Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor a great individual who has helped revitalize and strengthen his community's way of life. Les Mergelman is an example of success derived from hard work and determination. And it is a great honor to praise his efforts and contributions. Les is retiring after thirteen proud years of service as the President of the Olathe State Bank. During his tenure, the bank prospered and thrived, becoming an instrumental piece of the Olathe financial community. Les helped regenerate lost revenue, and was instrumental in engineering the grand opening of the bank's main office in Olathe. However, Les is not one to bask in personal achievement, as he takes pride in the teamwork of his staff. He fervently believes in never giving up and keeping his head high regardless of the situation. Les's wisdom and leadership cannot, by any means, be duplicated, and each member of Les's office undoubtedly cherishes the countless contributions Les has made to the `team.' Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to applaud the efforts of Les Mergelman before this body of Congress and this nation. The State of Colorado will always be grateful for his constant support of Olathe sweet corn and the culture of Colorado. We wish him the best with all the future endeavors that he undertakes. I fervently believe that he will continue to be a beacon to the Olathe community for years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sergeant Tony Lombard of the Denver Police Department and thank him for his extraordinary contributions to his community and to his state. As a resident of Denver, Colorado, Tony has dedicated himself to protecting the Denver community by selflessly devoting his time and energy to his job, his family, and his community. His remarkable twenty-nine years on the force serve as a symbol of the commitment that Tony feels for the Denver Police department and the City of Denver. As we celebrate the accomplishments of this fine career, let it be known that I, along with the people of Colorado, applaud his efforts and are eternally grateful for all that he has done for his community. Throughout his career, Tony served as a spokesman and legislative lobbyist for the Denver Police Department. He has also worked as an active member in the narcotics division and credits his wife, Cynthia for always understanding his absence when work required him to leave church, movies, parties, and family dinners. As a former police officer, I understand Mr. Lombard's frustration and tolerance. Moreover, his goodhearted interests have further served to set him apart in his community, and have earned him much respect throughout the Denver Police Department. Throughout the course of his career, Tony served in the sex-crimes unit and also worked for several years with his father in the public information office. Together, they comprised the only father-son spokesman team in the department's history. Tony is retiring because he wants to pursue other avenues of work such as working with the Police Protective Association. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Tony Lombard is a man of unparalleled dedication and commitment to his job, his community and his family. It is his commitment to hard work, as well as his spirit of integrity and selflessness with which he has always conducted himself that I wish to bring before this body of Congress. Sgt. Tony Lombard has served his state and his country in an honorable manner, and it is my privilege to extend to him my sincere congratulations on his retirement and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sheriff Patrick Sullivan, Jr. of Arapahoe County, Colorado and thank him for his extraordinary contributions to his community and to his state. As a resident of Arapahoe County, Patrick has dedicated his career to protecting the community by selflessly devoting his time and energy to his job, his family, and his community. His remarkable nineteen years as sheriff serve as a symbol of the commitment that Patrick feels for the Arapahoe County Sheriff's department and the protection of Colorado residents. As we celebrate the accomplishments of his fine career, let it be known that I, along with the people of Colorado, applaud his efforts and are eternally grateful for all that he has done for his community. Sheriff Sullivan received his law enforcement training from several institutions including the FBI National Academy Sheriffs' Institute; the Juvenile Officers' Institute, California Specialized Training Institute, Special Tactical Firearms Course, and the Special Weapons and Tactics Course (SWAT). During his tenure as sheriff of Arapahoe County he led the department in becoming the first sheriff's office to national accreditation under the 908 professional standards established by the commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. During Patrick's time as Sheriff, Arapahoe County has hosted several Presidential events and a Papal visit, as well as co-hosting the 1997 G-8 summit with the City of Denver. Each of these events presented security and terrorist threats that required significant preparation and uncommon diligence. In every event, Sheriff Sullivan and his men met the challenges presented by such high profile security details; professionalism and skill have been their hallmark throughout Patrick's tenure. Here in Washington, Sheriff Sullivan has shared his expert knowledge with me and my colleagues, having advised and testified before subcommittees of this House that deal with Crime and Trade, areas in which he has been able to provide us with invaluable guidance and wisdom. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Sheriff Patrick Sullivan is a man of unparalleled dedication and commitment to his job, his community and his country. It is his dedication to hard work, as well as the spirit of integrity and selflessness, that I wish to bring before this body of Congress, and our nation. Sheriff Sullivan has honorably served his state and nation, and it is my privilege to extend to him my sincere congratulations on his retirement and to wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the contributions of Garry MacCormack to the Pueblo, Colorado community. After providing thirty years of quality telecommunication service to the community, Garry is retiring to spend more time with his family. Garry has played a vital role in the development of the Pueblo telecommunications community and I can think of no better way to celebrate Garry's retirement than to thank him for his service before this body of Congress, and this nation. Rye Telephone Company was started by Garry's parents in the 1950s when they purchased the neighborhood telephone cooperative. Garry took over the reins of the business in 1974, and as telecommunication advancements evolved, so to has the Rye Telephone Company. The company has matured from offering a single phone with long distance to the community, to the current telecommunications amenities such as multiple lines, voicemail, and Internet service to three states. Garry has nurtured the company through some amazing times, like installing fiber optic lines, and will now pass the family legacy over to his daughter, Michelle. Mr. Speaker, as Garry enjoys his retirement with his wife Dayle, I am confident the company will continue to grow and prosper under Michelle's direction. Garry's success story serves as a model example of hard work and perseverance for a member of the community and I am honored to represent him and his family before you today. Thanks for all your years of service to Pueblo, Garry, and I wish you all the best in your well-deserved retirement.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and I have heard the previous speaker make a little comment about political donations. I hope the gentlemen have the opportunity to read the article this morning about the Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee, and their $100,000 sponsorship. They were hosted by Bristol-Myers this weekend. That is the prescription drug company. I think that is what these guys are talking about. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) I have a good deal of respect for. He is very capable, a bright gentleman. But I would like the gentleman to show me anybody on this House floor, anybody on this House floor who opposes seniors. He makes a statement out here on the House floor about, well, we should be the party, I guess he is referring to the Democrats, we should be the party that comes back here because the Republicans are against seniors. I challenge the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) to show me one Republican or one Democrat or one Independent or Socialist, whatever our one party is registered as, show me one person on this House floor, just one, I say to the gentleman, that is opposed to seniors. I do not know anybody opposed to seniors. That is as absurd as the statement we hear in here, well, they are against education. Show me one Congressman, show me one elected official in this Nation, whether it is a State representative, whether it is a school board member, whether it is a city council member, whether it is a Congressman, whether it is an appointed position in our political system, a cabinet member, that is opposed to education. These statements are absurd on their face. They should not be made in a debate, where we really want results, or we want solutions. The prudent man is not going to come up here and accuse the other side of being against seniors: they do not support seniors, they do not like seniors, they want prescription care costs to continue to skyrocket. There is nobody in this country that wants that. I do not know anybody opposed to seniors. If Members really want to get progress, if they really want to have bipartisan efforts towards a solution, do not stand up here and blatantly make statements that the other side is opposed to education, or the other side is opposed to seniors. We do not get anywhere doing that. So I would suggest, constructively and in a positive fashion, to my colleagues to entertain a few more positive statements. Maybe they do not agree with the process, or maybe they have a disagreement with one of the proposals dealing with a matter that impacts seniors. Then address the proposal, instead of doing the politically expedient thing, and that is to take a jab at the other party by saying, well, they oppose seniors, in whole. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is not the purpose of me being here today, although I do mention it; and it was with interest that Bristol- Myers, who announced last week, one of these corporations that is looking at restating their earnings, or they took some income in by prepay of customers when they picked up their drugs at the pharmacy, I do want to note that as the Democrats, as they were attacking us this evening, take a look at who hosted their event this weekend, this last weekend. So both parties need to be very careful about that kind of thing, because there is some corporate sickness out there. Let me give an example. Go to any shopping mall we can find in the country and look for the most beat-up car, the most beat-up automobile we can find on the shopping mall lot and tell people around there that you are going to steal the car so somebody will call the police and say you are stealing the car. Then drive that car off the parking lot. Try and steal the car. Do Members know what is going to happen in our society? No matter what the value of the car, and let us just say it is the biggest piece of junk we would ever see in our life, and the car is worth $200, that is all anybody would give us, $200, probably to drive it straight to a junkyard, you drive it off, get it on the street, and immediately the police, the law enforcement in our Nation, the police will stop the vehicle. They will surround you. I used to be a police officer, and I know what it is like to make a stolen car arrest. We do not go up and issue a ticket. We get out of the car, hold a weapon on them, a deadly weapon, and we aim it at them, right where we could kill them if they tried to make any kind of move towards us. We demand and order them out of their car. You have them lay on the pavement. You immediately go up. You take that car thief. You put them in handcuffs. You take them back to your police unit and you take them to jail. That is exactly what you do for somebody that steals a junk car. And yet today what we are witnessing in this country is corporate thievery the likes that we have never seen. Last week we had a guy named Scott Sullivan, 40 years old or so, who was the chief financial officer for a corporation called WorldCom. And he was up here testifying in front of the United States Congress. Actually he refused to testify. But he was up here in front of the committee with a big smirk on his face. He took away tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars away from that corporation. By the way, he has never been in handcuffs. He has never ever been surrounded by police officers with their weapons drawn. And while he was smirking in front of that committee, as he was full of himself, construction continued on his 20 or $25 million home that he is building in Florida at the expense of not only the stockholders of WorldCom, not only the bondholders of WorldCom, but probably the most important components of WorldCom Corporation and that is the employees. How many employees of WorldCom saw their pensions wiped out, saw many, many years of service? Now, understand that WorldCom is not that old of a corporation. What they did is went out and acquired other companies, companies that had been in business for a long, long time; companies that had employees who had worked for them for many, many years; faithful employees, had dedicated their careers to that company. And WorldCom bombed and Scott Sullivan and his boss, Bernie Ebbers, who went to the board of directors and borrowed $400 million from the corporation, walked away with a loan of $400 million, not from a bank where anybody else has to go to get their loans, from the board of directors, the people that he wined and dined. One of the directors, in fact, he supplied him a jet for a year. Actually he leased him a private jet. This jet probably cost the corporation 50 to 100 to maybe $200,000 a month for that jet. And the president of the corporation loaned it to a member of the board of directors, leased it to him for a dollar a year. Those people are having these mansions built while they are testifying or appearing in front of the committee. And all of these thousands of employees of WorldCom, and many more to come, there will be layoffs, WorldCom will very likely file bankruptcy this week. It makes me ill to see the likes of Scott Sullivan building that mansion in Florida at the expense of our society. So I want to talk a little bit about that this evening. I will keep my comments to about 30 minutes because we will shift from that to agriculture. Let me start out with kind of a basic lesson, and that is how corporations are formed. Remember that in America not all corporations are bad. In fact, most corporations are not bad. Most corporations in America, if you figure by the number of corporations, are small family businesses. I will give you an example. My wife's family is in the ranching business. They have that incorporated. It is a small corporation. Her dad runs the ranch and he is the president of the corporation. She and her brothers are on the board of directors. Her mom is chairman or the vice president of the corporation. So there are a lot of small businesses that are corporations. A lot of your friends in their little businesses are incorporated. So not all corporations are bad, just like not all priests are bad, but you have got a few bad apples. The thing to think about is what is the structure of a corporation? Where are the checks and balances for a corporation? Our society works because we have checks and balances. What are the checks and balances of a corporation, and where do those checks and balances go wrong? What went wrong? Why did the system not correct itself? Well, let us look at the structure of a corporation, and specifically look at the checks-and-balances system. A corporation consists of shareholders. Those are people in this country, a lot of people who have no idea that they own shares in a corporation or are actually shareholders probably through their mutual funds or through their pension funds. What they do is they put their retirement funds in trust for an organization that then turns around and uses those proceeds to buy stock in corporations. And there are a lot of people that have owned stock. Many Americans over the years, over the history of this country. The old corporations, the General Electrics, the General Motors, the car manufacturers like Ford and Chrysler and people like that. So the shareholders come together. They are the owners of the corporation. They are the people that invest the money, that put the capital, that is what the money is called, they put the capital in to purchase that and form that corporation. What they do is oversee, because if you own a $30 share of Chrysler Corporation or a share of some other company out there, you are not going to be involved in the day-to-day management of a corporation like Chrysler, for example. What you do is the shareholder gets together and they elect people to represent them in the corporation, and the people that they elect are called the board of directors. Now the board of directors are very, very important people, very important people for a corporation. They are the trustees of the corporation, so to speak. They are a fiduciary duality, not only to the shareholders of the corporation, but they also have a fiduciary duty in their responsibilities that they carry out on behalf of the corporations. And they have a fiduciary duty not to act in their own self-interest, not to act in such a way that they make themselves rich at the expense of the corporation. We are seeing this time after time after time. These corporations that are in trouble today, I can tell you one of the points that the checks and balances failed, the check point that failed is right there on your board of directors. You can take a look at Enron Corporation. You can take a look at Kmart Corporation. You can look at WorldCom. You can look at Adelphia. You can look at TYCO Corporation. These are people that self-enriched themselves. Instead of carrying out their fiduciary duties to protect the shareholders, to represent the shareholders, because of the fact that they were induced for self- enrichment, in other words, put money in their own pockets, put it in their own pockets, they did this. They walked away from their very fundamental duties as a member of the board of directors. So we are having a failure in the system in some of these companies. Well, the board of directors, remember, they were elected by the shareholders. They then turn around and they hire a president. They hire a president or a chief executive officer to run the corporation. Now, the board of directors is not intended to be there every day, but the president of the corporation is. The president then installs his management team. And the management team in turn hires the employees underneath the management team that carry out the duties of the corporation. Now, obviously, these employees are very important, but the employees do not serve on the board of directors. The employees have to trust that the board of directors has the best interest of the corporation, which is the shareholders, in mind and the employees in mind. They have a lot of trust. These employees, they have a lot of trust in this board of directors. A lot of trust in that board of directors, and they got let down. Without exception, in every one of these corporations you read about in Wall Street or you read about in your morning newspaper that are deceiving the shareholders, that are deceiving the American public, in every one of those cases you will see a fallacy or a letdown of the fiduciary duties by the board of directors. Now, theoretically under the structure of a corporation, the board of directors should have legal counsel and they should have auditors. I do not have to say much about what has happened to the auditing profession with some of these corporations. What has happened, frankly, is they got in bed with the board of directors and they got in bed with the president. They have thought about self-enrichment. If there is one word that has led to the downfall of many of these major corporations, and I am not so concerned about the corporation as I am the employees of these corporations, the thousands and thousands of employees that are without their jobs, that their pension plans are wiped out, their savings plans are wiped out. They are not young people any more. They do not have a career ahead of them. Their career is behind them, and it gets wiped out. There is one word that describes all of that and that word is called self-enrichment. Self-enrichment. The auditors did not do their job. I will tell you in the banking business, the auditors, when the Federal Government goes in and audits that bank, you cannot give the auditor his pencil. You cannot buy them a cup of coffee. You do not know those auditors. They do not go with you afterwards and have dinner. They do not go out and party with you. They do not socialize with you on weekends. That is what an auditor should be. An auditor should be at arm's length. But that is not what happened. These little symbols mean arm's length. That is not what happened. What happened is the auditors, and in the case of the TYCO Corporation, the legal counsel got in with the president and the CEO, and this is the president who does not pay taxes on his art, sales taxes, so you can imagine what other deceivement he has worked on the American public, and the legal counsel gets in and starts paying himself bonuses of $20 or $30 million a year and then structures the bonuses in such a way that he can hide it from the board of directors. Or if the board of directors figures