[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 70 (Monday, May 21, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2378-H2385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      THE TRUTH ABOUT CALIFORNIA'S ENERGY CRISIS AND THE DEATH TAX

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments just made by the 
gentleman from California.
  I cannot believe the comments that I heard in the last 30 minutes 
from the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman). I have great respect for the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). He and I have

[[Page H2379]]

shared this floor many nights on special orders. I have never heard the 
kind of comments that I heard this evening from my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey. Let me quote exactly what he said.
  Referring to the President of the United States, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) said, ``The only reason that the crisis exists 
is because,'' referring to the President, ``he is getting special-
interest money.''
  If the gentleman from New Jersey is suggesting, and I am not sure, I 
do not think he is, I think this is way below the gentleman from New 
Jersey; the gentleman from New Jersey is, in my opinion, a man of great 
integrity; but if he is suggesting that the President of the United 
States has accepted bribes from an oil company, he has an inherent 
responsibility, in fact, he has a fiduciary responsibility, to tomorrow 
morning go immediately to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to 
the U.S. Attorney's Office and present the evidence that he has against 
the President of the United States for bribery.
  Short of that, he should never, ever make those kind of remarks on 
this House floor, at least in my presence. There was no justification 
whatsoever, and I second the gentleman's remarks.
  This floor is an exercise of freedom of speech. This floor, Mr. 
Speaker, is for us to debate among each other. I know that tempers get 
short once in a while. I know we all believe intensely in our 
positions. But before Members allege what is considered to be a high 
crime, to me almost equal to crime of treason, and that is acceptance 
of a bribe, Members darned well better have their evidence before they 
do that to a colleague or to a President of the United States. That 
evidence, in my opinion, is not in existence.
  Let me conclude those comments by telling Members once again, I do 
not think that is what the gentleman from New Jersey intended. It is 
what he said. I do not think that is what he intended, because, as I 
said earlier, in my opinion, the gentleman from New Jersey, while I 
rarely agree with him, I consider him a gentleman. I consider him 
professionally to be a man of integrity. But his comments this evening 
were out of order.
  Now let us talk about the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). Of 
course, the gentleman makes these remarks because he is unrebutted for 
an hour. The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), all of us, we 
know on my side of the party we have some very partisan politicians. On 
the Democratic side of the party, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman) is among the most partisan politicians in these Chambers.
  Now, there is nothing wrong with that. But I ask Members not to come 
to these Chamber floors and pretend, or we should be very clear so we 
do not pretend exactly where a person's position is politically. The 
key here is to plan for the future of California. The key is not to 
spend one's entire time up here trying to insinuate that the President, 
and let me give a few quotes from the gentleman, that they want to 
eliminate conservation.
  I defy the gentleman from California to show me one Congressman, 
Republican or Democrat, show me one Congressman who wants to eliminate 
conservation. Just show me one, I say to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Sherman). There is not anybody on this House floor, there has 
never been anybody on this House floor, and I doubt that there is ever 
going to be anybody on this House floor that wants to eliminate 
conservation.
  That is the kind of exaggeration that creates the partisan battles, 
or certainly does not move us forward in a positive direction to plan 
for California's future.
  Now let us talk about the accusations that somehow President Bush is 
responsible, because after all, he has been in office 120 days or 
something, a little over 100 days, that somehow he is responsible for 
the problem in California.
  I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), he sounded like 
a defense attorney this evening: Blame everybody; make sure the 
gentleman's client is protected and without blame, but blame everybody 
else. We are not going to get anywhere around here doing that.
  Let me point out, there are 50 States in this union. There is one 
State suffering rolling blackouts, one State. It is California. There 
is one State in the last 10 years that has refused to allow electrical 
generation plants to be built in their State. That is California. There 
is one State in the Union out of those 50 States that has refused to 
have natural gas transmission lines. It is California. There is one 
State that allowed deregulation, allowed the price caps to come off 
electrical generation companies. It is California. Now they are 
beginning to reap some of what they sowed.
  I heard comments, and let me find it here, that we have been told, 
apparently by the administration, we have been told to do everything 
possible to make California suffer. I say to the gentleman from 
California, I do not know one person on this floor, Democrat or 
Republican, that really, truly wants California to suffer.
  I know a lot of Congressmen like myself that would like the 
leadership, the Governor of California, to quit blaming everybody else 
and to help pull himself up by his bootstraps. But I do not think 
anybody in here has said California ought to suffer. We want California 
to learn from its lessons, and frankly, we are all learning from the 
mistakes California made with deregulation. We are all learning from 
that. There would have been other States that would have deregulated, 
but they did first, and there are some problems with it.

