John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 184) providing for a National Day of Reconciliation, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that calls for the two Houses of Congress to assemble in this Chamber at a time when the House and the Senate are not in session and that during this assembly the Members of the two Houses may gather to humbly seek the blessings of Providence for forgiveness, reconciliation, unity, and charity for all people of the United States, thereby assisting the Nation to realize its potential as a champion of hope, the vindicator of the defenseless, and the guardian of freedom. That is pretty much the sum and substance and essence of this resolution. I think given all we have been experiencing over the last few weeks, it is clear that the purposes of this resolution are very good indeed and would be beneficial to our Nation. The author of the resolution is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our majority whip; and I understand we have now 72 cosponsors, with good bipartisan representation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the author of the resolution.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy whip and a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of those who have spoken, and I strongly urge the adoption of this resolution relative to national reconciliation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I submit these remarks with shock, sadness, and disgust. In the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks September 11, Breen Elementary School--located in my district in my hometown of Rocklin, CA--displayed a sign supporting both the victims of the attacks and our troops overseas engaged in America's war on terrorism. The sign simply--yet poignantly--stated ``God Bless America.'' Incredulously, the American Civil Liberties Union decided that the sign was inappropriate, defiantly proclaiming that the words sent a ``hurtful, divisive message.'' Apparently they are driven by the patently false perception that the sign somehow separates the line between church and state and is thus violative of the Constitution. But Mr. Speaker, this isn't about separation of church and state, this is about purging God and all things religious completely out of American life. The ACLU and those that fund it are waging a cynical crusade, a war against all those who find comfort and solace in our Lord, plain and simple. How dare they try to stifle the spirit of Americans in these incredibly difficult times? How dare they hide behind the Constitution, perverting its meaning and twisting its words into a gag rule against the people it empowers? How dare they parade around our country purporting to protect the rights of Americans who choose not to practice religion while simultaneously behaving like secularist thieves, tirelessly trying to steal the rights of those who wish to express their faith in God and country? Mr. Speaker, I urge the swift passage of this resolution, which expresses the sense of the Congress that public schools may display the words ``God Bless America'' as an expression of support for the Nation. As stewards of the ``People's House.'' we need to assure the citizens of our great Nation that their Congress stands behind them fully and unequivocally. That we support their right to express their support for those who have died in the horrible attacks and for those overseas, who are willing to give up their lives to preserve the right of all Americans to express themselves without fear or apprehension. Shame on the ACLU, for trying to stifle the spirit of not only the citizens of my hometown, but for trying to intimidate all Americans who freely yearn to express theyir love for this great country.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, Executive Order 13-166 issued by President Clinton is unwise, illegal and unconstitutional; and I urge the Bush administration to rescind it forthwith. We would be doing them a favor to avoid all of their complex review by simply adopting the Istook amendment. We cannot possibly impose on counties and cities and local jurisdictions, States, and indeed on the Federal agencies the policy inherent in this executive order which on its face is unreasonable. There are 6,800 languages in the world today, many of these present in the United States. Even the U.N. only has six official languages; and here in the absence of congressional action, we already have the Federal agencies setting forth the requirements of this executive order and beginning to implement them. For example, regulations applying Executive Order 13-166 have already been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Corporation for National Community Service, General Services Administration, Consumer Products Safety Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Council on Disability, the National Science Foundation, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Mr. Chairman, we need to bring this to a halt now. We can do something reasonable. In the absence of this executive order, something reasonable is already set in place. But requiring all of our States and localities to struggle to spend money they do not have, to produce materials in any language any person requests up to I suppose 6,800 languages, is unreasonable and outrageous on its face. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is to be commended for this amendment. We should have done this long ago, but I guess this is our first opportunity since it has come up on this appropriations bill. I urge Members to support his amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, for 15 years of service to the Sikhs, the people of South Asia and America. Fifteen years ago Dr. Aulakh left a well-paying job to begin striving day in and day out in an effort to draw attention to the plight of the minorities of India. Since that time he has succeeded in raising awareness of the treatment of Christians, Kashmiri Muslims, and other minorities in India and throughout the world. Dr. Aulakh has spoken out on behalf of these people; he has highlighted injustices, and in so doing, has raised the level of awareness of such issues throughout the United States. On October 7, 1987, the Sikh homeland declared its independence from India. At that time, Dr. Aulakh was named to lead the struggle to regain the lost sovereignty of the Sikhs. If it were not for Dr. Aulakh's tireless efforts, the human-rights conditions in India would go unexposed and unpunished. Because of his efforts, all of us in Congress are much better informed on these matters and we are more able to take appropriate action. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. Aulakh and the Council of Khalistan for their tireless efforts on behalf of freedom.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, there has been a disturbing pattern of oppression of Christians and other religious minorities in India. This persecution of Christians in India continues. It has been going on steadily since Christmas 1998, with occasional flare-ups before that, as exemplified by one incident when the state police used unnecessary and overwhelming force to stop a Christian religious festival. The animosity towards Christians and other religious minorities in India is well known. High-ranking officials of India's governing coalition have said openly that everyone who lives in India must either be Hindu or be subservient to Hinduism. They have called for nationalization of the Christian churches in India, severing them from the denominations to which they belong. Since the current wave of violence exploded on Christmas 1998, more than two and a half years ago, Christian churches have been burned, and assaults have been carried out on priests and nuns. Mr. Speaker, that is the state of religious freedom in India. The Indian government has much work in front of it. It is time for India to stop trampling the rights of minorities and begin protecting religious freedom, civil liberties, human rights, and the other important rights that are the mark of a true democratic state.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I just have some comments on the Shays- Meehan bill. This thing just died of the weight of opposition against it. I just want to read from a list of both conservative and liberal groups who oppose this legislation. In fact, you could get a positive rating from both the NARL, the National Abortion Rights League, and from the National Right to Life Committee by voting against this terrible bill. And then you can also get the same positive rating from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and from the AFL-CIO. I would just like to read into the record all these groups, 81 groups, from information obtained from the Committee on House Administration, all the groups who are opposed to the big government's campaign regulation bill, known as Shays-Meehan. We have the American Civil Rights Union; the American Conservative Union; the Business-Industry PAC; the Center for Reclaiming America; the Christian Coalition; the Free Congress Foundation; Gun Owners Of America; the National Rifle Association; the National Right to Life Committee; the AFL-CIO; the Alliance for Justice; the American Civil Liberties Union; the Cato Institute; the Freedom Forum; the Libertarian Party; the National Association of Broadcasters; the National Association of Manufacturers; Associated Builders and Contractors; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Americans For Tax Reform; the United Auto Workers; the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; the Business and Professional People for the Public Interest. Again, just to remind you, Mr. Speaker, these are all the organizations opposed to the big government campaign regulation known as Shays-Meehan. The Center for Digital Democracy; the Center for Law and Social Policy; the Center for Law in the Public Interest; the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy; the Center for Science in the Public Interest; the Children's Defense Fund; the Community Law Center; the Consumers Union; the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; the Drug Policy Foundation; Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund; Education Law Center; Employment Law Center; and Equal Rights Advocates. Let me see, the James Madison Center for Free Speech; Gun Owners of America; Free Congress Foundation. Okay, we are at 41. Here are the other 40. The Food Research and Action Center; the Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg firm; the Human Rights Campaign Foundation; Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center; the Juvenile Law Center; the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund; the Legal Aid Society of New York; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Foundation; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; the National Center for