[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1657-1662]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            NIGHT-SIDE CHAT

  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.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening during the next hour I would 
like to have a night-side chat with my colleagues in regards to a 
number of different issues.
  The first issue that I would like to start out with is the death tax 
or the estate tax. Then I would like to move on and cover a few points 
on the marriage penalty tax, move from there to an issue that I think 
has become fundamentally important to the defense of this country, and 
that is the missile defense. In fact, tonight I intend to spend a good 
deal of time discussing the missile defense of the United States of 
America.
  Then if we have an opportunity, I would like to move on to the Social 
Security earnings limitation repeal. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) has stepped forward. And I think tomorrow we will see a very 
close to a unanimous vote to lift the earnings cap for those people 
between 65 and 70 years old who are being unfairly penalized by the tax 
law.
  So I do publicly want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw), and I would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Johnson). Both of those gentlemen have worked very hard.
  I also want to congratulate the Democrats who have finally come on 
board with the Republican bill to help us get rid of this unfair 
taxation. Then if we have a little time after that, I would like to 
talk about the Internet, a taxation on the Internet. So there are a 
number of issues tonight on our night-side chat that we can discuss.
  But let us first start with the death tax. What is the death tax, 
number one? Number two, what property does this tax tax that has not 
already been taxed? In this country, there is a tax called the estate 
tax. If one's accumulation of property during one's lifetime, property, 
by the way, of which one already has paid taxes upon at least once, if 
that property accumulates over a certain amount of money, the 
Government comes in after one's death and mandates upon one's surviving 
members, one's family, that an additional tax be levied on this 
property that has already been taxed.
  It is probably in our Tax Code the most unfair, punitive tax that we 
have got. There is no basis of justification to go and tax somebody 
upon their death, their estate upon their death, on property that 
throughout their entire lifetime they have paid taxes after taxes after 
taxes. It is as if the Government just did not get enough.
  Now, one would ask, why is something like that in our Tax Code? Why 
is it not easy just to take it out? Well, I can tell you. The Clinton 
administration, and, frankly, most of the Democrats in the House, have 
opposed taking or getting rid of the estate tax. They say it is a tax 
for the rich.
  Well, what I invite those people to do is come out, for example, to 
the State of Colorado or go to any State in the Union and take a look 
at small businesses that are now being impacted by the death tax. Take 
a look at what happens to families from the personal level when the 
Government comes into their life after having taxed their property 
throughout their life and says we have got to take one more hit at the 
deceased. We need to go in and assess a tax simply based on the reason 
that they died.
  This tax has devastating impacts. I will give my colleagues an 
example. I have a good friend of mine who is now deceased. But this 
friend, we will call him Mr. Joe, Mr. Joe years and years ago started 
out as a bookkeeper in a local construction company. He worked very, 
very hard in that construction company. After a while, he got an 
opportunity through years of hard work to buy some stock in the 
construction company. He was not a wealthy man. But he and his family, 
his wife, they scraped together a few pennies here, a few pennies 
there. They watched their expenses, and they invested in stock.
  Well, 5 or 6 years ago, in some of his investments, he sold some of 
those investments, and he was hit with a tax called capital gains.
  Now, most of the citizens of this country will be assessed a capital 
gains taxation. If one's mutual funds, if one bought property, if one 
owns stock outside of mutual funds, it is a gain upon property that one 
has made, and they give a capital tax on it.
  So that is what they did when Mr. Joe sold his property. He was hit 
with a capital gains taxation at that time, which was around the rate 
of 28 percent.
  So take out a pencil, figure out that Mr. Joe, who had worked 
throughout his entire life, had accumulated property, sold a portion of 
that property, and on the profit on that property, 28 percent taxation.
  Unfortunately, my friend Mr. Joe became terminally ill within a month 
or so after the sale of this property. Even more unfortunate was that 
he passed away 2 or 3 months after that. The Government then came in to 
that family and said we realize that your father in this case has paid 
on time as a responsible citizen of this country taxes on the property 
that now belongs to the estate. But we are here for a second dip in the 
pot. The Government has come back, and we think it is necessary to tax 
the estate of the deceased person. What did they do to that estate? 
Exactly what they did to that estate, they hit it with taxes which, 
when you add it to the capital gains tax, gives it an effective tax 
rate of about 72 percent. Seventy-two percent on that estate is what 
was paid in taxation.
  Now, let me tell you where the hardship comes in. Number one, 72 
percent, imagine, you kind of figure out in your own mind what property 
you have in your home, what property you and your family has in your 
home that you own. Then try to determine 72 percent of it that you 
would like to cut out of it to give to the Government, even though you 
already paid taxes on it.
  What happened to the estate is, of course they did not have the cash 
to