                              {time}  2045

  What we wanted to do with California is help, but you cannot help 
shift all the blame to Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C., California, 
should not be the solution for your problems. In California, you need 
to lift yourself up. You need a governor who is willing to say, all 
right, we will put in generation facilities. All right, we are going to 
have to pay the price, even though it is expensive. We are going to 
have to pay the price to allow electrical generation plants to go in 
there.
  Let me tell my colleagues I have been to California. I think it is a 
beautiful State, by the way. I like California, but I have been to your 
airport and I have been to your hotels. You do not hesitate to raise 
the price for tourists to pay for your stadiums down there and for your 
recreational facilities.
  I have gone to your airport and they add some kind of tax. I feel 
like I am getting gouged. Let us take a look at what we are trying to 
accomplish here. What we want to do is help plan for California's 
future, but have the direction come from your governor of that State. 
The governor of your State's time would frankly be much better spent, 
instead of this blame game, getting down to brass tacks and figuring 
out how to get a gas transmission line into that State, how to build 
some electrical transmission lines in that State, how to build 
electrical generation facilities in that State.
  It would be a very serious mistake for any of my colleagues on this 
floor, it would be a very mistake for us to really want California to 
suffer. It would be a serious mistake for anybody on this floor to turn 
their back on California. It would be a serious mistake not to look 
into the allegations that perhaps somebody intentionally violated the 
law by withholding a supply.
  But with that said, it would also be a serious mistake not to allow 
some electrical generation to be built in that State of California. It 
would also be a serious mistake for us to say that we do not need to 
look for more supplies.
  I wanted to bring a chart up here. This is growth in the U.S. energy 
consumption and it is outpacing production. This is what happened to 
California years ago, drip by drip by drip. California under its 
leadership, these are not the people, these are the people's elected 
representatives, continued to oppose, while demand went up, supply was 
stagnated in part because of the fact they will not allow additional 
supply sources to come on board.
  The result is exactly what is happening, and, frankly, we have to 
take a serious look at it across the country. We are all going to 
benefit from California's ills in that we will learn what not to do. I 
do not think a State should deregulate their electrical business. I 
think it is a mistake.
  I have been opposed to deregulation. Here is our problem: This is the 
energy production. At this career's growth's

[[Page H2380]]

rate, that green line, that is our energy production. It is flat. This 
is our energy consumption. This is the gap. This is the projected 
shortfall.
  Now contrary to what the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) said 
I do not know one Member of Congress in here who is opposed to 
conservation. But the reality of it is conservation cannot fill that 
entire gap. Look where we are. Conservation can make a big hit there.
  Mr. Speaker, I gave a speech on this floor last week suggesting 
everything from checking the direction that your ceiling fans are 
turning to only changing your vehicle oil in your engine every 6,000 
miles instead of every 3,000 miles. But the fact is, conservation 
helps, and it is important. It makes common sense. It is good practice 
for future planning in this country.
  Conservation ought to be adopted on a permanent basis, but we also 
have to face the reality that even with conservation, you still have a 
gap in there. We have to produce more.
  You say well, it is these big oil companies. And I cannot tell my 
colleagues how many times I heard the gentlemen say big oil company, 
big oil company. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) said it. 
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) said it. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman) said it.
  I will bet my colleagues that all three of them this evening right 
now as I am speaking are probably driving home in a car. I doubt they 
walked. When they get home, I will bet you they turned the lights on in 
their house. If it is hot, I bet they have the air conditioning on. If 
it is cold, I bet they have the heater on.
  My guess is that my three colleagues are going to also take a shower. 
My guess is it is not going to be with cold water, they probably will 
have warm water, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  We get into this problem of exaggeration when you keep talking about 
big oil and special interests money. We want to help plan for the 
future of this country. We do not want to leave California abandoned 
out there.
  California, by the way, I say to colleagues is, I think, it is the 
third or seventh, I think it is the third strongest economy in the 
world, what is bad for California frankly in a lot of cases is bad for 
the other 49 States, but by gosh, California has to help pull the 
wagon.
  They cannot ride the wagon all the time. They have to help pull the 
wagon, and what I mean by that is, you cannot continue, California, to 
depend on your neighbors for electrical generation, for natural gas 
transmission, for electrical transmission.
  I am not asking you to carry an unfair burden, California. I say to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) I am not asking the 
gentleman to carry something unfairly. I am just saying, by gosh, if 
you want to sit by the campfire at night, you ought to help gather the 
firewood.
  Instead of sitting by the campfire and saying well, keep the fire 
warm but by the way let us not use as much firewood, well, then maybe 
you ought to move away from the campfire instead of enjoying the 
comforts of the campfire to continue.
  I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), if you want to 
enjoy the comforts of the campfire, by gosh, you can help gather some 
wood and you can throw a log on once in a while. I do not think we need 
a bonfire out there. I think we can have a campfire.
  I was surprised by the partisan remarks that were made this evening. 
And by the way, on the tax bill that passed out, judging from the 
remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), this is a 
Republican bulldozer going through the U.S. Capitol.
  Mr. Speaker, that tax plan is going to be passed on a bipartisan 
basis. Many of your colleagues, I say to the gentleman are going to 
vote for this tax bill, and they ought to vote for this tax bill.
  Many of your colleagues in the United States Senate, my guess would 
be, will be voting for this tax bill.
  This is a bipartisan vote we will be taking this week. Why? Because 
it needs a bipartisan solution. What about the energy problem? That 
needs a bipartisan solution.
  Let me point out, that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) was 
talking about how somehow the President was responsible for the 
shortage of supply and power that may occur up in the Northwest. He 
spoke, first of all, of the Western States. I can tell the gentleman 
from Washington I am from a Western State.
  As the gentleman knows, I represent the mountains of the State of 
Colorado. So the gentleman does not speak for the entire Western United 
States, but your problem in Washington State is not Washington, D.C., 
although Washington, D.C. is a problem for a lot of things. Your 
problem in Washington State is something the President does not have a 
lot of control over, and that is rainfall.
  Take a look. In fact, I have a poster here to give the gentleman an 
idea. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) speaks about the 
Pacific Northwest, the second worst drought on record. That is not the 
doings of President George W. Bush. The gentleman or the gentlewoman 
that made that, if you have direct contact with them, you are doing 
pretty good.
  This is the second worst drought on record, and that is why the 
mighty Columbia River is way down. That is where your power shortage is 
coming from. It is not because Washington State refused to put in 
transmission lines like California.
  It is not because Washington State refused to build generation 
facilities like California. Washington State, in fact, was prudent, and 
Washington State did not deregulate their electrical generation. So for 
Washington State, it is an act of nature that is creating some 
problems.
  By the way, I think these problems are nationwide frankly, and the 
other 49 States, we actually are going to be fine with electrical 
supply here in the next year or so. We have a lot of facilities that 
are going on online.
  My point, before I move on to the death tax, that I am saying to my 
colleagues is nobody on this floor really wants to abandon California. 
Sure, we all get upset with California. It is like as I said earlier, 
if you are going out camping and you set up a campfire and you have one 
member of your camping team that is not bringing any wood to the fire 
but continues to sit around and enjoy the fire, does not help cook 
breakfast but continues to eat breakfast, does not help wash dishes but 
continues to use the dishes, yes, you get upset with them.
  But does that mean that you abandon them somewhere in the mountains? 
Of course, you do not. You try and sit down with them and say, look, 
you are not doing your fair share. We need to plan for your future and 
our future.
  That is what we are saying to California. We want to plan with you, 
but, by gosh, you have to do a little self help. And one of the best 
things you can do for self help is get your governor off the airwaves 
and tell the governor in the State of California to sit in the office, 
put some pencil in paper and let us have some conservation. By the way, 
California does exercise good conservation.

