[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21136-21142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          TRIBUTE TO THE HEROES OF THE GRAND JUNCTION SHOOTING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, my district is in the 
State of Colorado. I represent the Third Congressional District of the 
State of Colorado, which is essentially the mountains of Colorado. My 
home is Grand Junction, Colorado.
  Over the weekend, my home in Grand Junction Colorado got a very, very 
special gift, a gift of heroes. Over the weekend, we had two of our 
citizens who lost their lives in an unfortunate failed attempt to save 
another person's life.
  These two individuals, Hobert Franklin, Jr. and David Gilcrease, both 
were individuals of normal working people. Nothing really set them out 
from the crowd until that moment of the call for courage. At that 
moment, both of these individuals stepped forward at the expense of 
their lives to try and save this other life.
  The incident was a very violent incident. It was a domestic dispute. 
It took place in a grocery store in Grand Junction, in fact, the 
grocery store that my wife shops in, a grocery store that a lot of my 
neighbors shop in.
  A man went in and grabbed a woman by her hair, dragged her out of the 
store, he had a gun in his hand, took her into the parking lot. When 
Hobert Franklin saw that happening, he ran out of the store to go to 
her aid.
  Now, what we need to keep in mind with both of these individuals is 
that they had a very clear choice to make. There were lots of 
directions they could run. There were lots of directions that they 
could go away from the assailant. But Hobert decided not to do that. 
Hobert ran at the assailant to help the victim, and the assailant shot 
him dead.
  David in the meantime saw what happened to Hobert. So he then knew 
that this guy was going to kill somebody. He just did kill somebody, in 
fact. He had an opportunity as well to go a different direction. Nobody 
could criticize the people that went different directions. This was a 
very terrifying incident.
  But at that special moment, David decided that he had to intercede 
and stop this event from occurring. He ran towards the fellow, the 
assailant. The assailant raised the weapon at him. David puts his hands 
up. The assailant put his hand down. David backed off. He went back 
around the van.
  I have got tell my colleagues about David. Do my colleagues know how 
much David weighed? David weighed 90 pounds. Ninety pounds. Think about 
it. Ninety pounds.
  He came back around the van, and he tackled the assailant. Now, he is 
a tough guy, David, but he was not that tough. He was not that strong 
to take the assailant and knock him out of commission, so to speak. So 
the assailant knocked David off his back, and he turned around, and he 
killed David in cold blood.
  Now, what is special about these two people is that David who was a 
father, by the way, of two young boys, terrific young children, and his 
wife Kim, his last words from David, as witnessed by the people who 
were trying to save his life was, ``Yes, Jesus is my savior.''
  He was a small man, but as they said at his service yesterday, he was 
a giant when it comes to heart and to will. This small-framed man, and 
I am quoting from Bob Carter who read a poem in David's memory, ``This 
small-framed man was the biggest man my heart has been blessed with 
knowing.''
  David was a wonderful guy. He blessed Grand Junction with his gift of 
heroism this last weekend.
  Hobert, they talk about he is 50 years old. They said his half a 
century of life really boiled down to one defining moment; that is what 
his nephew told people at the service on Wednesday. ``No matter what he 
did, he will be remembered most for what he did in the last

[[Page 21137]]

few moments of his life,'' Travis Coley told the gathering at the 
service.
  Coley is in the seminary or just graduated from the seminary. Hobert 
was his uncle, and this is the first funeral service that Pastor Coley 
was to give.
  Franklin had two sons, John and T.J. I got to meet both John and T.J. 
My colleagues would be very proud of these young men. They are very 
proud of their father because they knew, at that last defining moment, 
their father made a decision, a decision to try and save somebody 
else's life even though it probably meant imminent death for him.
  Franklin is also survived by his wife Judy, his father and his 
brother and his sister. Franklin, too, blessed Grand Junction with that 
gift of heroism.
  So as we go about in our every day lives, I just ask, because 
throughout our country we have a lot of good people out there, we have 
a lot of people of strong character, we have a lot of people that are 
the core of what makes this country great, and these are two of those 
individuals, and tonight in front of all of my colleagues and in front 
of all of the people of the United States of America, this country pays 
its due respect.


