Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Suzy Meyer for her leadership and service to her Southwestern Colorado community. Suzy serves as the editor and general manager of the Cortez Journal, the culmination of a long career in journalism. In addition to being a leader in the business community, Suzy also volunteers her time for numerous community activities. It is truly an honor to acknowledge her accomplishments before this body of Congress and this Nation. Prior to joining the Journal, Suzy was the longtime editor of the Mancos Times. At the Cortez Journal, Suzy has been instrumental in the planning of the paper's new state-of-the-art production and office facilities. Taking on the business responsibilities of the Journal, Suzy oversaw the transition to the new facility and the expansion of the Journal's commercial printing business. The Journal now prints the Durango Herald and other area publications, and Suzy serves as an officer of the Colorado Press Association. For her efforts, she received the 2002 Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year Award. As a writer, Suzy has won numerous awards and a reputation for addressing serious community issues. For the last fourteen years she has coordinated Cortez's annual Community Christmas Dinner to ensure that none of her neighbors must spend Christmas hungry or alone. She is an elder of the Montezuma Valley Presbyterian Church and has served on the board of ``Meals on Wheels'' for 15 years. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to recognize Suzy Meyer for her outstanding citizenship. She has taken the lead on difficult issues and projects in both her professional life and her volunteer service. Her dedication is a credit to this Nation and to her community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I rise today and pay tribute to the passing of a Colorado leader by the name, Keith Propst of Merino, Colorado. Keith dedicated his life to championing the causes of America's farmers and ranchers as the President of the Colorado Farm Bureau and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize his life's accomplishments before this body of Congress and this nation. Keith began life on the family ranch, the Bar Three, which his family started in 1876. Eventually, he took over the ranch where he raised Simmental cows and grew various crops and later began serving his fellow farmers and ranchers in 1950 when he joined the Farm Bureau. The respect he developed among his peers led to his election to the Colorado Farm Bureau Board of Directors and eventually to Bureau's presidency where Keith made positive and significant contributions to agriculture, water, and property rights. Guided by his character and common sense, he fought hard for what he believed in and also generously donated his time to the community through his role as a 4-H leader, Sunday school teacher, and youth group leader. I truly admired Keith for his willingness to stand up for the West, stand up for Colorado, and defend the Nation's farmers and ranchers, the stewards of America's bounty. Mr. Speaker, throughout his life, Keith pursued a course of honor and distinction and I am truly honored to stand before this body of Congress and this nation and recognize Keith's life and achievements. His dedication to family, friends, and the causes he championed deserves more than our recognition; it deserves our admiration. At this time of great loss, my thoughts and prayers are with Keith's family and friends. We will miss you Keith.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor Taylor Proctor of Pueblo, Colorado for the selfless act of courage he displayed on November 8, 2002. Taylor's quick actions, along with the efforts of other students from Centennial High School, helped Edith Lichtenberg to safety after flames engulfed her home. On November 8, 2002, billowing smoke one block from Centennial High School prompted a group of students--Prince Speights, Clint Albrecht, Nick Pino, Kathy Ortiz, Linus Trujillo, and Taylor Proctor--into action. Driving toward the smoke, the group quickly discovered the bushes and trees in 86-year-old Edith Lichtenberg's yard ablaze and used a cell phone to contact emergency dispatchers. The flames rapidly spread to the house and the group moved swiftly to make sure no one was in the home. With the fire engulfing the front of the house, the students jumped the locked fence around the backyard to warn anyone who might still be inside. Noticing the back door open and seeing Ms. Lichtenberg still inside, they caught her attention and guided her outside away from the flames. Taylor courageously assisted in getting Ms. Lichtenberg out of the house personally, and the group moved her to safety. The youths maintained their composure during a time of adversity and conducted themselves in a fashion that has brought honor to themselves, their families, their school, and the entire community of Pueblo. It is always heartening to see young Americans meet such an extraordinary circumstance successfully. Courage like theirs strengthens and protects our communities every day. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today and recognize the heroic efforts of Taylor Proctor before this body of Congress and this nation. Taylor's quick actions, coupled with those of his fellow students, prevented a terrible fire from ending in great tragedy. Their selfless actions are an inspiration to us all, and it is an honor to represent such an outstanding group of Americans in this Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride that I honor Robert G. Tointon. Mr. Tointon has spent over 42 years building and strengthening Colorado's engineering, contracting, and manufacturing industries. His undying commitment has made significant contributions to his community of Greeley. Robert began his commitment to the engineering industry when he graduated from Kansas State University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering with honors. Soon after, Robert married his wife and had two sons. After working as a field engineer in Wichita, Kansas, he was transferred to Colorado. He was hired by Hensel Phelps Construction Company, and moved to Greeley in 1963. During his first year there, Bob worked as an estimator, project engineer, superintendent, and project manager. He became vice-president of the company in 1974, and soon found himself elected president in 1975. Under Robert's enthusiastic leadership, the company's combined revenue increased tremendously. In June of 1989, his success led him to split off two of the company's five divisions, and form Phelps-Tointon Incorporated. Robert now serves as the company's president, owning and operating several other Colorado companies, such as Rocky Mountain Prestress, Inc., Southern Steel Co., and Armor Safe Technologies. In addition to his business success, Robert is a member of the Greeley Rotary and Colorado Forum, and serves on many other community councils. He also has a vested interest in providing leadership training and opportunities for K-12 principals, administrators, and superintendents in the district with the Tointon Institute for Educational Change at the University of Northern Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it is with privilege that I recognize Robert G. Tointon before this body of Congress and this nation today. His contributions to the engineering industry, as well as those in his leadership capacities, have been immeasurably beneficial in the lives of many.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride that I honor Roger L. Reisher of Lakewood, Colorado. Mr. Reisher's entrepreneurial endeavors and ambitious goals led him to found FirstBank forty years ago, creating the largest banking organization in Colorado. His ambitions to succeed, and his community involvement, have made Roger a valuable asset to the Lakewood community. Roger was one of seven children, and became the first person in his family to attend college. He graduated from the University of Colorado with aid from the GI Bill, after serving in the Army. After gaining some experience in banking, Roger moved to Lakewood and eagerly began a new endeavor in 1963 when he opened First Westland National Bank. His business has created positions for 2,000 employees at over 100 offices, making a difference in their lives as well. In 1988, Roger's colleagues created the FirstBank Scholars program at CU. This program has created an endowment of over $1.6 million that is funded by FirstBank employees along with matching company contributions. These scholarships are made available to those with financial need and leadership capabilities, and are disbursed annually at the University of Colorado and the University of Northern Colorado. In addition to the FirstBank Scholars program, Roger and his family have created the Family Foundation. The Family Foundation works with the Denver Foundation and has funded scholarships for almost 100 students. Roger's commitment to helping students achieve educational excellence is admirable. He has also served in several leadership positions within the community. Mr. Speaker, it is with great privilege that I recognize Roger L. Reisher before this body of Congress and this nation today. Mr. Reisher's commitment to the banking industry, as well as his contributions to the educational success of students in Colorado, have been immeasurably beneficial to numerous Coloradoans.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the Posada Agency of Pueblo, Colorado for their outstanding commitment to Southern Colorado's homeless citizens. Recently, the Posada Agency held an open house celebrating the opening of the newly remodeled Elko Motel. The Posada Agency renovated the building to provide a safe living area for Pueblo's homeless families. Today I would like to pay tribute to their service before this body of Congress and this nation. - The Posada Agency for the homeless is a non-profit organization that provides for the immediate needs of the homeless while simultaneously working to overcome the problems that have led to their homelessness. The agency incorporates the services of many philanthropic groups, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations to provide the resources necessary for the fight against homelessness. Through their transitional housing and employment assistance programs, Posada has been able to serve over 37,000 homeless in Southern Colorado. The Elko Motel was purchased by the Posada Agency two years ago with financial contributions from the El Pomar foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Since then, the Posada Agency has been completely renovated. Today, the hotel has new plumbing, wiring, and carpeting, providing a structured and safe environment for Pueblo's homeless families. Mr. Speaker, it is with earnest respect that I recognize the Posada Agency for the homeless before this body of Congress and this nation. I would like to commend all the men and women of the agency for their tireless commitment to such a noble endeavor. Through their dedication and goodwill, the Posada Agency has been able to help countless numbers of homeless get back on their feet, and it is an honor to represent such an outstanding group of Americans in this Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Mr. Paul McEncroe of Evergreen, Colorado. At this time, I would like to pay tribute to the life of Mr. McEncroe. Paul will be remembered as a man of great spirit, charm, and friendliness by all of those whom he knew. Mr. McEncroe was born in 1922 in Chicago. Both Paul and his wife, Donna, attended Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. During his early life, Paul worked as an office machine salesman in Chicago, San Diego, and Milwaukee, before he and Donna moved to Colorado. In 1965, they purchased the El Rancho Restaurant near Evergreen, Colorado. Paul was a friendly and likeable owner who greeted patrons at the door of El Rancho with his quick wit and a smile. Paul's wonderful personality helped him to win the 1977 Lakewood Sentinel's Man of the Year award. Paul and his wife continued to run the restaurant for more than twenty years until they retired in 1998. As an avid bicycling enthusiast, Mr. McEncroe had not only enough energy to run a successful restaurant, but also spent countless hours involved in his community as well. He worked with the Colorado Philharmonic Orchestra Board, and was a member of the Saint Anthony Hospital Flight for Life advisory board. At one point in time, Paul also served on the Jefferson County School Board. Mr. McEncroe gave back to his community in countless ways, and will be remembered fondly for all of his hard work and dedication. Mr. Speaker, it is with humble respect that I recognize Mr. Paul McEncroe before this body of Congress and this nation. He was an excellent man whose memory will live on in the lives of those he touched, especially his family. It gives me great pride to be able to honor such a man.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor Prince Arthur Speights of Pueblo, Colorado for the selfless act of courage he displayed on November 8, 2002. Prince's quick actions, along with the efforts of other students from Centennial High School, helped Edith Lichtenberg to safety after flames engulfed her home. On November 8, 2002, billowing smoke one block from Centennial High School prompted a group of students--Prince Speights, Clint Albrecht, Nick Pino, Kathy Ortiz, Linus Trujillo, and Taylor Proctor--into action. Driving toward the smoke, the group quickly discovered the bushes and trees in 86-year-old Edith Lichtenberg's yard ablaze and used a cell phone to contact emergency dispatchers. The flames rapidly spread to the house and the group moved swiftly to make sure no one was in the home. With the fire engulfing the front of the house, the students jumped the locked fence around the backyard to warn anyone who might still be inside. Noticing the back door open and seeing Ms. Lichtenberg still inside, they caught her attention and guided her outside away from the flames. Prince courageously helped Ms. Lichtenberg out of the house personally, and the group moved her to safety. The youths maintained their composure during a time of adversity and conducted themselves in a fashion that has brought honor to themselves, their families, their school, and the entire community of Pueblo. It is always heartening to see young Americans meet such an extraordinary circumstance successfully. Courage like theirs strengthens and protects our communities every day. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today and recognize the heroic efforts of Prince Speights before this body of Congress and this nation. Prince's quick actions, coupled with those of his fellow students, prevented a terrible fire from ending in great tragedy. Their selfless actions are an inspiration to us all, and it is an honor to represent such an outstanding group of Americans in this Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life of Lyman Thomas, who sadly passed away recently at the age of 76. Lyman was a pillar of the Montrose community and, as his family mourns his loss, I think it is appropriate that we remember his life and celebrate the work he did on behalf of others. Lyman was born to Charles and Beulah Thomas on March 22, 1926. At the age of nine, Thomas suffered the loss of his father. As a member of what has been called the ``greatest generation,'' Lyman's life exemplifies the dedication to others embodied by many from that era. In 1944, Lyman joined the Air Force in order to serve his country during WWII. Upon leaving the service, Lyman attended Colorado A&M (now CSU) and within a year was able to pursue a career in aviation. In June of 1948 Lyman married Lila Whitley with whom he raised two children: Lyman Jr., who sadly passed away in 1983, and daughter Lennette. Lyman began his career with Monarch (Frontier) Airlines, eventually moving over to Delta, where his ability and dedication allowed him to assume a managerial position in the Delta Chamber of Commerce. It was while he held this position that Lyman and fourteen others founded Club 20, designed to unify the voices of over 20 counties, earning it the nickname the ``Voice of the Western Slope.'' It was Lyman's passion for his community that caught the eye of two governors of Colorado. Lyman was appointed to the Parks and Recreation Board and later, due to the efforts of Club 20, to the committee charged with selecting a location for Interstate Highway 70. In 1953 most roads connecting Western Slope towns were dirt or gravel. It was Lyman's efforts on this committee, and the important contributions of Club 20, that were instrumental in the paving of local roads. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to pay tribute to the life of Lyman Thomas, a man whose character and impact on others is evident in the lives of all who have crossed his path. It is with admiration, respect and a sense of sadness that I recount Lyman's 76 years of life before this body of Congress. Although Lyman has left us, his good-natured spirit lives on through the lives of those he has touched. I would like to extend my thoughts and deepest sympathies to Lyman's family and friends during this difficult time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize Mr. Joseph Paddilla of Denver, Colorado. Mr. Padilla's efforts have helped countless members of the Colorado community. Through his construction work, Joe has made a difference in the lives of others. Joe began his career in construction while still in high school, helping his father to build and remodel kitchens. Following high school, he attended the University of Florida. In 1982, Joe started his own business, Town & Country Kitchens, designing and manufacturing custom kitchens. In his role as owner, Joe was a pioneer in the construction of handicapped accessible kitchens even before building codes had mandated their construction. It was for this kind of forward thinking that Mr. Paddilla was awarded the Mayor's Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Disabled Community in 1983. Mr. Paddilla's efforts to help the handicapped community have been innumerable. On behalf of Police Officer Toby Bethel, who was injured in the line of duty, Joe was instrumental in designing and financing a kitchen that Officer Bethel could use. Joe worked diligently with the Denver Home Builders Foundation to assist Officer Bethel. I would like personally to thank Mr. Paddilla for all of his hard work on this project. He and his company have also designed and built a $1.5 million, state-of-the-art home as a donation to Cherish the Children, an organization that provides educational assistance to children. He is currently the president and chairman of the Costuyendo Education Network, a program that educates minority and immigrant construction workers through bilingual education, teaching them how to start their own businesses in Colorado. Mr. Paddilla has helped his community in many ways, and continues with his active involvement in various philanthropic organizations. Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that I recognize Mr. Joseph Paddilla before this body of Congress and this nation. Through his efforts to help his community, Mr. Paddilla has served others in an exceptional manner, and I feel honored to have the opportunity to pay tribute to him.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I recognize Jessica Wehling of Grand Junction, Colorado. Last December, Jessica received the highest award for a Junior Girl Scout, the Gold Award. Today, I would like to pay tribute to Jessica's commitment and accomplishments before this body of Congress and this nation. Jessica Wehling has served her community and her country in many ways as a Girl Scout. She began her career as a Daisy Girl Scout, where she first learned the values of discipline, commitment, and goodwill that have become her hallmark. As an example of her ingenuity, when Jessica's car was hit by a truck in the Fruita Monument High School parking lot she began brainstorming parking alternatives to prevent future accidents at the school. Through her efforts, Jessica was able to redesign the parking lot to add more spaces, a drop off area, and make it more driver friendly. Jessica also came up with an incentive program that gave preferred parking spots to students who carpooled to school. Her project displayed a great deal of ingenuity and initiative. Fruita Monument High School has now redesigned the parking lot and plans to begin Jessica's carpool incentive program in January. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize the contributions of Jessica Wehling of Grand Junction, Colorado before this body of Congress and this nation. Jessica's hard work and determination serves as an inspiration to us all, and it is an honor to represent such an outstanding American in this Congress. I look forward to witnessing Jessica's future accomplishments and wish her all the best. Keep up the good work.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to address a couple of areas. The primary focus of my comments this evening will be on the United Nations, on NATO, and Iraq. But I cannot allow some of the comments that I have just heard in the last 45 minutes to go unrebutted, so I intend to take a few minutes here at the very beginning to rebut some of the remarks that were made. I was a witness to a very aggressive personal attack on an individual called Mr. Estrada, and I can tell my colleagues that had Mr. Estrada been a Member of the United States Congress, the Speaker behind me would have ruled those kinds of comments out of order by the time they got to the second sentence, because they were so vicious and such a personal attack. It was not even a fair fight. Speaker after speaker after speaker stood up in front of all of us, just a few minutes ago, and while attacking Mr. Estrada, said, this is not a partisan issue, but yet it was Democrat after Democrat after Democrat after Democrat. They did not invite anybody else in to speak on the other side of the issue. Not at all. In fact, the statement was made by the gentlewoman from the State of California that, in fact, they had been very aggressive just to prove that they were not being partisan, just to prove that they were not attacking Mr. Estrada because he happens to be a Republican and a conservative Republican. Just to prove that, the gentlewoman from California said we aggressively stood up in support of a Hispanic who was recently named to the bench, apparently in the State of California. I would just tell the gentlewoman from California, I have been here almost every night during Special Orders, and I have never seen, never seen her or any of her other colleagues who spoke this evening take that podium and speak in favor of this Hispanic judge or this Hispanic in California who happened to be a Republican and that they say adamantly and bravely stood up and spoke for. I tell you what else I find a particular interest from the gentlewoman from California who, by the way, I consider a professional. In fact, I am surprised by the comments that I heard coming out of my colleagues this evening because I happen to have watched my colleagues over the time that I have worked with them, and I think they are pretty sharp people. I think they are very capable. I was surprised tonight at these remarks. But back to the gentlewoman from California who, as I mentioned earlier, I think is a professional. I work on a committee with her. She made a comment about the right to vote, how hard the Hispanic community worked to get the right to vote, and I agree with her. But do we have a double standard here, when one party stands up and talks about the right to vote on one hand and yet on the other hand works in unison with the other body to deny the right to vote? We see what is going on here is a filibuster. They are afraid to have a vote on Mr. Estrada. Every one of these people, every one of those Democrats who voted this evening, sometime during their comments talked about the right to vote for Hispanics. And yet they stand here and in support of the denial of the right for a vote for Mr. Estrada. Hey, let Mr. Estrada rise and fall on his own merits. Let the vote take place. That is what is being requested. I am not here to try to convince my colleagues on the Democratic side that they need to support Mr. Estrada, but I am here saying it is incumbent, it is incumbent upon these Democrats to at least allow a vote on Mr. Estrada. If they want to vote no, if the Senate or the other body votes no, so be it. It fell on its own merits. But at least it got a vote. So if you are going to stand here this evening and talk about the right to vote and how strongly your community, and I agree with that comment, how strongly your community worked to obtain equal status to get that right to vote, to be recognized as citizens, then on one hand, as you preach that you should, on the other hand, follow your own preaching and allow that vote to take place. Let me make a couple of other comments in regards to that. I heard the thought that he is not qualified. He came to the Hispanic Caucus. I heard the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, comment after comment after comment assailed Mr. Estrada, attacked personally Mr. Estrada. And what surprised me is time after time I heard a very partisan Democratic attack that Mr. Estrada was not qualified. Now, very few of these people speaking this evening ever went to law school, very few of these people ever practiced in a court of law. And let me say their focus on there is from the Democratic side. I am a Republican. So I tend to, obviously, I favor Republicans. That is the nature of the game. But in order to kind of neutralize, in order to look over the partisanship, we have another player in this game, and it is called the American Bar Association. And the American Bar Association evaluates not based on party affiliation, but evaluates the qualifications of a particular candidate. And Mr. Estrada was no exception. They did not evaluate Mr. Estrada on whether or not he was Hispanic. They did not evaluate Mr. Estrada on whether or not he was a Republican. They did not evaluate Mr. Estrada based on whether or not he was a Democrat. They evaluated Mr. Estrada on his qualifications to serve as a judge on an appellate level. They are the most nonpartisan evaluation you have out there. In fact, in my opinion I think they are too liberally based. But the fact is, the opinion that they issued, which was never even mentioned once during this vicious attack this evening by the Democrats and the Democratic leadership over here, and I say Democrats, that is too general, a very small group of Democrats and some leadership, they never even mentioned what the American Bar Association did. By now your curiosity is probably up. Well, Congressman McInnis, what kind of evaluation did they come out with? They gave him an evaluation that rated its highest recommendation they issued, highest recommendation they issue. Why do you not, if you want to fight fair, why do you not bring out the facts? You ought to say, you know, we disagree with this, but the American Bar Association did say, did give their highest qualifications to Mr. Estrada. That is only fair. Let me mention another thing that I think is a little remarkable for its lack, and that is that Mr. Estrada has no experience as a judge. You know what, there were some Congressmen this evening who were making those statements who had no experience, previous elected experience, or certainly did not have any of the experience at the level of being a United States Congressman before they were elected to the United States Congress. Yet, in my opinion, although it has been somewhat discounted this evening, in my opinion, those individuals who spoke were very qualified to be United States congressional people. You know, I do not know what the background is, but I do not think the gentlewoman from the State of California held elective office prior to this that was equivalent to the United States Congress; yet, she is a very capable individual. And it is the same with any of a number of those individuals. They are capable, but they did not have to come in here with this prior experience. And yet you turn around, while you lack that prior experience yourself, and serve in the United Congress, you turn around and assail, viciously assail, Mr. Estrada because he ``does not have the experience.'' Keep in mind, one, what you are supporting this evening through that tirade of comments was, you were supporting the effort to not allow a vote. Not you in the same boat, no. The effort you were supporting is, do not ever give him a chance to have a vote. My position, whether you are Republican or Democrat, my position is, let Mr. Estrada rise and fall on his own merits. Allow him the vote. If you believe, as apparently you do, that for some reason, although the American Bar Association said he is highly qualified, you think you are more educated in your evaluation. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. McINNIS. I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. Yet my colleagues over here who think that they can evaluate better than the American Bar Association are making an effort to deny the vote. So, in summary on this, let me say, number one, let me say there was no need for that vicious, one-sided attack this evening. It was very partisan in its nature. It was not a fair fight and at least you ought to be fair. I think Mr. Estrada can stand up and lose the fight if he gets a fair fight. You did not even give him a fair fight. In fact, you did not know I was coming this evening. I did not expect to make comments in this regard. But I felt that attack was so vicious and double standards were being utilized that somebody has to speak up for Mr. Estrada on this House floor. By the way, I have never met Mr. Estrada. I would not know him if he walked in the door right here. There is no reason for me to stand up and defend him here tonight other than the fact that it was a one-sided attack by a small group of Democrats and their Democratic leadership, and that is fundamentally unfair. And it is fundamentally unfair for a group to work against a vote being taken, to deny that right to vote after they preach to us. You were preaching, my colleagues were preaching to us about how hard they have worked in their community, and which, by the way, I agree with, their community worked hard to be sure that they had the right to exercise a vote. And yet on one hand you say, we have a right and we worked hard in our community to exercise the vote. But on the other hand, do not allow the vote for Mr. Estrada; but although the American Bar Association says he is qualified, we do not think he is qualified. And although we do not think he has experience, we did not have any experience before we came in the United States Congress. For some reason, it is okay for us, but it is not okay for Mr. Estrada. And by the way, we will do it on the House floor where nobody stands in defense of Mr. Estrada. I find myself here not even knowing Mr. Estrada but feeling you are picking on the little guy, and it is not a fair fight. I am willing to stand up to you. I know you out number me 10 to 1 tonight. I know you came here speaker after speaker after speaker, first giving a disclaimer that it was not partisan and then of course the rest of your comments were completely partisan. So I am standing up for him. And I think he ought to have a vote. And I think you ought to take into consideration or at least say to the people when you make your comments, by the way, while I disagree with Mr. Estrada, you should know that the American Bar Association gave him its highest evaluation of what they think is required to serve as a judge on the appellate level in the Federal Government. Enough. Enough of that. I need to talk this evening and spend some time with my colleagues on the situation that is occurring in NATO, the situation at the United Nations, the situation in Iraq. I think at the very beginning it is important to distinguish between the United Nations and NATO. NATO, of course, is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is a family. It is a strong defense alliance built between America and its European neighbors. It is an alliance that is like a close-knit family. It is an alliance that has gone to war as an alliance, as in Kosovo. It is an alliance in which, like blood brothers, like blood brothers, you make the commitment when you join that alliance that a fight with anybody in the alliance, a fight upon any individual country within the alliance is a fight with the entire alliance. And for 50-some years that alliance, NATO, has stood strongly. In the last 2 weeks we have had a breakup in the family. We have had a couple of members of the family, three members to be specific, who, despite the fact that the family has coddled them for 50-some years, despite the fact that the family has put their arms around them in a time of need, despite the fact that members of NATO like the United States of America, like on D-Day, put their arms around France and helped France. It was not Iraq that went to help France. It was not Iraq that was in Kosovo helping France. It is not Iraq and Korea helping South Korea. It is not Iraq out there doing anything for France other than selling them oil. And France left. One of our family members has left, in my opinion, in part due to a business deal. It has shaken the entire foundation of the organization we know as NATO. And while we start let me mention, I just want to quote from an article, this is off Yahoo, New York Post, it is an op-ed piece, so I am quoting from the op-ed piece, ``Mr. Howard Served in D- Day.'' He is an American, an American citizen. He did not have a bone to pick, but he decided to go to answer the call for his country to fight for France, and this is what he said: ``We were men of war and men of honor. The turncoats making policy in Paris and Berlin,'' speaking to what has happened in the last 2 weeks, ``do not know the meaning of the words,'' referring to the words ``men of war, men of honor.'' France was in trouble. Excuse me, let me step back. Mr. Howard remembers why our young men went to war. He says, ``France was in trouble and all of us had to do something about it. Simple as that.'' ``France was in trouble and all of us had to do something about it. Simple as that. With this anti-American thing going on, I tell people loud and clear, I am an American, first and last. You got a problem? I think we all did our bit back then.'' Now what has happened. Let me just take a look because there is a perception out there from the world-wide media. They sensed for obvious reasons that there is a breakup in the family, that a family that nobody thought they would ever see a crack in, a family that has had a strong history of partnership for 50-some years all of the sudden, in a matter of hours, suffered a major break. And the perception out there is that it is a fight between the United States of America and France and Germany. It is not a split between the United States of America and France and Germany and Belgium. It is a division in Europe. Let me show you. I have a chart to my left and I would like to refer you to the chart. I am going to circle the three members of the family. Let me first of all point out on the chart the members of the family. Take a look: United States, Portugal, Norway, Italy, Greece, Denmark, we have 19 of them, Turkey, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Iceland, Germany, Canada, Czech Republic, Spain, Poland, Luxemburg, France and Belgium. That is the family. I am introducing you to our family in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And by the way, it is not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that would be engaged in the conflict in an offensive fashion against Iraq. The issue with Iraq is separate from NATO. That is being handled by another unit called the United Nations and primarily through their Security Council. Back to our family at NATO. All of these family members agree with this exception: Germany, France and Belgium. My point in referring my colleagues to the posters is I would like my colleagues to see that it is not a split, an even split in the family. It is not even close to an even split in the family. Sixteen members of this family support another member and let me tell my colleagues who that other member is. That other member is the most moderate Muslim country in the world. That other member, which is the country of Turkey, is a country that time and time and time again has come to the alliance and assisted the alliance. That is a member despite the pressure, and talk about pressure, France and Germany and Belgium have never seen pressure like the Turks have. Time and time again the Turks have been under intense pressure from some of the more radical countries in the Middle East to walk away from NATO. They have looked at Turkey and said how dare you stand with the United States of America, how dare you stand with Great Britain, how dare you stand with the Netherlands or Iceland or Canada or Greece or Italy or Spain. What are you doing in that organization? But the Turks have stood tall. Time and time again the Turks have delivered to the family. Time and time again the Turks have proven that they are not only a stable, but they are probably one of the strongest members of the family, and time and time again the Turks have come to the assistance of the other members. It is like the big brother, always there to help. That is a good description of Turkey. That is not an accurate description of France or of Germany or of Belgium, but Turkey's always been there to help. With the situation in Iraq, it appears because of remarks and indications that Saddam Hussein has made that the country of Iraq could very easily decide they want to pick a fight with Turkey and blindly attack Turkey with weapons, possibly weapons of mass destruction. For the first time in the alliance of NATO, Turkey has come under what we call section 4 of NATO. For the first time Turkey has come and invoked section 4, and they are the big brother who has always helped us, has now come into the family house and said can you help me. Turkey has said can you help me, and you know what the brothers and sisters in that family house have said? The United States said, yes, and by the way, the United States now says if NATO will not stand up for you because of the actions of France and Belgium and Germany, we will. The United States, just be aware anybody in the world, you take on Turkey and we consider it a direct attack against the United States of America, and we will respond accordingly with overwhelming superiority. But when the family was asked to pitch in and help Turkey, the United States stepped forward and they said yes. Portugal stepped forward and they said yes. Norway stood forward and they said yes. Italy stood forward and they said yes. Greece stepped forward and they said yes. Denmark stepped forward and they said yes. The United Kingdom obviously stepped forward and said yes. The Netherlands stepped forward and said yes. Iceland stepped forward and said yes. Canada stepped forward and said yes. The Czech Republic stood forward and said yes. What is really neat about some of this, some of these countries are our little brothers and sisters. They are very small as far as military might, but they are very, very small countries; but by gosh, they stood forward and said we are going to help our brother Turkey. We are going to give it the best we got. Spain stepped forward and said yes. Poland stepped forward and said yes. Luxembourg, little reluctant, slow, yes. Hungary stepped forward and said yes. But then some of the most prominent, some of the biggest members of the family, to the shock of every other member of the family, to the shock of the brothers, to our brothers and sisters, France stepped forward and said not only no, not only maybe, we will abstain from this, maybe we will stay in the house while you go out to help our brother Turkey. France stepped forward and said I am going to veto the right for you to help Turkey in any way. I am going to veto to make sure NATO cannot get out of the door of the house to go help our brother Turkey. Germany did the same thing. Shame on them. Belgium. Remember what I told you about Mr. Howard, about what Mr. Howard said on D-day. France was in trouble and all of us had to do something about it. Simple as that. We were men of war. We were men of honor. It was that simple. Our brother France, it was in trouble. That is what Mr. Howard talks about, D-day, and yet how quickly and how shamefully the French and the Germans and the Belgians forget not what the United States did for them, although what we have done for that country whether it is the Marshall Plan or Hitler or bringing down the Wall, you cannot count all the assistance we have given to those countries, but speaking much more broadly than the United States, this assistance came from their fellow member of NATO, and in the last week, they shocked the family by saying we are not going to participate, we are not going to help Turkey. How can they do that? I mean, it is like looking at your brother and saying how can you betray the family, how can you walk out on us like that, in a time of need, without warning? You walk out on the family. This has nothing to do with Iraq. That is not the issue here in front of NATO. That is the issue in front of the United Nations Security Council. Why are you using Iraq as a cover to defy your brother? Why are you walking out on your family? Why do you do this? What do you have to gain? Have you made the choice that instead of putting your investment, your commitment with the people who have stood beside you for 50 years, whether it is Portugal or Spain or Italy or Hungary or Iceland, instead of putting your commitment with these people, you are now choosing to put your commitment with Saddam Hussein and Iraq? You are walking out of our family, not only the insult of leaving our family in a time of need, France and Germany and Belgium; but you are going across the street to help one of the worst men in the history of this world. It is unanswerable unless, unless you begin to look a little deeper. Then you find out that the French signed an agreement with the Iraq government for the right to explore an oil field that they believe has 40 billion barrels of oil in it at a discounted price. Iraq knows that if they can win the public relations war, Iraq knows that maybe they can break America because America may not have enough guts to act without the French or without Germany. If France and Germany, let us just say that the oil that they are getting from Iraq and the arms that they are selling to Iraq, and Germany's in there, too, and so is Belgium, let us just say that that is not the reason for leaving the family. If the reason for leaving the family is they do not want to go to war and somehow they tie NATO into the war, again, it is not the NATO issue with Iraq. It is the United Nations that is dealing with Iraq, two separate institutions, but if that is their concern, they, in fact, are making the war more likely, the probability of war higher because of the fact that they are now presenting a broken front, a nonunified family, a broken family. The best way to settle this peacefully is stand nose to nose with Saddam Hussein with a unified international community that says disarm and disarm now. The President of the United States has made this very clear. The President and Prime Minister of Italy has made this very clear. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has made this very clear. Many, many people throughout this world are willing to stand as a unified team as the President and Colin Powell says or the Vice President and Mr. Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice, with a coalition of the willing. Every time France needed something, NATO became the coalition of the willing. Every time Germany or Belgium needed something, it was NATO that was ready to stand up to the plate. That was the deal. We are blood brothers. We made a commitment, a solemn commitment 50 years ago, and we have stood in honor only to be disgraced by the countries that we, America or many of these countries, we lost on D-day. It is stunning to the international community that NATO, which was perceived as probably the strongest alliance in the world of a multiple nation makeup would, in fact, be defied by its own family. So let me say to my colleagues, this is not light discussions which are taking place right now. I, under the fine leadership of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who is the chairman of the parliamentary arm of the House for NATO, I am a member of that. I have been a member of that for a long time. I have witnessed the family. I know what a good family it is. Tomorrow or the next day we will depart for NATO meetings, and I intend to be as strong in my comments in front of the French and the Germans and the Belgians as I am with my colleagues this evening. This is a serious rift. No one should take it lightly. The message I will deliver to the French and to the Germans and to the Belgians is, for God's sake, think about what you are doing. Think about the family that you are about to walk out on. Be selfish for a minute and think about your own future. Be totally selfish and think about is your future better with your brothers and sisters in the NATO alliance? Is your future better with Poland and the United Kingdom and the United States and Hungary and Spain and Italy and any number of these countries, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Canada? Is your future better with them or is your future better with the country of Iraq? I mean, it is so basic and yet so fundamental to the survival of this family. Let me say that this split in the European community, France wants to be the big dog. France wants to always lead the parade. France wants to be the head of the EU and Germany wants to be France's little buddy. Let me say, in my opinion, NATO will suffer from this but what will suffer the most is the investment that France and Germany and Belgium, the investment they are making with Iraq. They will suffer the most in the long run for they will find out you cannot deal with a madman. You cannot deal with a killer. You cannot appease, you cannot appease a cold-blooded killer who not only invaded two other countries, two of his neighbors, but also in cold blood used weapons of mass destruction, chemical gases, to kill his own people. You are being dealt a bad hand, and I am going to say to the French and to the German and the Belgian colleagues, look at the hand that you have been dealt. You have got a great hand. You have got a hand that is shared by 16 other nations who have been with you for 50 years; and whether you have got a good hand or a bad hand, we have always been there and you have got a good hand right now, and you are about to throw it on the table and give it to the person who showed up, who does not have the best interests of anybody but himself, Saddam Hussein, in mind. Let us move again, as I said earlier, we have the United Nations which we are going to speak about right now and we have NATO. My comments up to this point have been focused specifically on NATO, keeping in mind that the issue in front of NATO is not the issue of Iraq. The issue in front of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, clearly is do we or do we not go to the assistance of one of our members, that is, the country of Turkey, which has invoked section 4, which requests help from its different colleagues? Do we, an organization that has been a solid family for 50-some years, do we in fact work to continue that family or should in fact NATO, the issue now in front of us, is our family now broken because three of our members, the Belgians, the French and the Germans have refused to honor their lifelong commitment, their blood brother commitment to stick with us? That is NATO. The issue is not Iraq. The issue is, do we help Turkey, which faces imminent threat from Iraq? The issue is, do we or do we not help Turkey? I can say for sure that America will help Turkey. And every one of those 16 countries voted to go immediately to assist Turkey. And France and Germany and Belgium, your failure to act will not cause a weakness for our friends, the country of Turkey. We will act. The rest of the members of NATO, despite your veto threat, and unfortunately we will have to act outside the body of NATO, but whether it is a truck, whether it is a prayer, whether it is medics or mechanics or the military might of the United States and the British, we will protect Turkey. And you, France, and you, Belgium, and you, Germany, will see this as one of the largest and most significant mistakes of your country's history. Now, let us move to the United Nations and talk just for a moment about the United Nations. The United Nations, really when it comes to the issue of Iraq, and keep in mind the United Nations has about 189 members, I may be off one or two, but 189 countries or so. North Korea, for example, is in the United Nations. We have a number of different countries which are completely opposite of the United States and of the free world, in my opinion, in the United Nations. But we are not talking about the whole body. The real focus we have today, dealing with the problem of Iraq, dealing with the problem of weapons of mass destruction, dealing with the problem of, for example, North Korea and proliferation of nuclear weapons, that primarily focuses on the Security Council of the United Nations. I wanted very quickly, if you look to my left at the poster, the United Nations Security Council, these are the members of the Security Council. These members, for example Russia, can carry a veto and prevent the United Nations from taking action as a body. For example, the Kosovo air war. The head of the Security Council persuaded the United Nations to oppose an air war in Kosovo. So it is a powerful body, but it is a powerful body within the scope of the United Nations. This is the body of which we were in hopes would be strong enough, have tough enough teeth that it could bite into the problem and hold on to it after the Persian Gulf War of 12 or 13 years ago. It was the United Nations which issued the resolution, led by the United States and the joint members of the United Nations, to take action, to free Kuwait after Iraq overran Kuwait without cause, conquered its country, destroyed its oil wells, killed tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people in the country of Kuwait. It was the United Nations that issued a resolution supporting military conflict, if necessary, to free the country of Kuwait. It was the United Nations that kept the United States and the British, because we decided to be Mr. Nice Guy. We thought the United Nations could do something with Iraq after the Persian Gulf War, which was an overwhelming victory for the allies and America because of our military superiority. We had confidence, now as it appears, misplaced confidence, but we had confidence that the United Nations could help us rebuild Iraq through a series of resolutions, through a series of inspections, through disarming Iraq. The United Nations assured us 12 years ago to not go in and exterminate, do not go in and destroy or eliminate Saddam Hussein. Stay out of Baghdad. It was the United Nations. It was not George Bush, Sr., who made the decision. It was not Margaret Thatcher and the United Kingdom who made the decision to stay out of Baghdad. It was not Norman Schwarzkopf who decided not to go into Baghdad. It was the United Nations who insisted that our mandate was simply to get Iraq out of Kuwait, to not go into the city limits of Baghdad and take down the regime of Saddam Hussein. So we agreed to it because we were under the mistaken trust that the United Nations meant what they said. We were under the mistaken belief that the United Nations would carry through with its resolutions, that the United Nations, through its Security Council, would be sure that the resolutions that Saddam Hussein agreed in his own writing to follow, even proposed some of these resolutions. We were confident. That may be too strong a word. We were cautiously optimistic that the United Nations would not be a paper tiger, that the United Nations, within a short period of time, would disarm Iraq of these weapons of mass destruction. We knew of munitions that Iraq had, and we were cautiously optimistic that Iraq, through the United Nations, would disarm and become a member of the world community. It was a big mistake, and it is proving today that the United Nations itself does not have the gumption to do what it says. And it is the United Nations, not the United States, it is the United Nations that is on the brink of becoming what we call a paper tiger, an organization in the West they say is a cowboy with a big hat but no cows. The United Nations is right on the brink of making that decision. Do we once again become a paper tiger? Now, let us look a little at the history. First of all, what kind of weapons are we talking about in Iraq? Are we talking about these missiles we discovered in the last few days that have a range that exceeds the maximum range that Iraq agreed they would restrict these missiles to? Are we talking about the shell casings that Iraq denied that they still had? What are we talking about? Let me show you an inventory of what we are talking about and why we think it is important for the United Nations to not become a paper tiger. Again, let me refer you to my left. This is not what the United States or the Brits or any other ally says that Iraq has. This poster to my left does not reflect what the United Nations says Iraq has; this poster reflects what Iraq, what Saddam Hussein said he had. That is what this poster reflects. Take a look at it. Weapons of mass destruction: Mustard gas, 2,850 tons of mustard gas. That stuff is lethal, and I am going to show you case after case after case where Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, used these weapons of mass destruction either against his war in Iran or against Kuwaitis or against his own people. Sarin nerve gas, 795 tons. Do you realize what you could do to America or to Canada or to Portugal or to any neighbor of Iraq with 795 tons of sarin nerve gas? VX nerve gas, 3.9 tons. This is a very, very vicious weapon of mass destruction. The last two words describe it most accurately, mass destruction. Tabun nerve agent, 210 tons. Anthrax, 25,000 tons. Now, we all have an idea of what anthrax does because of the anthrax attack we had here in the Nation's Capital. That killed servants of this country. That killed people serving this country with just a few drops of powder in an envelope. He, under his own admission, has 25,000 tons of anthrax. He has 400 tons of uranium and he has 6 grams of plutonium. Under his own admission, he has these weapons of mass destruction. Now, we do not know where he has them. He agreed, by the way, to destroy them. He agreed to turn these over to the allies. By the way, you do not just destroy them. You do not just go out and set them on fire. You have to go through a very complicated process to disarm these. He has become an expert at sensing that the United Nations may be really nothing but a paper tiger, that it may follow the history of the League of Nations, which was charged with the responsibility, almost in a duplicate situation with Germany after World War I, to disarm Germany, and they backed down. Germany lied, and Germany, in fact, had weapons they said they did not have. The League of Nations did not enforce inspections. The League of Nations became a paper tiger, and Germany became a war machine. Unfortunately, many of us suffered. Many of our countries suffered during World War II. The United Nations is heading down that direct path because they refuse to disarm Iraq. Instead, they are going to play this cat-and- mouse game. Well, our President, thank goodness for our