Lesbian Rights; the National Center for Youth Law; the National Center on Poverty Law; the National Education Association; the National Employment Lawyers Association; the National Immigration Forum; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty; and for number 60, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association; all against the big government, heavy-handed, campaign finance regulation known as Shays- Meehan. Number 61, and, again, all these groups are opposed, the National Mental Health Association; National Organization for Women Legal Defense; National Partnership for Women and Families; National Veterans Legal Services Program; National Women's Law Center; National Youth Advocacy Coalition; Native American Rights Fund; Natural Resources Defense Council; New York Lawyers for the Public Interest; Physicians for Human Rights; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Public Advocates, Inc.; Public Justice Center; the Tides Center; University of Pennsylvania, Public Service Program; Violence Policy Center; Welfare Law Center; the Wilderness Society; Women's Law Project; and the Youth Law Center. Eighty-one organizations opposed to the big government, heavy-handed campaign finance bill that went down today known as Shays-Meehan or McCain-Feingold in the Senate. No wonder this proposal is not moving forward. All these groups, from liberal to conservative, are opposed to it. And the Democrats voted to kill the rule that would have brought it up.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment; and I want to approach this from really just a broad and general perspective. If we look over the next 25 years, the world's population is going to increase by 2.5 billion. This 2.5 billion increase in population is going to be occurring primarily in the developing countries of the world. When we look at the tremendous demand for food, and in particular for protein, in order to ensure that these people are going to have adequate nutrition, we have to be ensuring that we are investing in new science and research that is going to ensure that we have the capacity to produce these food products. My concern with the amendment that we are considering today is, one, that it will circumvent our science-based regulatory process. I am concerned that it will set the process back, that it will ensure that we can have politics that can intercede all too often that will preclude our ability to ensure that we can see progress in the development of these new technologies. One of my colleagues earlier today in this debate mentioned we have half as many fish in the ocean today as we did some few decades ago. A lot of this is due to overfishing and fishing that was occurring because of the demand to provide an adequate food source for a lot of people today. When we are looking at the potential for this technology, the technology that can be advanced through transgenic fish, this is something that in many ways could almost relieve some of this pressure on our natural fisheries by ensuring that we can continue to see progress in the commercial production of food and fish products. So I think this is another argument for us to ensure that we are again continuing this science-based process. Some of the concerns that my colleagues raise I think are adequate. We ought to ensure we are using the most appropriate science. But FDA today is required, when they are considering the approval of these new transgenic products, to have a dialogue, to be consulting with EPA, with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the National Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA, as well as USDA. Furthermore, it is this amendment that would preclude that continued research and investigation through those bodies that have the scientific expertise. In fact, this amendment would set back our ability to fully understand the science and the threat that transgenic fish might pose for human consumption as well as the threat it might potentially pose to the environment. Once FDA is confident that, through their investigation and the scientific process, that there is not a significant or marginal threat to both consumers as well as the environment, before anyone can even get a permit to produce transgenic fish, they are also going to have to go through a permitting process at both the Federal and the State level; that they will have to be dealing once again with EPA and other agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife and EPA, which will be mandatory. So we have another safeguard there to ensure we will have adequate protections to the environment to ensure that we will not see any negative impacts. In closing, I just ask my colleagues to respect the process. One of my colleagues earlier said that this is an amendment to protect the ability to use hormones in fish. Nothing could be further from the truth. Opposing this amendment is to protect a science-based process, to protect a process that will ensure that we will be able to reach out to the best scientists in the country that we have available to ensure that we will have adequate protections. And when we go through that process, we also then will have the promise. We will have the promise that we can see the increase in food production, in this case, in the production of fish, that can meet the protein and nutritional needs of hundreds of thousands if not billions of people that are going to be populating this Earth. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, later this month, the Prime Minister of Japan will meet President Bush. I urge the President to address the issue of compensation of American veterans who were sent to forced labor camps during the war. Obtaining justice for Americans who suffered at the hands of Japanese companies is an issue that must be addressed during the upcoming summit. It is unfortunate that the State Department has taken the mistaken and regrettable position that the Peace Treaty with Japan somehow bars private legal actions by our veterans against private Japanese corporations to whom they were forced to work with no pay and horrendous conditions. The legal experts who have aligned themselves with these American heroes in their actions against immensely profitable private Japanese companies make a number of solid arguments to the effect that the waiver provisions of the 1951 Treaty do not cover these national- against-national claims. It is far from obvious that under our constitutional system, the federal government even has the authority to compromise or to waive claims of private citizens, which, after all, do not belong to the government. Nor is it obvious that the negotiators of the Treaty--including John Foster Dulles--contemplated, much less preemptively resolved, private claims of this kind. Article 14 of the Treaty does not even purport to waive all claims howsoever arising, having to do with misconduct by Japanese companies during the War years. It is limited, even by its own terms, to claims based on ``actions taken . . . in the course of the prosecution of the War.'' Acts that were illegal under international law as it existed in the 1940s are not, and should not be, protected under the waiver according to the principle of law, morality, and common sense that one should not be permitted to profit from his own wrong. Using slave labor to assist in the War effort was illegal in the years 1939-45, as it is today. Thus mistreatment of prisoners of war cannot have been undertaken ``in the course of the prosecution of the War,'' unless the companies that accepted the benefit of these captives' work are now to confess that they are guilty of war crimes: allegations they have vehemently resisted for nearly five decades. These men do not seek, nor does the outcome they are attempting to achieve require, abrogation of the Treaty. They believe that as a matter both of law and of fairness, the Treaty and the peaceful Pacific that it heralds are consistent with a measure of compensation for their suffering. A legal victory for our vets would be another indication that the United States legal system is founded not on empty ideals but on the real rights of real people. That would be an outcome in which all Americans should rejoice. But make no mistake about it, while I hope that the Bush Administration and the government of Japan will assist our veterans through diplomacy, failure to do so would not put an end to this issue. Rep. Michael Honda and Dana Rohrabacher have introduced legislation to overcome the State Department's twisted interpretation. I support this bill and will push for its passage into law if the U.S./Japanese Summit does not produce justice for our veterans.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize and honor the life of Mr. Charles Francis Fite of Fair Oaks, California. I was blessed to have known Charlie for a number of years, and am truly grateful to have counted him a friend. Charlie Fite passed away on May 10, 2001, at the age of 89--leaving behind his loving wife of nearly 70 years, Hazel, two children, five grandchildren, and eleven great- grandchildren. Born in Paris, Arkansas, Charles Fite's life is a shining example of the American dream. As a young man, Mr. Fite toiled in the coalmines of northwestern Arkansas and contributed to the war effort as a master electrician in the naval shipyards of Long Beach. Later, Mr. Fite immersed himself in the world of finance and banking. Mr. Fite was instrumental in the founding of the world's first fast food franchise, Dairy Queen, where he served as president. After retiring from Dairy Queen, he and Hazel moved to the Sacramento area in 1969. In 1970, he and his son Bruce entered into real estate development along with grandson, Chet Fite. In 1980, he founded HCF, Inc., and continued real estate development with his daughter, Barbara, and grandson, Greg Hardcastle. Charlie's work has left an indelible mark on the Sacramento area and has been instrumental in the region's development and positive growth. The business enterprises and projects for which Charlie is responsible are too numerous to name, but one of his more recognizable projects is the Sacramento Sportsplex on Highway 50. Charlie Fite's accomplishments are many and great, but his life could never be defined by business acumen alone. Instead, Charlie will be remembered most for his honesty, integrity, and generosity. He will be revered and honored not for what he made for himself but for what he selflessly gave to others. Charles Fite was not simply a boss, he was a mentor; he was not just a father, he was a dad. His motto always was, ``It's not a good deal unless it's a good deal for everybody.'' Charlie was a man of great inspiration, and he had an innate ability to lift those up who were around him. Charles was also a man of deep Christian faith. He helped found Warehouse Christian Ministries and served on the board of Capital Christian Center. Charlie Fite both professed and lived his Christian faith. He was a compassionate and a wise friend whose life will be cherished and remembered by generations yet unborn. He will be profoundly missed, but he certainly will not be forgotten. May you rest in peace, Charlie.