[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13624-13630]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              ISSUES OF CONCERN TO COLORADO AND THE NATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, to begin this evening, as my colleagues 
know, many of us have been delayed due to transportation difficulties 
with the airlines out there. Some of my constituents were surprised to 
learn that Congressmen, in fact, also have their bags lost, that 
Congressmen also are delayed on these flights. So tonight I thought I 
would show my colleagues a pretty clear demonstration, since they may 
see it as I speak, of exactly what happens to a Congressman who loses 
his baggage. If my colleagues will look down, they will see my dress 
socks. Obviously, the real socks are in the suitcase and somewhere the 
suitcase is out there in that system.
  In all seriousness about that, in the last 8 years, in serving in the 
United States Congress, I have had very good air service across this 
country.

                              {time}  2200

  As many of my colleagues know, we are very, very dependent in all 
walks of life in this country, we are very, very dependent on our 
service from one State to the next State or across the country.
  I am telling the Members, in the last 3 months the air service in 
this country has deteriorated significantly. I have not, with the major 
airline that I fly, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, had an on-
time arrival in 3 months. That has not happened, that kind of record 
has not happened in 8 years.
  I am not going to speak about transportation this evening any more 
than I am doing right now other than to point out that this problem is 
getting worse. Once in a while the airlines can blame it on weather, 
once in a while the airlines can blame it on mechanics, but the fact is 
that there is a deterioration of service, and it is incumbent upon the 
executives of these airlines to fix the problem, because our country is 
too dependent upon it.
  The taxpayers in this country provide a lot of dollars for airports. 
The passengers in this country provide a lot of dollars in their taxes 
that are put on there, passenger taxes at airports to help supplement 
our airline service. We deserve more, in my opinion.
  It was with some interest last week that I saw news stories about 
what I guess they call air rage. There is no place for anyone on an 
airplane to take out their frustrations, in my opinion, on a stewardess 
or someone else on the airplane. But I do want Members to know that 
there should be some understanding of some of the frustration being 
felt by these passengers across the country.
  I was at Denver International Airport today and there was a lady 
there who had been stuck for 2 days at that airport. So as we talk 
about airplane rage or some of these other things, remember what is 
happening to the passengers in this country. We deserve more from some 
of these airlines. That is not all of the airlines. Obviously, some of 
them are performing well.
  I think it is time we pay very close attention, Mr. Speaker, to those 
ratings that come out every month or so talking about which of these 
airlines are having a tough time with service and which of the airlines 
want to merge, and come to us and ask us for more dollars for airports 
and things.
  I think we have every justification to stand out and say, ``Hey, why 
do you not improve your service? There are a lot of people paying taxes 
out there for better service.''
  In Denver, for example, we have one dominant airline. We have some of 
the highest business rates in the United States. We should expect 
premium service. I should add again that for many, many years I have 
received premium service out of Denver, but something has happened in 
the last 3 months. It is going to damage our economy here before too 
long.


                  Toll Roads in the State of Colorado

  Let me go on. I want to talk about several other things this evening. 
First, I want to talk about the proposition of toll roads in the State 
of Colorado. I want to move from there.
  I have noticed several editorials in the last few days about estate 
taxes, actual editorials. In fact, it sounds to me like the Democrats, 
who have for years and years supported the death tax, and in fact, this 
year the Clinton administration in their budget proposes an increase, 
an increase in the death tax, these editorials sound like they are 
writing for that portion or that section of the Democratic Party that 
supports these death taxes. They act as if we owe the government these 
death taxes.
  I am going to talk about the death taxes for a few minutes after I 
finish talking about the toll roads, and then I will spend a few 
minutes on social security and talk about the plan that we as 
Congressmen have for our retirement, although we are also on social 
security; the plan that Vice President Gore voted for, the plan that 
Vice President Gore, under his policies, under his procedures, 
supported.

[[Page 13625]]