  But there are some other things we can do. Let us get the governor 
from California to approach us on a nonpartisan basis and come up with 
some solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears that my colleague from South Dakota would 
like to speak on this topic before I move on to the death tax.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) moves on to the death tax, I would like to echo a couple of 
things that he was saying. And I too was in my office and I heard much 
of the discussion of our colleagues on the other side prior to the 
gentleman assuming your discussion here on the floor.
  I just wanted to point out that this is the President's energy 
proposal. It is about 170 pages long and I will put that next to the 
last administration's energy proposal, which I cannot find, oh, that is 
right. They did not have an energy proposal for the last 8 years.
  This President has assumed leadership, has taken the initiative, has 
put together a comprehensive, specific and detailed plan to help 
address this country's energy problems.
  And as the gentleman from Colorado noted earlier, you know we come 
over here a lot of times and things get a little hot from time to time, 
but this is

[[Page H2381]]

not a partisan issue. This is not a Republican problem or a Democrat 
problem. This is an American problem.
  President Bush has laid out an American solution. My colleagues came 
out here and talked a lot about how it is heavy on oil, on fossil 
fuels, and that sort of thing.
  But if we look at the proposal specifically in here of the 105 
specific recommendations in the President's plan: Forty-two of those 
recommendations have to do with modernizing and increasing conservation 
and protecting our environment; thirty-five of those recommendations 
have to do with diversifying our supply of clean, affordable energy and 
modernizing our antiquated infrastructure; twenty-five of the 
recommendations help the U.S. strengthen its global alliances and 
enhance national energy security; twelve of these recommendations can 
be implemented by executive order; seventy-three of them are directives 
to Federal agencies, and 20 are recommendations that are going to have 
been acted on by Congress.
  This is a specific plan and the balance of this plan, in fact, almost 
half of the entire plan with respect to the recommendations have to do 
with one conservation or other alternative sources of energy.
  I come from South Dakota. We care a lot about ethanol. We think 
ethanol is an important part in the solution to this country's energy 
future. But we also understand that it is a bigger and more 
comprehensive issue that is going to require an increase in supplies 
not just of ethanol but of many of the other sources of energy that we 
currently depend upon in this country.
  But the point I would make to the gentleman from Colorado and just 
agree with what he has said earlier is that this is something and South 
Dakota cares deeply about what happens in California. California I 
think also has been there for South Dakota in the past.
  But if you look at the record of this Congress in reacting to 
problems that have been created over a long period of neglect, and I 
will use the example when I came to Congress in 1996, it was 2 years 
after the 1994 Congress came here.
  But we came here to try and deal with what had been 40 years of 
overspending by Congresses that were controlled by liberals. We had 
this huge debt and deficits piling up year after year after year. Well, 
after a 5-year period now we have basically gotten our fiscal house in 
order.
  Welfare reform was another example of something that had been ignored 
for years and years and years. We had a welfare program that was 
spending billions and trillions of dollars and not solving any of the 
problems. And so we came here, came up with welfare reform proposal 
before my time. Actually that happened in 1995 or 1996 before I arrived 
on the scene. But, nevertheless, it was a solution to a problem that 
had been created by years and years and years of neglect.
  Social Security and Medicare, the Federal Government and Congress had 
for years and years and years been spending that. We have now walled 
that off as of the last 3 years since we have had control of this 
Congress and addressed a problem that had been ignored and neglected 
for years and years and years by our friends on the other side.
  This is a problem that has been created by years of neglect. We have 
before us this proposal. I hope that this Congress will act on a number 
of these recommendations, a proposal which is comprehensive. It is 170 
pages long, which is detailed, which is specific, and which is balanced 
in the approach that it takes.

