Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to commend the honorable Park County Commissioner, Cecil J. DeLange, on a job well done. Mr. DeLange has been the Park County Commissioner since 1998. He was concerned with issues such as finance and personnel within the local government. In December, Mr. DeLange will conclude his service as a County Commissioner. Mr. DeLange, before becoming commissioner, spent three decades with the John Deere Corp. in Illinois and Iowa. Upon moving to Colorado, he started a consulting business and was quite active in the Home Owners Association. Mr. DeLange's knowledge of business and agriculture has helped him guide Park County. Mr. DeLange, through his public service, has made Park County a better place to live and for that Colorado is thankful. Thanks for your hard work, Cecil. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the key here is my colleagues can come across the party aisle, Democrats and Republicans come across the party aisle, George W. Bush ought not to be criticized in the late hour of the House of Representatives by a very partisan team who are out strictly to destroy any kind of proposal that George W. Bush comes up with. Now look, my colleagues may not agree with everything that George W. Bush says, but is the whole concept, every line of it intended to destroy Medicare? Of course it is not. It is just the same as Gore and Clinton, they have come up with some ideas. But should my colleagues just in blank say because it was Gore or because it was Clinton that it ought to be destroyed? No. I think my colleagues owe it to the people that we are elected to represent, to go on a very constructive fashion, as I intend to do here in a few minutes talking about the death tax and talk about the pluses and the minuses, talk about the details of it, talk about the fine print. I saw an excellent article today, I pulled it out of the newspaper, The Washington Post, it says 12 questions to ask about the proposals of Al Gore. ``If the projected budget surpluses on which you are basing your spending plans do not materialize or come up short, which promises will you put on hold? The reason I bring these questions up to my colleagues on the Democratic side is, look, I realize that it is an election season, it is the time for promises. It is almost if you are a teacher telling all your kids whatever wishes you want to come true, I will grant them, just as long as I get my contract renewed. Look, somewhere you are going to have to face these voters and you are going to have to tell them how you are going to pay for this. If you want to talk about socialized medicine, talk about it as socialized medicine, be upfront with our constituents. They are not dummies. In fact, they elected us to come back up here so we will speak frankly to them, so that we will talk to them. This is what it is going to cost you. Take a look at your tallies. Just in today's Washington Post, Gore promises another $300 billion, the Medicare program, the pharmaceutical program. Some of these are needs that we have to address. But as we begin to address them and as we begin to critique other people's programs, we ought to keep a little cost tally on the right-hand side to see if we can afford them. It is kind of like going to the car dealership and saying all right I promised my son this car and I promised my daughter this car, my other daughter this car, my other son this car and my wife promised me this car, and I promised her that car. At some point the salesman is going to stop and say, Congressman McInnis, can you afford what you are promising all of this family? Are you really serious? Are you really going to deliver the money to provide these cars for your four, five children and your wife and your wife for you, or are you just talking? Are you just trying to get me excited as a salesman? I am afraid that is what the previous hour just did. It is an effort to get people excited about this upcoming election by giving them, in my opinion, distorted and inaccurate information. That is pretty strong terminology, but do you think that the gentleman who is a pharmacist, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the Congressman here, can fairly stand up in front of my colleagues and say that George W. Bush's plan and the Republican plan their whole intent is to destroy Medicare? Give me a break. As I said earlier, there is nobody on this floor, nobody in an elected office, not a county commissioner, not a city councilman, not a governor, not anywhere in the country that wants to destroy Medicare; and using that kind of fear tactic on our senior citizens is unjustified. Constructive criticism is welcome. That is exactly what this House floor is for, constructive criticism. But to come up here and patently mislead, in my opinion, is very unfortunate, and that is really frankly what gives people kind of a bad taste in their mouth about politics in this country. Let me move on to something which I intended to speak about the entire time. My wife and I have faced it, many of our young people in this country, the young people, I am talking about the people in their 20s, the people that are going to college for an education, the young people of our country that have dreams, I am talking about the next generation in their mid-40s such as myself. That generation has been able to realize a part of their dreams, and then I am talking about the generation ahead of me that have realized their dreams, but their biggest dream is to see what they can do for the generation that is behind them or the generations that are behind them. I cannot think of a more fundamental question in front of all of us to decide whose team you are on then to vote tomorrow. The vote we have on this House floor tomorrow is a vote to override the Presidential veto on our bill that passed this House. By the way, I think it was 65 Democrats. So some of the Democrats, not the leadership, but some of the mainstream Democrats more conservative Democrats crossed the party aisle and voted to eliminate the death tax. The President, by the way, this year in his budget did not call for elimination of the death tax, did not call for the status quo of the death tax, in other words, keep the death tax absolutely the same. Instead, the President this year in his budget which was submitted to this Congress actually increases the death tax by $9.5 billion. Again, the President does not eliminate the death tax. The President does not keep the death tax neutral. The President increases the tax by $9.5 billion. No wonder he vetoed this House of Representatives' and the U.S. Senate's proposal to eliminate the death tax. Tomorrow, every one of us is going to have an opportunity to cast our vote on that tally board up there as to whether or not we think fundamentally the death tax is a fair tax to have in this system. Now, I have heard on the August recess, I heard some of the rhetoric coming out to justify a death tax in this country: Well, it is only for the wealthy; well, it is only just for a few people in this country. Well, it is selfish for you to think of doing away with the death tax. Every one of those defenses, every one of those items of rhetoric avoids the basic question, and the basic question is should a government based, as a democratic government of the United States is based, should it have a tax based simply on the event of a death? It is not based on what you have earned. It is not an income tax. It is not based on a Social Security-type of tax. It is not based on a you-sell-some-land-for-a-huge-profit, a capital-gains type of tax. This tax is based strictly on the event of your death; that is the only justification for that tax. You died, the Government gets to tax you. By the way, take a look at how this goes. Let us give you an idea who qualifies for this. Let us say you are a rancher or a farmer, and I was appalled, by the way, when I was driving in a car in my district out there in Colorado listening to the newscast about President Clinton vetoing this death tax, and I was appalled to hear some professor, I do not know where he came from, but some professor say, well, there has never been a family farm in America lost because of the death tax. I about drove off the road. I feel like getting that person, that professor, getting him out of the ivory tower, grabbing him by his necktie and say why could you not come out to the rural parts of this country and see what this death tax does to us. Take a look at the impacts to the community and take a look at the impacts generation after generation. You know what it takes to qualify? Let us say a young person, they are 20 years old, 25 years old, they just get out of college or they just get out of some type of technical school and they want to start a construction company; and let us say they buy on credit, they buy a truck, they buy a bulldozer, they buy a backhoe and maybe they buy some other type of equipment, say a cable layer or maybe a smaller type of piece of equipment. The day they pay those pieces of equipment off, more likely than not, they will be in that bracket that the President calls the special privileged. How about for farming? If you own a tractor, a combine and a few cows and your pickup truck, watch out, because you are now in the category of what the President and the Secretary of Treasury called the elite few, only those 2 percent. Not only that, as I started to point out earlier, let us say that you have an estate that is hit by the death tax, and you pay the taxes on that. So you pay them here. Let us say your father or your grandfather paid for that in 1970, then that same piece of property, although it has already been taxed, and by the way, almost all of the death tax is a tax on property that has already been taxed. You already paid income tax on it. You already paid capital gains on it. You already paid any other type of tax, with the exception of some IRAs. What happens here? Here is property that is already taxed. It gets taxed when your grandfather died. Your grandfather, let us say, was fortunate enough to be able to pass some of it on to your father, and when your father dies, this same property that was already taxed 30 years ago gets taxed again, generation after generation. In other words, every generation that comes on to the farm, one of their highest priorities is not how do you grow better potatoes, how do we get more production out of our cattle, how do we grow better wheat, how do we do this or do that better? The first question of this generation of young people that want to go into small business or want to go into a farming operations their first question is, Gosh, how do I make enough money to pay for the day when mom or dad die and I have to pay for the estate tax or I get kicked off the farm? That is the wrong place. The United States of America should not be the country where the first question you ask is how do I pay the government taxes for the event of death? In our country, the reason we are such a great country is because the first question in history we have always asked is how can we do it better? What can we do to increase proficiency on this farm or proficiency in this small business? Well, tomorrow we are going to get a chance, and the American public, colleagues, are going to see where you are, which side of the team you are on. Either you want a death tax, either you support the government being able to go to every citizen in this country who has been successful and qualifies. What you are supporting tomorrow if you do not vote to override Clinton, in other words if you go along with Clinton, what you are supporting is a tax on the event of death that is punitive. Those of us, and I stand here very proudly to tell you I am going to be one of the first votes to cast an override on the presidential veto, those of us, and I am confident we will pass it out of here, with Democrats across the party aisle, those of us who vote to eliminate the death tax stand on the other side of the team. I have listened to some arguments, some other rhetoric that has come up, but before I get into that, let me point out something else. The rhetoric has as its base a focus on the 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 percent of the people impacted by the estate tax. Now, remember the death tax, and I should correctly call it the death tax, not estate tax, the death tax, got its beginnings in the early 1900s. It was a way to go get the robber barons, to go after who they alleged to be the robber barons, to go after the Carnegies, to go after the Rockefellers, to go after those type of families. That is why that tax was devised. Hey, let us get them on their death. Let us get that money back into the hands of the people. Let me tell you what happens to a small community, and I will give you an example. Take a small community in any State. I live in Colorado, so take a small community in the Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado. Let us say that we have an individual there who is a young person in their twenties, and I know many of them, and so do you, colleagues, who had big dreams. As they worked through life, through a lot of hard work, through a lot of risk by the way, a lot of risk, they took risks, through a lot of risks they built a successful business in this small town. By the way, my story is based on facts. It happened in a small community in Southwestern Colorado. Then they are successful in this business, and, unfortunately, they meet an untimely death, or even if they died in the normal course of things. What happens to the risk and to the business that they built up in that small community? Here is what happens. If you have a business in a community, a successful individual, in this particular case that I am thinking of it was a man and wife team, they own a construction company, they built it up from scratch. They started out, they worked 16 hour days for most of their life. Up until the day probably about 3 weeks before his death, he was going to the office to work, and what happened is while they were successful in this community, and they had many years of success, they provided funding for the local church, 80 percent of the budget. They provided the majority of funding for things like charities. They provided more jobs than any other employer in town. They provided more opportunity in this small community from an economic standpoint than any other employer in town. Well, what happened upon their death? What happened upon their death was no more support in the local community. Instead, what happens with the death tax is that success of that individual, sure, that individual was wealthy by most of our standards, but what happens is they take the money from that individual's estate, they do not leave it in the community and say, look, we are going to require that the estate continue to distribute into this community, the monies to the local church or to the local United Way. No. What happens is the government takes the money and transfers it out of your community, any community USA, takes it out of your community and transfers it to Washington, DC, where a government bureaucracy takes those dollars and redistributes those dollars throughout the bureaucracy. The money that the government takes in these death tax cases does not stay in your local community. That is what rubs me wrong. Look, I do not think it is right that you go after somebody because they have been successful and they have made some money. I mean, that is the American way. But I have got a lot more sympathy for the community, which gets that money sucked out of their community, and that money is transferred to Washington, DC. That is where it is unfair. I have gotten a number of different letters and correspondence. I want to give you some real live examples. Let me clarify a couple of things first. First of all, as I said earlier at the beginning of my comments, my wife and I, our big dream in life, and my wife's name is Lori, our big dream in life was not have a big house, not to have a big boat, although we would like to have those things. But the fact is we have to list priorities. We did not spend a lot of money on other things like recreational equipment and things, and have no objection to those who do. But our focus was we really wanted to put money away so that our kids would at least get a chance at maybe owning a house some day. We are not wealthy. My wife and I do not come from a lot of wealth. But, especially early in our marriage, we put money aside. Every time we got a spare penny, we did not put it in a payment for a new car, we did not remodel our house, we put our money in investments so that some day our children when they got married and were starting their young families could maybe have a down payment or maybe own a home. That was our dream. You know what, I do not think it is a unique dream. I do not think it is a dream just limited to my wife and I. I think it is a dream that most of us on this House floor and most of the people that we represent also dream of, what can we do for our kids? I know of no higher priority for a family than their children, and one of the focuses of planning for the future of your children is economic, and one of the economic factors is you want to try and give them some kind of opportunity, to either take over the family farm, or get a start in the family business, or, as in my wife and my case, because we do not own a business, to at least have a little money for a down payment on a home. That is the dream that can be trashed by your own government. Who would have ever imagined our forefathers when they wrote that Constitution and when they talked about taxes in that Constitution, that the government would tax the event of death, and, furthermore, they would take that tax from the local community whereupon the death occurred and the person resided and transfer it to the Nation's Capital to feed a very, very hungry