  We will talk a little about social security. We will talk about the 
problems with social security. We will talk about, look, do we do what 
the Vice President has proposed, although he has recently changed his 
mind, and that is kind of, do not touch it? Of course we are afraid to 
touch it, but if we do not do something about it, that system is going 
to break. It is going to fall out of the air. The engines are going to 
start coughing and that plane is going to fall out of the air.
  We have to keep social security firm. The way to do it in my opinion 
is take some bold moves. Frankly, those bold moves have been proposed 
by George W. Bush, the Governor of the State of Texas. I want to talk 
about these policies.
  I am not here tonight to get into partisan politics, but clearly 
there is a big distinction when it comes to social security between the 
Governor of the State of Texas and the Vice President. We have every 
right to stand on this floor and debate what those differences are.
  I would venture to say that by the end of the debate, the majority of 
my friends on the Democratic side will join us on the Republican side 
saying, hey, let us take a bold move. Let us do something with social 
security. Let us save social security.
  I would also venture to say that the majority of my colleagues on the 
Democratic side need to wake up, in my opinion. I do not say that in a 
derogatory fashion, but be aware, probably, is a better word, be aware 
of the fact that this death tax is hurting a lot of people in this 
country. Their policy of the death tax in this country should be 
changed. We will get into that.
  Let us first of all talk about the newest proposition in the State of 
Colorado by some elitists, in my opinion. That is, gosh, Colorado is a 
popular spot.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent the Third Congressional District of the 
State of Colorado. That district is one of the largest districts in the 
United States. It is also the highest district in the United States. 
Basically, it is all of western Colorado, here to my left.
  If we talk about the mountains, and for those not familiar with 
western and eastern Colorado, the easy way to think about my district 
is basically all of the mountains, and then I do go some in eastern 
Colorado.
  The Third Congressional District is geographically larger than the 
State of Florida. Although there are six congressional districts in 
Colorado, the Third Congressional District only has a little less than 
20 percent of the population. Eighty plus percent of the population 
lives outside the Third District. But do Members know what? That 80 
percent of the population to a large extent enjoys going into the 
mountains of Colorado.
  A lot of us who grew up in Colorado, a lot of us who spent time in 
Colorado, know what those mountains mean to us. For generation after 
generation after generation of my families in Colorado, the mountains 
are what kept them in Colorado. The people of Colorado love their 
mountains. The people of Colorado are entitled to see their mountains. 
The people of Colorado are entitled to enjoy those mountains.
  But last week we had a new proposal from some bureaucrat, quite 
frankly, saying, you know, we have too much traffic on I-70. For those 
who do not know what I-70 is in Colorado, they all know Interstate 70, 
but where it lies, it virtually cuts the State in half. The mountains 
go about like this.
  What this bureaucrat has come up with is to say, well, let us go 
ahead because I-70 is so heavily traveled, especially out of the major 
cities, and we have another interstate called I-25, here, so we have a 
lot of traffic coming out of these cities, the metropolitan population 
areas, into the Third Congressional District to enjoy those mountains.
  By the way, the highways in the Third Congressional District, they 
were not paid for by people in the Third Congressional District. Those 
are taxes to build those highways that were paid for by everybody in 
the State of Colorado and visitors to the State of Colorado. In fact, 
our Governor, who personally I have known for a number of years and who 
I think has done the most outstanding job of a Governor in many, many 
years, was able to forge through in his first few days and months of 
office a new program to fund additional taxes to build these highways.
  We have grown in popularity. We do have a lot heavier traffic on the 
I-70 corridor. It used to be when I was in the State House of 
Representatives the only time we had heavy traffic on I-70 was on 
Friday afternoon, traffic up to the ski areas, and on Sunday afternoon, 
traffic back from the ski areas. Now almost every day of the week we 
have traffic on I-70.
  So what happens? We have a highway that is being utilized very 
heavily, so we are trying to figure out solutions for it. Maybe there 
are ways, other routes that we can use. What are the solutions?
  I could not believe my ears last week. We had a bureaucrat that came 
out and said, hey, not for any other congressional district in the 
State of Colorado, just the congressional district that the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) represents, let us put a toll booth right 
on the highway. Let us bring the troll in. We have taxed the people to 
build the highway, now let us tax them to keep them off the highway.
  Most are familiar obviously with toll booths, Mr. Speaker. My guess 
would be their experience with toll booths has been we set up a toll 
booth to collect money because it is the truest form of ``the user 
pays.'' The person who benefits from the highway is the one who travels 
on the highway and is the one who pays the tolls.
  This toll booth being proposed by a bureaucrat is not a toll booth to 
raise money for construction of highways, it is a toll booth to impose 
a penalty upon people who want to come visit the Colorado mountains. It 
is a price to be put on, and if people can meet it, if they are wealthy 
enough, they get to go to the mountains. If they are a poor working guy 
out there or gal who does not have that kind of money, they do not get 
to go to the mountains. It is a new toll. We have a new troll in 
Colorado.
  It is not fair. Fundamentally it is not fair. Let us talk a little 
about it. What kind of rate do Members think they would have to charge 
in that toll booth to keep people from visiting their mountains, $1? We 
are not going to stop anybody for $1, by charging a dollar in the toll 
booth, and the reason is we do not want them to go onto the highways, 
we want to slow down what we call congestion traffic.
  Would it be $5? That is not going to slow it down. What about $20? 
Maybe a little. But $30 or $40, yes, we will then begin to slow the 
traffic down on I-70 going into the Colorado mountains, $30 or $40 or 
$50 at the toll booth. We will begin to take the congestion off that 
highway.
  Do Members know who they are impacting or where the unfairness of 
this is? They are not impacting the person who drives the Mercedes, or 
in fact the person even in my economic bracket. I could afford to pay 
for it. But the people we are impacting are the people who live out 
here who work 40, 50, 60 hours a week, can barely get by, and they take 
their families to Glenwood Springs, Colorado, to the Hot Springs pool 
for family recreation, or they take them to the Sunlight Ski Area in 
Glenwood Springs, or to Powderhorn in Grand Junction, or they run them 
up to Breckenridge when there is a special rate for skiing.
  There are a lot of families in Colorado that are not wealthy, Mr. 
Speaker. There are a lot of families in Colorado where both the man and 
woman are both working to make ends meet. A lot of those families that 
are not wealthy, where both parents have to work to make ends meet, 
enjoy the mountains just like somebody who has a lot of money enjoys 
the mountains.
  It goes the other way, too, by the way. My guess would be, although I 
have not had a personal conversation with this individual who proposed 
this, my guess would be that he also wants to collect a toll going the 
other direction.
  So when the people in rural Colorado, and I can tell the Members, a 
lot of children in rural Colorado have never