                              {time}  2100

  It calls on the need for the best and the brightest in this country 
in the area of coming up with solutions that are conservation oriented, 
those solutions that deal with renewables like ethanol and wind and 
other things that are important to my part of the country, and creates 
tax credits and tax incentives for development of those types of energy 
alternative energy sources, and, yes, also look for more supply because 
we just flat have to. If one looks at our growing dependence upon other 
sources of energy from outside this country, we have no alternative.
  So the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is exactly right. I am 
disappointed to hear the rhetoric and the tone that is already 
occurring on this floor, because we have a responsibility as the 
Congress of the United States to work and to solve what is an American 
problem. It is going to afflict everybody in this country.
  I have been to the gentleman's district in Colorado. I know the 
people that he represents care deeply about the price of gasoline. That 
is about all I hear about in South Dakota these days. We have to come 
up with solutions.
  That is what this plan, the President has given us an opportunity to 
work with something. This may not be the final product. We are going to 
work through the Congress. This is open to discussion and to debate. 
But to hear the other side get up here on this floor time after time 
after time, speaker after speaker after speaker, and show no evidence 
or no inclination or no desire to work in a bipartisan way, to try and 
take a plan that has been presented by the President of the United 
States, the first plan that we have seen, I might add, in many, many 
years through the administration, the last two 4-year terms of that 
Presidency in which their party controlled the White House, we now have 
a President who has taken leadership, who has taken the initiative to 
present a detailed and specific plan.
  They may not like everything in here. I may not like everything in 
here. But the reality is we now have a framework and something to work 
with that gives this country some direction in the area of energy 
policy, something that has been frankly lacking and absent in the last 
8 years.
  I, like the gentleman from Colorado, am not going to sit here and 
tolerate and listen to people get up here and rail on and on and on 
when this is a proposal that we have in front of us to work with and, 
as I said earlier, in contrast to the one that we had the last 8 years, 
which could be the equivalent of my empty hand, because we have not had 
a proposal. We now have some specific direction.
  We have a responsibility as a Congress to work together as 
Republicans and as Democrats to try and solve the energy crisis in this 
country. It is something that affects everybody in America. It affects 
their pocketbooks in a very profound way.
  The people in Colorado that the gentleman represents, the people in 
South Dakota that I represent, we have a responsibility and an 
obligation, I believe, as the Congress of the United States to come 
together and to work in a constructive way, not in a destructive way 
where we sit there and point fingers and holler and talk about 
contributions from oil companies and how the special interests are 
running this debate.
  They know better than that, and the American people know better than 
that. I believe the American people are going to rally behind the 
efforts that are being made for the first time in a long time to 
address what is a serious and perplexing and chronic problem in this 
country that is desperately in need of a solution. We need to work 
together toward that end.
  I am glad that the gentleman from Colorado is here and is pointing 
out some of these issues and look forward to working with him as well 
as with my colleagues on the Democrat side, many of whom have gotten up 
tonight and had nothing to offer but criticism.
  Yet, I hope that, when it is all said and done, that we can come 
together and work in a constructive way for the betterment of America 
and do something that is meaningful in terms of addressing what is a 
very, very serious crisis, an energy crisis that is affecting every 
American no matter where you live. Whether it is in California or 
Colorado or in South Dakota, we all need to work together to try and 
solve this problem.
  So I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado yielding to me and look 
forward to working with him as we begin the process of trying to 
implement solutions to this very serious problem.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Just 
to reiterate a couple of things, it is the first energy policy we have 
had in 9 years. Why? Because we need to plan for the future of this 
country, and we need to have some type of blueprint. We need to put 
things up on the table

[[Page H2382]]

for discussion, not for obstruction policy or strategy, but for 
discussion. That is exactly what this energy plan does.

