[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1540-H1546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   ECONOMY, ENERGY, AND THE DEATH TAX

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia). 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. Madam Speaker, good evening. Welcome back to Washington. 
As my colleagues know, we have all had about a 2-week recess. I spent 
my recess back in the district going around, as many of my colleagues 
have done, to town meetings, talking with people on the street and 
talking with the different interest groups out in our district and 
taking kind of a general overview of several things.
  One of them of course is our economy. I had plenty of opportunity to 
discuss with people our economy.
  I also discussed with many of my constituents our situation with the 
energy crisis that we are coming upon. As many of my colleagues know 
from their own constituents, we have seen gasoline prices just explode 
in the last couple of weeks.
  Then of course I heard from a number of people in regards to the 
death tax. I went out firsthand and again witnessed the punitive action 
that the estate tax, the death tax, has worked upon people of this 
country, that has worked upon people of my district, the devastating 
results of people who have already paid their tax, who have the 
unfortunate situation of a death in their family, and here comes Uncle 
Sam to finish the devastation as if the family had not had enough.
  So I want to visit about these three issues tonight, about the 
economy, about energy, and about the death tax.
  Let me start off, first of all, talking on the economy. We have seen 
a lot of criticism lately about President Bush. I was listening to 
public radio. I listen to public radio quite a bit. I was driving in my 
district. Now, mind you, my district is larger geographically than the 
State of Florida so I do a lot of drive time in my district. I was 
listening to public radio. It is interesting. One of the commentators 
on public radio or one of the guests on public radio was talking very 
critically of President Bush and how he has soured the economy. 
President Bush has been in office, what, 12, 13 weeks. President Bush 
was handed this bad economy.
  Now, this economy could get a lot worse if we do not do something 
pretty quickly. Frankly, I think the responsibility to do something 
about this economy falls to some extent on our shoulders in these 
Chambers. It falls to also an extent on the shoulders of the President 
of the United States. I do not think this President has shunned that 
responsibility. In fact I think President Bush has stood up to the 
challenge. He started off by proposing a tax cut.
  Let me tell my colleagues this tax cut that the President has 
proposed, let us put it in its proper proportions. The President has 
proposed over a 10-year period, not a 1-year period, over a 10-year 
period, a $1.6 trillion tax reduction. Now in addition to that, what he 
said is that this tax reduction should benefit the people who pay 
taxes. It is not a welfare program intended to go to people who do not 
pay taxes. It is a tax reduction program intended to be more equitable 
and fair to the taxpayer of this country.
  As all of my colleagues and I know in these Chambers, we do not earn 
that money. We do not go out and create capital. We do not come up and 
figure out a better idea or a better mousetrap. All we do is go out to 
those people who toil, who come up with a better mousetrap, who come up 
with a better idea, all we do is go out, reach into their pockets, and 
tax them. That is where the revenue in here comes.
  When we have reached too deep into their pocket, which we have done 
over the last few years, do not my colleagues think they ought to be 
considered? That is what this tax cut does. It considers that. It says, 
if one is a taxpayer, we think there ought to be a little something in 
it for one. Now, one does not get the whole piece of pie. That would be 
much too imaginative for someone to think that, when the government 
taxes one, one is going to get a big chunk of the pie as a taxpayer. 
But the President has said one deserves a part of the pie.
  Now, what part of the pie is that. Over the next 10 years, to put 
this in proportion, over the next 10 years, and the estimates vary a 
little bit, but approximately there is going to be $33 trillion coming 
to the government from these people out there, the taxpayers, the 
citizens of this country who go to work every day, who come up with a 
better idea, who put in their shifts, who pay their taxes fairly and 
pay their taxes on a timely basis. $33 trillion will be gathered from 
those people in the next 10 years.
  Of that, if we take a look at the spending that we now have, we take 
a look at the spending that is forecast, our guess is we are going to 
spend about $28 trillion of that.
  So if we have about $33 trillion, and we are going to spend about $28 
trillion, that leaves us about $5 trillion in surplus. Of that, the 
President has asked for 1.6, $1.6 trillion. About a third of that goes 
back to the taxpayer. Now is that too much to ask?
  When I was out there visiting with my constituents over this last 
recess, I do not think my constituents thought that was too much to 
ask. In fact, I found my constituents saying, how do you justify the 
level of taxation that you have placed upon us, especially when we talk 
about things like the marriage penalty, especially when we talk about 
things like the death tax. Are we getting a bang for our dollar back 
there in Washington, D.C., Mr. Congressman? That is what those people 
wanted to know.
  Now as we know, the President's tax policy is a long-term policy. 
This plan was designed when he was running for President. It has been 
fine-tuned since he has been elected to President. But as we know, we 
also need, on top of that, we may need an additional stimulant to put 
into the economy.
  In order for us to avoid a downward or a spiral so to speak that gets 
out of control and takes this economy into a recession, we need to come 
up with a strategy. That strategy really is multileveled.
  The first level of that strategy is the President's tax reduction, 
and everybody in these Chambers ought to be giving serious 
consideration to it. I would tell my colleagues, especially the liberal 
side of the Democratic Party that opposed any kind of tax reduction, 
then came out with their

[[Page H1541]]

