Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I stand before this body of Congress today to pay tribute to a lifelong journalist and journeyman. Clarence McGinley, known to friends and family as Doyle, dedicated his life to a career in journalism. His profession took him on adventures across the country, finally settling down in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. As we reflect on his passing, I would like to recognize Doyle for his journalistic accomplishments and the impact that he had on his community. When Doyle's skills as a plate maker for newspaper presses became outdated, the paper presented him with an opportunity to work as a reporter. Doyle's career flourished, winning a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Vietnam protests only two years later. While Doyle did not have traditional schooling as a reporter, he was widely known for his ability to track down a story. He continued his career in journalism and began a new career in the bail bond business when he moved to Glenwood Springs in the 1980s to care for his aging parents. Doyle's son, Wayne, noted that Doyle will be remembered by the community as a friend to everyone and by his children as a loving father. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before this body of Congress today to recognize the positive impact that Doyle had on my district and the State of Colorado. Individuals like Doyle provide the spirit and strength of character that make this nation great. I extend my deepest sympathies to Doyle's family and friends during this difficult time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening the bulk of my comments I intend to make about issues of the West, issues involving the concept of multiple use, issues delving really around public lands. But preceding those comments I cannot help but give some type of rebuttal to the preceding speakers who in my opinion spoke solely for the purpose of self-serving interests. Having spent this last weekend looking at the TV periodically and seeing some of the reports that I saw on TV, it is very clear to me that we have a Presidential election coming up in the not-too-distant future. What I saw time and time again, especially by the candidates who intend to oppose George W. Bush for the Presidency of this Nation, what I saw them time and time again on reflecting upon was how they could get their purported goals of being elected President ahead of what are in the best interests of this Nation. I could not believe my ears this weekend when time and time again we saw those candidates who are seeking the Presidential office next year bashing the President of this country on a basis of which they do not know. I thought it was very interesting that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio, stood up here and quoted from a so-called intelligence source, from some officer in the military of which she had got a letter. Over and over again in her comments, she lectured, saying that, you know, these things ought to be checked at least three times. I wish I would have had time during her time or I wish she would have yielded during her time so that I could have found out whether or not she had in fact verified her source the very three times upon which she condemned the administration theoretically for not doing. And to have listened to the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from the State of Texas, who stands up here and blatantly says that the administration across the administration has made misrepresentations. It takes away from this House; it takes away from this country. Even the accused deserve more than what the previous speaker has just given to the administration. The previous speaker does not cite any proof. The previous speaker puts a few nice words in order up here and makes these allegations that there is blatant misrepresentation across the administration. Tell me that statement is anything except intended for self-serving interest. It is one of the most partisan remarks that I have heard since I have been up here in the House. What they are trying to do is capitalize, capitalize upon 16 words; and by the way, I was involved very intensely in the debate on whether or not we should take action against Iraq, and I do not remember and of course I did not hear all the record, but I heard a lot of the record. I did not remember any of these previous speakers or, in fact, any of the speakers that have condemned the revelations that came out this weekend that perhaps the intelligence was not as good as it should have been or there were 16 words in the State of the Union address, when we debated the resolutions on Iraq, I never heard one of the speakers, not one of them, use as their source the State of the Union speech. I did not hear one of those speakers refer to the sale from Africa as some type of uranium material. Not once did they cite that as one of their reasons or questions that we should take action against Iraq. What am I suggesting? I am suggesting they are making an awful lot out of this for one reason, not for the sake of the country, not for the sake of openness, not for the sake of the future and vision in this country and where to take this country. They are making these allegations for one reason and one reason only, and that is to somehow forward their own, forward their own self-interest, which in this particular case is a partisan attack against the President of the United States. They see this as an opening. I read either on the ``Roll Call'' or ``The Hill'' or some other political newspaper today that these words in the State of the Union address may give an opening to the Democrats. Boy, if there is any kind of light at all coming through that door, we can see speakers just like the speakers we heard this evening taking advantage at this time on the floor for their own self-interest to issue a very stinging, self- serving partisan attack against the President. They have not walked one inch in the shoes of our President. They have never walked that mile, and yet they are so quick to jump up and condemn the leadership of this country. I believe what this country did was right, and let me tell the Members it was not just a partisan decision to go to war. This was a decision on a resolution that was acted on in a bipartisan fashion. It received bipartisan support. And let me tell the Members it was not just this President. Let me show a poster I brought over. This is President Bill Clinton's comments. Look over here to my left. President Bill Clinton on Saddam's threat. February 18, 1998, 5 years ago: ``What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or if we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his programs of weapons of mass destruction and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.'' President Bill Clinton saw that danger. President George Bush, the first President Bush, saw that danger, and this President saw this danger. Do the Members know what is being masked here or what is being diverted, the diversion? What it takes away from is what an evil, horrible, horrible man Saddam Hussein was. And anybody that would stand up to the American people today and even dare to say that the people in Iraq are in worse condition today than they were before we took Saddam Hussein out, in other words, they are saying they were better under the control of Saddam Hussein, has no realization of how horrible this individual was. In the eyes of many people, he rose to the same level or downgraded to the same level, however one would like to put it, to Adolph Hitler, the same kind of sick, perverted mind, the same treacherous murders. Although Hitler did not gas like Saddam Hussein did, we know that he used these weapons of mass destruction of his own people. We know from his own admissions, and I have got a chart that shows that, from his own admissions Saddam Hussein made to the United Nations of the lists of weapons of mass destruction. We know that in recorded history that he has killed more Muslims than any other person in recorded history. Muslims. This man was a horrible man. There is not a person in this world, not a person in the world that can stand up and show that this man respected any type of human right, any type of human right. This man was a murderer. And despite what these two previous speakers say, despite what the Democratic leadership is attempting to do to push forward their Democratic candidates for President, no matter how much they attack President George W. Bush, the reality of it is that one of the worst murderers in the history of the world is no longer in authority in Iraq. One of the worst murderers in the history of the world had the greatest country in the world step up to him, and they said do you want to pick on somebody? Pick on somebody your own size. And the United States of America took him out of power. Thank goodness that this country has able-bodied leaders, and I mean in the mind. Thank goodness this country has the people with the courage to team up with our allies like Tony Blair, who I am privileged to say people talk about a guy who deserves a Profile in Courage, and contrary to the comments by the gentleman from the State of Washington that perhaps he does not deserve this congressional honor that we are going to give him this week, the fact is that he stood, our President stood. There were a lot of countries in this world that would have stood against Saddam Hussein, but they did not have the wherewithal to take him out. The United States did. The British did. There were other countries in this world who knew of the atrocities, just like some of my colleagues who spoke this evening, they knew of the atrocities that were going on in Iraq; and they did have the wherewithal to join our team, and they purposely hid in the foxhole. They would not come out of the foxhole. And our President and Tony Blair and the people of Britain, the people of Poland, the people of the United States, the people of Australia and some other countries, they did come out of the foxhole; and they used the power for a good purpose, for a good means. They took out an evil man. And my colleagues on the Democratic side who are making these comments for a very clear partisan purpose, and that is they want to win the Presidential elections next year, that is the only reason we had these speakers here this evening. Mark my word. These speakers would not be making these comments this evening, in my opinion, if there were not a Presidential election coming up. Those comments are tailor made, tailor made for television audiences around this country to somehow impact the upcoming Presidential elections. That is why those comments are made. The fact of it is when we put all that cloud aside, when we put all of that distortion aside, when we get the static off the radio, the fact is a very evil man was removed from power, and for that the President of this country, the people of this country, the people of Britain, and the people of that willing team ought to be commended. We had the guts to take on an evil man. We had the wherewithal to take that evil man out. And now to see within our own camp, within our own camp on this House floor, some of my colleagues for strictly partisan purposes not stand at this microphone and talk about the evilness of Saddam Hussein, but stand at this microphone and talk about what they would describe as terrible things of our own administration, of our own leadership. What are they going to do, beat themselves up here in front of the American people to show the rest of the world that somehow the United States should hang its head low? This is a proud country. I am proud to be a Congressman in it, and I will tell the Members this: I am very proud this country stood nose to nose with an evil man and took that evil man out of power. And to all our men and women that are out there in that fighting force, they have every reason to be proud. The decision that was made to send them to battle was the right decision, and the mission that they carried out was carried out in the correct fashion. I think it is sadly disappointing to have some of my colleagues, who I like personally, they are nice people, but to stand up here for strictly partisan purposes and take shot after shot because we have Presidential elections coming up, taking shot after shot about our President and totally ignoring the evilness of Saddam Hussein, that in itself fits the definition of shamefulness in the Webster Dictionary. I want to move from this because this was not my original intent. I did not intend to discuss this tonight, but I cannot sit in these House Chambers and listen to speaker after speaker on the Democratic side go up unrebutted. Nobody else, they would not make those kinds of comments in a debate where the other side had a chance to respond to it. They made those comments because they did not think anybody would be responding to them this evening. So I did divert from my comments for a few minutes, and I intend to go back to my comments and my original subject here this evening, but I want these people, the Democrats, to know, and not all of them but the liberals over there, some of these people, their comments will be rebutted. I cannot sit back here and listen to some of that go on. So my purpose this evening was, as I said earlier, really to talk about kind of the East and the West, primarily the western United States. I come from