[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20704-20710]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             NIGHTSIDE CHAT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have listened a good deal to the previous 
comments, and I was wondering if the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
could answer the question or go into a little more depth about the 
specific area in which this exploration has taken place.
  It sounded as if it was in the middle of a national park in the 
middle of a

[[Page 20705]]

wildlife refuge. I thought maybe it would be interesting to hear from 
the gentleman just the dynamics of Alaska, how much of the land is 
owned by Alaska, and maybe compare the size of Alaska to Texas for 
example. And so, I think the comments of the gentleman are very 
appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
I am glad he asked that question. Because the area which we are talking 
about, the area called the 10-02 Area in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Range, is a very small part of 19 million acres. It is approximately 
1,200,000 acres. And of that 12,000 acres would be disturbed. But it is 
only 74 miles away from the existing oil field and pipeline, 74 miles, 
which is a very small distance to tie these two areas in.
  It is an area that this Congress set aside when they passed the 
Alaska National Land bill by Senator Jackson and Senator Stevens 
because we knew the potential of the oil being there. And by the way, 
Mr. and Mrs. America, this is your oil. This is not the State of 
Alaska's oil.
  My goal is to try to make us more independent so we are not dependent 
on the foreign countries. This very small area that is not, by the way, 
the pristine area that people talked about, it is probably the most 
hostile area. And that is why I referred to the picture that the 
gentleman spoke before me about ANWAR was a picture that was false, 
false, false.
  I want people to remember that. It is a made-up picture or a picture 
taken in the southern part of that 19 million acres. And I ought to 
know because I live in that area. And so, when people say we are going 
to destroy the environment, and I listened to the Vice President 
talking about destroying the crown jewel, Alaska is the largest State, 
2\1/2\ times the size of Texas.
  We have more wilderness than any other area in the United States 
including all the States put together. We have more pristine areas in 
the State of Alaska than any other area. They will never be touched by 
man. But this one area has the potential, very small as it is, to 
provide for the Nation itself so we are not dependent upon the Sadam 
Husseins a million barrels a day for the next 100 years.
  Now, keep that in mind what I have just said, by the next 100 years. 
Some people say I am exaggerating, that it is not true. This is exactly 
fact. And when someone says, we do not need the oil, it is only 6 
months' times, that means we have no other production and would be 
totally dependent on Alaska and we never ever expected that. But we 
should be able to provide at least that million barrels a day so we do 
not have to buy it from Sadam Hussein. That is what is important to me.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not mind, as the 
gentleman knows, our colleagues that were up here spent most of an hour 
speaking about what a traumatic situation this was and how terrible 
this was going to be; and I do not think it was held in its proper 
perspective. So I think if the gentleman, for example, would not mind 
going in a little more detail.
  He said, when the original plan was drafted or the bill was passed, 
there was an area that was set aside for exploration. My understanding 
is now, when we talk about the 19 million acres, the gentleman said 
there is 1.2 million, but we are only talking about 12,000 acres of 19 
million. Is that correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It would be 12,000 acres of 19 million will be 
totally disturbed by mankind. The rest of it is wilderness.
  By the way, the Congress set this area aside because they knew the 
oil was there. And that is one of the reasons it should be opened up.
  To give my colleagues an example, in the last 10 years we have lost 
actually 77 percent of our oil rigs because this administration has not 
promoted oil development. They have asked us to be dependent upon the 
foreign country. The domestic oil and gas industry has lost 500,000 
jobs in the last decade.
  It is ironic to me in this political arena in which sit, Mr. Gore, 
the Vice President, says, big oil, big oil is bad. Foreign oil is good. 
Big oil is bad. Buy it from the foreign countries and be dependent. 
That is good. Let us be domestically dependent on the other countries. 
No, that is bad.
  So I am suggesting that Alaska wants to contribute to the ability of 
this country not to have to respond to the OPEC countries. And we are 
so close, 74 miles away. Remember, the pipeline is 400 miles long. We 
have the potential of 39 billion barrels of oil, and that is the 
largest reserve we know in the United States today.
  And yet we have people talking about destroying the environment. The 
environment will not be destroyed. But keep in mind, what right do we 
have as Americans to buy oil from Russia, and yes, we are doing that; 
to buy oil from the OPEC countries? Do they have any safeguards? They 
do not. They spill more oil in Russia in one day in the pipeline than 
we did in the Exon Valdez. And yet we want to buy oil from foreign 
countries to feed our appetites, that I would agree with. But each day 
we stop domestic production makes us more dependent, more responsive to 
the foreign desires. And they can run that price up.
  If my colleagues want to blame somebody for the high price, blame 
this administration. Blame this administration for really discouraging 
domestic production. They do not have an energy policy, none 
whatsoever. And if they want to read an interesting book, read Al 
Gore's book. He wants to destroy the combustible engine, put everybody 
on bicycles, like they are in China. And yet the other day he said we 
have got to lower the price of gasoline because it is hurting our 
economy and the people.
  The reason the prices are high is because the policy they have is to 
go to the OPEC countries and beg them to produce more oil. If we were 
producing our own oil, then we would not have to beg, they would be 
producing at a level which we would be producing it and the price would 
be stabilized.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I might point out that 
while the Vice President has proposed in the last couple of weeks 
because, one, we are in a political season and, two, the price of 
gasoline has escalated rather dramatically, if we look at the Vice 
President's writings on his policy, his policy actually is to increase 
the taxes. It is clear. I am not taking this out of context. His policy 
is you raise the price, you put more taxes on gasoline; and that is the 
only real policy I have seen.
  But let me shift gears for a moment. If the gentleman would not mind, 
I know I am taking the time of the gentleman, but I was wondering if 
the gentleman would not explain, when we talk to our colleagues here 
about the pipeline, if he would explain a little more about what the 
pipeline consists of, how that project was handled and how they 
addressed the environmental issues when they put in ANWAR. Talk a 
little bit about that just to acquaint our colleagues with what is 
going on in Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I was the sponsor of the pipeline 
bill; and it passed August in 1973 because we were in an embargo. The 
OPEC countries placed an embargo and our gasoline went from 23 cents to 
54 cents, and we were frankly out of oil.
  We passed it here in 1973. We told the companies to build it in 3 
years, and they did; and in 1976 they had the first barrel of oil that 
flowed through that line. And by the way, it all went to the United 
States. It did not go to Japan. All of it went to the United States. 
And we have produced about 16 billion barrels of oil.
  At the crisis of the Gulf War, for instance, we were producing 
2,200,000 barrels a day. It averaged a million barrels a day. It has 
the capacity of 2 million barrels. But we put that pipeline in with all 
the safeguards that we can possibly have available in those days. That 
has been a long time, approximately 28 years ago.
  We put crossings for caribou to cross over at the cost of about $50 
million. And by the way, they do not use them. They crawl under the 
pipeline because they like to be under the pipeline.