  I should say that the remarks, first of all, I want people to know 
that, as we talk about this side of the aisle, the Democrats, obviously 
I am a Republican, the Democrats, we have a lot of Democrats who are 
working very constructively to help us put this plan together. We have 
a lot of Democrats that want to work with us. But what we have heard 
this evening is the liberal side of that party. All we heard was a 
partisan attack.
  Now, I realize that they are not going to join our efforts, which, by 
the way, is a bipartisan effort, both Republicans an Democrats, to put 
an energy policy into place. But at least they should refrain or at 
least adjust the tone of their attacks that frankly cannot be 
substantiated.
  I mean, we heard comments tonight, I heard that this plan calls for 
the complete, mind you, complete destruction of the Arctic National 
Wildlife in Alaska, that it wipes out all types of conservation, wipes 
out all efforts at conservation. I mean, these kind of exaggerations do 
not get us anywhere.
  What does get us somewhere, frankly, are the Democrats and the 
Republicans, and there are a lot of them who are doing it as we speak, 
are sitting down with this administration, coming up with a policy to 
plan for our future.
  One other point I would make, and then we probably ought to move on 
to the death tax. But the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) 
brought up the dependency of this country on foreign supply of energy. 
I mean, if one wants to put our environment at risk, and, by the way, I 
am very sensitive about that, as my colleague knows, my district is a 
beautiful district as is his; but if one wants to put an environment at 
risk, if one wants to put the future generations of this country at 
risk, one continues on the policy of increasing our dependency on 
foreign oil.
  Maybe the gentleman would like to comment on that. But I am telling 
my colleagues, his point, that is the most dangerous thing we have got 
out there. This thing in California is going to work itself out. Our 
situation, we actually have lots of electrical supply coming on for 49 
of the 50 States here in the next year and a half. This is going to 
work out. But the kind of the iceberg under the water is this continued 
inching up and dependence on dependency on foreign sources for our 
energy needs.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado is absolutely 
right. Again, as he noted, he has an absolutely spectacular landscape 
in his district. Like my State of South Dakota, most of the people in 
my State care very deeply about the environment. Most of them tend to 
be very conservation oriented to start with. That is part of the ethic 
that comes in places like South Dakota.
  Yet we have a very, very serious crisis. The gentleman from Colorado 
has hit it exactly on the head; that is, the fact that today we are 
dependent to the tune of almost 60 percent of all of our oil coming 
into this country, or oil that we use in this country is coming from 
sources outside the country. That is something that we cannot sustain 
and that grows every year. It has grown actually, I think, since 
President Clinton took office. It was about 40 percent. It is about 60 
percent today.
  So as I said earlier, we have had basically 8 years of neglect where 
essentially Saddam Hussein has been Secretary of Energy in this 
country. That has to change. That is exactly, I think, the realization 
that people in this country have come to.

  It certainly is, I think, evidenced in the President's proposal which 
acknowledges the fact that we have to do something to increase our 
supply in this country, and we have to do it in an environmentally 
friendly way. The new technologies that enable us to develop some of 
those oil resources I think are remarkable and will make a profound 
difference in where we head in the future.
  But the gentleman from Colorado is absolutely right. This crisis 
exists today. If we do not as a country become energy independent, 
become energy self-sufficient, find more and more ways of producing 
more energy in this country, and if we have to continue to depend upon 
very unreliable and unstable areas of the world, I think for our energy 
supplies, we are going to be in a world of hurt down the road.
  So I look forward to the opportunity again to work in a bipartisan 
and constructive way to try and solve this problem. It is a problem. It 
is a crisis. It needs to be dealt with. The President has laid down the 
first marker. He has put something on the table. We may not all like 
it. I mean, the Democrats may come in here, and they may not like every 
aspect of this; but at least we have a plan.
  It is comprehensive. It is specific. It is detailed. It addresses 
conservation. It addresses renewables. It addresses development, 
exploration in a balanced and reasonable way of our oil resources. That 
is where we start. Let us get to work and start attacking this problem, 
because it has been overlooked for far too long.
  I know the gentleman wants to get on and discuss the death tax.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's time this 
evening. I say to the gentleman from South Dakota, it is kind of fun, 
because when we speak about conservation, there are lots of neat 
things. I told my staff over the weekend, I said, why do you not all 
put your heads together over the weekend, each one of us, including 
myself, let us come up with 10 separate items of what we can suggest to 
our constituents of ways we can conserve and make them as painless as 
possible.
  For example, as I mentioned earlier, most car manuals, the engineers 
that design the cars, build the cars and test the cars, in most car 
owners' manuals, you will find you should change the oil in your car 
every five or 6,000 miles. Yet, if you pick up your newspaper and 
advertising, you will see the quick lube outfits and so on market you 
and convince the American public that you need to change your oil every 
3,000 miles. You do not have to change it every 3,000 miles. Follow the 
owners' manual. That is painless. Not only is it painless, you can put 
money in your pocket.
  So I just did this to reiterate the emphasis of the gentleman from 
South Dakota on what the President has said about conservation. 
Conservation can begin to close that gap that we have right here in the 
blue that the gentleman spoke of. If we continue to allow this to go 
without additional supply and without conservation, our dependency on 
foreign oil, of course, increases.
  So I will wrap it up with that. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I intended to come to the House floor this evening. Last 
week, I had, really, the privilege to meet two wonderful and very, very 
brave families. Ken and Bambi Dixie from Parker, Colorado. Ken and 
Bambi lost their two youngest sons tragically as a result of a 
poisoning last year, as a result of carbon monoxide coming out of the 
back end of a houseboat, as a result of a defect that could have been 
avoided, should have been avoided, should have never existed in the 
first place. Their friend Mark Tingee and his wife, Polly, were also on 
the boat at this time that this horrific tragedy took place.