[[Page 13626]]

been in an airplane. They have never been higher than maybe a four- or 
five-story building. Right now in probably 98, and this is hard to 
believe, in 98 or 96 percent of the State, maybe, 96 percent of the 
State of Colorado, there is one escalator, one escalator. So one of the 
beautiful areas of Colorado, one of the areas of major attractions, is 
Denver. Denver has the Broncos, it has the Rockies, the Children's 
Museum, the fish aquarium, it has the hockey team, it has Elitch 
Gardens, a lot of different things; Denver University. There are lots 
of things that the people in the mountains like to go to the city.
  Now all of a sudden we have somebody out there trying to get momentum 
claiming that it is good for the environment to go ahead and tax the 
people that were taxed to build the road, tax them to keep them off the 
roads. They never even mentioned in this proposal what kind of impact 
it is going to have on that blue collar worker, that blue collar labor 
who does not make a lot of money, and 30 or 40 bucks out of their 
pocket means a lot. It hurts.
  If these people really want to cut down on congestion through a toll 
road, they are not going to do it with $1, with $5. They are going to 
have to do it with $30, $40, $50. All of a sudden we have discovered a 
troll sitting on the tollgate to my district, to the district that I am 
privileged to represent. We have made a determination in Colorado that 
if people want to go see the mountains of Colorado, if they want to 
enjoy those 14,000 foot majestic packs, and I have by far more 14,000 
foot peaks than other people in the country, I have 54 or so, if people 
want to go out and enjoy that, they can as long as they are part of the 
wealthy status, as long as they have the money to pay the toll. When 
they go up to the troll, if they have 40 or 30 bucks, throw it in the 
box.
  Fortunately, we have a Governor in the State of Colorado who in my 
opinion is not going to stand for that kind of thing. Fortunately, we 
have a Governor in the State of Colorado who has stood up and put 
together a good highway improvement program. He has put those taxpayer 
dollars into construction.
  I think there is some legitimate argument, by the way, for a toll 
booth if in fact that money is going to improve that road.

                              {time}  2215

  I can remember growing up, and my father used to show us all the 
time, the kids, he and my mom had six kids. My parents now live in 
Glenwood Springs, they are great, great wonderful people. I remember 
when I was young and mom and dad pointed out the Denver Bolder 
Turnpike, the only toll booth in the State of Colorado.
  My dad and my mom always used to tell us, you know what is good about 
this? They are going to take this down, the government promised us, 
they are going to take it down the day they pay for the improvements on 
the Denver Bolder Turnpike.
  Do you know what the government did back then? The day that those 
improvements were paid off, the toll booths came down. Now, that is 
fair, and people back then accepted the Denver Boulder Turnpike toll 
booth, because they knew that money was to improve the highway.
  It was not put there as a punishment as this is being proposed to do. 
It was not put there to raise money off the Denver Boulder Turnpike and 
to transfer to other people programs, it was put there to improve that 
turnpike. My, my, my how things have changed over time.
  Now they want to put a toll booth up there, this recommendation, to 
penalize you for using the very roads that those taxpayers put in 
place, to penalize you especially if you are lower middle income or 
lower income, to penalize you from going up and enjoying the mountains 
that give you the pride of the State of Colorado.
  Colorado is known to my colleagues throughout this floor. You know 
Colorado. Some of you may know it for the Broncos. Some of you may know 
it for the Rockies. But, realistically, you know it because of those 
Rocky Mountains.
  We have a fundamental right as citizens of the State of Colorado to 
enjoy our mountains, without having to pay a toll at a government toll 
booth to keep congestion off that highway, a toll booth that allows 
only the wealthy to go by. If you do not have that cash, that $30, $40, 
$50, and that is exactly what it is going to take to stop that 
congestion or at least slow it down, then you are out of luck.
  It is wrong. And I am not going to drop this issue. I have written 
Chairman Dan Stuart on their input. I said thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on the scoping phase of the I-70 environmental 
impact statement. I am writing to notify your commission and the 
Federal Highway Administration that I adamantly, adamantly oppose the 
use of tolls or any other so-called congested pricing levies aimed at 
discouraging Coloradans from traveling along I-70 in Western Colorado.
  Again, how interesting that the only toll booth they are suggesting 
is right there on the gateway to the Third Congressional District. I 
have been told by officials that the use of congestion tolls is but one 
of the many possible remedies being considered. Even so, I strongly 
urge the traffic planners charged with drafting this EIS to dismiss out 
of hand the idea of congestion toll roads based clearly on the lack of 
merit and the discrimination that it exercises against the people who 
do not make that kind of money, and they are being kept out of the 
mountains for which they have a lot of pride.
  They are citizens of Colorado or visitors to Colorado. There are a 
whole range of sound and reasonable solutions I write about in this 
letter that are available. But erecting a toll gate to and from Western 
Colorado, erecting a toll gate to get in and out of my congressional 
district is wrong. It is wrong because it is being put there for a 
punitive nature to punish people who want to go into the mountains, 
because some ivy league person has thought gosh how cars are evil. 
Highways are evil. Congestion is evil. Of course, who likes congestion? 
We all like to have some great method of transportation that does not 
have congestion.
  For you to go out and penalize us in Western Colorado by putting a 
toll gate both coming in and out of my district, it is not going to be 
accepted. Forget it. That is not in the letter, I thought I would just 
ad-lib a little there. But erecting that kind of gate is unacceptable.
  While the use of tolls may be appropriate in certain circumstances, 
it would be unfair to impose a congestion toll for no reason other than 
to discourage travel by taxpayers who paid for the roads in the first 
place. Colorado taxpayers have paid more than their fair share for 
construction and maintenance of these roads. A new congestion toll 
without a corresponding improvement in the quality of the interstate 
would seem punitive.
  Well, you get the point. I am not too excited about this proposal. I 
have not had an opportunity to talk with the particular bureaucrat that 
is out there proposing it.
  But I will tell you before it catches on, before you try and go out 
there and try and dress it up so it looks real pretty, you better 
understand and I think strengthen our voice that is going to oppose 
this.
  I want to commend the governor of the State of Colorado, that 
governor understands that there are lots of approaches that we can use 
to resolve this problem, that governor understands highways. And I 
would hope that my message rings throughout the entire bureaucracy 
including the Federal Highway Administration. Do not put toll booths on 
this highway simply for the purpose of punishing people who want to go 
up there, not for construction, but to punish them because they want to 
visit the Colorado mountains.