[[Page 20706]]

  The caribou herd has increased dramatically many fold over. Actually, 
the wildlife all the way around has increased. We have had, they say, a 
thousand spills. That is pure poppycock if I may say so. Because up 
there they call it a spill and they are very good about reporting it. 
If there is one drop of oil somewhere from a squirt gun or an oil can 
or the bottom of a truck, that is reported.
  There has been no major spill at all in this pipeline from the time 
it was constructed. The one people hear about is the Exon Valdez. That 
was the responsibility of one man, one captain that made an abrupt 
turn; and why we will never know.
  But in the meantime, I remind the American people that that oil which 
you receive is oil that we would not have to buy from the OPEC 
countries; and if we could produce 2 million barrels a day, which we 
could with ANWAR, and, remember, it is your oil, if we could produce 2 
million barrels a day, that means we would be that less dependent upon 
those foreign countries.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, what concerns me about the discussions that 
we have been having on the Alaskan oil is that the emotions get in the 
way, I think, of looking at the facts. One, the fact of what are the 
requirements of the United States? What is the dependency of the United 
States? What happens if the United States becomes dependent, as we have 
seen, on foreign countries? What happens to our economy? What happens 
to everything from medicine and so on?
  On the other hand, we need to not let our emotions become so charged 
with the price of oil that we ignore environmental safeguards.
  And so, my reason in talking with the gentleman is for his 
explanations of the safeguards. And I think he has done a good job 
that, with the environment, we have spent $50 million on the caribou 
for example. Well, that one was not justified because the caribou do 
not use it. There are a lot of environmental expenses that are taken 
into consideration and a lot of sensitivities that, rightfully so, are 
observed.
  This is not a sign-off to some company to go up and drill where they 
want. This is probably the most scrutinized project in the United 
States I would guess.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman brought 
this up, because it is scrutinized Federally and by the State, the EPA, 
the DEC, the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and Fish and 
Wildlife; and it meets every criteria for safety in the promotion of 
wildlife.
  I go back to this picture again. These are caribou, and this is the 
oil field. These are caribou and calves, and this is the oil field. And 
by the way, many times they talked about the caribou herd, the 
porcupine caribou herd and how their calving area will be disturbed. 
And I have said all along, caribou calve when they want to calve and 
where they want to calve. And guess what, the last 2 years they have 
not calved anywhere near this area we want to drill in.
  The myth that is put forth by interest groups to somehow say we are 
better off buying oil from other countries where they do terrible 
damage environmentally with no safeguards when ours have all these 
supervisional agencies over them is wrong.
  And each one of you, Mr. and Mrs. America, as you go up to that pump, 
you are paying the OPEC countries, you are not paying the United 
States.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is 
reminded that he must address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Well, Mr. and Mrs. America in the gallery, then. 
I can address somebody I hope.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the concept. Let us look at 
energy.
  Now, you cannot conserve your way into prosperity, nor can you 
conserve your way into independence with fuel or energy. And that is 
the suggestion of Al Gore, we are going to have conservation that will 
solve our problem. Not as our population increases. That is an 
impossibility. It is not correct.
  So I am suggesting we must think about where we find our oil and our 
gas. And we have it in Alaska. It can be done and has been done and is 
environmentally safe. We must allow this to happen for America. We must 
not allow the OPEC countries to control us, as they are doing now.