it out, he can say, do not worry, the reports that we give to the shareholders, and every year the board reports to the shareholders in what is called an annual report, I can structure our pay in such a way that we do not have to reveal it in this report to the shareholders. Because if the shareholders found out that the auditors were in bed with us or if the shareholders found out that our attorney was paid $30 million a year for bonuses, they might get upset about it. So how do we conceal it from them? And that is exactly what they did in TYCO. Let me give you a few examples of where this structure has failed, and almost without exception, in fact, I do not think we can find exception on the examples I will give you, you will find a breakdown either with the legal counsel, the attorneys, a breakdown with the auditors that started getting too cozy. They started getting contracts with the president. They started getting opportunities to put other companies together where they could self-enrich themselves. Enron is the perfect example of that. Andrew Fastow, who was the chief financial officer on the management team, goes out and makes separate companies, makes a sweetheart deal with the auditors, makes sweetheart deals with the attorneys, and pays himself $30 million to run these partnerships. By the way, where is Andrew Fastow this evening? He is in his multi- million dollar home in Texas. In Enron's bankruptcy, does he have to give that up? No, in Texas and Florida you get to keep your home from bankruptcy, so Scott Sullivan gets to stay in his $20 million home and Andrew Fastow gets to stay in his. I can tell you if you went in and stole one hour of electricity from Enron, you would suffer more of a penalty than any of those people have suffered so far as far as criminal behavior is concerned. But let me go back here. I will point out to you where this breakdown occurred, where it has either been the board has not exercised proper oversight over the management or the management has gotten too cozy with the board and got the board intimidated to ask the management, where the management has concealed numbers with the auditors or concealed it from the auditors, or they got the legal counsel to buy into some of these deals. Guess who the losers are? The losers in this case are at the bottom and top of this chart. The bottom, most important, the employees. They lose. They lose everything. Next, the shareholders. They lose. They lose everything. Now the shareholders knew there was some risk when they bought the stock, but they did not expect risk of fraud, but they knew there was a risk when they bought it. But the employees, they did not know there was a risk that the management would defraud the corporation, that management would walk away with multi-million dollar homes and money in accounts probably hidden all over the world. They did not know that. Let us take a look at some of these examples. Well, let us take a look at a few examples here of where the corporate structure went wrong because some of the individuals contained within that corporate structure were focused on self-enrichment, broke or breached their fiduciary duties to their employees, to their customers, to their shareholders, to their profession, the accounting profession, which is an honorable profession. They breached their duties to the legal profession, which is an honorable profession. In any one of these cases you will see individuals who breached. They are thieves. They lied. They stole. These are two-bit crooks. That is exactly what they are, two-bit crooks. Remember my comparison at the beginning of the speech about you steal a car and the police surround you with their guns drawn. That is exactly what should have happened to the executives of these companies once they determine that they have stolen, these two- bit crooks. Take a look at Kmart Corporation. How many employees lost their jobs because of the Kmart Corporation? What happened with the chief executives at Kmart? They went and got the board and the corporation to loan them money. The president of the corporation, I think the vice president of Kmart got the corporation to loan them millions of dollars; millions. Remember, the numbers we talked about tonight are not thousands of dollars, hundreds of dollars. They did not loan you a candy bar, a pen or a pencil. These are millions. We talk about numbers in the millions. So Kmart Corporation executives loaned themselves millions of dollars, and then what did they do? They go back to the corporation and say we know it is a loan. Let us make it a grant. What does a grant mean? It means you do not have to pay back the loan. So at the expense of the employees of the Kmart Corporation, at the expense of the customers of the Kmart Corporation, at the expense of the shareholders of Kmart Corporation, the executives of Kmart Corporation go get this money. And what do they do a week after they get the loans? Forgiven. In other words, you do not have to pay me back. They sign their own papers saying the corporation does not have to be paid back. They take it into bankruptcy. Where are those executives with Kmart Corporation this evening? They are probably filling their bellies at a local steakhouse. Let us look at WorldCom. I have talked about WorldCom a little, but let us talk about the loans again. How can you have a board of directors, for example, where the chief executive officer, Bernie Ebbers, allows one of the board members to have one of the corporation's private jets for $1 a year, $1 a year? Do my colleagues think that board member's going to stand up to Bernie Ebbers when Bernie Ebbers said, look, I need $400 million. Why did that board director not say we are not bank, we represent the shareholders, we represent the employees? We are not going to loan you $400 million. What do you mean you want it forgiven, $400 million. But that is not what happened. In WorldCom, they gave Bernie Ebbers $400 on a so-called loan. Then Scott Sullivan dances in. Scott Sullivan's a little numbers guy, the guy who wears the green shades. He is the one that moves numbers, moves expenses into capital expenditures so that he can show higher income so his bonus is higher. Scott Sullivan takes out millions and million of dollars. What is Scott Sullivan doing tonight? Right here. Here is what Scott Sullivan, and Gary Winnick of Global Crossing. Global Crossing, Gary Winnick's been here before. He walked out with 900-and-some million dollars. I want you to see what they are doing tonight. You see that headline in USA Today, ``Homes of the Rich and the Infamous.'' There is Gary Winnick's home in Bel Air, California, $90 million. Here is Scott Sullivan's home and I have got a poster. Let me show you Scott Sullivan's home. That is were Scott Sullivan is this evening. While I am giving this speech, he is sitting somewhere in that mansion. That is a $20 million mansion. He is the guy. He is the accountant. He is the one that broke his fiduciary duties to WorldCom. And where are most of the employees of WorldCom this evening, the ones that do not have jobs? Probably sitting there in a family room with their family in tears, trying to figure out what they are going to do, all because of the corruption of these individuals. We have got to nail these people. The Bush administration, I think, has made a solid commitment to do that. They ought to have the IRS at these people's doors. They ought to have the Securities and Exchange Commission at these people's doors; and by the way, kudos to the Securities and Exchange Commission and kudos to the Justice Department. The Justice Department today under the President's direction came out with indictments against Adelphia, that is the cable company where the family took $3.5 billion out of the corporation, not million, $3.5 billion out of that corporation, self- enrichment, but they got indicted today. Good, good, good. Every one of these people I speak about ought to be indicted. Andersen corporation, they are the auditors. Where are their fiduciary duties? Unfortunately, because we have got a few crooked two-bit crooks, two-bit accountants in Andersen, they brought the whole corporation down. I hope that the Justice Department or the Attorneys General of these various States or whatever local enforcement agency can do it brings charges against the individuals. There are a lot of good hardworking people for Andersen corporation, and a few of these auditors who got money in their pockets, who became the two-bit crooks, brought down the entire corporation. How many jobs were lost with Andersen, 20, 30,000? How many of them were crooked, couple hundred? The rest of the people were hardworking people, but they have lost their careers thanks to the people at the very top of Andersen who did not maintain their fiduciary duties to the people of that corporation. ImClone Systems Incorporated, oh, what an ironic situation there. That is the Martha Stewart case. How ironic that Martha Stewart sells her stock the day before the announcement is made, which everybody knows will result in the stock collapsing, and the president of the corporation, close friend of hers and close friend of her daughter, start taking a look at the interrelationships that exist. I am not talking about sexual relationships. I am talking about looking at the interrelated business transactions they have with the auditors, with the lawyers, with their buddies at these parties. Take a look at how many fiduciary duties were breached as a result of that. Who suffered there? Every investor that did not know to sell their stock. Ironically, Martha Stewart had some kind of divine message to sell her stock right before the thing collapsed, the day before, hours before it collapsed. What about the poor suckers that bought that? What about the employees of that corporation? Does the president of that corporation and the chairman of the board of that corporation feel good tonight about what he has put those employees through? We talked about Enron, Tyco. What a ripoff Tyco was. Take a look at the attorney for Tyco. The legal profession, why does the local bar in that State, the legal profession not have this guy up for disbarment? That attorney of Tyco ought to be in front of the State bar of New York trying to fight for his license to practice law, but he is not. I hope somebody from New York asks their State bar association why the attorney for Tyco is not in front of their bar fighting for his legal license. He ought to go to jail; and of course, I am addressing the Members on the floor, but I would hope that he might hear my comments here. Here is what ought to happen to him: Go to jail, just like that monopoly card. Now, some people say you are giving a charged speech tonight, you are speaking with a lot of emotion tonight, you are making a lot of charges. I am not just making them on this. I can pull up another chart. Sunbeam Corporation, Global Crossing and I could talk for quite a bit of time on that, Conseco, Waste Management. The reason I feel so deeply committed to this issue, the reason I feel so strongly about this is our system has to work based on consumer confidence, based on credibility. The system has to have self-correction in it. If one side gets out of kilter, the other side kicks in so you keep it generally in balance. We have got to make sure that the prudent standards are upheld. What is happening is I am not so concerned about Scott Sullivan's $20 million home in Florida or Gary Winnick's home out there in California, $90 million. I am concerned about why the system did not catch them earlier, why is the system not in balance. What about the employees of these corporations? What about all those people for Global Crossing or Enron or WorldCom, just about to lose it, why did not all those people, they are wiped out. That is why I am emotional this evening. It was not the Democrats, although Sunbeam and Conseco and several of those occurred under the Clinton administration. It was not the Republican administration, although we have had this last couple of weeks. This is not a partisan issue. This is not politicians who have gone astray, who are corrupt or a massive bribery scandal. That is not what we are talking about here. This is a breakdown that must be addressed immediately by very aggressive and active and unforgiving prosecution of the people who have violated the trust of the employees and who have violated the trust of the shareholders and who have violated their fiduciary responsibilities to their professions and to the corporations and the people for whom they work. That is not asking too much. I hope in the next few weeks we see action like we have seen from the Bush administration in the last 24 hours, and that is criminal indictment against those families with the Adelphia Cable Corporation that stole 2.3 or 3.3, I cannot remember, but I can tell you it was in the billions. We need indictments. We ought to have indictments every day. We ought to have the IRS. About 6 weeks ago, the IRS announced they are going to start doing random audits. They will come down here and just randomly pick somebody seated behind me and say hey, they may make $40,000 a year, we are going to audit them. IRS ought to give up their random audits and focus audits strictly on these people, like that lawyer with Tyco, like WorldCom, like the Kmart people. We need to come together on this, Republicans and Democrats. Again, it is not a Republican issue; it is not a Democrat issue. It is an issue that challenges the very business community, which we need in this country. This is a cleansing process. We have got to make sure that we cleanse correctly. We have got to make sure we get the cancer out, and it does require active prosecution and active pursuit of these two-bit crooks. They should not be treated any better than the way we treat somebody that steals a car. They ought to be treated exactly like that and that is go directly to jail and do not collect your $200 as you pass go. Enough of that subject, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have a fascinating half an hour. I would like to have my colleague, we have chatted about it, on agriculture, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). All my colleagues know of his reputation. Obviously, he is one of the most reputable people here. His integrity is impeccable, and his knowledge on agriculture is second to none. I would like to at this point in time yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) so we can have some discussions on the issue of agriculture and farming.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the comments by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) are particularly appropriate at this point. Out in Colorado, we are suffering the most significant drought that we have seen in the last 97 years that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) mentioned. The only reason I say that, that is as far back as the records are kept. It is impacting our cattle people significantly. We are looking for a pretty tough year out there. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I thank the gentleman for working with me this evening.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I take this opportunity to pay respect to the passing of Ted Albers, who recently passed away at the age of 78. Ted was the former Mesa College president-Administrator who helped reform higher education in Western Colorado to meet vocational and academic ambitions. Ted is credited as an innovative thinker who not only transformed Mesa College from a community college into an accredited four year institution but also preserved the two-year aspects of the institution so that Mesa could continue offering associate degrees and vocational certification. Ted was born in the small Northwestern Colorado town of Maybell and became a teacher and principal at Rio Blanco High School in Meeker in 1949. He went on to become an administrator for the University of Colorado extension division in Grand Junction and served as an assistant superintendent of School District 51. In 1969, he returned to receive higher education at Denver Community College and then returned to Mesa in 1970. Ted's leadership guided Mesa College on a course geared toward providing young adults with a quality and affordable education aimed to meet as many needs as possible in western Colorado. Ted was almost perfectly suited to the job of reshaping Mesa because he was first and foremost an educator in the highest sense of the word. Ted is survived by his wife, Maxine, who served as a Mesa County Commissioner for 15 years and his two children, T.L. and Rhonda. Throughout his life Ted remained a strong supporter of the Mesa State College and its role in the community. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that we remember Ted Albers. He was a remarkable man whose innovative teaching techniques have educated thousands of people and whose good deeds deserve the recognition of this body of Congress and this nation. The impact of Ted's life on those with whom he has come in contact is a testament to this great man. I would like to express my condolences to the family of Ted Albers.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment and pay tribute to the life, legacy, and memory of Wayne Douglas Thompson. Wayne departed us on June 2, 2002 in his Monte Vista home, and as we mourn his loss, I would like to take the opportunity to honor Wayne--a man of great character and conduct. Wayne was a native of Colorado, born and raised by Douglas and Agnes Thompson in Monte Vista. He graduated from Monte Vista High School in 1952, and entered Adams State College, graduating with honors in 1956. He enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and served our country courageously through three tours in South Vietnam and also in the Middle East, defending the freedoms and liberties we all hold dear. Wayne served with integrity, and today we honor him as a soldier and a patriot. After 21 years of military service, Wayne retired from the Marine Corps and returned home to accept a position as the Executive Director of the Colorado Potato Administration Committee. His leadership and guidance have inspired his peers and co-workers--Wayne leads by example and has always taken time to pass along his wisdom to the youth of his community. Mr. Speaker, I proudly honor Wayne before this body of Congress and this nation. He is survived by his two daughters Dawn and Kali, his three grandchildren Nicholas, Melanie, and Devin, and his beloved wife Maryann. Thank you, Wayne, for your many years of service and countless contributions to our society. Although we all mourn the loss of Wayne Thompson, we recognize that he has left a piece of himself with each of those who were lucky enough to have known him.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honor to stand before you today and praise the accomplishments of Mr. Francisco Garcia. Mr. Garcia is the Founder and CEO of Integrated Information Technology Corporation, and through his company he has provided employment opportunities to 360 Coloradans in his eight offices. Francisco Garcia lives his business life by the motto: ``Treat others with the same level of respect, professionalism and fairness that you wish to be treated'', and I am proud to bring forth his accomplishments before this body of Congress. Francisco has two degrees, a Bachelor of Science in chemistry from the University of Texas-San Antonio, and a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Ohio University in Athens. He also served our country in the United States Air Force as a Communications Officer where he achieved the rank of captain. Later in life, Mr. Garcia established his own company to provide important satellite, communications, network and installation services to the state of Colorado. His good fortune and quality business ethics have earned him many awards, including the SBA Region VIII Subcontractor of the Year in 2002, the Denver Post Minority-Owned Business of the Year in 2001, the Family Business Award in 2001, and also the SBA's National Minority Small Business Person of the Year in 1996. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the accomplishments of this pillar of the Denver Business community. Francisco Garcia has been a great asset to the State of Colorado and to the world of communications. Francisco, I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Tano Valle, an outstanding member of the Pueblo, Colorado community. Tano has provided the community with quality entertainment and dining for almost sixty years through his restaurant, El Valle. The establishment has become an icon of the Pueblo restaurant community and I am honored to congratulate Tano for his success before this body of Congress, and this nation. Tano began running the family business in 1937 and provides Pueblo with a terrific dining and entertainment experience. In fact, he now serves the children and grandchildren of his original customers. His menu ranges from Valencia hot dogs to chocolate-stuffed conchas and has hosted some of the biggest acts in the music business, notably Little Richard, Fats Domino, and Gracie Slick. Tano takes immense pride in this family business and I am grateful for his dedication and commitment to excellence in the community. Mr. Speaker, Tano's dedication to his customers and quality service serves as a model of business excellence in Colorado. He is a well- appreciated and respected member of the Pueblo business community and I am honored to represent him and his family before you today. Thanks for all your hard work Tano, and I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life of Frank Kogovsek, who sadly passed away recently at the age of 91. Frank was a pillar of the Pueblo 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. Frank was born to Frank and Mary Kogovsek in April of 1911. Coming of age in the middle of the Great Depression, Frank's childhood tested his resolve and forged his character. The death of Frank's father from Black Lung disease in the late 1920s was a particularly hard blow to the family. And it was these defining trials that made Frank Kogovsek into the generous and wise man whose ability to reach out and minister to his family and community has touched the lives of so many. From a young age, Frank was adept at woodworking, while also showing a particular skill at the art of dancing. It was this second talent that lead Frank to meet his future wife, Mary Blatnick, at a dance in the Arcadia Ballroom. They fell in love and were married in St. Mary's Church on June 24, 1938. Frank and Mary reared an active and large family, with seven sons and a daughter, Mary Joy. As an employee of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation since the age of 16, the post-war years were a boom time for Frank and his young family. Between overtime at work and his service at the Church of St. Francis Xavier, Frank's many commitments to others never came before his love for his family; by their own admission, Frank was a generous man to his children. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to pay tribute to the life of Frank Kogovsek, 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 Frank's 91 years of life before this body of Congress. Although Frank has left us, his good-natured spirit lives on through the lives of those he has touched. In particular, the character of Frank's son Ray, who so ably represented the 3rd District of Colorado in this House from 1979 to 1985, is a testament to the inspirational life lead by Frank Kogovsek. I would like to extend my thoughts and deepest sympathies to Frank's family and friends during this difficult time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Zelma La Bar and thank her for her contributions to the Pueblo Horizons Federal Credit Union and the community of Pueblo, Colorado. Zelma will always be remembered as a dedicated leader and an innovative CEO. As she announces her retirement, I would like to bring forth her accomplishments before this body of Congress today. Zelma has served as chairperson of the Pueblo Area Chapter of Credit Unions since assuming that position in March 1997. She has also served on a number of Colorado Credit Union League Committees from 1991-2002, which includes the Legislative Sub-Committee for Regulatory Issues and the Environmental Scan Sub-Task Force. Zelma is a member of the Credit Union Executives Society and serves as the Pueblo Horizons Federal Credit Union representative to the Greater Pueblo Chamber of Commerce, the Latino Chamber of Commerce and PEDCO. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to recognize Zelma La Bar and the groundbreaking leadership that she has brought to the Pueblo Horizons Federal Credit Union and the City of Pueblo. Her devotion helped enable many families to invest their money and helped to make their dreams come true. I would like to applaud her for her years of dedication and hard work. Her time and dedication have proved an invaluable addition to the company. I wish Zelma the best of luck in her future endeavors--I hope she will enjoy her well-deserved retirement!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I would like to first of all begin my remarks by saying that I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia's time, his subcommittee, and obviously his attention to this matter and the urgency of getting this bill passed. It is a critical bill. I appreciate the comments the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) made. They were all exactly on point. I think he has explained very well the crisis we face. My district is the Third District of the State of Colorado. That district geographically is larger than the State of Florida. It is unique in that it is the highest place on the continent, and we do not usually see the kind of fires because of the elevations that we are at in that district, we do not usually see the intensity of the fire that we are seeing this year. That intensity, of course, has been brought on through a couple of different factors. One, we are experiencing the worst drought we have seen probably in 100 years in Colorado, and two, unfortunately, we have had a number of national environmental organizations who have, in my opinion, prevented us from thinning the forest in such a way that we can properly manage these forests, but those are issues for another day. The issue before us here today, as explained by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and as explained by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), is the fact that emergency personnel, our firefighters, this is a very difficult task to undertake. Last year, as my colleagues will recall, we appropriated a dramatic increase in the firefighting budgets back here. We authorized a hiring of thousands of new firefighters. We have actually purchased 10,000 new pieces of fire equipment which range in everything from tankers to bulldozers and so on, but this year, even that is not enough, and we need some assistance. There is no effort whatsoever nor any actual occurrence of any displacement of any American worker by using foreign assistance. In fact, for many years we have used this foreign assistance primarily with Australia and New Zealand, and that is pretty self-explanatory in that Australia and New Zealand have opposite seasons of the United States. So while we are in our summer, right now they are in their winter, and we actually have an exchange program that is in place. Unfortunately, the Australians became very concerned, and I think legitimately concerned, about the fact of their firefighters being in the United States, with the kind of litigious society that we have. We have lots of lawsuits filed in this country, many, many, many, many times more than any other country in the world, and Australia and New Zealand are reluctant to send their firefighters up here, then to see their firefighters trying to help our country fight our fires ending up being named in litigation. So this bill is very, very important for us to pass on an immediate basis. This bill was introduced by me about a week ago. It is very uncommon in the House of Representatives for a bill to go through the House this quickly. The only way we were able to do that, frankly, is through the assistance of not only the chairman and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member, but I also want to thank five other members of the body; the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), who is chairman of Committee on Resources; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; as well as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who gave a great deal of effort and who himself has suffered a 450,000-acre fire in Arizona. Before I finish my comments here, and I do have to read some comments for the Record, I do want to point out that the State of Colorado and the State of Arizona are open for business. I wish I would have brought my satellite picture. Despite all the stories my colleagues have heard about Colorado, if we took a look at what actually has burned in Colorado, we would see it is significantly less than 1 percent. Unfortunately, across the country, because of the media coverage of these horrible fires, these fires have people thinking the whole State is on fire, and we have seen a tremendous drop in our tourism, not only in Colorado but Arizona as well, for no reason at all. The majority, like I said, 99 point some percent of Colorado, is open for tourism, and it is a great place to visit, as is Arizona. That said, I want to point out that in the season that we are facing, here are a couple of unique things. One, we go to what we call a level 5. Across this country, the national fire emergency system, our alert system goes clear to level 5. Level 5 is the highest and we are now currently in a level 5 situation. It is not unique that we go to a level 5 situation. In fact, we have done it several times in the past, but what is unique is we have never gone to a level 5 system prior to July 28. We actually went to level 5 two weeks ago. So we are almost 6 weeks, almost 6 weeks ahead of what we have ever gone to in this emergency status before. So my colleagues can understand the importance of getting this exchange program back on track. As I said, it was already in place. We are not creating a new wheel here. It is a wheel that got taken off the track, and we are trying to put it back on the track. I should point out also that the National Interagency Fire Center, in declaring this readiness number 5, also acknowledges the importance of these management personnel that our countries exchange. I would ask support from my colleagues, and once again, I want to particularly thank my colleagues that helped us get this through on an expedited basis. Any one of those chairmen of any one of those committees could have slowed this bill down, could have insisted that this bill run the regular course that a bill usually runs, but every one of those chairmen, to the person and to the credit of the chairman and ranking member, understood the urgency and the importance of getting assistance out there on the ground fighting these fires. We expect a very full fire season ahead of us. We expect, as my colleagues know, and I would point out, unfortunately, we have had fatalities so far. We had a fireman killed in Durango, and to his family we wish Godspeed. We lost five firemen not very far from my house on the highway in a vehicle accident as they were going to the scene of a fire, and Godspeed to their families as well, but we are going to get them assistance. I would ask all of my colleagues to support this. I expect unanimous support of the bill, and I will be back with discussions on this floor to talk about the necessity of thinning forests, to talk about the litigation and the appeal process that has stopped us from thinning and managing these forests as we should. Fire must be managed. We just cannot let it go. We have seen the results of what has happened when it gets out of control, and fortunately, we have a couple of countries willing to help us out. Again, I want to especially thank the ranking member and the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5017, a bill that would amend the Temporary Emergency Wildfire Suppression Act to enhance the ability of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into reciprocal agreements with foreign countries for the sharing of personnel to fight wildfires. At the outset, I want to thank five Members of this body who have been nothing short of essential in getting this bill to the House floor in very short order-- Congressman Jim Hansen, chairman of the Resources Committee, Congressman Henry Hyde, chairman of the International Relations Committee, Congressman Larry Combest, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Jeff Flake. Each of these Members, and their respective staffs, were instrumental in fast tracking this legislation to the full House today, less than 2 weeks after I first introduced it. In practical terms, H.R. 5017 would clear the way for scores of firefighters from Australia and other countries to immediately join forces with the thousands of brave Americans on the frontlines of our battle against catastrophic wildfire out West and in other parts of the country. And make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, we need all the reinforcements we can get. The 2002 fire season is well on its way to becoming among the largest and most destructive in recorded history. It is on pace to eclipse the catastrophic 2000 fire season when 122,000 fires burned 8.5 million acres, destroying over 800 homes and structures. Already this year, we've burned well over 3 million acres, which by itself is nearly three times the average for an entire year. What's most alarming about this statistic is that, historically, wildfire burns the hottest, largest, and most frequent in the latter parts of July and into August and September. The wildfire forecast for the coming months, Mr. Speaker, is ominous indeed. In response to this growing crisis on the national forests and public lands, the National Interagency Fire Center recently declared a national preparedness level of 5, the highest readiness threshold for our wildland firefighting agencies. This heightened readiness stage allows the Forest Service and Department of Interior agencies to more readily tap the assets of the military and other agencies not typically oriented to fighting wildfires. The Readiness 5 declaration was Uncle Sam's way of saying it's time to deploy all available resources, and pull out all available stops. But even as we do, we would be remiss not to tap into the formidable human resources of our friends and allies overseas, many of whom have considerable experience fighting wildfire. Countries like Australia and New Zealand have particular appeal in this regard because their fire season occurs during our winter months, making their firefighters open and available during our fiery summer months. Congress recognized this years ago with the enactment of the Temporary Emergency Wildfire Suppression Act, where it authorized the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to enter into reciprocal arrangements that, in essence, amount to a foreign firefighter exchange program. These reciprocal agreements allow us to borrow on the expertise of foreign firefighters when a need arises, and vice-versa. In 2000, this authority was particularly useful. Firefighters from Australia and New Zealand fought shoulder-to-shoulder with American firefighters at a time when we quite frankly needed the help. By all accounts the exchange program was a huge success. Which brings us to today. While the Wildfire Suppression Act has been a huge help and major success, new exchange agreements have been stalled because of legitimate liability concerns on the part of Australia and other countries with whom we have historically partnered. Our bill would address those concerns in straightforward fashion by eliminating the risk of tort liability to foreign firefighters and their governments while foreign personnel are providing assistance to the United States. It requires that foreign nations extend a reciprocal tort claims benefit to United States firefighters in the event the United States provides similar assistance to them. The proposed legislation would also deem foreign firefighters to be federal employees for the limited purpose of securing them coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Finally, it would make the laws of the host country the only source of remedies available for acts and omissions in firefighting activities in the host country. Mr. Speaker, I've been told that there are 100 or so Australian firefighters all but on the tarmac ready to fly out to the United States to join our firefighting forces pending the enactment of this legislation. This highly skilled group will provide support in the place that it's needed the most right now--management caliber firefighters directing and overseeing rank-and-file firefighters on the front lines. This bill will ensure that this area of need is met in a meaningful way for the duration of this and future fire seasons. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense bill that is a real priority for Secretary Norton and Secretary Veneman, just as it is for me. I hope and trust that my colleagues will join with me in supporting it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate an outstanding individual from Colorado whose hard work and dedication has produced a number of awards throughout his business career. Alan Terry, the president of Terry & Stephenson, P.C. has just received a very high honor from the business community, as he is the recipient of the Accountant Advocate of the Year award. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority nominated Alan for this award, which is among the most prestigious and coveted forms of recognition given in the business world, and I am honored to bring forth his accomplishments before this body of Congress and nation. Alan attended Trinidad State Junior College, received an AA in Business Administration and went on to complete his undergraduate work at the University of Southern Colorado where he earned a BS degree in accounting. His professional career began with Price Waterhouse in Baltimore, Maryland and after several years, Alan moved to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where he started Terry & Stephenson, P.C., a certified public accounting, and management consulting firm. In 1986, he moved to Denver, Colorado and opened the Denver office of Terry & Stephenson, P.C. Since opening the Denver office, Alan has worked with a variety of businesses including start up businesses, Fortune 500 corporations, the State of Colorado, the City and County of Denver, and various nonprofit organizations. He serves on many nonprofit boards and is an active member of the Colorado Society of Certified Public Accountants. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Alan Terry is a man of great dedication and commitment to his profession and to the people of Colorado. He has demonstrated that success can be achieved though hard work and commitment to his clients and I am honored to bring forth his accomplishments before this body of Congress and this nation. He has achieved great success in his career and it is my privilege to extend to him my congratulations on his selection for the Accountant Advocate of the Year award. Alan, I wish you all the best in your future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I hold deep respect for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and I find his comments on some occasions to have substantial merit. But let me tell you, having just heard his comments this evening, that was probably one of the most partisan speeches I have heard on this House floor. The gentleman from New Jersey stands up here and acts as if the Democratic Party takes no contributions and as if taking contributions is some kind of evil. I would be happy to yield time to the gentleman if he would like to come up and explain the trial lawyers in this country, where their proceeds go. It is very easy when you are not charged with getting the mule train up the mountain, it is very easy to sit on sidelines, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has done, and criticize the people who have to get that wagon up the mountain. It is always easy when you are not the one having to push or pull the wagon. It is always easy to sit on the wagon and demand more from the mules that are pulling that wagon. I found those remarks almost outrageous, almost outrageous. Outside of the person who spoke them, who has, in my opinion, a great amount of integrity, that is the only thing that saved these remarks that we have just heard from being outrageous. Where was the gentleman from New Jersey when it was time for a bipartisan, not a partisan, effort, but a bipartisan effort to put a prescription care bill together? All we see is after we finally get something done, after finally this House begins to move on prescription care services, we always have the Monday morning quarterbacks that show up, and today happens to be Monday evening, so the Monday evening quarterbacks that show up and say, oh, my gosh, this was not right, you should have done this, you should have done that. But you never saw a shovel in their hands. You never saw them helping to dig the ditch. All they do is sit back there under the shade tree criticizing the people that have to dig the ditch. So I hope that we hold those comments in their proper context, and frankly in the future I would expect more from a gentleman of that capability and that integrity. I want to move on to a couple different subjects this evening that I think are very important. First of all, as many of my colleagues know, I come from the State of Colorado. My district is the Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado, and all the substantial fires in Colorado are in the Third Congressional District and some of the damage by the fire of course has gone beyond the borders of the third district. It certainly has impacted the people of the State of Colorado, and I do not mean to underestimate the damage that these fires caused in their particular areas. But what I want to stress to my colleagues is a very, very small fraction of Colorado actually went into flames and burned down. What is happening, what we are seeing out in Colorado is we are seeing a lot of negative publicity about the damage that these fires did. And again if you owned a home out there that was destroyed by a fire, you could not get much more negative press coverage. Of course it is devastating to you and of course the loss is terrible, but as a State I think we need to put it in its proper proportion because the impact of the negative stories we are seeing about those fires in Colorado, and by the way, all of those fires are pretty well controlled right now. I think all of them but one are contained, but the publicity in the press that we are seeing as a result of those fires is really impacting severely Colorado's tourism economy. So I want to tonight in front of my colleagues bring up this poster here and show the Colorado fire damage. Now, according to what my colleagues have read in the media and so on and the pictures shown across the country, the belief would be that a huge amount of the State of Colorado is in flames. Take a very close look at this. It is the blackened areas of the State of Colorado which have been burned and this is a current poster. We have got some down in Durango. This is the big fire outside of Denver right there, and these other little spots, these little black spots including this spot here in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Look at that in proportion to the rest of the State. What I am saying is that Colorado is open for business. One can go to Colorado and have a terrific vacation. The mountains of Colorado are still as pristine as they were with the small exceptions of some of these black areas where we have suffered consequences of terrible fire. A couple forests, the Pike National Forest, have shut down temporarily pending more