Presidential candidate, and I think the gentleman proposed a $400 
billion tax reduction. Then the next level was $600 billion. My guess 
is that before this is over, especially in light of the current 
economic situation, that even the liberal Democrats are going to have 
to step forward; they are going to have to step forward and help us 
institute a tax credit or a tax reduction back into this economy. We 
have got to get some stimulation.
  On top of that, if this economy continues to sour on us, I think 
there is a very justifiable basis for a capital gains reduction; and 
many, many millions and millions of people in this country will benefit 
almost immediately from a reduction in capital gains taxation, say, 
from 20 percent down to about 15 percent.
  So the first strategy that we need to invoke to take on this souring 
economy is some type of tax reduction.
  Now, some of my constituents actually were swayed by this; they have 
been swayed by the argument that leaves the money in Washington, D.C., 
that all of us sitting in these Chambers will leave our hands off it. 
As I said in countless meetings, it is like leaving a jar of Girl Scout 
cookies in the room with me, and I am hungry, and telling me not to 
touch them while you go out for a couple of days. Of course they are 
going to get eaten. Any money left in Washington, D.C., I guarantee 
you, do not let them try to persuade you that it will go to additional 
expenditures like education.

                              {time}  2115

  This money will be utilized to provide more pork. This money is being 
heavily lobbied for right now, as we speak, by special interests in 
this city. Throughout the rest of America where you are providing these 
tax dollars for the city of Washington, D.C., where your Federal 
Government is located, I can assure you that a lot of those tax dollars 
are funding, in fact, lobbyists of special interest organizations who 
want to spend those dollars.
  Do you think there are a lot of people in Washington, D.C. that want 
to see the taxpayer get some of those dollars back? Of course they do 
not. They want to take those dollars and enhance their special 
interests. And they know that in order to convince the American public 
that those dollars ought to stay in Washington, D.C., instead of a 
small fraction of those dollars going back to the people that paid them 
and sent them here to Washington, D.C., in order to do that, they put 
up very persuasive marketing efforts. Do not kid yourself; they are not 
going to come out to the taxpayers in Colorado or Wyoming or Utah or 
California or Washington; they are not going to come out to those 
taxpayers and say, ``Hey, we've got a bad program in Washington, D.C. 
we want you to fund. We want to buy drunks a new car or we want to tear 
down the forest with a bunch of money.'' That is not what these 
programs are like.
  These programs sound good, education, this, that, motherhood and 
apple pie. Frankly one of the problems we face back here is a lot of 
these programs are in fact good. But the reality of the situation is, 
we do not usually have a lot of choices between good and bad programs 
back here in Washington. Our choices are generally between good 
programs and good programs, and it is a tough decision. But we, in 
fact, have to say no. We cannot fund everything that comes into our 
office.
  As many of my colleagues know on a daily basis, we have requests for 
lots and lots of money. We have got to take a serious look. We have got 
to tighten our belts just like everybody else, just like the working 
families of America have to tighten their belts with this economy 
beginning to slow down as it has.
  So the first strategy, the first layer of that multilayered strategy 
that we must put into place is some type of tax cut that means 
something. While we are on that point, do not send out a $300 billion 
tax cut to the American taxpayers. That does not do any good for the 
economy. You have got to have a tax reduction that means something. You 
have got to have something like a capital gains reduction that means 
something, getting rid of the marriage tax, which means something out 
there, eliminating the death tax which means something out there. A tax 
cut that reduces the liability of the taxpayer, not the person that 
does not pay taxes but of the taxpayer; make it mean something. That is 
how your first layer of a tax cut will help impact this economy in a 
positive fashion.
  The second thing we have got to see happen, and it is happening as we 
speak, is reduction of the interest rate. Now, Alan Greenspan and the 
Fed surprised everyone last week with a half a percent reduction in the 
prime lending rate, in the prime rate that the Feds put out. Why is 
that a surprise? Why do you think it was handled over a telephone call? 
Why do you think it was unexpected? Because the Feds, they sense we 
have got problems ahead and we need to address it now and we need to 
put stimulation into the economy now. So those interest rates are going 
to have to come down again.
  But how much more room do we have on the interest rates? You can 
continue to lower the rates, but at some point the lending institutions 
in this country have to have a margin. They cannot loan at zero. Who is 
going to put their money out there to loan it at 2 percent where it has 
got risk? So at some point the banks, instead of loaning at prime, will 
have to loan at prime plus 1 or prime plus 1\1/2\, et cetera. So the 
advantage of the reduction in rates can only go so much further. But so 
far I think Greenspan is doing a good job.
  Now, some will say he should have done it 6 months ago. But I can 
tell you 6 months ago, a lot of people were thinking that everything 
Greenspan was doing was perfect. So in the world of finance, hindsight 
is always perfect. The fact is, Alan Greenspan is participating, he is 
addressing this thing I think in a fashion that will help us slow down 
this slowdown or level off this slowdown and put us back into a 
recovery stage.
  The third step that we have to take on this multilayered strategy is 
that we have got to control spending. We cannot allow the government to 
continue to spend as we spent last year. The 11 percent, 12 percent 
spending rate, which by the way is a much higher spending rate than 
almost every tax-paying family in America got to enjoy last year, 
cannot continue forward with this government. This is not a government 
that should continue to spend and spend and spend and spend.
  Many of the critics of President Bush's budget and many of the 
critics of President Bush's tax reduction are special interest groups 
in Washington, D.C. Do not kid yourself. Everybody has got special 
interests. I have special interests. Water, I worry about water in the 
West. I worry about land issues in the West. I worry about education 
for my three children. I have a special interest in those areas.
  But every special interest is going to have to help participate in 
our government attempt to try and level off this slowdown in our 
economy. I do not think it is too much to go out, and President Bush 
has not gone out and asked a lot from the government. President Bush 
has gone out to the government and said, Look, you get to keep all the 
money you had last year, Government. But as your leader, as the 
President of the United States, I am telling you we cannot continue on 
this spending spiral. We cannot go on like that.
  I am not asking you to go down. I am asking you at the government 
level, let's just knock it down a little. You can go ahead and have 
everything you have this year, governmental agencies, but next year we 
are going to keep it to a 4 percent increase, 4 cents on the dollar.
  I asked when I was in my district how many of my constituents were 
going to have a 4 percent increase in their budget next year from their 
employer. I did not have very many of them that said they would. I did 
not have very many of them that expected they would. So I think it is 
entirely reasonable that the President ask that the government 
agencies, they too tighten their belts and they too live within a 
reasonable spending increase.
  Let me tell you one of the favorite ploys that is utilized by special 
interests in Washington, D.C. I will use the board here as an example. 
This is an old-time trick used in budgeting and used by special 
interest groups. Let us say, for example, agency X received $10 in last 
year's budget and let us say that agency X this year asked for $20. 
They got $10 last year. This year they are asking for $20. Let us say 
that the President comes out with his budget