[[Page 1658]]

pay for the 72 percent. They had to sell assets. They had to go out and 
sell more of the property to pay the 72 percent tax rate that was 
imposed upon them.
  What happens? What happens to the death tax money? Where does it go? 
I will tell you exactly where it goes. It goes to the bureaucracy in 
Washington, D.C. That money is transferred from your communities. In 
this particular case, it was transferred out of a small community in 
Colorado in my district, the mountains of Colorado; and it was sent, 
transferred to Washington D.C. to be distributed amongst the 
bureaucrats and the agencies in Washington, D.C.
  Where would that money have gone had it not been transferred to 
Washington, D.C. through that death tax? That is a legitimate question. 
Where would it have gone? Do you know where it would have gone and 
where it did go? Prior to the tax, prior to the Federal Government 
stepping into that community, prior to the Federal Government stepping 
into that estate and taking that money, that money stayed in the 
community of that small town in the mountains of Colorado.
  That was the money that helped fund the local church. That was the 
money that helped fund the jobs for many, many people in that 
community. That was the money that bought property and made rental 
units available in that community.
  Now what has happened to that money? It is no longer in that 
community. It has gone on to Washington, D.C. Because Washington, D.C. 
is here in the East, they seem to think they know better. They seem to 
think they need to take one more punch at you, one more punch on the 
estate tax.
  Now we have heard a lot of rhetoric lately. In fact we have even 
heard some of the rhetoric from the Democrats. Let me make a note here. 
I compliment the Democrats tomorrow for coming over and assisting us in 
passing and getting rid of the earnings limitation on Social Security. 
I wished they would have joined us earlier, but they are joining us, 
and they should deserve credit for that.
  I am not attempting to be partisan here, but I want to make a clear 
distinction on what is happening on this death tax; and that is, we are 
not getting help to eliminate this death tax from the Democratic 
leadership or from the Democratic administration. In fact, let me tell 
my colleagues exactly what has happened in the last couple of weeks.
  I sit on the Committee on Ways and Means; and on this committee, we 
do all the taxation. We deal with all the taxation issues. It is 
probably the most powerful committee in the House of Representatives. 
In looking at that, we get the President's budget. We just got the 
President's budget a couple of weeks ago.
  Do my colleagues know what the Democrats have done with the death 
tax? I was in hopes that the Democrats, while I did not really expect 
them, their leadership to move the party to get rid of the death tax, 
which is the most unfair tax we have in the system. That was too good 
to be true to expect them to join us, the Republicans, in our effort to 
eliminate the tax. I expected them probably to stay neutral.
  We hear a little rhetoric about how it is unfair, but they really 
would not change. I was very surprised. More than surprised, I was 
extremely disappointed that the President in his budget, the Democrats 
through the President in that budget, not only did not stay neutral on 
the death tax, they are actually increasing the death tax. That is 
right.
  For any of you people out there that own a small farm or a ranch or a 
business or a home in an area where you have seen vast depreciation, 
hold on to your britches because the Clinton budget increases your 
taxes by almost $10 billion, a $10 billion increase in the death tax in 
this country.
  Come on. How much more can one beat out of a person? Let us be fair 
to the citizens of this country. I know the bureaucracy in Washington 
is hungry. I know it is constantly looking for some more money to eat 
up, some more money to take out of our local communities and transfer 
out of our States to Washington, D.C. But a $10 billion increase in the 
death tax, it is unfair. It is not right.
  You are being unfair to the American people. You do not need that 
additional taxation. You do not need to go out there and seek 10 
billion more dollars off the grieving families and off the estates of 
these families.
  Let us be fair. Let us support things like eliminating that death 
tax. It is unfair. I can give my colleagues example after example after 
example. In fact, my colleagues here on the House floor can think of it 
in their own mind, think about their own communities. Ask the question: 
Is Scott McInnis in his night-side chat correct? Where is that money? 
Is the money in my community really going to Washington, D.C. because 
one of our citizens died and happened to leave an estate that the 
Government decided it should tax? Of course he is right. Of course that 
is where the money goes.
  We need to have the American people be fully aware of the facts. The 
facts are these: Republicans will continue their fight to eliminate the 
death tax in this country. But the Democratic administration that we 
have right now will continue its efforts to increase the death tax.
  For some of my colleagues on the Democratic side, if they do not 
believe me, look it up in the budget. It is right there: $10 billion. 
$10 billion.
  Tonight is a good night to talk about some of these taxes. But, Mr. 
Speaker, as we go back to our districts, as most of us do every 
weekend, I certainly do every weekend, there is tax relief out there 
that I as a Republican am proud that the Republican Party put into 
place.