moisture; and we are worried about the fire hazard out there. You will be limited in that you cannot open a can of beans and cook them over an open fire out there in those Colorado mountains. You can use a Coleman stove or something else, but you cannot have open fires. But aside from that, Colorado is open for business. Colorado has four national parks. They are open for business. The Air Force Academy is open for business. My good friend Bob Zimmerman and his crew down there in the valley with the sand dunes, soon to be a national park, the Sand Dunes National Park, soon to be funded this week we hope in an appropriations bill, which will be good news to Bob Zimmerman, they are open for business down there. Go see the sand dunes. There is the Black Canyon National Park, open for business. The Colorado National Monument in Grand Junction, open for business. The Aspen Music Festival, open for business. The Steamboat community, and they have a great summer up there, open for business. Denver, the Denver Rockies, open for business. By far, less than a fraction, less than a fraction of the land in the State of Colorado, was burned, well less than 1 percent. But if you want to help the people of Colorado who have suffered as a result of these fires, go ahead with your planned vacation. Nothing is worse than having a negative impact upon you as a result of fire, and then turning around and losing your job because tourists have quit coming to Colorado. Colorado is open for business. It is a great place to visit. I would urge my colleagues to head for Colorado, if you get an opportunity, or talk to some of your constituents. Encourage them to go ahead and visit our great State. Colorado is the highest place on the continent; the highest place on the continent. The low point in Colorado is higher than almost all of the high points in most of the other States. I think we probably have, I am not sure, but it is close, 65 mountains over 14,000 feet. Colorado has 56 of them. Colorado is the only State in the Union that has no water coming in. It is the Mother of Rivers. It is called the Mother State of Rivers. It is a natural beauty. So if you have an opportunity, go visit the sand dunes, go visit the Air Force Academy, go to a Rockies game, go over in Glenwood Springs. Glenwood Springs, the mountains around it have some scars as a result of this fire, but that famous Hot Springs pool, still open for business. So I would hope that some of my colleagues give that their consideration and head for Colorado. It is a great State. Corporate Greed Now I want to change subjects entirely. The next subject I want to talk about is on the minds of a lot of people in America. It is on the minds of many of my colleagues here. Pretty simple. It is called corporate greed. What has happened out there in the world of business in this fine country of ours? What has happened to the Adam Smith philosophy in ``A Wealth of Great Nations,'' the book that he wrote, that really has been a guiding foundation for capitalism in America? Well, one of the things that has happened is we have had a few, not a huge amount, but a few greedy individuals who have not only taken advantage, in my opinion, have taken criminal advantage of the public's trust, and I wanted to go through a few of those examples this evening. Because in order for capitalism to work as well as it has worked, in order for it to continue to operate, you have to have as an element of it, as a basic element of capitalism, as a basic element of our business system in this country, a business system that is admired throughout the world, you have to have as an element of it public integrity, integrity when you are dealing with the public's money; and that comes not only from the chief financial officer, not only from the chief executive officer, but it also is a fiduciary requirement of your board of directors. Let me start by looking at the corporate structure as corporations are envisioned in America. A corporation is a legal entity. It is not a person; it is a legal entity. Remember, not all corporations are big. In fact, by far, by far the majority of corporations in this country are very, very small. I will give you an example. My in-laws have a ranch. They are not big ranchers. They have a ranch. But because of corporate liability, they have incorporated their ranch. I know people who run an ice cream truck who incorporate their ice cream truck. So just because someone is incorporated does not mean they are large, and to throw the same blanket overall corporations because of the misbehavior of a few individuals in a few corporations would be a big mistake to our free enterprise system. You would be surprised if you just look out amongst your neighbors in the business world. Whether it is a Subway shop, whether it is some other kind of a trucking operation, a farming operation, you would be surprised how many of them are incorporated. So you must be careful before you criticize all of these corporate entities. Now, in America we have what we call in the corporate structure as it is envisioned, as it has been practiced since corporations first came around, you have the president or the chief executive officer. Let us call it the chief executive officer of the corporation. Now, a lot of people think that the chief executive officer is the top dog, that is the person, he or she is in charge of that company. Well, the reality of it is the CEO, your chief executive officer, answers to the board of directors. The board of directors is the top element of management, so to speak. They kind of oversee. They set the policy for management. They set the long-term vision for the company. So, really, the most important entity in a corporation as far as management and as far as overall philosophy are not the executive officers like the president of the company or the chief executive officer of the company or the chief financial officer of the company. The most important aspect, in my opinion, is your board of directors. Now, board of directors usually consist, in a typical corporation, of anywhere from, say, three, but your average board probably runs more between 20 and 30, members on that board of directors. They meet on a regular basis, and within the average or the typical board of directors out there, they have subcommittees. They have an audit subcommittee, and that audit subcommittee's job is to oversee the management of the company, to be sure that the management of the company is following the general philosophy of the company as far as the audits, is following the law as far as the audits, and that the audits are making sense, that they are being performed. You have the executive committee of the board of directors which deals with executive compensation, and there are a lot of cases that we are going to question further in my remarks. For example, how could the executive committee of Worldcom, which all of my colleagues know is right now on the verge of bankruptcy, how could the executive committee grant the CEO, the chief executive officer, a gentleman named Bernie Ebbers, a $400 million loan. Worldcom is not a bank. I saw an interesting article the other day, and the name of the author slipped my mind, but I want to give credit to whoever that individual is. But they made a comparison to Donald Trump years ago and the troubles he got into as compared to the troubles people like Worldcom or Tyco or Xerox Corporation or K-Mart Corporation, the troubles they are into today, and it said, back then, Don Trump borrowed his money from the banks, and he was able to recover. Donald Trump actually made a pretty respectable recovery from the downfall that he took, but he dealt with banks. What has happened in the meantime is these corporations have acted as banks. These board of directors have acted as banks. Frankly, they have put a bad name on all board of directors. They have put a bad name on all chief executive officers, and that is undeserved. We have a lot of companies in this country which operate in a very ethical fashion. We have a lot of them that operate a very efficient operation, and they have good products. But the only way for that to continue into the future is we have to have peer enforcement. We have to make it much more significant in this country to steal or take or borrow $400 million from a company that you do not pay back, that you have more consequences as a result of that than you do when you go into Wal-Mart and you steal a candy bar and you get arrested for shoplifting. My concern right now is that some of these individuals will walk away with less of a punishment than would any one of us if we were to walk into a convenience store and steal a candy bar and get arrested for shoplifting. This is an opportunity for our system to show that the system has self enforcement, to show that the system knows how to stay on the tracks; that when we have individuals that try and derail the train, individuals that try and derail the train, that the system has a way of pulling those people back into place, that the system has a method of punishment towards these people. There are a lot of people, there are a lot of employees that have suffered as a result of K-Mart's bankruptcy. Now, unfortunately, those employees that have suffered as a result of K-Mart's bankruptcy finally are not the chief executive officers, one who gave himself a loan the day before they filed bankruptcy. I am going to go through some of these different examples. Now, a lot of people say, and politicians love to jump to this, they love to say, well, it is a Republican or Democrat. Let me tell my colleagues something. This has happened while the Democrats were under control, when Bill Clinton was in his office over there. Take a look at Sunbeam Corporation, Waste Management Corporation, and most of the numbers that have been, where the books have been cooked on these corporations that we are talking about today happened during the democratic administration. I heard the President today, under a Republican, our Republican President today talking about the need that we have to crack down and crack down immediately on this, and he gave a bunch of different remedies. My point here is not to get into a discussion whether the Republicans caused it or the Democrats caused it. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats caused it. What caused it were some people with greed. I think many of these people acted in a criminal fashion. They are nothing but a bunch of thugs. That is exactly what they are. They are not thugs that were put out there by the Democratic Party. They are not thugs that were put out there by the Republican Party. They are just common, every day criminals who got put into the wrong position and they stole and stole and stole until they finally got caught. Now, how interesting that some of these people, including Worldcom, today testifies up here on Capitol Hill about look, it was just an accounting problem. It was the accountants. This is during the same time, while they were here today testifying, a gentleman named Scott Sullivan, I think it is Scott Sullivan who was the treasurer for Worldcom, or their chief financial officer for Worldcom, and let me get the name exactly correct here. Yes, Scott Sullivan. He was the chief financial officer. While he was on Capitol Hill today, while he was on Capitol Hill today, refusing to talk to the United States Congress about what went wrong at Worldcom, why thousands, tens of thousands of people will lose their jobs, while he was refusing to talk today, here is what he was having built in Florida. Take a look at this. This home here is about a $15 million to $20 million home, 24,000 square feet. You could park many, many semis in these different structures. That is this 40-year-old's home in Florida on a lake, on a private lake that is being built out there. This is an individual who paid himself out of Worldcom, out of public, out of the public's investment money, paid himself the kind of salaries and bonuses to allow him to build a $15 million to $20 million home. And he anticipated, continuing to go ahead and, in my opinion, rob the people of this corporation on a continuing basis. Just think of the heating bill on this place every month. Think of the taxes on this place. The taxes are probably $10,000 or $20,000 every month. Where does he get the money? Go to the shareholders. Fudging the books, cooking the books. That is what we have going here. When we have a criminal in our midst, we have to point him out. But because we have a group of several thousands and thousands of people, and in our country, thousands and thousands of people do business in our country. When we find a crook, people will become convinced that all of you are crooks if you do not do something about the crook you can get your hands on. We have an opportunity right now, the United States Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Justice Department, and the President, who has obviously showed his intent; we have this opportunity to get our hands around the crooks. And the society, society today is looking to us to be responsive and to do something to get these people out of our midst, to make sure that we do not have future frauds like this one that just is taking place. Now, I could care less about the $15 million home; what I care about is the 15,000 jobs. Do we think anybody else besides Scott Sullivan and his fellow executives get to walk away from a job to a home like that? How many Worldcom employees today are without a job and without any future potential for a job because of the greed practiced within the corporate board room, and within the executive offices of Worldcom, Incorporated? Look, I do not just want to pick on Worldcom. Let me talk about a couple of others here. ImClone Systems. These are the people that find out on Wednesday that their magical cure for cancer will not be certified because it does not cure cancer, and so immediately they start selling stock before they are forced to make the announcement on Friday. There is the case where we heard about Martha Stewart. Whether or not Martha Stewart had inside information, who knows? But it is highly suspicious, that just out of the blue sky, Martha Stewart gets the message, or decides the day before the announcement is made that the stock is going to collapse, the day before, hours before, she sells that stock to some unsuspecting buyer out there. It was not just Martha Stewart that sold her stock on that day. Interestingly, the President of the company made sure his daughter sold her $2.5 million or $3 million worth of stock that day, and made sure the father sold his stock that day, and the stock broker himself, what a coincidence that all of his friends who had heavy investments in this company sold their stock on December 27 and the announcement was made on December 28. Mr. Speaker, if the SEC finds out, and I suspect that they probably will, that these individuals dealt on inside knowledge, the hammer ought to come down. The hammer ought to come down. Because if it does not, the credibility of the entire system, of the free enterprise system of our country comes into question. We are presented with an opportunity here. We are presented with an opportunity in the business world of this Nation, in the political world of this Nation that when somebody misbehaves like this, when somebody takes advantage of the public's trust and, in essence, steals from the public, we have the wherewithal and we have the courage to go get them. That is exactly what was expressed by our President today. This President is very focused and very intent on getting these people in a ringer, and that is exactly what we have to do. Let me talk about a couple of other corporations. Xerox Corporation. When I grew up, everybody trusted Xerox Corporation. And they have restated twice in the last 2 weeks. We notice that they never state positive news. Everything these people are coming out with is negative. And it costs who? Not the chief executive officer; it costs the shareholders and employees of these companies. Enron; of course, we know about Enron. But it is kind of amusing to hear Andrew Fastow, he set up these quiet, secret corporations, secret partnerships, although he actually got the approval of the board of directors, and it was very interesting that the U.S. Senate report was very critical of these board of directors, and justifiably so. It is the board's responsibility to make sure that you do not have an Enron Corporation, somebody like an Andrew Fastow, who is a crook. That is exactly what he did. A crook. Paid himself $30 million for 4 months of work. Of course, he runs this little partnership. Just to make it a little sarcastic to the shareholders, they name it after different characters or different scenes in the Star Wars movie. They think it is all one big joke. Show up at work every day, Andrew at Enron, and packed the money in his bag. Of course, we can imagine, Andrew also lives in a multimillion dollar home. So we gave Scott Sullivan's home, poor guy, has not finished his $20 million home yet, so he is probably only living in a $5 million home. But he has to live up to his standards, he has to move up in society. The same thing with Andrew down there in Texas. These people need to have their assets that were improperly and unethically gained by them, taken away from them, under an appropriate judicial process. I am not saying that we become some kind of a dictatorship and that we throw our justice system out the window. Everybody is entitled a fair day in court, but everybody is also entitled to a square deal. And when you do not get a square deal, and you are not on fair negotiating grounds, when you do not get a square deal, we ought to have the process to make sure that those who cheated you, those who stole from you, those who acted in a criminal manner, pay the consequences of their actions. Now, it does not just stop at Enron, as all of us know; it does not just stop with Worldcom. Look at Tyco International. What does Tyco do? The President of Tyco International, who makes hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars in pay, decides to cheat the government, cheat the people, that is who it is, the government is the people; cheat the people of the State he lives in on paying sales tax for the paintings that he bought. Let me tell my colleagues something: I used to be a police officer. The first clue, when the door is cracked open, it ought to be a hint; if it is not locked, that is a hint. If the door of the House or the building one goes up to to investigate on, if the door is actually cracked open, you better guess something bigger is inside, something is inside. When you have a chief executive officer of a corporation, Tyco International, cheating on really what are small numbers as compared to his net worth, you better open the door, you better go investigate inside the building and see what else this individual has done. My guess is you have just scratched the surface. In my opinion, the Internal Revenue Service ought to be down there doing audits of this individual. Tyco International ought to be filing lawsuits against this individual. The prosecutors in that State ought to be looking into this individual for criminal fraud. It does not just stop with the chief executive officer. A lot of times when one starts padding the books, cooking the books, one has to bring in partners. In this particular case, he brought in his lawyer. Let us talk about his lawyer for a minute, or, first of all, his chief financial officer. His chief financial officer and the CEO cashed over $500 million in stocks since July of 1999. Now, that is on top of their salaries. Their salaries are not enough, and they are huge salaries, so they cash in $500 million more, to kind of pad their wallets. Then they got their attorney, Mark Belnick. He decides that as an attorney he ought to be receiving bonuses, but he does not want these to be disclosed to the public at large, so he devises a way to have the corporation pay him tens of millions of dollars as the lawyer for the company in such a manner that he does not have to release it on the public disclosure statements. Why does he not want it released on the public disclosure statements? Because he knows the shareholders would have nothing to do with it; that the shareholders would demand, would demand accountability, and would demand that he not receive that kind of pay. Of course, he is aware of this. He knows that he might get caught in the action. He knows he might get caught with his hand in the cookie jar. So what does he do? He goes to the chief executive officer of Tyco, International, Dennis Kowalski, and says, Dennis, I might get caught at this. This is what I think happened. I might get caught, so why do you not give me a contract as your attorney, and if I get convicted with a felony, you still have to pay me millions of dollars. If I am convicted of a felony, if you decide to fire me because I am, in essence, stealing from the company, you have to pay me tens of millions of dollars. That is the kind of corruption that goes on in the corporate world that we need to immediately isolate, and we need to cut it out. We need to stop it in such a way that any future chief executive officer and every board of directors is going to understand there are consequences to pay. That is what we do with shoplifting in this country in every store we go into. I went into Toys ``R'' Us this weekend. As I walked in, they had a big poster at the front: Shoplifting. Help us keep prices low. Help us stop shoplifting. Shoplifting is a crime. Yet, nowhere do we go where we find a board of directors where, at the entry into their boardroom, it says, you have a responsibility, board of directors, to the shareholders of this corporation, to the employees of this corporation, and to the public as a whole to make sure that this kind of thievery is not going on, or that these kinds of misleading statements are not going on, and that your management team is, in fact, the best possible management team that could be out there. What I am saying here is that our country needs to focus, and the businesses and the