[[Page H1542]]

and says that agency X should get $15. They got $10 last year, agency 
X, they are going to get $15 this year under the proposed budget, but 
they wanted $20.
  Now, the average American out there calls that a $5 increase. Last 
year they got $10; this year they are going to get $15. Do you know 
what they do, the lobbyists and the special interests for agency X? 
They go out and say, wait a minute, they go out to our constituents, 
they go out to the general public and they say, We are getting our 
budget cut. You have got to write your Congressman. You have got to 
call your Congressman. They are cutting education or they are cutting 
water or they are cutting highways or they are cutting the school lunch 
program. You name it. You have got to call them. They are cutting us.
  Ask them what they really mean by cutting. Has the President in his 
budget and have we in Congress really cut their budget or have we 
reduced what they have asked for? I think you will find in most cases 
the reductions they are talking about are reductions in what they have 
asked for, not reductions in what they actually received last year. In 
fact, in many of those cases, you will find they actually got an 
increase over last year.
  Again, there are really three strategies that we have to deploy now. 
Again, one of them is to reduce those Federal interest rates. That is 
happening.
  The second one is to put into place the President's tax cut proposal. 
It is going to be modified, but we have got to have it close enough to 
his proposal that it is going to make a difference in our economy. And 
I think that is going to happen.
  And the third thing that we have to do is control government 
spending. That is going to be our challenge on this House floor. That 
is the one burden that is on the shoulders of each and every one of us. 
We have got to have enough leadership on both sides. Both sides of the 
aisle have to come together.
  Now, I realize that the Democrats, especially the liberal leadership 
of the Democratic Party, the liberal side of that party, feels that 
they are an opposition government and may not join with us; but I can 
assure you that there are a number of conservative Democrats, as well 
as the Republicans, that will come together to try and control that 
government spending. We have got to do it, because if we do not, 
everyone in this Nation suffers as a result of this economy slowing 
down worse.
  The last thing you want this economy to do is to slow down to the 
extent that we begin to lose consumer confidence. Last month consumer 
confidence was up, but the news released today tells us that consumer 
confidence is back down. The consumers have confidence when they have 
trust in their government, that government is going to control 
spending, when they know they are going to have more dollars in their 
pocket as a result of a tax cut and when they know that the interest 
rate that they finance their home, that they pay their credit cards, 
that they pay for their new car, that that interest rate is going down. 
That is what restores or holds consumer confidence. That is the key 
ingredient out there for this economy.
  Now, let me tell you about a missile we have got in the air. We 
really have two missiles right now in the air dealing with the economy. 
One is the hoof and mouth disease. Many of you have heard about the 
hoof and mouth disease. Let me tell my colleagues, let me distinguish 
at the very beginning of these remarks about the hoof and mouth 
disease. That is not the mad cow disease. There is a distinct 
difference between the mad cow disease and the hoof and mouth disease. 
The mad cow disease is a terrible disease. But the hoof and mouth 
disease, which is the one we are expecting sooner than later to appear 
somewhere in this country, humans do not contact it.
  Now, humans can spread it. Humans can spread it simply through touch. 
It can be on the bottom of their shoes. This disease can actually 
spread through the air for, I think, 10 or 15 miles. But the hoof and 
mouth disease is not the deadly mad cow disease.
  So when--I am not saying ``if'' because I think it is going to 
happen, but when there is an outbreak in this country of the hoof and 
mouth disease, the citizens of this country and our constituents should 
not panic. We have our Federal agencies coordinating. We have Joe over 
at the FEMA, we have the Department of Agriculture, we have the CIA, we 
have the Department of Interior. We are putting a lot of resources into 
trying to figure out when it hits, how to attack it, how to eliminate 
it, how to localize it and how to keep the public relations on it in 
such a way that people do not think it is the mad cow disease that has 
come into our country.
  Now, if in fact we have that hoof and mouth disease and if in fact we 
let a phobia come out of that that creates some kind of lack of 
consumer confidence or some kind of panic amongst our consumers in 
regards to the beef industry, it could have a very negative, dramatic 
impact on our economy. I think it is incumbent upon all of us out 
there, and our constituents, not to panic if that hoof and mouth 
disease ends up in this country, to address it.
  It is kind of like responding to a fire. I used to be a volunteer 
fireman and I used to be a police officer. The worst thing you can do 
as a police officer or a volunteer fireman, or any fireman, is to panic 
when you go to the scene of an accident or you go to the scene of a 
fire. We have got to remain calm.
  Do not panic if this hoof and mouth disease shows up. One, you should 
rest assured that at least the government is going to do what we can 
do. What we are learning from what is happening over in the United 
Kingdom, fortunately we were not the first ones out of the chute this 
time. We are learning from their trials and tribulations dealing with 
this hoof and mouth. So I think we are going to be able to address it. 
But we need help from you, we need help from your constituents and we 
need help from the consumers of America. Do not panic. Understand what 
it is.
  Now, this leads me into the second so-called missile we have in the 
air. That is our energy crisis. During my meetings, and even the 
preceding speakers before I arrived here this evening, I heard 
criticizing the President about the energy policy. What kind of energy 
policy did Clinton have? He did not have an energy policy. There has 
not been an energy policy in this country for years. President Bush has 
only been in office for, what, 12 or 13 weeks and one of the first 
mandates this President placed on the American people was the fact we 
have to have an energy policy.