the State of Colorado. This evening I want to talk a little bit about the West and the public lands of this country and talk a little bit about what public lands are, talk about the issues that revolve around public lands, the forest fires which we have going right now. We speak of young men and women that are fighting in our military forces throughout the world, our young men and women in the military that are stationed in this country to defend this country that are doing their missions as we speak. We also have many men and women that are also fighting fires as we now speak, fighting fires. We have many law enforcement personnel, many first-aid people, many firefighters across the country engaged in a life-threatening mission. And a lot of this today as we speak are some of the big fires that are starting now in the West. We have got a very dry season out there. Right now in Grand Junction, Colorado, which is the home I am from, it is 105 degrees. It sets a record. It has been setting a record day after day for about a week. So I want to talk a little bit about the fire issues, about the forest issues, about the BLM issues. So let us begin by talking just for a moment about public lands. What are public lands? It is as the word describes: public lands are lands owned by the public. The United States, throughout the world, basically we have two types of ownership. This is very fundamental, but basic. We have lands that are owned privately, i.e. probably most of those whom I am speaking to this evening on the House floor, they own the land on which their home sits. That is private property. That is private lands, private lands. Public lands are lands that are owned by the people, owned by the government; and in the United States we have tens of millions, actually hundreds of millions of acres of land that are owned by the public. And land owned in private hands is treated differently than land owned by the public for a number of different reasons, many of those which are necessary, many of those which we would expect, many of those which make common sense. But there is a little history to what happened with public lands in the country. And the first thing we have to do when we have a discussion of public lands is realize that the bulk of public lands is located in the western United States, and there is a reason for that; but let me first of all refer folks over here to my left. This is a map of government lands in the United States. All the color on that map of the United States reflects what I have just described as public lands. These are public lands. And take a look at what we have here. In the East, generally speaking, in fact, really from east of the mountains so even in part of Colorado, eastern Colorado, we go from, say, east to, say, Denver, Colorado, out here to New York City or Washington, D.C., relatively speaking, you do not have many public lands. In the East, most of your landownership is in private hands. It is not in public hands. Now there are some big exceptions. You have, for example, you have the Everglades Park. Up here, you have the Shenandoah Valley and some of the national parks up there. Up in the Northeast we have a national park and preserves up there. But take a look at some of these areas. Take a look at the State of Kansas. In a lot of these areas, the only public land is land owned by the local city hall or the fire department or the local courthouse. Well, then compare that, compare the eastern United States with the western United States. Take a look at the percentage of public lands. I have counties in my district; now, my district is a big district. To give my colleagues an idea, my district alone is about the size of the State of Florida. And if you take a look, I have counties in my district that have 98 percent of their land is in public hands, and it has a big impact. Well, how did that happen? How did so much of the public land end up in one part of the Nation and not dispersed somewhat evenly throughout the rest of the Nation? Well, clearly there is a story to be told. As we look at the History Channel, for example, you know there is a story to be told, and that is what I want to tell tonight. In the early days, most of our population obviously was in this area of the country, right along the eastern coast; and what happened is, in those days, we wanted to grow our Nation. That is what the entire world wanted to do. We wanted to grow this new country of ours, these great number of these States, united, called the United States, under one symbol, under a flag. We were so proud, we wanted to grow that country. In order to grow that country, what we needed to do is somehow get people to go out and help us settle the land. The government went out and bought the land. But unlike today, today, if, for example, I own a piece of property in Hawaii, I do not have to go to Hawaii. I do not have to go to Hawaii for several years as long as I pay my taxes and I have a deed that says I own that property, that property is protected under my rights. It is my land. It is private property. But in the early days of this country, private property or the land that you claimed was yours was not yours unless you were really on it. A deed did not mean a whole lot. In fact, many of my colleagues have heard the saying, possession is nine-tenths of the law. That is where this came from. In order for you to claim the land, you needed to be on the land, you needed to be tilling the land and, frankly, in a lot of cases, you needed to have a six-shooter strapped to your side. So we knew that in order for the United States to really keep control of this land, to help grow our great country, we needed to persuade people to leave the East Coast and go to the West. Go west, young man, go west. Now, this is pretty tough to do. Now, today, when you say to somebody, hey, let us go west of the Colorado mountains, let us go to Aspen or Durango or Steamboat or Glenwood Springs, it is a pretty easy decision to make. You go out there and have a great time. Some of the most beautiful spots in the world are in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. But back in the early days of this country, the only thing that you were promised by going west was, one, a free piece of property. But what they did not tell you so much or emphasize so much was that the odds were, most of the women would die in childbirth, most of the men would probably die in accidents in their 20s. You had to worry about snakebites. You had to worry about attacks from different groups, whether it was native Americans or whether it was pirates of our own. They did not have a real justice system out there in the prairies and out there in the West. So it was very dangerous. It did not offer a lot of promise for a long future. They did not have time-shares out in Colorado and out there in those mountains in the early days. It was a tough existence. So what did the government do to get people to go there? They gave what is really a fundamental dream for every American, and that is the possibility to own your own piece of property. Mr. Speaker, one of the great things of this country, unlike a lot of countries in this world, one of the great things of this country is that you can own your own piece of land. It is yours. And we all dream about it. I can remember when I was small dreaming of having my own house on my own piece of property up in the mountains. I was born and raised in the mountains. I mean, I dreamed of it. I think of the George Strait song where he talks about the difference between living and living well. He talks about his little home, his little beach house on the beach and watching a thousand sunsets. I mean, we dream of owning property. That is what the government did. They capitalized on this dream and said, let us offer it to the people. If they go out, our citizens go out and they start a little farm out here in Kansas, let us say out in there somewhere, let us say near Hayes, Kansas, or somewhere, if they go out and till the land, we will give them 160 acres or 320 acres and they can support a family. Now, that was called homesteading, and we had actually used land for this purpose before. Interesting. What we had done during the Revolutionary War is the government had actually offered, to the extent that we had that government at that point, like a Department of Interior, so to speak, our government offered to British soldiers free land. You can own your own property, free of the queen, if you defect from the British forces and join our forces. So this was not the first time the government tried this scheme. So the government did this. They decided, let us go ahead and offer free land and persuade people to go out and occupy the lands, for example, that we got under the Louisiana Purchase. It accomplishes two things. One, it expands our borders; two, it puts people on the land so we can conquer it; and, three, it meets the dreams of a united continental United States. Mr. Speaker, it worked. We had people, we have seen the movies where they would have a big string or big rope attached and all of these people on horses and wagons, it was like the Gold Rush days. They got to have land. What happened is that it was a tremendous success, a tremendous success. The people were coming this way, they were coming in here, they were settling all over, up here, up in the north, over here in Kansas in the mid country. They were down there in the south. They were going into Texas. People were looking to settle. They were expanding into this country. But all of a sudden we found out there was a problem out there. And that was soon these settlers found out that when they hit the Rocky Mountains of Colorado or they hit the mountains of Wyoming or they hit the Rockies up there in Montana or they got into the deserts in Arizona, that 160 acres could not support a family. Out in the area where I live near Grand Junction, Colorado, there are places out there you cannot feed one sheep on 20 acres. So word got back to the Nation's capital: Hey, our Homestead Act is working pretty well until you hit the mountains of Colorado or the mountains of Montana or Wyoming. When they get out into that rugged country, it is arid, and they discovered that there is a huge difference between the amount of water in the East and water in the West. Let me show my colleagues. For example, while we are talking about the West here, take a look at what these settlers ran into. Seventy-three percent of the water in this Nation, 73 percent of the precipitation falls right there in the East. That is where they lived. So homesteading up here, a growing pasture where you have that kind of water is a whole lot different than growing pasture out in the Rockies or out in the West. Take a look here. Over half of the Nation is in this red, and over half of the Nation gets only 14 percent of the water. So as these settlers came to the West, not only did they run into the rugged mountains, but they ran into the fact that it is an arid part of this country. You cannot raise things on 160 acres that you can, for example, out here in Virginia or over in Florida. I have never seen such magnificent farms as I have seen in Virginia or down in Florida where I have seen those big farms. We have arid conditions in the West. So water played a part, played a role in the difficulty that we faced. So they went back to Washington and they said, there is no water out there. That is tough country out there. The mountains, these mountains are beautiful, but it is tough living. The people are not settling where we need them to settle. And somebody, and I am making up this number, I am sure historically we could probably find it, but somebody said, well, the way to do it, if a family in Colorado where it is arid out there in the West or Nevada or somewhere cannot make it on 160 acres, maybe we ought to give them, and I make this number up, maybe we ought to give them 2,000 acres. Let us give them an amount of land that would be proportionate to the amount of land that they would need to grow on 160 acres. The problem was this: The government was under a lot of political heat because they have given away land to what was then called the railroad barons, the Intercontinental Railroad, and there is a book by Stephen Ambrose, which is a fabulous book about the difference in our country that this railroad made, the construction of that railroad. That workforce, we had a workforce ready to go, ready to take orders right after the Civil War, a workforce that understood tough conditions because of the Civil War, and that they could build this railroad with only one power device, by the way, a little tractor out there, it was all built by hand, that they could build that railroad. But, unfortunately, there was some fraud involved in the construction of that railroad, and they were called the railroad barons. Now, a lot of these people, this railroad would not have been built but for those folks. But amongst their crowd, there were some bad apples. So the political circles in Washington, D.C., were under a lot of political heat: Do not give away any more land. Look what you did. You gave this land for this great railroad and look what these railroad barons did with it. So the government at that time and, in my opinion, the only reason that the government decided to keep this vast amount of land was not because they had visions that the Arizona desert or the Utah desert out