  Now, why are they courageous? A lot of us in this country have 
suffered tragedy. I do not know a lot of people that have suffered 
tragedy as the Dixies suffered. But, nonetheless, the courageousness of 
this couple was that they were willing to come out and relive this 
tragedy over and over again last week here on Capitol Hill with 
testimony in hopes of saving some lives this summer so that, when 
people are recreating out there in the lake, they are not poisoned as a 
result of houseboat usage, on improper venting on carbon monoxide.
  So tomorrow evening, Mr. Speaker, I hope to have an opportunity to 
address my colleagues and go in some detail. I hope they listen because 
the message we need to take back to our constituents about the 
possibility of this defect, the existence of it, and the tragic results 
of it is very important. Thank goodness we had somebody as brave as the 
Dixie family and as brave as the Tingee family to come forward. So I am 
going to speak on that tomorrow night.

[[Page H2383]]

  I want to spend the balance of my time talking about the death tax. 
When I take a look at our tax system in this country, I am not sure one 
can find a tax that is more punitive, that is more unjustified than 
what is called the death tax.
  Now, the death tax is imposed upon the assets or the property that an 
individual has accumulated during their lifetime. Now, this is property 
upon which taxes have already been paid. This is not property where, 
for some reason or another, taxes were evaded or taxes were avoided. 
This is property in which taxes have already been paid. In other words, 
the due tax owed to the government has been paid.
  The tax bill, zero, until the moment of your death. Upon the moment 
of your death, the government comes into you, to your property, to your 
future generations, and as a punitive measure takes your property or 
takes a good share of your property if you qualify for the death tax.
  Now, the death tax came about theoretically to help finance World War 
I. But where you really see the fundamental origins of the death tax is 
when this country was moving towards kind of a socialistic angle, and 
they were angry at the Carnegies and they were angry at J. P. Morgan 
and they were angry at the Rockefellers. They said we should go and 
redistribute wealth. That is what really started this ball rolling.
  But now what has happened is a country, which is the greatest country 
in the history of the world, our country, now our country is one of the 
leading countries in the world, discourages small family farms or 
family businesses from going from one generation to the next 
generation.
  Now, why do I say small? Because it was with some interest I noticed 
that the father of Bill Gates, Mr. Gates we will call him, it is not 
Bill Gates, I am not sure he agrees with his father, but Bill Gates, 
Sr., very, very wealthy man spoke about how important it was to keep 
the death tax in place.
  Do my colleagues know where he spoke from? He was speaking from the 
foundation offices. What does that mean? Well, the foundation was 
created to help avoid these death taxes. So the wealthy, some of the 
wealthiest people in this country have already pretty well protected 
themselves against this punitive measure.
  It is the small. It is the small kid on the block. It is the farmer 
or the rancher or the contractor who has a bulldozer, a dump truck and 
a backhoe; and, all of a sudden, one day, they are doing business, and 
because of some tragedy, he loses his life or she loses her life. The 
next day, the next generation is being taxed, so that they cannot 
continue the business.

                              {time}  2115

  The wealthy families in this country, and I have no objection to 
wealth, I think that is one of the great incentives that has made this 
country a superpower, but the fact is the wealthiest people of this 
country have prepared for the death tax. They have teams of lawyers and 
they have done estate planning, but there are a lot of families who 
have not had either the resources or the knowledge of the tax law to be 
able to help protect the next generation.
  I was asked a question not long ago when I was down in Durango, 
Colorado, and they said, you know, in this country, nobody should have 
the right to inherit. Well, I guess if there is not a will, there 
should be a right to inherit, it should not go to the government. 
However, although you may not have the right to inherit, you certainly 
ought to have the right to bequeath, to give this property to people of 
your choosing, and most of the time, all of us would like to give that 
property to our children.
  I will tell you about my personal experience. A goal of my wife and 
myself, our dream in life is to give something to our children. Not 
just give it to them, they are going to work hard, and they have worked 
hard. In fact, I graduated two of them from college last week. I have 
the other in college. I am pretty proud of them, as my colleagues are 
of their children. But during our life, we hope to give them some kind 
of a little start like my parents helped me. They gave me a lot of 
love, and that is what we are giving to ours. My father and mother had 
six children. My mother and father worked very hard in their careers 
and they were able to provide a college education to their children, 
and then we were on our own. All of us want to do that. And why should 
a death tax step in; why should the government come in and destroy the 
opportunity for one generation to help the next generation?
  I thought I would just read a couple of examples here. Years ago, Tim 
Luckey's great grandfather started a farm in Tennessee. When his 
grandfather and then his father inherited the farm, both of them paid 
inheritance tax. Someday Tim hopes to inherit the farm, and when he 
does, he will have to pay the tax again. Notice I say ``again.'' If 
party A owns a farm and dies, and party B inherits the farm, then party 
B pays those taxes. But if party B all of a sudden dies, say a year 
later in some kind of accident, the property now is inherited by C, and 
the property is taxed once again. There are multiple layers of tax on 
that property.
  And I am not talking about like Mr. Gates and some of his cronies 
that signed that letter. We are not talking about the super wealthy. We 
are talking about a lot of people in this country today, farmers and 
ranchers and small business people. They have paid their taxes and they 
are going to be punished as a result of this death tax. But we are 
about to eliminate it. That is the good news, both Democrats and 
Republicans, not the liberal wing of the Democratic party. I did not 
say all the Democrats. I understand that. But the conservative 
Democrats and the Republicans have all joined together. We are in the 
process of beginning the repealing of the death tax, and that is part 
of that tax package that is going to go to the President by Memorial 
Day.
  Brad Efford owns a lumber yard in Columbia, Missouri. He pays $36,000 
a year just for a life insurance policy so his children can inherit the 
yard unincumbered. What is interesting is the untold number of 
businesses, as this article goes on, the untold number of businesses 
that prior to an owner's death are sold precisely to avoid the death 
tax. By selling before death, a small business owner may avoid the 
death tax in exchange for paying a capital gains tax at the rate of 20 
percent.