                              {time}  2130

  There are some things we should take a look at. We should have a big 
table, and we should place everything on the table. It does not mean it 
is going to happen, but it means we ought to talk about it. It means 
energy ought to be in most discussions we have in this country when we 
talk about the economy, when we talk about the health of the country.
  What are our energy needs today? What are our energy shortages today? 
How are we going to mesh the two of these into the future? What are we 
going to do about California?
  President Bush on a number of occasions has talked about California. 
Now I will say, I do not have a lot of sympathy for California. They 
have not allowed a power plant out there for 15 years. They have not 
allowed a natural gas transmission line for 8 years, 10 years. Some of 
the hardest-hitting radical environmental organizations in the country 
come out of California.
  We have not had an inland refinery, which these organizations have 
opposed, built in this country for 25 years. I do not know how many 
years ago a nuclear facility was built.
  My point is this: while you may not feel much sympathy for 
California, and I do not because they have kind of adopted the not-in-
my-back-yard theory, the fact is that we have to put those emotional 
angers or lack of sympathy for a State like California aside. 
California is a State in the United States, and a lot of times what 
hurts California is going to hurt the rest of us. A lot of times what 
is bad for California is bad for the United States. We have to stand 
side by side with California. We have to stand side by side with every 
State in this Union and, as a team, determine what our energy policy 
will be.
  That is exactly what the President of the United States has said. 
This is the United States. This is a country which

[[Page H1543]]

as a country must come up with some type of energy policy. One does not 
come up with a credible energy policy by pretending to address things, 
and not addressing them, that are somewhat painful. The fact is we are 
going to have to explore for more resources.
  Conservation is an important issue and conservation can provide some 
of that gap that we have today, some of it, but not all of it. When we 
sit down and we talk frankly with each other, we know that we have to 
find some additional supplies of energy.
  Now I heard a quote, I even wrote it down, from one of the previous 
speakers. Apparently he has visited some farm where they have enough 
wind generation; and he said if we could put this wind generation in 
place, it would supply the energy for all of the United States.
  Come on. Give me a break. Show me where that is going to happen. If 
we had that capability, you do not think we would not have wind 
generation in this country right now in vast quantities?
  I read an interesting thing, I think in the Wall Street Journal, 
today about wind generation. Some of our environmental organizations, 
and I think justifiably, are saying about wind generation, you are 
killing birds. Unfortunately, you are in a migration path and a lot of 
birds are going into your propellers on the wind mills and you can have 
acres and acres and acres and acres of wind mills and we are not 
producing much energy. Now that is not to say that we should not 
consider wind mill-generated power. We should. We should consider 
solar-generated power.
  The fact is, we have a gap that we have to fill fairly quickly. The 
first way to begin to close that gap is conserve. We all are conserving 
right now.
  The second way is to put an energy policy in place. Now let me 
mention to you why I am saying we are all conserving right now. I do 
not know about you, but a year and a half ago at my house, and I live 
high in the Rocky Mountains so in the winter it is cold, we need that 
heat, I can say that a year and a half ago, I admit it, I probably had 
my temperature on 68 degrees, 70 degrees in most of my house; and if I 
was chilled, I went into my house, and I did not think anything about 
moving the gas thermometer up to 80 or 85 to warm up for 30 minutes or 
so.
  Well, that is not happening today. In fact, my wife just called me. 
She just called me about 2 hours ago and she said, Guess what our 
public service utility bill was for last month? 130 bucks.
  A month ago it was 500-and-some dollars. We have changed our policies 
at our house, at my own home. Now when you go in a room in our house, 
we have thermometers that are set at 50 degrees, and maybe one is at 68 
degrees. So I think across America all of us are beginning to conserve. 
It is an important part of it.
  As the President has said, we need to figure out a new source of 
energy. Now the President says put it on the table. Let us talk about 
ANWR. Let us talk about drilling off the Florida coast. Let us talk 
about where we can go and what can the Federal Government do to 
help with this energy crisis. Let us talk about lifting sanctions off 
Iraq and sanctions off some of the other countries we have that are 
oil-producing countries, that might put more oil on to the market as a 
result of those sanctions being lifted.

  The President did not say let us adopt it. The President did not 
issue an executive order which were the favorites of the last 
administration we have, I might remind my liberal colleagues. The 
President did not say put it in place. He did not issue an executive 
order that said do it. He said let us consider it, put it on the table, 
put it up for debate.
  What happens? How interesting. He puts it on the table, the President 
puts it on the table for debate; and the first thing we do is hear 
criticism after criticism. Worst environmental President we have ever 
had; it is a damage to the environment.
  How interesting. These people that are screaming the loudest probably 
have their thermometers at 70 degrees at their house. They probably 
drive a car. They are probably wearing clothes that were produced by 
machinery. I mean, there is lots of energy consumption in this country 
by the very people that are being the most critical of this President 
who is saying, look, I am not saying we necessarily have to go with 
ANWR. I am not saying we necessarily should go off the coast of 
Florida. I am saying put it on the table and let us discuss it, because 
reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions and reasonable 
conclusions lead to reasonable solutions. That is what we have to do.
  This energy thing is nothing to laugh about. The situation in 
California, sure a lot of us may have chuckled about, well, California 
they got what they deserved; but the fact is it hurts California and it 
hurts the United States. We need to help California because, in turn, 
it helps us.
  Take a look at the amount of agriculture that comes out of the State 
of California. I read a statistic the other day, and I think my recall 
of it is that if California were a country it would be like the third 
economic power in the world if it was a country of its own. We cannot 
simply disregard California. We cannot discount the problems that 
California is having. Nor can we discount the problems of the smallest 
State in the Union.
  The fact is, we are a Union and we have to come together with an 
energy policy; and we expect our President to put forward some kind of 
structure so we can have that energy policy, and that is exactly what 
this President is doing.
  Do you think the liberal Democrats are giving him credit for that? 
No, of course they are not. Do you think some of these environmental 
organizations, Earth First and some of those type of characters, are 
giving him credit? No. They are out there fund-raising by screaming 
wolf, crying wolf.
  Look, this is going to be a disaster. Where the disaster is going to 
come is if we sit and we do not put anything on the table for 
discussion and as a result we do not end up with an energy policy. This 
country needs it, and I think the President is exercising sound 
leadership in going forward.
  I noticed a couple of my colleagues criticized, for example, the 
Kyoto Treaty. A lot of us now have heard about the Kyoto Treaty. This 
is not something that is new, by the way. What should be pointed out, 
President Bush did not kill the Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Treaty went 
down on a 99 to 0 vote. There was not one Democrat Senator, there was 
not one Republican Senator, who voted on Kyoto last year or the year 
before when it came up for a vote. Ninety-five to 0 is my 
understanding, or maybe it was 95 to 0; but I think it was zero in 
support of Kyoto.
  Why? Because it was not balanced. Why? Because it was not fair to the 
United States. Why? Because it put such a burden on the United States 
that the United States would be at a distinct disadvantage in this 
world. That is why.
  So the President, in talking about this, all of a sudden they see an 
opportunity to hang something on the President as being anti-
environment. The people out there that are crying against the President 
on this environment, they better be prepared to come forward and have 
something to put on the table for our energy policy. I invite them to 
do that, by the way. I think all of us need to come to that table, but 
have something that is going to work.
  I noticed that some people criticized the President's reduction in 
research in some alternative energy methods. Do you know why? They are 
not producing. Research is a nice, magical word; but after all of these 
years, after all of the billions of dollars they have put into 
particular research, if it is not giving production, if results are not 
received out of it, something different has to be done. That is what 
the President is proposing.
  The easiest thing to do is say, well, I am for more research. It is 
easy for every one of us to go back to our districts and say, I am for 
more research. I am going to vote for more research for alternative 
energy. Count on me. I am going to solve the problem.
  That is nothing but a stall. Every one of your constituents ought to 
say to you, hey, if you are going to support this research, what 
research are you supporting? What kind of results have you gotten? What 
kind of date in the future are we going to have this product? What is 
it going to mean to the energy gap that we have today? What is it going 
to mean for the energy gap that we are going to have tomorrow? You 
ought to be able to justify, you

[[Page H1544]]

ought to be required to justify, the research dollars that you are 
spending out there. If you cannot justify it, stand up.
  That is how we got to the car, that is how we got to the airplane, 
that is how we got a person to the Moon, that is how we developed 
medicine, through research. But many people in the history of this 
country have had enough guts to say, look, the money we are spending on 
research today is not giving us what we need. Let us try a different 
path. Let us use a different approach. Do not keep throwing good money 
after bad money.
  I think this President has stood up and taken leadership in that 
regard.
  Now the easiest thing to do would be for the President to say, well, 
let us just do like the previous administration, no energy policy. Let 
us just pretend that California can work out of this on their own and 
it is not going to be a crisis. Let us just pretend that the research 
is going to give us the answers, because certainly I can stall it 
through the next 8 years of the Presidency. But this President is not 
that way. This President is a doer, and he wants something done about 
the energy crisis, and many of my colleagues on this House floor want 
something done about this energy crisis. But we better take it serious 
because it is serious out there. The disease, the energy disease, or 
whatever you want to call it, the energy shortage or the energy crisis 
that is in California today could be on your doorsteps tomorrow.
  We need to conserve and we need to explore. We need to find other 
sources of energy. We need to look for alternative energy. There has 
got to be a combination, and you begin that with a map. It is just like 
a road map. We need to take a trip, and we have some pretty tough 
terrain to get over. The easiest way for us to take that trip is to 
have a road map; and if we do not have a road map, and in this case we 
do not have a road map, we do not have an energy policy, we need to 
make a road map. That is exactly what this President is proposing. It 
does not mean we are going to go over this mountain or that mountain, 
but every mountain ought to be laid out on our map. Every mountain 
ought to be laid out. Every trail ought to be looked at, to see whether 
that is the trail that we should take. That is exactly what the 
President is saying we should do. I support the President in regards to 
those efforts.


                   The Death Tax Should be Eliminated

  Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I have talked about the economy. I have 
talked about the hoof and mouth disease, and we visited a little about 
energy. Let me visit a little about another issue that has come up 
consistently throughout my district, consistently in my travels 
throughout this Nation, and I think most of my colleagues have 
experienced it as well. I intend to follow up on my remarks tomorrow 
evening from the House floor here, but that is this death tax.
  Now some may think that I am being repetitive about this, but there 
are some people out there that just do not get it. There are some 
people out there that are being swayed by the advertising of the 
billionaires who, by the way, not all billionaires but a select group 
of billionaires who have taken out ads in the Wall Street Journal and 
said we do not need this. To the person, every one of those people that 
signed on that Wall Street Journal article or advertisement that there 
should be a tax on death, every one of those families has already done 
their trust planning, their legal planning. They have had their 
attorneys figure out how they pay the least amount, how to protect them 
from those taxes upon their death.

                              {time}  2145

  In my opinion, they are acting very hypocritically. After they have 
provided protection for themselves and the death tax, they turn around 
to us representing the government, they say you should continue this 
tax against the rest of America. That is pretty inequitable.
  Madam Speaker, I think when you talk about the death or estate tax, 
the first step you need to take is ask what is its history. What is its 
justification? Should death be a taxable event? Because somebody dies, 
should that be a reason for the government to jump in and tax on 
property, by the way, which has already been taxed. This property that 
we are talking about in my discussions on the death tax, this is not 
property which has escaped taxation, this is property which has been 
taxed already once but in some cases, two or three times; in some 
cases, for multigenerations.
  So the first question you ask, should death be a taxable event. I 
venture to say that it should not be, no more than we should have a 
marriage penalty tax because you get married. This should be a country 
that encourages marriage. This should be a country that encourages one 
family farm, one generation to move it to the next generation, that one 
family business go to the next generation. That is what this country is 
about. This country, after all, is built on capitalism. This country is 
built on private property rights. This country is built on the concept 
that the government works for the people, the people do not work for 
the government.
  So I do not think that you can justify death as a tax. Do you know 
where the history of this came about? It was in the days when people 
wanted to move this government towards a socialist-type of 
domineerance, to punish the people that were successful, to go after 
the Carnegies and the Rockefellers that amassed all of this wealth, and 
take that money back for redistribution of wealth. The old theory that 
you do not allow a person to be paid based on what they are worth, they 
are paid on what they need.
  It brings to mind the Ayn Rand book, Atlas Shrugged. Read that book, 
colleagues, or listen to Books on Tape. Is that the direction that we 
want to go with this death tax. It has certainly been the direction we 
have gone since the death tax has been put into place.
  Let me say I was at a meeting the other day, and a gentleman asked, 
Why do you worry so much about the death tax. Those kids are taken care 
of anyway. They do not need all of that money.
  That is exactly the point. I am not talking about the billionaires 
that signed the ad in the New York Times, I am talking about the 
family, the small contractor who owns a pickup, a backhoe, maybe a shed 
to do his maintenance in and if he is killed on the job, what about the 
family's opportunity the next day to continue that small business. That 
is who I care about. That is who I am talking about. And the very point 
is those people do need it. Those people do need that business to 
continue on to the next generation, and in many cases the families are 
dependent upon that business.
  I have an entire group of letters here, some of which I am going to 
read this evening who are impacted, not billionaires, how this has 
affected a lot of your neighbors, especially in an area like my 
district. In the Colorado mountains, our real estate values have 
continued to spiral at an increasing rate. So we have seen a challenge 
the likes we have never seen in the past on our family farms and our 
family ranches.
  This death tax is not right. I was at another meeting and I had a 
lady who was very justified in her thoughts and very professional in 
her approach. She said what right do the children have to inherit this 
property. I said they have every right, but now I have had second 
thoughts about it. Under our concept of government, it is not the 
children's right to inherit, it is the parents' right to determine 
where their property, which they have accumulated by following the 
laws, by working hard, they have accumulated property, it is their 
right of private property which is a basic, fundamental part of our 
Constitution, a fundamental part of the government that we enjoy is the 
right of private property. It is without question, in my opinion, the 
right of the person who owns the property to determine where property 
will go after their death.