                              {time}  2000

  Most American citizens do not realize that probably the largest tax 
break they have gotten in years just happened a couple of years ago 
thanks to the efforts of the Republicans. And, frankly, we had some 
conservative Democrats who came across the aisle and supported us on it 
as well. That is the tax on the sale of a principal residence, on a 
home.
  Under the old law, if a person bought a home for, say, $10, and then 
that home was sold for $15 and there was a $5 profit, that person had 
to pay taxes on that $5 capital gain. That word capital gain comes 
back. There was an assessed tax on that capital gain unless an 
individual was, one, over 55 years of age; two, the amount of the gain 
did not exceed $150,000; and, three, an individual only got one 
exemption. Once a lifetime.
  Everybody out there who is a homeowner should listen up because it is 
important. We have seen appreciation of real property values, of homes. 
We have seen appreciation in this country, and we have great news, 
thanks to the Republican efforts on this side. And I keep coming back 
to this because I am proud of it and I like boasting about it. I do not 
mind saying it is the Republicans that did this because we did. Now, a 
person owning a home that sells that home for a profit, and that is the 
principal residence that they have lived in for the last 3 of 5 years, 
they get to take that amount of money, up to $250,000 per person, 
$500,000 per couple, and it is exempted from any taxes. It is exempt. 
That person gets to take that money and put it into their pocket.
  Now, under the old law, the taxes could be deferred by buying a house 
of equal or greater value. That is not a requirement under the law we 
passed here a couple of years ago. We simply said that when an 
individual makes the profit, up to $250,000 per person, they can put it 
in their pocket. And by the way, there is no age limitation. And by the 
way, we allow that individual to renew this effort. This can be done 
every couple of years. A person can go and get this tax break.
  This is significant. And every homeowner in this country should know 
about it because at some point or another they will have a big smile on 
their face because they are going to be able to put a lot of cash, if 
their property has appreciated, right into their pocket without sending 
that money to the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.
  I want to talk about one other tax issue that I think is important 
and

[[Page 1659]]

