THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

   Now, I have got to say that when I came here a few years ago to Washington, I was really shocked, in fact dumbfounded, that there were people here in Congress who sat on a certain side of the aisle that would vote for a missile defense system if that missile defense system would defend another country. But at the same time there would be a motion made by somebody on the Republican side, and I hate to do this but it tended to draw along partisan lines, if somebody proposed that the missile defense systems that we were developing would be used to defend our own children or our own families, they voted against that funding.

   I just shook my head. I have to say this as somebody who believes in rights and responsibilities, that if the taxpayers of the United States are going to bear the responsibility of developing missile defense systems, how in the world can those who claim to represent those taxpayers not allow that defense system to defend those taxpayers?

[Time: 14:00]

   It is astonishing how shortsighted people can be. For a long time, people did not think about the fact that our troops could have missiles rain down on them when they were in a tactical situation. All at once, now it is universally accepted by Democrat, Republican, Independent, left and right, that a theater defense system is not only appropriate, it is essential if we are going to defend our troops in the field.

   What is sad is, are we going to wait until the missiles land in our neighborhood before the same enlightenment applies for defending our sovereign territory here in North America? What is really scary is, what does it take to learn.

   I think that maybe what it takes to learn is that a lot of Americans before 1814 thought the Capitol was safe because of our big Atlantic Ocean. After the sacking and burning of this Capitol and this city, there was a lot different attitude about national defense.

   I hope that we are able to learn from other countries' experiences rather than having to wait for those disasters to actually end up in our own neighborhood.

   Let me point out, I will say this clearly, and I think any Member of Congress will say this, the only thing worse than seeing our Capitol destroyed would be watching our neighborhoods at home destroyed. We have a responsibility to defend that and to add that. I do not think it is something that is pie in the sky. I do not think it is something that is outside.

   I think we saw what American ingenuity did with a glorified P.C. computer and a missile defense system that was never meant to be a missile defense system. It was supposed to go after airplanes. But Americans and American ingenuity can conquer this problem and defend our neighborhoods. I think we have to have the trust and commitment to get the job done.

[Page: H925]  GPO's PDF

   We spend billions and billions to go all over the world to protect everybody else's neighborhood. Doggone it, we have the responsibility to do the same for our own.

   Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Patriot System we all watched during the Desert Storm conflict was something that we celebrated, and I think most Americans found to be rather remarkable. But we had the ability in a theater missile defense structure to have a relatively high success rate of shooting down incoming missiles with respect to the attacks on Israel.

   But once again, the discussion about a national missile defense system as it relates to an intercontinental scenario is a defense system that we just do not have and does not exist today.

   Again, the scientists, those who are involved just from the research and technology side, have developed the technology to defend our country. It is just a matter of making it a priority and putting the pieces in place here politically to make that defense system a reality. That is what we are going to be pushing for this year.

   Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield just very briefly, I am sure that, when we get back to our office, somebody will call up and say, ``Are you guys aware of what is called the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty?"

   Just very quickly, to run through that again, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the basis or premise for it was that Russia got together with the United States and said, ``All right, the best way for us to provide security that we will not have a conflict between each other is neither one of us will build a missile defense system. That way, we will be hesitant to attack each other because we do not have anything to defend ourselves.''

   For example, the United States, under the theory of this treaty, would not attack Russia because they would not have any way to defend themselves from Russia's retaliation.

   Well, those days of that treaty are over. If one reads the treaty, the treaty can be abrogated by the United States and by Russia. It is foolish for us to continue under the pretense that this treaty is going to preserve us from an incoming missile attack at some point in time by some rogue nation.

   At the time this was signed, technology was different, the thoughts were different, the atmosphere was different, and the number of countries that had this kind of weaponry was different.

   So I think it is important, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. SCHAFFER) and I have discussed, do not let that ABM Treaty be a diversion from what is a necessary and, frankly, an obligation of this Congress and to the people of this country for this generation and future generations to defend our country.

   Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we, in discussing what should be higher priorities here in this Congress, not only with respect to our attention, but also with respect to budgeting and the finances, many may wonder how it is that the gentleman and I and others like us believe that we should balance the budget and do it continuously, second, establish the priorities that allow us to rescue the Social Security system, provide for a world class education system and defense system, as well as provide tax relief for the American people.