here would someday be a national park. That was not the vision, like some groups would like us to believe today. In fact, they did have that vision on specific areas: Theodore Roosevelt, the President, for example, on Yellowstone National Park. But there were specific areas that they did have that vision of great national parks and preservation for all future generations. But that is not the explanation of why all of this land ended up in public hands or stayed in public hands. The reason is that Washington could not take the political heat at that point in time to give away the land that was necessary to support the families in proportion to the same amount of land they had given in the East. So they came up with a solution, and this is a very important part of my comments. They came up with a solution. Well, instead of giving the people the land to homestead on, why do we not go ahead and keep the title in the government's name, but we will allow the people the use of it. And thereupon was born the concept of multiple use on public lands. Let the people use the lands, even though the title of the land is in the name of the government and Washington, D.C. That thereupon explains why so much of this land in the West was put into public hands. Now today one of the challenges that we face living on these public lands, and let me give you an idea of what living on public lands means. In my district, almost every area in my district is completely, and I mean completely, surrounded by land owned by the government. Every community in my district is totally dependent upon those public lands. We get our power across those public lands. We get our water, all of our water, or most of our water originates, comes across, or is stored upon Federal lands. Our recreation is on Federal lands. Our cellular telephone towers are on public lands. Our radio towers, our TV towers, our access, our highways, you name it, we are dependent on public lands. Many of my colleagues in the East are not. They do not have that problem. In fact, in the East when you want to build a ditch or a major construction project, you go to the planning and zoning authority. In the West, our planning and zoning authority is often in Washington, D.C., because the owner of the land is the United States Government. And there are a lot of people in the East, unfortunately, not large in population, because we are one country and we have a lot of people who understand the situation that we are in, but we have certain radical environmental organizations that their number one goal is to eliminate the multiple use concept, eliminate that saying that I grew up under: You are now entering White River National Park, for example, White River National Forest in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, a land of many uses. They want to eliminate the human existence off of these lands. They want to get rid of that concept. There are people who do not want us to have ski areas out here. They do not want us hunting on public lands. They do not want us getting our water off public lands. They are fighting. They do not want power lines on public lands. They do not want us to have parks and recreational areas in certain parts of those public lands. What they want to do is take control of that so we have a constant battle, a battle that is not undiscovered in the East, but certainly is not a primary concern in the East because you do not have to deal with it on a day-to-day basis and we do. Now, let me talk about one of the big problems we have out there. As I showed you earlier, I showed you a diagram where over half of this Nation gets 14 percent of the water, where that is where the precipitation and that is in the West. In the West we have got to have water storage. Water storage is absolutely critical. Now, I know that groups like the National Sierra Club, for example, have never in the history of their organization to the best of my knowledge ever supported a water storage project. In fact, the National Sierra Club's number one goal is to take down the major recreational power supplier, flood control and water storage unit in the West called Lake Powell down here in Utah. That is their number one goal. Water storage is critical for us. The first dam we know to be built in the West was the Anasazi Indians down to the Four Corners. The Four Corners is called that, it is right over here, it is the only place in the Nation where four States come together at once. You can stand in my district right on that corner and be in four States at once. And it is down in there where the Anasazi Indians lived. And what drove the Anasazi Indian out of their settlements that they had had for hundreds and hundreds of years? It was the lack of water. And we found evidence down there, I did not, but the archeologists found evidence down there of dams, the first known storage of water. If you live in the West you are dependent upon water storage. In the last 3 or 4 years, last year we had a severe drought. This year we have severe heat. In the last couple of years preceding those years, we had much less than usual precipitation. The only way we were able to survive is because we had water storage. In Colorado, for example, in western Colorado we have all the water we could possibly want in a usual year for about a 60- to 90-day period of time, and that period of time is called the ``spring runoff.'' But after that 60 or the 70 days after the spring runoff, which is the high snow coming and melting off the high mountains, once that runoff runs out of the State, if we do not store it, we do not have it. And the rest of the year, the rest of those days of the year if we do not have stored water, we are in real trouble. I never knew what a real rain storm was until I came here in the East. Even the drops of rain, even your drops here are significantly larger than the drops of rain that we get in the West. We do not have rain storms like you do back here. It is very tough in the West. We have got to store water. And that is why you will find it is very interesting to see, for example, on some of these environmental score cards, it is very hard to find a so-called environmental organization, primarily the ones on the left, it is hard to find any of them that says anything positive about water storage. But it is very interesting when you look at their so-called environmental score cards, you will see the legislators, the Congressmen in the East at the top with the A's and you will see those in the West that have to support the water storage, that understand and have to deal with public lands, they are at the bottom of the list. They usually get the F's on it. And I can tell you I am down there too because of my support for water storage. So my comments this evening, which I will wrap up here because I want to do this in a series, I want to leave you with a couple of fact or things that I think are important to carry into any next comments which I would like to make a few nights from now. Number one, in the United States the largest conglomerate of public lands, keep in mind it is not spread evenly throughout the country, the largest block of public lands is in the West; and it is reflected by the map to my left. All of those colors on that map indicate public lands. Number two, something very important to remember and I will show this poster again, in the East, what I would call the East, the blue spot, the blue part of this map, that is where 73 percent of the precipitation and the water is found in this country. In the West, specifically the red part, that is over half the Nation in total acreage or size, receives 14 percent of the precipitation. So water storage here is obviously much more important for you to have water on somewhat of a continual basis through the year than water storage might be in the East. Now, water storage is important in the East because you obviously have production of power; you have flood control, which is very important for you out here. In fact, in the East your problem a lot of times is getting rid of the water. Our problem in the West is being able to keep the water, to be able to store the water. So I wanted you to go away from my comments this evening keeping in mind that in this area, generally, where most of the public lands are is also where the least amount of water is. So water is very precious. They say in Colorado, they say in the West, I keep saying Colorado because that is my home, but they say in the West that water runs thicker than blood. That is how vital it is out there. So we have a number of discussions here on this House floor about public lands. We have a number of discussions about issues dealing with public lands. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard some of my colleagues who, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think are ignorant somewhat of the facts, who attack the fact that we have ski areas out in the West or that we have, God forbid, we cut some timber off some of this land out there or we have recreation or we have mountain bikes that we allow on government lands or we go horseback riding or we allow animals grazing. Before any of you sign on some of these ``dear colleague'' letters that condemn use on public lands, come to some of us who live in it, come to some of us who experience it every day of our lives, whose families have for generations and generations lived on these public lands or lived on little private holdings that are completely surrounded by these public lands and ask us about those issues. So, again, this evening, one, I would like you to go away with remembering where the bulk of public lands are in this country. They are in the West. Proportionately speaking, there are only a fraction of the public lands held in the East. And by the way, an interesting history story to help you remember that, in the State of Texas, Texas as you know was its own country at one time and before Texas agreed to join this great Nation, the United States, one of their conditions was that the government could never own land within the boundaries of the State of Texas without permission of the people of the State of Texas. The only State to my understanding of the Union that is like that. Alaska should have done that; 98 percent of Alaska is owned by the government. So keep that in mind. That is where the bulk of it is. And the second thing, to be repetitive, but it is so important, is the largest percentage of moisture, 73 percent, almost three-quarters of the precipitation and water in this country, is in the East on the private lands. It is on these lands out here where I live, this is where we get in this area, except for the northwest right up here, this big bulk of public lands here gets 14 percent of the water. So I urge my colleagues this evening, do not sign on to these ``dear colleague'' letters that say take down Lake Powell. Lake Powell is a vital resource to the survival of the people of the West. Do not sign on to these letters that say we should get rid of the concept of the multiple use. Do not sign on to these letters that say get rid of all the roads on public lands. Do not sign on to these letters that say, for example, take all of this, put people off and put a wilderness designation. And wilderness is a positive term, but what it means in legal terms when you title it wilderness has huge, huge ramifications on the people that are around it. So in summary I say this: public lands are an important part of this country. They are property of the country. The people of this country do own that, but you have to give consideration to the people who live on those lands and the vitality of those people to be able to survive. With that, I will wrap up my comments. I look forward to continuing this. We will go into much more detail in a couple nights on water and the consumption of water and the recycling of water.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to a dedicated educator from my district. Noel Harlan of Alamosa, Colorado is a role model for his students both in and out of the classroom. Noel, a teacher and bus driver in the Alamosa School District, is this year's recipient of the Driver of the Year Award given by the Colorado State Pupil Transportation Association. I join with my colleagues in offering him our congratulations. Noel began working for the Alamosa school district in 1965 and soon found that working for a small school provided him the opportunity to expand his duties. While primarily a science teacher, he often taught other subjects, such as English Literature and Archaeology. Noel enjoyed working with children, so when a position as the school's bus driver became available he seized the opportunity. The new job provided Noel with extra income, as well as increased interaction with his students. Noel excelled behind the wheel, driving over 750,000 miles without an accident. With enthusiasm and diligence, Noel helped the morning commute become an enjoyable, safe ride. Mr. Speaker, Noel Harlan's commitment to the students of Alamosa is certainly deserving of praise before this body of Congress and this nation. I am proud knowing that Noel has had an impact on so many of today's youth and I wish him many more years of safe driving and teaching. Thank you, Noel, for the service that you have provided to our community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I stand before this body of Congress today to pay tribute to a successful businesswoman who has provided Colorado with years of dedicated service. Rita Friberg has had a long career as an entrepreneur and now serves the Pueblo community as a professor of business, management, and marketing at Pueblo Community College. Today, I would like to honor Rita's accomplishments and the impact she has had on her community throughout her career as an entrepreneur, small business adviser, and professor. Rita began her business career working in retail at age 16, proceeding to manage a number of fabric and craft stores after attending Purdue University. She opened her own shop in Denver's Larimer Square before joining Pueblo Community College in 1994 to run the Small Business Development Center, eventually becoming a full-time faculty member in August 2002. In recognition of her efforts and career, the Pueblo Business Women's Network recently honored Rita as its Woman of the Year. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before this body of Congress today to recognize the positive impact that Rita has had on my district and the State of Colorado. Rita embodies the combination of ambition and dedication necessary to communicate the dynamics of the business world to her students. I would like to congratulate her on this prestigious award and the respect that she has earned from her peers. I wish Rita all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to a pair of selfless community servants from my district, Jarvis and Mary Jo Ryals of Pueblo, Colorado. As avid contributors to Colorado State University-Pueblo, Jarvis and Mary Jo are being honored with the President's Medal for Distinguished Service. Long-time residents of Pueblo, the Ryals are widely known for their dedication to the community. They have supported the Pueblo Symphony, the Greenway and Nature Center and the USC Foundation. The cornerstone of their generous efforts in the community has been their support for Colorado State University-Pueblo. From gifts to the Hasan School of Business and the Buell Communications Center, to their help in establishing a professorship for Language and Leadership, the Ryals are always at the forefront of University philanthropy, working tirelessly on behalf of the institution. Mr. Speaker, in a recent ceremony in Pueblo, the Ryals received the President's Medallion, symbolizing their distinguished service, high standards and values, and hard work. I join with my colleagues here today in applauding Jarvis and Mary Jo for their civic-mindedness and congratulate them on this prestigious honor. This recognition to Jarvis and Mary Jo for the work that they do in our community is long overdue, and I am proud to bring it to the attention of this House today. Congratulations and thanks again, Jarvis and Mary Jo, for your many years of hard work on behalf of Pueblo and Colorado State University.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, due to a family medical issue, I missed several votes on June 26, 2003. I was not able to be present to vote on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on passage of H.R. 1, Rollcall No. 332. In addition, had I been present, I would have voted yes on passage of the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Rollcall No. 325; yes on H. Res. 277, Expressing Support for Freedom in Hong Kong; yes on passage of the Health Savings and Affordability Act, Rollcall No. 328; and yes on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Rollcall No. 333.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand before this body of Congress today to pay tribute to an outstanding American. Jack Chenoweth, Jr. of Pueblo, Colorado selflessly served this great nation throughout his long and dedicated life. As we recognize his passing, it is with great pride that I highlight the many contributions that Jack made to his community and our nation. Jack answered the call to military and government service several times throughout his life. Upon graduation from Trinidad High School, he joined the U.S. Navy and served in the South Pacific until the end of World War II. Jack went on to graduate from the University of Denver in 1951 and married Mary Ann Kennedy two years later, eventually embarking on a 24-year career with the FBI. After his retirement from the FBI, Jack continued his work as an investigator for Pueblo County. He also made a major impact upon the Pueblo community as an active member of the Republican Party, a member of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, a Rotarian, and a past president of the El Pueblo Boys and Girls Ranch. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before this body of Congress today to recognize Jack Chenoweth, Jr. for his devotion to the Pueblo community and his service to our country. Citizens like Jack provide the spirit and strength of character that make this nation great. While he will be dearly missed, we can all take solace in the knowledge that Jack's spirit lives on through those whom he has touched.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a truly remarkable woman. Fay Kastelic is an octogenarian from Pueblo, Colorado whose dedication to her family and years of selfless public service have set a shining example for those in her community. Fay has overcome numerous obstacles in her life and I am proud to recognize her many accomplishments before this body of Congress and our great nation today. Fay was born in Bowie, Texas, where she developed a resolute work ethic while growing up in the midst of the Depression. She attended the University of Texas until her senior year, when she left to run a commissary during World War II. While working at the commissary, Fay met her future husband, Frank, and they were married back in Colorado when he returned from overseas. Fay raised her three sons in Pueblo and ultimately returned to school to finish her degree in education, ultimately progressing from classroom teacher to principal to district director for elementary education. Fay's commitment to public service has continued well beyond her years as a teacher and administrator for the school district. She retired after 25 years of service to the school district after being elected to serve on the Pueblo City Council. Fay acted as president for three terms before declining to run in 1997 due to health problems. With help from her family and friends, particularly her twin sister, Fay made a remarkable recovery from cancer and was later named Citizen of the Year by the Greater Pueblo Chamber of Commerce in 1998. While flattered by the honors that have been bestowed upon her, Fay remains committed to the Pueblo community. She continues to be an active participant on assorted civic committees. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Fay Kastelic today for her commitment to our nation. Fay embodies the spirit of public service and altruism that make our communities and our nation strong. I commend Fay for her lifetime of selfless public service and wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen from my district. E.L. ``Hutch'' Hutchison of Durango, Colorado is member of what has been called the ``Greatest Generation,'' those who helped the United States defeat fascism and totalitarianism during World War II. His sacrifices--and those of his fellow soldiers--helped secure the Allied victory and defend the American way of life we enjoy today. I am honored to recognize ``Hutch's'' service to his nation. During the war, ``Hutch'' fought for his nation as a paratrooper with the famous ``Screaming Eagles'' of the 101st Airborne Division. On D-Day, June 6, 1944, ``Hutch'' was one of fourteen Screaming Eagles who jumped together from a plane into enemy territory. Only six would survive. As one of those six, ``Hutch'' continued fighting and heroically carried out his job as a demolition man, clearing out mines and booby traps for the American and Allied troops who would follow. Mr. Speaker, our nation owes E.L. Hutchison and his fellow soldiers a great debt. Thanks to their efforts, the United States emerged from that terrible war victorious. Even though the war ended 58 years ago, we must never forget the sacrifices ``Hutch'' and the other American troops made. I am especially privileged to honor E.L. Hutchison today. Thank you for your service, ``Hutch,'' and for helping to ensure that America remains the ``Land of the Free.''

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to a true American hero. Rick Lupe recently passed away from injuries sustained while battling a prescribed burn on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation near Whiteriver, Arizona. I am saddened by his death and would like to take a moment to reflect on the courage and leadership of this honorable and distinguished individual. Rick previously made headlines during another fire that took place last summer. When the Rodeo-Chediski fire scorched much of Arizona, Rick engineered a fire line at the last minute, using a back burn and bulldozers that helped save the town of Show Low. Such acts of courage are no surprise to those who knew him. In nearly two decades of service to the Fort Apache Hotshot crew, Rick developed a reputation as a strong but quiet leader, a loyal colleague, and trusted friend. Rick possessed courage and toughness to spare. While checking on a hot spot recently, the wind picked up and blew the flames around him. When the shelter he tried to deploy blew away, Rick dropped to the ground to allow the fire to pass over him. Even though the flames and heat scorched him, leaving 3rd degree burns over 40 percent of his body, he summoned the strength to walk a half-mile to get help. Even then, Rick held on for five weeks before leaving us. He will be especially missed by his beloved wife Evelyn and his children Brent, Sean, and Daniel. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to them during this difficult time. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Rick Lupe today. His immediate family will remember Rick as the loving husband and father that he was. The town of Show Low, the Fort Apache Hotshots, and this nation will remember Rick as the hero that he was. Rick dedicated his life to serving his nation and his fellow citizens. We will always be grateful.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to a selfless community servant from my district, Bill Killgore of Grand Junction, Colorado. An active member of the Grand Junction Lions Club, Bill was recently honored as ``Lion of the Year.'' I would like to join with his fellow Lions in honoring Bill's commitment and recognizing this distinct honor. A longtime resident of Grand Junction, Bill is widely known for his dedication to community service. Bill has been active in a number of committees and organizations, such as the Redlands Water Board, the Avalon Theatre Restoration Committee, and serving as chairman of the Highway Cleanup Committee. While Bill has worked vigorously for the community, his heart has always been with his beloved Lions Club. Bill's work with the Lions is well known; from their commitment to community service to the many fundraising events they hold in support of local causes and organizations, Bill is always at the forefront of the club's service projects, eager to help out his community. Mr. Speaker, in a recent ceremony in Grand Junction, former ``Lion of the Year'' Dan Griffin passed on that distinctive title in recognition of Bill's commitment to both the community and the club. I join with my colleagues here today in applauding Bill's civic-mindedness and in recognizing this prestigious honor. This recognition to Bill and his fellow Lions for the work that they do in my community is long overdue, and I am proud to bring it to the attention of this House today. Congratulations and thanks again, Bill, for your many years of hard work on behalf of Grand Junction and the Lions. May you have many more to come!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen from my district. Herb Zobel of Ouray, Colorado recently donated his time to aid 2,000 of his fellow biking enthusiasts as they pedaled through the Rocky Mountains for a good cause. In recognition of this dedication to community service, I would like to honor Herb here today. Herb volunteered with ``Ride the Rockies,'' a week-long tour of the beautiful Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Herb has participated in ``Ride the Rockies'' six times, an impressive athletic accomplishment, especially considering he is 74 years old. The riders pedal 35 to 100 miles daily, and although they pass through some incredible scenery, they must also pedal up some difficult mountain passes. By working as a Marshall for this year's event, Herb stood in the same spot for five to six hours every day to help direct riders through confusing parts of the route. He also dished out plenty of encouragement as the cyclists passed, since he understands how challenging the ride can be. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to honor Herb Zobel here today. He exemplifies the spirit of community service that helped make this nation great. By donating his time to ``Ride the Rockies,'' Herb selflessly helped 2,000 of his fellow riders stay fit, healthy, and happy. I congratulate Herb for his athletic achievements, commend him for his service, and wish him the very best for the future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the life and memory of an outstanding woman from my district. Patti O'Rourke of Pueblo, Colorado made tremendous contributions during her lifetime to her community and served as leader and role model for many. Patti graduated from law school at Fordham University in 1944 and went to work with a firm on Wall Street. She later became one of the first women to practice law in Pueblo County, Colorado, and in 1981, became the county's first female judge. Patti's reputation as a fair and caring judge, as well as her lifelong commitment to community service, was well known. She donated countless hours to a variety of causes that are too numerous to mention. In short, Patti served on many community boards, worked tirelessly to support family court reforms, and took up the cause for senior citizens. Even after leaving full-time service on the bench, Patti's interest in serving others prompted her to travel to Denver several times a week to help alleviate a large backlog of cases. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the life and memory of Patti O'Rourke before this body of Congress and this nation today. By reaching heights no other woman had attained, Patti became a pioneer who blazed a trail other women could follow. By giving so much of herself to the community, Patti became a public servant and a beacon for everyone in Pueblo, the State of Colorado, and our nation to follow. Patti left the world a better place; she will be missed by her family, friends, and the many people whose lives she impacted for the better.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to a phenomenal athlete from my district. Elva Martinez-Dyer, a former student-athlete from Western State College, will soon be inducted into the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference Hall of Fame. Her exploits on the track are legendary and I would like to recognize the hard work and determination she gave the sport. Elva helped the track team at Western State earn nation-wide recognition, personally achieving All-American status 16 times and winning five national championships. Elva became a dominant force in the sport; she did not lose a race during her final two years at school. She was awarded the ``NCAA-II Track and Field Athlete of the Year Award,'' for her accomplishments and was inducted into the Colorado Sportswomen's Hall of Fame. Elva currently holds three records in the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference, as well as four conference championships. All of Elva's hard work and dedication paid off, as she earned a spot on the 2000 Olympic Team in the 5,000-meter event. In her most recent major race, Elva finished fourth in the Boulder Bolder, running the 10-kilometer race in the Elite Division. Mr. Speaker, Elva's accomplishments are certainly deserving of praise before this body of Congress and this nation. She has accomplished more in her short career than some could hope for in an entire lifetime. Congratulations, Elva, on your induction into the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference Hall of Fame and good luck with your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to a selfless community servant from my district, Sidny Zink of Durango, Colorado. An active member of the Leadership La Plata organization, Sidny was recently honored with the ``Barbara Conrad Award,'' which recognizes a person who donates numerous hours to their community. Today I would like to join with the Durango Area Chamber of Commerce in honoring Sidny's commitment and recognizing this distinct honor. A longtime resident of Durango, Sidny is widely known for her dedication to community service. Sidny has been active in a number of committees and organizations, such as the Big Brothers Big Sisters foundation, Community Development Corporation, the La Plata Homebuilders Society, and the Community Development Corporation. While Sidny has worked vigorously for the community, she spends much of her time with Leadership La Plata, learning how new issues could affect her community. Mr. Speaker, in a recent ceremony in Durango, last year's recipient of the ``Barbara Conrad Award'' Ed Morlan passed on the award in recognition of Sidny's commitment to the community. I join with my colleagues here today in applauding Sidny's civic-mindedness and in recognizing this prestigious honor. Congratulations and thanks again, Sidny, for the many years of service you have given the Durango community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to recognize a great leader in the Mancos, Colorado community. After 10 years of service on the Mancos Library Board of Trustees, Terry Marsden is retiring from his position as President. In his five years in that post, Terry has been a dynamic force in the rapid evolution of the Mancos Public Library. As we recognize Terry's retirement, I commend him for his dedication and leadership within the community. Terry Marsden's leadership has been an influential factor in the numerous enhancements made to the Mancos Public Library over the past 10 years. In his first few years on the Board of Trustees, Terry helped oversee the implementation of an automated circulation catalog system. During his time as President of the Board, Terry was also instrumental in providing for the renovation of the building, hiring additional staff and increasing the library's hours of operation, all in an attempt to make the Mancos Public Library more user friendly. He also insured the addition of six patron computers in order to allow library patrons vital internet access. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Terry Marsden before you today for his commitment to his country. Terry embodies the spirit of public service and altruism that makes our communities strong. I congratulate Terry for his positive impact upon the Mancos community and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand before this body of Congress and this nation to pay tribute to an exceptional educational institution in my district. Colorado Mountain College was established in 1967 and currently provides over 25,000 students with a quality education. The school will soon be opening a new campus to better serve the Vail/Eagle Valley area. I am proud to stand here today and recognize the 36 years of service that Colorado Mountain College has given to my state and congratulate them on their expansion. The new campus in Edwards, Colorado will provide students with state of the art facilities that will help enrich their college experience. The campus will have 16 classrooms, several labs, science and EMT facilities, and a fire science center. CMC is already the largest rural community college in the U.S. and this campus will further the services they provide to underserved areas throughout the state. Colorado Mountain College provides students with the opportunity to take classes in one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world. Sitting high in the Rocky Mountains, CMC maintains a unique curriculum, offering classes in subject areas not found elsewhere. Students are able to study ski business and resort management, seeing first hand how some of the world's premier ski resorts are run. CMC also offers classes in forestry and fire sciences, important subjects on the Western Slope, which faces some of the worst fire danger in the country. Mr. Speaker, Colorado Mountain College does more for its students than provide an education, it gives them the opportunity to succeed. The college is a vital part of the Colorado Community, and I am truly honored to recognize such an exceptional institution and its outstanding team of dedicated employees here today. Congratulations on the expansion, and good luck with all of your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to a true American hero. Rick Lupe recently passed away from injuries sustained while battling a prescribed burn on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation near Whiteriver, Arizona. I am saddened by his death and would like to take a moment to reflect on the courage and leadership of this honorable and distinguished individual. Rick previously made headlines during another fire that took place last summer. When the Rodeo-Chediski fire scorched much of Arizona, Rick engineered a fire line at the last minute, using a back burn and bulldozers that helped save the town of Show Low. Such acts of courage are no surprise to those who knew him. In nearly two decades of service to the Fort Apache Hotshot crew, Rick developed a reputation as a strong but quiet leader, a loyal colleague, and trusted friend. Rick possessed courage and toughness to spare. While checking on a hot spot recently, the wind picked up and blew the flames around him. When the shelter he tried to deploy blew away, Rick dropped to the ground to allow the fire to pass over him. Even though the flames and heat scorched him, leaving 3rd degree burns over 40 percent of his body, he summoned the strength to walk a half-mile to get help. Even then, Rick held on for five weeks before leaving us. He will be especially missed by his beloved wife Evelyn and his children Brent, Sean, and Daniel. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to them during this difficult time. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Rick Lupe today. His immediate family will remember Rick for the loving husband and father that he was. The town of Show Low, the Fort Apache Hotshots, and this nation will remember Rick as the hero that he was. Rick dedicated his life to serving his nation and his fellow citizens. We will always be grateful.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I stand before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to the life and passing of Ray Wah-Nyep Quan, an outstanding citizen from my district. Ray was an active member of the Grand Junction community, and he will be remembered as a respected businessman and dedicated family man. Ray passed away recently at the age of 81, leaving a legacy of leadership for his community to follow. Ray owned and operated the Far East Restaurant in Grand Junction, providing the community with excellent food and quality service. His hard work and dedication helped make the Far East one of the most popular restaurants in town, attracting customers to its unique atmosphere, authentic decor, and quality food. The restaurant became so popular that Ray was able to expand the building twice, turning the Far East into a luxurious three-level eatery. Ray loved his life in the United States and became an example of the American dream. Ray was a self made man whose diligence and determination aided his success. He called the United States ``gold mountain'' in appreciation of the opportunities he found here, and helped several Chinese immigrants move to this country to experience those same opportunities from which he has benefited. With Ray's assistance, many of these new Americans have seen their lives improve and their children go on to college. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to the life of Ray Wah-Nyep Quan today. Ray loved the United States, embracing it as his own. His drive and dedication helped him become a model citizen, one who cares about the country that has helped provide him with so much. I am saddened by his passing, and my thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand before this body of Congress and this nation today to pay tribute to Joe Vigil, a nationally known Cross Country/Track and Field coach. Joe helped to make Adams State College a powerhouse in track and he will soon be inducted into the Rock Mountain Athletic Conference Hall of Fame for his accomplishments. His hard work and dedication have influenced the lives of many college students and I am proud to recognize his accomplishments here today. For 27 years, Joe led the Adams State teams to 18 National Championships and 89 individual championships. He coached 425 All- American runners, many of whom ended up competing on the national level. Recognized as one of the best coaches in the country, he is currently training some of the United States best runners for competition in the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens, Greece. Joe's impact on student-athletes went beyond the track, however, as his runner's graduated at a rate of 96 percent. A quality college education will always be more important then any National title, a lesson Joe passed on to his teams. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today and recognize the accomplishments of Coach Joe Vigil. I am happy knowing that Joe has made an impressive impact on some of today's youth and I hope that he continues his important role in young athletes lives. Thank you, Joe, for the contributions you have made to Adams State and the surrounding community. I wish you the best of luck on your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the life of Danny Gallacher who recently passed away. A long-time resident of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Danny made significant contributions to his community as a leader and role model for others. Danny and Mary raised four boys, eventually enlisting their help in running a number of family business ventures, which included a service station and a diner that eventually became a full-service restaurant and bar. One of Danny's major contributions to his community was his service as a counselor at the drug and alcohol detoxification center he helped establish. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I recognize the life and passing of Danny Gallacher. Danny will be especially missed by his family, friends, and the many people who knew him in the Glenwood Springs community. My thoughts and prayers are with them during this difficult time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before this body of Congress today to recognize an academic institution that has served Pueblo, Colorado for the last 70 years. Pueblo Community College (PCC) has maintained its focus on quality education over the course of a lifetime as it has expanded to meet the state's needs. As we reflect upon this 70th anniversary, I commend Pueblo Community College for the positive impact that it has had upon individuals and families throughout the State of Colorado. Pueblo Community College traces its origins back to the incorporation of Southern Colorado Junior College in 1933. Since the original graduating class of 17 in 1935, enrollment at PCC has increased enough to warrant expanding to three additional campuses in Canon City, Durango, and Cortez. The total enrollment in PCC now exceeds 5,000 students, all of whom value PCC's affordability, flexible hours, and varied degree programs. More than half of Pueblo Community College's students are employed and would not have access to higher education if not for the flexibility offered by Pueblo Community College. Students at PCC have the opportunity to work toward Certificates of Completion, Associate of Science, Associate of Arts, Associate of General Studies, and Associate of Applied Science degrees. The assortment of programs allows first- time college students and working adults alike the opportunity for a brighter future. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Pueblo Community College before this body of Congress and this nation. PCC provides many Coloradans access to higher education and the skills necessary for a successful career. I congratulate Pueblo Community College on its success and commend the institution for the positive impact that it has made upon Colorado's citizens for the past 70 years.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a little time this evening to discuss an issue which I think is very basic but fundamental to American families, to the dream of American families in this Nation being able to pass on through their hard work, one business or a farm or a home or some type of asset from one generation to the next generation. Unfortunately, in this country we have put into our tax code one of the most unfair, unjustified taxes that any tax code could have, and that tax is called, for short, the death tax. It has got a fancy word which they say the estate tax, but in fact, what it is is it is a tax upon a person's death. It is not a tax that is invoked for any other reason but for the fact that a person has died, and the moment they have died, the government, the State Government and the Federal Government, of course led by the Federal Government, shows up at the grave site and tries to get into that person's estate and invoke this death tax. There is a little history to the death tax. The death tax, as I said, from any scholarly point of view, from any economic point of view, from any business point of view, if we take a look at the death tax, there truly is no justification for it. On top of the fact that there is not a justification for the tax, under any economic sense, any economic study, on top of that, the tax is also at least a double taxation. Because the death tax is not a tax on property that has been accumulated during one's lifetime upon which no tax has been paid. When this property is accumulated by an individual, tax is paid either at the time of the accumulation or at the time of the sale. So this tax is not an attempt to collect some tax that for some reason or another has evaded the tax man's notice. That is not what this tax is about. This is a tax that is a tax on property that has already been taxed, and, in some cases, more than once. In some cases, two or three times. Now, look, everybody agrees that we should carry our fair share of the burden. Nobody disagrees with that. We know that to operate a government, to operate a military, to operate the needs of the government that we have to have some revenue. But we determined a long time ago that that taxation ought to have at its fundamental core the word fairness. It ought to be fair. And time after time we have said, including in recent action by this body of the Congress, we have said time after time after time that double taxation hardly fits within the definition of fairness. It is not fair to tax somebody twice on the same property. And that is exactly what the death tax does. Now, I believe that the death tax is a pretty good issue that shows a fundamental difference between the Republican Party and the Democrats. In my opinion, all of the Democratic candidates that are running for the Presidential office here in a couple of years support the death tax. Every Democrat, to the best of my knowledge, the Democrats that in this House or in the other body in the U.S. Congress that have a net worth of more than $1 million and that voted against elimination of the death tax have already done trust planning. So they do not have to pay the death tax. We have people, for example, not just Democrats here in the House or on the other side, but we have other people out there, whose party affiliation I do not know, for example, Warren Buffett, and people like Bill Gates's father, and these are very, very wealthy individuals, and these are individuals who stand up and say that we ought to keep the death tax in this country. What is ironic about this, and frankly, in fact, a little hypocritical almost, and if it were not so serious it would be amusing, but I can remember several months ago where at one of these parties, and I think it was Bill Gates, Sr. who was doing an interview about how as a very wealthy individual, from a very wealthy family, that they supported the death tax. But where was he doing the interview from? He was doing it in the offices of their foundation. And what is the purpose of that foundation? The purpose of that foundation is to avoid the death tax. So there are some very wealthy people in this country who, along with the liberal side of the Democratic Party, say we support the death tax, we think it is fair to have a death tax; but the reality of that is that if they have any money of their own, these individuals have already created foundations or have done trust work so that they largely avoid paying any kind of death tax. So that is not the kind of source we want to look to for some type of scholarly view as to whether or not a death tax is justified. I do not look to the ivory towers of our universities to come up with some conclusion as to whether or not we should have a death tax. Where I look is, I go out into my district. I go out across this country; and I talk to the people who have worked hard, who have wanted to accomplish the American Dream. And one of the American dreams, and I think pretty much all my colleagues at some point or another in their life have had this dream, and that is to become successful, to be successful to the extent that they are able to help the generation behind them, their kids, their children; to be able to give them a start; to be able to maybe help them enjoy part of the life that they have enjoyed. And for the sake of disclosure, Mr. Speaker, let me just mention that in my family, on my wife's side of the family, they have a family ranch. They have been in the ranching business since the 1860s or the 1870s out in Colorado. This is a beautiful ranch. It is beautiful not just in its physical characteristics, but it is beautiful in that the family, generation after generation after generation, has loved the land and has been able to stay on the land. Now, in the past hundred years or so, or 50 years, ever since the death tax has been in place, one would think we live in a socialistic type of society where there is some kind of punishment for dying; it seems we want to make sure the family behind you does not have that opportunity to be able to live on that ranch and work the land like this family, the Smith family of Meeker, has done for generation after generation. I can find example after example, Mr. Speaker. So one might ask, how did the death tax come about in the first place? Well, the death tax was designed to be a punishment against the wealthy, those very wealthy icons around the turn of the 19th century, the Ford family, the Carnegie family, the Rockefeller family, people like that. In society at that point in time there was such a large division between the very, very wealthiest and the population as a whole that somehow the politicians were persuaded that there should be a punishment in this country. Here we are, in our classrooms, teaching that this is the greatest country in the history of the world, in part because we encourage innovation, and innovation has as its basic incentive reward. An individual is rewarded for innovation, that in our country if you invent a cure for cancer, you can become wealthy; in our country if you make a better seat belt, or as the old saying used to be, if you make a better mousetrap, there is incentive out there. We do not live in a socialistic society where no matter what you contribute, your share of the pie is always equal. That is not what we believe in. That is why socialism will never equal capitalism. But the reality of this tax is that somehow way back then the politicians decided to punish the wealthy people of this country, those few wealthy families. What they never imagined was that it would not just punish the wealthy. In fact, it would not really punish those wealthy people at all, because most of those wealthy people throughout time, including today, including the Gates family, and I have respect for their accomplishments, although I disagree with them on the issue, but it does not really punish them because they are able to hire hundreds, or whatever numbers, of attorneys to get them out of it. Where it is punishing Americans is in the middle class of America. You do not have to be wealthy to be hit by this thing. Prior to the Republican movement, led by our President, in which we at least begin to phase out the death tax through the year 2010, prior to that all a person really needed to own free and clear was, say a bulldozer, a dump truck, a pickup, and your office building for a little construction company. And guess what, your family was going to face the death tax upon your demise. This is a tax that is directed at the middle class of America, and it is a punishment tax so that the middle class of America, again because the wealthier class is able to plan around it, this is designed to take the middle class of America and make sure that instead of encouraging family businesses or family farms, instead of encouraging that to go from generation to generation, it serves as a punishment. Now, let me just say that in the last 2 weeks this House once again said that we should take the elimination of the death tax, which is totally eliminated in 2010, but, unfortunately, comes back in full force in 2011, once again this House last week took action to permanently eliminate the death tax. And, frankly, I am stunned, not surprised, but I am stunned that we did have 44 Democrats, and I am not trying to get partisan on this issue, but let us call an ace an ace. The fact is this is one of the differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and that is the death tax; but I can say that 40 or 44 Democrats last week came across and voted with the Republicans to permanently eliminate the death tax. The rest of those Democrats did not come across. They support this tax. And it is a debilitating tax on the middle class of America. Mr. Speaker, do you know what happens to some of these farms in my area that have to be sold for death taxes? They are not sold for ranches or farms. I live in the mountains of Colorado. That is my district. What happens when these farms or ranches are sold, they are turned into 35-acre ranchettes. They are turned into condominium projects. The open space that makes Colorado beautiful, that makes most of us in this room want to vacation in Colorado, gets turned into condominiums. Why? Not because of some greedy rancher that wants to make money. The Smith family could have made a lot of money a long time ago. But it is because our very own government forced this family to sell that ranch so that that ranch, the proceeds from the sale of that ranch could be used to pay the government. Now, I have heard the argument, and I want to explore the argument a little, but I have heard the argument that, well, we need to spread the wealth. This is class warfare, and we saw it during the debate on the tax credit a couple of weeks ago; we saw it on the vote of the death tax. The Democratic philosophy, and let us lay it out here, the Democratic philosophy is more of a transfer system. If you get somebody that makes money over here and somebody does not quite make it over here, you ought to do some transfer to try to make them equal. But I can assure my colleagues that just works as a disincentive. We cannot have everybody be equal economically, or we would never have any incentive for someone to do better. When we take a look at the arguments being used by the Democratic Party, by the