that is unfair. Marriage couples. I represent the Third Congressional 
District of the State of Colorado. That is the mountains. Essentially 
the mountains in the State of Colorado. Out there I have almost 70,000 
people, in fact, 69,766 people, who live in the Third Congressional 
District of Colorado that have an additional penalty on their taxes 
simply because they are married. Simply because they are married. I 
could not believe it.
  This bill that we passed, that we put together on the Republican 
side, said, hey, Democrats, Republicans, unaffiliated, whatever, let us 
stand up and get rid of the marriage tax penalty in our Tax Code. We 
are a country whose foundation is family. We encourage family. We want 
our young people to have families. We want them to be married. We want 
to go back to the cycle of family's right; family's number one. We say 
that, but on the other hand our Tax Code taxes them, taxes them for 
being married.
  Well, the Republicans in this House, with some Democrats, 40 or so 
Democrats, passed a bill a couple of weeks ago to eliminate the 
marriage penalty. Now, I think the President is probably going to veto 
it. I cannot imagine that he would, but he is probably going to do it. 
And I was frankly really surprised that some of the Democrats would 
vote against this. Come on, how do they go back to their districts and 
look somebody in the eye and say, ``You're getting married? 
Congratulations. Time to take a little more money out of your pocket 
and transfer it to the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.''
  It is an unfair tax. We ought to do something about it. We ought to 
eliminate it. And to the Democrats that voted no, they will probably 
have another chance this session to vote on that bill again when it 
comes back out of conference, and I hope they support us. I hope they 
stand up and vote and I hope they have the courage to say, look, it is 
an unfair tax.
  Politics aside, election year aside, let us be fair to the taxpayers. 
Let us let married couples not be penalized for being married. Let us 
let families who have had a death in their family not get an additional 
death tax. We can do something. We showed that we could do something on 
the capital gains when a home is sold and it has not brought the 
government to its knees. That money has not been buried in the ground 
somewhere. It is recirculated in the communities. We have helped the 
homeowner, now we can help the married couple and now we can help the 
families of the deceased by revisiting these tax codes and by 
eliminating these unfair penalties on these people.
  Now, let me cap off, before I get into something that I think is 
extremely serious, extremely serious, by once again to publicly commend 
my fine colleague, the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Shaw), 
and my fine upstanding colleague, the gentleman from the State of Texas 
(Mr. Sam Johnson), on their efforts today in the Committee on Ways and 
Means, which passed unanimously, unanimously, the Democrats joined us, 
in eliminating the earnings cap for those on Social Security between 
the ages of 65 and 70.
  Over 70 that cap was lifted, but between 65 and 70 citizens were 
actually penalized if they had worked all their lives and decided they 
wanted to continue to work between the ages of 65 and 70. They were 
penalized under the Social Security System. Today, that bill passed out 
of the Committee on Ways and Means under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Texas. Tomorrow we will 
have it on the House floor, and I would expect that tomorrow we will 
have a strong vote.
  It is not assured. I was surprised on the marriage penalty and doing 
away with that. I thought everybody would vote for that, but some of 
our colleagues on the Democratic side voted against it. But tomorrow I 
hope my colleagues on the Democratic side will join us and get rid of 
that earnings cap. I hope they will join us, put aside the election 
year, put aside the partisanship and join us and let us get rid of it. 
Let us make the Tax Code fair for everybody.
  So a recap real carefully on these tax issues. Number one, we need to 
eliminate the death tax. It is unfair, it is unjustified, it is 
punitive, meaning it is a penalty. It is a penalty on the taxpayers of 
this country to be taxed on property they have already paid taxes on 
simply because they die.
  Number two, we need to recognize that the Congress under the 
Republican leadership passed successfully for every homeowner in this 
country an opportunity for them to take the profit from their home and 
put it right into their pocket.
  Number three, we need to eliminate the marriage penalty. It is 
unfair, fundamentally unfair, for us, as the government of this 
country, for the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., to penalize a couple 
because they are married. It should be the policy of this Congress and 
every other Congress to follow that we encourage marriage in this 
country; that we tell people to go out and focus on that family and not 
worry about being penalized by the government.
  And, finally, let me wrap this portion of the comments up by saying 
that I hope tomorrow we have uniform support on this House floor to 
eliminate the earnings cap on Social Security. And any of my colleagues 
out there who have constituents out there between the ages of 65 and 
70, they know exactly what we are talking about. Tomorrow's debate 
should be short, it should be to the point, because the issue is right.
  Let us move on. I want to visit this evening in some depth here for 
the next half-hour or so about missile defense. And I think really the 
best way to get into this, and I do not like reading a script when I 
speak on my night-side chats, but I think it is probably an appropriate 
entry or a lead or a path to follow when we talk about the missile 
defense of this country.
  First, let me precede the reading of these articles with a very 
strong statement. Every other country in the world, every nation in the 
world understands this message: The United States of America has the 
fundamental right, the fiduciary responsibility, and the obligation to 
defend its citizens. And we will defend our citizens. And as a part of 
that defense, they should not dare criticize this country for putting 
together a missile defense system to take down an incoming missile into 
this country. Not offensive, defensive.
  We have an obligation. My colleagues on this floor, each and every 
one of us, share that responsibility to be sure that our generation, 
the next generation, and the generations to follow have the weapons and 
the tools to defend themselves from aggressors of freedom and against 
freedom. It is our fundamental obligation as Congressmen of the United 
States of America.
  Let me begin. An article in the Dallas Morning News, that is where I 
pulled it down from, written by William Safire. Think about this, 
because this article is really pertinent tonight. As my colleagues 
know, we have several primaries going on across the country as I now 
speak. We have three of them, Washington, North Dakota, and Virginia. 
We know that in the next few months we are going to pick the next 
President of the United States. So this article kind of plays into 
that.
  For a moment I want my colleagues here to imagine that they are going 
to be the President of the United States. Just try to put in our minds 
that we are going to be the President of the United States. Let us 
start the article.
  ``Imagine that you are the next United States President and this 
crisis arises: The starving army of North Korea launches an attack on 
South Korea imperilling other 30,000 troops. You threaten a massive air 
assault. Pyongyang counter threatens to put a nuclear missile into the 
State of Hawaii. You say that that would cause you to strike back and 
destroy North Korea. Its undeterred leaders dare you to make the trade. 
You decide.
  ``Or this crisis: Saddam Hussein invades Saudi Arabia. You warn of a 
Desert Storm II. He says he has a weapon of mass destruction on a ship 
near the United States and is ready to sacrifice Baghdad if you are 
ready to lose New York City. You decide.
  ``Or this: China, not now a rogue State, goes into an internal 
convulsion