President, who has said enough is enough. He said earlier it is like a bad movie and he is not interested in seeing the rerun. You know what the rerun is? Let me show you what President Bush does not want to see a rerun of. Again, the poster to my left. President Bush does not want to see a rerun of August of 1983, where mustard gas killed no fewer than 100 people. He does not want to see a rerun of February 1986, where Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and tabun and killed 8,000 to 10,000 people. President Bush does not wants to see a rerun of the October 1983 attack, where Saddam Hussein used mustard gas to kill 3,000 Iranians and Kurds. President Bush does not want to see a rerun of the December 1986 act by Saddam Hussein, mustard gas, where he killed thousands of Iranians. That is the rerun President Bush does not want to see. Unfortunately, the person we would call ``the dove,'' the person least likely to urge this country to go into a military conflict, is Colin Powell, a man of high integrity, highest popularity rating in the United States of America because they know this is a man of integrity, and he has said enough is enough. Take a look at the team we have. President Bush put together the A Squad. We have Dick Cheney, one of the most qualified Vice Presidents in the history of this country. Condoleezza Rice. By the way, Dick Cheney is just north of us in Wyoming. The President from Texas. Condoleezza Rice schooled in Denver, Colorado. Condoleezza Rice, one of the brightest, most capable people in the area of international affairs, world affairs. Don Rumsfeld, one of the toughest guys I have ever met; one of the smartest men I have ever had the privilege to visit with. And, of course, Colin Powell. These people do not want to see a rerun. These people, and every Member of the United States Congress ought to be standing up strong and saying to the United Nations, do not let this happen to any more generations, to any more people in the world. United Nations, you have the opportunity today, you have the opportunity today to make sure that this movie, which is reflected on the poster to my left, will never be rerun again; that no other family in the history of the world will suffer from the hands of Saddam Hussein by a weapon of mass destruction. It is an inherent obligation of the world to stand up to this tyrant and to stop him. Yet, as we are on the verge of that, I fear that this tyrant is winning a public relations, a public relations effort with the United Nations, and the United Nations itself is about to become an unimportant organization because they did not stand up when standing up was called for. They did not answer to the call of duty when the most important call of duty came forward. They blinked. They blinked to the madman. They attempted to appease him. Look at history. History is a teacher. I do not care what history teacher in America you pick. Any history teacher you want, of any political affiliation, whether prowar, antiwar, pro-this or anti-that, there is one thing they all share in common. Every history professor in America shares one thing in common. What is it they share in common? They share in common that the knowledge of history gives you a pretty good idea of the future: That history is often repeated, that history repeats itself. To my left is the poster of history. It is the history of Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction. Not weapons that he has threatened to use, but weapons that he has used. It is the history of tens of thousands of people who died a horrible, horrible death. It is a history that the United Nations is on the verge of choosing to ignore. Maybe the United Nations should ask any historian anywhere in the world, forget the United States, ask anywhere else in the world if they think history will repeat itself. Fortunately, we have a President who has built a coalition throughout this world. This is not America standing alone. This is America standing with many countries throughout the world, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, many, many different countries throughout the world. So, okay, United Nations, maybe you are going to be a paper tiger, but we are convinced that history will repeat itself with Saddam Hussein, and we are at the end of our game. Even if it costs us some of our brave young men and women, we are willing to put the lives of our country's citizens on the line to stop this murderer. When duty calls, the United States under the leadership of our President and these other countries, the leadership of Tony Blair and the United Kingdom, et cetera, et cetera, have answered the call. We are begging the United Nations answer the call while you have the opportunity. Come out of the foxhole. You have an obligation to get onto the field. We must stop history from repeating itself. I could not speak with more serious or somber attitude than I am speaking to you this evening. Standing right in front of us is the history. We know the history. This inventory that Saddam Hussein has admitted himself is not a made-up inventory. Those are very, very lethal weapons. It is not like a single shot from a rifle where there is one victim. One vial of these inventories that Saddam Hussein has admitted to having, one vial can wipe out an entire community. History shows time and time and time and time and time and time again, this madman has used these weapons of mass destruction and killed thousands, tens of thousands of people. Yet we have people of sound mind who stand back and put their hands over their eyes and pretend that history will not repeat itself, that pretend that the cancer does not exist and this is somehow going to go away if we try to appease the madman. If we say give us a little of that inventory at a time, we will be satisfied with your word that you will not attack, that history will not repeat itself. I will tell Members what the United Nations is doing. They are making a bet, and anyone that supports allowing this madman to continue down his path, they are making a long bet. They are making a bet that the odds are so stacked against them that most of us would consider it a bet of insanity. It is a bet that no one in Las Vegas, no one that gambles, nobody that has ever gambled would ever take with the odds that face these people that do not want to stop this madman by military conflict, if necessary. It is a bet that is based on the premise, it is a bet that is based on the premise that history will not repeat itself, and that this madman all of a sudden has turned a new leaf and that this madman all of a sudden wants to join the world community and is a man of integrity now and a man of honesty. I am telling Members those that are making that bet, they are not just going to lose, you are making this bet on behalf of the entire world. And unfortunately, if we lose the bet because history repeats itself, we all lose. Tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people will have their lives snuffed out because of a foolish, foolhardy bet that has been made. Everyone of us in this Chamber and everybody in an elected office or an office of leadership in this world, the time has arrived to stand up. The time has arrived to come out of the foxhole fighting. The time has arrived to make sure that we address the fact that history will repeat itself. We have an opportunity today to, in my opinion, save hundreds, maybe hundreds of thousands, of people. It is not the only problem that we have out there. Sure, we have a problem with North Korea, and we have economic problems. We have the AIDS problem. But I am telling Members the problem that I think is the biggest threat is the one with the highest probability of repeating itself in history, and that is Saddam Hussein and the use of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, I commend the leaders of our country, including my colleagues in Congress who had enough guts to stand up and say enough is enough. But I am telling those people who are betting that history will not repeat itself, in my opinion, and I say this with a great deal of sincerity, and I do not say this with a lot of exaggeration, in my opinion you have let down every human being on the face of the Earth.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to pay tribute to Valentino Alvarado of Montrose, Colorado. Val served in the United States Navy for over 23 years and is a veteran of three American wars. Val had been in the Navy less than a year when his ship, the USS Maryland, was hit during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Today, I would like to pay tribute to Val's life and contributions before this body of Congress and this nation. Val joined the Navy when he was still in his senior year at Montrose High School. At age 17, Val dropped out of high school and went to boot camp in San Diego. After basic training, he was assigned to the USS Maryland, serving as a mess cook stationed in Pearl Harbor. On the morning of the attack, two Japanese torpedoes hit the bow and stern of his ship, causing many casualties to the crew. Miraculously, Val was able to escape the attack unharmed and soon reported to a new ship preparing for war. After World War II, Val continued to serve his country through both the Korean and the Vietnam Wars. Between wars, Val made a living as a professional boxer and won the military bantam weight boxing title. After serving in the military for 23 years, Val retired and went into law enforcement. He was the first Hispanic officer ever to serve in the Montrose Police Department. He also enrolled at Colorado University, where Val received his bachelor's degree. Today, Val lives at home in Montrose and serves as a role model and mentor to his two grandchildren, who he also wants to see graduate from college. Mr. Speaker, it is with earnest respect that I recognize Valentino Alvarado of Montrose, Colorado before this body of Congress and this nation. Throughout his life, Val has served his country with the honor, distinction, and integrity that we, as Americans, have come to respect from our nation's military. His courage is a testimony to his character, and it is an honor to represent such an outstanding American in this Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with honor that I recognize Mr. Russell D. Serzen of Durango, Colorado. Russell was a man of absolute integrity and strength. His conviction and dedication to Fort Lewis College's Community Concert Hall was a great asset, and yielded great benefits to his community. At this time, I would like to pay tribute to Russell's life and accomplishments. Mr. Serzen was born in Chicago, in 1933. He attended the University of Illinois, where he played hockey and baseball. He was named Most- Valuable-Player in baseball in 1954, and that same year he signed a contract with the New York Yankees. His baseball career was cut short in 1956, as he entered the Army. He was the first baseball player to be introduced into the University of Illinois's Hall of Fame. On September 19, 1950, Russell married Elizabeth Hanson. The two were blessed with three children. During his youth, Mr. Serzen was a medical supply salesman and a founding member of the Institute for Orthopaedic Enlightenment. In 1989, Mr. Sezen retired to Durango, Colorado. Once he was there, he became a strong supporter of Fort Lewis College's Community Concert Hall. He was always doing something to promote the community's interest in the Concert Hall, from organizing pledge drives to helping with the program planning. While living in Durango, his passions included jazz and handball. It was this passion for jazz that lead him to become so involved with the Community Concert Hall. Through his many efforts, Fort Lewis College's Community Concert Hall has grown in strength and in renown. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize Mr. Russell D. Serzen before this body of Congress and this nation. His advocacy for the Performing Arts in Western Colorado has helped establish a strong tradition of music and its appreciation. His memory will live on in the lives of his family, his friends, and the many people who were touched by his life.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today in order recognize Dr. J. Thomas Gilmore of Alamosa Colorado. Over the last seven years Dr. Gilmore has served as president of Adams State College in Alamosa, during which the college has experienced a period of dramatic growth and development. Dr. Gilmore, a native of the San Luis Valley, received his bachelor's and master's degrees in 1967 and 1968, from Adams State College. In 1973, Tom became a member of the College's faculty in the School of Business and later earned his Ph.D. from Colorado State University in Economics. Dr. Gilmore served as the School of Business's Dean from 1983 until 1993, during which time, he guided the school to receiving the first of Adam State's four Excellence in Education Awards. In 1993, he was named Vice President for External Affairs, and within that same year he became the Vice President for Administration. No sooner did Tom accept the position of Vice President, that he was named President of the College. Beginning in 1995, and throughout his entire tenure as President, Dr. Gilmore was preparing Adams State to become an independent institution. Under his direction, the school embarked on an ambitious building program constructing the first new building on its campus in more than 25 years. After having built a new theater and remodeled the School of business, Dr. Gilmore had every student residence hall wired for internet access. Due to his desire to see more students get the best education possible, he enlarged the endowment to almost four times its original size. As Dr. Gilmore retires, it is clear that he has left Adams State College a stronger institution than he found it. Mr. Speaker, it is with honor that I recognize Dr. J. Thomas Gilmore before this body of Congress and this nation. His strong leadership has improved the quality of secondary as well as post-secondary education in the State of Colorado. Tom has truly been a valuable resource to the students and faculty of Adams State College. I thank him for his continued service to his community and the great State of Colorado.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize and congratulate Representative Lola Spradley. Rep. Spradley has recently become the first female Speaker of the Colorado House, a truly momentous accomplishment. Growing up on a wheat ranch on the plains of Colorado, Lola learned to be a ready farm hand and could do everything from drive a tractor to milk a cow. Her experience growing up on a farm has helped Lola to have an excellent understanding of the rural district that she now represents. Now, Lola Spradley is a 56-year-old representative from southern Colorado. She and her husband, Dale, have four children and seven grandchildren. She lives on a 240-acre ranch with her horses and dogs, near Beulah, Colorado. As a political leader, Rep. Spradley is proud of her beliefs. She stands firmly for the rights of Colorado's citizens on issues that are as diverse as Gun Control and Water Management. She is a strong conservative and a devoted student of government. Running under that banner ``Lola Listens,'' Spradley won a decisive victory in the last election, and a unanimous election to the position of Speaker from the Colorado House Republicans. Colorado is proud to have her as its first female Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, it is with honor that I recognize Rep. Lola Spradley before this body of Congress and this nation. She is a strong woman who cares about her district and her state, and she will continue to be an integral part of Colorado's leadership.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 41 of the 108th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride that I honor Lloyd Chavez. Mr. Chavez's continuous dedication to the automobile industry, as well as his philanthropic endeavors in Denver, Colorado, have made him a valuable asset to the community. Lloyd was bom in Denver, Colorado, one of five children. He served in the Navy, and soon after, married his high school sweetheart. They had three children. After finishing his degree at the University of Denver, Lloyd began to work as a salesman at Burt Chevrolet in Englewood. Little did he know, fifty-one years later, that he would own the Burt Automotive Network, a successful and influential business in Colorado. Mr. Chavez is a successful business owner, and has garnered many awards and recognitions for his endeavors in business. In 1993, Lloyd was recognized as the Top Hispanic Businessman in the U.S., and, in 1994, as the National Hispanic Businessman of the Year. Burt Automotive Network has also been recognized as the top Minority-Owned Business in Colorado for the past four years. In addition to Lloyd's success in the business community, he also is involved in various community groups. He has donated cars to Craig Hospital's occupational department, sponsored children's sports teams, and donated cars to the Littleton Public School's Driver Education Program. Lloyd's life has been marked by significant contributions to his community. Mr. Speaker, it is with privilege that I recognize Lloyd Chavez before this body of Congress and this nation today. Mr. Chavez's success in the Denver business community, as well as his generous donations to the people, have been immeasurably beneficial in the lives of many.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Again, reclaiming my time, in my opinion, this is the clearest example of a double standard that we have seen in a long time, and it is taking place right now in front of the American public; and the American public ought to stand up and say, look, just because one is not on the radical left does not mean they should not have an opportunity as a Hispanic leader, as one of the top-rated attorneys in the country by the American Bar Association, to take a position that has never before been held by a Hispanic.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the majority leader taking time to share these comments with myself this evening. Mr. Speaker, I thought long and hard before I came over here to the House floor tonight. My comments are coming from the depth of my heart of which I feel very very strongly about. I want to go through a couple of things with all of my colleagues this evening because I know most of them feel the same way I do. They understand our job responsibilities to the American people, our job responsibilities not only to the American people, but to the world. As the President said in his State of the Union address, freedom is not just a gift to America, freedom is a gift to all humanity; and this Nation leads the world and has led the world throughout its history, throughout the history of this Nation as the one who carries the banner of freedom, as the one who has the ability and not just the ability, excuse me, but has the courage, the profound courage, to stand up for other countries that are not as fortunate. It is the United States of America that today, when we match it against any country in the history of the world, not just the history of the United States, but any country in the history of the world, it is the United States of America that has gone to arms more often than any other country to defend another country. It is the United States of America that goes to military assistance; not to conquer, the United States did not go out and attempt to conquer other countries. That is not our mission in this life. Our mission is to go out and allow freedom to spread throughout this world. It is the United States of America that today, if we take a look at all the food assistance in the world, it is the U.S.A. that provides 60 percent of it. It is the U.S.A. that provides more educational opportunities than any other nation in the world. It is the United States of America that provides more medicine to other countries than any other country in the world. It is the United States of America that allows more opportunities to immigrants than any other country in the world. There is a reason that in the United States of America we have problems with immigration. Do my colleagues know why? Because of the fact we do not have any lining up to get out of this country. We have people lining up by the hundreds of thousands that want to come into this country, the country of great promise, but this country only achieved this position of strength through a position of commitment. That is when we see something wrong going on, either against our citizens or against the citizens of our friends, we must take a position. We must stand up. In part, nobody else has the capability to do it. Then sometimes when, as the case that I am going to go through with my colleagues in some detail tonight, there are other countries that have the capability to stand up and do it, but they will not stand up. When the going gets tough, that is when we count our friends. There are a lot of people who will want you to be the first one out of the foxhole. But the fact is not a lot of people will follow you as you go onto that battlefield under heavy fire. Now, let me say right at the onset of my remarks, the President of the United States has done a tremendous job. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has done a tremendous job. Condoleezza Rice, Don Rumsfeld. Thank goodness, in this time of need, George W. Bush put together this kind of A squad. I do not care whether you are a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican. The fact is when you take a look at a Condoleezza Rice, when you take a look at a Colin Powell, whether you agree or not, the fact is you have to say they are good. They are class. They are the top. They are the A squad. And fortunately, in this time of need, we have the A squad running this country. Now, I want to go over this evening, number one, what I think our ultimate responsibility is to the American people, to the constituents that we represent. I want to go over a little background of Iraq and talk a little bit about Saddam Hussein, who unilaterally, by himself, has killed more Muslims than any other known person in the history of the world. He has killed more Muslims. Killed more Muslims. And that, by the way, includes men, women and children. He is the only leader alive today that we are aware of that has used chemical weapons and things like anthrax and other types of poisonous weapons to kill his own population, to kill his own people. He would just as soon take to war against another country, but use it against his own people. So I will talk a little about the history of this madman. I will talk a little about the situation we face in regards to our allies, particularly the French and the Germans, who have stunned the world of NATO, which for 50-some years has been a close-knit organization, an organization in which the loyalty and the dedication to your fellow members has never been questioned, has never been questioned. Their moves in the last week and a half have shaken the very foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I will be going to Europe this week to participate in NATO meetings, and I can tell you that I am taking a message to my colleagues in Germany and Europe and Belgium and Luxembourg. My message is: Have you thought about what you are doing? Look what you are doing to the family. I know we may have a family dispute, we may have an inter- family dispute, but look what you have done to the family. The steps that the French and the Germans have taken this week reach far beyond the fact they refuse to provide assistance to the country of Turkey, which by the way is the most Muslim country in the world, a nation that has stood up against radical terrorists, against the radical believers of the Koran who have read it inaccurately. Yet our colleagues in France and Germany have refused to stand up, and they have really cracked the foundation of an organization that some now say has served past its due time. I want to visit a little about what we do after this is all done, and I think it is very important. Because what other country in the history of the world, show me one other country in the history of the world that after they engage in a military conflict with another nation believes that it is as important to rebuild the nation that they just went to war with; that it is more important to rebuild that nation than to walk away. The United States of America did it in World War II with the Marshall Plan. The United States of America built Japan. In fact, the aid we gave Japan, I can remember in the 1980s, when people were saying, my gosh, we restored this country, we saved this country from going into oblivion. We saved this country. We helped rebuild this country. We wrote their constitution and we put a general in charge, and now Japan is overtaking us in the business community. Remember those days in the 1980s? This Nation is not a Nation that seeks to conquer. This is a Nation that seeks to do good and do good for the right cause and for the right people. And this is also a Nation, although reluctant to do so, it is a Nation that is prepared to take that sword and show its terrible wrath against the evil people of this world. And, of course, Saddam Hussein fits at the very top of that list. Let us visit just a little about Iraq. We all remember the situation in the Persian Gulf. And I have heard many people criticize, including myself, when I asked the question many times, Why did we not take out Saddam Hussein in the first Persian Gulf War? Why did we not do it? What kept us? We had a superior Army, and the so-called Republican Guard of the Iraq armed forces folded. They folded like that. In fact, many of the guard surrendered to unarmed American photographers, newspaper reporters. And we went, Why did we stop at Baghdad? Why did we not go in and take care of the problem? Initially, I criticized the first George Bush. But when we take a look at what happened, it was not the President of the United States. Not at all. It was the United Nations. It was the United Nations mandate. That was the only authority, assuming we followed that mandate, the only authority this Nation and its coalition had, which was to take Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but not to go in and have a regime change. So as a result of the United Nations actions 12 or 13 years ago, it was the United Nations that kept Saddam Hussein in power, and it has been the United Nations, which resolution after resolution after resolution has turned a blind eye towards violation after violation after violation. Keep in mind that this country knows when it is called upon to do good for other countries. My district is in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. I had the good fortune, the privilege, actually, of being in Aspen, Colorado, when George Bush, Sr., flew in to the news, as he was in flight, flew into the news that Iraq had just taken a smaller country, Kuwait. Had invaded it. Had invaded that country. It was Margaret Thatcher and George Bush, Sr., in Aspen, Colorado, that made the decision that the action taken by the Iraqi country and by Saddam Hussein would not stand. Remember those words? The President said this will not stand. We prepared militarily. We built a coalition. But we yielded to the leadership of the United Nations, or at least the restrictions imposed by the resolutions of the United Nations, and that is that we not go into Baghdad and have a regime change. Furthermore, we yielded to the United Nations, who basically set out the terms of what the negotiation should be on the surrender of Saddam Hussein. These surrender terms allowed Saddam Hussein to stay in power. It allowed him to stay in power, but under very, or what we thought at the time, were very tough and stringent conditions. And those conditions being that he would never again arm that country with weapons of mass destruction; that he would allow inspectors into his country for the rest of the history of that country; that he would turn