bureaucracy? Now, do not be kidded when people tell you, well, this is one of the tax cuts, those big tax cuts, and we just cannot afford tax cuts right now. Well, that is an argument for another day. But the reality of it is the death tax generates very little tax income revenue for this country, and you know it and I know it. By the time you are done administering it, and by the way, the wealthiest families, including I would guess the people in the administration, once the administration's job is over in January, I would guess that most of those, including the Secretary of Treasury and the President himself, will go on to very successful and lucrative business careers, and I will bet you money, I will bet the finest dinner in Washington to anyone in here, that in a couple of years the President and the Secretary of Treasury and all the other members of his administration who are voting to keep this death tax in place will have gone out and secured the services of professional tax attorneys and CPAs and trust attorneys so they can avoid or minimize any kind of payment that they themselves say is a justified death tax. This is nothing but a punishment. This tax is a punishment for success in our country. How can you look at our young people and say we want you to be successful, we want you to work hard, and part of your responsibility, although it seems to be inherent and human nature, part of your responsibility is to provide for your children; but, by the way, if you are too successful, or if you provide for your children a little too much, like giving them an opportunity to come on the family farm, we will punish you and we will destroy you, if that is what is necessary, to take the money that we figure you owe the government, because you died and we are going to transfer that money out to Washington, DC. Now, you may think that I am just up here talking about hypothetical situations. The fact is I am not. I am going to spend the next few minutes giving you some real live stories. Headline, Daily Sentinel, great newspaper, Grand Junction, Colorado. ``Owner sells Brookhart's in Grand Junction and in Montrose to a company in Dallas. The pressure of estate taxes,'' death taxes, ``has forced the owner of Brookhart's Building Centers in Mason and Montrose Counties to sell to a Dallas lumber company, a Brookhart's official said today. Brookhart's owner of Colorado Springs said it is one of the hardest decisions his family has made in 52 years of business. Watts said the current Federal estate taxes forced his father to make this sale. In order to protect our family, in order to protect our current employees, from a forced liquidation upon the death of my father or my mother, we felt the best thing would be now to sell this company.'' This letter, dated August 28, 2000, ``My grandparents purchased land on the east side of Lake Washington across from Seattle in 1932. People thought they were crazy. It was a very long trip to anywhere, but they were school teachers, just back from helping build an orphanage in Alaska, and they liked the more rural lifestyle along the waterfront next to the duck hunters' cabin. ``They salvaged old bricks from a road that was being torn up, they chipped off the mortar and they built themselves a home. A few years ago grandma died and left the house and the land and some stocks and bonds to my dad, who was 68 years old at the time. It was quite a windfall, because that lakeside lot is now worth more than $1 million, even though the house is very old and in need of new basic plumbing, wiring, et cetera. ``My dad and his wife plan to live there. Times have been tough and they have no home of their own. The question became one of economics: Would there be enough inheritance to pay the estate or the death tax bought selling that lot that had been in the family, that they had started from scratch?'' Just like many young couples today. This letter reflects 40 years from now if we have this death tax in place what a lot of our young people today that are setting out to have their dreams, and this same kind of letter will apply to those people if we do not do something about it. ``Good news. They got to keep the house. Now it is my worry. Some day I will inherit my grandparents' homestead, but I cannot imagine how we will be able to keep it in the family if we have to pay death taxes. The burden of this tax would force us to sell. Sure, we would be wealthy if we decided to sell the old house to condominium developers, but we would be more interested in preserving the place of family picnics, swims on hot summer days, and green beans fresh from the garden. ``Our family is not amongst the rich. We are middle class Americans, and we are proud of it. We believe in family heritage and in our country. But why would our country want to take away the heritage that my grandparents built one brick at a time?'' Be a hero do it for the country. Vote to override that veto that we vote on tomorrow. Let me mention one other thing. In Colorado, I am very proud of the State of Colorado. Obviously I am exceedingly proud of my district, the Third Congressional District. Basically the Third Congressional District covers almost all of the mountains in Colorado. It is a district geographically that is larger than the State of Florida, and we have lots of discovery in that area. A lot of people have discovered how beautiful Colorado is. So we have a lot of people that are moving into our State. We have a lot of threat to open space, open space we never thought would be threatened by development of condominiums and so on. Do you know what is forcing a lot of that development, to those of you tomorrow who are going to support the President in keeping the death tax and imposing the death tax, and that is what your vote tomorrow will be, you will be imposing the death tax on the American people? You are directly responsible, in my opinion, for the development of much open space in Colorado, because those family farms and ranches cannot afford to keep that open space open if in fact they get hit with the death tax. They have to sell it, and they are smart to sell it as soon as they can to try to avoid and minimize this death tax. So for our environment, for our environment this death tax is damaging, and this leads me to other letters. My name, and I will leave that out. ``My family lives in a central part of Idaho. Our family's cattle ranch is 45 miles from Sun Valley. The ranch consists of 2,600 deeded acres, 700 head of cattle. My youngest brother Ross lives with and manages the ranch with my mother. ``Although I am still involved in the ranch, my husband and I also operate a small business in Ketchum. My two brothers, my sister, and I all grew up working alongside my father, my mother, and my grandfather. We worked weekends, we worked holidays, and we worked summer breaks. We moved cattle, we rode the range, and we fixed the fences. ``We didn't have a lot of material things. We didn't have a lot of material things, but we had our family. We had our land and we had our lifestyle. ``On October 5, 1993, my father was accidentally killed when his clothing got caught in farm machinery. He was 71 and he was very healthy. He worked from dawn to dusk, and he loved the land, and he loved his family. We were always a very close-knit family. The hub of our family was my father and the ranch. ``Even though my brother, my sister, and I don't live there anymore, we all go home, along with the grandchildren, to help with the seasonal work. My daughter and I take as much time off in the summer as we can and we work at our summer cow camp moving cattle. My mother puts on a lot of church and community picnics and barbecues down by the swimming hole. ``Every June our family enters the local parade with a float representing our ranch.'' That shows a lot of pride. ``All of the other ranchers and families in the Valley do the same exact thing. Last year, the theme for the parade was the heritage ranching, mining, and logging. ``My father's death was the most devastating event that any of us could have ever gone through. The second most devastating event was sitting down with the attorney after his death. I will never forget those attorney's words, and I quote, `There is no way you can keep this place, absolutely no way.' Still in shock from the accident, I said, `How can this be? We own this land. We have no debt on the land. We have just lost my father, and now we are going to lose our ranch, too?' '' Our attorney proceeded to pencil out the death taxes that would be due after my mother's death, and we all sat in total shock. It had taken my grandfather and my father their entire lifetimes to build up the ranch and now we can't continue on, and the grandchildren will not have the land and the rich heritage that it provides. ``It has been 3\1/2\ years since my father's accident. We still don't know what we are going to do. We only know we will not be able to keep the ranch unless something is done with the estate tax. ``The same scenario is happening to many ranchers in our valley. Eighty percent of the ranches have been owned by the same families for two or three generations. The value of the land on these ranches has risen dramatically in the last 5 years. All of these ranchers live on modest incomes, and most of them can barely educate their children off those incomes. I am certain none of them will be able to pay the death tax.'' At the same time while I am reading this letter, keep in mind that the Treasury, the Secretary of Treasury, calls it an act of selfishness to do away with this death tax. The President, the administration, this year proposed not only not doing away with it, as I mentioned earlier, not keeping it the same, but increasing it $9 billion. ``This community will not be able to survive without the ranching community that has made it. What is happening is these ranches are being bought by wealthy absentee owners who do not run cattle and who fly in only once or twice a year. It has already happened to two neighboring ranches. Both of the owners, both second generations, were killed in accidents. Their families could not pay the death taxes and sold the ranches to wealthy Southern Californians. ``I have heard it said before that the death tax exists to redistribute wealth, to take from the rich, presumably to benefit others less fortunate. Let me tell you, from where I stand now I know that this tax accomplishes exactly the opposite. For my family, the tax means we will not be able to continue running the ranch that has been our heritage for 60 years. ``This Congress says it is pro-family. However, I know from personal experience that the current death tax is anti-family. The death tax will force us to sell the ranch to a wealthy absentee owner who is unlikely to run cattle or keep the workers employed, or contribute to the community in a way such as my mother and my father and my grandfather have done. ``Surely if Congress does not provide relief from this tax many other families will suffer a similar fate. Ultimately, I wonder if towns like Mackee as we know it today will continue to exist. I urge you to ask yourselves,'' and I think this is a very pertinent paragraph, ``I urge you to ask yourselves, why does this tax exist? Is it worth the great harm it has caused to my family and many others like us? If it is not worth the harm, then the tax shouldn't exist. I hope you will do everything in your power to eliminate the Federal death tax.'' I have got example after example. I have a couple more here I want to talk to the Members about. But I think the message is clear: What are we doing here in America taxing death? Why do we look at death as a taxable event? The Democrat leadership justifies this tax by saying, We are only going after the wealthy. How can they justify going after anybody based on the fact of an untimely death? I should note how interesting it is. It is kind of like the people here on this floor who talk about public schools and how good public schools are, and oppose any kind of choice. But my understanding is there is not one of us on this House floor, there is not one of us on this House floor who send their kids to public schools in Washington, D.C. They are all in private schools or other schools, but not the public schools in Washington, D.C. It seems somewhat hypocritical. The same thing here. There are a lot of people who support the death tax because they figured out a way around it, but the fundamental question comes back, and I think it is presented by these letters, what right do we have as Congressmen of the United States, what right does the government have to go upon its citizens and tax them because one of the citizens has died, and to tear apart family farms and ranches? That professor from that ivory tower that commented and supported President Clinton's veto of the death tax, who said there has never been a family farm in America that has been liquidated or destroyed by the death tax, that person was born with blinders on. I would be happy, and in fact, I would give that professor frequent flier miles to fly to Colorado and let us go visit these. Let us go up to Idaho, sit down and talk with that family, Mr. Professor. Mr. President, let us get on Air Force One. He took it to Africa, why does he not take it to Idaho? Why does he not go talk to some of these people and ask them what the death tax is doing to their families, and the heritage of their families? The President can use that Air Force one for a little domestic travel. Give it a try. It is very moving. Here is another one, Derrick Roberts. This was a letter to the editor we got. ``My family has ranched in northern Colorado for 125 years. My sons are the sixth generation, the sixth generation to work this land. We want to continue, but the IRS is forcing almost all ranchers and many farmers out of business. ``The problem is death taxes. The demand for our land is very high, and 35-acre ranches are selling in this area for as high as 4,500 an acre. We have 20,000 acres. We want to keep it as open space, but the U.S. Government is making it impossible because we have to pay a 55 percent tax on the valuation of this acreage when my parents pass on. ``Ranchers are barely scraping by these days. If we were willing to develop homesites, we could stop the mining, but since we want to save the ranch, we are in trouble. The family has been able to scrape up the death taxes as each generation has died up to now.'' That was my earlier example. ``This time, however, I think we are done for. Our only other option is to give the ranch to a nonprofit organization, and they all want it, but they won't guarantee they will not develop it, either. My dad is 90, so we don't have a lot of time left to decide. We are one of only two or three ranchers left around here. Our ranches have been subdivided. One of the last to go was a family that had been there as long as ours. When the old folks died, the kids borrowed money to pay the death taxes. Soon they had to start selling cattle to pay the interest. When they ran out of cattle their 18,000 to 20,000 acre place was foreclosed on and is now being developed. The family now lives on in a trailer in town and the father works as a highway flagman. ``If you want to stop sprawl, you had better ask the U.S. Government to get off the backs of family farms and ranches.'' Mr. Speaker, Ron Edwards. ``I am writing to bring to your attention an issue of the utmost importance to me,'' which was the elimination of the death tax. ``I urge you to support and pass death tax repeal legislation this year.'' Well, Ron, we did it. We passed it, by the way, in the House chambers with bipartisan support. We had 65 Democrats join us. I hope tomorrow on this Republican legislation we have 65 Democrats that come across the aisle and join us again to override the veto. So we have passed legislation, but the President vetoed it. ``Family-owned businesses need relief from death taxes now. We are celebrating 66 years in business. My grandfather, Vic Edward, started with a fruit and vegetable stand in 1933 at our current location, east of Fort Morgan. The business grew into a grocery store and a lawn and garden center. My father, Vic Edward, is 80 years old and in very poor health. ``No business can remain competitive in a tax regime that imposes death taxes as high as 55 percent. Our death taxes should encourage rather than discourage the perpetuation of these businesses.'' Of all the letters, Mr. Speaker, that I have read on this issue, and obviously it is a big issue to me and I hope it is a big issue to Members, I cannot think of one sentence that is more pertinent and more outstanding than the sentence I just gave. Let me repeat that sentence again: ``Our tax laws should encourage rather than discourage the perpetuation of these businesses.'' In other words, the government should go to these farmers, should go to the young people that are starting out with their dreams, and say, we want to encourage family business to go from one generation to the next generation. We can look at a lot of countries in this world. One of the bonds to strong families is the fact that homes and farms and small businesses have gone from one generation to the next generation to the next generation. In these countries the government encourages, not discourages, as they do in the United States, but encourages the passing from generation to generation of these family businesses. ``Being a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, I am sure you already know the urgency of the death tax repeal. The economics of the estate tax are not good at all. Family-owned businesses and their employees will continue to suffer until this unfair, unproductive, and uneconomic death tax is abolished. ``My wife, Vicky, and I are very active, and look forward to working with you and your staff to enact some commonsense legislation to preserve and promote'', to preserve and promote, ``our Nation's family- owned enterprises.'' This is a story about a ranch in Aspen, Colorado. We all know about Aspen, which is in my district. I have all the mountain resorts in Colorado. I have Aspen, Telluride, Vail, Beaver Creek. I grew up there. My family has been in Colorado for many generations. I remember going into Aspen when it was nothing but a coal mining town. One could buy a lot for $600. I remember stopping in the Vail Valley and all there was was a ranch house. What has happened is there were a lot of family farms and ranches. Because of the popularity of these communities, those families, those what we call basic salt of the earth kind of people, are seeing that their dreams of passing on their hard work to the next generation are being dashed by the tax policies of this country. By the way, not a lot of countries in the world exercise this type of tax policy, but the United States does. In Aspen, there are a lot of tales to be told with the conversion of former ranches into luxury homes or golf courses throughout this valley. Sometimes it was a simple financial decision, a choice to take advantage of soaring development values in the face of plummeting cattle prices. But for other families, the passing of a parent meant the passing of a life-style. We have been around for a long time. The Maurin family's roots are deep in Long Capital Creek Road in Old Snowmass. For nearly a century, heritage and hard work, heritage and hard work for nearly a century were enough to sustain those that lived on that 300,000 acre stretch of land, but it all changed in 1976. Until Dwight's father's death, each generation presided over a working cattle ranch that was both the lifeblood and livelihood of our clan. His later years were lean years for Dwight's father, but the fate of the ranch was not at risk until the Internal Revenue Service showed up. The tax bill on this ranch was to $750,000, and what it took to pay the bill was to cut the ranch in half. No longer could the Maurin cattle migrate in winter months. It would be 10 years after cutting the ranch in half and selling off half of it, it would be 10 years of installments before the death tax could be paid. What those taxes took was something very vital, the ability of our family to support the families by working the land that has so long been theirs. Maurin now works full time as a mechanic for the Roaring Fork School District, then helps with the ranch when he gets home at night. He does not mind the long hours he puts in. What does get under his skin is the memory of an IRS agent overseeing his father's taxes either did not recognize that devastation was about to occur or did not care. It was just pay us, or we will seize everything. If anything is left over, we will keep it. If you cannot make ends meet on what is left, you can find work elsewhere. We have no intention of selling the remaining 640 acres, but what happens to our daughters when we die? What choice will they have with only half of the land to graze. The ranch itself is only making enough to cover its operating costs and its annual property taxes. It is Maurin's day job at the school district that pays the doctor bills, the car insurance, the grocery bills, and everything else. There is always hope that things will change before our daughters need to make a decision about the ranch. But I wonder if people really think about the permanent changes that take place when a ranch is sold. It is not just a loss to the family, it ripples much wider. There are movements in the right direction, but are they moving quickly enough? Because once it is sold to developers this ranch is gone forever. Real quickly, ``I Am a Businessman''. So I am telling my colleagues this is not just families, farms and ranches. I am a businessman. My business is all about what a small business is. I have 42 people employed, and we are in our second generation. I am all too familiar with the death tax, as my father passed away 2 years ago. My mother, my sister and I have been through the experience of paying estate taxes at 50 percent-plus rate. Let me explain how we were fortunate enough to get into this bracket. My father left school after the 8th grade in 1938 and did odd jobs until serving for 3 years in World War II. Afterward, he purchased a small diner and built a 12-unit motel in a small town in Pennsylvania. He and mom worked 16 hours a day 7 days a week for 12 years before migrating to the restaurant supply business. That was better business. But it was not an easy task either. I can remember him saying for many years that he hoped Monday's mail would have enough money to cover the payroll costs he had written on the previous Friday. You can ask in this country, why would anybody start a business? There are obviously still Americans that are willing to risk everything to be in control of their lives. The satisfaction of proving that you can do better is still a motivator in our country. The key word is ``risk''. People are willing to take this risk, provide the jobs and tax base that makes this country grow. Only by taxes from those who take risk does the government even exist. This is why when I see our Secretary of Treasury write about the repeal of the estate tax I can become exorcised. He seems to think that this money is the Treasury's money to dispense as it pleases. Maybe it appears to be a simple view of fairness and equity if you spent your life in academia and never had to worry about making a payroll. But I resent like hell being told that I am selfish to want to keep what I and my family have earned and already paid taxes on. In effect, the government is saying to businessmen, and I am skipping, by the way, some paragraphs, in effect, the government is saying to businessmen, since you worked harder and longer and were more successful, we will use your estate to pay for programs which we take political credit. The original purpose of this death tax was to catch a handful of robber barons from the early industrial America. Now it reaches into the most productive parts of America. Is not the fact that 5 percent of our citizens now pay 50 percent of the tax bill evidence that there is more than enough progresstivity in the Tax Code. This was an article written in the Washington Post dated Friday, July 14th, 2000. I have other cases, more samples. The key is this, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we face on this floor a very significant vote. The President of the United States of America has made a decision that the death tax in this country should stand. The President of the United States of America has submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives in his budget a proposal, not only to let the death tax stand, but to increase it by $9.5 billion. The President of this country has vetoed a bipartisan bill. In other words, Republicans and Democrats sent to the President a piece of legislation saying, Mr. President, enough is enough. Get rid of this death tax. It fundamentally will not alter the revenues to this country. It is not a big revenue producer. Get rid of it. The President of the United States vetoed that bill, and tomorrow the President of the United States sends up to us on this House floor his veto message, and we have the opportunity to override it. I am confident that we in these chambers and that the Democrats will come across the aisle and that, as a team, we will stand up and be counted and say that the death tax is not justified in this country, that the role of our government should be to encourage, not discourage the passing of business or property from one generation to the next generation. Tomorrow we will stand, and we will take that vote. I am not sure how the result is going to be in the Senate, but I hope they vote to override it, too. During my entire term in Congress, I cannot think of something that would be more pro family, that would help preserve more open space, that just out of fundamental fairness would go back to a fair and equitable tax scheme than doing away with the death tax. Tomorrow it is on our shoulders. No way out. If one is going to be here to vote, one is going to have to post one's vote. Do not give one's constituents some magic tale about why one voted to keep the death tax in place. One is either for elimination of it or one is not. Tomorrow my colleagues are going to make that decision. I hope for the sake of future Americans, I hope for the sake of the young people in their mid twenties that want to make their dreams come true, for the couples like my wife and I who want to make our dreams come true and for my parents who want to pass their dreams on to the next generation, I hope for the sake of those people, for my colleagues' constituents, that my colleagues stand tall against the President and vote to override his veto.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentlewoman I love to have a debate that is not one sided. That is why I am taking time away from the death tax, which I intend to talk about.

Mr. McINNIS. The gentleman had 1 hour totally unrebutted, and I intend to rebut it with the next hour. Mr. Speaker, I have control of the floor. I have control of the House.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, good evening colleagues. I note that I am kind of outnumbered here five to one. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), whom we just heard, said we have had a good debate here. I wish that my colleagues would understand that we have only heard one side of the debate. In fact, what we have heard are five individuals who are highly, in my opinion, speaking the partisan tone and presenting one side of the case. Now, my remarks tonight really are going to center on the death tax, but I cannot go without at least rebutting some of the comments that were made. I refer to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the pharmacist. This is a closest I have ever come, colleagues, to asking that the words be stricken from the Record after I listened to the gentleman from Arkansas over here. This gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the pharmacist, in my opinion, has totally mislead the public when he says that the Republicans or the Democrats or any elected politician wants to do away with Medicare. It is exactly what the gentleman said, that the Republicans want to do away with Medicare. Now, tell me, colleagues, tell me one elected official on this House floor, Democrat, Republican, eastern, western, northern, southern, show me one elected Congressman that wants to do away with Medicare. That is about the grossest misrepresentation that I have heard on the Record on Special Orders. I want to continue to go on. I mean, the only way that we are going to be able to help the senior citizens of this country and not, by the way, just the senior citizens but a lot of other people who also face high prescription services, is to work as a team, and not to develop highly partisan comments late at night, late into the hour when most of our colleagues are off the floor, not to use the tactics of fear, which seem to be the tactics that some of these previous speakers have used: the senior citizens are going to be trashed, the senior citizens Medicare program is going to be destroyed by the Republicans, all the Republicans care about are the pharmaceuticals. We can sure tell we are about to come up to a national election, can we not? That is not how we are going to resolve this problem, and you know it is not how we are going to resolve this problem, so do my colleagues that have conveniently just left the House floor. What team do they want to be on? Do they want to be on a team that really can go out and help people with high prescription medical services or prescriptions?

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I wish to take this moment to recognize the remarkable life and achievements of one of Colorado's leading public servants, Robert Stanton, who recently passed away. As family, friends, and neighbors mourn his passing, I would like to honor this great Coloradan. For the better half of a decade, Mr. Stanton served faithfully as the president of the Bonfils-Stanton foundation. This foundation was established in 1962 by Charles Edwin Stanton following the death of his wife, Mary Madeline Bonfils, and is devoted to the advancement of philanthropic causes. Robert has made numerous contributions to many organizations, including the University of Colorado Health and Sciences Center and the University of Denver Biological Sciences Department where he created an endowment. in honor of Ira E. Cutler. Robert had an extremely distinguished professional career working for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Board of Examiners for Engineers and Land Surveyors, the National Society of Professional Surveyors Inc., the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, as well as supervising fieldwork for oil companies in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas. Mr. Stanton's life was one of distinction both professionally and in the realm of public service. In addition to his distinguished professional career, Mr. Stanton still found time to serve his community and state and that is why his memory will live on in the minds of many. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that in the face of this loss, family and friends can take comfort in the knowledge that each is a better person for having known him. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to honor the distinguished service of the Honorable Johnnette Phillips of Eagle County, Colorado. Johnnette is retiring as Eagle County Commissioner after serving admirably for nearly a decade. Her outstanding commitment is unparalleled and her contributions immeasurable. For Johnnette, serving her community comes naturally. Before serving as commissioner, she used her natural leadership ability as Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, serving for nearly 15 years. Beyond her efforts as Clerk and Recorder and Commissioner, Johnnette has helped advance the cause of a number of worthy organizations, serving as President and Second Vice President of Colorado Counties, Inc., Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Executive Board and President of both the American Legion Auxiliary and the Colorado State Association of County Clerks and Recorders. Johnnette's drive and determination has not only improved her local community, but also earned her national recognition. Ms. Phillips received the well-deserved honor of being named among Who's Who in U.S. Executives in 1995 and Who's Who in Women Executives in 1996. What' more, her service has won her the admiration of an entire community. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the United States Congress, Johnnette, I thank you for your service and wish you the very best in your future endeavors. Your immense contributions to Eagle County will not be soon forgotten.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I now honor an extraordinary human being and great American, Basil T. Knight. Mr. Knight was an educator that changed the lives of literally thousands of young men and women over his more than seven decades as an educator in western Colorado. As family, friends, former students and colleagues mourn this profound loss, I would like to honor this truly great American. Mr. Knight was an individual that reached out to help every human being that he came in contact with. As an educator, countless students in District 51 have been affected by this remarkable man and each are better off because of his service. Basil began his legendary educational career as a substitute teacher at Mount Lincoln School near Palisade, Colorado, in 1923. He went on to become Principal only a year later. In 1925, Basil became a math teacher at Grand Junction High School where he remained for over three decades. As remarkable as his teaching career was, his immense impact upon the community continued long after he left the classroom. Mr. Knight was elected County Supervisor of Schools in 1965, which placed him in charge of over 40 schools within the county. As supervisor, he continued to work to ensure that the children in his community would receive the best education possible. His commitment to education earned him not only the Educator of the Year award in 1974 from the Colorado Education Association, but also the District 51 staff development center now bears his name. Employees and visitors alike are reminded of his unmatched commitment to education every time they set foot in the Basil T. Knight Center. Mr. Knight's passion for serving children extended well into his golden years. In fact, he played an instrumental role in the passage of a recent school bond initiative that helped improve a number of existing schools in the Grand Junction area and build two new ones. The passing of this bond was the answer to a wish he made on his 100th birthday. Beyond his brick and mortar contributions to School District 51, Mr. Knight's legacy will also endure in his five A's philosophy (attendance, attitude, attention, achievement and ABC's), a philosophy still used by the district today. Former State Senator Tilman Bishop, in a recent article in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, helps to sum up the impact Basil had on his community: ``Many generations have and will benefit from Basil T. Knight, to say he was a unique person is an understatement. Thank you Basil for all you stood for and believed in.'' Mr. Speaker and fellow colleagues, as you can see, this extraordinary human being truly deserves our gratitude and our thanks. It is individuals like Basil who are committed to bettering the lives of America's youth through both education and public service that make our great country what it is today. Basil T. Knight may be gone, but his proud and distinguished legacy will long endure. America is most assuredly a better place for having known Basil T. Knight.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Donnie Sparks, of Canon City, Colorado, for his outstanding career in the Bureau of Land Management. Mr. Sparks served diligently as field office manager for nearly two decades. His efforts have been instrumental in designing State and Federal partnerships that have become eminently successful within the Bureau. Before his distinguished career with the BLM in Colorado, Donnie worked as assistant manager for the Bureau in Alaska where he helped to manage the entire northwest corner of the state. After moving to Colorado, Donnie's hard work paid off in contributions that will live on in Colorado for many decades to come. Along with the Colorado Department of Corrections, Mr. Sparks helped to develop the very successful wild horse program that has been in place for nearly 15 years. Donnie also worked to form yet another State and Federal partnership with the Colorado Department of Parks and Outdoor Recreation creating the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area, which has become the most rafted river in the country. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Donnie for his hard work and service over the years. Donnie's distinguished career has been quite remarkable and has had a positive impact on Colorado that will not soon be forgotten. He has worked hard to improve our great state and for that I thank him. I wish him the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor the service of the Honorable Cindy K. Bowen, of Montrose County, Colorado. Ms. Bowen is retiring after over a decade of service as County Commissioner. Before serving as Commissioner, Ms. Bowen was a Senior Auditor for Dalby, Wendland and Company, CPA's, where she served as Montrose County's Auditor from 1978-1987. For years, Cindy has done great service to western Colorado as a Commissioner and, because of her distinguished tenure, has received a number of awards. Among them are CCI Outstanding Freshman Commissioner of the year in 1989, and CCI Outstanding Commissioner of the year in 1994. Ms. Bowen's service to Montrose County has helped to make it a better place for all its citizens. Her outstanding commitment to public service is greatly appreciated and will be missed. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I congratulate Cindy on her upstanding service as a County Commissioner and wish her all the best in all her future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize an extraordinary young man, Travis Stout. Travis, a young Cub Scout, just recently received the Boy Scouts of America Medal of Merit. It was on November 24, 1999 that Travis' quick actions and knowledge of emergency actions allowed him to save his father from danger. This lifesaving award is being presented to a young man that not only saved his father, but also exemplified the characteristics of what it takes to be a true hero. Travis, his younger brother Allen, and father Wayne were checking oil field generators as they often do on weekends. When methanol was blown back out of the line, Wayne was hit in the eyes and mouth. Travis, realizing the danger of the event, quickly flushed out his father's eyes with water and dialed help. With help unable to reach the area in time, Travis operated his father's truck and drove to the Utah-Colorado border to meet help. Travis, a ten-year-old, took it upon himself to help his father and in doing so became a hero of a size much greater than his own. I think we all owe this young gentleman our congratulations and commendations on this incredible feat of heroism. Travis is a true hero and an outstanding citizen of our great nation, as well as an example for all to follow.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to celebrate the wonderful life of Patricia Aragon. Mrs. Aragon recently passed on after a courageous battle with cancer. Patty was a beloved citizen of Pagosa Springs where she and her husband, Ross, raised their six children. And with Patty, it was always children--hers and others in her community--that came first. She served on the local school board for over a decade where she was proud to pass out diplomas at commencement ceremonies. Everyone who came in contact with Patty was instantly overtaken with her loving spirit. When she wasn't helping the school system, she could be found serving patron's of her restaurant. She and her husband owned Al's and Al's West restaurants where Patty was famous for her chiliburgers and homemade tortillas. Patty Aragon was an incredibly spirited person who loved to see others smile. Through her business and public service, she touched the lives of hundreds children and adults alike. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to this remarkable woman and great Coloradan. She will be greatly missed, but not soon forgotten.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a very distinguished woman, Pat LaTronica of Pueblo, Colorado. Mrs. LaTronica passed away July 3, 2000 at the age of 62. She was best known for her work at a local restaurant as well as her charity work. With her warm heart and great eye for classy fashion, she brought a smile to patrons of her restaurant, no matter their age or background. In addition to her work at the restaurant, Mrs. LaTronica was also an enthusiastic volunteer in her community. If it wasn't helping serve holiday dinners to those less fortunate, it was working hard on the board of directors of the Salvation Army. No matter the time of year, this wonderful woman could be found bringing smiles to the faces of citizens through her considerable volunteer efforts. Mrs. LaTronica brought a spirit of joy to all of those around her no matter where or what she was doing. It is this sense of joy and happiness that will be missed, but not soon forgotten. Ms. LaTronica was a great citizen and an even better person. She will be greatly missed by friends, family and the citizens of Pueblo.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize the outstanding service of the Honorable Maclovio Martinez, of Costilla County, Colorado. Mr. Martinez is retiring after two decades of service as Costilla County Assessor. Before serving the great state of Colorado, Maclovio began his public service with the State Department in the Foreign Service, where he served for eight years in Paraguay. Mr. Martinez's achievements as a public servant are many in number. As Assessor, he helped to form the Costilla County Conservancy District, serving as its president. He also served as a member of the then Colorado Gov. Roy Romer's Cost Containment Committee, as well as Chairman of the San Luis Valley Health Care Foundation and president of the San Luis Museum. Maclovio has served his community admirably and has ensured that Costilla County and its surrounding communities are a better place to live. His outstanding commitment to public service will be missed and I wish him the best in his future endeavors. On behalf of the citizens of Costilla County and the United States Congress, Maclovio I thank you for your contributions.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to extend my gratitude to the Honorable Roy Martinez. Mr. Martinez's commitment to improving his community through public service has made San Luis, Colorado a better place for everyone who lives there. After donating 26 years to his community, Mr. Martinez is stepping down from public office. For over a quarter of a century, Mr. Martinez has generously given of his time and personal resources to the citizens of Costilla County. During the past four years he has served honorably as County Commissioner, where his diligent work helped to bring the county into this technological age. Before becoming Commissioner, he served as Clerk and Recorder for over two decades, again, with great distinction. Mr. Martinez has served his community admirably and his dedication and drive to succeed will be missed. Roy, you have made your community, state and nation proud. I commend you on your service to the citizens of Costilla County and I wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize an exceptional group, Gould Construction, as well as its President Mark Gould, whom the Associated General Contractors of America honored with the Design-Build Award for 2000. The Associated General Contractors selected Gould Construction because of their dedication to Colorado and to its community. Gould Construction succeeded in winning the Design-Build competition, which is new this year, of the 33,000 strong Associated General Contractors organization, because they demonstrated an ability to work under extreme circumstances. The selection criteria included difficulty of the job, project management, innovation, state-of-the-art advancement, sensitivity to the environment, client service, and contribution to the community. Gould Construction excelled in all these criteria when they worked for the city of Glenwood Springs to construct the Grizzly Creek raw water diversion. The Grizzly Creek water diversion dam was experiencing problems after close to a century of operation and after several natural disasters inhibited its functionality. Gould Construction worked in a challenging environment to restore the dam operation. The employees of Gould Construction worked nine weeks, suspended high above the narrow Roaring Fork Valley in the White River National Forest, to complete a plan that originally was scheduled for thirteen weeks. Gould Construction worked endlessly under these treacherous conditions to complete this immense project; workers, food and construction material all had to be air lifted in to the site. The conditions were such that workers had to live in camps for the duration of each workweek. The nature of the project led to other challenges as well, Gould had to deal with environmental permits and had to operate to preserve the historical parts of the old dam; all in conjunction with creating a groundbreaking design that would deal with avalanches and rockfalls from the steep valley walls. Mark Gould, President of Gould Construction, said this about receiving the award ``I'm thrilled for our employees, this award recognizes that we're doing important and innovative work nationally, not just in the Roaring Fork Valley. I think it will help us attract employees who come to the area seeking a challenge.'' Mr. Speaker, it is obvious why Gould Construction was chosen as the Design-Build Award winner for 2000. Congress should extend a well- deserved recognition for the award and our thanks for their service and dedication to Colorado and to its outdoors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. I also thank, in fact, all the people that have put forth effort in this. Mr. Speaker, I used to be a police officer; and I can tell my colleagues something. On the street, the cheapest life insurance policy an officer can get is a bulletproof vest. It does not give 100 percent protection. They can still take a head shot or a shot in an artery in the leg. But it guarantees a lot better odds than they have without it. I remember the days when I was cop on the street unit and the vests we put on; it is like it was yesterday. It was like putting on a bucket filled with concrete. They were miserable. When the officer bent, they would not bend so it looks like they twisted their neck as they tried to go around. The cops did not like to wear them. The other problem was that when they were on the force for a while, like several of my colleagues, bless their hearts, they never thought it would happen to them. They just read the stories. We were in small communities. The third problem we had, which the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) recognized, was the fact that in small communities we did not necessarily have the resources. I remember going to the big cities, how much we admired the equipment that they had. I mean, I am not that old, but this does show my age. We still had a fire truck that we winded on the front. We had to crank it. So bulletproof vests, that really meant something to us. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent bill. And clearly the technology has advanced. I had an opportunity not long ago, in fact, one of our surgeons at the hospital, one of our military surgeons who recently retired, his hobby was research on bulletproof vests. Believe it or not, they would take cadavers and take vests and try different things. The advancement that we have seen in technology could just mandate that these be put on every officer out there. Mr. Speaker, I know the statistics. The statistics of over 2,000 officers saved. I will tell my colleagues what else it does. It not only has saved 2,000 lives, but it gives a lot of officers some confidence to go into situations that they would not otherwise have. Now, it is true that it may give some overconfidence, but the fact is there are a lot of situations where officers feel they are outgunned. But having the right kind of equipment, they can go in there quick. As a police officer, they often find themselves in a situation. They were not paid to sit on the street and watch what was happening; they were paid to get in the way of danger and go in and stop it. They can go in with more boldness when they have the protection that this bill offers. This is an excellent bill. And the way a bill should be measured, and obviously it sounds great, but there really must be accountability on a bill. When we measure the accountability of this bill, we see the dollars we spend out and what we are getting in return. Clearly, the return that we have gotten is such that it easily justifies the additional appropriation and the additional authorization that this bill asks for. Mr. Speaker, I commend both of the gentlemen for their efforts in this regard. And I can tell these gentlemen that they will never get a thanks, because people will not think of them. But there will be many families in the future that will thank them for the saving of a life of their loved one.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the reason I came back up here again is I did not want to consume all of the time over on that side, but there are a couple of other people that I think it is very important to point out because without their help we would not have gotten this where it is. Their help was fundamental to the passage of this bill as well. That, of course, is the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). The gentleman from Alaska helped us schedule this thing. He called the committee hearing so that we could have this heard, so that we could meet and have this bill off the House floor and over to the Senate by the conclusion of the period of time in July. The second one, of course, is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), our majority leader. If it were not for his scheduling and his staff assistance, we would not be able to do this as well. Finally, I do want to take one final moment and just say once again to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), we had spent a lot of time in his office talking about how important it was that as the country moves in the direction of taking a second look at the national parks and the national monuments, that it was absolutely critical that we put as a basic ingredient of any kind of new direction community input and that we go to the local community and that we do not go, as happened in the State of Utah, with the Grand Escalante. They actually did not go into Utah. They made the announcement of Arizona and forced upon you something you did not even know was coming down the pike. As the gentleman said, this is the way that it should be handled and it is the way. It is being handled on a bipartisan basis. As our colleagues in here can see, both Democrats and Republicans from Colorado and Wyoming and Alaska and Texas, we all got together to make this thing work. As much as I am proud of this and the compromise that we were able to engineer, I also want to again publicly knowledge the gentleman from Utah for his contributions and his leadership, frankly, to put together this team, this coalition to make this a successful bill. Now I know that our colleague, Senator Campbell, is anxiously awaiting to carry this bill through the Senate. He will do a terrific job, and we can all leave these Chambers very, very proud of this accomplishment. Thousands of generations to come will look back at the Colorado canyons and say, boy, whoever did that made a good decision.