Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, having heard the previous speakers, it is interesting that, time after time after time, we have my colleagues, like the gentlewoman from New York that stands up and talks about prescription care for all people, and I am quoting here, ``everyone should be able to have their prescription needs met.'' But what the gentlewoman fails to come up with, the question she fails to answer, is how are we going to pay for it? It was not 1\1/2\ weeks ago when we were talking about the supplemental appropriation bill here on this House floor, on which the Democrats were giving stalling motion after stalling motion, alleging that the Republicans were going to spend the United States Congress into oblivion. On one hand they complain about the spending, and on the other hand they stand up in front of the cameras and promise all good things. In my State, in the State of Colorado, I have recently seen promises from the Democratic side of the aisle that we are going to have mass transit and that we are going to have full prescription care for all people in the State of Colorado, for all people in this country. Look, that sounds grand, but we ought to ask of every person, every Congressman or elected representative or anybody representing either of the parties that stands up in front of us and promises us the Moon, promises us the golden key: Who pays for it? What the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) fails to bring up in her comments, and I say this with all due respect, but the fact is, business is business, and somebody has to pay for this. What she fails to bring up is right now in the United States, we are in a deficit situation. We are not creating new wealth. There is no new wealth that is being created in this country on the net bottom line for the Nation, which means that anytime we offer additional benefits to somebody, we have to transfer them from somebody else. I would like to say to the gentlewoman that her salary as a Congresswoman does not put her in the middle class; it probably puts her in the upper middle class. The fact is that a lot of these transfer payments, and that is what has to happen, when we promise somebody that needs prescription care, and it sounds good, and I think there are cases where we have to provide prescription care, but to promise it en masse to the population, there is only one way we can pay for it: we have to take it from somebody and transfer it to somebody else. So we cannot stand up here, and it just happened, I just saw it from the gentlewoman from New York, we cannot stand up here and on one hand promise people prescription care so that all their prescriptions are cared for, and on the other hand, talk about the middle-income taxpayer and about how the middle-income taxpayer is going to worry how they can pay for their prescription services. Of course they are going to worry about it, because under these kinds of programs that they are proposing, which really are a type of socialism, equal treatment across the board, what happens when we make those kinds of promises is there is only one place we are going to get the money. The bulk of the money is going to come from the very class of people that they stand up here and profess to protect. That is the middle class. Prescription care is a high priority for all of us. I do not know any Democrat or any Republican that would not like everybody in this Nation to have their prescriptions paid for. The pharmaceutical industries in this country have really done a pretty remarkable job with the assistance of the people in this country who have provided those grants and have provided research. So now, for example, I was at some town meetings in the last week. I mentioned about how just 10 or 12 years ago, when one had diarrhea, they had to drink that Kaopectate stuff, that gray liquid in the white plastic thing, or drank that Pepto Bismol or something, and hopefully after 2 or 3 or 4 hours the diarrhea would slow down. Today if one gets that, they pop a little tiny pill not much bigger than an eraser on a pencil and it is gone in 20 minutes, so we have made progress in that regard. But we cannot get it for free. We cannot promise the American people that all their prescription needs are going to be for free. That is exactly what happened in the preceding statement. Then, on top of that, it is easy when people are not the ones making budget decisions, so it is easy for the Democrats in the minority party to go out and make all of these promises because they know that it is the Republicans who have to provide it. And then it is the Republicans that get put on the defensive when they show up. For example, after the gentlewoman from New York goes into a meeting and makes all these promises, and happens to walk out the door before telling how she is going to pay for it, then we walk in the door and we are the ones that have to come up with the funds. We are the ones that have to be the bearers of bad news. If Members want to talk about fiscal responsibility, it requires that every one of us on this floor, including Republicans and Democrats, when we propose a benefit, we ought to be able to also tell the people we are promising how we are going to pay for it. Nothing is free, and do not let the Democratic Party tell us up here from this House floor, do not let them tell us that prescription care can be given to everyone without a very, very significant cost. I can tell the Members who is going to end up paying that cost. Anybody that is listening, anyone who is working, the working people of this country, regardless of what their job is, they are the ones who are going to pick up the costs of these promises being made by the Democratic Party. Now, we hope, within the confines of our budget, that there are certain benefits that we can offer to the elderly. We think that is important. But what concerns me is this just opens the door for the promise to become broader and broader and broader. Two weeks ago, the Democrats over here were talking about prescription care for seniors only. Tonight, we see what has happened, just in a 2-week period of progression: tonight we hear the gentlewoman from New York, and again I say this respectfully, but we hear the gentlewoman from New York promising prescription care services for everyone. We cannot afford to do that. On a typical day in my office over in the Cannon Office Building, we will have people coming in all day long, people with special interests; all day long coming in, special interests, whether it is with seniors; special interests, whether it is with education; special interests, whether it is with highway construction, or military apparatus. All day long we have people who come into my office. All of them have ideas. All of their ideas, almost without exception, cost money. These people are not proposing to pay for the project; they are proposing to use the money for their project. Their proposal is that we pay for the project. The problem at the end of a day, in a typical day, we will get requests on an average day I would say of $6 billion in a day is what they have requested in assistance for their new programs, day after day after day