                              {time}  1545

  They are the ones that are pulling the strings; they are the ones 
that raise the price of gasoline at the pump with the taxes that Al 
Gore added. They are the ones that make you pay more as you go to work 
or you take your young son to soccer or your daughter to piano lessons 
or vice versa. We as Americans have to have a policy. I believe our 
policy on energy has to be one of production, one of discovery and one 
of refining.
  I know I am going to introduce a bill the next session to give us an 
expedited process to build refineries. Because I have asked people, 
``Why aren't you building refineries?'' They say, ``We can't build 
refineries under the present delay factors of this administration.'' 
That means we have to buy refined products from abroad. Most of the 
gasoline that you burn in your automobile and heating oil that you are 
using and the northern reserve which we are going to have after this 
Congress passes it comes from a foreign country, which means we are 
dependent.
  And so I ask you to make sure everybody understands this issue. 
Energy is the number one problem in America today and threatens our 
freedom and our security because in the last 8 years, we have allowed 
this administration to direct us with their policy to become dependent 
upon foreign countries. I am trying to offset that. Anybody that steps 
up here and talks about my State and how bad it is in ANWR and the 
Arctic wildlife range has never been there, they know little of it, and 
they are speaking the word of a written booklet from an interest group 
that wants us to become more dependent upon foreign fossil fuels. As we 
become more dependent, we have to respond to their desires. Maybe it 
could be negative to the American way.
  I ask everybody to wake up, all of my colleagues, and support me in 
the development of not only the 1002 areas in Alaska but the other 
fossil fuel areas in America. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. McINNIS. I thank the gentleman for taking time this evening. I 
thought it was very appropriate for the gentleman to come over here 
because it seemed to be one-sided, the story we just heard.
  I also would like to thank the gentleman with my colleagues here for 
the considerations and the courtesies that he has extended to the State 
of Colorado over the years. We appreciate his service and his 
courtesies.
  Mr. Speaker, I interrupted my comments because I felt it was very 
important that we listen to the chairman of the Committee on Resources, 
the gentleman who has represented the State of Alaska for a number of 
years. Alaska is a wonderful, wonderful State. Most of Alaska, I think 
in the high 90s, maybe 96 percent of Alaska is owned by the Federal 
Government. I wish I had time this evening to talk to my colleagues 
about what happens and the differences between States that are 
primarily owned by government and States that are primarily owned by 
private individuals.
  Many of my colleagues here on the floor come from States where their 
primary ownership in their State are private individuals. Many of us 
come from States where the primary ownership in our States is the 
Federal Government. In Colorado, for example, my district is the Third 
Congressional District of the State of Colorado. My district 
geographically is larger than the State of Florida. And on the eastern 
line of my district, which, very simplified, runs from Wyoming down I-
25 to New Mexico, it exempts out the cities as you go down, but from 
that eastern border to the Atlantic Ocean, that land, there is very 
little Federal Government ownership of lands. Out here in the East, you 
have the Appalachias, you have the Everglades down there and then in a 
lot of States you have the local courthouse, you may have a park here 
and there; but the reality of it is if we took

[[Page 20707]]