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1193.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to remember two of my young constituents, Bryan Paul Richmond and Brendan James Allan, whose lives were recently cut short in a tragic accident. On February 21, 2001, both seventeen-year-olds were killed by an avalanche while skiing between Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows. Although my words cannot fill the void that their passing has left in the lives of many people, I hope that I can bring a degree of comfort to their families in honoring them today. Bryan Paul Richmond and Brendan James Allan shared much in terms of common experience. Bryan was a senior at Truckee High School, while Brendan was in his last year at Prosser Creek Charter School, in Truckee. Both excelled academically and planned to attend college upon graduating. They also had a mutual love of skiing and were nationally ranked competitors with the Squaw Valley Ski Team. In fact, they were both named to the Far West Ski Team, an honor given to the top skiers in the Far West Division. They shared the dream of becoming members of the U.S. Ski Team one day. In a sad, but perhaps fitting twist of fate, these two friends who were born only one day apart, and who shared a talent and passion for skiing, left this world on the same day doing what they loved most. Their lives were claimed by the very mountains that had given them so much joy. Bryan is survived by his mother, Patti Robbins-Nicols, his father, Don Richmond, and his younger sister, Diane. Brendan leaves behind his mother, Shelly Allan Boone, his father Gary Allan, and his younger sister, Heather. May both families remember these young men with fondness whenever they gaze up at the majestic, snow-covered peaks of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. May they hear the exuberant laughter of two boys when the gusty mountain winds blow. May they sense great calm when the first snow of a new season blankets the world in silence. And may Bryan and Brendan rest in peace while their memory bums bright in the hearts of their loved ones.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the committee budget. It is a good budget. It meets our priorities. I am interested to hear my friends from the Progressive Caucus. They represent the liberal wing of their party, and I will be speaking for the conservative wing when we have the Republican Study Committee budget coming up. But I heard the tax cut attacked in this committee budget, that it was giving the money away to the wealthiest taxpayers. It does no such thing except it does give the money back to the people who paid the taxes. Thank heavens we do not live in a socialist republic yet, although perhaps if my friends in the Progressive Caucus have their way, we may get that. But thankfully, we still believe in equality under the law, and we do not believe it is just to take from one to give to another. So this is simply giving the money back to the people who pay the tax. On the question of taxes, Mr. Chairman, I note that our budget here lets taxpayers keep substantially more of their own earnings, $1.6 billion over 10 years versus the less than $700 million under the Progressive budget. Every American who pays income taxes receives tax relief under the House Republican budget. Only a select few get tax relief under the Progressive Caucus plan. The other thing I would like to focus on in my remaining time is the question of defense. While the committee budget recognizes both the immediate and long-term defense needs, the Progressive budget cuts defense deeply. It provides $753 billion less in budget authority than does ours. Now, we all know the quality of life for armed forces personnel.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I do not have the time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the quality of life for armed forces personnel and their families is a priority in the House Republican budget. We need to do something for our men and women in the Armed Forces, and this does it. Announcement By The Chairman

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, above the Speaker's rostrum is the national motto, ``In God We Trust,'' but I have always been taught that we need to do our part in order to have God do his. One of the things that we need to do is to cut the spending and cut the taxes. I am delighted to know that the Republican Study Committee budget provides for the largest tax cut, because it is critical. Look at what is happening in this country. U.S. News and World Report 2 weeks ago has on its cover the title, ``Drowning in Debt.'' It was not talking about the U.S. Government. It was talking about families in this country, an unprecedented amount of debt. It baffles me to hear some of my Democrat colleagues get up and espouse how we better not give too big a tax cut. This is the people's own money. They are entitled to it. This gives us the greatest amount of tax relief, and we should all pull behind this and work hard to enact this substitute budget. This is a crisis. Every time I read about school shootings, it is not the phony solution of gun control that is the problem. The fact of the matter is, we have grown this government too big. We have too much regulation, and moms and dads have been forced out of the homes and away from being with the kids. Vote for this substitute.