue, but the Internal Revenue Service is 
forcing almost all ranchers and many farmers out of business. What's 
the problem? It's the death tax. The demand for our land is very high 
and the 35-acre ranchettes are selling in this area for as high as $145 
an acre. We have 20,000 acres. We want to keep it as open space, but 
the United States Government is making it impossible, because we will 
have to pay 55 percent of the value of that land when my parents die. 
Ranchers are barely scraping by these days anyway. If we were willing 
to develop home sites, we could stop the ranching, but since we want to 
save the ranch, we are in trouble.
  ``Now, the family has been able to scrape up the estate tax or the 
death taxes when each generation died up to this point. This time, 
though, I think we are done for. Our only other option is to give the 
ranch to a nonprofit organization and I can assure you, they all want 
it. But they won't guarantee they won't develop it. My dad is 90. We 
don't have a lot of time left to decide what to do.'' That is what 
Derrick says.
  ``We are only one of 2 or 3 ranchers that are left around here. Many 
ranches have been subdivided. One of the last to go was a family that 
had been there as long as ours. When the old folks died, the kids 
borrowed money to pay the death tax. Soon, they had to start selling 
cattle to pay the interest on the death tax. When they ran out of 
cattle, the ranch was foreclosed, and now it is being developed. That 
family that owned that ranch now lives in a trailer near town and the 
father who was a multi-generation rancher now works as a highway 
foreman for the State highway department.''
  Is that fairness? Is that what we call the theory that we all grew up 
under, the dream of the American family, and the dream of one family 
helping the next generation? Of course it is not.
  Madam Speaker, I would hope, in conclusion, that all of my colleagues 
take serious note of just what kind of impact that death tax has once 
we get below the billionaires that signed that ad for The New York 
Times. Those billionaires that signed that ad, and I do not know for 
sure, but I bet the finest dinner in Washington, because I know they 
are going to have to buy it, I bet the finest dinner in Washington, 
every one of those people that signed that that are wealthy people have 
already built their foundations, have already minimized their death 
tax.
  So these people are up here, but what about that gap down there? That 
is what I am talking about, I say to my colleagues, that gap in here. 
Those are

[[Page H870]]

the people that we better pay some serious attention to. Those are the 
people that will suffer when this economy turns sour, if we do not put 
some of those tax dollars back in their pocket like the President says. 
Those are the people that will not be able to go from generation to 
generation with a family business.
  We have, I say to my colleagues, a very, very important mission in 
front of us, and that mission is to help protect the families that put 
us here; to help provide for the future generations, through the wealth 
of their own families, through the wealth of hard work, through the 
wealth of love. It is not because of Uncle Sam that these people have 
been successful. It is so, so important for us to look beyond the gates 
of Washington, D.C., a city which is almost wholly operated on taxpayer 
dollars. It is time for us to look to middle-America and see exactly 
what our tax policies are doing, to see what kind of punishment.
  Now, we know that taxes are necessary, but we doggone well better sit 
down and figure out which taxes are fair and necessary, and that is the 
trail that we should walk.

                          ____________________