a map, for example, of the United States and we looked, obviously I am 
not an artist, but if we took a look at my eastern border, here is 
Colorado, the point I am making is from this point right here to the 
Atlantic Ocean, Federal ownership or government ownership of land is 
represented about like this, with the Appalachias here, the Everglades, 
the park up here in the Northeast. If you were to look from my border, 
this district, the Third Congressional District, and go to the Pacific 
Ocean, you are going to find out that government ownership of land 
looks like this. Obviously that is a rough drawing, but that is pretty 
significant.
  There are a lot of differences between living in areas where the 
ownership of the land is by individuals and living out here where our 
zoning and planning commissions are dictated by decisions out of 
Washington, D.C. For example, my colleagues that live out here in the 
East, those that represent States with very little Federal ownership, 
when they decide they want to build a new bridge or when they decide 
that they want to go and have a new building or some kind of adjustment 
in their county or some type of development, they go to their local 
county planning and zoning commission. Out here in these Federal lands, 
anything like that, they have got to go to their planning board which 
is in Washington, D.C. So there are a lot of significant issues that we 
ask for our colleagues in the East to have an understanding of what 
goes on out primarily in the West. Or have an understanding of what 
goes on in the State of Alaska.
  For example, in my district, we are totally dependent, totally, not 
partially, totally dependent on multiple use of public lands, for 
water. Every highway that we have in my district comes across Federal 
lands. The water, when I go back to water, it is either stored upon, 
originates or comes across Federal lands. All of our power lines, all 
of our cellular telephone towers, all of this is on Federal lands. In 
my particular district of which we have the premier ski areas in the 
world, Aspen or Vail or Telluride or Powder Horn or Purgatory, I could 
go on and on and on, these areas are dependent, very dependent, our 
tourism dollars are very dependent on these lands. We are very, very, I 
guess you would say over a period of time we have become encompassed by 
the concept of multiple use.
  I want to talk just for a moment about that concept of multiple use. 
What happened in the early days when our country was a young country, 
we basically had this as our country. Our forefathers, the leaders of 
our country, wanted to settle the land that we had purchased. In those 
days, possession, that is where the saying, by the way, possession is 
nine-tenths of the law, possession meant everything. In the early days 
of our country, if you did not possess the land, somebody else could 
come in and they did not care whether you had a deed or a document that 
said you own it, they came in, they sat there with a gun and said, ``I 
own that property.''
  Once our country made purchases like through the Louisiana Purchase 
and things like that, what happened was, taking this out for a moment, 
they were trying to figure out how to get people to leave the relative 
comforts of the East and of the settled communities in the East, how do 
we get them out into the new frontier. How do we encourage people to go 
out there and set up a home or set up towns, because as a country we 
need to possess the lands like the Louisiana Purchase, or we are going 
to lose them to some other country.
  So what they decided to do was let us give land. Everybody in this 
country, it is an American's dream to own a little piece of land, to 
own your own little house. It is the American dream. So they used this 
incentive, go West, young man, go West. To do that, they said, let us 
have a homestead. You go out into Kansas, you go out into Missouri, you 
go out there, you find 160 acres or you find 320 acres, you farm it for 
enough years and you get to keep it. It is your land.
  That worked pretty well. What we saw were fairly dramatic movements 
of population into these areas. But when they got to the West where it 
is very arid, we do not have the kind of water, it does not rain in the 
West like it does in the East, when they got out West, the crowd 
started going around. Nobody was sticking around in here. Why? Because 
they discovered in Kansas, for example, or Missouri or even eastern 
Colorado or down here in some of these States, in the Midwest States, 
Pennsylvania and so on, they were discovering that with 160 acres, you 
can support a family. You have enough acreage there to grow a farm. But 
they also discovered that when you got to the mountains, for example, 
or to the more arid acres, sometimes 160 acres would not even feed one 
cow. So the settlers were not staying there.
  At the Nation's capital, they said, what do we do about this? How do 
we get settlers out here before we lose this land? How do we get them 
to move in there? Somebody came up with the idea, it takes 160 areas of 
good fertile ground in Missouri for a family. That is the equivalent in 
the mountains of Colorado, it might take 2,000 acres. So let us give 
them 2,000 acres. They thought about it, the policymakers back then, 
and they said, ``Wait a minute, we can't give that away. That is too 
much for one person.'' Then the idea was born, well, let us go ahead 
and have the government retain the ownership. In other words, the 
government will continue to own this land out here, but let us let the 
people use the land. That is where the concept of multiple use came 
from.
  When the gentleman, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, 
stands up and talks about Alaska and talks about your oil, that is why 
Alaska is primarily owned by the government, because of the fact of the 
differences between States in the West and States in the East. And so I 
think it was important. I acknowledge the gentleman and appreciate him 
coming to speak with us.
  I want to address another point. I had the opportunity to come down 
and listen to some of my respected colleagues prior to my having the 
opportunity to visit with you. It sounded like it was the George W. 
Bush bash hour. What can we bash George W. Bush about? That seems to be 
a favorite thing by some of my colleagues here lately. What policy can 
we find of George W. Bush? Let's just bash him.
  Somebody ought to stand up here and say a few things that George W. 
Bush is doing right and a few ideas that I think will work for this 
country on a bipartisan basis, that both sides of the aisle ought to 
acknowledge.
  Let us take an example. Let us talk about Social Security, for 
example. Social Security, we ought to look a little at the history. We 
know that we had the Depression in 1929. In 1935, the President decided 
and this country, and this Congress on this floor, decided that we 
should have a national insurance policy, a social insurance. That is 
where Social Security came about. But there are a few factors to 
remember about Social Security when it was first conceived.
  Number one, for every person that was retired in 1935, we had 42 
workers out there working. Forty-two workers for every person retired. 
What has happened over a period of time is the number of people that 
are working has gone down in proportion to the number of people that 
are retired. Today, instead of being 42 to one, today it is three to 
one. It is three to one. That has created a problem for Social 
Security.
  Number two, and this is good news for all of us, colleagues. This is 
good news. The modern medicine that we have developed and the vaccines 
and the ability to fight things like chicken pox and polio and things 
that were horrible diseases of the past and with godspeed we can find a 
cure for cancer in the future but these diseases have in a large part 
been conquered.
  The average person in the United States in 1935 could expect to live, 
a male 62 years old, a female 65. Today, that is almost in the 80s. We 
have had a dramatic increase in the life span for our citizens in this 
country. Unfortunately, no adjustment has ever been made in Social 
Security, number one, because of the number of active workers that have 
been reduced and, two,