                              Death Taxes

  Let me move to another subject, death taxes. Colleagues we know what 
death taxes are. You work all your life. You accumulate. I will give 
you an example, my wife and I. My wife and I did not start with any 
money. We just started saving early on. I will tell you we did not have 
boats or nice cars. I mean we have used cars which were nice for us, 
and nothing against somebody who wants to have a boat, I think

[[Page 13627]]

it is great. In fact, if I had the money, I would buy those, that is 
extra.
  But in our mind, my wife and I in our life, one of our goals was to 
have something that when we went on, when we passed away and we could 
pass on to our children so they could have a little head start for 
their life so maybe they could afford a down payment on a home, so 
maybe the family ranch that is in my wife's family, that maybe her 
portion of the ranch could be enjoyed by the next generation following 
us, that maybe some of the other things that we have worked so hard to 
accomplish and we have toiled, just like many, many other young couples 
in our country are doing now, we did that a few years ago.
  There are a lot of young people out in the country today, a lot of 
young people by the way, Democrats, in business. It is not all that 
bad, business. A lot of small business people, a lot of farmers and 
ranchers, a lot of young people getting into these professions and 
they, too, share the goal that my wife and I shared that my mother and 
father, my wife's mother and father shared and that is, look, we do not 
want to spoil the generation behind us, but let us do something for the 
generation, let us try and jump start them, let us give them a little 
head start.
  Now, when you accumulate like that, you do not accumulate taxfree, 
with the exception of some IRAs, and those are taxed, but basically as 
my colleagues know, you do not accumulate this property tax free, you 
pay taxes on it. When you earn it, you are taxed on it, and you take 
what is left after the taxes and you put it into an account or you make 
some kind of an investment for the future.
  We are not talking here about money that here you earn it, we are not 
talking about money that goes over here 100 percent, it does not 
happen. What happens here is the taxman comes in and he cuts his chunk 
here. He gets his chunk right here. So when it gets over here, your 
fund for the future has already been taxed.
  So you begin to accumulate this property, with the goal, as my wife 
and I had, that at some point in the future you would be able to pass 
on in the next generation in our particular case maybe a piece of 
ground, maybe a business, maybe a portion of a ranch out there in 
Colorado. I keep referring to Colorado because ranching is an important 
industry, and the death taxes, Democrats, by the way you ought to pay 
attention to this, the death taxes have had a significant impact on our 
ranching community out in Colorado. They have been very punitive, very 
punishing.
  So we get to this point and guess what happens? The government has 
not had enough. What the government does when you are young, there are 
teachers and in school they teach you to go out in America and 
capitalism, go out and the harder you work, the chances are, the harder 
you work, the more successes you will have, and that you have an 
opportunity to accumulate, you can buy your own home in the United 
States.
  In America, you can own a ranch. In America if you work hard enough, 
you can do things, you can accomplish. Who would ever think that the 
government that preaches that at our young ages and tells our young 
people that the opportunities are no greater anywhere in the world but 
America, who would ever think that very government is flying over you 
like a vulture on the day you die to come in here and take property 
that has already been taxed and, in some cases, take out between 50 and 
70 percent of that and move it to the government.
  Now, what do death taxes do? Let us talk about a couple editorials. I 
read an editorial over the weekend, maybe it was in the Wall Street 
Journal or in the Denver Post. Anyway, I read this editorial. I think 
it was Broder, whatever his name is, the gentleman's name, and he talks 
about this estate, and he sounds like it is only fair for the 
government to come out and take money from you upon your death, even 
though you have already paid taxes on it.
  They talk about as if it is a windfall for a family. Take my wife's 
family, for example, they have been on the same ranch in Colorado since 
1850. The writer of this particular article seems to think it is a 
windfall, if that family is able to pass that ranch on to the next 
generation, my wife's generation and then the generation after my wife, 
to that generation as if it is a windfall. Then they always like to 
jump. Democrats you had 40 years to do something about this death tax.
  Some of you have come over on it and I appreciate that. I noticed 
lately in the last couple of weeks the Democrat leadership, because 
they have now sensed that their policy of increasing the death tax, 
which is exactly what the Clinton administration has proposed to do in 
their budget is not selling well with the American people. The American 
people are saying, wait a minute, it does not make sense to us. We have 
already paid taxes. Why should punish us upon our death with another 
tax?
  Some of you sense that. And the leadership over on the Democrat side 
has sensed that and now they have come up with the bill to help get rid 
of the death tax. I am glad you have acknowledged that there is a 
problem. I am glad after time after time after time you fought us on 
trying to eliminate or at least give some relief under the death tax 
that your leadership, the Democratic leadership policy has now begun to 
shift towards our side to say, you know, something maybe it is not fair 
when somebody dies that the vultures of the government go down and pick 
apart the property that has already been picked apart with taxes.
  Nobody complains about the initial taxation if it is fair. Where the 
complaint comes in is how much more do you want, how much more do you 
think you can take out of this family ranch before you make that ranch 
collapse from an economic point of view?
  Let us talk about what happens in an estate tax. Remember even if the 
wealthy and, oh, do they love that, do the editors and do some of the 
Democrats opposing this do they love to talk about the wealthy people 
of this country. This is a tax against the wealthy. In fact, it was 
designed in part as a punitive tax against the Carnegies and the 
Rockefellers and the Fords and people like that around the turn of the 
last century. Do they love to go out after rich people?
  They love to create class warfare in this country. Let me tell you 
what happens even with a rich person in a community. I am going to give 
you a good example. A small town in Colorado, population maybe 9,000 
people. I am not going to identify the person, other than to say let us 
call the gentleman Joe. Joe and his wife, Mary, these people are my 
parents' age, so they are in their 70s. They started out in this small 
town of Colorado.
  Joe started out as a bean counter, as a bookkeeper for a construction 
company. I am telling you these names are made up, but the story is 
true. Mary was a homemaker, so they both worked real hard, she took 
care of the kids and Joe worked hard.
  From day 1, he worked 6\1/2\ days a week. He sacrificed a lot of time 
away from his kids, and his wife sacrificed a lot of her time to make 
up for the time he was away from the kids. And over time he moved from 
being the bookkeeper in the construction company to have an opportunity 
to buy into it. This is a small town construction company, population 
9,000. Then pretty soon he was able to save a little money here, save a 
little money there, and he was able to invest and start with some of 
his neighbors a local bank.
  What did Joe do with the money? Joe did not take the money that he 
accumulated in his community, he did not take it out in his backyard 
and dig a hole and put the money in the ground. He used the money in 
the community. He bought buildings in the community. He employed people 
in the community. He gave significant contributions to almost every 
charity in the community. He helped a school on their funding drives. 
In other words, he was a strong economic factor. I should speak about 
both of them, both of them contributed to this in their own way. That 
couple was an economic mainstay of this small community in the state of 
Colorado.