[[Page 1660]]

and an irrational warlord attacks Taiwan.''
  Now, let me leave the article for a minute. Did my colleagues read 
the paper today? In the last 48 hours, China has threatened the United 
States of America with a missile attack if in fact we go to the defense 
of Taiwan. So when this article was written it was just an ``imagine 
yourself in that place.'' But, in fact, in the last 48 hours, China has 
made that threat to the United States. So it is fairly realistic. Let 
us go back to the article.
  ``Or this: China goes into the internal convulsion and an irrational 
warlord attacks Taiwan. You threaten to intervene. Within 10 minutes 
you threaten to intervene. But all of a sudden you discover that China 
has missiles targeted on several major United States cities. You have a 
decision to make. Before you make the decision on North Korea, on 
Saddam Hussein, on China, remember this; that in 1998 the Central 
Intelligence Agency told your predecessor that it was highly unlikely 
that any rogue state, except possibly North Korea, would have a nuclear 
weapon capable of hitting any of the contiguous 48 States within 10 to 
12 years.''

                              {time}  2015

  That is some exception. Apparently, our strategic assessors are 
untroubled at the prospect of losing Pearl Harbor again. So we are 
talking about the 48 States that have no missile defense in place, no 
missile defense in place.
  The CIA assured your predecessor you would have 5 years' warning 
about the other nations' weapons development before you would have to 
deploy a missile defense system, but the CIA's record of prediction is 
poor.
  President George Bush was assured that Saddam would have no nuclear 
capability for the next 10 years. When we went in after we invaded 
Kuwait, we discovered it to be less than a year away. And India, 
despite our extensive satellite and surveillance, surprised us with its 
recent nuclear explosion.
  Six months ago, the Congress decided to get a second opinion about 
how vulnerable the United States is. Donald Rumsfeld, a former 
Secretary of Defense, was named to lead the bipartisan commission to 
assess the ballistic threat to the United States. Its nine members are 
former high government officials, military officers, and scientists of 
unassailable credibility.
  Clearly, forever a national secret, these men with command experience 
had the advantage denied to CIA analysts. The unclassified summary of 
this T&B's 300-page report was released recently. This report just came 
out and it was a shocker. The direct threat to America, it concluded, 
by a ballistic missile attack is broader, more mature, and evolving 
more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the 
intelligence community. Not only Iran and other terrorist states 
capable of producing a nuclear-tipped missile within 5 years of 
ordering it up, they are capable of skipping the test and fine-tuning 
what we have depended on as our cushion to get our defenses up.
  That means the Commission concluded that the warning time the United 
States would have to develop and deploy a missile defense is near zero. 
That means, I will repeat, that the time the United States of America 
will have to develop and deploy a missile defense system is not 5 
years, not 10 years, it is close to 0.
  Let us set aside our preoccupation with executive privileges and 
hospital lawsuits long enough to consider the consequences of the 
judgment of this report. The United States no longer has the luxury of 
several years to put up a missile defense. We no longer have the luxury 
of several years to put a missile defense system up. If we do not 
decide now to deploy a rudimentary shield, we run the risk of Iran or 
North Korea or Libya building or buying the weapon that will enable it 
to get them to drop it upon the United States of America.
  The Commission was charged only with assessing the new threat and not 
about what we should do to meet the danger. Nine serious men concluded 
unanimously that our intelligence agencies, on which we spend $27 
billion a year, have misled us. Smiling, the director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency responded that we need to keep challenging our 
