John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to underscore the remarks of the previous speaker, because I think to a certain degree they make the point, the point that I made earlier that we need to move away from the extremes of this debate. The opponents of this amendment do not support a limitation of only 2,000 acres disturbed. They would not support a limitation of only 200 acres disturbed. They would not support a limitation of only 2 acres disturbed. And as the previous speaker pointed out, they will not even accept a limitation of disturbing 4 square feet. That is the difference in this debate, arguing from the extremes or arguing from this standpoint of preserving America's energy independence while being reasonable about conserving natural resources. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer an amendment as we put the final touches on this energy policy bill. It is an amendment that tries to strike a balance, a balance between the need for safe, reliable energy sources for the American economy and the need and desire to conserve our precious resources, our environment, and our natural heritage. What my amendment does is take the royalties and the bonus payments that have been talked about here in the debate today, an unprecedented royalty sharing arrangement where the Federal Government will get half of the royalties from any oil production in the northern plains of Alaska, and take those royalties to set up two important funds. The first fund would be geared toward conservation, a fund that could invest in our backlog maintenance of national parks, national forests, a fund that could invest in historic preservation, and a fund that could invest in the conservation of urban parks as well. The remainder, the balance of the royalties, go into a second fund, a fund that invests in our energy future, alternative and renewable technologies, wind, solar, biomass, again a range of technologies that in the debate today have been held out as being the likely promise for energy independence in America's future. I think this does strike a good balance between some of the extremes in this debate. It ensures that whatever financial benefits come from exploration and production on the Alaskan plains go back to the American people in an important way that conserves our parks, invests in maintenance of our national forests, and of course invests in future energy technology and independence. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for her work on this amendment. I think it strikes a balance. We recognize the value of allocating royalty payments from outer continental shelf drilling, and in creating the Land and Water Conservation Fund from those revenues. We have done great things in this country to preserve precious land, to invest in maintenance of national parks and forests, to create the urban park program; and I think this amendment builds on that legacy, taking revenues and funds on production of the Alaskan plain and setting aside half of it for conservation and investment in parks and forests, and urban parks as well; and the other half, putting it into alternative renewable energy technology, really the energy technologies that are our future. Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow colleagues to support the amendment and to support a good balance in our energy policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that attempts again to clarify the terms and the scope of the debate. There has been a great deal of discussion today about exploration and energy production on the Alaskan plain. ANWR, the wildlife refuge, is an area of approximately 19 million acres. It is three times the size of the State of New Hampshire, which I am proud to represent. The 102 area, the coastal plain, which is not technically part of the wildlife refuge, is about 1.5 million acres. But the fact is, given today's technology, there have been statements made, commitments made, that the amount of land mass that would be disturbed through any production activities would be less than 2,000 acres. I think it is important that we make that clear as part of the legislation that is being debated on the floor today. As such, my amendment would simply state that for all production activities, airports, production platforms, and even staging facilities, the maximum amount of land that could be disturbed is 2,000 acres, approximately 3 square miles, a very small fraction of the 19 million acres in the entire ANWR area. I think that is an indication of a balance, of common sense. We do want to protect a sensitive area. We do want to set aside land for future generations; but here we have 19 million acres, and I think where the energy security and the energy future of the United States is concerned, it is realistic to think if we could put together a program that utilizes only 2,000 acres, we have done the right thing for future generations. That is what my amendment does. I am pleased to introduce it with the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) as a cosponsor. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. I think it is unreasonable not to allow me to answer the question.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the spirited nature of the debate. I certainly apologize to my colleague from Massachusetts for attempting to answer his question too specifically and too accurately. I know it is never a comfortable situation for someone who is speaking on the floor. But I do think that if we look at the scope of what the IRS is trying to do, we look at the number of checks that are going out, a couple of hundred million, I think it is very reasonable to assume that there may be a lot of confusion. The Financial Management Service looked at a number of different options. I think they had a credible reason for wanting to do an advance notice, considering that the checks would be staggered over time. The IRS employees recognized that being inundated with phone calls could really degrade their level of customer service and that more information was better. We can quibble about the exact wording on the notice and some down at the White House might complain that Congress is mentioned first, Congress