   I want to kind of switch the subject by talking about another issue we are concerned about, but it really is all within the context of priorities. The President, in his latest budget, has proposed $10 and a quarter billion for what amounts to a land grant, the Federal Government purchasing more land, primarily in our State and out in the West under the Lands Legacy Initiative .

   This is one of the things, when the President and others who believe what he does, that the Federal Government should increase the ownership of property, decreasing the amount of private ownership of property in America, that some are inspired by that. There is no question about that.

   But, in reality, what proposals like this do is, first of all, it takes valuable land out of private ownership. These lands are taxed by our local school districts, by local communities, provide necessary funds for education, for street, and road improvements, for county budgets, and so on.

   But the other thing it does, by removing that land from private ownership and putting it into the government's pocket, it results in restricted liberty and freedom of the American people.

   For the gentleman and I who represent a great western State, our heritage is built upon the land and land ownership and sound management of natural resources in a way that has really created a thriving economy among western States.

   So I use that as an example, and perhaps the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. MCINNIS) and I would talk further just about the effect of the Clinton administration, the Federal Government's perspective on these western land-related issues.

   But, once again, I point out that this is an area where the administration's priorities are different than the Congress'. We believe in defending the country, creating great schools. The President

   obviously believes in having the Federal Government purchase more land that is better managed under private ownership.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. MCINNIS).

   Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank gentleman for yielding to me. This issue of course crosses party lines. It is a bipartisan issue. It is the question of how much land should the Federal Government be allowed to continue to buy up, take out of the private marketplace, and to put under government hands and government management.

   I have often heard some of the special interest environmental groups try and educate the American public thinking that the government every day sells away land and gives land to mining companies and timber companies, and the land is being destroyed by millions of acres. In fact, just the opposite is true. You see dwindling industries, not just because of this, but in part related to this, you see dwindling industries in timber and so on.

   What you see is the government acquiring land. The government is a net acquirer. In other words, the government acquires more land than it gets rid of by many, many, many multiples. The government does not sell very much land. If they sell, it is for a right-of-way or they may do a land swap or something like that.

   But if one takes a look across this country, when one looks at the different lottos that are used to buy open space, the different kind of funds that local municipalities and areas have dedicated of taxpayers' money to buy land from the private marketplace and to put it into the government hands, and then you consider proposals when the President of the United States is willing to go out and spend billions and billions of dollars to take more land away from the American people and put it into the government, I mean, I am not sure that is the right answer.

   Clearly, all of us with today's technology have to be more concerned about what do we do for the preservation for future generations of the land we have. But I think the best managers of the land most obvious, not always, but most often are the people that live the land, the people that live off the land, the people that work the land, the people that enjoy the beauty of the land.

   You must always be suspicious when the government shows up and says we are here to help. We have better ideas than you do. The better ideas come out of Washington, not out of Colorado.

   Mr. SCHAFFER. Absolutely.

   Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as the government buys, for example, wilderness areas, the first thing you do is you take away local control. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. SCHAFFER) and I have discussed this on a number of issues.

   The gentleman has a vast district in eastern Colorado, some of the most beautiful, I think, some of the most beautiful plains in the United States. I adjoin him, and I have the western part of the State of Colorado which we think are the most beautiful set of mountains. We share those beautiful mountains with States like Utah, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, but the Rocky Mountain range.

   There are certain areas there that are owned by the government, and the government should retain the ownership of that. But we must make sure that the concept of multiple use stays

[Page: H926]  GPO's PDF

   It is very hard today to find one's children or my children desire to go out and be a farmer, especially in our areas where the government has driven up the price of land because they are out acquiring the land. We have to encourage good and prudent management of the land, whether it is in the government hands or whether it is in private hands.

   But I am not sure the answer is always to take it out of private hands and put it into government hands and one is going to end up with better management. Sometimes that might be the answer, but not always.

   The American people need to be aware of how many thousands of acres every day across this country, through one government agency or another, at one level, local, clear up to national, go from private hands into public hands.

   Mr. SCHAFFER. Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the best stewards of the land, the best environmentalists are the farmers, the ranchers, the private landowners who have a future at stake in the ownership of that land. This is what they want to hand down to their children.

   Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a heritage, like the gentleman said.

   Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, it absolutely is. For us in Colorado, this is what defines our State. This is part of our culture in the western States. We have some of the most beautiful vistas and greatest natural resources, some private, some public, but in all cases, these are resources that, when managed well, the extraction of minerals or the sound timber management actually improves the environmental quality, particularly with respect to timber.

   Let me talk about that for a moment, because the timber industry in the west, after, not only the poor policies that are put forward by the Forest Service these days, but also the misapplication of the Endangered Species Act, there are very, very few mills left in States like ours.

   But what we are discovering is that active forest management, from a scientific perspective, actually improves overall forest health. What we are seeing out in the West today are devastating forest fires that burn far more intensely than ever before. We are seeing the pine beetle infestation in western States, which is an infestation at escalated levels primarily as a result of the poor condition of government-owned forests in western States.

   When these trees begin to grow too closely together, they start competing for nutrients, for water. They prevent the snowpack from getting to the surface of the forest floor, and it respirates much quicker than would be natural.

   As a result, these trees begin to undergo a certain amount of stress. Once they become stressed, these beetles move in, these trees die, they become brittle, they become dry. It really sets up the West for some of these devastating forest fires that get worse and worse year after year after year.

   But there is one interesting thing about these forest fires. Sometimes they tend to stop along straight lines. I have flown over some of the old burned areas, and I have never seen anything like it before. It is really remarkable.

   These forest fires will burn, and they will stop along pretty much a straight line in some cases. The difference between the side that burned to the ground and the side that is still green and standing and flourishing and providing habitat for wildlife is that the government owns the land that was not well managed and not well taken care of. Private owners are managing the land that is still green today, still

   providing critical habitat for wildlife and so on.

   The bottom line is the Federal Government owns far more land than it is able to effectively take care of, and that is irresponsible. That is an antienvironmental record that our Federal Government is moving itself into by acquiring more land than we have the capacity to care for.

   I would also make one other observation. Since the fall of communism and the old Soviet Union, many of the republics have had a difficult time making the full transition to free market capitalism and ensuring democracies in their new countries.

   One of the key provisions that comes back to us over and over again in observations is that what these countries need to do to make the last step toward free market capitalism is guarantee private property ownership. These are countries that understand they need to move toward private property ownership, not away from it.

   We here in the United States, enjoying the greatest economy on the planet right now, are moving with great speed in the exact opposite direction, having taxpayers wealth confiscated from the American people, sitting here in Washington, D.C. so the Clinton administration and others who agree with him can then go back and purchase at above-market prices land that should remain in private property ownership, putting it into the hands of the government which, as I mentioned, is incapable of doing an effective job of taking care of it.

   So it is quite a problem. It is one that, when we hear the term the ``war on the west,'' the gentleman and I understand that term very well. But for others who have heard the term may not understand what that means. It essentially means the Federal Government coming into a great State like ours, not only purchasing the property rights, but the mineral rights that go with it, and affecting directly the water rights, water being the most precious natural resource that our economy depends on.

[Time: 14:15]

   Mr. McINNIS. If I might, the gentleman is correct. And let me make it very clear. There are some areas, and my colleague and I have talked about this, there are some areas where timbering is not appropriate. There are some areas, regrettably, where in our history some people have abused the timber rights. They have gone out and clearcut areas where they should never have clearcut. And part of that, by the way, was the irresponsibility of the Federal Government's supervising that type of thing.

   But what has happened is they have taken that section of misbehavior and said, and there are actual groups out there that have said, we never want another piece of timber taken off Federal lands . We have the national Sierra Club, whose number one goal of their president is to take down the dam at Lake Powell, drain Lake Powell, which is one of the most critical resources in the western United States.

   What I am trying to say here is that, just as we have an obligation as citizens of this country to build a missile defense system for the next generation and just as we have a like obligation to provide a good solid education system for the next generation and just as we have a similar obligation to provide a retirement system for the next generation, we also have an obligation for this next generation to enhance the environment that we are in. But the answer for the enhancement of the environment is not necessarily, and in most cases not at all, to take away the right and the dream of private property ownership.

   Now, I should add, and some night we should just come and discuss that, how when the government decides they do not have the money to go in there, what they will do is go in and regulate. That way they never have to buy the land. They just go in on private property and regulate it so no one can move.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents