Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a mistake for the record regarding a Member listed as an original co-sponsor on my bill, H.R. 1904. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, was mistakenly added as an original co-sponsor to my bill, although he did not ask to be a co-sponsor of this bill. Yesterday, I made a unanimous consent requested to remove him as a co-sponsor, but the request could not be granted because the report on H.R. 1904 had already been filed. I thank Mr. Scott for his understanding in this matter.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. I would say I think the rule is very well structured. The rules takes into account all of the different parties that have come together on this bill and some of the parties who oppose this bill. It gives ample opportunity for those who oppose the bill, as well as giving ample opportunity to those of us who feel it is time that we take back the management of these forests and put it in the hands of what we call the ``green hats,'' our forest rangers. What has happened over a period of time because of a very well- thought-out strategy, and that was in the seventies and the eighties, the radical environmental organizations, some of my colleagues will speak on their behalf today, they decided that they could never win the debate against the people that work for the Forest Service, for the VLM, the people that work in the forest every day of the week, the people that were educated in the forest. So they decided what they needed to do is manage the forest through a paralysis by litigation, through paralysis by analysis, or through paralysis by emotional-based decision. So what they have done very meticulously is move this to Washington, D.C. where you have heard the argument just a few minutes ago that we in the United States Congress ought to be dictating to the United States Forest Service what the diameter of a tree is before they are allowed to cut it down. Give me a break. That we in the United States Congress ought to be dictating to the Forest Service that we here in the U.S. Congress know that a fire is going to stop one half mile into the urban interface and not one inch beyond it; and that the U.S. Forest Service should not have the authority to go ahead and thin beyond that half mile. Come on. This rule allows for ample debate. This is a well-structured rule, and I have been looking forward to this day for a long time to argue about the substance of the issue we have in front of us, and that is do we save our forests or do we not. And I think the answer is going to be very clear. I think with overwhelming support, bipartisan support, this bill is going to pass. I urge support of the rule.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank the chairman for all the efforts he has put in regarding the infestation we have had, regarding the forest fires, and the gentleman's focus in this committee to get this piece of legislation out before the fire season besets us. I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). He has gone way out of his way to help move this bill forward. It is a very, very important bill. I need to clarify a couple points here. I say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), I know what his ethics are like. His ethics are, in my book, of a very high standard. What I would do is to say to the gentleman that Glenwood Springs, which the gentleman quoted from the letter from the mayor, is my hometown. I grew up at the bottom of Storm King Mountain, where I, with 12 others, took 15 firefighters, deceased firefighters, off it. I know something about fire, I know something about this bill, and I know something about the gentleman's ethics. The gentleman would be well advised to disassociate himself from the letter that he quoted in his comments, which was obtained through very deceitful means, as has been acknowledged this morning by the City of Glenwood Springs. So I do not think the gentleman is aware of that. I just want the gentleman to be aware of how that letter was obtained.

Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am talking specifically about a letter. I am not saying that the signature is inaccurate, that it is a fraud. I am saying that the way it was obtained was very, very deceitful. I would be happy to talk to the gentleman after we are finished here about that. In regard to the comments of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), I am not sure she has read the bill, with all due respect. It does not cut out public input. It does not stop the judiciary process. I have not seen the gentlewoman at one meeting, I have not seen her at one negotiating session where we discussed the details of that. Frankly, I consider it a cheap shot when one of my colleagues stands up here in front the American public and talks about a bill that we so firmly believe in on a bipartisan basis to stop and help us do something about these fires and bugs, and the gentlewoman stands up and acts like we are shortcutting the judiciary process, like we are cutting out the public input. Sure, I take insult with those kinds of remarks, and I do wonder whether or not the bill was read before staff or somebody drafted those comments for the gentlewoman. Let me talk in regard to the comments of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). His comments about the bugs and the Miller substitute, if we look at the substance of the Miller substitute, unless it has been changed in the last 15 minutes, it contains nothing of substance within the four corners of that. I am talking about the substance part of the bill with regard to bug infestation. We have to do something to help our people in the South. These bugs are throughout the country, but that is their biggest focus right now. This bill is about between what we call the green hats and the black hats. Let me read the Oregonian Newspaper out of Oregon in the district of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). By the way, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), we did not have an agreement. We came this close to an agreement, and you and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) negotiated in absolute good faith. Unfortunately, we could not get there; but we did not have an agreement. I wish we would have inked an agreement. I wish we would have had it because it would have been signed in by now. I do acknowledge, by the way, although they are strongly opposed to what we have today, which is not different than what we had yesterday, I do acknowledge the good-faith efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). Let me quote the newspaper in Oregon: ``By its words and actions, the Sierra Club has shown what it wants. It wants the status quo, no logging, only a handful of small thinning projects and more devastating fires like those that swept Oregon and the rest of the west this summer. On the issue of forest thinning for which national polls have found overwhelming support, the real extremists include the Sierra Club.'' This is a good bill. It has got good merit, and it deserves your support. Today the House will consider among the most important pieces of environmental legislation in a generation. The bipartisan Healthy Forests Restoration Act is focused on addressing the single largest, most complex and destructive challenge facing the management of our Federal lands--catastrophic wildfire and exploding epidemics of insect and disease outbreaks. Mr. Speaker, these are the destructive symptoms of America's forest health crisis. During the last Congress, as most of us remember, my colleagues George Miller, Greg Walden and Peter DeFazio were nano-inches from reaching a bipartisan agreement for the ages. But ultimately, because of the invidious attacks of certain special interest groups, and because of the late stage in which those talks began, we were unable to cement a deal. Let me note that I have immeasurable respect for Mr. Miller and Mr. DeFazio for enduring unwarranted ostracism from the national environmental movement throughout that process. That community, in my opinion, showed its radical colors when they attacked these two icons and champions of the environmental cause. So I admire these two statesmen and deeply hope that we can continue to work together as this bill moves through the process. Colleagues, I believe this bill enjoys strong bipartisan support because of emerging areas of solid agreement. It's my hope and expectation that these areas of agreement will provide the foundation on which a Congressional majority can arise. As I see it, the pillars of agreement are these: First, America is facing a forest health crisis of colossal proportions. a century of wholesale fire exclusion has been proven by the years to be a foolhardy pursuit--catastrophically so. Fire is part of nature's way--it replenishes, it rejuvenates, it restores. Shunned for a century, however, wildfire has returned to the landscape with a searing vengeance, burning bigger, hotter, and with a runaway ferocity than nature never intended. At the same time, unnatural forest stand densities have left our forests in a weakened state; their defenses susceptible to insect and disease epidemics. The second principle of agreement is this: The primary symptom of America's forest health crisis, catastrophic wildfire, has done shocking harm to our environment. The summer of 2002 provided too many horror stories of wholesale environmental destruction to discuss in this one setting--stories of our air and water fouled, of old growth forest ecosystems left barren and black, of threatened and endangered species dealt irreversible ecological impacts. One has to wonder about the sanity of a person who would chain themselves to tree-tops in an effort to ``Save the Forests'' while watching silently; seemingly unconcerned, as environmental calamities like the Hayman, Biscuit and Rodeo fires destroy some of America's most biologically rich forest ecosystems. The third area of agreement is that the bureaucratic status quo on our Federal forests and rangelands is not working. Most reasonable people would agree that if shouldn't take upwards of several years to get a thinning project near a community through the Federal maze of analysis, appeals and lawsuits, but that is exactly what the status quo has brought us. Witness what took place over the course of the last several years on the Black Hills National Forest. Most of us remember these rather notorious projects--they are the Wildland Urban Interface projects that South Dakota's senior Senator rescued from a bureaucratic swamp with some legislative language in an emergency spending bill last Congress. Senator Daschle, apparently tired of the viscous cycle of analysis, appeals and lawsuits tormenting these projects, took matters into his own hands and legislated these projects into forward movement. But for those of us who aren't the Majority Leader of the Senate, and for those of us who don't face a pliant environmental community when we start tinkering with environmental laws, extravagant bureaucracy and delay is what we're up against. That brings us to the final point of agreement--reasoned and prudent steps must be taken by Congress to make sense of this process gone mad. But as we alter the manifestly broken status quo, certain priorities must be rigorously adhered to. Foremost, the public must be given an expansive opportunity to engage decision-makers at all stages of project development and implementation. That cannot change. Meaningful public participation is an imperative. The real success of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, in my opinion, is that it streamlines bureaucratic process in a way that honors the fundamental role that public participation plays in informed decision making. Anyone who argues that this bill provides anything other than a thorough, overlapping and robust opportunity for public participation is being disingenuous--or maybe they just inhaled too much carbon and mercury from one of last summer's big fires. This brings me to the bill, Mr. Speaker, which proposes to address the root causes of this analysis paralysis. I will briefly describe it. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes streamlined procedures to expeditiously implement hazardous fuels reduction projects on Forest Service and BLM lands (1) near communities in the wildland urban interface, (2) on high risk lands in the proximity of municipal water sources, (3) on high risk lands that encompass habitat for threatened and endangered species where Federal wildlife officials have identified catastrophic wildfire as a threat to the viability of the species, and (4) on high risk landscapes particularly susceptible to disease or bug infestation. No wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, national parks, national monuments, other special congressional designations would be eligible under the bill's expedited procedures. The bill prohibits permanent road building in Inventoried Roadless Areas. The bill codifies the bipartisan WGA 10-Year Strategy's robust public input and participation requirements. The WGA strategy was endorsed by numerous government and non-government organizations, including leading environmental groups like the Wilderness Society. The bill also requires an additional public meeting for all projects implemented under this Act over-and-beyond that which is required under current law. In codifying the WGA framework, the bill also cements the bipartisan plan's express priority on focusing management actions on lands near communities and on at-risk lands in proximity to sources of municipal water. The WGA plan is widely regarded as the holy grail of wildfire policy. This bill gives that bipartisan plan the status of Federal law. The expedited procedures outlined in the bill are these. First, the legislation would give the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) discretionary authority to limit analysis during the NEPA phase to the proposed action only, meaning the agencies would not be required to analyze and describe a number of different alternatives to the preferred course. While expediting the analysis phase, this procedure ensures that all projects will receive an exhaustive analysis of all potential environmental effects. Next, the bill would provide a limited waiver of the Appeals Reform Act for forest health projects implemented under the Act, instead directing the establishment of an alternative review process under which persons could seek administrative redress against forest restoration projects. The Forest Service is the only Federal land management agency with an administrative appeals process memorialized in statute--a 1992 Appropriation Rider called the Appeals Reform Act. In practice, this means that a forest restoration project implemented on at-risk lands on the White River National Forest (or any other forest) faces a significantly higher administrative appeals bar than the exact same project would encounter if implemented in Yellowstone National Park or the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (BLM). With the National Fire Plan's emphasis on interagency cooperation, this makes little sense. This bill would put the Forest Service on more even footing with its sister agencies. With regard to judicial review, the bill would require the Federal courts to reconsider and reauthorize any preliminary injunctions on a 45-day interval, while requiring the courts to more fully weigh the long-term environmental risks associated with management inaction. The 45-day preliminary injunction language is modeled on a proposal first offered by Senator Feinstein last summer, who I hasten to add, has been a real leader on this issue in her own right. Additional provisions of the bill (1) facilitate the utilization of the otherwise valueless wood, brush, and slash removed in conjunction with the forest health project in the production of biomass energy, (2) authorize Federal programs to support community-based watershed forestry partnerships, (3) direct additional research focused on the early detection and containment of insect and disease infestations that have reached epidemic proportions, and (4) establish a private forestland easement program, supported by groups like Environmental Defense, focused on recovering forest ecosystem types in decline. These provisions were included in this bill in recognition of the fact that America's forest health is not just a western wildfire issue. In particular, rampant insect and disease infestations should be in the front and center of any discussion about forest health legislation. This bill places them there. I would also note that in the self-executing manager's amendment, the terms of a compromise between myself and Mr. Boehlert were incorporated into this legislation. Mr. Boehlert and his staff showed tremendous good faith in helping us improve and clarify an already outstanding piece of legislation. I commend him for his good faith and leadership. It is with that, Mr. Speaker, that I urge the House to adopt this landmark environmental legislation.

Mr. McINNIS. I do not mind the gentleman making that comment. The fact is it is not accurate, Mr. Miller, and you know it is not accurate. We are not going out there saying let us pick the most beautiful big tree we can find and cut it down. That is exactly the kind of picture you want to portray to the general public out there so you can divert from the fact that we have reached this status quo on trying to fight these forest fires, on trying to protect our wildlife habitat, on trying to protect our watersheds. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) gets up here, my colleague. She starts lecturing the Republicans. I want you to know the partisan portion here is the Democratic substitute. You have no Republicans on your substitute. My bill, the underlying bill, is a bipartisan bill. It has heavy Democrat support. Mr. Miller, what do you do for the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross)? What do you do for the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Barry)? What do you do for the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop)? What do you do for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)? You take out all the bugs and the infestation problems. Folks, we have got problems out there. We have got fire problems, and we have got bug problems. And the courts do not wear green hats. They are not forest rangers. They are not going to get this resolved. We cannot afford one more fire season sitting on our haunches, twiddling our thumbs and pretending these horrible fires are not occurring. Let me mention Mr. Udall. Mr. Udall says our language guts the injunctive relief. Mr. Udall, for your information, that language is called the Feinstein language. Why do you not take this issue up with Senator Feinstein? Let us go on here a little. When we talk about what we are attempting to do, look at the substance of the bill. Mr. Udall from Colorado, it is never good enough for you. At some point we have to say, enough is enough. Let our forest people go back to managing the forests. Let the forests be managed by science, not by emotion; and the way you drive emotion is to stand up here on this House floor and talk about how we are going to cut down the big trees, that in order to pay for this we are going to take the big trees and take them out. Not at all. The fact is, we need to manage our forests. We cannot take the position of the radical environmental organizations like Earth First and the Sierra Club. We can take the position of a bipartisan group on this floor, Democrats and Republicans, and that position is represented by the underlying bill. I urge a no vote on the Democrat non-Republican partisan substitute, and I urge support for the underlying bill that is bipartisan, has heavy Democrat and Republican support. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, keep in mind, Mr. Miller, that the national fire plan has hundreds of millions of dollars in there. This big tree argument is nonsense. We are not going out there and saying, gosh, we have got to go to the redwoods or the sequoias and cut down all this beautiful stuff. That is an emotional argument that is used for one purpose and that is to divert from the science.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) be removed as a sponsor of the bill. He was put on there through staff error. I want to make sure I am appropriate procedural-wise to get the name off before we get locked into it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Elizabeth Guyton Girch of Rocky Ford, Colorado. Elizabeth gave selflessly of her time and her money in order to help the developmentally disabled. Elizabeth also distinguished herself and made Colorado proud as one of the first women in the state to become an attorney. Several years ago, Denver University honored Elizabeth's achievements, presenting her with the first Mary Lathrop Trailblazer Award for excellence and accomplishment by female attorneys. It is not Elizabeth's accomplishments as a woman that I wish to extol here today; though they are a testament to her tenacity. Instead, I wish to honor a life that helped protect some of the most disadvantaged members of our society, the developmentally disabled. Elizabeth was instrumental in establishing the Arkansas Valley Community Center, which serves people in the counties of Otero, Bent and Crowley. This was the culmination of her many years advocating for the developmentally disabled. Mr. Speaker, we are all terribly saddened by the loss of Elizabeth Guyton Girch, but we take comfort in the knowledge that Elizabeth's legacy of compassion, courage and selflessness overshadows our grief. Elizabeth's life embodied both the resolve and the empathy that makes this country great, and I am deeply honored to be able to recognize Elizabeth's life before this body of Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise before you today to honor Doug Jones and Chad Mooring, two brave paramedics from Pueblo, Colorado. Their lives and service are supreme examples of dedication to, and self-sacrifice for, their fellow citizens. It gives me great pleasure to recognize them before this Congress and this nation. Chad has served the people of Pueblo as a firefighter and paramedic for many years. His life of service is all the more remarkable because he suffers from kidney failure and must undergo frequent dialysis. Were it not for the compassion and bravery of his friend Doug, who plans to donate one of his kidneys to Chad, Colorado might very well lose a firefighter and friend. Instead, seeing his friend in need, Doug offered to undergo surgery in order to help a fellow hero. Men like Chad and Doug inspire us all to face hardship with dignity and strength. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to recognize the uncommon heroism and sacrifice of these two men. They exemplify friendship, commitment and selflessness. They have shown steadfast loyalty and dedication to each other and to their community. Undoubtedly, the many people who have benefited from their public service realized this fact long ago. This nation is a better place because of men like Doug Jones and Chad Mooring, and I am proud they are Coloradans and proud to represent them in this Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to inform this body today of a truly exceptional hospital from my district. Community Hospital in Grand Junction, Colorado has recently been recognized in the 100 Top Hospitals Study for its consistent quality of care and efficient operations. The study noted that if other hospitals gave the same quality care as Community Hospital and the others on this list, about 66,000 lives could be saved every year. At the same time, healthcare costs would decrease by about $8.9 billion. Community Hospital has also recently won four ``Patient First Awards'' for its leadership in the healthcare community. These areas-- inpatient services, ambulatory surgery, outpatient tests and treatment, and emergency services--are indicative of the overall high quality of care that patients receive at Community Hospital. Although this great facility won ``Patient First Awards'' for a hospital of its size, its inpatient services were ranked first overall for hospitals in the survey, regardless of size. Mr. Speaker, no matter how you measure it, Community Hospital sets a standard of excellence. The hospital is a vital part of the Grand Junction Community, and I am truly honored to recognize such an outstanding healthcare provider and its outstanding team of dedicated employees here today.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor to stand before this Congress today and honor an individual who knows the meaning of sacrifice, duty, and honor. In 1942 Russell Larson was a 17-year-old high school junior with a lot to look forward to. He was a young man who loved his country, a country that had recently been forced into World War II. Motivated by his deep sense of patriotism, Russell quit school, joined the Navy, and spent the next six years in service to his nation. When Russell came home from the war, he married his beloved Marie and eventually settled down as a splicer for the phone company, a job he held for 31 years. Today Russell and Marie are the proud parents of two children and three grandchildren. They live in Grand Junction, Colorado, where they are retired and enjoy bowling, traveling, and staying fit. Despite all of their blessings, there is one thing that has eluded Russell--the diploma he sacrificed in the service of his country. Russell gave up the chance to graduate from high school 50 years ago when he entered our armed forces--or so he thought. This week, at the age of 77, Russell Larson will march in ceremonies at Fruita Monument High School to receive his high school diploma. Thanks to a law recently passed by the state of Colorado, Russell and his fellow veterans who left high school early in the service of their nation can now receive their high school diploma. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Russell Larson and commend him for his service to his country. He and the other heroes of ``the greatest generation'' defeated totalitarianism and fascism, ensuring the freedom of all Americans. Russell left the simple pleasures of being a high school student for the serious work of defending this great nation. It gives me great pleasure to honor Russell and offer my congratulations on his graduation. We will always be grateful for his service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the life of a pioneer of the music industry, Grover Harned of Hermosa, Colorado. Grover passed away recently at the age of 72. As his beloved wife Carla, other family members and friends mourn his passing, I think it is fitting for us to recognize the remarkable achievements of this talented man. Grover, or ``Jeep'' as his friends called him, will be remembered as the inventor of the multi-track recording devices that allowed musicians to mix together several recorded tracks. His recording innovations are credited with helping launch the careers of many notable artists, including Eric Clapton and the Bee Gees. Grover's equipment helped record many of American music's most notable songs, such as Aretha Franklin's ``Respect'' and James Brown's ``I Feel Good.'' He was so successful during the 1970s that about 60 percent of all the music recorded in this country took place at his company, MCI. Millions of Americans have not only heard the music that Grover's machines have recorded, but his devices also helped launch a number of successful businesses. According to Billboard Magazine, Grover's recording equipment was instrumental in encouraging many other entrepreneurs to enter the music industry. Mr. Speaker, Grover's death is a tragic loss to his family and friends, the recording industry, and all lovers of music. As his friends and family mourn his passing, Grover will be remembered for the wonderful tunes he helped create.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor to stand before this body today and honor a remarkably courageous young man from my district. Many of you have already heard of Aron Ralston and marveled at his story--one that has captured this nation's attention. Aron went canyoneering in a remote part of Utah recently, and while scrambling up the side of a canyon wall, the unthinkable happened. A 1,000 pound boulder shifted and pinned his arm to the rock face. Aron tried every plausible means of escape, but nothing worked. He had only intended to be gone for one day, and by the third day, he had exhausted his supply of water. Eventually Aron realized that help probably wouldn't come soon, which led him to do something most people probably could not have done. On the fifth day of his ordeal, Aron amputated his own arm in order to save his life. Once free, Aron set up anchors and amazingly rappelled about 70 feet with one arm. Then, even though he was bleeding, famished and dehydrated, he hiked some five miles out of the canyon to find help. Once news of his story got out, much of the world marveled at Aron's resourcefulness and will to live. Mr. Speaker, Aron is an experienced adventurer with a long list of impressive athletic achievements. He has climbed all of Colorado's 14- thousand foot peaks and ascended 45 of the 57 alone in winter. We honor him today, though, not for conquering another mountain, but for overcoming an even greater challenge. Aron's amazing bravery in the face of adversity has made us all proud. He is not just an outstanding athlete--he is an inspiration. I wish him a quick recovery and all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor Kay Wyley of Creede, Colorado and congratulate her upon her retirement from the Creede Repertory Theater. While retirement often means an opportunity for well-deserved rest and relaxation, Kay instead has chosen to continue her service to the citizens of Colorado as a respected advisor to the Colorado Council on the Arts. I admire Kay's dedication and it is my distinct honor to recognize her before Congress and the nation. There are few in Colorado who have done more to preserve our heritage and to promote the arts than Kay, who presided over the largest expansion in the history of the Creede Repertory Theater, as well as the restoration of the historic Rio Grande Hotel. Kay's years of dedicated service have touched the lives of countless artists, art patrons, and Coloradans. A lifelong native of Creede, Kay has truly given back to her home state. Mr. Speaker, Kay has inspired many, and continues to do so each day. Her dedication to her work serves as an example to all Americans, and has made Colorado proud. It is a great honor to represent such a fine person who has worked to make my state a more beautiful and enjoyable place to live. Congratulations on your retirement Kay, and I wish you all the best in the future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Gilbert Sanchez of Pueblo, Colorado, and his contributions to the field of mental health. Gilbert has long dedicated his life to serving mentally ill children throughout my state, and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize his hard work and dedication before this body of Congress. For over twenty years Gilbert served as President of the Spanish Peaks Mental Health Center in Pueblo, Colorado. He has also served with many state, local and national mental health advocacy organizations, including the Child Advocacy Center, the Colorado Association of Community Mental Health Centers and Clinics, and the National Coalition of Hispanic Health and Human Services Organizations. Gilbert is dedicated to serving his community and has also served on the Governor's Commission on Life and the Law and has been an influential member of the Latino Chamber of Commerce. However, it is not these appointments and honors that I wish to recognize, but rather his unceasing commitment to public service. Coloradans know Gilbert not only as President of the Spanish Peaks Mental Health Center, but also as a committed volunteer for children's mental health. For his efforts, Gilbert has received the Robert Hawkins Award for excellence in Mental Health Leadership given by the Mental Health Association of Pueblo. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize this man who has made such a significant difference in the lives of children. His dedication to the children of this nation deserves our recognition and our admiration. It is a great honor to recognize Gilbert Sanchez before this body of Congress and our nation today.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate two outstanding cattle ranchers from Plateau Valley, Colorado whose hard work and dedication exemplifies the spirit of the West. Harvey and Anis Kelley are no less pioneers than their grandparents who first came to Colorado in early part of the last century. They have carried on that proud tradition for the last fifty years, and I am proud to pay tribute to their accomplishments before this body of Congress today. No one can deny cattle ranching is a hard profession. There are no days off and no escape from inclement weather. Ranchers work from sunrise to sunset, and few today carry on this proud work and its traditions. Harvey and Anis are fine representatives of the heartland and their work is the life-blood of this nation. Therefore, it is with pride that I congratulate them upon receiving a lifetime recognition award from the Plateau Valley Cattlewomen at their Stockgrower's Banquet and Ball. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to recognize Harvey and Anis Kelley before this body of Congress and this Nation for their contributions to Plateau Valley and our country. I trust that the years ahead will continue to find Harvey and Anis side by side making a difference in the history of Colorado and our country. Thank you Harvey and Anis for making Colorado a place where hard work and tradition still thrive.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Strategic Materials Act of 2003, legislation that would ensure that we retain the ability and capacity to produce strategic metals, so important to our defense and many other vital industries in the United States. I am a big supporter of free trade, but I also understand that the United States must take care that it does not become completely and totally dependent on another country for materials that could be vital to our defense. One such class of materials for which I believe we need to take care to maintain the capacity to produce is the raw material used to make titanium, and other nickel-based alloys, that are absolutely vital to maintaining our military, as well as important to our aerospace industry and other areas of our economy as well. Let me be clear, as a supporter of free trade, I do not suggest the U.S. erect barriers to the trade of these materials, I just suggest that we should not unilaterally dismantle and offer preferences to the importation of these specific materials. My bill will ensure that these specific import-sensitive strategic materials are not eligible for Generalized System of Preferences or GSP designation. The GSP designation is designed to promote economic growth and development in designated developing countries, and I support using trade as a means to stimulate a developing country's exports and economy. Trade can be a better way to provide assistance, because it helps to develop a country rather than just providing direct aid. That said, I have concerns that GSP is not appropriate for certain strategic materials, especially given that other countries already have significant market share in some of these materials. Extending GSP to these strategic materials could very well mean the United States loses the capacity to produce these materials domestically, as well as lose jobs. The reason for GSP, to provide assistance to develop an export industry in a developing country, does not appear appropriate when a foreign country or countries already control a significant share of the U.S. market. The legislation I am introducing today sends a clear message that, given the importance of maintaining a strong military and the importance to other sectors of the economy, we should not hasten to offer preferences, for that risks complete dependence on foreign countries for strategic materials like titanium sponge--the basis for titanium. We must take care we do not use a program designed to assist developing countries' trade to inadvertently assist the demise of our domestic capacity to produce these materials that help make our military the strongest in the world.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate the inspirational cattle-ranching Walck family of Plateau Valley, Colorado. The Walcks have labored morning to night for generations in this difficult but important occupation. Their efforts truly embody the American Spirit and our shared Western heritage. The Walcks serve as an example of the hard work and dedication that has made our nation great. It is an honor to pay tribute to their success before this body of Congress and this nation. Through their labors together, they serve also as an inspiration to families everywhere. Until they retired in the mid 1990's, Dean, Roylee, Scott and Betty raised over three hundred cattle, with dedication and professionalism. They have been actively involved in numerous organizations dedicated to the improvement of the American cattle industry, including the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, the Colorado Hereford Association, the Simmental Association, the Mesa County Stockgrowers and the Plateau County Stockgrowers. Roylee also served with distinction as the state president of the Colorado Cowbelles, and with Betty, has long been an active member of the Plateau Valley Cattlewomen. For their service and dedication, the Plateau Valley Cattlewomen will honor them soon at their Stockgrower's Banquet and Ball. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to recognize Dean, Roylee, Scott and Betty Walck before this body of Congress and this nation. Their contributions to Plateau Valley and the heritage of the West is appreciated, and I am happy to bring them to the attention of my colleagues here today. They are a strong family who care much for Colorado and our Country. I wish them all the best.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to. I have not yielded yet. A couple of conditions I will yield to you under. One is the time.

Mr. McINNIS. Before the what?

Mr. McINNIS. I yield the gentlewoman a few minutes. At such time, if you are not completed, I will consider yielding more time. I will be happy to hear from you on any of the points I brought up. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am glad I am going to get an opportunity to rebut the gentlewoman from Ohio's (Mrs. Jones) statements. Obviously, there are a number of exaggerated statements in my opinion. I want to go through a few things. First of all, in regards to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), she talks about the deficit, she talks about the deficit as if she is a leading example of programs and her voting is a leading example of votes that are cast to reduce any of these programs. I would challenge the gentlewoman from Ohio to go ahead and present to her colleagues exactly what programs in discretionary spending, keep in mind the biggest part of that budget is nondiscretionary. So if you are going to do the kind of cuts that she talks about, I think that the gentlewoman should accept the challenge and step forward and show exactly which programs she is going to eliminate or which programs she is going to substantially reduce in order to eliminate that deficit in this budget. The fact is she will not even come close. I know it and you know it. I think it would be interesting, and I intend to do it, pull the gentlewoman's voting record from Ohio and see how many votes she has made to reduce programs. I also am going to pull the bills that the gentlewoman from Ohio has introduced and take a look at what those bills, bills that she is the sponsor of, bills that she is the proponent of, what kind of costs those bills add to the deficit. I think you would find, I have not looked at them but I think it is a pretty good guess that the gentlewoman from Ohio has a number of bills that she has introduced that add to the deficit, that under her definition of what which ought to be doing in economic sense and accounting and so on would defy her own, the discipline that she is up here preaching about that we have to exercise.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would remain around for about 30 more seconds. I would be happy to engage on a special order, we can make some accommodation in the next few days. You will take a half hour. I will take a half hour. I would engage the entire Democratic Party if they want to engage in a debate. But let me say one thing about personal. Looking at your record is not a personal attack on my colleague. In fact, I am kind of impressed by the energy that my colleague exercises. I think she is persistent. Certainly, I have never questioned your integrity. I think your integrity is above question. But I would point out that if, in fact, you were suggesting a violation of the rules, you probably came the closest to it. I did not ask to take down your words as I was tempted to do when you made a comment that the President, and I missed the middle word was a shameful untruth. You are not allowed to call the President shamefully untruthful on the House floor.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Doris Gregory for her contributions to the Ouray community. For the last twenty-five years Doris has been one of Ouray's most prolific historians, writing more than a dozen books about the community, its buildings and families. Today I would like to acknowledge her accomplishments before this body of Congress and this nation. Doris was not always a historian. After she graduated from the University of Washington, Doris moved to Alaska with her new husband and ran a small newspaper. Later she earned a doctorate in education and embarked on a thirty-year career in teaching and administration in three different states, authoring textbooks and spending summer vacations in Ouray. By the time Doris retired in 1978, she and her husband owned a home in Ouray, and Doris began spending a lot of time in the county archives. Among her books, Doris has authored a two- volume comprehensive history of Ouray. As an important local authority, Doris has also volunteered countless hours at the Ouray County Historical Museum and given lectures. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to recognize Doris Gregory for her hard work and dedication to documenting the history of an important region of Colorado. Doris has almost single-handedly preserved the history of Ouray County for future generations, and I thank her for her efforts.