  That is important to know. What we are saying is if you have the 
business upon your death, we are going to grab it, or force you to sell 
it. Or if you like to, you go ahead and go out and sell your lumber 
yard, or we are going to force you to go out and sell that small 
contracting business you have.
  When I was in Durango, Colorado, speaking to this group, where the 
question, do you have a right to inherit came up, another couple, who 
were interior decorators, and they were pretty proud of the business 
they had built up, it was a wife-and-husband team, they had put 
together apparently a fairly lucrative interior decorating business in 
this small town of Durango. What the couple did not realize is that if 
either one of them were killed in an accident, and the business went to 
the remaining spouse, or if both of them were killed, let us say both 
were killed, as happens in this country or throughout the world, if 
both of them were killed, that interior decorating business they worked 
so hard, if they had a couple of children beginning to learn the 
business, that business would evaporate because of the need to pay 
those taxes.
  Let me read a couple other letters. I am very sensitive about what is 
happening to our open spaces in the State of Colorado, up in our 
mountains. Here is another letter. ``The fate of 1,810 acres of ranch 
land featuring stunning views and prime elk habitat north of Carbondale 
will be determined at auction. The ranch now belongs to the son and 
daughter of the owner. The estate taxes are basically forcing this 
sale. They were just raising cows on it, but with the value of the land 
as it now is, we can't afford to raise cows. We have to sell the land 
just to pay the death taxes.''
  Let me go on. This is from Anthony Allen. Mr. Allen writes: ``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 will be able to 
be passed to our daughter and our son, both of whom work in the 
business, without the threat of having to liquidate to pay inheritance 
taxes

[[Page H2384]]

on assets that have already been taxed once. Of all the taxes we pay, 
this tax is truly double taxation.'' It is punishment.
  ``I am aware that several wealthy people, i.e. William Gates, Sr., 
George Scoros, have come out against the repeal of the death tax. This 
is one of the most self-serving demonstrations I have ever seen. They 
have theirs in trusts, foundation, offshore accounts and will pay no 
taxes,'' or limited taxes. ``Whatever their political motivations are, 
they certainly don't represent or speak for the vast majority of 
business owners or farmers in this country.''
  Now I have heard some people say, well, look, only the top 2 percent 
are going to pay this tax. But look what it does to a community, and I 
could give hundreds of examples. Go into a community like the community 
in my district, when we had a person who was the largest employer, the 
largest contributor to his local church, the largest owner of real 
estate, the largest bank accounts in town, and they hit that family 
with the death tax.
  Do my colleagues think that money that went to the government stayed 
in that small community in Colorado, where previously it had helped the 
church and the bank and the people with jobs and the real estate 
market, et cetera, et cetera? No, that money is transferred. The bulk 
of it goes straight to Washington, D.C. for redistribution somewhere in 
the country. And I would bet money that not one single penny goes back 
to that community. So no one should be bamboozled on this top 2 
percent. Take a look at what it does to families.