chief executive officers and the good executives, and we have a lot of good people that run a lot of good companies in this country, they are the ones who need to stand up and speak the loudest about this misbehavior that has gone on in the corporate boardroom and in the corporate executive offices. I do not want to stop just short of Tyco. I should mention also the board of directors. Tyco had a member of the board of directors named Frank Welsh. Tyco bought another company, and guess what, Frank Welsh decided he ought to have a cut of it, so he got a $20 million little payment on the side for helping merge the company. Where is Frank Welsh tonight? He is probably sitting in a limousine getting ready to go to a play on Broadway or something. These people need to understand that we will go after them. I will tell the Members, for my part, I have some solutions that I think will work. But I want Members to know that, for my part, I am very committed, as I think most of my colleagues are, Republican or Democrat. And this is not an affront to one political party, this is an affront to the people of this Nation, and we must all remain committed to see that these people pay the consequences for the fraud that they have worked upon the public. I want to show Members something. I have mentioned a couple of these corporations. Let me go through some others. We talked about Tyco. Remember what Tyco did? That is what I have just been talking about. WorldCom, that is where the chief executive officer, a guy named Bernie Evers, had the board of directors loan him almost $400 million, on top of all the other millions and tens of millions of dollars he has been paid. This is where Scott Sullivan worked, that big mansion. That is WorldCom. K-Mart, K-Mart has its chief executive officers and some of its other executive officers, they go and first of all they go into bankruptcy. They lay off 22,000 people. K-Mart lays off 22,000 jobs as a result of their bankruptcy. But right before they filed bankruptcy, K-Mart acts and gives their chief executive officer a $5 million loan, and they forgive the repayment of it. Have Members ever heard of a bank saying, here is $5 million, but you don't have to worry about paying it back? That is exactly what these companies have done, and K-Mart leads the charge. That is exactly what WorldCom did, and they helped lead the charge: Here you are, Mr. Chief Executive Officer, here is $400 million. Do not worry about paying it back. What is going on here? And then Enron. We talked about Enron. We talked about Xerox. We talked about ImClone: Hey, we have bad news on the cancer drug. Sell, sell, sell. Find some sucker out there that does not have the information we have. In America we love to compete, but in America we like to compete on a level playing field. Every executive that I mentioned this evening with these corporations did not want to compete on a level playing field. They did not want to come face-to-face where the odds were all the same, they wanted to compete where the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of them and not you, where the odds almost assured that you lost and they won. The only way to even that playing field out is to clear out the dirt and put grass in there. Frankly, we have got a lot of dirt in some of these companies in these executive officers. Let me tell the Members what my solution is. This is a little game. When we play the game of Monopoly, if you mess up, you go to jail, move directly to jail, do not collect. Do not collect. These chief executive officers of WorldCom or ImClone or Tyco or Xerox or Enron should not be able to collect on their way to jail. That is where they ought to be. They ought to be on their way to jail. The justice system, I hope, will prevail here. I hope the Internal Revenue Service takes note of these individuals. Have Members seen lately that the Internal Revenue Service announced they are going to begin random audits? So, watch out, some out there who are making $15,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 a year, they might be audited by the IRS. My question to the Internal Revenue Service, and I have not put it to them, but I intend to put it to the commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, okay, okay, how many of these people are you auditing? How many of these executive officers, these boards of directors are you auditing? If you are not auditing them, you ought to be, right now. Now, unfortunately, it does not just stop here. We can continue. We can go with others. This is a cable TV company. They built their own golf course off shareholders' money. They loaned to their family. They started family companies with all their daughters and sons and their families off shareholders' money. Now that company, they are in bankruptcy or on the verge of bankruptcy. How many health care people lost their jobs as a result of this? Where were the auditing companies? We know about Arthur Andersen. The trouble I have with the prosecution of Arthur Andersen, I know they went after them for obstruction of justice. They went after the company, they did not go after individuals. My suggestion, my humble suggestion to the Department of Justice, is to go after the individuals. What happened in Andersen is we have now, successfully, Arthur Andersen for all realistic purposes is no longer in existence. Two years from now they will have closed all their books and they will be out of business. Lots of innocent people at Arthur Andersen lost their jobs, but the chief executive officers, and these accountants that dealt with this that were supposed to do the auditing probably have already found jobs with somebody else by now. We need to go after people. We need to go after the individuals. We need to go after the crooks, because we have got to separate the crooks from the honest people. It has to happen. Look at this. I mentioned earlier, Sunbeam Corporation. That seems to be about where it started. Global Crossing. Gary Winnick, that guy was paid $700 million or $800 million. They have also destroyed their documents, or admitted to destruction of documents, since they have been under Federal investigation. My point here is that we have to come up with some solutions. We have to go after some of these companies. We have to go after the Arthur Andersens, the individuals that have fallen on their jobs and are not completing the responsibilities that they have. I have some recommendations. I think there are some things that we can do. Let me start out with the board of directors. I think it is imperative, I think it is imperative that we hold boards of directors responsible for the actions of a corporation. I think it is very important that boards of directors, that every corporation in America have, especially if it is a widely traded one, for example, the family farm, like my in-laws' family farm, it would be unreasonable to expect them, they do not have public shareholders, it is held by shares in the family, for them to go outside the farm and bring somebody that is not related to the farm to come in and help with the management. But where we have a corporation that is widely traded, for example, where we have a Tyco Corporation, or where we have a Xerox or a K-Mart Corporation, that board of directors should consist not only of outside directors. And let me explain what I mean by outside directors. In a corporation, if one is employed, for example, let us take a look at WorldCom, if one is employed by WorldCom and is put on the WorldCom board of directors, then one is what is called an inside director. You are employed by the company and serve on the board. In many cases, a board is healthy if we have some inside people. They are the people involved in day-to-day operations. So in rare circumstances, it is appropriate to have inside people on that board of directors, because they run the operations. So some of the executive officers probably should be on the board of directors. But every corporate board that is widely traded with the public should also have outside directors who are not beholden to the president or the chief executive officer or the chief financial officer for their job; that they have a level of independence; that they can come into the boardroom and say, hey, Mr. Chief Executive Officer, hey, Mrs. Chief Executive Officer, tell me exactly what these books mean. Tell me what you are doing. I do not owe my job to you. You respond to the board of directors. I think there has been a dramatic wake-up call across the country to boards of directors. I am sure that the board members of Enron Corporation, for example, WorldCom, and many of these other companies, K-Mart and so on, will find themselves in litigation for a long, long time as a result of their negligence. And frankly, it is justified. They need to be held accountable. If they accept that position, they must deliver the responsibilities that that position demands. So that is one of my solutions, revamping boards of directors across this country. We have to regulate auditors. We cannot allow auditors on one hand, or first of all, we should not allow them into offices. Auditors, not outside auditors, or not the inside auditors, and again, inside auditors are the people that the company employs, their accounting department. They make sure that they audit inside. But we have outside at-arm's-length auditors. The first thing we should not allow to happen is allow them to office in the same offices. At Enron Corporation, Arthur Andersen shared offices with the people they are auditing. I mean, if one sits next to somebody, offices with somebody, they cannot over time help becoming buddies with them. It happens. So, one, they should not office together. Two, they have to separate consulting services and auditing services. The auditors should not be able to accept any gifts, should not office, should not offer any other services other than the fact they are in there to audit, just like in a bank. I had an opportunity some time ago to visit with the president of some banks in Colorado, a very capable individual, a very capable individual. He explained to me exactly how the government, the FEC, or not the FEC, the banking regulators, exactly how they audit and when they come in. They cannot even offer a pencil to them. You cannot give them a pencil or buy them meals. You cannot buy meals or take the auditor out for lunch. We cannot let them come in and share offices on a permanent basis. When they are in there auditing our banking system, they are not giving them consulting advice as well. They are an independent arm. Those auditors have a very isolated role. They are to go in there and make sure the books are not being cooked. That is what happens in our banks. Many, many years ago we had a similar problem with our banks, so the government and the people of this country took an affirmative step. They said, look, we want independence in these auditors. That is what has happened. As a result of that, we have a very accurate picture of a bank's financial condition based on these audits. That is what has to happen in corporate America. We need to regulate this auditing system. We need to get auditors that are good for the punch; that when the auditor comes out and says, this is what the corporation looks like, it is in fact what the corporation does look like. Now, we have to have a stronger Securities and Exchange Commission, we have the FDIC, the Federal auditing and banking systems. I think we have a pretty good Justice Department, but I encourage the Justice Department to be very aggressive in its prosecution of these corporate thugs. But, on top of that, we have to have a strong Securities and Exchange Commission. I find it interesting that in the last few days, a couple of Republicans and many Democrats have demanded the resignation of the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who has not been in his job very long and certainly was not in his job at the time that most of this happened. Give him an opportunity. I think, frankly, some of the fault rests with our appropriations. We have to get some cops down there in the SEC. The SEC has to be as aggressive with these corporate misbehaviors as retailers are with shoplifters. That is what is happening here, except these shoplifters are taking from the public in the amounts of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. So the SEC has to be stronger. My guess would be especially with the revelations that have occurred in the last week or so that we as a Congress will, in fact, grant more resources so that we can get our SEC cops in place and they can do the job they need to do. So we have to have a strong SEC. And we have got to have a coordinated effort between the Securities and Exchange Commission, which brings the civil litigation, and the Justice Department, which bring the criminal litigation. If I were the Attorney General of this country, I would contact every U.S. Attorney in every district out there and I would say, go get them. If you have got corporate fraud in your district, in the jurisdiction that you have, go get them. We need to have a public display just like we do with shoplifting. We do not want shoplifting and we do not want corporate thugs taking money from the public, and we have got to go after them, but that requires coordination. I am a little more encouraged than some of my friends about the ability of the Justice Department and the SEC on their coordinated efforts, but I do think they need more resources, and I think it is incumbent upon us to get those resources for them. I also want to talk about the compensation package. The compensation package, how can you justify compensation to the president of the corporation, not to the person that invented the better mouse trap, but to the treasurer, in fact, the chief financial officer. How can you justify compensation that allows a 40-year-old person who is the treasurer of the company to build a 15, $20 million home just like this and to walk away with bonuses in the hundreds of millions of dollars? You cannot do it. We have got to adjust the compensation system. Now, look, we have got to be careful about that. I will tell you, if you told me somebody invented the cure for cancer or the cure for the common cold or a better way to educate our kids in a manner such that we really get the top quality product, who cares if they live like this? You show me the person who can figure out the cure for cancer, for breast cancer, I think that is great. Where it is deserving, where you are getting a square deal, that is okay. But these were not gained through arm's length transactions, through innovation, other than innovation in a criminal fashion, as I have mentioned earlier. These are ill-gotten gains. That is what has happened here. That house was built, in my opinion, by ill-gotten gains, by a 40-year-old person who cared more about his own greed than he did the company which employed him and expected him to carry out his fiduciary duties for the owners of that company which, of course, are the shareholders of that company. Executive compensation has got to be revamped. I do not care how good of an executive you are, I do not care how fine a company you run, it troubles me that any company in the world would pay you 700-some- million dollars, which I think the head of Oracle or one of the corporations out there just paid their chief executive officer, I think it was 700 million in the last year or two. That includes stock options, I understand that, but, I mean, that kind of compensation is just out of line. We pay the President of the United States a fraction of that. And not only that, take a look at the retirement package. I have an article here out of Business Week, July 15. This is the newest Business Week. Not only do some of these corporate executives, they rake in the cash while they are running the company at the expense of public shareholders, take a look at their retirement packages. How many people do you think at WorldCom, that got fired at WorldCom got compensation packages? It is the same thing. We can talk about Global Crossing. We can talk about Kmart. We can talk about Conseco, Sunbeam, any number of these. Take a look at what their employees got when they got laid off as a result of this corporate mismanagement. But let me tell you what happens at some of these corporations and why compensation needs to be readjusted. This is Philip Morris. At Philip Morris, the retired chief executive officer gets for life, gets for life, this guy's name is Jeffrey Bible, this is what his retirement package is from Philip Morris Corporation for as long as he lives, and occasionally for this he needs to be available to consult, which means nothing, but for as long as he lives, he gets an office near his home and that would include a secretary. Remember, he is no longer working for the company. He has retired from the company. By the way, he was not underpaid. His last year with the company, they paid him $50 million. He is now a retired corporate executive. This is what he gets: An office near his home, including a secretary; an unlimited phone calling card; two cellular telephones; two fax machines, plus the cost of the maintenance; security at his home and security for his vacation home. So the shareholders of this company will pay the former president of the company security money to make sure his home is secure and his vacation home is secure. Access to the corporate jet. Any time he wants, he can call up on the phone, Mr. Bible can, and say, I want the corporate jet and they take him anywhere he wants around the world. Access to the dining room. Access to the gym. A company car and driver for the rest of his life. And if he does not want the car and driver, they will pay him $100,000 a year. So he can go out and spend $100,000 a year on the car he needs. And $15,000 a year for somebody to give him financial advice. So if he needs financial advice from his tax accountant, the company will pay him 15,000. That retirement package comes right out of the pockets of the consumer and right out of the pockets of the shareholders. Just like this house built on ill-gotten gains down in Florida as a result of Scott Sullivan and WorldCom Corporation, it is the same thing. That is where that money is coming from. I applaud the President today. The President came out and I think in very strong terms has set the direction for the House and the Senate to follow, that if we do not have the laws in place, and, by the way, we have a lot of laws in place today, there is a lot we can do today by simply enforcing the laws that are already in existence. I am not convinced we need a whole lot more new laws as far as the criminal behavior is concerned. What we need are more resources out there to these agencies to enforce the laws that exist. So the President today made it very clear, and I think it would be to our benefit in both the House and the other side, in the Senate, to follow this lead. And this week I hope we can accomplish with some strong firm legislation an enforcement of a policy in this country that makes your punishment from stealing from the shareholders, from stealing from the public, for misappropriating, from lying on your accounting, from cooking the books, makes those offenses much more serious consequences than you would face if you went out and shoplifted a candy bar from the local retail store. Our business system in this country depends on integrity. Now we know that not everybody is going to be honest. It cannot happen. Any time you get a group of people together, you will have a bad apple. It is the same thing in Congress. It happened in the Catholic priesthood. It has happened in the corporate world. So we have to build in, we have to anticipate that you will have a crooked corporate executive here and there. But the key to it is not to pretend that it is not going to happen or to depend totally on honesty. Our society has never totally depended on honesty. We have always had law. It is to put the laws in place. It is not just to put the laws in place. It is to enforce the laws that you have in place. Let me conclude by saying this, I hope that we give the support to the President that he has asked; that we give the resources to the Securities and Exchange Commission that they need to police this problem; that we crack down hard on corporate governance; that we crack down hard on the auditing and audit oversight for companies like Arthur Andersen. And, by the way, the five major auditing firms in this country, all of them have been named in some of these transactions. It is clearly a mess out there that can be cleaned up. It has to be cleaned up. Do not let us forget that what is being highlighted here, and appropriately. I think we need to focus a lot of attention on it, but sometimes when we focus all our attention on the misdeeds by a few, it tars everybody else. I mean, look at the Catholic priesthood. You get a few bad priests and all priests out there are being tarnished unfairly. Let me say we have people out there who do run ethical business. We have people that deliver good products. We have people that care about their shareholders. We have people that are responsible to their board of directors and we have boards of directors that are responsible to the people that they represent and we have a lot of good workers out there. That is what has made the American system great and the American system will stay great as long as we jump on top of people who have committed misdeeds.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life and memory of Henry H. Cairns Sr. of San Diego, California. Henry Cairns, known as Hank, honorably devoted his life to defending the freedoms of our nation. He upheld America's liberty and has earned a place amongst our country's leaders. Today we mourn the loss of a courageous father, grandfather, husband, brother, son, and soldier. Hank moved to Colorado when he was six weeks old, and he spent most of his adolescent and young adult years in Montrose. When he graduated from high school, Hank with the help of his brother opened his own candy store. Hank found his place, honorably serving in our Air Force, and as the Captain of the 852nd Bombardier, 8th Air Force Squadron, Hank upheld liberty and freedom by bravely fighting and living through his detainment at a prisoner of war camp during World War II. Hank served our nation proudly, and after the war he respectably returned to the United States. Hank has contributed greatly to our country by helping build roads, and runways around neighborhoods, military bases, and cities in our communities. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor an individual who contributed selflessly to the betterment of our nation, and although we will grieve the loss, we will rejoice over a man of great character and conduct. I express my sincerest condolences to his family and friends, and I salute Aaron Romero before this body of Congress and this nation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to bring to the attention of this House the inspiring accomplishments of June Renfro. June was recently awarded the Rifle (Colorado) Chamber of Commerce's `Person of the Year' award for her dedication to her community. The selfless love with which she has promoted the betterment of the Rifle area has been a moving reminder of the affection many in my state have for their communities. June Renfro was born on a ranch just northeast of Nunn, Colorado. She spent 18 years in the upholstery business in Greeley while actively pursuing a career with Home Interiors and Gifts, an at-home interior decorating service. However, when Mrs. Renfro's husband tragically passed away, June decided it was time to escape the cold winters in that area and moved to Rifle in 1997 to spend more time with her daughter Judy. The joy with which June has embraced her new community later in life has been an inspiration to her new neighbors. At the age of 68 June threw herself wholeheartedly into the Rifle community, utilizing her love of people and inquisitive nature to become Rifle's biggest cheerleader. She became involved with the Chamber of Commerce ambassadors and began taping local business profiles for Rifle's Community Access Channel 13. June did everything in her power to share her talents and infectious spirit with her new neighbors in Rifle. Mr. Speaker it is my privilege to pay tribute to June Renfro for her contributions to the rifle community. I applaud her receipt of the Rifle Chamber of Commerce's `Person of the Year' award recognizing her significant achievements for the good of the community. At the age of 73, June's commitment to her neighborhood should be a lesson to all of us that we can continue to affect our communities for the public. For this unwavering dedication, as well as her infectious love of her newfound home, I bring June Renfro's example to the attention of this body of Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to pay tribute to a model citizen of the Grand Junction, Colorado community. Gene Taylor has gained the respect and admiration of the community through his company, Gene Taylor's Sporting Goods, and has provided professional and quality service to the city for over forty years. Gene's secret to success is simple; he values the customer and is dedicated to providing quality products in his establishments. He is a pillar of the Grand Junction community and I am honored to bring forth his accomplishments before this body of Congress, and this nation. As the market for sporting goods and competition for the community's business increased, Gene has managed to stay successful through his hard work and dedication to his community. As an active business and civic member and provider of financial assistance to worthy causes, Gene's stores are covered with banners from local schools thanking him for his help and support to their causes. His latest contribution to the city was the donation of five and one half acres for a new skating rink in Grand Junction, the Charlene Glebler Community Ice Arena. This donation, along with Gene's life-long belief in community service, is one of the many admirable qualities of this man and I am grateful for his service to the area. As a family friend and admirer of Gene, let me point out that the entire family is involved in the operation and all carry Gene's commitment to excellence in their daily lives. Gene is well known as a loving husband to his wife Beverly, and a devoted father to his six children Roseanne, Duke, Marshall, Amy, Tony, and Jenny. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and satisfaction that I bring the life and accomplishments of Gene Taylor to the attention of this nation today. Gene's success story serves as a model example of hard work and perseverance for a member of the business and civic community and I am honored to represent Gene and his family before this body of Congress. Gene and his family have been well-respected members of the Grand Junction community for many years and I am grateful for their service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has spent the last six years in the dedicated service of his community of Collbran: George Currier. George is a great Coloradan who has given of himself countless times during his term on the Collbran Board of Trustees. His knowledge and love for the community, as well as his vision for the future, have made him an invaluable resource to the whole town. George Currier was born and raised in his beloved Collbran. His family was in the ranching business during his childhood; and while they would leave town every winter to ranch their cows in the Appleton area, George and his family would return with the nice weather: Collbran is George's home. During George's time on the Board of Trustees he has overseen numerous improvements to the community, including the construction of a new town hall. But more important than the physical development that has been undertaken during his watch, George values the many Collbran town employees with which he has worked closely during his six years of service. However, George's efforts to better his beloved hometown have not been limited to his service in town government: George, his wife Nancy and their three children remain active in the Collbran community. Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I bring to the attention of the body of Congress the accomplishments of a man whose love for his hometown, and whose desire to improve his community, is an inspiration to his friends and neighbors alike. A public servant in the truest sense of the phrase, George Currier's time on the Collbran Board of Trustees has been a fine example to all of us who serve our nation in elective office. With appreciation, I echo the praise George has received from his friends and neighbors in Collbran and salute him for his six fine years of service to his community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of subjects of which I wish to cover this evening. Of course, having the opportunity to come over and wait for my time allotment to speak to the Members here, you get to listen to the people that preceded you speaking. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is a very capable individual and speaks very well. There is only one point I want to make clear about his conversations. At the beginning of his remarks, he expressed some dismay that the Republican leadership may not be able to bring up the prescription care bill, the Medicare bill, this week. He was very discouraged by that. He talked about and gave some examples of people that needed prescription assistance and senior citizens and their trials and tribulations that they go through, of which of course we would all agree with. What he did not point out was the fact that none of the Democrats want to help us. So there is a reason that that bill cannot come to the floor, and that is because we do not have bipartisan cooperation. The Republicans have asked the Democrats on a regular basis, pitch in and help us. Prescription care is a serious problem in this country. We have got to come up with some type of solution. We prefer to come up with a bipartisan solution. Prescription care problems out there in our society do not happen to just Republicans. The ability or lack of ability to pay for prescription services does not just happen to Democrats. It happens to all people in our country. That is why it is necessary for bipartisan support. But, unfortunately, this is an election year; and with November not very far away and with the Democrats vowing that they will make prescription care services their main issue to try and defeat the Republicans, they find within their own conferences no incentive to cooperate. This thing is being driven by politics, and that is exactly why we get criticism of the Republicans not bringing it up. The reason is Republicans do not have the numbers. They need some help from the Democrats. But there is no way in an election year that the Democrats are going to help us with prescription care services. One, they do not want the issue resolved before November. They do not want the Republicans to get the credit for having solved the big problem in this country, so they will do whatever they can to resist any kind of cooperation. And while on one hand they will not cooperate, they turn around on the other hand and blame us for not bringing that bill to the floor. So I would suggest to my good friends over on the Democratic side, come on, let us be a little less partisan about this. Help us. Work with us. That is what we are asking for. But that is not the intent of my speaking to you this evening. I really want to cover three separate subjects. I want to talk, of course, about the outrageous decision made today by the Ninth Circuit in California about the fact that America now must hang its head in disgrace because our Pledge of Allegiance has been declared unconstitutional, unconstitutional by a Federal appeals court. That is no low-level court. That is a very high court in our country. It has had the audacity to come out and take the most recognized symbol in the world and the Pledge of Allegiance to that symbol and to that country, in a time of war, in a time when every other country in the world encourages its children in its schools, in its institutions, in its areas of public domain, encourages their civilizations to engage in religious practice, that this court finds it necessary for the United States to see that its Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it mentions the name God. We will talk a little about that. I want to talk about the fires in Colorado. In fact, I have got a poster. I want to talk a little about the fire damage in Colorado, the fires and what is going on. During those discussions, I am going to point out, so that you have some proportion of the damage in Colorado, Colorado is not burning as a State. The great majority, 99 and some percent, of Colorado is not on fire. 99.9 percent of the State of Colorado is open for tourism; and if you want the greatest deal of the summer, you go to Colorado, because there are a lot of deals out there. There are a lot of opportunities. Colorado is a very gorgeous State. Of course, I am very proud of it. My family on my side and on my wife's side, we have multiple generations in Colorado. I could talk about Colorado all evening, but I do want to put it in some proportion, and we will be looking at this map to my left. I will give you a little idea of exactly what we are talking about. But we are not going to move to that map yet because I want to also talk this evening about corporate greed, this WorldCom stuff, KMart, Global Crossing, Xerox Corporation, Tyco Corporation, and now maybe even our favorite, Martha Stewart. What is going on out there in the corporate world? What is going on with the integrity of these people? What are they doing to our society? What are they doing to that credibility gap which is a foundation of the economic cycle of this country, of the economic principles of this country? It depends on integrity from people who manage these companies and people who oversee the management of the company, i.e., the board of directors. We are uncovering stone after stone after stone in corporate America, and what are we finding? We are finding corporate self-serving greed, not greed in a healthy capitalistic fashion but greed in a way that it is criminal. I intend to spend some time on that this evening, too. I intend to talk very specifically about what I think some of the solutions are. When I think of what is going on out there, it makes me think of a four-letter word. That is what I think of when I think of corporate greed. I want to use a four-letter word, J-A-I-L, jail. That is exactly what I am thinking about. That is exactly where some of these corporate executives ought to be, and it is exactly where those corporate boards of directors ought to be. That four letter word, J-A-I-L. I am not trying to jump into these remarks too early, but let me tell you something. If you were an employee with Kmart Corporation or you were an employee with Enron Corporation or Tyco Corporation, or let us go back to Kmart. Let us say you are just a sales clerk at Kmart, at one of their stores and you stole a candy bar. You stole a candy bar from Kmart, from your employer, you stuck it in your pocket, a candy bar, and walked out of the store with it. Up to this point in time, you would suffer more repercussions for stealing a candy bar as an employee of Kmart Corporation than will those executives of Kmart Corporation who loaned themselves millions and millions and millions of dollars and then took a corporate board action and forgave the loans to themselves and then filed bankruptcy on behalf of the corporation. Think about that. There are people that will get in more trouble stealing a candy bar or a magazine or a tool from one of these retailers than will the CEOs. Let us take, for example, WorldCom. If you steal long distance services from WorldCom, let us say you steal $100 worth of long distance services from WorldCom Corporation. You are going to get in more trouble than the chief executive, Bernie Evers, got in trouble; and he got a $350 million loan from the board of directors, $350 million of which he will never be able to pay back. It is unbelievable, and the American economic society is suffering as a result. We have got to bring the hammer down on these executives, and we have got to bring it down hard and heavy. We have got to make it so that every prosecutor in this country, every U.S. attorney in this country when they think of these chief executives, they think of that four letter word, J-A-I-L, jail. Let me start back and let me talk about in a little more detail some of these subjects. First of all, let me talk about the flag. I, like many millions and millions and millions of Americans today, was stunned, stunned, that a Federal appeals court, that two judges could bring this country to its knees by saying that this country's Pledge of Allegiance, a pledge that every child in this country has said, that every school in this country and every school this country has ever had has been said within its four walls is unconstitutional because it has the words ``under God'' contained within its four corners. You think about this decision. What is next? That ought to be the logical question. We have these liberal judges. By the way, you take the most liberal Member of this House Chamber, and these judges make those liberal Members of this House Chamber look like they are right- wing conservatives. The Ninth Circuit is an island of its own as known in the legal circles. I practiced law. I was an attorney. The Ninth Circuit has always been known as kind of an island of its own, but, nonetheless, it is still a Federal appeals court. So you have to ask yourself, okay, somebody that wants to stir up trouble, what is the next logical thing for this court in California to declare unconstitutional? Could it be the crosses at Arlington National Cemetery or the crosses at every military cemetery in this country? Is it unconstitutional because the cross is seen as a symbol of Christianity and we find it on Federal property; we find it on every grave of every military person and their spouses and, in some cases, their children, who have served this Nation? And now these judges, do we think that is logical? Of course it is logical. And of course it is something that now, something that we never imagined any judge would go so far out of bounds of their judicial duties that they would, first of all, declare our Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional. Then the next step, logically, would be for them to go to our national cemeteries and start yanking crosses out of our servicemen's graves. What is next? How interesting. I bet these judges, I bet these judges this week; let us see. July 1, coming next week. I bet on July 1, those judges that made that decision today that the word ``God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, I bet those judges on July 1 put their greedy little hands out and take their paycheck and take that American money that says ``In God We Trust'' on it. I bet they take that money, and I bet they stuff it in their pockets. Now, I would say to these judges, if you are true to principle, you should refuse this cash. You should not take American money. It has ``In God We Trust'' on it. It is unconstitutional. You should uphold the judiciary of this fine land. You, after all, are the ones who made the earth-shattering decision that the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States was unconstitutional. So it should not be you who steps forward for the benefits of American cash, because after all, that has ``In God We Trust'' and that would be offensive to the decision that you made. But, of course, they will not hear of that; and of course, they will take their money on July 1 as they snicker about the decision that they handed down to the American people today. I studied law. I am a lawyer. Granted, since I have been in Congress, I have not practiced law. Granted, I am not a constitutional lawyer, although I studied the Constitution. I would not be considered as a judicial scholar, by any means. But what kind of scholar does one have to be to say to the judicial system in this country, back off? How far, how hard do you want to push this Nation? In a time of war, in a time when this Nation needs to be unified, what do we think are going to be the ramifications to the generation behind us, to the rest of the world that is looking at this country and sees that its own judges, its own judges declare our Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? Not only do they declare it unconstitutional, they issue a dictate that says that this Pledge of Allegiance may not be said, may not be said within the walls of our schools. I mean, I hope that people understand; and I think the millions, the mass of millions of people in the United States of America understand the slap that was just struck across their face. The refusal, the rejection of the American principle of God and liberty, regardless of what one's God is, that God and liberty and freedom and strength were rejected today by some of the people in whom we put our highest confidence. These judges ought to resign in shame. Now, I know, I know the arguments. Look, I used to be a cop, I heard the defense attorneys, and I know tomorrow the American Civil Liberties Union and some of these other people will stand up and talk about the bravery of these judges, to stand up against popular opinion, as if popular opinion is always wrong; to stand up against popular opinion and say, the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, and somehow they want a feather in their cap and a badge on their vest. Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when we ought to consider the circumstances in our Nation. There comes a time when we have to say, why do we need to take this issue on? As if there is nothing more important in this world going on; as if this is the psychological blow that the American people need right now, and that is to tell them that when their children go to school, it is taboo for their children to say the Pledge of Allegiance; to the finest country in the history of the world, the strongest country on the face of the Earth. I do not mean just strong militarily. I mean strong as far as what it does for other countries; strong as far as what it does for the poor people in this world; strong as far as what it does for its contributions of inventions, of mechanical inventions, of medical inventions, of medicine, of prescriptive services. I mean think about this. Mr. Speaker, do we know what these judges are? They are elitists. They are in an ivory tower out there in California, and they take for granted the fact of the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who have died throughout the history of our country to keep this country free. I would like my colleagues to show me one soldier tomorrow that is going to say to us that their children, that children should not say the Pledge of Allegiance, that our Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Now, I do take some reluctance in criticizing the judges' opinion. I think the judiciary has to have some flexibility. But by God, and I said that word just a minute ago, because I mean it. I hope He is not paying much attention; or He or She or whoever that God is, I hope they are not paying much attention as to what these judges in our country did today. I hope the patriotism that all of these hundreds of thousands of soldiers that are now dead and the patriotic cause for which they gave their lives, or maybe not their lives, but gave their career; or maybe not their career, but gave some time in their lives to go to bat for this country, I wonder what they are thinking today about why these judges did not go to bat for our country, why these judges have to stretch the law so far, so extreme. This is such a liberal interpretation of this that they would have the audacity or maybe the ignorance or maybe the stupidity to come to a Nation as great as this Nation, as a part of this Nation, which has given them everything they have, by the way; those judges have their jobs as a result of these soldiers, as a result of the citizens of this country. The judiciary has the respect that it does because we do indoctrinate our kids at a young age, like every other country in the history of the world does. We educate them about what a great country it is. We do try and get an allegiance to this country built up early. Is that too much to ask? Is it too much for these judges to swallow that a country says to the citizens of this country, look, we have an allegiance to this country? We have an allegiance to our flag. We have to be willing to fight for the freedom and the principles and the Declaration of Independence. We need these things. Is the next thing they are going to throw out is the Declaration of Independence because it has ``God'' in it, and that those rights and those thoughts and those philosophies and that idealogy expressed in the Declaration of Independence should no longer be taught in the classroom because it has ``God'' in it? Give me a break. What is going on here? Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this to stand. Those judges, those judges should be isolated; and I will tell my colleagues what else. The other body, the leader of the other body who stood up today and agreed with me, and acknowledged that this decision was just pure nuts, ought to let the President judge and get some of these judicial balanced appointments in, get some people in that are balanced. I mean, this decision is so extreme, so radical, that tomorrow when all of America wakes up, and wait until our Americans overseas take a look at this. What do we think it is going to do to them? We talk about discouraging. I mean, we talk about depressing, that is, that your own court would take one of the things that we grew up with and say it is unconstitutional because they use the word ``God'' in it. I am ashamed. As a lawyer, as an officer of the court, as a United States Congressman, and more importantly than any of that, as a father, as a citizen, I am ashamed, I am ashamed at what that court in California did today, a Federal court, Federal judges who found that the Pledge of Allegiance of the greatest country in the history of the world is unconstitutional. Do not kid ourselves. Remember years and years ago when the court first came out and said we cannot have a Christmas declaration on Federal land, we cannot have a cross up there at Christmastime; remember when they came out and said, you cannot have prayer in school; when they came out and started ignoring the basic principles, started penetrating family. And people said, oh, it is just some crazy decision; it is not going to go anywhere. This decision, it is so crazy. But do we know what happens? These judicial judges, they kind of grow on themselves. Some of these judges have egos and they are elitists like we cannot believe. In an ivory tower they begin to think more and more and bigger and bigger of themselves, and the next thing we know they give another judgment. So do not be surprised. There will be before too long, I am confident of it, some radical liberal will file in the courts that the crucifix, the cross used in our national cemeteries is unconstitutional because it is a symbol of Christianity or a symbol used related to God. Do not be surprised. Although they will use the money, spend the money for their own needs, but they come out and say every American coin, every American dollar that says ``In God We Trust'' ought to be declared unconstitutional, that our money is unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, back during the Cold War, I think it was Nikita Kruschev that said with America, all we have to do is be patient and give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves. Give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves. We do not have to go to battle with America. Just give me elitists. Give the elitists enough rope, and they will hang themselves. Give these elitists that declare our Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional, just give them enough authority and enough jurisprudence, and pretty soon they will divide their own country. Many countries throughout the world are amused by this. These countries that hate us: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, think of these countries. They are overjoyed. They look and they see within the family, one of the most respected symbols of the family, of the American family, the family is split. They are probably as surprised as we are; but they are smirking, they are elated, they cannot believe their good luck that the American family is being split, not by outside members, but by members within the family itself, these elitist judges. Those judges should be ashamed of themselves. Mr. Speaker, I did not think when I went to law school, I never thought throughout my time as practicing law, which I practiced for 10 years, I never thought when I represented the fine State of Colorado in the State House of Representatives, nor did I imagine that being on the House floor of the United States Congress, a privilege and an honor for me, that I would be standing in front of my colleagues talking about these judges in the way that I am, about the disgrace they have brought about to our country. I hope that the generations and generations of their families from now, assuming that this country survives over a long period of time, I hope that their families will look back someday upon the words of my record this evening and understand my anger and my disgrace directed towards them for the decision they made today. Mr. Speaker, this is not emotionally driven. This is driven by my intense love and my intense belief that this country has to have a guiding light, and that guiding light is not only a supreme being that all of us may or may not believe in or the type of supreme being that one believes in, but a guiding light driven by a sense of patriotism, a guiding light driven by a flag, by a symbol, a guiding light driven by a President with integrity, a guiding light driven by a Pledge of Allegiance. What is wrong with singing a National Anthem? Mr. Speaker, that is probably next, for some reason. These are all tools, tools of protection of democracy; tools that make people come together as a team; tools that are used to excite us about our Nation, that are used to encourage us to rededicate time and time and time again our belief in this fine country. And yet tonight, a couple of judges at a Federal court trash it. I am stunned, disappointed, and even disappointed beyond the point of being angry, but I am ashamed of what these judges have done. Let me move on to an entirely different subject, the subject of fire and the fires in the State of Colorado. First of all, I will tell my colleagues that my district consists primarily of all of the mountains of Colorado. There are a few mountains that are out of it, but most of the mountains in Colorado are in that district and will remain in that district after redistricting. Our district in Colorado, it is the third district, the highest district in elevation, highest place in the country when you take the elevation. I am pointing out a few of these things because we are having pretty serious problems with a drought out in Colorado. We do have serious fires. We have had a horrible fire in Durango, Colorado. Yesterday we got a second fire in Durango, Colorado, just across the road; and it was from another origin, another cause. It was caused by an entirely different source. We have a terrible fire raging in Arizona. We had a terrible fire near Denver, still in the Third Congressional District, called the Hayman fires. But these fires, the national press, all the pictures that we see in the national press would lead us to believe that Colorado has been hit by a bomb; that Colorado, somehow all the mountains are on fire, and that Colorado is a dangerous place to visit. I will tell the Members that on its face is inaccurate. I have to my left, and I would like to go through this map, what this map does is shows Colorado fire damage. The black spots on this map will show Members where there has been fire damage. Members have heard about the size of these fires. They are huge. We have heard about them. But when we put it in proportion to the entire State of Colorado, these are not the size areas we imagine by seeing all the pictures in the national press. Here is that massive, massive fire called the Hayman fire near Denver, Colorado. That fire is about 70 percent contained, meaning that we are 70 percent around it. We are going to whip that fire. That fire got the best of us for a few days. But all the publicity Members heard, that is where that fire is. That fire does not have any national park in it. It has part of a national forest. We have closed part of that national forest down. We have numerous national forests that are still open for the public that are not affected by this fire. We have four national parks that are not affected by this fire that are open for the public. We have thousands and thousands of tours and attractions, tourist attractions, that are not affected by this fire that are open. If Members wanted to camp in this black spot, of which I would guess, of the people who visit in Colorado, probably less than one ten- thousandth of a percent of the visitors we have every year in our State, less than one ten-thousandth of a percent of the total visitors that come to our State every year would camp or be in these particular areas to visit. Members' visit or vacation to Colorado would not in all likelihood be in any of these black areas of Colorado. Durango is down here in this black area. It probably is not a very accurate depiction. I am looking for a date. This is 3 days old. This map is 3 days old, so Durango would be down in this area about right over here where this little black mark is right here. That is the Durango fire. That black mark has grown. But Durango, the City of Durango, has not burned down. In fact, if Members want to go visit a community, right after the New York City disaster what a lot of us in this country said would help New York was to go visit New York. What would help Durango, Colorado, what would help Colorado, is to go visit Colorado, go have a vacation over there. There are lots of things that can be done, and we can help the State and help Durango. Durango needs our help. Why? Not because the city has burned. It has not burned at all. It needs our help because the perception out there is that we ought to cancel our vacations to Colorado. In fact, one of our State newspapers ran an article to say, hey, come back next year. That on its face is an absurd statement. As I said, 99 and some percent of this State is unaffected by those black marks, and the majority of those black marks up near Glenwood Springs, for example, in Glenwood Springs, I do not think, and I am from there, I was born and raised there so I know the fire pattern very well, I do not think one campground in Glenwood springs was closed as a result of this fire, or is closed as a result of this fire. I might be off by one. But there is so much area around Glenwood Springs. This is the flattop region. Look at all this area. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of square miles, or, excuse me, hundreds and hundreds, millions of acres and hundreds of thousands of square miles, I guess would be correct, that we can go visit and camp and these attractions that we can go to. Let me explain what got us to the fire situation that we are in. First of all, keep in mind the dryness and the drought. What we have had is we have had a large accumulation of dead forest material, and we call that material fuel. It drops off the trees, for example, and it accumulates on the forest floor. Now, nature, frankly, before the Native Americans, before humans occupied, nature used to take care of these forests because they were what we could truly call at that point natural forests, and fire would rage on a consistent basis throughout much of the United States. In fact, to give a little history, in the 1900s, 1910, 1920, and really this is what led to the birth of Smokey, the Bear, we would, on an annual basis, have 50 million acres, up to 50 million acres a year that would burn in this country. Last year, for example, I think we had 3 million acres burn, because we have become much better at fire suppression. Our acreage, and because we have really educated the public about the dangers of fire, instead of losing 50 million acres a year, we are losing much closer to 3 to 5 million acres a year, which means over a period of time 45 million acres a year is not being cleared out by fire, so we have fuel. It is like trash in the home. Over time, it accumulates; and, over time, it becomes a hazard. That is what has happened on our forest floors. We have not been able to get in there for a number of reasons, the least of which or the not the least of which is the environmental movements, which have opposed, because they are so emotionally driven against logging. And, by the way, Colorado is not even a logging State. I am not sure we have a large commercial sawmill left in Colorado. But they are so emotionally driven by logging and their hatred towards logging that they have used these emotional arguments and their educational efforts to try and stop the thinning of the forests. Now, of course, after the fire they cannot wait to get up there and say, Oh, no, we support thinning of forests, but look at the facts, and they have contributed to it. I am not saying that these radical organizations, these radical environmental organizations, are the cause of the fire. I am not saying that they are the only contributing factor to the fire. But what I am saying is, do not let them leave the table. Bring them back to the table, because they did contribute. Their actions, instead of allowing our forest service to manage our forests based on science, they have engineered and financed and engaged in a very sophisticated educational effort to have our forests managed by emotion, not by science. We have to come back to science. We need to let the people who specialize, who are educated, who grow up in it, who work it every day, our Forest Service, our BLM people, these Federal biologists, we need to let them manage these forests. We need to follow their advice, instead of going out to the public as a whole and driving emotional thought and then forcing it back on these agencies. I hope these fires wake some of these people up. But putting the environmental issue aside, I also want to say to my fellow homeowners out there in the mountains, I have had some of my colleagues who have come up to me and said, look, why do you guys live up there? Why do you live in those mountains? Why do you live out there where there are trees that can burn up? I said, wait a minute, why do you have trees in your yard in the big cities? That is where we live. It is our home. It has been our home for many, many years; generations in my family's situation and in my wife's family, too. Do not tell us to move from where we lived since the 1860s and where our Native American people have lived for several hundred years. That is our home. But we do have a responsibility, fellow homeowners out there, and that is to take care of our own properties. Every one of us who lives out there in what we call the urban interface, where the homes start to come into these forests around ponderosa pine or things like that, we need to put some money and put some investment in the protection of our home. I frankly do not think it is going to take government regulations to force us to do it. What I think is going to force us to do it out there are the homeowners insurance companies. They are going to say, with some justification, we are not going to ensure your home unless we get a check-off that your home has been treated, that the trees around your house have been trimmed back, that you do not have a ponderosa pine tree up against your house, that you have done the proper trimming, treating, and cleaned out the pine needles, and so on, and then we will ensure your home against fire. So that is something we can do for the future. But what are the dangers we are seeing this year in this fire season? Why is everything so explosive? Not everything, but why, where we have had the fire, do we see fires so intense, so intense they sterilize the soil? And these people that tell us, well, this fire in Durango or the Hayman fires, these are good for the environment. It is not good for the environment. These are horrible fires. In Durango, it rained dead birds. We had birds falling out of the skies, flying into the gases. We had smoke plumes 50,000 feet in the air. We have soil that is so hot that it has been, as I said, it has been neutralized. It will not be good for planting. It is so hard, the water is just going to run right off it. It will not go in it anymore. It has been scorched to that point. These fires are not good for us. These fires are burning with an intensity that we have not seen in recorded history. These fires are burning at a rate that is incredible. Yesterday's second fire in Durango burnt 20 acres in 4 minutes, 20 acres. Think of four football fields in 4 minutes burning; starting at one point, not multiple points, but starting in one point and going through 20 football fields, approximately an acre, going through 20 football fields in 4 minutes. There is a reason that is happening. The other thing that concerns us about the fire season that we are facing this year is that it is so early in the season. We do not usually see these kinds of fires of this intensity this early in the season. The other concern we have, as I mentioned earlier, the district that I represent, am privileged to represent, is at the highest elevation on the continent. We do not have fires above 9,000 feet this early in the season. Our Nation, for the first time since we have had a level 5, which is the highest level of alert for firefighting that we can go to, for the first time in the history of this alert we have gone to it before July 28. Now it is not uncommon to go to a level 5 alert system on our fires. We did it in, I think, the fire year 2000. But what is uncommon is to go so early. So there are a lot of challenges we face out in Colorado, but I will tell the Members, what would really hurt Colorado was for tourists, for people who wanted to come visit what is one of the most beautiful States, one of the most beautiful geographical locations in the world, to cancel their visits this summer and decide to come next year. I am telling the Members, there are a lot of people that would hurt very, very badly if people just decided not to come to Colorado this year. I would urge my colleagues, in our own little way we have suffered greatly. Some of our families, probably 700 or 800 of our families, have lost their homes. Fortunately, the loss of life has been minimized, although last weekend not far from my house we lost five firefighters in a car accident, which brings me to the point: I want everybody to wear their seatbelts. It was a tragic loss, young people. In fact, it was interesting, one of the fathers of one of these men said, you know something, these bastards, they will not let us timber these forests, but they expect us to send our young men and women in there to fight these fires. So there is some bitterness out there. But one way to help ease this pain, it is the same thing that we talked about after September 11 to help New York City ease its pain: Go visit New York City. Go visit Colorado. Again, I want to refocus on this map to my left. The areas that have burned out, the areas where the fires are, and they were burned out as of 2 days ago, are indicated by the black marks. If we put all of the black marks together, follow my finger here to the left, we probably would have an area about like this, and the rest of the State is green. So do not think for a moment that all of Colorado is burning, that it looks like a desert of burnt-out ash. It is not that at all. We have our problems, and we have some fires. We are working on them, and we need your help. But the best thing you can do to help us, outside of your prayers, is to come visit us in Colorado. Go ahead with your scheduled vacation. I urge Members to do it, and I am asking people for the help. I am asking for consideration to come out to Colorado and help us this year. Of any year we have needed some help, we are asking for it now. Let me move on to my final subject of the evening. I will talk about some of the principles of American economics. Now, I am not an economics scholar. I do have a degree in business administration. I have enjoyed business all my life. I read everything I can about business. I think I am pretty studied on it, but I certainly am not a scholastic professor or talented, maybe, necessarily. But I do understand some principles. And some of the principles that we have in business in this country, really, our capitalistic system works pretty well; but when you really take a look at the capitalistic system, there is one part of the foundation, we have a couple of parts of foundation that are important for the building to stand. One of them is the judiciary, the enforcement of contracts in this country. The other is the freedom to operate. Another foundation pillar would be interstate commerce, the ability to do business from one State to the other. But in the center of all of this, one of the pillars of the foundation for our capitalistic system is integrity, integrity and credibility from the people that manage these corporations, the chief executive officers; and he can tell you that America has been let down. Not let down by one person here and one person there. But we have now been let down by enough of these chief executive officers, by enough of these boards of directors, that the perception amongst the American people is that a great majority of the business community in our country is corrupt. That is not true. But that is the perception that is out there. And frankly the perception is well deserved. Why? Take a look at what has gone on. And I am going to give you a few examples of