liberal leadership over there, and I am talking about the minority leader, who is an ardent supporter of continuing this death tax, their argument is, well, gosh, what we do is we take from a wealthy family, and again let me remind everyone it is, in most cases, not a wealthy family, in fact this tax comes from middle-class families, so what they say, well, we get it from the people who have the money and we give it to people that are more in need of the money. Let me give an example of what happened to a family I know out in Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will not use the names of this family; but first of all, the father, the husband and wife started out with the wife as homemaker. He started out as a janitor in a construction company. Eventually, over 4 or 5 years, he became the bookkeeper of the construction company. Pretty soon, he was able to borrow enough money to buy the construction company. Pretty soon he had 5 or 10 people working for him. Then, 10, 20, 25 years later he was the largest investor in the local bank, he was the largest contributor to the local church, and he was the largest employer. Hundreds of people worked for him in the community. He was by far the largest contributor for everything from United Way to the Boy Scouts, to the Girl Scouts, to whatever. What happened, unfortunately, his wife got cancer and passed away. And then, unfortunately, my friend got terminal cancer as well. Now, what happened is he sold the bank, the interest he had in the bank, and he got hit with capital gains taxation. Which again, fortunately, in the latest tax cut, we have reduced that to 15 percent. And I commend the President, the Speaker of the House, and I commend the majority leader in the Senate for leading the way on getting this capital gains reduced so that we can help bolster this economy. But back to my story. In this town what happened was my friend sold the interest in the bank and got hit with capital gains. Shortly after selling the family interest in the bank, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and died 3 months later. The estate tax when combined with the death tax on top of the capital gains tax, that family was taxed 71 cents on the dollar. That does not mean that the family was able to take 29 cents on the dollar, that is not what happened because they were not able to realize the true value of their assets because their assets were sold at a fire sale. They were forced to sell. The family told me they thought they were able to keep a property that they had already paid taxes on in many cases more than once, on property that their father and mother had accumulated over a 65-year period of time, they were able to maybe keep that family for the next generation about 18 cents. How did they get the money, they had to sell the construction company. They had to stop contributing to the local charities, lay off employees, and sell transferable assets that were moved out of the community. What happened to that money in this case? Did that money stay in that local community? It did not. It did not stay in that community. This is one of the bad things outside of the fact that the death tax is unfair. That money did not stay in that local community. That money was transferred to Washington, D.C. When it went to Washington, D.C., how many cents per dollar do you think ever went back to that tiny community in Colorado once it got back here to the bureaucracy? Probably nothing or some small fraction. But what was the impact on that community when they took those properties and transferred it, simply because of the reason that the person, the two people that had earned it had died, that is the only reason this punitive tax was put in place, what happened, the church which he and his wife contributed 70 percent of their budget to, there were no more donations to the church. The employees lost their jobs. The construction company was forced to be sold. My understanding is that the construction company ownership, they then moved the construction company out of town. It hurt that community at different levels all throughout that community. Mr. Speaker, it pokes a hole in the liberal argument. It is almost like a socialistic-type approach that we ought to tax these people that are wealthy or upper middle class that die, it is good for the community. It was not good for the community. It devastated that community. Let me remind my colleagues here, we are not talking about somebody who had not paid their taxes. They had paid taxes year after year after year. This was not untaxed property. The only reason that property was hit with the death tax was because of the fact that a death had occurred. That was the trigger event. That is what caused it. Let me step back and tell Members, it is not just that community alone. I brought letters over. In the United States Congress, we get letters every day. I grabbed a few of them about the death tax. I want to read some of them. Dear Congressman, We have operated a family partnership since the middle 1930s. My parents died 5 years apart in the 1980s, and the estate tax on each of their one-fifth interest was three to four times more than the total cost of the ranch which was purchased in 1946. Mr. Speaker, this family bought a ranch in 1946 and the death tax when the husband and wife died was four to five times the original purchase price of the ranch. Tell me how one Democrat could vote to continue this tax. As I said, 40 some of the Democrats voted to get rid of this tax, and I commend those 40. But for my other colleagues, and I say this respectfully, but for my other colleagues on the Democratic side who refuse to join the Republicans and the 40 conservative Democrats, how can you look at this family, how can you go to this family and justify this kind of tax on that property, on that family farm out there in middle America? Let me go on. Here is another letter. I am a student at the University. I grew up in a family that has lived and thrived in agriculture for many years. My parents and grandparents are involved in a typical family farm, a farm that has been in the family for more than 125 years. Grandpa is 76, and in the last years of his life. My parents have been discussing this situation for the last several months. My parents worry about the death tax and about how they are going to be able to keep the farm running once grandpa passes away. The eventual loss of my grandpa will trigger this death tax on the family's farm. My parents hope that they will be able to pay the tax without having to sell part of the farm that my family has worked so hard over all these years just to keep the ranch together, just to make it so it can operate at a profit. The outcome does not good look good, however. Mr. Speaker, farmers and ranchers are having enough trouble, and we are not just talking about farmers and ranchers, we are talking about small businesses, we are talking about the American dream. We are talking about a lot of families in America. Finally, through our leadership here, we were able to at least for a period of time begin to phase this tax out and eliminate it in 1 year. But unfortunately, because we could not get the votes on the other side, this tax comes back in full force. Going back to the letter: Farmers and ranchers are having enough trouble keeping family operations running the way it is. My family has worked very hard to keep the family farm running this long. We feel like we are being penalized because one of our family members has died. Here is another letter. This letter is not a plea for help, Mr. Congressman. Although I am not a victim of this tax, I appreciate the effort against it. I firmly believe that Congress and the government at large needs to recognize that America's future is and will always be firmly rooted in the success of small business. Many of these businesses are family owned, and they need the next generation to continue them into the future. I spent a few years working for a small, family-owned business. Not just myself, but several workers depended on the income that they derived from working for this small business. I fear for these workers when the tax man comes knocking. This tax has claws that rip at many people, and then the immediate family of the deceased has to worry about whether or not they can even continue the business, about the punishment that is being dealt to them by the government. It has a huge impact on the employees of the family business. I hope that people recognize this and will have an opportunity to eliminate it. Here is another letter. As you know, farming and ranching is no slam dunk. If our farm is ultimately faced with the death tax burden, there is absolutely no way we could ever afford and justify holding onto this farm. This in turn will prevent us from: 1, keeping the farm for future generations; 2, keep it from becoming just one more development out in the middle of the country; 3, keep us from making it available to the deer and elk; 4, keeping it unavailable for other uses, for multiple use. You need to know, Congressman, we are only able to meet the daily operating cost of our farm under the present economic conditions of agriculture. Unless there is positive action taken by Congress on the death tax, we will start making the necessary plans to arrange our affairs so the family is the ultimate winner of the lifelong struggles of both my parents, Roberta and myself. There is no way we will allow the IRS and the government in Washington, D.C. to take it all away from us. They do not deserve it. But what does that mean, it means of course that we must begin the destruction and the development of one of the largest, most beautiful open spaces still left out in this part of the country. We do not want to do that, but we do not have any choice because of this death tax. Here is another letter. Our 106-year-old mother passed away. Because we knew she was fearful of being placed in a nursing home, and we never considered it an option, my husband and I took care of her in our own home 2 days a week. She was alert, and we believe she would be living today if she had not injured herself. We are now faced with the unpleasant and unexpected task of selling our family home which was acquired by our parents in 1929 and where they raised six children. Prior to World War II, my parents had a greenhouse business on five acres of farm property. After World War II, the family returned from the relocation center where those of Japanese ancestry were incarcerated and signs that said ``No Japs Wanted.'' My father died of a heart attack in 1953. My mother lost the business located on two acres, four greenhouses, the heating plant, the packing shed, which, by the way, had two bedrooms above which many of the children slept, to the State. The State took two acres of property for an on-ramp to the freeway, but my mother was able to keep our family home which she and my father built. Now I must say that because of the death tax, it will now be necessary to sell this property, this home, this family home, just to pay the taxes that are levied upon the family as a result and only as a result of the death of this family member. Here is another letter. My family has ranched in northern Colorado for 125 years. My sons are the sixth generation to work this land. We want to continue, but the tax of the government is forcing almost all ranchers and many farmers out of business. The problem is called the death tax. And again I want to say to my Democratic colleagues, how can you go and look at these families and justify the continuation of a death tax? How can you dare vote against the elimination of this tax? I just do not understand it. Are we so surrounded here in Washington, D.C. that some of my colleagues cannot see what is happening to the American family, the middle income family, the small business out there because of a tax on property that has already been taxed? Do you not understand what a death tax does to these people? This should be a country that encourages generation after generation to continue the family foundation of running the business, whether it be a music store, whether it be a farm or a ranch. But believe it or not, some of my colleagues here continue to support taxing people upon the death of a member of their family, only triggered by the event of that death on property that has been taxed again and again. People say you get awful excited when you talk about this issue, but I have seen what the devastation is to my constituents as a result of action taken out of this House many, many years ago. And even though it was initiated many years ago, it has continued because some Members do not have enough guts to stand up and vote it down. We do not live in a world of socialism. We do not live in a world where class warfare ought to be instituted. We do not live in a world where we say to a family operation, you have been able to keep this land and now because the mother or father has died, we are going to redistribute the land. That is fundamentally unfair. Nobody is saying that someone should not carry their fair share. These people have carried their fair share, and I challenge any of my colleagues on the Democratic side that voted to continue the death tax, I challenge them to come out to Colorado, come out to a mountain family. And by the way, they will not let you go out of their house without you eating dinner, despite how you vote on