                         Issues Facing America

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of different topics that I 
would like to cover this evening. I think probably one of them that is 
at the heart of a lot of debate that has been taking place here regards 
taxes. The gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) is here to comment 
on that.
  I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that I think probably that the character of 
a lot of the people in his Congressional District is much like that of 
those that I represent in the State of South Dakota. Understanding that 
his district is very much like mine, very rural, and the gentlemen that 
he described this evening I think probably my colleagues would find 
them walking down the main streets in many places across South Dakota 
as well. It is a great privilege and honor to represent people with 
that kind of character.
  I presume that, during the course of the August break, the gentleman 
from Colorado, like I did, had the opportunity to travel across his 
district. I had the opportunity to visit, on one particular trip, 36 
counties across my State culminating with almost a week at the South 
Dakota State fair.
  During the course of those travels, I heard about a lot of topics, 
one of which, of course, in my State is agriculture which is in 
desperate straits. I hope that this institution will, the Congress, 
come together on a solution for that problem to address many of the 
concerns, many of the very serious problems structurally that are 
occurring in agriculture today.
  I hope that before the session is out that we will pass disaster 
relief assistance, and market loss assistance, that we will pass 
mandatory price reporting, Federal legislation to that effect, that we 
will pass crop insurance reform, which is desperately needed to make 
sure that producers have the risk management tools that will allow them 
to succeed in the current market place, and other issues that I think 
will come up, one of which is market concentration.
  One of the things that I heard repeatedly in my travels across South 
Dakota is this increasing concentration in the agricultural industry. 
We are seeing it, whether it is grain buyers, whether it is livestock 
packers, whether it is soybean crushers, flour mills, you name it, 
there are fewer and fewer buyers of raw agricultural products in this 
country. It is having a profound and very serious effect on producers 
across South Dakota and I think across this entire country, and it is 
an issue which needs the attention of the United States Congress.
  The other thing that I heard, like a lot of people, I think, 
traveling across this country and traveling across my State and others 
who traveled in their districts, was this surplus and talking about how 
do we deal with what is this $3 trillion plus projected surplus. I am 
sure the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has heard a lot of about 
that as well. As I was traveling across South Dakota, it was an issue 
that came up frequently. We had an opportunity to talk about how do we 
do it.
  First of all, I think a lot of people are very skeptical that there 
is a surplus in the first place. Frankly, they ought to be.

                              {time}  2145

  I think that myself. I have a hard time dealing with trillions of 
dollars, billions of dollars, even millions of dollars. So we have to 
break it down into terms I think that all of us can understand.
  But the reality is that for a lot of reasons we are projecting over 
the course of the next 10 years about $3.1 trillion in surpluses. And 
everybody says, well, what caused that. I think it was a lot of things. 
I think it was the fact that, before I arrived on the scene, think the 
Republican Congress passed welfare reform; that there are 3.3 million 
more Americans working today and paying taxes; the fact that we were 
able to enact tax relief legislation in 1997, which I think has 
increased government revenues and lowering the capital gains rate. 
People took realizations, paid taxes on those realizations and 
increased government revenues.
  I also think that control over federal spending has something to do 
with it. Since we assumed power here in the Congress, we have gotten 
tighter control over federal spending. And I think that fiscal 
responsibility has helped generate some of the surpluses. And, 
obviously, monetary management at the Federal Reserve. But in the end 
it is the hard work of the American people that has generated these 
surpluses. And so when we have this debate about how to best use these 
surpluses, we have to remember that it is their money we are talking 
about.
  Again, trying to break this down into denominations that people can 
understand, $3 trillion is a lot. But if we broke it down into, say $4, 
and there has been a lot of discussion about how to do this, but what 
our plan does, and frankly this has been misrepresented and confused, 
and the other side has tried I think in many respects to mislead people 
about what this is all about, but, frankly, if the surplus was $4, we 
are taking $3 out of the $4 and setting it aside for Social Security 
and Medicare and to pay down the federal debt.
  One of the things I heard in South Dakota over and over again is why 
do we not just pay down the federal debt. I think that is an admirable 
quality and one, I think, that speaks well of the people of South 
Dakota that they are interested in fiscal responsibility and making 
good on their debts. The reality is that $3 out of the $4, if we think 
of the surplus as being $4, 3 of the 4 goes to Social Security, 
Medicare and to pay down the federal debt. What we are talking about in 
terms of the tax bill is this last dollar. And the reality is, whether 
we like it or not, I do not believe that this last dollar is going to 
get used to pay down the federal debt.
  Now, in a perfect world, that would be great. But we all know we do 
not live in a perfect world. We live in Washington, D.C., which is 
anything but a perfect world. Now, if this was done in South Dakota, we 
might be able to do this. But the reality is, whether it is Republicans 
or Democrats, this is a Washington problem. Politicians spend money. 
The only question on this final dollar, and if we think of this as 
being the payroll tax, that FICA tax, Social Security and Medicare, 
that is $3, and the last dollar is the income tax surplus. When those 
income tax surpluses start rolling in here to Washington, there are 
going to be a lot of designs on how to spend it.
  What we have said as a matter of policy is that we believe the 
American people can spend this last dollar better than can Washington, 
D.C. So we went ahead and designed a tax package which I think strikes 
at the very heart and the very soul of what makes America tick. 
Everybody says, well, this is tax cuts for the rich. Well, in South 
Dakota we have a lot of farmers and ranchers and small business people.