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution because this resolution embodies some real leadership, the leadership to do the right thing for the House of Representatives. As has been noted by the other speakers, it was necessary to make some adjustments so that we could provide the equity and the comity that is necessary between the two parties. This is something that I think is very desirable. This resolution constitutes a responsible reflection of committee Chair requests for the 107th Congress. The committee Chairs requested a 22-percent increase in funding over the 106th Congress. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and the Committee on House Administration were able to cut that request in half and still satisfy committee needs, and still obtain unanimous endorsement from all the committee Chairs and the ranking members. We hear lots of talk about bipartisanship, but this is not only talk, but reflects the actions of bipartisanship. I have always heard for years about the acrimony in the Committee on House Administration. As a new member of it, I must say I have never seen a smoother process than the one that occurred over this committee funding issue, with both sides really working closely together to provide support for this. I think it is something that is very commendable, and it stands out and should serve really as a model for how we operate. The funding resolution does provide or moves us greatly towards the two-thirds/one-third allocation of resources between the majority and the minority parties. I would especially like to recognize our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for the leadership, the encouragement he gave us to move in this direction, as well as the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in the minority in working with us on this. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution, which by all estimates is a fair, balanced, responsible, and necessary funding blueprint.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to remember and honor one of the founders of the community of Mammoth Lakes, in my district in California, Mr. Thomas J. Dempsey. After a lifetime of hard work and dedication, my good friend Tom Dempsey passed away on February 1, 2001. He was 66 years old. Tom was a very private man who quietly made possible the growth and development of Mammoth Lakes. While most people are unaware of his contributions to the community, he played a vital role in forming what it has become. From the time he arrived in the early 1950's with dreams of becoming a professional ski racer, Mammoth Lakes was always near and dear to Tom's heart. In 1955, he helped build Chair I at Mammoth Mountain. After working as a carpenter for several summers, in 1961, he constructed his first home in Mammoth. That was but the beginning of great things to come. As the sole owner of Dempsey Construction Corporation, Tom became one of the foremost developers of mountain resorts and planned communities in the western United States. However, despite many successful developments elsewhere, the Snowcreek Resort in Mammoth Lakes has remained the corporation's flagship project. In a very literal way, the town of Mammoth Lakes is what it is because of Tom Dempsey's vision and sense of civic duty. When he purchased the 355-acre Snowcreek Resort property in 1977, the town was under a building moratorium due to insufficient water supplies. That moratorium was lifted after Tom transferred significant surface and ground water rights from his property to the Mammoth County Water District and permitted the district to drill five major water supply wells. It was also Tom Dempsey who provided a solution to the town's chronic lack of land for community facilities. In 1980, he completed a complicated land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service that involved 80 acres of government land. Of that land, Tom donated 21 acres for the Mammoth High School site, 20 acres for a future school site in Crowley Lake, and 9.5 acres to the town of Mammoth Lakes. Furthermore, Tom made Snowcreek lands available for a fire station, church, and a water treatment plant. In addition to these efforts, Tom voluntarily contributed to many other community development projects. These include the landscaping of Main Street, improvements to the Whitmore baseball fields, landscaping and lighting improvements at the Mammoth/June Lake Airport, and restoration of the Mammoth Creek meadow. While it was his passion for skiing that brought him to the beautiful Eastern Sierra, Tom also enjoyed many other athletic and outdoors endeavors. He was an avid windsurfer, bicyclist, tennis player, and hiker. The same deep love of the environment that drew him to outdoor activities is reflected in all of his development projects. More importantly than his numerous professional and civic accomplishments, Tom Dempsey was also a devoted family man. He is survived by his lovely wife, Linda, and his daughter Nikki. Mr. Speaker, Mammoth Lakes has experienced many great changes over the decades that Tom Demspey lived there. In fact, he seemed to be at the heart of them all. He truly was one of Mammoth Lakes' founding fathers. I join with his family, friends, and community in noting that he will be sorely missed. May you rest in peace, Tom.