might complain that the President is even mentioned in the notice, but at the end of the day, the taxpayers will have information that is helpful to them: how this is being calculated, what the tax implications are for the current year, how they can get additional information. I do not think there is any surreptitious or are there are any impure motives here. We are just trying to make sure that taxpayers understand the legislation that has been passed and how it is going to affect them, and we are trying to take a little bit of burden off of the employees at the IRS, and I think both of those are appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. SUNUNU. Well, there are two reasons. One, because the checks are going to go out in a staggered format. They are going to go out in July, they are going to go out in August, and they are going to go out in September. The first people that are going to get the checks will get them in July, and the people that have not received the checks are certainly going to wonder what is going on. It makes sense to notify everybody at the same time. The second reason is because there are two different systems right now for printing notices and printing checks. Now, we can try to combine the two and manually stuff all the envelopes.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield on that point, the Financial Management Service considered a range of options. They considered including that information in the same envelope.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SUNUNU. I am sorry, is the gentleman distracted by the fact I am standing at the lectern? We have reserved the balance of our time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, in addressing some of the concerns raised, particularly with regard to the employees at the IRS, I think rather than characterize what their motives might be, it is best to go right to the source. In a letter from the National Treasury Employees Union, it was made clear what the concerns were. Simply put, quote, ``the IRS has great difficulty responding to all the telephone calls from taxpayers with questions. The volume of calls will increase dramatically as anticipation of rebate checks grows. Providing taxpayers with a notice in advance will hold down the increase in calls and prevent a significant decrease in the IRS' ability to provide customer service.'' It is also stressed in the letter, which comes from the National President of the employees union, that the IRS has indicated, the agency, not Congress but the IRS itself, that it may go forward with a notice on the tax rebate even if the funds to mail it are not provided or are reduced. So this is a decision that the IRS is likely to make of its own accord because the agency understands it is important. The union itself recognizes, and the employees recognize, that if the notices do not go out that the burden on customer service will be significant. In the end that will not be in the best interest of taxpayers because the costs associated with that confusion are just as likely to be greater than what this expenditure calls for.

Mr. SUNUNU. I do not think it is unreasonable.

Mr. SUNUNU. I think it serves the taxpayer well to have advance information. From the IRS's standpoint, the processing of checks may well be done differently than the processing of a notice like this. Why not give the taxpayer the information ahead of time before they receive the check?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, to address the gentleman's first point, what I said was there is information about how it is calculated, because while the headline in the Washington Post or the New York Times may be $300 a person, $600 a person, that is not technically correct. I know it is a surprise to Members on both sides of the aisle that the New York Times may not have gotten the headline right, but not everyone is going to receive the same check. So there is information about how it was calculated and information about whether or not it is taxable.

Mr. SUNUNU. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments that were provided in offering this amendment, but I think they were at least a little bit misleading. There was reading from the notice itself, and I think that was fair. In point of fact, it was really only the first sentence. The notice includes a lot more information than just the fact that a tax relief bill was passed. What the notice attempts to do is to include helpful, useful information to taxpayers and to ensure that as we go forward mailing out rebate checks, which were supported by dozens of Members on the minority side, that we do not have mass confusion. The notice informs the taxpayer as to the amount of the rebate check. It informs the taxpayer how this amount was calculated, because every taxpayer is not going to receive an identical check. The rebate will be based on the taxable return that was paid for the year 2000. The notice includes information as to whether or not the rebate check is reportable as income when they go to next pay their taxes. If one receives a $300 check or a $600 check, unfortunately for a lot of people there will be confusion as to whether or not they have to pay taxes on this rebate. It also gives information to the taxpayer as to what they should do if they have questions, a phone number, a Web site, so that they can follow up if they need additional information. Providing a taxpayer with this important information is not abusive. Providing a taxpayer with information about how to get their questions answered is not fraud. I certainly do not believe that the employees of the IRS would consider the work that they do to deal with confusion or questions to be fraud, to be abusive, which is exactly why the National Treasury Employees Union has written opposing the kind of cut that is trying to be put through on the floor today. Is it wasteful? Well, we can go back to the old television commercial, you can pay me now or you can pay me later. If taxpayers are not given information about how this rebate is being calculated, whether or not it is taxable income, how to get their questions answered, then when all of these checks go out the IRS phone lines are going to be flooded, or there are going to be complaints, and there is going to be a significant amount of cost incurred by the customer service representatives at the IRS trying to sort out that confusion. We can pay for it now to make sure that they have the information that is needed, or we can pay later in the form of much higher calls required, much higher cost of customer service. I think it makes sense. I think it is fair planning to deal with it now, to deal with it in this fiscal year, when the checks are going to be sent out.