over to the allies and to the United Nations inspection forces all his weapons of mass destruction; that he would list the weapons of mass destruction that they still had in their inventory. This was term after term after term after term that the United Nations insisted upon during the surrender. What happened? Violation after violation after violation. Now, keep in mind that I think our responsibility as Congressmen to this Nation, and frankly to the world, but our ultimate responsibility is to provide for the security of the people of this country. I cannot think of any other responsibility that rises to the level of protecting the security of the people that live within these borders and our friends outside these borders. It, in my opinion, is an absolute obligation. And should we fail through negligence, or in this case what I would consider gross negligence, because we know what Iraq has; we know, at some point, what Iraq's intentions are, it would be a gross failure of our ultimate responsibility if we did not answer to the call, if we did not send fire trucks to this fire. Sure, the fire is dangerous. Sure there are a lot of resources and a lot of fire trucks that we are going to have to send to that fire, but we have to send them. Let me give some kind of comparison here. I think in a lot of aspects a medical doctor has the same type of responsibility to his patient or her patient. A medical doctor's responsibility is to provide for the security of their patient, security in the terms of their health. What is the health of the patient? How can we preserve the life? What can we do for this patient? The security of that patient. And sometimes that means the doctor has to give some pretty tough advice. In this particular case, think of going to the doctor and you have sort of a hurt in your foot. So you say to the doctor, Doctor, my foot kind of hurts, but it is not really a big deal, I do not think. I am just kind of coming in here because my mom told me I needed to come in and see you. I wanted to get her off my back, so I am coming in to see you. So as the doctor, you come back to your patient and you say, I have some bad news and I have some good news. The bad news is you have cancer in that foot. The good news is we can take care of it now. Now, it is going to require some sacrifice. It is going to require some pretty dramatic action, action that you never anticipated when you walked into this doctor's office, but nonetheless that action is required. And the patient looks at the doctor and says to the doctor, Doctor, I do not want to hear this. I do not want to hear this. It is going to disturb my lifestyle. It will interrupt me going to work, my work schedule. I did not come in here to hear I have cancer. I came in here just because my foot was bothering me a little. I do not want to hear it. Or the patient says to the doctor, okay, Doctor, but I want to go home and pray about it. The patient wants to pray it away. I do not want this happening to me. Well, prayer is very important, do not get me wrong. I say prayers everyday, and thank goodness we have some guidance from our supreme being. But the fact is that alone does not do it. Does not do it. Or the patient says to the doctor, I just want to go home and go to sleep and tomorrow I will wake up and it will all be a bad dream. But the doctor says to the patient, before you leave this office, keep in mind that today we can take that cancer and it is in the foot. If you wait too long, that cancer, the next time you come in here, that cancer will have spread throughout your body, and then my options are extremely limited. So I cannot allow you to go out of this office without being fully open with you and telling you that. And that is exactly what we as Congressmen, that is exactly the fundamental responsibility that we have to the generation behind us and to the generations that live with us, and that is to be straightforward. We have an opportunity today to stop that cancer while it is still in the foot. To ignore that, to pretend that it is not occurring, to somehow kind of say, let us sleep on it and it will go away is a huge, huge, huge misstep in our obligations. In fact, I think, I truly think that the failure to stand up to this threat that is so imminent and imminent to future generations, failure for us as a body to stand up to this threat is nothing short of treason. That is how strongly I feel. We know it is there. Now, this Congress has not neglected its duties. This Congress has stood up and given to the President of the United States the authority the President needs to go in and engage in whatever operation, whether it is a peaceful operation or a military operation, to fix the problem. But this problem needs to be fixed now. And the President, in my opinion, has been very patient. The nations across this world have been very patient. We have gone through 17 resolutions with the United Nations. Each resolution has been violated. Each resolution has been broken. At one point, Iraq kicked the inspectors out. Iraq has continued time after time after time to hide these weapons, to play a game of cat and mouse. What would happen if Iraq surrendered those weapons? Do you know what would happen to Iraq if it joined the world economic community? It would be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. They would be able to provide for their citizens. Saddam Hussein could provide a standard of living for his citizens that would match many of the industrial countries in the world. The people of Iraq could have education. The people of Iraq could have the kind of medication and health care that most industrial countries enjoy. The people of Iraq could enjoy the fruits of their hard work, but instead this horrible leader has focused on one issue and that is a self-serving image of himself to be a creator of disaster. And we have an opportunity to step forward. Let me say what happened. We have got some examples in history where, when the obligation was there, the team that was responsible to handle it did not do it, did not carry out their responsibilities, and I want to speak briefly about that example. Germany, World War I, Germany used poison gas. Germany in its surrender, very much, there are a lot of similarities between Germany and Iraq, Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, Germany in World War I. Germany surrendered to the international community. In fact, it is kind of weird how close those conditions that Germany surrendered upon are similar to the conditions that Iraq surrendered upon. Germany agreed not to produce any more weapons of mass destruction. Germany agreed to allow inspectors into its country. Germany agreed to surrender all weapons of mass destruction or gas or weapons like this to the allies, to the world community. What happened? It was not very long where Germany, just like Iraq, started saying to the inspection teams, ``Wait a minute, this is sovereign territory, you have no right to enter this part of our country and inspect whether we are hiding weapons in there.'' And the international community, primarily led by France, by the way, gave in. They refused to force Germany to live up to its agreement. They refused to acknowledge the fact that the Germans had lied and the Germans had used those weapons in a very lethal fashion against the world and that they were not surrendering those weapons. So they did not know what to do with this hot potato. Germany was not allowing the inspectors to carry out their duties. In fact, Germany kicked the inspectors out, just like Iraq did. So what happened? What did the community do? The international community led by France, they turned it over to a group called the League of Nations. What did the League of Nations do? They talked tough just like the United Nations did, but they blinked, and when Germany continued to refuse to follow the agreement that they made, that they made, the League of Nations stood down. The League of Nations backed off. What happened? Well, Germany rebuilt its inventories. Germany, in fact, had been lying about the weapons that it in fact possessed. The League of Nations became a paper tiger, and today there are very few people that one can stop who can tell them what the League of Nations is. And the United Nations faces the same challenge. Keep in mind that under President Clinton on the bombing, the air war against Kosovo, against Milosevic, keep in mind that it was the United Nations which refused to pass a resolution supporting the air war in Kosovo. And now the United Nations stands up and beats on their chest as if they are the ones that saved Kosovo. Fortunately, President Clinton, through his leadership, was determined that that was what was necessary, and frankly he turned out to be right and the United Nations was wrong. Keep in mind that these resolutions that the United Nations has passed are simply a reflection of the agreements that Saddam Hussein and his country agreed to. These are not conditions imposed by outside countries upon the sovereign immunity of Iraq. These are conditions that Iraq agreed to, and Iraqis themselves have time and time and time again broken the very things that they agreed to. Now let us take a look at what kind of weapons Iraq has. I listened to some of the people that are protesting this action. I am appalled by the fact that they are ignoring the cancer that exists. I am appalled by the fact that they gunplay to the world, through public relations, a very sophisticated public relations campaign, that they underestimate the threat of these weapons, that they somehow think that we can trust Saddam Hussein, that they somehow think if we love him and hold his hand and talk warm and fuzzy talk with him, maybe share a piece of apple pie with the guy, that he is going to come clean and be a good neighbor. This is a neighbor who has a vicious past. My guess would be that some of these protestors are some of the protestors that lead protests to disarm American citizens and take on battle with the National Rifle Association, but yet take a totally opposite stand when it comes to Saddam Hussein. Now let us just see how serious this threat is. We are not talking about 13 empty missiles or shell casings. We are not talking about a couple Scud missiles that exist out there. Let us take a look at what we are talking about. I refer you to the poster. This is the history of chemical weapons that Iraq has. These are weapons that Iraq has used in the past. So first I want to show this, and then we are going to progress from this poster to the next poster, which demonstrates what their inventory is. But just for those people out there that are in these protest lines, I think you have every right to be there, but I disagree fundamentally with the direction that you are leading a lot of innocent people. You are going to get them killed, in my opinion. You are leading them down the path of disaster if you ignore the history that Iraq has proven to the world. Let us take a look at the history. My poster, Iraq's history of chemical weapons use. Date: 1983; type of agent, mustard; around 100; target, Iranians and Kurds. Keep in mind that Saddam Hussein has led his Nation on two invasions against other countries outside its borders, not in retaliation but in an offensive action. They attempted to invade Iran, and they did invade Kuwait. October, 1983; mustard gas; casualties, 3,000; victims, Iranians and Kurds. And I should point out that the Kurds were Iraqi citizens. February, 1984; mustard gas, 2,500 people. These are equivalent, 3,000. That is like the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon, 3,000 people, and he got them with mustard gas. The same thing, mustard; 2,500 Iranians. March, 1984, Saddam Hussein, 100 more Iranians. March, 1985, Saddam Hussein kills 3,000 other people through the use of these chemical weapons. February, 1986, mustard gas, 8,000 to 10,000 people. Remember, these are not fighting men. These are men, women, and children that were extinguished, they were eliminated, they were murdered in cold blood though the use of chemical weapons as ordered by Saddam Hussein, 10,000 that time around. 1986, thousands, they cannot even estimate how many thousands were killed in that attack by Saddam Hussein using this type of weapon. 1987, mustard gas, 5,000; 1987, mustard gas, 3,000. 