[[Page 20708]]

because of the extended life span of these individuals.
  So what is happening is today we have a Social Security fund which on 
a cash basis, means cash in the bank, is in the plus column. But when 
we look on an actuarial basis, and what do I mean by that word? I mean 
when we look into the future and say, okay, here is the money we have, 
here are our future obligations, do we have enough money to cover all 
of these future obligations? That is what is called actuarial thinking. 
On an actuarial basis, Social Security is bankrupt.
  And who is the individual that is running for President that has 
stood up and I think in a bipartisan approach come up with a plan? Now, 
it is a bold plan. Gore and the President, they have called it a risky 
plan. You have got to take some risk. You have got a plan that is in 
trouble. Not in trouble for my generation. I am 47. Not in trouble for 
my parents. My parents are going to be guaranteed, any of the 
colleagues, any of your seniors, their money is not going to be 
interrupted. Really from about 45 on up, their money is going to be 
there. But the young people of this country, the people that George W. 
Bush has talked about, the people in their 30s, the young workers that 
are starting out in their 20s, those are the people that are going to 
face the dramatic problem on Social Security if we do not take a bold 
move. You can call it risky as Al Gore has called it, but the fact is 
you have got to do something. That is what leadership is about. If you 
do not want to lead, stand aside. We are not going to leave you behind.