  I do not think the government, who did not put out the risk, and the 
government had something to do with somebody obtaining property, I 
admit that, we have a government of laws, you do not have to worry 
about somebody stealing, but that is why you pay taxes. So the 
government has already gotten its share of taxes off the private 
property. I think it is the right of the owner of that property to 
determine to whom and in what amounts that property should pass after 
that person's death.
  Let me tell you that the hardships, and I have experienced some of 
those hardships, I have seen them in the

[[Page H1545]]

communities, the hardships that are put on communities cannot be 
overlooked in this argument of whether or not a death tax is justified.
  These people will argue, this New York Times ad and some of these 
multibillionaires that signed this ad, who have already protected or 
minimized the impact on their wealth, one of the points they make is 
that it only impacts the upper 2 percent of our society.
  Let us put aside my arguments, do you have a right to tax death. Let 
us put that aside. Let us put aside the inequity of that, and let us 
say that 2 percent actually pay it. Take a look at what it does to the 
communities that those 2 percent live in. That money leaves those 
communities. If you have a small community in Iowa, and you have a 
family who has had a family farm for a couple of generations and they 
have seen a small escalation in property values, and the husband and 
the wife team that have made that farm a going operation pass away, and 
the government comes in and taxes that property and forces the sale of 
the farm, what do you think happens to that money of those 2 percent. 
Do you think that it stays in that small town in Iowa? Of course it 
does not. It is sucked out of that town in Iowa to Washington, D.C. A 
small percentage of it may stay with the State of Iowa. But by far the 
largest chunk, 75 percent or greater, goes to Washington, D.C.
  Do you think the people in these Chambers or these Federal agencies 
put those dollars back into that farming community in Iowa? Of course 
they do not. That money is taken out of these communities. For all 
practical purposes, it is taken from the community forever. Those are 
local dollars that go to local charities that provide savings in our 
local banks, that allow for productivity, for creation of capital.
  Why should the government come in after they have taxed these people 
during their entire lifetime, come back and once again upon their death 
seize this money. I do not think that you can justify it.
  Let me read you a couple of letters that I think kind of hit home.
  ``Dear sir, My name is Chris Anderson. I am 24 years old, and I 
currently run a small mail-order business. I am not a constituent of 
yours. I currently reside in New Jersey.'' That is interesting because 
the previous speaker was from New Jersey.
  ``However, I have listened with great interest as you spoke this 
evening on the topic of the death tax, as you called it. I in all 
likelihood will not face, will not be impacted by the problems you were 
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 I look forward to 
having a family and perhaps one day my children will want to follow in 
my footsteps with my business. I hope and pray that they will not face 
the additional grief caused by the death tax.
  ``A 55 percent tax is, at best, a huge burden on a 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. This letter is not a plea for help. I just want to let you 
know that although I am not a victim of this tax, I appreciate and 
applaud your efforts against it. I firmly believe that Congress and the 
government at large needs to recognize that America's future is and 
will always be firmly rooted in the success of small business. Many of 
these businesses are family owned and need the next generation to 
continue them into the future. I spent a few years working for a small 
family-owned business, and not just myself but several workers depended 
on the income that they derived from working for this small business. I 
fear for those workers when the tax man comes knocking.
  ``This tax has claws that rip at many people, and many more people 
than the immediate family of the deceased. It is also a huge impact on 
the employees of small businesses. I hope you do the best you can to 
eliminate or to do something about this death tax.''

  Now, let me read another one. Tomorrow evening, by the way, I want to 
go into much more detail about the death tax and other impacts that it 
has on a community.
  This evening as I read these letters, I begin to feel the hardships 
that these families have out there. And every one of you here, you know 
of an example where the death tax has devastated a community or 
devastated a family. You know how unjustified it can be.
  Let me read another letter. ``Roberta and I just finished watching 
your death tax speech. We were both very proud to watch you as you 
stated some real concerns and problems that we face with this unfair 
taxation.''
  I want to tell you, Mr. and Mrs. Schaffer, it is an unfair taxation. 
It is not only an unfair taxation, it is the most unjustified taxation 
in our entire system.
  ``As you so well know, farming and ranching out here is no slam-dunk. 
If our farm is ultimately faced with this death tax, there is 
absolutely no way that we could ever afford and justify holding on to 
our family farm. This in turn will prevent us from allowing this farm 
to go on to future generations. It will keep our farm from becoming one 
more development out in the country. In other words, keep it as open 
space, and most of us have deep appreciation for open space. It will 
not keep it available to the wildlife, the deer and the elk. In fact, 
for your interest, we saw over 600 head of elk on the farm this 
morning. It will not keep it available for unencumbered natural gas 
productions.
  ``Scott, we are only able to meet the daily operating costs of our 
farm under the present economic conditions of agriculture. Unless there 
is a positive action taken by Congress on this death tax problem, we 
will start having to make necessary plans to arrange our affairs so 
that our family can somehow struggle to make it to the next generation. 
By the way, there is no way we are going to let you,'' meaning 
Washington, ``and the IRS come and take it from us. The government does 
not deserve it. Of course, in order to protect our land, it will make 
it necessary to begin destruction of the land: The development of one 
of the largest open space areas of our county. Our land is quite 
valuable if it were broken up into subdivisions, and the only way we 
can keep the government's hands off it, if you do not do something 
about this death tax, is to break up our farm and sell it as a 
subdivision; therefore, having the money to once again pay taxes to the 
government on property which has already been taxed.''
  Let me read you the next one. Mr. Allen says, ``I am writing to 
encourage you to keep up the repeal of the death tax on the front 
burner.''
  Mr. Allen goes on to say, ``As the owner of a family business, it is 
extremely important that upon our death, the business be able to be 
passed on to our son and daughter, both of whom work in this business, 
without the threat of having to liquidate our business, to sell our 
business off to pay inheritance taxes on assets which have already been 
taxed by the government. Of all of the taxes we pay, the death tax 
truly represents double or triple taxation.
  ``I am aware that several wealthy people, i.e. William Gates, Sr., 
George Soros, and other multibillionaires, have come out against a 
repeal of the death tax. This is one of the most self-serving 
demonstrations I have ever seen. They have theirs in trusts. They have 
theirs in foundations. They have theirs in offshore accounts. They have 
hired a fleet of attorneys to protect their interests; and of course 
they will pay little or no tax because they have protected their 
assets. Whatever their political motivations are, they certainly do not 
represent or speak for the vast majority of small farmers and business 
owners in this country. Again, I urge you to push for repeal of the 
death tax.''