[[Page 13628]]

  What happens? Unfortunately, Mary passes away. My friend is a good 
guy, and his wife was very bright. But they did not go out and hire 
attorneys to try and evade taxes with the government. And so what 
happened when Mary died, the estate, her share of the estate went to 
Joe. Joe decided to liquidate the construction company, sell it, 
decided to sell the bank.

                              {time}  2230

  He did and he got hit with a capital gains tax. That is fair enough. 
At that point in time, it was at least 28 percent, at least 28 percent 
on the sale of it.
  Then unfortunately my friend Joe, who was an economic mainstay with 
his wife in this community, what happened to him is he got terminal 
cancer. Four, five months later, he passed away. The government then 
came into this community. They forced that family to liquidate the 
buildings they had to come up with the money to pay an effective tax on 
that estate, when one puts in the capital gains, an effective tax of I 
think around 82 percent of 50 years of hard work in this community, 82 
percent when combined with the capital gains. The government came in.
  Now, true, they were wealthy. By standards, they were wealthy. They 
had worked in this community. They earned every darn dime of it through 
hard work. It did not fall out of the sky for them. The government 
certainly did not give it to them. They taxed it all along.
  What happened as a result of this? So much to the local contributions 
to the local church. That money now goes to Washington, D.C. Instead of 
that money being circulated in their own community where it had been 
circulated for 50 years, it now is going to be transferred to 
Washington, D.C., because the Federal Government says we are entitled 
upon one's death to transfer that money from one's local community to 
our big city. So there goes the local contributions and the charities.
  Let me tell my colleagues, the church there, the church that he went 
to, 80 percent of their budget was donated by this individual. It was a 
pretty good sized church. It had several hundred members in it; 80 
percent of it was funded by that individual.
  When that church, when the elders of the church went to speak to the 
family about continuing these contributions, the family said we do not 
have the money anymore. The money has been transferred to Washington, 
D.C. So much for any more jobs being generated by that money. So much 
for deposits being put into savings accounts and the local banks where 
local people could then go borrow the money to set out on their dreams 
or to buy a car or to pay for improvements of their house or maybe to 
buy a house.
  All of these different things, money was sucked out of that 
community. I remember Ross Perot talking about the sucking sound or 
something of Mexico. If my colleagues want to see where the real sound 
is, take a look at where the death tax where it takes that money.
  If one lives in Kansas and one dies in Kansas and one is hit with a 
death tax, that money does not stay in Kansas. That Federal death tax 
goes to Washington. If one dies in Florida and one gets hit with the 
death tax, that money does not stay in one's community in Florida, it 
goes to Washington. If one dies in California and Washington and 
Wyoming and Colorado and Utah and Idaho, wherever one dies, one's money 
does not stay in one's community to continue to circulate in one's 
community; it is sent to Washington, D.C.
  How many of my colleagues out there think that money is being well 
spent in Washington, and how many of my colleagues out there think one 
darn dime makes its way back to that little community in Colorado?
  These death taxes are fundamentally unfair. They are unjustified. It 
is perhaps, despite what some of these people are writing in their 
editorials, it is perhaps the most unjustified tax in our system. How 
does one justify taxing somebody upon their death simply because they 
have accumulated property upon which they have already paid taxes, 
simply upon which they have accumulated property by hard work, by 
following the American principles of free enterprise, by following the 
American principles of capitalism, by going out there and following 
their own dream in America; and when they get to that point in hopes of 
helping the next generation, they lose it.
  Now, let us talk about something else that is impacted by these 
estate taxes, something that some of us may not even think about. Let 
us talk about open space.
  In Colorado, again, I am awful proud of that State, and I am proud of 
my district. It is a wonderful, beautiful district. I think it is 
probably one of the most beautiful. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) and I could compete, but by gosh we are both up there in the 
top. Our open space is what makes it beautiful.
  We have tremendous, tremendous land in these States. But do my 
colleagues know what is happening? Take for example a typical family 
ranch. Now, some people will tell us, well, one has a large ranch out 
there and a ranching family, and the estate has a value over the amount 
of the government decides to tax, I mean the amount that puts it 
eligible for this death tax. What one ought to do, ranchers, go out and 