assumptions.
  Wrong. We need to defend ourselves from the likely prospect of a 
surprise nuclear blackmail. A first step is egregious, the naval 
theater defense, but that requires the President to redefine a 1972 
treaty with the Soviets, the anti-ballistic missile treaty that he 
thinks requires us to remain forever naked to all our potential 
enemies.
  The crisis is not likely to occur as Bill Clinton's sands run out. 
His successor would be the one to pay, the new President will be the 
one to pay, in the coin of diplomatic paralysis caused by 
unconscionable lack of preparedness for this President's failure to 
heed the warning time in 1998.
  Let me move on to another article and just summarize a couple parts 
of it. This article was written by the Columbus Dispatch. The headline 
was, ``No Shield: The U.S. is Subject to the Threat of Missiles.'' A 
chilling paradox of U.S. defense strategies suggests that a Columbus 
sailor on a Navy ship in the Pacific would be safer from a North Korean 
missile attack than his parents who work in downtown. It talks in this 
article about the Rumsfeld assessment. But I like the conclusion of it.
  This is the conclusion of that article: One thing is sure, while the 
United States debates the cost of an anti-missile defense, rogue 
nations are sparing no expense to make the missiles threat a reality.
  Finally, let me go to the Wall Street Journal and then I will leave 
the articles. Tuesday, February 15, just about a couple weeks ago, 
under the editorial called the November Missile Defense. Let me just 
read a couple of paragraphs from that article.
  ``An influential member of the Russian Duma said this month that a 
compromise on the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty was possible and would 
probably include steep cuts in the limits on strategic warheads and an 
end to the ban on MIRVs, missiles that can hit more than one target.
  ``It's absurd enough that the administration is asking Russia's 
permission for the United States to build a defense against terrorists 
or rogue states,'' a system for its citizens, asking Russia's 
permission to do this, but, on top of that, for the United States to 
build a defense and to pay for it by agreeing with Russia to cut our 
nuclear arsenal.
  What that paragraph said and what it refers to is there is a treaty 
called the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Back in the 1970s, the 
thought for nuclear deterrent was that if the two countries, the two 
superpowers, which were Russia and the United States, and that is all 
that that treaty involved and it did not imagine a North Korea or Libya 
or Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons, this treaty, when it was 
drafted in 1972 or so, said, hey, the best way to stop a nuclear attack 
is for the two superpowers, Russia and the United States, to agree not 
to build a defense against each other, so that Russia would have the 
incentive not to fire missiles upon the United States because they 
could not defend themselves and the United States had the incentive not 
to fire missiles on Russia because the United States could not defend 
itself.
  I think it was absurd. The fact is it was signed. It has been in 
effect. But times have changed. Times have changed dramatically. Number 
one, Russia is no longer the superpower that it was. Number two, China 
now has the capability to deliver nuclear missiles into many of the 
cities of the contiguous 48 States in the United States.
  We now know that several countries, including India and Pakistan, 
have nuclear weapons. We know that these weapons can fall into the 
hands of the wrong people. And yet we continue in this country to have 
some of our leaders who resist our country's efforts and, frankly, the 
Republican's efforts, to put into place a missile defense system.
  How many of you have ever heard of NORAD or Colorado Springs, 
Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs? I will give you an example of 
what could happen today. In Colorado Springs, Colorado, we have NORAD, 
the defense command system, inside our granite mountain called Cheyenne 
Mountain;