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the State of Colorado for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I note that we have a couple of Members of the delegation from Colorado, both of whom have worked on this bill diligently. I appreciate very much the support of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). We have had lots of meetings. As my colleagues know, we really owe special thanks to my staff. On my particular staff, Christopher Hatcher and Rene Howell. But this bill really was necessitated by a move by the Department of Interior that perhaps they wanted to go out in Colorado and expand the Colorado National Monument. In meeting with the Secretary of Interior, I asked the Secretary of Interior for a period of time because I felt that we could engineer a community buildup, in other words, a bill that was built by the community and not built out of Washington, D.C.; and the Secretary of Interior agreed to that. In regards to that, we were able to put together, I think, an excellent bill, an excellent piece of legislation, a piece of legislation which protects Colorado water for Colorado people, a piece of legislation which preserves the ranchers' rights to use grazing permits and, therein, as a consequence of that, preserves the open space that the ranchers occupy with their ranches, a bill that will preserve recreation for the multiple-use users out there, and a bill that would allow us to recognize the value of this Wilderness Study Area called the Black Ridge Canyons and convert the Black Ridge Canyons into a Wilderness Study Area. This bill is a positive bill. This bill had the entire spectrum of our community come together. But that was only a part of it. The next part of it was we needed to come to Washington, D.C., and we needed help by people, someone, for example, by the name of the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen), the chairman who is present on the floor today. It is thanks to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) expediting this bill that we are going to be able to put this in place. We had to have this bill out by the August recess. It was critical. I went to the office of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). I sat down there with him for a period of time. And his definition, by the way, and the terms of the buffer zone and so on covered in his statement are exactly correct. But if it were not for his assistance and the assistance of his able staff, there is no way we could have gotten this proposition over to the Senate on a timely basis. So I commend him. As my colleagues know, it is not just the fact that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) expedited it, it is also the fact that he incorporated the assistance of the delegation from Utah, including the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). And the amendment of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), which we see right here, includes wilderness in the State of Utah. This is an exciting way to go about the preservation and yet preserving the multiple use and not touching Colorado water. This is the way to do it. This is an example for the entire country to follow. So not taking all the time from my colleagues, I will be happy to yield back to them so they have plenty of time for public, but I do want to publicly acknowledge the entire Colorado delegation. I do appreciate very much the efforts of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House is considering H.R. 4275, the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000, which seeks to protect and enhance the resources of Grand Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000, which seeks to protect and enhance the resources of Grand Valley located in Mesa County, Colorado and Grand County, Utah. H.R. 4275 designates two areas for environmental protection, the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness. The establishment of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the designation of the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area will promote and protect unique and nationally important features of the area along the western boundary of the State of Colorado and the eastern boundary of the State of Utah. The Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area shall consist of approximately 122,300 acres in Mesa County of the State of Colorado and Grand County in the State of Utah. Within the Conservation Area shall be designated the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area consisting of approximately 75,550 acres in Mesa County of the State of Colorado and Grand County in the State of Utah. The diverse lands located within the Colorado Canyons National Conservation as well as the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Areas include pinyon juniper and sagebrush mesas to the south with steep red rock canyons cutting into the landscape forming natural arches, caves and alcoves. To the west, the lands include over 5,000 acres of eastern Grand County in the State of Utah, to the north are hills making up the Rabbit Valley. The entire area is bisected by the Colorado River, which helped form the unique features of the surrounding landscape. The Colorado Canyons area includes tremendous wildlife, scenic, recreational, and paleontological resources which make it worthy of recognition and designation as a National Conservation Area, and portions of it as a Wilderness Area. An additional factor making these lands unique is their proximity to nearby urban centers including Grand Junction, Fruita and Palisade. Central to the landscape as well as the legislation is the Colorado River. The legislation excludes, from both the Wilderness and the National Conservation Area, the area including the Colorado River up to the 100-year high water mark. The Wilderness and Conservation Area along the Colorado River abut the Colorado-Utah border, so any claims on the River or its water could have an extremely significant impact on water rights in Colorado. It is for that reason this land up to the 100-year high water mark of the Colorado River was excluded from the Conservation Area and Wilderness. Also important to the area of the western State of Colorado and eastern State of Utah are traditional western uses of the land, in balance with other uses. Traditional western uses such as ranching are major economic and cultural contributors to western Colorado. The legislation demonstrates an underlying philosophy that a balance among all uses should be sought and can be achieved on the public lands covered by this legislation, and elsewhere on the public lands. As a result, there are several protections to allow reasonable grazing to continue in both the Conservation and Wilderness areas. Along the mesas of the Black Ridge and Ruby Canyons, as well as in Rabbit Valley, are livestock grazing allotments that provide cattle forage during the late winter and early spring. With the cooperation of the ranchers and the Bureau of Land Management, grazing practices have been adjusted to better work with wildlife needs in the canyons. I stress that meaningful access to these allotments by the permittees ensures that the base ranches remain viable. Many of these base ranches are located in an area south of Black Ridge Canyons named Glade Park. Glade Park is an agricultural area, and as a viable ranching community has an integral part in the makeup of the local economy. If grazing in the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness was to be curtailed, or meaningful access prohibited, the economic viability of the base ranches could suffer and potentially result in subdivision of these large open spaces of Glade Park into 35 acre ranchettes. There is no way for Mesa County to prevent the 35-acre subdivision under the law of the State of Colorado, so it is vitally important that reasonable access to the grazing allotments be continued to ensure that Glade Park may remain agricultural in nature. I think everyone agrees that it is not desirable for designation of wilderness to impact local land use planning in a way that promotes development where it is not desired. As a result of the importance of the continued viability of ranching in the surrounding communities, language is included in this legislation to ensure that while the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness is properly protected, so is the agricultural nature of the surrounding communities. Moreover, multiple use is preserved in appropriate areas included within the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area such as Rabbit Valley. H.R. 4275 is the result of intense work by the local community, the Bureau of Land Management, local cities, Mesa County and the State of Colorado and many others to produce a locally driven and locally supported proposal that recognizes the importance of the area as well as the importance of Colorado's land use priorities. Representative McInnis had the opportunity to discuss management of these land with representatives of the Department of the Interior, including the Secretary, on several occasions. Following significant work on a local level to develop a local consensus on the proposal, I introduced H.R. 4275 on April 13, 2000. Secretary of the Interior Babbitt has indicated that if this legislation fails to be enacted before the Clinton Administration leaves office, he will recommend the President designate this area as a national monument under the Antiquities Act. I ask everyone to recognize that a far preferable alternative is the legislative process which affords everyone the opportunity to review the proposal and to work toward common purposes, in an open and public process. I would like to make some comments about particular sections of the legislation: Section 6(d) of the legislation limits off-highway vehicle use to roads and trails designated under the management plan in effect on the date of passage. This subsection allows continued use of motor vehicles in the Conservation Area for emergency and administrative purposes. It is my interpretation that reasonable access in the course of the management of wildlife by the relevant state wildlife officials within the National Conservation Area is an administrative purpose. Section 6(g) on grazing directs that, in general and except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall issue and administer grazing leases or permits in the Conservation Area and Wilderness in the same manner as on other land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. Subsection (g)(2) directs the Secretary to administer grazing in the wilderness in accordance with the provisions of section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)), and in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Appendix A of House Report 101-405, which sets out grazing guidelines for the Bureau of Land Management with respect to livestock grazing in wilderness areas. The language from House Report 101-405, H.R. 2570 Appendix A, clearly applies in the case of wilderness established under this Act. It is my expectation that the three permittees who currently use motorized vehicles within the Wilderness Study Area on an intermittent and infrequent basis would be able to continue these same uses at a frequency not exceeding the level established prior to the introduction of this bill. I would strongly request that the Bureau of Land Management would address this use of motorized vehicles in the terms and conditions of the permits held by the three involved permittees. Section 6(j) permits acquisitions of land or interests in land depicted within the exterior boundary of the Conservation Area or Wilderness by purchase from a willing seller, exchange or donation. No land or interest inland may be acquired without the consent of the owner. Subsection (j)(2) sets out how land acquired under this subsection shall be managed. The boundaries of the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness were drawn so as to exclude private inholdings to the extent possible. Nonetheless, there are several private inholdings within the boundaries of the Conservation Area. Concerned about the potential for development on these lands, I would request that within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Bureau of Land Management should consult with each owner of non-federal lands within the Conservation Area and the Wilderness to determine which, if any, such owners desire to convey lands to the United States. If any such owner does desire to convey or exchange such lands, the Secretary should take all steps necessary or appropriate to complete the acquisition or exchange, supported by appropriate appraisals, of such lands as soon as possible. I expect that no later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act the BLM could provide Congress and me information regarding the status of its actions taken to acquire or exchange inholdings, together with any recommendations the BLM may wish to make for expediting the acquisition or exchange of inholdings within the Conservation Area. Section 6(l) deals with water issues important to both Colorado and me. Within that section is important language under subsection (1)(5) which sets the boundaries of the Conservation Area and the Wilderness along the Colorado River at the 100-year high water mark. My intention of setting these borders back to the 100-year high water mark was to ensure that the designation of the Wilderness and the Conservation Area did not impact water rights in any way, including any water quality or instream flow impacts, along the mainstream of the Colorado River. Following concerns raised by some about potential for mining along the River, language was included to withdraw those lands owned by the Federal Government within the 100-year flood plain as designated on the legislation's Map from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, the mining laws and laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing, subject to valid existing rights. The legislation includes language indicating it does not affect any authority the Secretary may or may not have to manage recreation on the Colorado River, except as any such authority is affected by the requirement that the Secretary follow Colorado procedural and substantive water law. There is nothing in the Act to indicate if and the extent to which the Secretary has authority to manage recreation on the Colorado River, nor should any language be read to establish or serve as a basis for any such authority. This bill was not intended to give the Secretary authority that he may very well not have to regulate recreation on the Colorado River. Finally, Section 8 of the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a Colorado Canyon National Conservation Area Advisory Council to advise the Secretary with respect to the Conservation Area and the Wilderness. The Advisory Council's purpose will be to furnish advice and recommendation to the Secretary with respect to preparation and implementation of the management plan, including budgetary matters, for the Conservation Area and the Wilderness. The ten council members would be appointed by the Secretary, one of which would be a member of or nominated by the Mesa County Commission, one of which would be nominated by the permittees holding grazing allotments within the Conservation Area or the Wilderness, and one of which would be a member of or nominated by the Northwest Resource Advisory Council. Other members of the Council, residing in or within a reasonable proximity to Mesa County, Colorado, would be named as well. It is my intent when drafting this bill that cities like Denver or Boulder, Colorado, for example, would not be considered to be within a reasonable proximity to Mesa County, although Rifle, Colorado or Grand County, Utah could be considered to be within a reasonable proximity to Mesa County. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank several people who have helped ensure swift passage of this legislation. First and foremost I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young, Chairman of the Resources Committee. His action helped bring this bill to the floor. Alongside Chairman Young is the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Hansen, who worked with his staff on the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee to get this bill here today. His personal help allowed this bill to be so quickly considered on the Floor of the House. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon, also contributed enormously to this legislation, amending it in subcommittee to include the first BLM wilderness in Utah. I would also like to thank my colleagues from Colorado, Mr. Hefley and Mr. Tancredo and Ms. DeGette, who cosponsored this bill. Finally, I would thank the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Mark Udall, for all his work with his side of the aisle to get this bill to the Floor. I would like to close by thanking the Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey. He helped with the scheduling of this bill on short notice, and I very much appreciate his work on behalf of the bill and people of western Colorado. I look forward to quick passage in the Senate with the help of Senator Campbell, and signature by the President.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), for yielding me this time. I appreciate the fact that he expedited this resolution. Without his assistance, we would not have been able to move forward. Madam Speaker, I also wish to acknowledge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and appreciate very much his cooperation, and I would wholeheartedly invite the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) to Pueblo, Colorado, but only based on a commitment from him that he give me an extra day or two to take him up into the mountains and do a little skiing or see a little of that snow, show him the third district. Anyway, I appreciate the assistance of both of these gentlemen. Clearly, the resolution is very simple in its writing, but it is very deep in its thought. Pueblo, Colorado, has a population of 100,000 people; and of that population four of them have received the Medal of Honor, probably the highest number of Medal of Honor winners proportionate to population of any city in the country. The City of Pueblo takes deep pride in the military. Their schools incorporate, within their schools, what the real definition of the word ``hero'' means. The Medal of Honor winners, when they come to Pueblo for these annual dinners, take extra time and go around to these schools. Many of these schools are poor schools. They go around and speak to these students, and I will say it is really refreshing and relives or brings back up a deep sense of patriotism, for those of us who feel that it is very important. So this year, the City of Pueblo is recognizing Heroes Plaza and have actually commissioned, and it is a very expensive undertaking, but they have commissioned four statues representing each of the four Medal of Honor winners of the City of Pueblo. Unfortunately, two of those four have passed away in the past year and will not be present, obviously, for the occasion in September; but, nonetheless, we expect a very large gathering, and we think that this resolution adds to the patriotism of that particular gathering. So I do appreciate the expedited schedule, again thanks to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and thanks to the Speaker pro tempore.