[[Page 21138]]

And when I ask them if they like the death tax, they say no. The death 
tax punishes people for saving for their kids and grandkids. We ought 
to get rid of it. Not only that, it is an inefficient tax. Sixty-five 
cents out of every dollar that is collected on the death tax goes to 
the cost of collecting the tax. It is an inefficient tax.
  When I ask constituents whether they like the marriage penalty; do 
they like the fact that we penalize people and that they pay higher 
taxes for the privilege of being married, they say, no, we do not like 
that. That is a policy change that this bills makes. It is long 
overdue. We ought not penalize people in this country for being 
married. We ought to encourage that.
  When I ask if they think we should tax capital gains on inflation, 
well, no, they do not think that sounds like a very good idea. Well, we 
make a change and index inflation in this bill so that it is not 
subject to a capital gains tax.
  I have also asked if farmers, ranchers, and small business people 
ought to be able to deduct health insurance premiums. And that too, 
again, I think strikes at the very heart of those who are contributing 
to this society, helping generate this surplus and, frankly, in many 
cases, at least in my State, are very hard pressed. Farmers, ranchers, 
and small business people are trying to make ends meet in what is a 
very, very difficult agricultural economy.
  These are policy changes which I think are very positive and they are 
long overdue. They are things that the American people could benefit 
from. And the alternative, as I said, is that this dollar gets spent in 
Washington. That is just reality. And I think we have to say honestly 
to the American people that all this talk and propaganda coming out of 
the White House and this administration about, boy, if they cut taxes 
it is going to cut farmers, it is going to cut veterans, it is going to 
cut water projects, it is going to cut education, I do not know where 
that comes from, because we are talking about surplus dollars.
  We all agreed in 1997 to a balanced budget agreement which spends at 
a certain rate through the year 2002, and we assume beyond that, for 
the balance of this agreement, certain inflationary increases in 
spending. How they can argue that somehow this is going to rob or cut 
all these programs is beyond me. We are talking about surplus dollars. 
And I think the American people need to understand clearly what this 
argument is about. It is about the fact that we are using $3 out of $4, 
if we can put this in small terms again, $3 out of $4 to preserve and 
protect Social Security and Medicare and to pay down the federal debt.
  And the debate we are having in America today is about whether 
Washington spends this last buck or whether the American family spends 
it on things that they need; whether it is education, college education 
for their children, whether it is on mortgage payments, whether it is 
on school supplies or Christmas presents, whatever. We believe as a 
matter of principle and as a matter of policy that the American people 
are in a better position to make that decision about their futures and 
how best to use this last dollar.
  I think it is important in the course of this debate and discussion 
that we debunk a lot of the myths that are being propagated by the 
other side. There is a lot of propaganda, a lot of rhetoric and 
demagoguery, as there always is in scare tactics that are used, 
because, again, the reality is in Washington, if we take this away from 
the politicians, it is money they cannot spend. And that is why they 
are trying so desperately to hang on to it. We believe, again as a 
matter of principle, as a matter of policy and practice, that this 
dollar is better spent by the American people, by the American family.
  So I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding this evening to 
me. I think we probably concur because I believe his district is very 
much like mine; that those he represents are very much like those I 
represent. They are hard working people. They understand that this, the 
dollars they pay the Federal Government, is their money. We understand 
it is their money. We want them to keep more of it. That is what this 
debate is about. And I hope as it continues that we are able to 
convince the American people. And as they understand more clearly what 
we are talking about, I believe there will be a huge groundswell of 
support for what we are trying to accomplish here, which is to give 
them more power.
  I believe when the American people have more in their pocket, they 
have the power. When Washington has the money, Washington has the 
power. We want the American people to have more power and more control 
over their future.
  So I appreciate very much the gentleman from Colorado yielding some 
of his time this evening. I know he would like to talk some more about 
this issue and I would certainly yield back to him.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I want to add to 
the gentleman's comments.
  That dollar that the administration says ought to stay in Washington, 
D.C. does one simple thing, it grows the size of the Government. There 
has never been a time in the history of politics, because of the human 
demands upon the politicians, that a pool of money can be left sitting 
in the Capital of a State or in Washington, D.C. and think that the 
politicians are going to keep their hands off that and use that for 
some future reduction of the federal debt. It is not going to happen.
  I think what else is important to my colleague, as he mentioned, is 
that there are some myths out there that need to be debunked. The 
Republicans said, look, we can take care of Social Security, we can 
take care of Medicare, and we need to do something with education, we 
need to do something with the military, we have to increase our 
spending with regard to the military, and we need to reduce the federal 
debt. We think that we can do all five of those things and still take 
that dollar, which is a small part of the $4 that the gentleman had 
there, take that dollar and give it back to the taxpayers.
  Now, our proposal to do that alarmed the administration. The 
President decided he could not let the Republicans get credit for 
giving back the people their money that came from them. He had to come 
up with a proposal. And he did come up with a proposal. And when it was 
scored by the Congressional Budget Office, it actually resulted in a 
tax increase. If we want to look at a bill that really reduces the 
debt, look at the history of the two parties and which party is 
carrying the bill that is really going to reduce that debt. We had 40 
years of Democratic control in the United States Congress. Forty years 
the Democrats were in control. In that period of time I think they had 
one 2-year period where they had a balance.
  What is the history of this? The Republicans' bill, and I am not 
trying to be partisan here, but we need to draw the lines where the 
lines have been drawn in these chambers, the Republican bill does more 
to reduce the federal debt than any other bill out there, period. Now, 
take a look historically. We have had the Democrats in control and ran 
deficits for 38 out of the 40 years. The Republicans took control just 
5 years ago, and since then they brought up the balanced budget 
amendment. It was a Republican bill. Welfare reform; it was a 
Republican bill.
  Now, how many of the Democrats, even the most liberal Democrats in 
this country, are complaining about the tax cut we gave 2 years ago? As 
the gentleman from the Dakotas knows, 2 years ago we went out to 
homeowners, homeowners regardless of their income, all they had to do 
was own a home, in the gentleman's district or in my district or in 
Mississippi or Massachusetts or in Florida or in Texas. We went out to 
the homeowners in this country, and we used the same argument and we 
got the same kind of disagreement from the Democrat leadership. Not all 
Democrats, because there are a lot of conservative Democrats who 
understand where this money comes from. But the Democrat leadership and 
the administration fought us on this homeowner deal.
  What did we do with the homeowners? We went to every homeowner in 
this country and told them that

[[Page 21139]]

from this point on when they sell their home, and if they sell their 
home for a profit, not net equity but actually net profit, they get to 
take that, up to $250,000 per person, $500,000 per couple, they get to 
take that money, tax free, regardless of their age, and put it in their 
pockets.
  So those Americans out there who have heard some of this bunk about 
Republicans and their tax plans, they should not forget that when they 
sell that home that they live in right now, thanks to the Republican 
leadership, they are going to get, with some rare exceptions, for 
instance, if an individual is very, very wealthy and they sell it for 
more than $500,000 profit, otherwise anybody that sells it for a dollar 
profit up to $500,000 profit per couple puts that money in their 
pocket. And it is money they will spend in their community. They will 
donate some to the church, they will go out and buy a new car, maybe 
buy another house. That money recirculates in the communities, not back 
here in the Washington, DC community.
  So I appreciate and invite the gentleman to continue participating if 
he wishes, but I think the gentleman's example is right on point. I am 
glad he showed that dollar bill, because that dollar bill is right now 
in Washington, DC. What the gentleman has proposed and our colleagues 
have proposed is taking that dollar bill and putting it back in the 
local community. Because we think a dollar bill in Glenwood Springs, 
Colorado, or in the Dakotas, up there somewhere in the Dakotas, or in 
Miami, Florida, or in Los Angeles or in Seattle, Washington, or Salt 
Lake City, we think putting that dollar back into the local community 
is going to have a much more efficient use, be much more productive, be 
much more helpful for capital, much more helpful for the communities 
and the nonprofits and the schools than taking that dollar and keeping 
it right here in these House Chambers and sending it out to the Federal 
agencies. That is what the gentleman is saying and the gentleman is 
right, and I yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. THUNE. Well, I thank the gentleman for continuing to yield. As I 
have tried to present this, I have asked the people of South Dakota one 
basic question, and that is this question: Do you think that the 
Federal Government in Washington is too small? Do you think that the 
Federal Government in Washington is too small?
  Now, if the answer is yes to that question, obviously that person is 
going to like the President's plan to grow the size of government by 
spending the surplus. But I would suspect that most people, in fact 
when I ask this question across my State, I do not see any hands get 
raised. I am guessing if the gentleman asks that question in his 
district in Colorado he would get the same response. Most people in 
this country understand the Federal Government is big enough.
  In fact, we believe, and I think most people believe, that we ought 
to continue this process that we have begun of shifting power out of 
Washington and back to those communities that the gentleman talked 
about, back to school districts, back to families, back to individuals 
so they can do more for their communities. We need for Washington to do 
less and the American people to do more.
  Again, it does come back, and I want to say this so the American 
people do not miss this as we have this debate, what we are talking 
about, if we were to take that surplus and put it into small terms that 
people understand, $3 goes to Social Security, to Medicare, and to pay 
down the Federal debt, and $1, we think, basically 25 percent of the 
surplus, goes back to the American people. It is their money. And it is 
a ludicrous notion to think that if this money comes to Washington it 
is not going to get spent.
  Mr. McINNIS. And reclaiming my time once again, that $1 that the 
gentleman held up, we hear from the Democratic leadership, through the 
propaganda going across this country, that that dollar is going to be 
used to reduce the Federal debt. What the gentleman said, and he is 
absolutely correct, if we leave that $1 here in Washington, DC, it will 
not go for reducing the national debt; it will go for new programs and 
for new spending.
  When we leave money around here, the new spending is a temptation. I 
am sure the gentleman knows this, at least as it applies to me, when I 
have people come into my office asking for new spending, these usually 
are not bad programs. They usually sound great.

                              {time}  2200

  But the question is, can we afford them? So the temptation to spend 
those dollars will fall on Republicans and Democrats back here. It is a 
strong temptation. We have a lot of our constituents out there who, if 
that dollar stays here, they say the dollar is going to stay in 
Washington, let us spend it for this program or let us spend it for 
that program. We all know that if we leave that dollar here it will 
grow the size of the Government.
  What the Republicans are pushing for, and we are having a tough time 
getting our message across because it is very easy to spend it in 15 
seconds, what the gentleman from the Dakotas and myself are trying to 
explain in 30 minutes, but the fact is if we leave that dollar in your 
pocket, in your community, it would work much better.
  The only way that theory would not work is if when keeping that 
dollar in your community, in your pocket, you went out and buried it in 
the ground, literally put it in the ground other than it is either 
going to a bank, which will loan it back out to the community, it is 
going to be spent for goods and services, which circulate in the 
community.
  Do my colleagues know what they should do? Sometimes some of these 
companies have to pay taxes. They should pay their employees in $2 
bills, we still have a $2 bill out there, pay in $2 bills and see how 
often and how many places those $2 bills show up in your community and 
how many weeks those $2 bills are showing up in stores and all kinds of 
different places in your community versus coming back here to 
Washington.
  I hope the gentleman stays. I want to point out a couple of other 
things on taxes we have just gotten from the Tax Foundation, and the 
Tax Foundation has a lot of credibility back here. It is a nonpartisan 
organization. We have just received in 1999 what Americans per capita 
will spend on things such as food, clothing, and shelter.
  I want to show my colleagues some very stunning numbers. I will write 
them here very quickly for you.
  On food in 1999, $2,693. That is what the average per capita 
expenditure in the United States will be for food. For clothes, that 
will be $1,404. So for food per capita, we are going to spend $2,693. 
For clothes, we are going to spend $1,404. And for shelter, we will 
spend $5,833.
  Now, if we add that up, assuming my math is right, that is $9,930 per 
capita. So food is $2,693. Clothes are $1,404. And shelter is $5,833. 
That is what you spend for those priority items in your family.
  Guess what you will pay for taxes? $10,298. In other words, the per 
capita expenditure per family in this country you will pay more for 
taxes than you do for your food, your clothes, and your shelter 
combined. Again, let me repeat that. We will all pay more in taxes than 
we will pay for our food, our clothes, and our shelter.
  Now, we will also, another interesting thing, when you look at these 
numbers put out by the tax group, on Federal taxes alone, we will spend 
more than any other major budget item.
  I want to put some examples out here. For housing, we will spend the 
$5,833; for health care, $3,829; for food, $2,693; for transportation, 
$2,568; for recreation, $1,922; for clothing, $1,404. For Federal taxes 
alone, just for Federal taxes, here is what we spend for Federal taxes: 
$7,000.
  So think about your budget, think about what you are spending in your 
family budget. These are roughly the figures that you will come up 
with: Housing $5,833. You spend more in taxes than you do in housing 
for your family. Health care for your family, you will spend about 
$3,829. This is per capita. You will spend a little over

[[Page 21140]]

twice that for taxes, not quite twice, $7,026. For food to feed the 
family, per capita, $2,693 compared to what you are going to have to 
pay in taxes, $7,026. For recreation, $1,922 compared to the $7,000 you 
are going to pay in taxes. For clothing, $1,404 to clothe your family 
per capita, and you are going to spend over $7,000 in taxes.
  My point is this: There has been a lot of rhetoric lately about if we 
do not provide some kind of tax relief for the American people then we 
hear from the Democratic party leadership that the Federal debt will 
only increase and they all of a sudden, the Democrat leadership, after 
40 years of running deficits in this country, now, some of my 
colleagues do not like to hear partisanship and I am not trying to be 
partisan, but the fact is the Republicans did not run this House for 40 
years, they have run it for 5 years; and we have had surpluses on 
almost all of those years.
  We have had welfare reform. We had the tax cut I spoke about earlier. 
But the reality, what people do not want you to hear is that, guess 
what, when we reduce your taxes, when we allow you to keep those 
dollars in your pockets, guess what happens? The economy improves.
  Take a look at any major tax relief or tax reduction in this century 
or in the century before it but since income tax came in this century, 
take a look at any one of them. Immediately after a tax reduction, the 
economy improved. When those dollars, again, unless you bury your 
dollars in the ground and you never see them again or you hide them and 
do not circulate them in your community, then in any other circumstance 
that will, one, keep down the size of government and, two, bring up the 
health of the economy.
  Now, we have got a pretty good economy. Not everybody. My good friend 
from the Dakotas talks about the agriculture and the suffering, and 
they are suffering out in the farm belt. But there are a lot of people 
who are enjoying the healthiest, many of them, they will ever 
experience in their entire life. So they do not worry so much about 
taxes. Well, you pay a little tax here, you pay a little tax here.
  Let me tell you what is happening while some of you are asleep. The 
governments, whether it is a local government, whether it is a local 
district, whether it is a State government, or whether it is the 
Federal Government, is sneaking into your house while you are asleep 
and those taxes are going up.
  Most of the increase that you have seen in your taxes, the total tax 
package, has occurred since 1981. Most of that increase, 45 percent, 45 
percent of the taxes that you pay are as a result of tax increases 
since 1981. All we are saying here is let us not fall asleep while the 
tax man sneaks in behind us.
  Now, are taxes necessary? Of course they are necessary. We have 
certain responsibilities that belong to the Federal Government, a 
strong military. I think we have a fundamental obligation for good 
education in this country. We do have some health care obligations. We 
have transportation obligations for the interstate highways, interstate 
commerce. We have a justice system that has to be maintained.
  So there are some fundamental obligations that the Federal Government 
must maintain. There are certainly obligations that the State 
government must maintain. We agree with those. Our local districts, our 
school districts have a very heavy burden in providing what we want and 
that is quality education. Those dollars have to go in.
  But it does not mean we should overpay and it does not mean when we 
pay our tax we should not ask our elected officials, am I paying too 
much? Am I getting a fair shake for my dollar? Am I getting efficient 
use out of that dollar? Is that dollar more productive in Washington, 
D.C., or is it more productive in my home State of Santa Clara, 
California, or Salt Lake City, Utah, or Kansas City, Kansas, or 
Carbondale, Colorado? Is this where those dollars are most efficient?
  So, my colleagues, I am just trying to say to my colleagues here as 
this rhetoric goes on about the tax cut and how it is going to add to 
the Federal debt, take a look at the details. Read the fine print.
  When you read the fine print, you are going to find out, frankly, 
really there are two choices. One, continue to grow the Government or, 
two, give back a portion of the surplus, not all of the surplus, but 
give back a portion of the surplus to the people who earned it.
  Tax dollars are taxed to spend. That is the only reason we get taxed. 
It is the only reason our constituents out there get taxed. The only 
reason you are being taxed is so that some governmental body can spend 
that money. And as we said earlier, some of those expenses are 
justified. Some of them are necessary. But if you tend to allow 
accountability to become lax or the old saying that ``when the cat is 
away, the mice will play,'' if you do not keep the cat in the barn, the 
mice pretty soon get out of control.
  What we are saying here is let us exercise prudent financial 
management and let us tell our clients, the constituents, the 
taxpayers, you overpaid for this product. You deserve a little of it 
back. We still want to give you a fine product. You deserve it from the 
Government. But at this point you have overpaid a little, not a lot. 
The tax decrease we are talking about does not do a lot but it still 
keeps a few of those dollars in your pocket.
  I have had a recent opportunity about 3 years ago, and this is 
exciting regardless of what party you are in regardless of your bent 
toward partisan politics, I have got something that I hope all of my 
colleagues take a very careful look at. It has been a tremendously 
successful program in my district, and I would like to explain it to my 
colleagues. It is called the S.E.E.D.S. program.
  I actually started that program in the Third Congressional District 
of Colorado with the help of a lot of people Susan Smith, the City of 
Pueblo, County of Pueblo, several school districts, Pueblo Community 
College, Roger Gomez, a number of different people.
  We all got together; and we found out that under the Federal 
regulations, you can ask Federal agencies for their excess computer 
equipment. In other words, we have, for example, the Department of 
Energy who has been very cooperative with us. They have excess computer 
equipment. Some of this equipment is almost brand new.
  Now, this is not state-of-the-art computer equipment. But most 
schools in our country do not have state-of-the-art computer equipment. 
In fact, in my district there were a number of schools that did not 
have really any computer equipment.
  So what we did on our drive to cut down Government waste is we went 
to these different agencies and we said we would like you to ship those 
computers to a warehouse, which, by the way, was donated to our cause 
in Pueblo, Colorado, send them to our warehouse. We got students from 
Pueblo Community College to come in and help us put part A of the 
computer with part B, so on and so forth.
  We got citizens to help us haul away the trash. We got citizens to 
help come down and do the mechanical work. We got citizens to volunteer 
and come down and help us match up the computers with schools that 
needed these computers. And before you know it, our program was off and 
running.
  What were the results of our program? In our program in Colorado now, 
we are up to 200 sets of computers a week that we give to local 
schools, not just public schools, private schools, home schoolers, 
senior citizens. It is an exciting project. It provides a need for 
education which we think is very important.
  Nobody disagrees that education is not important. And it takes away 
budget waste, Government waste, wasteful spending, which I think most 
of us would agree is not necessary. We take that waste, and we convert 
it to a good, positive use. It is called the S.E.E.D.S. program.
  I am here this evening to tell my constituents, to tell my colleagues 
here on the House floor this is a program you should adopt, you should 
take a look at.

                              {time}  2215

  I would like to cover another area tonight. There has been some 
recent

[[Page 21141]]

press, publicity, about a stand I have taken in regards to our military 
academies.
  Let me precede my comments on the academies with the statement about 
the military. We need in this country the strongest military second to 
none in the world. Do not let people kid you. It would be a very 
terrible mistake for us to allow our military to fall into shambles and 
to become the second toughest kid on the block. You cannot be the 
second toughest kid on the block. You cannot be the third toughest kid 
on the block. You have got to be the toughest kid on the block.
  It does not mean you go pick fights, but it does mean you will be in 
less fights because people will not want to fight you. It also means 
that you can go out and help those people that are less fortunate 
because of your strength.
  I believe in a strong military, and all of us should believe in a 
strong military. For too many years, the military has not received the 
kind of priority that is necessary, although the military for too many 
years has been called to different missions all over the world. I think 
right now we are stationed in 164 different locations.
  So I have great respect for the military, but I also believe that the 
military has accountability.
  I want to talk for a couple of minutes about our service academies. 
It is a great honor to be selected to go to the United States service 
academies, West Point, the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy, the 
U.S. Coast Guard. The students that go there are not the cream of the 
crop. I repeat that. They are not the cream of the crop. They are the 
cream of the cream of the crop.
  We take our very best students, and when we focus in on the students 
that we want to send to those military academies, I think there are a 
lot of things we need to look at and list in order of priority. 
Leadership skills, obviously intelligence capabilities, and maybe 
somewhere on the list, further down on the list, there are sports 
abilities or their celebrity status on sports.
  Here is what is happening. This is my point that I disagreed very 
strongly with on some of the academies. When someone enters, say, the 
Air Force Academy, you make a commitment to the United States of 
America. You sign a deal with them. It is fully disclosed. There is 
nothing hidden about it. You tell the United States, in this case Air 
Force Academy, I will serve so many years in exchange for those 4 years 
of college education that the American people are giving me as a 
privilege, and it is a privilege. We pick great young men and women to 
be in the service, but you sign this commitment and just to be sure you 
fully understand that commitment, after 2 years of being in, say the 
U.S. Air Force Academy, we say to the students, look, you can walk 
away, no strings attached or we want you to make sure that you make an 
informed decision that if you continue at the Air Force Academy and 
complete your 4 years' education, you will have a commitment of 
service, you will have an obligation, you will have a duty. These 
students, by the way, live under an ethical code or a military code or 
an academy code that says, service to the Nation over self.
  Well, what I have discovered is happening is, if you are in a very 
special class of people at the Air Force Academy, for example, you get 
treated differently than the other cadets. What am I talking about? If 
everyone was listening to me earlier this evening, I talked about 
heroes. We had two heroes in Grand Junction, Colorado. They lost their 
lives. I like sports. I enjoy the Broncos. I am a fan of the Broncos, 
but even my favorite sports person, to me, is a celebrity, not a hero. 
But what happens at the academies, if you are a celebrity sports 
person, for example, an outstanding football player who has an 
opportunity to be drafted by the pros, you are going to get special 
treatment or some of them have received special treatment by the Air 
Force Academy, for example, that lets them walk away from their service 
commitment.
  Now, they have to serve some time in the reserves, but they are not 
treated like every other cadet out there. Now, some people say, well, 
it is good publicity for us. It is necessary that we allow these 
academy graduates to walk away or be waivered, that is the keyword, 
that is the buzz word, be waivered from their duty and their service so 
that we get publicity in the pro football circuit.
  My comment to that was, well, if we need publicity, why do we not 
just go ahead and let United Airlines, for example, or any airline, I 
fly United a lot, let any airline go to the Air Force Academy and say 
we would like your top pilots, go ahead and waive their service, we 
will pay them money, even though these athletes are not having to pay 
their $120,000 which is the payback financially to the Government, we 
will go ahead, we like your top pilots. Do you think the Air Force 
Academy would release those pilots? Not on your life.
  If Dow Chemical Corporation or some other chemical company, and I 
like Dow Chemical, if they went to the Air Force Academy and said we 
would like your top chemists, give us your top chemist students, do you 
think they would waiver those students out of there? Not on your life.
  Let me read from an editorial, Rocky Mountain News. A Perk for 
Military Athletes. ``Roger Staubach graduated from the Naval Academy, 
served his obligatory 4 years on active duty, and still enjoyed an 11-
year career with the Dallas Cowboys that put him in the pro football 
Hall of Fame.
  ``Times have changed. Beau Morgan, the Air Force Academy's star 
quarterback from the class of 1997, was let out of what is now a 5-year 
commitment after only 2 years so he could try out with the Dallas 
Cowboys this summer.
  ``It is part of a trend that apparently began in 1989 when the Naval 
Academy graduate David Robinson was released after just 2 years' active 
duty, enabling him to play with the NBA's San Antonio Spurs. Now an 
angry U.S. Representative Scott McInnis, Republican of Colorado, is 
threatening to introduce legislation that would put an end to this 
practice. `When these kids go to the academy, we try and teach them 
that you put your Nation above yourself, but that is not what is 
occurring here.'
  ``There are a number of other examples. Steve Russ, a line backer 
with the Denver Broncos, was released from his military commitment in 
1997, 2 years after his Air Force Academy graduation. Air Force Academy 
grad Dan Palmer also got an early out to try out with the Chicago Bears 
as an offensive lineman.
  ``For 2 years, McInnis has been trying to use the Freedom of 
Information Act to get a complete list of those who received waivers 
from service academies for athletic purposes, but he is having a hard 
time of it.''
  ``It is easy to understand why the military schools might be tempted 
to fudge the rules in order to entice more athletes. For decades they 
played at the top levels of intercollegiate athletics, but that is no 
longer true. A military career is just not as attractive to top 
athletes as it once was. Frustrated academy graduates who are now 
generals and admirals want to do what they can to slow or reverse the 
trend. The military tries to justify the current policy by saying that 
their star athletes serve effectively as academy recruiters upon their 
early release, but we suspect the kids they mainly recruit are other 
outstanding athletes who will also expect early releases.
  ``Those who get releases, after signing pro contracts, do not have to 
repay the $120,000 cost of their education and they do not have to go 
back to active duty even if they are later cut by their teams. Their 
only obligation is to spend 6 years in the Reserves.
  ``If pro athletes serve as effective recruiters, says McInnis, why 
not let United Airlines recruit the top pilots from the Air Force 
Academy, so long as they say on the airplane, `You are being flown by 
an Air Force Academy graduate.'
  ``McInnis dismisses the suggestion that early releases might be all 
right if the graduate or his employer simply repays the Government the 
cost of his or her education. The economics of professional athletes 
are such that $120,000 is merely, quote, what professional teams spend 
on refreshments at weekend resorts, unquote.