buy life insurance. That is what life insurance is for. If one is 
prudent and responsible to the next generation, one is going to go out 
and buy life insurance to save that ranch.
  Well, do my colleagues know what, it is pretty obvious to me that 
people that make that kind of proposal have not ever tried to look very 
closely at the economics of ranching. One may have some land, but one 
does not get into ranching for money. One does not make enough money. 
Most ranchers out there do not make enough money to pay the premiums on 
the life insurance. So that is not a practical, realistic thing.
  Well, what happens is, if one has a ranch, let us say a couple 
thousand acres, let us say in the Glenwood Springs Valley, so Glenwood 
Springs, Colorado, so one has high property values or higher property 
values, and, unfortunately, one and one's wife or one's wife and one 
pass away, do my colleagues know what happens to that property if one 
does not have the cash to pay off the government, if one's family does 
not have the cash to pay it off? I will tell my colleagues what 
happens. The family has got to sell the ranch.
  Where is the value of a ranch in Colorado near Glenwood Springs? Is 
it in cattle ranching? Is it in sheep ranching? Is it in hay 
production? No. It is not in that economy. The value of it is one goes 
into that ranch, and one puts it in little tiny 35-acre parcels. One 
takes that beautiful open space, and one turns it into a 35-acre 
multihome, multiwealth subdivision.
  So pretty soon these open spaces that one enjoys by the government 
that stands up here and preaches about the value of open space, and 
they themselves force one to dissect that land so one can pay them off 
upon the death of one's parents or upon one's death; one makes 
arrangements to have it split up like that.
  These are some of the unintended consequences that decades of this 
death tax have had in our country. The time has come, and I can tell my 
colleagues I stand with a great deal of pride to see the governor of 
the State of Texas, one of his policies, if he becomes the President, 
and he has made it clear, and the reason I bring this up is I want to 
bring the Democrats to action. I want the Democrats to stand up and say 
me, too, because we want to get rid of this estate tax. The governor of 
the State of Texas said he is going after that estate tax if he becomes 
President.
  Now, one can contrast that to the policies of the current 
administration. Remember what the current administration has proposed 
this year and in their budget. It is in the budget. It is not me just 
making this up. It is in their budget, the Democrats. It is in their 
budget. That is to increase the death taxes by $9.5 billion, not just 
keep it the same, but increase it.
  I am telling my colleagues, fundamentally the American people will

[[Page 13629]]

not support the proposal to raise the death taxes in this country. 
Every one of my colleagues on the Democratic side ought to take issue 
with the President and the Democrats' policy of trying to raise those 
estate taxes. Those death taxes are not right. They know they are not 
right. Their gut tells them it is not right to do that. It is not right 
to go to somebody who is living the American dream who has worked 50 or 
60 years, or even if they worked 10 years, to go out and say on the 
property one has already paid taxes on, we are going to tax it again. 
We do not care what it does to the next generation. We do not care how 
the next generation pays for it. We do not know what kind of dreams 
have been squashed by the fact that those vultures are flying over 
one's death bed. The government does not care about what happens to the 
next generation that one has worked all one's life to provide a little 
something for. They do not care about whether or not those people get 
that money. They want that money transferred to Washington, D.C.
  Now, tonight I know a lot of us have children who are now young 
couples. They are just now getting into the work force, couples that 
are worried about Social Security; couples that are worried about what 
they can save, and they have their dreams. Oh, to be that age again, to 
just dream about, oh, when we buy our first home, when we really get to 
go buy a brand-new car, when we get to have our children and our 
family, and then we can begin to think about, well, maybe we can put 
some money aside so they can have a college education, and maybe we can 
put some money aside so that, if something happens to us, they will be 
able to carry on the family business or the family ranch, or maybe they 
will have other money to give them a little head start.
  If only they knew, if only these young people in this country knew 
what this policy, and, frankly, Democrats, they know they supported it, 
they have increased, they are proposing to increase it this year, they 
ought to join us. Because if these young people knew how this 
government operated with this death tax, they would be darn mad about 
it, very mad, very upset. I do not blame them a bit.
  So I am asking my Democratic colleagues, and I am asking them to 
support a change in the policy of the Clinton-Gore administration, 
although Gore is very clear about his position on this. Let us do 
something about those death taxes.