                              {time}  1600

  But you are not a leader. Somebody has to get out there with a bold 
plan. I can tell you that the plan that George W. Bush has proposed is 
not exactly in my opinion something that is novel.
  You say, what do you mean novel? Well, I think that George W. Bush 
and his Social Security plan, they looked around and said, gosh, how do 
we test market my proposal? How do we test market something for the 
younger generation that will save Social Security?
  You know what? They found it. It has been test marketed. It has been 
out there and used. You know what? It is working.
  The logical question that one would ask is, well, where is this test 
market? Where are the results? Who is using the same type of basic plan 
that George W. Bush is proposing for all of America? Where is your test 
market on that? You know, when corporations or businesses or people 
want to try a product, they go out and test it first. So you prove to 
us, McInnis, where is this test market?
  You know where it is? It is right here on the House floor. Us. You 
know what? We are treated differently than other Americans. Every 
Federal employee is treated differently than other Americans. How? We 
have our own separate retirement plan.
  Now, we are participants in Social Security, and we do pay into 
Social Security, but, as you know, we have another plan. Every Federal 
employee, 3 million of us in this country, have been test marketed, and 
that plan is called the Thrift Savings Plan.
  What is the Thrift Savings Plan? Number one, it is voluntary. You are 
not required to participate in it; exactly what George W. Bush is 
saying with the partial investment of Social Security dollars.
  Number two, it gives you choice; exactly what George W. Bush is 
talking about when he talks about his Social Security plan.
  Number three, it guarantees you a payment, regardless of the choice 
that you make; exactly what we have in our Thrift Savings Plan and 
exactly what George Bush has proposed in his plan.
  How does the Thrift Savings Plan work? As you know, we get our check, 
and there is an automatic deduction taken out of our check for Social 
Security. There is also an automatic deduction taken out for our 
retirement. So, as a Federal employee, and remember, this applies to 
all Federal employees, not just to the Congress, but to about three 
million Federal employees, so they take out a small amount, or an 
amount, out of your check for your retirement. You have no choice on 
that. You get no choice as to where it is invested. You do not get a 
choice as to whether it goes into the stock market or whether it goes 
into bonds. You have no choice on it. On the other hand, the trade-off 
is you are guaranteed a payment when you retire.
  But, then, after that is said and done, you get to take up to 10 
percent of your pay and you can invest it through the Thrift Savings 
Plan, and the Federal Government will match the first 5 percent. So you 
get to take 10 percent, they match the first 5 percent, and you get 
choice. You are not required to do it, by the way. And what kind of 
choices do we have?
  Our choices are, one, you can go into savings accounts, which are 
guaranteed by the government, just like if you went to a local bank, 
FDIC approved. You get that. But the return is low. The lower the risk, 
the lower the return; the higher the risk, the higher the return. The 
very low risk option, zero risk, almost, and you get a low return. Or 
you can go into something like the bond or the stock market. You have 
that choice.
  What is wrong with George W. Bush's proposal to give choice to the 
American people? What is wrong with our generation, the older 
generation, looking to the younger generation, like my children? My 
children are grown now. What is wrong with my generation saying to this 
generation, hey, you ought to have a little choice. We ought to give 
you a choice on some of your investment dollars.
  George W. Bush has not gone out and said take all the Social Security 
dollars and let this young generation decide if they want to put it all 
in the stock market. Of course, that would be reckless conduct. That 
would be careless. There is not a financial mind in the world that 
would tell you that would be a smart thing to do.
  What George W. Bush said is give them up to 2 percent. Let us try it 
out. It works for American government employees, why can it not work 
for the young generation; the women in this country that are young and 
just getting into the workplace; the young men and the families.
  If we do not do something, do you know what the return is? If we 
stick with the status proposed, which seems to be what is proposed by 
the Al Gore policy? Here is what your return is: 0.09 percent. That is 
a rotten return. That is what you get to expect, assuming that we can 
keep it afloat.
  So a young couple today, let us say a young lady named Joyce and a 
young man named John, and John and Joyce go out into the workplace, and 
their Social Security, if we do not change this thing, number one, it 
probably on an actuarial basis will not be there for them; and, if it 
is, if the stock market continues to boom, and we know, in case you 
have not read in the last few weeks, it has leveled off, but if it 
continued to boom, which it will not do forever, then that is about 
what kind of return you can expect.
  How can we do this? Come on. It is an obligation, it is a fiduciary 
duty on every one of us in this room, to stand up for this next 
generation behind us and the generation behind them and the generation 
behind them.
  If we are going to have a Social Security program, let us give them a 
Social Security plan that works for the American people. Let us not 
make American Federal Government employees an exclusive set, where they 
have a little different arrangement than the very people who put us 
here. The people that pay our checks are the taxpayers. We ought to 
take that into consideration. We should not treat the taxpayers of this 
country, who are not Federal employees, different than we treat Federal 
employees.
  Why not change Social Security? I see positive things. Instead of 
standing up here in a very partisan way and bashing George W. Bush, why 
do we not stand up here and talk about what I think are the good 
policies and the good recommendations that he has made? If he becomes 
the President, I think you are going to see a very positive change for 
Social Security.
  Those policies will work because they have been test marketed. It is 
not new.

[[Page 20709]]