this issue, but you look that family in the eye and tell them why you support putting a tax on their family when one of the members of their family dies on property that they have already paid the taxes upon. It is not right. There is no way that you can justify the death tax. There is no way that the Gates family can justify supporting the death tax, other than the fact that they have a foundation that gets them around it. It is the same thing with some of these other very wealthy families that have come out in support of this death tax. Why? Because they have hired the lawyers. As I said, the Gates interview was being done out of the family foundation office. That foundation was built for the sole purpose of avoiding the death tax. I worry about middle America. Get out to the heartland of America and tell me, especially my Democratic colleagues, I do not know what it takes to get them to realize how punishing this tax is. Go out to the heartland and talk to these people and see what you are doing to the families by simply casting a ``yes'' vote on this House floor to continue to tax people. Let me show you. Here is what is going on. This is what the heartland of America looks like, just like that. It is family. Families have got to have something to eat. They have got to have a way to subsist. That is the way it is in my part of the country. Again, I live in the high mountains. We have a lot of agriculture out there. We do not have a lot of corporate agriculture. We may have families that incorporate for tax purposes but we do not have the Monsanto Copper Corporation. These are families that run these farms and ranches. The people that supply the wagons and supply the tractors, those are family-run small businesses. This death tax will destroy them. It threatens the American way of life. That is exactly what this death tax does. I cannot think of a better demonstration of what happens, and I want to show this picture to you. This is exactly what you are driving. I know that the more liberal side of the Democratic Party that supports the death tax, many of you also pat yourselves on the back, although I am not sure you are fully deserving of it, you still pat yourself on the back for being strong on the environment. We all need to be strong on the environment, but you take particular pride, the minority leader and some of the more liberal Members, the people of you that have voted to keep this death tax in place, you take particular pride in your record on protecting the environment. Let me show you what happens to the environment when you force these family farms to sell, when you force them out of business, because of this death tax that is what it looks like over here on the bottom. That is what it looks like before the death tax. What is behind those cattle? Those are condominiums. This used to be open space. Look between the cattle and the trees on the mountain. What is between them? It is condominiums. That is exactly what your ``yes'' vote to continue to have a death tax, that is exactly what your vote has done. This land right here has to be sold to pay the death tax on this property, although all of the property had already paid its taxes year after year after year. Again, we are not talking about someone or some family that has not paid their taxes. We are talking about a family who has paid their taxes but the bureaucracy has not had enough of it. Frankly, and again I am not trying to be partisan, but let us call an apple an apple. The reality of it is the liberal wing back here, the left side, continually says, look, they have too much, this farm family that owns this land, they have too much. Let us approach it from a holistic point of view. Let us take it from them and give it to them. That is exactly what the death tax is envisioned to do, and it is wrong and you are hurting America. You are not only hurting the future of American families that want to continue small business or small farms or small ranches from one generation to the next, you are hurting the environment of America because just as this poster demonstrates, and look at it again, what used to be open space, what used to be open pasture, what used to be an unfettered view to the mountain is now a destroyed view because you have got condominiums right there being built to pay the death tax on that piece of property. Tell me where the equity in that is. Let me read this: My family has been on the ranch for 125 years. My sons are the sixth generation to work on this land. We want to continue, but the death tax is forcing almost all ranchers and farmers out of business. The demand for our land is very high and 35-acre ranchettes are selling in this area for a very high price. We want to keep our land as open space. We want to keep it as a ranch. But the government through its policy of death taxes is making it impossible for us because of what we will have to pay once a death event occurs. Ranchers are barely scraping by these days, anyway. If we were willing to develop home sites, we could stop worrying about the death tax but we want to save the ranch. And because we want to save the ranch and as a direct result of the death tax, we are in trouble. The family has been able to scrape up the estate taxes as each generation up to now dies, but I am telling you the time is out. 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 none of them will guarantee that they won't develop at least a part of it. My dad is 90. We don't have much time to decide what to do. We are only one of two or three ranchers left around here. Most of the 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 taxes. Soon they had to start selling cattle to pay the interest. When they ran out of cattle, their ranch was foreclosed and is now being developed. That family which used to be a strong family, that had a gorgeous ranch, that survived generations and generations, that family now lives in a trailer near town and the father works as a highway flag man. You can trace it all back to the votes that started on this House floor. You can trace it back to the most unjustified tax in our tax system. I do not care how you say it. I do not care how pretty my Democratic colleagues want to paint the picture. The fact is they need to come around and they need to join the Republicans and we need to eliminate the death tax on a permanent basis. You cannot justify it. In this upcoming presidential election, I think a litmus test that ought to be asked of every Democrat presidential candidate is, will you support total elimination of the death tax on America? My guess is that they will not look you in the eye, but my guess is none of them will do that. When you hear people and I say this to my colleagues, when you hear people out there talking in a very courageous tone about, look, I've made a lot of money and I think we should keep the death tax, take a look at what they have done, like the Gates, for example. They have put it into a foundation. Why? For the sole purpose to avoid the death taxes. That is why those foundations are created. I have a lot of respect for the Gates family. I am in awe of what they have done to make that. It has been an American dream. But the reality of it is they should not be considered an authority to speak on the death tax when in fact they have created a foundation in which to shelter that money. The better people to go and get an opinion from is, what I say, go out into the heartland of America. Go to Kansas. Go up into the Rockies and stop at some ranch house. Go in there and talk with those people. First of all, you are going to find that they are going to invite you in, they are going to feed you something. Ask them what the death tax will do to their family. Ask them how. Or better yet, to my liberal colleagues, you tell them how you can justify putting a death tax on a family. The fact is you cannot justify it. The fact is this tax is not justifiable from any economic argument. It certainly is not justifiable from a moral point of view. The only way that you could possibly justify a death tax is if you were a socialist and you believed in the concept that whatever is somebody's property ought to be everybody's property, that it ought to all go for the common good, that everything ought to be thrown into one pot and everybody shares equally. If you believe in the socialistic type of government, then you can justify a death tax. But if you believe in the democratic, capitalistic process which has made this country, by the way, the greatest country in the history of the world, there is no way under any circumstances that you could justify this tax. As I said earlier, last week we voted, it is over on the other side now, we voted for permanent elimination of that tax, of that death tax. Unfortunately, most of the Democrats once again have chosen to support and to continue the death tax. It is time for the American public, Mr. Speaker, to understand why there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. There is one issue I feel very deeply about in my heart that separates our two parties. Granted, about 40 of the more conservative Democrats did vote to eliminate the death tax and for that they deserve credit. But when I am out there, I do not feel like I am getting in a partisan argument, I do not feel like I am taking any cheap spots when I point out that the death tax is primarily supported by the Democrats and the elimination of the death tax is driven by the Republicans. When you go out to the heartland of America, when you go out there into that countryside some time, see if you have got enough guts to look that farm family in the face and say to them, it is because of you that the next generation in that family will in all likelihood not be able to continue the farming or ranching operation. I urge my colleagues and I urge especially my Democratic colleagues, it is time for you to surrender this issue, because it is the right thing to do. It is time for you Democrats to step up to the plate and support the American farmer and the American rancher and the American small business. The best way that you can do that is to vote to eliminate the death tax. Give these families, give these farms, give these small businesses, give these ranches an opportunity to go to the next generation. We all benefit. Our communities benefit. Our environment benefits. Push the socialistic temptation aside and adopt, rather, what I call the fairness doctrine. It is very simple, just be fair. If you could just be fair in your assessment of this horrible tax, you too next time will join the Republicans and vote against the continuation of the death tax.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to rise before this body of Congress and this nation to recognize the accomplishments of Bryanne Salazar of Grand Junction, Colorado. Several years ago, Bryanne founded Mothers Inc. to assist other mothers in the difficult and important task of child rearing and to provide a forum in which mothers around the country could share their advice, experiences and support one another financially and socially. Mothers Inc. provides many forms of assistance to mothers, including financial aid, job training, food, clothing and opportunities to meet and form bonds with other mothers. Mothers Inc. is a non-profit organization that raises money through bake sales, garage sales, and the sale of t-shirts and aprons. Her efforts truly embody the spirit and greatness of this nation. Through Mothers Inc., Bryanne has contributed greatly to the welfare of many women and children and served as an inspiration to those with whom she has come in contact. Mr. Speaker, it gives me a profound pleasure to stand before this body of Congress today to pay tribute to Bryanne Salazar, a remarkable woman who has worked to improve the lives of so many families. The children whom Bryanne has helped are the future of this nation and it is comforting to know they are in such good hands. Bryanne, thank you for your many contributions to the mothers and children of Colorado and for your persevering spirit that has inspired so many.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before this body of Congress and this nation to pay tribute to a hospital with a long history of service. The Arkansas Valley Regional Medical Center in La Junta, Colorado is celebrating its 75th anniversary, and I am honored today to recognize this outstanding facility. The hospital began as a treatment clinic for tuberculosis 99 years ago, before becoming a full-service hospital in 1928. Although the facility was much smaller and operated under a different name then, it still gave the best quality care possible, just as it does today. Medicine has changed significantly in the 75 years since the hospital first opened its doors, with numerous innovations improving the manner in which we care for the ill. However, the Arkansas Valley Regional Medical Center has always kept up-to-date with the latest medical procedures. After 75 years, the Arkansas Valley complex now includes a health clinic, veteran's clinic, and doctor's offices in addition to the hospital itself. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to the Arkansas Valley Regional Medical Center. Its outstanding care and commitment to the citizens of the Arkansas Valley deserves the praise and recognition of this body of Congress. Congratulations on 75 great years, and thank you for your service to the people of Colorado.