[[Page 21142]]

  ``The point, says McInnis, is that academy athletes deserve no 
privileges that other graduates cannot get. `It is just wrong,' he 
says, of the early-release policy. `It makes me mad.'
  ``Considering the athletes the major state universities recruit, how 
little some of them study and how few of them ultimately graduate, the 
service academies should not be ashamed that their cadets can no longer 
compete at that level. If they have to play smaller schools, it is no 
disgrace.
  ``But the early-out policy for their athletes is a disgrace, and 
should be stopped.''
  Folks, my point is very clear. We are proud of these academies. The 
Air Force Academy and West Point and the Coast Guard and the Naval 
Academy have served this country very well. Our great military leaders, 
some of our presidents, many of our great leaders in this country have 
come from those academies. Why? Because when you go to an academy, it 
is a pretty special place. It has the highest of standards, and it has 
the highest of ethical codes.
  I think we are diluting that. I think we are diluting the reputation 
of all the preceding graduates of these academies for the entire 
history of those academies by taking a special class of athletes and 
treating them differently, by letting them out of their obligations 
early. Again, remember, we do not do it for any other class of Air 
Force or Naval or West Point or Coast Guard Academy graduate. It is 
wrong. We should stand up and say to the American people, you can 
expect more from our academies.
  I want to mention a couple of other things in conclusion this 
evening. First of all, as I said earlier, I come from the third 
district of Colorado. This is a very special season coming up in 
Colorado so I am going to do a little promotion. I hope all of my 
colleagues have an opportunity to go out and see our colors in the 
Aspen trees. The district I represent is the highest district in the 
United States. They have a lot of beautiful communities, a lot of great 
ski resorts, Aspen, Sonoma, Steamboat, Telluride. I will get in trouble 
because I do not name them all, but virtually every ski resort in 
Colorado is in that district.
  So if my colleagues get an opportunity, we invite them to come out to 
Colorado. Come and visit us. Come and see what beauty we have out 
there. But I also want to point out something else. When my colleagues 
head out of this city, take a look at how important it is that we allow 
the average working Joe and the average working Jane in this country to 
be promised and to expect fair treatment by their Government when it 
comes to taxes.
  Every Government leader out there should understand that they have a 
fiduciary duty, an obligation, to try and deliver the most efficient 
services the Government can at the least amount of cost, and every 
Government official out there has an obligation to you, the working Joe 
and the working Jane, the people that provide these dollars, there is 
an obligation on behalf of every elected or every Government employee 
or every Government official to make sure that you are not being 
overcharged.
  There is an obligation by every one of us in these chambers to look 
at that taxpayer and we ought to say thank you to them. We ought to say 
thank you to the working people of this country, because if it were not 
for the 8 or 12 or 14 hours they work every day 5 or 6 or 7 days a 
week, that money to provide for the programs that we run out of these 
chambers would not be here. We owe them a big thank you, and we also 
owe them the duty to make sure that when we spend those dollars we 
spend them effectively, that we are fair to the taxpayer.
  Our system needs taxes. It has to operate with taxes, but our system 
has a fundamental requirement of fairness and openness to the people 
that send that money to Washington. And when we have an opportunity to 
send that money and put it back in the pocketbooks of those hard 
working Americans that provide those dollars, we should take it.

                          ____________________