  John Happy writes this letter. John, thanks for writing. ``Dear 
Scott: I wish there were some way I could help get this death tax 
eliminated. It is the most discriminatory and socialistic tax 
imaginable. I can't, for the life of me, understand how this tax was 
ever passed in our system to begin with. How can anybody advocate 
taxing somebody twice? I don't care,'' and this is his quote. This is 
what John says. ``I don't care if it's a millionaire or a pauper, it is 
not the government's money. The taxes have already been paid.'' It is 
not the government's money. The taxes have been paid. ``Why should a 
family working for 45 years and paying taxes on time every year be 
forced into this position? Sincerely, John.''
  Marshall Frasier writes me a letter. ``Dear Scott: I was encouraged 
by the President's fight on the death tax and the repeal of that. We've 
operated a family partnership since the 1930s. My parents died about 5 
years apart in the 1980s and the estate tax on each of their one-fifth 
interest,'' listen to this, ``the estate tax on each one-fifth interest 
was three to four times more than the original cost of the ranch.'' 
Three to four times more than the family member paid to get their share 
of the ranch. ``Eliminating the death tax and reducing tax rates will 
go a long ways towards helping retain open space, providing jobs, and 
allowing one generation's business to go on to the next generation.''
  You know, this is a great country we live in, but the United States 
of America should have the policy of encouraging family business to go 
from one generation to the next generation. The United States of 
America is about to adopt a policy to repeal the death tax so that one 
family can have their dreams alive so that upon their death, no pun 
intended, that upon their death, the next generation can carry on for 
maybe the next generation. It is fundamentally important for the 
foundation of our country that we encourage family activities, family 
businesses to go from one generation to the next.
  Let me go on to another one. This is a college student who writes me 
this letter, Nathan Steelman. ``Dear Mr. McInnis: I am a college 
student at the University of Southern Colorado in Pueblo, which is in 
your district. My parents and grandparents are involved in a typical 
family farm, a farm that has been in the same family for 125 years.
  ``My grandpa is 76 years old, and he is in the last years of his 
life. My parents have been discussing the situation for the past 
several months. My parents worry about this death tax. They worry about 
how are they going to keep the farm running once grandpa passes away. 
The eventual loss of grandpa will trigger this tax upon my family. My 
parents hope they can pay the tax without selling part of the family 
operation that they have worked so hard in maintaining over the years. 
The outcome doesn't look very good.
  ``Farmers and ranchers are having a tough enough time keeping family 
operations running the way it is. Statistics show that 70 percent of 
all family businesses do not survive a second generation, and 87 
percent don't survive the third. My family, Mr. McInnis, has worked 
very hard to keep the family farm running this long. We feel as if we 
are being penalized for the death of a family member. From what I 
understand, the opposition is concerned about what many of the 
individuals who are affected by the death tax are those with very 
wealthy businesses. Statistics show, however, that more than half of 
all the people who pay death taxes had estates worth less than $1 
million. My family falls in that category. It just doesn't seem fair to 
me, Mr. McInnis.
  ``Mr. McInnis, my family's farm is not located within your district, 
but when I moved to Pueblo, I felt like I needed to express concerns to 
somebody. This death tax should be abolished.''
  Chris Anderson, another young man. ``I'm 24 years old. I currently 
run a small mail order business. I'm not a constituent of yours, I 
reside in New Jersey. However, I listened with great interest as you 
spoke on the death tax not long ago. 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. My families have no wealth. However, 
I'm 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. I hope 
and pray they will not face the additional grief caused by this 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 the death blow that 
ruins what could otherwise have been a future for another generation.
  ``This letter is not a plea for your help. I just want you to know 
that although I'm not a victim of this tax, I appreciate the effort 
against it. I firmly believe, and have always believed, that success in 
family is firmly rooted in our country. I spent a few years working for 
a small family business, not just myself, but several workers depended 
on the income they derived from that business. So it's more than just 
the owners, it's also the people that work for these businesses. Hope 
your constituents recognize how important this is to repeal the death 
tax.''
  Well, Chris Anderson, I have got good news for you. Chris, we are 
about to do it.

                              {time}  2130

  The President's tax plan has by now passed the Senate. It will come 
to the House tomorrow, and we will put some conferees together. This 
marks a special moment for those of us who care about a future 
generation and those of us planning for our own family future. We are 
about to see the death knell of that unfair and punitive death tax.
  It is about time. It is about time that this country finally 
recognized what a rotten policy it was to put a tax in that taxed you 
upon your death, that prevented in many cases small farms and small 
businesses from going from one generation to the next, that sent out a 
terrible message, a message that suggests that the transfer of wealth 
is what creates capital, instead of the innovation of products. I am 
pleased to be a part, and I congratulate those Democrats that have 
joined us.
  Mr. Speaker, by the way, I want the gentleman to know that by 
Memorial Day all of us on this floor will have an opportunity to once 
and for all repeal the death tax. I urge every one of my colleagues to 
vote to get rid of that death tax. If you do not, I hope that you have 
a good reason why you decided that this country should continue to tax 
somebody upon death.
  Mr. Speaker, my time is about up. Let me conclude with three quick 
remarks: One, I am pleased we are getting rid of the death tax.
  Number two, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), partisan,

[[Page H2385]]

 highly emotionally charged statements of special interests, et cetera, 
et cetera, are not going to help California. We have to come together 
as a team to help California, and we are willing to do it as long as 
you are willing to pitch in. If California wants to pitch in, we ought 
to help them out of this situation.
  Finally, colleagues, I hope tomorrow you have time to sit and listen 
to my remarks about the Dixie family and the terrible tragedy that they 
went through; but the bravery and the courageousness that they, along 
with the Tingee family, have been able to show as an example so that 
hopefully this tragedy will not be repeated this summer as that tragedy 
unfolded last summer for the Dixie family.

                          ____________________