                            Social Security

  Well, enough with the estate taxes, enough for the toll road in 
Colorado that I talked to my colleagues about. Now I want to talk about 
something else. First of all, let me tell my colleagues, if they are 
age, say, 48, if they are 48 years or older, they do not even have to 
worry about what I am going to talk about because they are well taken 
care of.
  I can tell my colleagues that the principles of the plan that I am 
going to talk about have primarily been pushed or advocated by the 
governor of the State of Texas, George W. Bush. Very clearly one of his 
principles is the people, currently the older people of our society, 48 
and above somewhere in that area, they do not have to worry about it.
  What am I talking about? I am talking about Social Security. Social 
Security. Let us talk about that program a little tonight. First of 
all, and again, as I said, if one is 48 years old, I am about there, if 
one is my age or above, there is plenty of money in Social Security.
  On a cash basis, Social Security has a surplus. On an actuarial 
basis, which means once Social Security pays the obligations that it 
has made under the benefits of that program, Social Security is 
bankrupt. But for us to reach that bankrupt status, it is going to take 
30 years. So that in my age bracket and above, we will not get to that 
point probably, or not many of us will get to the point where we really 
have to worry about the bankruptcy of Social Security. But I think it 
is incumbent upon those of us who do not have to worry about it for us 
that we sit down and start doing some planning and worrying about it 
for the next generation.
  For the kids that are, the young men and women the age of my 
children, they should, and are now paying into the system. They are 
providing for us. We have an obligation to the young generation. 
Frankly, that is exactly what the governor of the State of Texas has 
said, George W. Bush. We have an obligation under his policies to 
provide some planning so that we do not hand to the next generation a 
bankrupt Social Security program.
  Now, let us talk about the current problem. We will talk about some 
of the problems that we have in Social Security. But first of all, for 
any of those who think they can defend the Social Security system and 
the management of it right now, let me ask them a question, or just 
think about this for a minute. If one went down to the local 
convenience store and one bought a lotto ticket, paid 10 bucks, one 
bought a lotto ticket, and let us say one won the lotto and one won $10 
million, wow, great, $10 million. Would anybody in these Chambers take 
one's $10 million or even $10,000 of that $10 million and send it to 
the Social Security Administration to invest it in the Social Security 
program for a return on one's dollars?
  There is not any one in this Chamber that would even send $1 to 
Social Security voluntarily to invest on one's behalf. Why? Because 
over the last few years I will give one an example, if a young couple 
today putting into Social Security system, in other words, the young 
couple the age of my children, they can expect for the dollars that 
they are, that are taken out of their check and invested in the Social 
Security program, they can expect a return of 1.23 percent, 1 percent, 
a little over. Well, 1\1/4\ percent is the kind of return that they can 
expect with their investment today.
  That is assuming that no more benefits are increased. That is 
assuming that the number going into the system stays the same, 1.23 
percent. I would defy anyone on this floor to go out there and show me 
a savings account anywhere in the country that pays 1.25 percent. Just 
show me one savings account that only pays that. I mean, even the most 
conservative savings account in the country pays 2 or 3 or 4 points 
above that. It is a lousy return.
  It is a system that needs a fix. Let me tell my colleagues, the 
system is not broke entirely because of incompetence. There are several 
factors that have contributed to putting Social Security into the 
problem it is in today. One of them is pretty good news for all of us. 
That is that, over the years since Social Security was first put into 
place in about 1935, over the years, the life-span has increased 
dramatically.

                              {time}  2245

  When Social Security was first put in, they did not expect that kind 
of jump in the increase in life-span. Unfortunately, as the life-span 
has increased, the premiums have not increased along with it. So now we 
have people who we maybe thought were going to be in the system for 10 
years who are now in the system for 15 or 20 years. That is a problem.
  Number two, the people that have put into the system, because of 
inflation, medical inflation and increased benefits and so on, the 
people that are now drawing Social Security, that are currently drawing 
a check out of Social Security, those people, during their lifetime, 
will pull out an average of $118,000 more than they put into the 
system. So the people today drawing out will pull out an average of 
$118,000 more than they put in. A system cannot be run economically 
when it allows participants to pull out more money than they put into 
the system. That is another problem that we have.
  And finally, let me comment about the workers. This is an interesting 
statistic. When Social Security was first put into place, we had 42 
people working for every person that was retired. The reason I am 
taking the time to write this is because it is so important. There were 
42 people that were working for every person that was retired. Today 
that number is 3 people working for every person retired. And within

[[Page 13630]]