                              {time}  2200

  This is from Mr. Happy. ``I am watching you as you are talking about 
the death tax and the marriage tax. I wish there was some way I could 
help you to get these taxes eliminated.''
  Mr. Happy goes on to say, ``They are the most discriminatory taxes 
and socialistic taxes that our entire system could envision. I can't 
for the life of me understand how they got put into place to start 
with.''
  Well, as I mentioned, Mr. Happy, they got put into place because it 
was a way to go after the Carnegies and the Rockefellers. It was when 
this country was moving towards a socialistic government. They 
certainly did not go into place, Mr. Happy, as a result of the theory 
of capitalism.

[[Page H1546]]

  ``How could anyone advocate taxing somebody twice and three times. I 
don't care if it is a millionaire or a pauper. It is not the 
government's money.'' And in this letter, Mr. Happy has in this, ``It 
is not the government's money'' in capital letters.
  Let me repeat what he said: ``How could anyone advocate taxing 
someone two or three times. I don't care if it is a millionaire or a 
pauper. It is not the government's property. The taxes have been 
paid,'' and once again, in full capital letters, the word ``paid.'' 
``The taxes have been paid. I have been considering divorcing my wife 
of 48 years and just living together, filing single tax returns because 
of the marriage penalty, or just filing separately. Why should a family 
who have been together for 45 years, who have paid taxes on time every 
year, be forced into the position of losing the property that they have 
spent their entire life accumulating, or be penalized because they have 
a marriage of 48 years? Can you answer that?''
  Mr. Happy, I cannot answer it, other than the fact to tell you that 
there are some people here who believe in the redistribution of wealth, 
who believe somehow in justification of a death tax or tax upon 
somebody's death.
  Let me just wrap this up with one other letter, and then I intend to 
continue this later this week, because I feel so strongly about the 
fact that the government should not be taxing death. Mr. Frazier writes 
me: ``I was encouraged by the State of the Union and the President's 
$1.6 trillion in tax relief. We have operated a family partnership 
since the 1930s,'' that is what Mr. Frazier says, since the 1930s they 
have operated a family ranch. ``My parents died about 5 years apart in 
the 1980s and the estate tax on each of their one-fifth interest was 
three to four times more than what they paid for the ranch when they 
purchased it in 1946.'' In other words, his father and mother, who only 
owned one-fifth interest in this ranch, each paid more taxes on their 
one-fifth interest than they paid when they originally bought the 
ranch.
  ``Eliminating the death tax and the marriage penalty and reducing tax 
rates across the board will go a long ways in providing jobs. This, in 
turn, will enable hard-working families in our cattle country to pass 
their heritage on to the next generation and to continue to provide 
safe, wholesome beef to consumers around the world.''
  Remember, a lot of these people, they are not so interested in the 
business, it is the heritage of their farms, the heritages of their 
businesses that they want to pass to the next generation. That is 
something our country should encourage. Heritage has a lot of value. 
``I have three sons involved in our operation and a grandson starting 
college next fall, and it is important that we keep agriculture viable, 
to keep our beef industry from becoming integrated. We need to make it 
possible for our youth to be able to stay on our ranches and farms.''
  These are not letters that I put together over at my office. These 
are letters that have been sent to my office by families in America, 
not the multibillionaires that signed that New York Times ad who have 
already protected their wealth from government taxation. These are 
people whose lives will be devastated because the government continues 
on its path of considering death a taxable event.
  Well, I have enjoyed my time this evening. We started out by 
discussing the economy and we have a multistage strategy that we must 
deploy in regards to our economy. We have to continue to have Mr. 
Greenspan lower the rates. He is going to do that to the extent that he 
can. We have to put a tax cut into place, and we have got to control 
government spending.
  I moved from our economy to our energy policy this evening. I said 
that we need an energy policy. The previous administration did not have 
one; this administration in its first few days in office said, we need 
an energy policy, and they are willing to stand up and put everything 
on the table. Now, that does not mean it is going to be utilized, but 
it does mean we can discuss it and we, all of us as a team, Democrats 
and Republicans, must come together for an energy policy.
  Finally, I have wrapped up with the discussion on the death tax. I 
intend later this week when I have an opportunity to speak again to go 
into more detail on the severe impact that this death tax has on 
American families. It is severe.

                          ____________________