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to go basically over what the comments that I am going to make this evening, but I guess it would be appropriate to make a couple comments about this weekend back in Colorado. First of all, I would like to express deep appreciation for all the firemen and the firefighters that are so courageously fighting the forest fires that we have out there in Colorado. As many of my colleagues know, my district is the Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado. That district geographically is larger than the State of Florida. It is essentially all the mountains of the State of Colorado. As one can guess, it is the highest district in the United States. So we have a lot of lightning strikes and so on. We do have a major fire down at Mesa Verde National Park down at the Four Corners of Colorado. Right now it has consumed about 17,000 acres. The conditions are very tough to fight the fire. But we have got a lot of volunteer firefighters. We have a got a lot of volunteers from the community. We, of course, have our own fire fighting teams. We have got the bombers in there. We have got the helicopter pilots. We just have a lot of cooperation out there in Colorado. So I thank my colleagues for their expressions of support, and I do want to express my deep appreciation for all of the people out there in Colorado who are helping get an upper hand on the fires right there in their Third Congressional District. Second thing I would like to mention to my colleagues before I go into my comments, and that is I had the privilege Friday of speaking at a service for a Colorado State patrolman, Captain Fred Bitterman. Captain Bitterman was a well-respected officer of the Colorado State Patrol. I used to be a police officer. I used to know the captain. Of course, I was not on the State Patrol. I was a city police officer. The service was a very moving service. He has a wonderful family. His commitment to the State of Colorado, his commitment to the Colorado State Patrol, his commitment to his friends, his commitment to the communities was all well represented at that service. We are going to miss him. The captain did a good job. He was a very, very good man. I have entered into the Congressional Record a congressional tribute in honor of the service that he gave to us. He will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to address three fundamental subjects, and they are fundamental especially for the younger generations of this country. For the people that are, say, below 45, 45 and under. We hear a lot of discussions going on, but what is the real focus for the future? There are three items that I would like to talk about that I think focus on the future that our young people that are under 45 years of age should take special interest in, because I think our generation over 45 years of age owes something to this generation, not owes in the way of a giveaway, but owes in the way that we have a responsibility to move this country forward in such a fashion that these three elements have some sense of protection or some sense of right direction for the generation that follows us. The first topic that I am going to visit with tonight is this death tax. Then I am going to move from the death tax into the marriage penalty. Then from the marriage penalty, I would like to talk about Social Security. In all three of these areas, there is a distinct difference between what the administration, President Clinton and Al Gore, are advocating and what is being advocated by the Bush team. I think it is fair to reflect on those this evening when I have these discussions with my colleagues. Let me first of all begin on the death tax. As my colleagues know, I have spoken several times on this House floor in regards to what that death tax does and how devastating it is in this community. What has been of interest is the people opposed to this, including the Clinton administration, and, by the way, I refer specifically to the administration's policies, because I want my colleagues to know here in the House of Representatives we actually had 65 Democrats who voted to eliminate the death tax. So here in the House we have had a bipartisan effort, both Democrats and Republicans, going out there and recognizing just how punitive, how punishing the death tax is. Well, since the debate started taking place on this several weeks ago, I have noted a number of different comments in our national press. One thing that is of special interest, I think, or a counterpoint I guess one would make, my point being that the death tax is devastating for a community as a whole; and the counterpoint that is being put out there by some of the liberal media writers I guess one would say is, wait a minute, all this does is favors the wealthy in this country. Well, I want to talk about what I call the trickle-down impact of what that death tax does, not only just in a community, but what it does to family farms and family ranches. For example, right here, we will have a family ranch. Now, I can tell my colleagues that most working ranches, at least the ones I am familiar with, and I have been on a lot of ranches in my career, but most of the family ranches that I am familiar with in Colorado are what we call working ranches. What we mean by a working ranch is that the family actually has to make a living off the ranch. They do not own the ranch for the beauty or the esthetics of having a ranch. They own it because that is how they provide a living for their family. One of the assumptions that is being made by some of the opponents of this, including the Clinton administration, who seems to think that if one owns a ranch in Colorado or a ranch in Wyoming or a farm in Georgia or a farm in Kansas, that one automatically should be classified as the wealthy people of this country and one should be punished upon the event of one's death. In other words, the Clinton administration says that death is a taxable event. In fact, the Clinton administration feels so strongly that death should be a taxable event that this year in President Clinton's budget that he has sent to us, the administration's budget, they actually call for an increase in the death tax, an increase in the death tax. We clearly, including the Republicans and 65 Democrats, have a fundamental difference with the administration Clinton-Gore in that we do not believe that death should be a taxable event. Well, let us go back to that working family or working ranch out there in my district since that is where I am the most familiar. Some of these people are saying, well, you go out there and tell these people to buy life insurance, you know, go out, and that way, when they pass away, because the government, frankly, the administration has pushed this as a taxable event, why you will have the life insurance. Upon the death of the owner of the ranch, why it is no problem. The life insurance pays the government these taxes. Well, do my colleagues know what? That is based on an assumption that these working family farms and ranches in Colorado and elsewhere in this country make enough money to pay the premiums to buy the life insurance. Do my colleagues know something? Most of the farmers and ranchers that I know in my district no more have the money which would be, by the way, several tens and tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum every year just for the premiums, they no more have that money than they do extra cash in the bank. What happens when one keeps this death tax? Oh, sure, one may think that one is going after the Rockefellers or the Carnegies or the Kennedys or the people like that, the Forbes or the Gates in our country, but, in fact, those are the families who have their money and the resources to do estate planning. They have their foundations and so on. So one would be surprised at the minimal impact there is on those families. Where the impact is is these families that have, for example, as one says, has land, and they work it as a ranch in Colorado, but when they die, the land all of a sudden which has appreciated in value, after all, the one family I am speaking of, they have had the family ranch for 125 years, there has been an appreciation in that 125 years. Well, what happens? The only thing that can possibly happen is that that ranch is going to cease to exist. There is no choice. The death tax is devastating on family farms and family ranches in this country. Is this country not in the business of encouraging family farms and family ranches from going from one generation to the next generation? Is that not what our policy should be? Should not we stand up and say, hey, in America, in America, we want these farms to go from one generation to the next? But that is not what is happening in this great country. What is happening in this country is, as long as we have that death tax in existence, we are discouraging, not encouraging, we are discouraging the possibility that that family farm will pass to the next generation. And is that really the policy that we want? Clearly, some of my colleagues over here, who have supported the Gore/Clinton policy, actually want an increase in the death tax. They support that budget. But 65 of the Democrats and all the Republicans have said, wait a minute, we should be, in this country, in the business of encouraging that this goes from one generation to the next generation. The other thing that I want to bring up that is being widely ignored by the critics and the media, who are criticizing us because we are saying that death should not be a taxable event, the media that is criticizing us for saying that death should not be a taxable event are ignoring something. They keep coming out and saying this is for the wealthy. Well, take a look at what it does to a community. For example, I know a small community in Colorado where there was a fairly wealthy individual, the person was a millionaire in that community, and upon his untimely death the Government came in and taxed his death. And what did they do with that money? Did they keep it in that small community? Of course the Government did not allow that money to stay in the community. It was not enough for the Government to take it away from someone they said was a wealthy person; and by the way, to qualify for that, if someone is a contractor, for instance, all they have to really do is own a bulldozer, a dump truck, and a backhoe and they have to worry about estate taxes. Let us look closely at that logic. Citizen A is very wealthy. Let us follow the logic. Now, I do not agree with the logic, but let us follow the logic some of my colleagues have. Their logic is just simply because the person is wealthy, based on that fact alone, just because they are wealthy, we should tax them on their death. Well, if we follow that logic, then we should say, okay, tax the wealthy person, punish them, go after them simply because they are wealthy. Then what is done with the money? As my colleagues know, this money does not stay here in the community. It does not stay in this community and continue to go to the local church, or charities or help provide jobs or create capital or create investment in that community. That money is sucked out of that small community; and it all goes east, to Washington, D.C., where the bureaucracy takes it and redistributes it, takes the money from the small communities, whether in Kansas or out in California or up in Wyoming or Montana or Idaho, takes the money from those death-taxed estates and takes it out of those communities and ships it to Washington, D.C., back here in the East, and then it is redistributed. And that has a very negative impact. What these editorial writers who support the death tax, what they should put in their editorials is not what it does to the wealthy family, although in fairness they should say what it does to a small business owner or a rancher or a farmer; but they ought to be fair and talk about what happens to that next generation. They also ought to be fair to the rest of the community where that individual lives and talk about what happens to that community, especially a small community where that money is sucked out of the community and sent to the East. Obviously, it has a very negative impact. I thought I would bring up a couple articles here and read them for my colleagues. I do not like to read verbatim, but I would just like to just speak to these because I think these are important. Every June for the past 8 years Jeannie Mizell, owner and manager of Mizell Lumber & Hardware Company, has sent the Government a check for $19,000. She will have to continue to send that check for the next 7 years. This money is not income tax on profits; the money is because the company is profitable. It has been in business for 78 years, 78 years in that community and in her family. It is the price that she is being forced to pay by the Government because she inherited the hardware store from her father and her mother. ``It is not a very pleasant feeling to get that letter in the mail every May,'' says Mizell, speaking of the Federal death tax bill. ``My father, who joined with his father in the family business in 1947, worked very hard, 6 days a week for 37 years, and he paid his taxes every year on time. He did not owe any past taxes and he should have been able to keep the money he accumulated and pass it on to the next generation so that our generation could have an opportunity to have the lumber company and the hardware company.'' Instead, after her parents died, the Federal Government steps in and nails them with a death tax of over $300,000; with another $45,000 which had to be spent by Mrs. Mizell just to get the appraisal done of the lumber company so the Federal Government could figure out just exactly how much money they wanted out of that estate. That is what the death tax does. By the way, this is not Home Depot we are talking about. This is a small family hardware and lumber business. This is what is being punished out there. If my colleagues think Home Depot is going to suffer as a result of the death of one of their founders, they are not. They have got the planning; they have the resources to plan for it. It is the small lumber companies, the small families in small-town America that is being punished by these death taxes. Here is another one. ``My name is Leanne Ferris. My family lives in the central part of Idaho. Our family's cattle ranch is 45 miles northeast of the Sun Valley area and the Lost River Valley. The ranch consists of 2,600 deeded acres and a cow-calf operation with 700 head of cattle. ``My youngest brother, Ross, lives with and manages the ranch with my mother. Although I'm still very involved in the ranch, my husband and I also operate a design business in Ketchum, Idaho. My brothers and sister and I all grew up working alongside my mother and my father and my grandfather. We worked weekends and holidays and summers branding and moving cattle, riding the range and fixing fences. We didn't have a lot of material things, but we had our family, we had the land, and we had the life-style. ``On October 5, 1993, my father was accidentally killed when his clothing got caught in a farm machine. He was 71 years old, and he was very healthy. He worked from dawn to dusk and he loved the land. He loved his family. We all worked as a team. We were always a very close- knit family and the hub of our family was my father and our ranch. ``Even though my brother Jack and my sister Cary and I do not live there anymore, we all go home, along with the grandchildren, to help with the seasonal work. My daughter and I take as much time off in the summer as we can so that we can work at the summer cow camp in Copper Basin moving the cattle. My mother puts on a lot of church and community picnics and barbecues down by the swimming hole. Every June our family enters the local parade with a float representing our ranch, and all our other ranchers and their families in the valley do the same. Last year, the theme for the parade was the Mackays Heritage Ranching Mining and Logging. ``My father's death was the most devastating event any of us had ever gone through. The second most devastating event was sitting down with our estate attorney after my father's death. And I will never forget what the attorney said. `There is no way you can keep this ranch. Absolutely no way.' Still in shock from the accident, I asked, `How can this be? It's our ranch. We own the land. We've paid the taxes. We have no debt. We just lost our father, and now we're going to lose the ranch, the very thing which was the centrifugal force of keeping our family together along with our father?' our attorney proceeded to pencil out the death taxes that would be due after my mother's death, and we all sat back in total shock. It had taken my grandfather and my father their entire lifetimes to build up this ranch.'' Let me repeat that. ``It had taken my grandfather and my father their entire lifetime to build up this ranch, and now we cannot continue on, and the grandchildren cannot enjoy the land and the rich life-style.'' Now, not rich in monetary terms, but rich in life-style, of going out and working hard in the fields. They do not get to have that any more. It provided a rich heritage. Rich, again meaning the character, the heritage that was there that is now going to be taken by the Government on taxes that have already been paid on this property. ``It has been three and a half years on my father's death, and we still don't know what we're going to do. We only know we're not going to be able to keep the ranch unless something can be done with the estate tax now. The estate tax on our family ranching assets is going to be estimated at $3.3 million. Without the land being paid for and tight operating costs, we will not be able to make money from