1988, hundreds, mustard gas, nerve agents. How much clearer can it be? I mean, it would be one position if somebody came up and said, ``Look, we think this guy might kill somebody with these. It is a threat, but he has no history of it.'' We can use history to give us some kind of guidance of what is going to happen in the future. This is a cold-blooded killer. His only interest in being nice right now is to win the public relations battle in the international community. He knows that George W. Bush and the team of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney, he knows that that team is determined to do what is right. He knows that that team will not allow this threat to exist. So he is attempting, and frankly he is doing a pretty good job of it, to win a public relations battle throughout the world that, ``Look, forget what'' thou ``has done in the past and believe what I am going to do in the future. I am going to be a good guy. It is America, it is America that is causing this problem.'' So for everyone this evening who thinks that somehow we are dealing with a paper tiger or we are dealing with a threat that really does not exist, look at the history, look at the history of cold-blooded murder. Take our disaster of September 11 and multiply it and multiply it and multiply it, and we will get to the number of casualties that Saddam Hussein has carried out just through chemical weapons just as soon as other methods of war, which have killed hundreds of thousands of people, primarily Muslims, by the way. Now let us take a look. We know through our intelligence, through the admissions made by Iraq after the surrender in the Persian Gulf that these following locations, and I will not go through each location, but every point on this poster to my left, every point on here is a weapons production facility, and a lot of these facilities are being utilized. Let me refer to the next poster. This is one of those facilities, here to my left. It is very hard to see, but this is one of the facilities. On November 10, 2002, somehow the Iraqi leadership, Saddam, got word that the inspectors were going to be there. So on December 22 when the inspectors showed up, now take a look at what has happened. The facility has been sanitized. It is an attempt to fool the American public. It is an attempt to fool the world. It is an attempt to divert our attention into thinking that this individual, who has twice in his history invaded other countries, who has murdered more Muslims than any other man alive, who has, through the use of chemical weapons, killed members of his own civilian population, who is responsible for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of deaths, and yet he is being persuasive with the world community in some areas in persuading them that he means no evil, that he is not a man of evil, that in fact America is the country of evil. Take a look at that sanitation. Now let us take a look at what Iraq has under their last admission after Persian Gulf War Number One. If any poster should get your attention this evening, it should be this poster to my left. These are inventories, not calculated by the intelligence communities of the rest of the world; these are inventories that Saddam Hussein himself admitted that he has and now refuses, time after time after time again refuses to turn those inventories over, refuses to account for those inventories and instead says to a couple of hundred inspectors in an area the size of the State of California, ``Find them if you can.'' That is the message out there, ``Find them if you can.'' Take a look at what type of weapons we are speaking of. Mustard gas, 2,850 tons. 2,850 tons. Take a look at the sarin nerve gas, 795 tons of sarin nerve gas. VX nerve gas, and let me tell everyone about the VX nerve gas. After the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein said he never made VX, he never made VX. In 1995, under pressure from the international community, he admitted that he made VX. He admitted he made VX, but only a few milligrams. Now they admit to 3.9 tons of that. Nerve agent, 210 tons; anthrax, 25,000 tons; uranium, 400 tons; plutonium, 6 grams. This individual is a very, very dangerous individual. No other country in the world is capable of leading a coalition other than the United States of America. The United States of America will go forward with a coalition. Now, when we take a look at the national press, the world press, one would think we have no European support outside of our long-time solid friend of Britain. The fact is we have lots of support on the European continent: Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Bulgaria. There are a number of different countries that support the position of the United States, that understand that this is not a problem that is unique to this country. It is a problem that is spread across the entire world. It is a problem that threatens the safety of everybody in this world. And yet there is a coalition that is willing to stand up and do something about it. And do not be mistaken about NATO. The majority of NATO, the vote that went against us, was 16 in favor of the United States and three against us. The shock of NATO is that a country like France, who now, as we know, are pretty fair-weather friends, meaning they are a friend when it is convenient for them; and the Germans, it is unprecedented in NATO's history that a partner would refuse to help a fellow partner, such as Turkey, in their time of need. But the fact is do not underestimate the strength that we have within the membership of NATO. There are a lot of people in this world, there are a lot of countries in this world, that realize that this cancer must be addressed now; and we are attempting to do it. I think we have an obligation to try and address it in the approach that has the least amount of impact; peaceful if we can do it, but do not let this game go on and on, because I am telling you that cancer spreads day by day, and that cancer does not discriminate on its victim. It will attack every man, woman and child alive. And it has no mercy. This cancer will show no mercy. We can stop it today. And if these means of peaceful approach through the United Nations will not work, if the United Nations will not accept its responsibility and stand up to this madman, it is then inherent in the history of this country and the moral obligation of this country to stand forward and stop that cancer. That is our obligation. It may not be what seems to be politically correct with some of the population with the French. And by the way, if you want to take a look at what is the incentive of the French and Germans to turn and invest against their long-term friend, the United States, take a look at their oil contracts with Iraq. I have heard people say this is all about oil. Well, with the French, it is. That is where they are getting their oil. Take a look at their long-term business contracts. When I go to Europe this week, I am going to ask the French and my colleagues in Germany, Where is your investment? Where is your best, solid thought for an investment? Is it with the United States of America and the coalition of Spain and Italy and Bulgaria and Portugal and the British, or is your investment better with the country of Iraq and Saddam Hussein? I know that we have an obligation to go in and do something about this cancer, but we also have an obligation, and we have accepted that obligation, to be there when we take the cancer off, the aftermath of what happens, after, for example, a military conflict. This Nation will take into Iraq within hours, within hours of a military victory, we will supply that country of Iraq with medicine they have never seen under Saddam Hussein. We will supply them with food supplies and feed their hungry stomachs to the extent they have never experienced in their lifetime, many of them. We will offer that country, more than anything else we could give them, freedoms that they have never dreamed of under Saddam Hussein. The United States of America will not rule Iraq. Iraq will rule Iraq. But it will rule it under a leader who cares about the people of that country, who does not place military weapons in school yards and missiles in hospitals. There are only good things that can happen to the country of Iraq if the United States of America and the world community stands up to its obligations. There is a cost of leadership. Do not just stand up and say you are a leader. A leader is called upon when the challenges get tough. This is a tough challenge, and it is a long-term obligation to give these people what they deserve, and that is freedom, that is health care, that is food, that is the ability to do business. It is our time. It is our time and our allies' time to stand up and get rid of this cancer. And if the French and the Germans and Luxemburg and Belgium do not have enough guts to do it, then get out of our way, because we are going to do what is right. This Nation throughout its history, oh, sure, we hit a bump in the road here and there; sure, we made mistakes. This is not a mistake; this is an obligation. And I am confident that under the leadership of our fine President, this Nation will meet that obligation. A year from now we will look back at many of these naysayers and I will say, now what do you have to say, because it will be our Nation that gave these people their freedom. It will be this Nation and people like the British and our good allies that had enough guts to do what is right. And make no mistake, as that phrase is commonly used, this team down there in the White House and this Congress which has authorized that team in the White House, we will do what we need to do to give the Iraqi people exactly what they are entitled to. I can tell you as a United States Congressman, I stand here with a great deal of pride, knowing that I am carrying out my fundamental responsibility to the people of this Nation and to the people of this world, and that is to provide security, to provide freedom, to share our wealth of food, to share our wealth of medicine. We will do the job. We are a can-do Congress. We have a President and an administration that is can-do. We will get the job done, and we hope that the world community will join us. The majority of them, I am confident will. Those allies like the French and Germans, who become weak-kneed now, at some point in time will look back and see it was probably one of the most serious mistakes they ever made. So it is time for the people of this Nation to stand up in support of its leadership, and they have. We will not betray you. We will not let you down. We will do what we are charged to do, and that is to go out and protect not only our Nation and not only our friends, but the oppressed people of Iraq. And we will destroy those weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, for one, will never be a country, after we are finished, that will have the capability to once again make tens of thousands of casualties through the use of poison gas on innocent civilians.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman leaves, I would like to point out a couple of things about Mr. Estrada. First of all, the American Bar Association has given him the highest qualifications. These are the people that go in, regardless of race and economic status, they take a look at their legal qualifications. He is at the top of the book. He is at the top of the group. He is at the top. Second of all, I think it is very important some of the gentleman's remarks. He is a leader, a recognized leader in the Hispanic community. Why are they picking on him? They cannot pick on him because of substance. I think there is a double standard back here. The Democrats on one hand stand and say they feel strongly about the Hispanic community, but when the going gets tough, where are they to be found? It is people like my colleagues sitting over here that have enough guts to stand up when something is going wrong and say, how can you do this? Or the American Bar, which by the way is nonpartisan, has said he ranks at the very top. And here we have the Democrats taking on what is going to be the first opportunity for a Hispanic in the history of our country to be named into this position, and it is the Democrats who take one of the most highly qualified attorneys in this country, according to a bipartisan group, the American Bar Association, and are at this very moment seeking to destroy him. The gentleman's comments were well taken. I would be happy to yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I think his comments are especially pertinent this evening in consideration of the debate that is going on in this Capitol. So I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride that I honor Mrs. Kimberly Cannedy of Denver, Colorado for her work with the youth of my state. She has devoted countless hours to helping children of Western Colorado, and has committed her life to making a difference. Mrs. Kimberly Cannedy was born in Denver, Colorado, where over twenty years ago she gave up her high-powered position with Rolls Royce Motors. With this, Kimberly began what she considers the most important work of all: being a mother. Her work does not stop with her own family, but rather it extends into her community. She has opened her doors to numerous foster children over the past ten years. Kimberly, along with her husband of twenty-one years, recently adopted four young girls, and are currently in the process of adopting another. Her growing family includes three children of her own, all between the ages of 15 and 19. In addition to being a foster care provider, Kimberly has assisted many young mothers by teaching classes on parenting and opening her home to those in need of any additional help. Kimberly believes that if her work reaches and improves the life of one mother or one child, then it is enough. However, her compassionate work has reached many mothers and children alike, and her personal philosophy of helping people through difficult times has reached into and improved the lives of innumerable people whom she has encouraged and helped throughout the years. Mr. Speaker, it is with great privilege that I recognize Mrs. Kimberly Cannedy before this body of Congress and this nation today. Through her caring actions she demonstrates to us all what it means to be a caring and supportive individual.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of respect that I honor Mrs. Dar Emme. Through her efforts of suicide prevention, Mrs. Emme has helped countless Colorado youth. In 1994, after Dar and her husband Dale's lives were personally touched by suicide, they created the Yellow Ribbon Program. Since then, they have firmly committed themselves to stopping others from taking their own lives. Dar currently volunteers more than fifty hours a week with the program, traveling all over the country and speaking to students about suicide prevention. She encourages students to start their own chapters of the Yellow Ribbon Program, which will take calls and emails from students and parents regarding suicide. Dar believes that enabling students to run their own programs facilitates leadership, and will make the programs stronger. The Yellow Ribbon Program currently employs six people. They send kits worldwide and answer emails and letters from parents and youth regarding suicide prevention. This program has been of great importance in the lives of many people; since its inception, the program has received more than 2,500 letters from children saying that the program saved their life. Mr. Speaker, it is with privilege that I recognize Dar Emme before this body Congress and this nation today. Mrs. Emme's efforts to help those at risk for suicide have been immeasurably beneficial in the lives of many.