[[Page 1661]]

and within that mountain, through our intelligence services, we can 
detect almost anywhere in the world, well, we can detect anywhere in 
the world a missile launch.
  Within a few seconds, we can advise the military leaders and the 
President of the United States that, one, a missile has been launched; 
two, the speed of the missile; three, the direction of the missile; 
four, the most likely target of the missile; and five, the most likely 
time of arrival of the missile. We can detect all of that anywhere in 
the world. The United States knows it.
  But then what can they tell the President? When the President says, 
what do I do, the answer from the military is, there is nothing we can 
do, Mr. President, because we do not have a missile defense system in 
this country.
  The CIA reported this month, again from the Wall Street Journal 
article, that the threat of a missile attack is higher than ever as 
more and more terrorists and rogue states have the ability to build or 
buy long-range ballistic missiles. We ought to think about that. We 
ought to think about the threat to this country.
  Now, some people would say to you, well, we do not have the 
technology to defend ourselves. We do have the technology. We have come 
a long ways. And we had a shot, we did a test about a month ago, and 
the test failed. But we have discovered where the fallacies are. We 
have the technology available. Now remember what we are trying to do. 
We are trying to intercept a missile. It is like hitting a bullet with 
a bullet, and they are going at a combined speed of several thousand 
miles an hour, and you have got to bring the two of them together. But 
we will have the technology in a very short period of time. So we need 
to determine what kind of missile defense system will work for this 
country.
  Now, my opinion is, although Ronald Reagan got lots of criticism and 
so on, I think the best missile defense system this country can deploy 
over a period of time is a space-generated defense. Why? Now listen. 
Just listen. If we have a land-based missile defense system versus a 
ship-based system, where you can move the system around, if we have a 
land-based system, you have to destroy that missile, you cannot destroy 
it on the launching pad.
  Let us say, for example, China launches a missile, as they have 
threatened to do in the last 24 hours. Let us say they launch a 
missile. We then have to wait for that missile. We track it as it comes 
across the ocean; and as it gets close to the United States, we have to 
start taking shots to try to bring that missile down. If we hit the 
missile down, it explodes over the top of us.
  They may have a missile headed for Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado 
Springs and we detonate it over the city of Los Angeles. You could have 
nuclear fallout. There is a danger to that. And if you miss it and you 
continue to miss it, it is going to hit its target.
  Now a space-based system, number one, is mobile. Number two, it could 
move over the top of China. We could then move it over Iraq. We could 
move it over North Korea. We have the opportunity to move the defensive 
system around.
  The thing I like the best about it is, with the advancing technology, 
we could destroy the missile on its launching pad so the missile blows 
up in China or over China or over the ocean as it arcs over instead of 
over the lands of the United States.
  The facts are very simple in what we face today. Number one, we are 
subject to a missile attack from our countries. Do not let other people 
joke to you about it.
  I just came back from Europe. I am a member of the parliamentary arm 
of NATO, and the NATO delegation just came back. I was amazed that our 
colleagues in NATO who are afraid of Russia who stand there and 
criticize the United States of America for saying we have an obligation 
to build a missile defense system.
  Well, let me tell you, Europe, you better get off dead center; and 
you better put in place a missile defense system because you are going 
to be subject to the same kind of threats that the United States is; 
and instead of criticizing the United States, you ought to step forward 
and say we are going to do what the United States is doing; we are 
going to defend our countries. And frankly, I think your citizens will 
feel you have an obligation to defend them from a missile attack.
  Second of all, at these NATO meetings, I am surprised how many people 
think we ought to curry the favor of Russia. Russia does not have the 
best interest of the United States of America at hand. We should not 
let Russia drive the decision as to whether or not we will in this 
country deploy a missile defense system to protect the citizens of the 
United States. We are not one to pick a fight with Russia. In fact, we 
ought to tell Russia to step aside. We are not looking for a fight, but 
what we are saying to Russia is do not attack the United States.
  We are also saying to every terrorist organization out there, at 
least from the ballistic missile point of view, that, if you attack the 
United States with a ballistic missile, we will have the capability to 
shoot it down. You want to know what a deterrent is? The deterrent is, 
if you take a shot at America, it will not work. So why take the shot? 
If have you got a weapon and you want to shoot your neighbor or take 
down your neighbor, but you cannot pierce the defense system that your 
neighbor has, how good is the weapon that you have?
  That is what we need to do. We have an obligation to defend this 
country. So, again, let us come back to it. In this country, we should 
have no shame for being the strongest military power in the world. We 
should feel no shame in this country for saying that we might need to 
build a missile defense system to protect the people of the United 
States of America.
  And, frankly, to our friends in Europe and to the free countries 
throughout the world, I have no objection whatsoever for the United 
States to share our technology with you so that you can defend your own 
countries. Join us in the battle. Join us in the effort.

                              {time}  2030

  Nothing is better for this world than peace. But peace does not come 
free. We have to take steps, preventative steps to preserve the peace. 
In doing that, the United States should proceed full speed ahead with a 
missile defense system. Do not buy into the argument that the 
technology will never be here. The technology is very close. In fact, 
as many of my colleagues know, two or three of the tests have been 
successful. The last test about a month ago was not successful but we 
think we know why. We think in this country that for a relatively 
inexpensive price, we can defend the citizens of this country from a 
missile attack. We ought to do it. We have that obligation. When you 
talk to most citizens in the United States and you say, hey, if Russia 
fires an incoming missile, what do we do about it, most of our citizens 
think we already have a missile defense system. We do not. We need to 
step forward and do something to protect the borders of this country.
  Let me move on and talk again, I mentioned that I have just completed 
a NATO trip over in the European continent. I also had the opportunity 
on this trip to go down to the Aviano Air Base in Italy and also to 
visit our intelligence and our naval base in Rota, Spain. I have got to 
take a minute to the American people and tell them about our armed 
services. I could not be more proud of the military of the United 
States of America. We can enjoy the freedoms we have today because we 
have got a lot of young men and women out there standing in harm's way, 
and the taxpayers of this country and the citizens of this country 
really truly have stepped forward and given these young people the 
apparatus and the kind of backing that they need to go and stand in 
that harm's way.
  When I was at the Aviano Air Base in Italy, I was so proud of our 
military men and women. Those people that man those aircraft, that 
maintain those aircraft, that handle our community relations, that do 
our maintenance work, all of that team down