the business. To spread that tax over 14 years at the 4 percent interest is of absolutely no value to us.'' In other words, what she is saying, my colleagues, is do not come to us out in small-town America and our families in ranching operations and tell us that we are being done a great big favor because the Government is going to allow us to finance the death tax over a period of 14 years. ``All this means is that we're going to have to pay an amount of money which is virtually impossible. In order to try to buy a life insurance policy, we're going to have to sell one of the spring ranches now, and that might allow us to pay off one-third of the death tax and avoid a fire sale.'' So what this family is saying is that they will sell part of the ranch now. They are going to sell part of the ranch, a third of the ranch right now, and by doing that what they hope to do is to be able to pay the Government enough money upon the death of their mother that they do not have to go through a fire sale on the rest of the ranch. They are still going to have to sell the rest of the ranch; but if they sell a third of it right now, then they do not have to go to a quick sale on the remaining two-thirds. ``The same scenario is happening to many of our ranchers in the valley. Eighty percent of the ranches have been owned by the same families one, two, and three generations. ``The value of the land has risen dramatically in the last 5 years. All of these ranchers live on very modest incomes and most of them can barely educate their children. I am certain that none of them will be able to pay this tax. The town is almost solely supported by the ranchers who buy feed, gas, food and clothing. The community will not be able to survive without them. ``What is happening is that these ranches are being bought by wealthy absentee owners who do not run cattle and who fly in once or twice a year to enjoy the amenities of the ranch. This has already happened to two neighboring ranches, both of those owners, both second generation ranchers were killed, unfortunately, in accidents. Their families could not pay the death tax and had to sell the ranches to wealthy Southern Californians. ``I have heard it said that the death tax exists to redistribute wealth; to take from the rich, presumably to benefit others less fortunate. Let me tell you, from where I stand now, that is a tax that accomplishes exactly the opposite. For my family, the tax means we will not be able to continue running the ranch that has been our heritage for over 60 years. ``The Congress says it is a pro-family Congress. However, I know from my personal experience that the death tax is antifamily. The death tax will force us to sell our ranch to a wealthy absentee owner who is unlikely to run cattle or keep the workers employed or contribute to the community. Surely if Congress does not provide relief from the death tax, many other families across this country will suffer a similar fate. Ultimately, I wonder whether towns like our small town, as we know it today, will continue to exist. ``I urge you to ask yourself why does this death tax exist? Is it worth the great harm it has caused to my family and to many others like us? If it is not worth the harm, then the death tax shouldn't exist, and I hope you will do everything in your power to eliminate the death tax.'' What more can I say? This is a letter sent to our office. This is from their heart. This is not something some big fancy lobbying organization in Washington, D.C., sent to me. It was not sent to me by the Rockefellers or the Kennedys or the Mellons or the Gateses, or any of those kind of people. This letter was sent to our office by a small family not to make money on the ranching, simply trying to pass their ranch from one generation to the other, to pass the heritage from one generation to the other; simply to keep the money for their ranching and their ranching community alive in their small community. And by the way, for those of my colleagues who voted no on the death tax, voted to keep it in place, in fact supported the President's budget to increase the death tax, if only they could take the time to really, really see, to go out and visit this family, my guess would be that those same individuals, those who voted to support the death tax, who stand in favor of the death tax, and who want to increase the death tax, after having taken the time to go out and visit with this family, I think they would come back a new man or a new woman; and I think they would be prepared to get rid of that death tax. Now let me go on to the next subject because it is somewhat related. Once again, here it is the Federal Government, the taxing entity of the United States, has decided that not only death is a taxable event, it is the Government that decided some time ago, and let us call it as it is, Democrats, it happened when you had it here for 40 years, it was determined during that period of time that marriage, being married, should be a taxable event. Now, let me say at the onset, we had a vote on this, we had a couple votes on this; and I can say with a great deal of confidence with the Democrats here on the House floor, that 48 of the Democrats voted to get rid of that marriage tax. In fact, the President of the United States, standing right here in his State of the Union address, said we needed to get rid of the estate tax. I have got an editorial here from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, an excellent newspaper, western Colorado, Grand Junction, Colorado. It was just last January that President Clinton, as a part of his State of the Union address urged Congress, urged all of us sitting down here listening to the speech being made right there, urged us to enact legislation to end the so-called marriage penalty. What a reversal. Now the President's policy is he is going to veto it. And some people on this floor support that position. I hope you have enough guts when you go back to your district to stand up to your constituents and look them in the eye and try and justify that. Number one, tell them how you voted, that you voted to support the marriage penalty, and do not give them some flimsy, run- around excuse for it. It was a straight up-or-down vote, do you support taxing marriages or do you not support it? If you support the marriage penalty, then you voted no on this bill to get rid of it and you ought to stand up. I hope your constituents understand that it is a straight up-or-down vote. There were no side issues involved here. What we are sending down to the administration, to the President and the Vice President, we hope they sign but they have already promised to veto despite the fact the President stood up here and gave his State of the Union address and said we ought to get rid of the marriage penalty. So you talk about it on one end and then you end it on the other with a veto. How can a country who is proud of the family foundation, who boasts to the rest of the world that our country has become the strongest country in the history of the world, in a large part due to the fact that we have strong families, that we encourage marriage, how can we look at other countries and say, by the way, this is the country in the world where we penalize you if you are married, we tax you, it is a taxable event, come to the United States and get married and it is taxable, the event is a taxable event, just like the death? How do you justify any one of those? Both of those taxes. The marriage penalty, do you think that encourages our young people, the hope of our country, do you think it encourages them to get married? And how much of that money, by the way, for those of you who support taxing marriage, how much of that money do you think could have gone into these young people's education? There are a lot of young married couples out there that like to have that extra $1,400 to pay for their college tuition or to go out and further their education. And some of you stand up and talk about how you advocate and you are pro-education, and by the way I have never found anybody that is anti-education, but you stand up and advocate how you are pro-education, but then you turn around and vote for a tax, a marriage penalty, that takes $1,400 away primarily from these young couples who are the very ones who need that money to further their education. How can you justify it? How can you look at your constituents and say that you can justify taxing a married couple simply because of the fact that they are married? And again, my colleagues, when you go out there into your districts, do not give any cock-and-bull story about why getting rid of the marriage penalty would cause this or cause that or as I heard the news report Saturday that the President said getting rid of the death tax and getting rid of the marriage penalty would put the surplus at risk. What a bunch of hogwash. It is not going to put the surplus at risk, not at all. The question here is fundamental fairness. That is what you ought to look at. Is it fundamentally fair to consider death a taxable event? Is it fundamentally fair to go out there and consider a marriage a taxable event? This Government is not in such dire straits that it has to go out and tax its own citizens when they die. This Government is not in such dire straits that it needs to go out to our young people and show up with a wedding gift of a tax bill. And even if this country was in dire straits economically, can you justify the marriage penalty, can you justify the death tax based on that event? Of course you cannot. Of course you cannot. Mr. Speaker, let me move from the death tax and from the marriage penalty. But before I do, let me point out one thing. Remember, the President stood up here, as I said earlier in my comments, he stood up here when he gave the State of the Union address and urged all of us to get rid of the marriage penalty. Let us see if he stands by his words this week and signs the bill, or let us see if he turns around and vetoes the bill. The last I heard coming from the White House was they wanted to do a little bargain, a little tit for tat. Hey, give us this program and maybe we will give you the marriage tax penalty. Quit the horse play. The marriage penalty is not justified. To many of us on the floor, we make a hundred and some thousand bucks a year. The marriage penalty, you can absorb it. Maybe it is not a big bother to you. But you ought to take a look at our kids. My kids are that age where they are of the age where they are getting married and things like that. Ask yourself, look at what kind of punishment it is on them. So we will see this week. We will see if the President sticks by his words, his policy. His policy was to get rid of the marriage penalty. Oh, how interesting it is a couple 3 or 4 months before a national election. Now we are going to see him veto it. I hope we all keep that in mind when we go back to our constituents and say somehow Washington, D.C. is able to justify death and marriage, both of them, as taxable events. Well, while we are on the discussion that involves our younger generation, a generation, by the way, that has so many things going on for it. My gosh, the young people that come into my office. The excitement they have, the energy. As many of my colleagues know, they run circles around us they are so bright. They are capable, the computer world, that generation that follows us and the generation that follows that generation, these generations have a whole lot more going for them than they do going against them. And we, I think, my colleagues serving on this House floor, I think we have a fiduciary responsibility to that generation and the generation behind that generation and all future generations to get the programs that this Government has in place in as good a shape as we can get them in. Frankly, that is what I like about the Governor of Texas', George W. Bush, position on education. Every time I have talked to him, and I have talked to him on a number of different occasions, I cannot remember one conversation of any length that I have had with George W. Bush where he has not brought up education. Why? Because the best thing we can do for this next generation is to make sure that we have an education system that works, that we have a health care system that works. And there is one other factor out there that we have got to do some work on. We have got to make sure that our Social Security system is in place. And you know what? In those conversations that I have had with George W. Bush, that was in the conversation: Healthcare, education, and Social Security. Now, look, our Social Security system from a cash basis, that means money in the bank today, is not in trouble. Social Security is not in trouble today on a cash basis, but on an actuarial basis. In other words, Social Security today has this amount of money required for claims and it has this amount of money in the bank. But what happens over the next 30 years is these lines begin to intersect. So on a cash basis today, we have money in the bank, there is a surplus in there. It is a surplus. But what happens is that as this begins to go out is that when you reach this point, you owe all of this money, and this actually, and then all of a sudden it goes up like that. And not even a slight increase. It is almost like a rocket. It goes up just like that. Those are our obligations. And these obligations right here are not obligations 30 years out. It is actually 30 years out or so before they collect them. But the obligations had been incurred today. In other words, we owe the money today. So when we look at the Social Security system, we should not look at the money we have in the bank today. That is one factor to look at the money we have in the bank today. But we also need to look at what obligations we have. It is kind of like deciding when you get your paycheck on the first of the month, I am a rich person, you know, I have got a $2,000 or I have got a $1,500 paycheck here. Well, you cannot just look at how much you have in your hand. You have got to take a look at how much you owe. And when you take a look at Social Security on an actuarial basis, it is bankrupt. Today it is not. But 30 years from now when we pay what we owe, it is bankrupt. Now, what is giving me some confidence about the debate that we have had on Social Security, what gave me the confidence when I talked to George W. Bush was the fact that we are for the first time in a long time looking out ahead. We do have some time if we really take it seriously. What I liked about the Bush approach was that they are willing to take some risks. We have got to take some risks. We cannot let the Social Security system stay on status quo. If we stay with status quo, we are all going to be happy until that point right there. That is what status quo buys us. It buys us a plane in the air without a propeller at that point right there. Now is the time to start thinking about how do we get this line, how do we adapt for this so that we come close so we still bring those two lines together but we do not have the obligations way exceeding it. What do we do? Well, I think in order to figure out what we do, we have got to figure out historically what was gone wrong with the fund, where have we run into problems with Social Security. Well, there are a couple key factors to keep in mind. Number one, when Social Security was first created, when Social Security first came about, there were 43 workers for every retired person. So for every one person that was retiring on Social Security we had 43 workers supporting the system. That is when Social Security first came into place. Today do you know what that number is? Today we have three workers for every person, three workers in our working system for every person on retirement. That is a dramatic difference and that is a significant problem that has led us to the actuarial problem we have in Social Security. What is the other problem that we have in Social Security? That one is actually pretty, hey, good news. It is our health care system in this country. When Social Security was first created, a man could expect to live to be 61 years old. But throughout time because of the advancements of Social Security, and this is good news for us, but because of the advances in Social Security, that man now can expect to live to be 73 years old. For the female, those numbers were 65, and now they are somewhere around 78 approximately. Those are good numbers. But the problem is that we now have more people on the Social Security system, we have less workers supporting the Social Security system, and we have people living to a longer age. The couple that is drawing from Social Security today draws out about $118,000 more than they put into the system because of these factors. They are taking out $118,000 more than they put in. A system cannot operate like that. We have got to make some adjustments. What kind of adjustments do we make and who is going to be impacted? The plan that Governor Bush of Texas has put out and the plan that I am advocating tonight, not because of the fact that I am absolutely convinced that there is only one plan out there, but it is because of the fact that I have looked at a number of different options; and I think the one that is the best is one that has some experience, and the one that has some experience is the one that the governor of Texas has proposed we adopt in these halls of Congress. Why does it have some experience? Because we Members of Congress have our own retirement plan. We are on Social Security, by the way. But we have our own retirement plan here in Congress which allows us choice, not allowed under Social Security. So what we need to do when we look at Social Security is, first of all, any kind of proposal, and the proposal put out by the governor of the State of Texas has one fundamental rule at the very beginning and that is, those who are currently on Social Security, so our current recipients, face no risk. Anybody on Social Security today does not have any threat to their Social Security retirement funds that they are receiving. That is fundamental and they are not at risk in any sense. So during this political season, do not let your constituents be hoodwinked into thinking that their Social Security pension that they are drawing today is at risk. It is not. What we are talking about is what can we do for the future generation? What can we do for my children and my children's children to help assure that when they get there, Social Security will be alive and well? What the proposal is that has been put forth by the governor, I guess really the best way to do it, let me explain what happens if you are a Member of Congress or if you are a government employee, so it is not just Congress, it is Federal employees, so there are over 2 million Federal employees in this country, over 2 million. Here is the plan they have in effect. First of all, they do pay Social Security. But here is the Government plan, the U.S. Government plan for its own people. It is called the Thrift Savings Plan. It really works in two ways. It has two sections to it. The first section we will call section A pulls an amount of money out of your paycheck every month and you have no say-so about where that is invested. It is the safety net. It is your safety net. So this amount of money is pulled out. You have no say-so; but as a result of that, after, say, so many years of service and a certain age, you are guaranteed a certain retirement check every month. No risk, not much return, but no risk. Now, by the way, if you want to consider return, figure out that Social Security, if you were born, for example, in 1960, so that would make you 41 today, 40 years old, if you were 40 years old, your return on the current system, if we do not do anything with Social Security, your return is less than 1 percent. 