It did not just fall out of the sky. These policies work, they have 
been tested, and they have been tested on 3 million people. And, do you 
know what? The participation rates are in the high 80 or 90 percent of 
Federal employees that want to get into this program. Because why? 
Because it works. That is why they want to get into this program.
  Mr. Speaker, let me change subjects, because I heard some other Bush 
bashing going on, and I think once again somebody has to come tell the 
other side of the story. Paul Harvey, who by the way, I had the 
privilege of meeting Paul Harvey a couple of weeks ago in Pueblo, 
Colorado, where we honored about 100 Medal of Honor recipients, and 
Paul Harvey was kind enough to come out there at his expense to speak 
to us. But Paul Harvey has a famous saying, you have all heard it, 
``and now for the rest of the story.'' That is exactly why I am over 
here this afternoon talking to you.
  You heard one side of the story, Bush bashing; Bush bashing on Social 
Security, Bush bashing on taxes. Bush bashing. Look, do you know what? 
There are a lot of good things in there. Why not look for some of the 
good, colleagues, instead of trying to spin it out of control because 
of the political necessities of an election coming up here in 4 or 5 
weeks?
  Let us talk about taxes, and let us talk about what the Republicans, 
frankly, with a lot of help from conservative Democrats, have done with 
their tax policy.
  Number one, the Republicans, again with help from conservative 
Democrats, who came across the aisle, we sent to the President of this 
country a death tax elimination. Now, whether or not you think you are 
covered by the death tax, I think it is a fundamental question.
  It is the same thing, by the way, with the marriage tax elimination. 
The Republicans, with help from some conservative Democrats, sent to 
the President of the United States a marriage tax elimination, to 
eliminate the tax, because of the fact you are married, and to 
eliminate the tax because of your death. On both occasions, the 
President vetoed both of them.
  Now, let us talk about it. The basic fundamental question you need to 
ask about the death tax and the fundamental question you need to ask 
about the marriage tax is should death or marriage, should those be 
taxable events in our society? You know what? The majority of us stood 
up and said no.
  Unfortunately, the administration disagreed. They think that marriage 
should be a taxable event. They think that death is a taxable event. 
Not only do they think death is a taxable event, I sit on the Committee 
on Ways and Means. I know about finance and taxes. The President's 
budget, the President and Vice President, the Clinton-Gore budget this 
year not only did not even consider elimination of the death tax, they 
actually proposed an increase of $9.5 billion, a $9.5 billion increase 
in the death tax.
  You should not increase it, you should not keep it. The death tax 
does not collect a lot of money. Let me tell you, when you hear, and I 
have heard this over and over again, when you hear, well, this only 
benefits the upper 2 percent of a community, wake up. It does not just 
affect 2 percent of the community. Let me give an example.
  Colorado, you take a small town in Colorado. I have a small community 
in Colorado where somebody who, by the way, lived the American dream, 
started out with nothing, worked all his life. His entire dream in life 
was to be successful so he could pass it on to the next generation and 
spread it in the community. He had a construction company. By the way, 
to be eligible for the death tax on a construction company, if you own 
free and clear, if you own much more than a bulldozer, a dump truck and 
a backhoe, then all of a sudden you are facing the death tax. That is 
right, a bulldozer, backhoe and dump truck, and you are facing the 
death tax.
  This individual passed away. From what you would hear from the people 
who think that the death tax is a fair tax, that it is fair to tax 
somebody on property they have accumulated that they have already paid 
taxes on, simply by the fact that they died, what you need to look at 
is what the impact is on a community.
  What happened, when he died they took 70-some percent; 55 percent of 
it for the death tax, 22 percent on capital gains, or 28 percent, 
excuse me, on capital gains. And they took 70-some percent of that 
estate and moved it out of this small town in Colorado and they moved 
that money to Washington, D.C. to be redistributed by a bureaucracy.
  You know what? The money in a community ought to stay in a community. 
I do not believe you ought to be able to tax death as a taxable event, 
but it sure would be a lot more liveable if you went to that small 
community and said, look, just in spite, you had somebody who was 
successful, so we are going to tax them on their death, but you get to 
keep the money in the community.
  Remember, the death tax, where it came from. The death tax came as 
kind of a get-even tool with the Carnegies and the Fords and the 
Rockefellers. That is where that thing came from, from people who 
wanted to declare class warfare, who said, look, this is a great 
country, and we say if you invent the better mouse trap, you get to 
reap the reward, as long as you do not reap too many rewards, because 
then we are going to come after you. That is exactly what happened in 
the twenties and so on.
  This is a tax that should never have been created. It is a tax that 
hurts our communities. It is a tax that hurts our environment. This is 
a country that ought to pride itself in encouraging its citizens, 
encouraging its families, to pass a business from one generation to the 
next generation.
  What builds the strength of a country is family. That is what builds 
our strength. And for a government to go out and discourage and 
actually penalize the transfer of a business or the family farm or the 
family hardware store from one generation to the next generation is 
fundamentally flawed. It is flawed with the concept of what we have as 
government.
  Now, maybe in a communist country or in a socialist country, where 
everybody is not paid on what they are worth, they are paid on what 
they need, so no matter what they do, it is not what they do for 
society, it is what they need. So you equalize all those payments.
  That is what the concept of a death tax or a marriage tax comes from, 
especially a death tax. That is not what we want in this country. That 
is not what ought to be happening to our communities.
  By the way, you heard me right when I tell you the death tax hurts 
our environment. You say wait a minute, how does the death tax hurt our 
environment? You know how it hurts it? In my district, in Colorado, a 
beautiful district, I live in the highest place in the Nation, the 
highest elevation in the Nation. If you have been skiing in the 
mountains in Colorado, if you have been in the mountains in Colorado, 
the essence is you are in my district.
  The people discover the beauty of this. What happened is we have 
family farms and ranches out there, and what is happening is people are 
coming in and the families are having to sell these. They want to farm, 
they want to ranch, they want to have that piece of land, but they have 
to sell it. You know where that land goes? It does not continue as a 
ranching operation. It does not continue as a farming operation. It 
continues as a few hundred more condominiums, or a few hundred more 
townhouses, or a brand new shopping center. That is what is happening 
to that land out there, and a lot of it is due directly to this death 
tax.
  So do not stand here and bash George W. Bush because he wants to 
eliminate the death tax. Do not stand here and bash George W. Bush 
because he says marriage should not be a taxable event. What you ought 
to do is, as some of the Democrats have done, join the Republicans in 
our fight to get rid of the death tax. Join the Republicans, as some 
conservative Democrats have done, and get rid of the marriage tax.