why people in this country are sick and tired of what is going on in corporate America. I want to tell you I am proud. The President promises that we are going to have a WorldCom investigation. And I think the President has mentioned a couple of points I think that are worth repeating right here. President Bush, and I am urging the Democrats to join us in this effort, but President Bush today said, ``Let me answer the second question first.'' Let me repeat that question. The question from the reporter, ``Do you believe there is a crisis in confidence amongst American people vis-a-vis the economy, particularly the stock market in view of yet another failure of an American corporation?'' The President responds, ``Let me answer the second question first. The market is not as strong as it should be for three reasons: one, corporate profits.'' The President is right. We are having an economic cycle. We have economic cycles, and in the downturn your profits are not good. The President is right on that point. ``Second, there are concerns whether or not the United States and our friends can prevent future terrorist attacks.'' So you have number one corporate profits; you have number two post- September 11. What is next? How do we protect our assets? Are our nuclear plants at risk? Is the Capitol at risk? How do we protect our assets? That is the second item. But of interest this evening to my remarks are what the President says is the third factor that is hurting our stock market, that is hurting our national economy. I quote from the President: ``Thirdly, there are some concerns with the validity of the balance sheets of corporate America and I can understand why. We have had too many cases of people abusing their responsibilities and people just need to know that the Security and Exchange Commission is on it. Our government is on it. We will pursue within our laws those who are responsible or acting irresponsible.'' The President is right. Corporate America, many of your leaders in corporate America have let this country down in many different ways. You can take a look at some of the corporations that are making every effort they can to incorporate in other countries to take their headquarters, even though they have no customers, like Stanley Tool Corporation. Even though Stanley has no sales in Bermuda, no customers, no employees in Bermuda, they have reincorporated their corporation, remember Stanley Tool, the tape measures you buy at the hardware store, in Bermuda to avoid paying taxes like every other American has to make. Despite the fact that we have American soldiers fighting so that corporations and business in this country can have the freedom of commerce, they give their lives, these young men and women, people throughout this country sacrifice whether it is in the judiciary or other means, to provide for free enterprise, to provide for commerce and the free flow of commerce, and yet we have these people that are abusing the privilege that has been granted to them. Let me give you some other examples. We hear about Enron. Take a look at WorldCom, which today admitted, today admitted a 3 or $4 billion fraud against the stockholders of its corporation. And not only the stockholders of its corporation, it has a ripple effect. It affects all of America. What did they also announce today? That because of this fraud they had to lay off 17,000 people. There are 17,000 people today without jobs because of greed in that corporate board room, because of greed of a few self-serving criminals, in my opinion. And you can find it in WorldCom Corporation. And WorldCom is not alone, unfortunately. Take a look though what WorldCom did. They are not a bank. WorldCom is not a bank. It is a long distance company. It is a communications company. It is a telecom company. It is not a bank. Banks loan money. Long distance companies do not loan money. They sell you long distance services, but WorldCom was different. It was a bank. It loaned money. But you know who it loaned money to? It did not loan money to any of its employees at the lower level. It loaned money to their chief, to the president. The guy needed five bucks for a sandwich at lunch. That is not what they did. They loaned the chief executive officer, Bernie Ebbers $350 million, $350 million. By the way it did not come out of the board of directors' pockets. It came out of the stockholders'. It came out of the corporate treasury. It came out of the consumers'. It came out of the American buying public to give one person a 350 or $360 million loan, while at the same time this person who is the head of the corporation so he is captain of the ship, a ship which is committing, while this is all going, a 3 or $4 billion fraud just unveiled in the last few days. Why are those people not in jail? I am telling you I am going to do everything I can within the abilities of the office that I hold to faithfully and diligently prosecute these people who are abusing the privileges in our system of commerce in this country. Now, was it WorldCom alone? No, take a look at K-Mart Corporation. K- Mart is in bankruptcy. That is a fine corporation, and they drove it into the hole. But before they took it into bankruptcy, what did the executives at K-Mart do? Well, they borrowed money. K-Mart is not a bank. K-Mart does not loan money to its customers. K-Mart sells merchandise. But their executives used K-Mart, their board of directors used K-Mart as a bank. Their executives used it as an ATM machine. Just like Bernie Ebbers pulled 350 million out of the ATM machine at WorldCom that he built and put in place, the ATM machine, so did the executives at K-Mart corporation. How many people have lost their jobs at K-Mart because of their corporate greed? Those executives not only borrowed the money, but they wanted to make sure right before they have filed for bankruptcy for K- Mart corporation, that they passed a board resolution which forgave the loans, said do not pay us back. You do not have to worry about it. It is a gift. Enron, we have heard a lot about Enron. What a disgrace. Andrew Fastow, you heard about Andrew Fastow, F-A-S-T-O-W, sets up secret partnerships, pays himself $40 million. And I am telling you today, so far at this point in time, if you stole a candy bar or you stole a magazine at the magazine store up the street here from the Capitol, you would be suffering more consequences than this Andrew Fastow who worked for Enron Corporation is suffering for stealing 35 or $50 million that he paid himself as a salary. He does not call it stealing. He says, look, I earned it. I went out and did a little work for a couple of months and should have got paid $40 million. By the way I did not bother to tell anybody about it because I wanted it to be a secret. By the way, I was a big art donor and down there in Texas I gave lots to charity and stuff so leave me alone. You know what? Andrew ought to spend a long time in that four letter word I used earlier on, J-A-I-L, jail. He ought to go straight to jail. He ought to be on that Monopoly card when he bets everybody else's money. And he not only bets their money, he takes their money for his own self-serving purposes. He ought to pull that card every time he reaches into that deck, he ought to pull out that card that says you ought to go straight to jail. He ought to go straight to jail. And that is not the only one at Enron. We all know about the Ken Lays and some of the other mismanagement that went on. Take a look at the bonuses they paid to their executives. They paid some of their executives millions and millions of dollars to stay with the company after the news broke about the corruption of the company. And some of these executive officers took their millions of dollars in bonuses and walked away 30 days later. And how many thousands of employees of Enron now are losing houses because they cannot make payments, have to give up their cars, cannot send their kids to the colleges they all dreamed of? How many of these 17,000 employees that got laid off today at WorldCom lose their dreams because Bernie Ebbers got a $350 million loan from the corporation while they drove the corporation into the ground as a result of a $4 billion fraud. It does not stop there. Take a look at Xerox Corporation. Who could have ever imagined that Xerox would find itself in this situation? Take a look at Global Crossing. Who today, on a small paragraph in the national media, you will notice Global Crossing also admit they shredded a few documents, that they really are going to try and behave themselves, but how much punishment has been doled out to the Global Crossing executives? Take a look at the billionaire that runs that, billionaire, flies around. By the way, the executives at WorldCom, the executives at Enron, the executives at Kmart, the executives at Xerox, the executives at Global Crossing and the executives at Tyco, as well as our favorite, Martha Stewart, all fly around in private jets. This has not hurt many of these people. You think Andrew Fastow down there in Texas is flying commercial? No, he is probably flying private commercial jet, living like a king down there, having taken all this money. How many of those people that work for Enron are flying around like that? They are lucky to go to a garage sale to try and sell some of the things they have. Let me go on because it does not stop just at Global Crossing. How interesting that WorldCom today had as its auditor Arthur Andersen. Ever heard that name before, Arthur Andersen? I can tell you, instead of bringing the corporation down, I do not understand why we did not go to those specific auditors that are responsible for the obstruction of justice, that are responsible for the malfeasance in Enron audits and now WorldCom audits and take those auditors and send them to jail, give them that four-letter word, give them that card in the Monopoly game that says you go straight to jail. It is not happening. I got a little encouragement today when President Bush, and you know how he is when he announces a commitment, when he sets his eyes on something. When he is focused, he goes for it; and I think he is committed. I would hope the Members of the U.S. House, both Republican and Democrat, come on board and clean the system of the dirt that we have got in there. This dirt is in our filter, and this filter is important for our engine to run. Our economic engine needs clean filters. We have got to take the time to slow the engine down enough, although it has been slowed down because the filter is too dirty. We have got to pull those filters out, and we have got to get the dirt out of the filters. The dirt means that we go after people like the WorldCom that have taken this money, that have committed these acts of larceny and crime against the people of America and their stockholders, and it does not stop there. Look at Tyco Corporation, look at the lawyer for Tyco Corporation. I used to practice law. This lawyer made an agreement, had their board of directors approve an agreement that if he was convicted of a felony within a year and got fired because he was convicted of a felony, they had to pay him $10 million. This guy got paid $20, $30, $40 million, and he put the payments in such a way that he did not have to go in front of the board of directors or disclose it on their public disclosure statements as an executive salary, and his lawyer stands up for this lawyer and says this is justified when the whole story comes out. We are anxious to see the whole story, and I will tell you this, if the whole story does not pan out, and it is not going to pan out, by the way, that lawyer ought to go to jail. He ought to be disbarred and every asset that he has that he got through his ill-gained fruits ought to be taken away from him and given back to the people that he took it from. It is the same thing with the guy at WorldCom. I understand I think his annual retirement is $4 million a year. They ought to take it away from him. Why do we reward these people who have put dirt in the filter that is so important for our economic engine to run? It does not stop there. How do you restore confidence in the stock market in this country? In the last 5 years, what we experienced in this country was a tremendous participation in one of the neat mechanisms of our economy and that is the stock market. We had people, whether they were driving a taxicab, we had congressmen, myself included, we had people that had never before been in the stock market. They invested in the stock market. Now we have got an economic downturn, but that is being hidden. The cycle of the economic downturn is being concealed and hidden and distracted, diverted from by fraud in the corporate boardroom and in the corporate chief executive offices. Once we start this cycle, and we need confidence to get that cycle going back up again, how many of those people driving those cabs or how many of those people that invested in that market are going to have enough confidence that they will get back into the market? Take a look at some of these people. What is that guy named Henry Blodget or something from Merrill Lynch, and he went out there and on TV and in front of the public he said, this is the greatest stock since sliced bread; and then behind the scenes, he would write something, this stock stinks or what a rotten piece of stock or this breakdown in that funnel of trust is significant, and we need to go after it. I will tell you, it is amazing to me. Martha Stewart, is that what is next? How many more rocks out there that when we look under them we are going to find problems, we are going to find fraud? I hope not too many are left. The only way to teach a lesson here is you have to have punishment. You have got to have consequences to their actions. You cannot allow these chief executives, this Andy guy, Andrew down there at Enron or Ken down there at Enron or Bernie Ebbers or the lawyer that worked for Tyco or John Rigas of the cable company, whatever it is out there in California, you cannot allow these people to walk away, rewarded from malfeasance. These people have to pay the consequences, or the credibility of the system is damaged for a long, long time. Let me summarize my words this evening. I really covered four areas. First of all, I wanted to stress to my friends on the Democratic aisle, who in their comments this evening started out by criticizing the Republicans, because this week and the remaining 2 days of this week we may not be able to bring a prescription care bill to the floor. My point was the reason we cannot bring it is we are not getting any Democratic support at all. We have had no Democrat over there, especially on the liberal side of the Democratic party, none of them have come across the aisle and been willing to help us. That is why we cannot bring the bill to the floor. All they want to do is kill it for political purposes. So let us call an ace an ace. That is why we cannot. We want to bring it to the floor. We want bipartisan support. I urge the Democrats to help us. I talked about the fires in Colorado and the characteristics, some characteristics of the fire, what we are concerned about. We have plenty of resources that we are putting out there in those fires. The Forest Service has done a tremendous job so far, the Bureau of Land Management, our local fire departments, our local volunteer fire departments have saved thousands, thousands of structures in Colorado around these communities that were burned. I cannot tell you how proud I am of our emergency personnel, whether they are ambulance drivers, whether it is the Red Cross people volunteering their time, whether it is our local sheriffs, our local police chiefs, our policemen, our sheriff's offices, our whole communities have come together in Colorado to put the resources necessary to beat down these fires. And we will win. We will win over time, but in the meantime we have taken a horrible loss to our wildlife, to many people's residents. We lost five firefighters last week. The other point I wanted to make about the fires in Colorado was Colorado is still open for business. Colorado is open for tourists. And again, I just want to point out in this map to my left, please look to my left, it is the black part on this map here and a few dots throughout the mountains, and that is actually a lake down there. These blackened areas, that is all of Colorado that is burned. The entire State is not on fire. Our State does not look like a wasteland, a desert of ash. It is a State waiting for you to visit. It is a State prepared to give you a time. It is a State that this year more than anyone probably next to New York State needs you to come and spend some of your money. Come to our Rockies baseball games, go see the Air Force Academy, go over to the Western slope, go enjoy the pool in the Glenwood Springs and the Colorado National Monument in Grand Junction or up in Estes Park the Rocky Mountain National Park or the great sand dunes down near Alamosa. We have a lot of areas open for you to come and enjoy. I hope you do. And, of course, the final subject that I spoke about this evening was corporate greed. All of us, and I am urging the Democrats to join us, must fight this corporate greed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to pay tribute to Cheryl Baker who was recently appointed as Mayor of Cortez. This is a special occasion for both Cortez and Cheryl, the first woman to be elected Mayor of Cortez. This position is a reflection of Cheryl's hard work and dedication to improving life for the citizens of Cortez. The Cortez City Council unanimously nominated Cheryl for the position of mayor by merit of her hard work and leadership skills, which she has so often demonstrated. I am confident that they will serve her well throughout the course of her term and although Cheryl will undoubtedly face many difficult challenges and decisions in the following months, she has clearly exhibited a dedication and willingness to tackle any obstacles that may lie ahead. Cheryl has expressed considerable concern about the financial state of Cortez and has already begun development on a five-year plan that will improve city funding. She has also announced a proposal that would consider reducing the city's water use by at least 20 percent by improving communication with city residents regarding the need for conservation. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring the accomplishments of Cheryl Baker to the attention of this body today. Her leadership, hard work, and dedication to improving the lives of her fellow Coloradans is an example for all aspiring community leaders and it is for this reason that I wish to bring her accomplishments before this body of Congress, and nation. I wish the best of luck to Cheryl, in your coming term and congratulations to Cortez on its first woman mayor!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of appreciation and pride that I bring to your attention the good works of JoAnn Falk of Pueblo, Colorado: the devotion she has shown to the students and educators of Pueblo District 70 has proven her to be a shining example of the power of education in the lives of our nation's youth. JoAnn was recently awarded the National Education Association's `Education Support Professional (ESP) of the Year Award,' itself a moving tribute to the value of her nearly thirty years of work for public education in my state. JoAnn has dedicated her life to causes greater than her own self- interest. As an educator, she has fought for the rights and respect her fellow education support professionals deserve. JoAnn has worked hard to recruite school board candidates responsive to the needs of classified employees and continually held the needs of her students as her top priority. She has been persistent in these undertakings, never allowing the word `no' to stop her from striving for what she knows in her heart is right. JoAnn Falk is, herself, a tribute to the many hardworking education support professionals throughout our nation. Over her many years of work in Pueblo District 70, JoAnn has demonstrated a commitment to the development of school programs and the role of ESP employees. Among her accomplishments is the establishment of an innovative new substitute teacher program as well as her creation of the first Elementary School Media Center in all of Pueblo. Mr. Speaker, it is with a grateful heart that I rise to pay tribute to the work done by JoAnn Falk on behalf of the children and educators of Pueblo District 70. Her career in education is a testament to the values, sacrifice and commitment that make Colorado, and America, great. She richly deserves the recognition she has recently received from the National Education Association. I am proud to convey to JoAnn the respect and praise of this body of Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of gratitude that I pay tribute to Ted Hayden as he concludes his service to the people of Delta County after thirteen years as a County Commissioner. Ted's devotion to his neighbors and love for the town of Paonia, Colorado, where he has lived for the last thirty years, has served as a shining example of the selfless nature that is indicative of a true public servant. During his time as County Commissioner, Ted has concentrated his efforts on serving the people of his region by protecting their interests in public lands and community property. Ted has dealt with many diverse issues during his career in public service, from budgets to airports and landfills. He has approached each with an insight and integrity that is worthy of the recognition that we bestow here today. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to bring to the attention of this body of Congress a man whose love for his community, and whose willingness to sacrifice in its service, is an inspiration to those who have lived in Delta County. As a public servant, Ted Hayden's time as County Commissioner has been an inspirational example to those of us who serve our nation in elective office. It is with gratitude for his time of service to Delta County, Colorado that I recognize Ted's ongoing devotion to the people and community that he loves.