1 percent. Less than 1 percent. That is what you are making on Social Security. We can do better. And the Government knows it can do better because it does it on its own program. So the first part of the Government retirement program which covers all government employees has this pullout; it is an automatic pullout out of your check. It is for your retirement. I forget exactly what mine is every month. I have no choice. That is the safety net. The second section is what we call, we will just call it section B. That is not the formal name; but for our discussion tonight, B. What that allows you to do is it is optional. You do not have to do it. If you as a government employee do not want to participate in the second portion, you do not have to. But if you want to, you can designate, not all your retirement money but you can designate up to 10 percent. You can designate up to 10 percent of your salary every month to go into that retirement section. What that allows you to do is it gives you three choices. The three choices really are an opportunity for you as an individual to invest your retirement money, to help plan for your own retirement. It gives you choice. Social Security today gives you no choice. It mandates you live with the 1 percent return. It mandates that. But this program here, the Government program for its own employees allows you, if you want to, totally optional, to participate in this program of choice. What does it do? You contribute up to 10 percent of your check; then I think the Government matches the first 5 percent, then you get to make a choice. You can have that money invested in government savings where it is insured, it is guaranteed and, of course, when you have a guaranteed return with minimal risk, you are going to have a low return. The history of that shows that pays 3, 4 percent a year. The second option you have is you can go into the bond market. The third option you can go into is your highest risk, which offers your highest returns, but again has its highest risk and it is the stock market. But even if you took the stock market choice and you lost everything, you still had the safety net up here. That is how the Government program for 2.5 million people works. By the way, I want you to know that the strongest opposition to George Bush's plan to bring out this Social Security, to help it for this next generation, the strongest opposition, of course, comes from the administration. But I can tell you that the Vice President voted for this government program many years ago when he was in Congress. So what is good enough for the goose ought to be good enough for the gander. If it is good enough for government employees, why is it not good enough for the citizens of America who want to participate in Social Security? What the administration has advocated is to take the status quo. Look, we have got 30 years before this next generation gets up there and is going to make a call on the bank. So let's just ride the status quo, or let's have another committee, to study another committee for another committee study. That is not good enough. We have got to take some risk. Some of you in here, you do not like risk; and I understand that. But I want you to know that the people who are currently on Social Security or are close to, they face no risk. We are not impairing their ability to draw down on Social Security the benefits that they are entitled to. But those of you who want to sit around and do not want to take risk, you better be prepared for this next generation to explain to them why frankly you sat on your duff and did not do anything to save this system. We have got to have some leadership in Social Security. Somebody has got to take the ship out into the storm. The easiest thing to do is to dock your ship in the harbor and get out of it and get onto the land. But somebody has got to get through to the other side. That is exactly why I was pleased when I saw and sat down, was able actually to discuss only briefly, but discuss the governor of Texas' plan and a plan that most of us on the Republican side and I think frankly a lot of Democrats would support. This is what the plan does. First of all, it is optional. You are not going to be required to do this, to participate in the choice aspect. Second of all, it has a safety net, so no matter what you want to do, there is going to be the majority of the money taken out of your paycheck for Social Security. The majority of it will be put into an account that you do not have any say over it. In other words, we do not want you losing that. We want to have a safety net, because not everybody is going to make money. Certainly on an average over a period of time, you are going to make a lot better than 1 percent, but some people may make bad decisions. It has been known to happen. Some people make bad decisions. We do not want 30 years out from now somebody saying, Look, I made bad decisions. I by choice invested all my money in really high-risk stuff and I lost. I thought I was going to win. I lost. Even for that person, we want to have at least a minimal safety net. That is what we do right here. The second part is for those of you who want to under the Social Security system, just like the government thrift savings program, you are going to be allowed to take 2 percent of the money taken out for Social Security and you get to direct it, you get to choose how that money will be invested. We would run that program. The proposal for that program, to revise Social Security, so that this next generation, that our young people have something that they know is rock solid. What this allows you to do is to do the same as 2.5 million other government employees get to do, and, that is, with that 2 percent, you could invest it in a low risk. Low risk, of course, means low return. Or you could invest it in moderate risk, which means possibility of a moderate return. Or you can invest it in high risk, which means the possibility of high return. Of course high risk means that. High risk. You could lose it all. Moderate, you could lose it. This lower one, the first one, you would be guaranteed a return on your savings. Now, what is wrong with that? Why is the administration opposing it? We, by the way, have a lot of Democrats, obviously from my comments I am a Republican, but we have a lot of Democrats who say this is a good idea. When you get beyond the Potomac out here, when you get out into the rest of America, you find out there are a lot of people out there that are not as partisan as you think. A lot of people out there would join together and say, Look, we have got to do something with Social Security. I think most people in America, especially the younger generation, by the way, who are investing the maximum amount of money right now with the lowest possibility of return because of the pulling out of the funds, I think you would find that younger generation saying, hey, something has got to happen with the management. We need to take some different course with Social Security, because frankly, the young people are saying, we are paying into this system, why should we not be entitled to expect some kind of return out of the system? Outside of Washington, D.C., people want Social Security to work. People do not want Washington, D.C., to bog down Social Security. They want a program that will move forward. Now, I know that the governor of Texas has come under some criticism because he has been bold enough to go out and say we have got to take this ship on a different course. And sure it looks like there is a storm ahead, but the only way we are going to get to the other side is we have got to sail. And somebody has got to have enough courage to stand up there and say, Look, let's try moving the ship. Not dramatically, not radically. We are not going through the eye of the storm to get torn up. Under proper guidance and leadership, we can take this ship on a safe voyage. And when we get to the other end, this generation behind us and two generations behind us and the other generations that follow will have a Social Security system that the first thing you talk about is not how quickly it is going to fail. The first thing you should be able to talk about on Social Security is, it is a system that works. It is a system that works. And it allows you to have the choice. Think about it. If you are confident today and for those of you who are standing and are opposed to any kind of change in Social Security, for those of you who are supporting the administration's policy, go out beyond the Potomac River and ask constituents of yours out there, If you've got a million dollars and you want to invest it, would you send it to the Social Security Administration or would you send it to the United States Congress to invest it on your behalf? Of course they are not going to say that. They have confidence that they can invest it better than we can back here in Washington, D.C. Considering that the return for somebody born in 1960 is going to be less than 1 percent on their dollar in Social Security, I think they are right. I have got a lot more confidence in this younger generation than some of you might. I think they know, and I think they can wisely make decisions with a very small percentage of those Social Security payments. Remember, the people that are in the Social Security system, we are not allowing them to invest everything. We are not going to allow somebody to go in there and say, I want to take all my Social Security and put 100 percent of it in the stock market. We are taking 98 percent of it and saying, You don't have any choice on it. That is your safety net. That no matter how bad a decision you make, you still are going to have a payment available to you for those of us born in 1960 in another 15 years or 20 years, but we are going to do something different. Some would call it a dramatic course of action. I do not think it is dramatic in its results. I think it is dramatic, and it is finally about time that somebody stood at the helm of the ship and said let us change the course. What we are doing is we are allowing them to take just a small percentage, that younger generation, and let us give them a little confidence for their capabilities of making decisions and saying to the younger generation we are going to allow you a choice. You get to help in that investment; it is, after all, your dollar. Many people in Washington D.C., get the idea that it is the money of the Government back here. It is not the money of the Government. It is the money of the people, and they have sent it to us on a trustee basis, and I do not think it is so wrong to ask them to help join us in the decisions that should be made on the investments of their dollars. And that is what that Social Security plan calls for. That is why I hope when we reconvene with a new President in January of next year that on that agenda we have three items of which I consider very important: one, an opportunity to take Social Security and allow the people more input and allow the younger people of this country an opportunity to voice their decision and help make decisions on their own personal investments in that Social Security system. We can save Social Security. It does not need to be bankrupt in 30 years. The second thing I hope we see when we have a new President in January, because I am afraid unfortunately that the President we have today is going to veto it, and that is elimination of the penalty for being married. As I said earlier, how can we possibly justify marriage as a taxable event? This President does. It is his policy. The third thing I hope we have when we have a new President in January is the elimination of that death tax. Like with the marriage tax, how can we justify taxing somebody simply based on the fact that they died? What kind of government is this? Is this a socialistic type of government? What does it do to the local communities? What does it do to the family farms and ranches? What does it do to the small contractor. Remember, a backhoe, a dump truck, and a bulldozer and you are in that bracket. Mr. Speaker, I am in hopes in January we have a President that will do those three things: guide us with Social Security, give us some bold strong leadership, as the governor of Texas has suggested; number two, get rid of that marriage penalty. Let us do what we say we are doing. Let us really encourage our young people to get married. Let us encourage our young people to have a foundation of family without worrying about being taxed for it. Third of all, let us give the next generation on the family farm or the family ranch and the local farming community, let us give them an opportunity to keep those resources in the family, in the community, instead of penalizing the family, penalizing the community, in spending that money right out of there straight to Washington, D.C. I am confident, colleagues, that we have a very positive future ahead of this country. I could not be more excited about the future of the United States of America. I could not be more excited about our young people, and that is why we have to keep education as a priority; that is why we have to look at these factors that I have discussed tonight. We cannot continue on a positive course and improve it if we do not put a lot of effort into it. It is not going to come free, and it is not going to happen when we penalize marriage. It is not going to happen when we penalize death, when we call it a taxable event. It is not going to happen when we look at this next generation and say to them, well, to Social Security, here is your bankrupt system that you helped pay for. We can change all of that. I hope my colleagues join with myself and our new President in January to make those kinds of changes, because that is what this country is all about, making a difference. And we, colleagues, can make that difference, and the people of our country deserve it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, due to business in Colorado, I was unable to vote on the Hostettler amendment to H.R. 4871, making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001 (Roll No. 427). Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise at this time to recognize the remarkable life and significant achievements of a distinguished public servant and friend of mine, Captain Fred Bitterman. Tragically, Fred passed away Tuesday night in an accident at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Captain Bitterman, a dedicated law enforcement officer, father, grandfather and friend, will be deeply missed. For over twenty five years Captain Bitterman served the people of the State of Colorado first as a State Patrolman, and later as a Troop Commander and Captain in the Colorado State Patrol. Captain Bitterman supervised a region that included the cities of Parachute, Vail, Eagle, New Castle, Carbondale, and of course our hometown of Glenwood Springs. As a law enforcement officer, his professionalism elevated him into a position of leadership. Captain Bitterman commanded a deep sense of admiration and respect from those officers who had the privilege of working alongside him, and also from those whom he worked so diligently to protect. Captain Bitterman also put forth an immense effort to serving the public in his professional life. Captain Bitterman distinguished himself with his service to the Colorado State Patrol. Captain Bitterman enjoyed a well-deserved reputation of integrity not only within the ranks of the state patrol, but within the community as well. Captain Bitterman was a strong family man, who took great pride in the family that he shared with his wife Cathy. In addition to Cathy, Captain Bitterman is survived by his six children, and many grandchildren. Captain Bitterman's passing is a severe loss not only to his family, but to our community as well. Captain Bitterman was a very, very good man.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 558, I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the late Hon. Paul Coverdell.