the very near future, say 10 or 15 years, we will have 2 people for 
every person retired. My colleagues, those numbers spell trouble. We 
need to pay attention to the system. We need to do something to try to 
change the direction of this ship.
  Well, let me tell my colleagues, for government employees, for us in 
these Chambers, for the Congressmen, we realized that we did not want 
to totally depend on Social Security for retirement so we developed our 
own plan here called the Thrift Savings Plan. And it is not just for 
Congressmen, by the way, it applies to government employees, 2.5 
million employees. It is a program of choice. They are not forced into 
it. It is called the Thrift Savings Plan.
  What the government did is they had to take care of these 2.5 million 
employees, so they allowed them to have a program of choice and every 
month those employees can take up to 10 percent of their pay and the 
government matches the first 5 percent. So they can put in 10 percent 
and then the government matches the first 5 percent, and they can 
invest it in one of three different programs.
  One is a program which has high risk, but it also has high return. 
And this is the stock market. I think last year it was 28 percent 
return or a 20 percent return. Or, by choice, they can take a program 
that has a lower return but lower risk, or a program that is guaranteed 
by the government which has the lowest return but also the lowest risk, 
which by the way still exceeds greatly the 1.23 percent return we get 
in Social Security.
  Now, that all sounds confusing, but suffice it to say the government 
has a program called the Thrift Savings Plan for 2.5 million employees 
to provide them with an option in Social Security, providing them with 
choice in investment. For example, if an individual makes lousy 
choices, here they only have 10 percent. Only 10 percent. The rest of 
the retirement there is no choice about where it goes. It is guaranteed 
payment. So no one can ever lose everything they have. It cannot happen 
under this system.
  Well, what happened. Do my colleagues know who supported that, to my 
colleagues on the Democratic side? The vice president supported that. 
In fact, I have a quote somewhere, but the vice president was a 
cosponsor of the Thrift Savings Plan. He was a cosponsor. So what the 
Governor of the State of Texas and what many of us have said to do is 
to apply that somewhat toward Social Security. Let us allow the people, 
especially the young people in this country, the young people who are 
just getting started and who want to have more of a choice, a more 
sophisticated investment return, let us give them a choice.
  Let us give them an opportunity not to put all of their Social 
Security money into a stock market; we are not going to do that, but 
let us allow them to have choice up to 2 percent. Take 2 percent of 
their paycheck, 2 percent, and remember for the Federal Government 
employees are allowed to take 10 percent, but allow people on Social 
Security under this proposal to take 2 percent and let them invest. Let 
them try their hand in the market. Historically, no matter what 
investment we look at, historically every investment out there in the 
stock market and the bond markets, and here I am talking as a whole, 
does better than 1.23 percent, which is what Social Security now pays.
  Now, why would that program cause the kind of uproar that has been 
created in the last few months? Is it because the person pushing it the 
hardest is running for president? That has something to do with it. But 
what it really is, it frightens the status quo. That is what really is 
happening. What scares Washington, what makes bureaucrats shiver in 
their knees, is the fact that someone comes into this town and has a 
bold proposal, who wants to move off the status quo and wants to take 
charge. Someone who has enough guts to stand and say, hey, I am going 
to lead, I am going to take us into some positive territory, so either 
move with me or stand aside.
  The minute the system, the bureaucracy of the Social Security or any 
government bureaucracy is challenged, watch out. Because, as my 
colleagues know, they will turn on you and try to tear you apart from 
every angle they can. And how interesting it is that that is exactly 
what is happening with the Governor of the State of Texas and his 
proposal to fix Social Security. He ought to receive a pat on the back 
from everybody in this Chamber. We ought to go up and say thanks for 
being bold enough to propose something with seriousness and be ready to 
charge forward with a change to Social Security. We should also thank 
him for being smart enough not to throw it all out; not to put it all 
at risk; and, most importantly under this proposal, he allows choice.
  If a person in Social Security does not want to invest in any of 
those choices, they do not have to. If a government employee does not 
want to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, they do not have to. It 
is a program of choice and it is a program, which, in my opinion, is 
the most viable option we have out there today to move Social Security 
out of the red into the black on an actuarial basis. That is the beauty 
of this thing.
  Now, I know that since that proposal was made, first of all, after 
the Governor of the State of Texas advocated it, we had a lot of fire 
come from frankly the administration's policy and the vice president. 
But then, all of a sudden, the pollsters went out there and they came 
back with poll results that said the American people wanted to see us 
shore up Social Security; that the American people were willing to look 
at choice; the American people are willing to take reasonable, 
reasonable, risk, well, then all of a sudden the administration starts 
to change their policy. So now they have come up with a plan. That is 
good. Let us take these plans, let us put them together and let us save 
Social Security for the future.
  Let me wrap it up. My colleagues have been very patient with me this 
evening. I appreciate the opportunity to address my colleagues.
  I talked about toll roads, toll roads being proposed in the State of 
Colorado simply to punish people for being on the road. Not to build 
new highways, but to simply institute what I believe is congestive 
pricing. There is too much congestion, too much traffic on the road, 
let us take the people who built the roads with their taxes and let us 
tax them off the road. It is unacceptable.
  Unacceptable as far as I am concerned, especially considering the 
fact they are putting the toll gate at the entrance of the Third 
Congressional District of the State of Colorado.
  Secondly, I talked about the death taxes and how unfair that tax upon 
a person's death is. Whether an individual is wealthy or whether they 
have a ranch or whatever, think about the consequences of penalizing 
somebody upon their death. It is an unjustified tax. It is a tax we 
should eliminate. I hope we will not let these editorial writers in 
some of these papers convince us that it is a good way to attack the 
rich, that it is a good way to get a vendetta going among people who 
have taken the American Dream and lived it and accomplished it.
  And, finally, as my colleagues know, I just wrapped up on Social 
Security. Let us take a plan that is a bold plan. Not a risky plan, not 
a risky plan for this next generation, but let us do something, let us 
make the next generation have something better than we have. After all, 
the American Dream is to make sure that the people, the generation and 
the children beyond us, live a better life than the best life we have 
ever lived. And we can do it if we just stick together.

                          ____________________