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for putting together this tribute today. As I drove down to the memorial service on Friday, I listened to the radio and there were two ``townies,'' as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) would describe them, Mike Barnical and Will McDonough, and they paid a wonderful tribute to Joe Moakley. They talked about his personality, the way he threw himself into his work and, most important, his dedication to his community, to South Boston. I think they understood that he was so good at what he did because he was a product of that community, and there is no service that is easier to render than when you are helping a neighbor, than when you are helping your town, than when you are helping the people you grew up with. They told story after story about Joe walking the neighborhoods, sitting in a restaurant, reading the newspaper, saying hello and reaching out to everyone who came by to talk to him and everyone that came by to offer a favor. It was a very personal tribute, but I think it was one that recognized the goodness in the man. Even a more powerful tribute, however, was the description that Jim gave, the description of the outpouring of emotion in the town of South Boston itself. As I got to South Boston, of course the roads were closed off leading to Saint Bridgett's and I got out of the car and walked the last 4 or 5 blocks. It was astounding, it was heartwarming and touching to see people lined up four and five deep, even five blocks from the church, school children, construction workers, police officers, and they were all people that were of the community that knew Joe, that knew the kind of dedication that he brought to his people and to his neighborhood. It could not have been a better day. It was a glorious, sunny day. There was an enormous American flag at the crest of the hill on Broadway. There were schoolchildren lining the streets, and the Red Sox had won the night before; and I thought, if you were going to pick a day to be remembered, it could not be a much finer one than that. Joe was a great politician, as many people have pointed out. But I think he was a great politician because he was such a good man; and more than anything else, that is what his service will be remembered for, and I think that is what his friends and neighbors and South Boston will remember him for.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great citizen, State Senator, and a former Congressional candidate, Jack Chandler of Warner, New Hampshire. On May 3, 2001, Jack's family and friends joined together to remember this remarkable man who touched the lives of everyone he met in the 89 years he was blessed to walk this Earth. He was unique and at times even controversial, but all that met Jack Chandler agreed he loved his State and he loved his country, a patriot to the end. Jack grew up in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and led a storybook life. He was a descendent of Nathan Hale, and his own convictions were rooted in the principles of our Nation's founders. In the tradition of Revolutionaries like Hamilton, he owned and operated his own newspaper, the Kearsarge Independent; and I am certain his editorials still blaze in the minds of many former readers. Jack was a pioneer in New Hampshire's ski industry with the great idea to fill trains in Boston with skiers and welcome them to the slopes of the Granite State. A half century later, this tradition continues every winter weekend when the roads north are filled with skiers on the move. As a politician, Jack Chandler was a genuine article. He stood firm in his beliefs and never hesitated to speak his mind. Perhaps he was one of the last in an age of politicians that never needed a poll to see where to stand on an issue. He constantly traveled his district, campaigning town-to-town and person-to-person, always willing to lend an ear or a helping hand to a constituent. Although Jack did not believe in big government, he had a generous heart that even his critics grew to admire. It is difficult to say good-bye to ``Happy Jack,'' but I am grateful I had a chance to know him during his wonderful journey throughout New Hampshire. He made a huge difference in the lives of his constituents, his friends, but mostly his family. Godspeed, Jack Chandler.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise in support of the Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit Fairness Act. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), who is chairman of the Law Enforcement Caucus and who has worked hard and successfully to bring this important bill through the Committee on Ways and Means and to the floor. As he and previous speakers have indicated, this legislation extends the tax-free treatment to the survivors of those law enforcement officers and public safety officers lost in the line of duty, not just for those lost after 1996. It makes good sense. It is fair. It is just. Especially during a week when we honor law enforcement officers and those who have fallen in the line of duty, it is an important gesture, a step forward that gives them the financial security and the piece of mind they so justly deserve. I introduced similar legislation 2 years ago with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) after sharing the stories with several families in New Hampshire that faced the consequences of having lost a loved one serving in the line of duty prior to 1996. It is my pleasure to support the legislation, and it is a pleasure to step forward on a piece of legislation that has such a bipartisan commitment behind it. I thank my colleagues for their support.