[[Page 20710]]

  Instead, what happened, unfortunately, we saw the majority of 
Democrats go with the President and support the President's veto of 
getting rid of the marriage tax and support the President on this death 
tax. I am saying to my colleagues, work with us in a bipartisan method. 
We can do something for Social Security for this next generation. We 
can do something about that death tax. We can do something about that 
marriage penalty.

                              {time}  1615

  Let me tell my colleagues, in a bipartisan direction, when we have 
worked together in the past, the Democrats helped us pass probably the 
largest tax break that we have had in 20 years or 30 years; although 
the people do not realize what we have done. The Republicans, about 3 
years ago, 2 years ago went out and said the Americans dream is about 
owning their own home. So we think in most families, the ownership of 
the home is the largest asset they have; that is usually the largest 
asset in a family.
  What we said, the Republican bill that we got passed, with some help 
from some conservative Democrats, on a bipartisan working effort, the 
bill we passed says that if you now own a home and you sell that home 
for a profit, I am not talking about equity, I am talking about net 
income, you sell it for a profit, your first $250,000 per person, 
remember most homes are owned by couples, so it is the first $500,000 
per couple, but the first $250,000 per person goes into your pocket tax 
free. You get to do that every 2 years.
  That is an incentive for people to go out and own homes, and that was 
supported on a bipartisan effort. We had conservative Democrats who 
helped the Republicans pass that, and that gave the American people a 
tax break they deserved.
  For some reason, there has been a misconception down here on this 
floor. We seem to think that the American taxpayers ought to pay and 
pay and pay, and somehow people, some of my colleagues spin it out as 
if we dare talk about it, hey, maybe they put in too much. George W. 
Bush says take half of our surplus right away and put it to reduction 
of the debt; that should be our priority.
  Reduce that debt, but you still have a little that you ought to put 
into some programs like education and healthcare, and you still have a 
small fraction of that you ought to give back to the taxpayer, pat them 
on the back and say thanks for what you have done. Thanks to the 
productive nature of the American people, the American taxpayer, this 
government is sitting pretty well.
  This surplus was not created by the wonderful creative thoughts of 
your government. It was created by our constituents, the hard workers, 
the 8:00 to 5:00 people or the 8:00 to 8:00 people out there who 
produce and create capital. Government does not create capital. 
Government transfers capital. Government takes it from the workers' 
pockets, transfers it to Washington, D.C., and then hands it out as if 
they worked for it. That is not what the government is about.
  What I am saying is do not be ashamed to talk about a tax cut. They 
ought to be reasonable tax cuts. Is it unreasonable to cut out the tax 
of death? Is it unreasonable to cut out the tax of marriage?
  I was so excited last night in that debate. I wanted to be in that 
debate, not as a candidate but just to get up there and say, wait a 
minute, Mr. Vice President, what is wrong with the policy of cutting 
out a death tax? What is wrong with the policy of eliminating the 
marriage tax? What is wrong with the homeowners tax break that we gave 
2 years ago? You did not try and spin it out of control then.
  I am telling my colleagues from a bipartisan point of view, we owe 
respect to the taxpayer; and there is no reason to back off and be 
ashamed, because we talk about maybe we ought to thank the taxpayer and 
say we got enough to operate the government. The more the taxpayer 
provides for the government, the sloppier the government becomes.
  Sometimes it is a good idea to tighten down on the budgets. That 
forces efficiencies. That is why I have taken this podium today, 
instead of bashing Bush all the time, which I heard minute after minute 
after minute earlier this afternoon, why do we not stand up and say, 
hey, here are some policies that we can work on in a bipartisan basis; 
here are some positive things that he has proposed.
  There are very few of my colleagues out here who could look me right 
in the eye and arguably tell me that our plan, our Thrift Savings Plan, 
should not apply to the American people and should only apply to 
Federal Government employees. There are very few of you, I think, that 
could really look me in the eye and honestly tell me, Look, Scott, we 
ought to have a death tax.
  How many of my colleagues really support a death tax? How many of my 
colleagues really think people ought to be penalized in tax due to the 
fact that they are married? How many of my colleagues really think that 
this government ought to engage in discouraging families from passing 
their hardware store or their farm or ranch from one generation to the 
next generation? Not a lot of my colleagues, but my colleagues ought to 
be identified to the American people so they know exactly where we 
stand.
  The taxpayer does deserve some courtesy. We obviously need to reduce 
the death debt. We have to take care of programs like education and 
health care which are fundamental for the survival of the greatness of 
this country; but the best way that we do it is we look at it in a 
positive sense, and I encourage my colleagues to do just exactly that.

                          ____________________