[[Page 1662]]

there is exactly that. It is a team, an Air Force that works with an 
Army, that works with a Navy, that works with a Marine Corps.
  When we went on to Rota, Spain and studied the intelligence, and by 
the way, the motto of that, ``In God we trust, all others we monitor,'' 
I am very proud of them. Our Navy sailors out there, our intelligence-
gathering operation down there, the soldiers and the sailors, the 
people we have in these military bases throughout the world, you have 
got a lot to be proud of.
  Without question, the United States of America is by far the most 
powerful military operation in the history of the world. We are going 
to have some people who bash us for being strong, who criticize us for 
having a strong military, who say, you are trying to act like Rambo. 
Let me give Members an example that I gave to a classroom the other 
day. I went to a local high school in my district and I was talking 
about military and the importance for the preservation of freedom, that 
the best way to maintain peace is to be strong and that you have got to 
be number one.
  I had one of the students question me, so I will use this example. 
There was a lady in there, I asked the young lady, I said, if you were 
a black belt in karate and everybody in your class knew that you were a 
black belt in karate and they knew that if they decided to take your 
lunch or if they decided to fight you, that you would break their neck, 
how many fights do you think you would be in under those circumstances? 
The answer is pretty easy. Probably none, because you are in shape, you 
are strong, and they know that if they dare come after you, there will 
be severe consequences to pay.
  Thanks to the hundreds of thousands of dedicated men and women, and 
thanks to the hundreds of millions of American citizens who think the 
United States should be militarily strong, I think our military, 
relatively speaking, is in good shape. And I think we have got a lot to 
be proud of. I know that all of my colleagues in this room have 
constituents, many of whom may be serving in these bases, these 
overseas bases, and I know that many of them on both sides of the aisle 
join me in patting them on the back and saying thanks for what you do 
for our country. You are out there on the front lines and we are going 
to support you, and we need to support these people, and one way we can 
support them is to let them know that despite the efforts of some 
countries that want to see the demise, see the destruction of the 
United States of America, we will prevail.
  Freedom will always come out on top. But freedom can never survive if 
you do not have freedom with strength. Freedom with strength. That is 
what our young men and women who serve in the military, all men and 
women who serve in our military throughout the world are doing for this 
country. You are doing a task of which I could not thank you enough 
for. I wanted to let you all know how proud I am of you.
  Let me talk just for a couple of minutes, move on in my subject here 
of what I would like to talk to you about in our next night-side chat, 
and that is, let us talk about the Internet. I want to tell you a 
little more about my experience with the Internet and what we are 
seeing in this what I would say the second industrial revolution of the 
world. It is absolutely incredible, and most all of us on this House 
floor have experienced it. I want to spend the better part of an hour 
in the next few nights talking about this new second industrial 
revolution.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks this evening by simply doing 
just a summary of what we discussed. Let us go in reverse order. First 
of all, the missile defense system. It is imperative that the United 
States of America prepare itself for a missile defense system. We must 
deploy, in the near future, a missile defense system to protect the 
citizens of the United States of America, and we should be prepared to 
share that technology with our friends around the world so that they do 
not face the threat of terrorists or rogue nations firing a missile 
into the United States. If you do not think this is serious, take a 
look at the headline in the Washington Times this morning which 
discusses in detail the threat from China to launch a missile attack 
against the United States, a threat made in the last 48 hours.
  We talked before the missile defense about taxes. I have urged my 
Democrat colleagues to come across the aisle in a nonpartisan fashion 
tomorrow and support the Republican bill to do away with the cap on 
Social Security earnings. I urge those Democrat colleagues of mine who 
voted against the marriage tax penalty, in other words, to go ahead and 
keep the marriage tax penalty, to drop your opposition, come across the 
aisle and join us in support of that bill, the Republican bill to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is unfair. It is not right for 
us under our tax code from the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., to tax 
people simply because they are married. Help us get rid of that. We can 
do it this year. Let us do it this year.
  We talked about the death tax. It is the most punitive, unfair tax in 
our system. There is no justification for the government to go to the 
estate of the deceased and take property over which the taxes have 
already been paid in several instances over and over again and taxing 
that property simply because there has been a death. It is ruining 
family farms, it is ruining ranches and small business in this country. 
It is transferring money from our small communities in all of our 
respective States, it is transferring that money to the bureaucracy in 
Washington, D.C.
  Let us be a bureaucrat's worst nightmare. Let us cut out some of 
these taxes, the death tax. Let us get rid of the marriage penalty tax. 
It is not right. Let us get rid of that cap on Social Security 
earnings. It is time for us to reform some of these unfair elements of 
the tax code of this country. We can afford to do it. We have a 
surplus. Let us be fair to the taxpayers of this country. Let us be 
fair to every citizen in this country. Do not penalize them for being 
married. Do not penalize their estate because they died. Be fair to 
them on the Social Security earnings cap.
  Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the evening with my colleagues and I look 
forward to further discussions.

                          ____________________