after day. At the end of the day, the difficulty with these programs is that almost without exception, again, every program that is proposed to us is a good program. It makes sense. It has some benefits to it. So our choices down here are not choices between good and bad programs, and they are generally not choices between Republican wishes and Democratic wishes; but our choices are between good and good programs. The key and the bottom line comes down, okay, we have a good program here, we have a good program there; but we only have enough money for one, or we can do both of them halfway. What do we do? My preference is we do the one and do it right the first time, which means we also have to say no. There are lots of programs that are being proposed by the Democrats this year. It is of interest, I know, that in the last several weeks, the Democrats, because we are in budget time back here, the more partisan Democrats continually hammer away at the Republicans on our budget. They hammer away on one hand about spending, and on the other hand, they show up here on the House floor and promise the country prescription services for everybody. I should add that the gentlewoman from New York did not just stop at prescription services for everyone; she also talked about health care, that there should not be a two-tiered division in this country of those who have health care and those who do not have health care; that everybody should have, notice the word, I am quoting her, everybody should have equal health care. First of all, that is a socialized system. That is government- provided health care. That is the only way you can do it and there is no other way around it; it is a socialized type of program. Our country has continuously, continuously, time after time after time, said they will not accept or they do not want socialized medicine. They do not want the government running everything for everybody on an equal basis. That is not the concept of a democratic government. This is not a socialist government; it is a democratic government. Yet, some of my colleagues continue to stand up here and get away with this kind of rhetoric, because it is real easy to stand up here and promise the American people, tell them we want every one of them to have prescription care services. But where leadership comes in is to say to these same people that we have to figure out how to pay for it. If we cannot figure out how to pay for it, some of us have to have enough guts to say we cannot get something for nothing. We cannot do it. It does not mean we do not want to do it; it means we cannot do it because we cannot afford to do it. Who do we owe that obligation to, the obligation of saying that we just do not have the money, we cannot give it to you for free? We owe that obligation not just to the taxpayers of this country, to whom we have a fiduciary responsibility to represent their interests, but we also owe that obligation to the next generations that are really going to have to foot the bill for this kind of thing. Take a look at what has been promised in the past. Take a look at how our system has broken down. I can tell the Members that when I go to town meetings in my district, which is in Colorado, I hear at town meeting after town meeting after town meeting complaints about programs that happen to be run by the Federal Government: the veterans' associations talk about problems we have with the veterans administration and the health care they deliver; problems with Social Security; problems with SSI; problems, problems, problems. The government does not run an efficient system. I think it is high time around here that my colleagues, and I will say for the last hour I have heard this from the Democratic side of the aisle, and it is not my intent here tonight to approach this in a partisan Democrat-Republican type of approach, but the fact is that the Democrats continually, continually profess all of these benefits that sound wonderful; and the fact is the reason they sound wonderful is because they are wonderful. Who in America would not like full prescription services, and, by the way, somebody else to pay for it? What they fail to point out to us is that if you happen to be the person sick out there, you are going to get a lot of benefit out of these prescription services; but if you are the person that is not sick, you are the person that is working out there, watch what happens to your taxes to provide for this never- ending benefit. Now, I think the American people as a whole are willing to provide prescription care services for certain classes, for example, the elderly people. There are ways, and we have to figure out, whether it is mass buying, whether it is pooling, there are ways we can figure out to assess or assist the American people with their prescription care costs. That includes cracking down on pharmaceutical companies that are involved in antitrust actions or pharmaceutical companies which get together and make sure the generic brands never come to the market. As far as I am concerned, if we catch a pharmaceutical company attempting to keep a generic brand off the market, we ought to take the executives of that company and put them in jail. It is wrong. They are trying to take advantage of the American people, not in the capitalistic freedom-of-market type of approach, but in a very sinister type of approach. But that is a far cry from standing up in front of the American people on this House floor, standing up in front of our colleagues, and saying that we need equal health care for everybody. There should not be two tiers, two tiers of health care in this country, those who get it and those who do not get it. Instead, everybody should have equal, again, equal health care, and everybody should have prescription care services, so whatever prescriptions they need, they get paid for. I will just tell the Members today, I have kind of a cold, so I use a nose spray, which was a prescription nose spray, because I have allergies. I took folic acid this morning, which was prescription. I am trying to think what else. I took some vitamins. I took a pill for my knee this morning, which was prescription. Why should the Members or anybody else in this room pay for my prescriptions? I am able-bodied. I am capable of working. I would like it very much if you would pay for my prescription services, but the fact is simple: there is not enough money to go around. That is the reality that we have to face here. We have to be honest with the American public. We have to look them right in the eye and say, look, we would like to give everybody prescription care services, but somebody ought to answer the question: How do we pay for it? When we promise people a rose garden, we had better figure that out. We owe it to them to say, nothing is free. I can give this to you, but this is what it is going to cost you. I can do this, but in the future, this is what is going to happen to this program. When we start a program with the Federal Government, it never stops, it just grows and grows. It does not grow proportionately, by the way, i.e., as the population grows by 10 percent and the program would grow 10 percent. Take a look at Social Security. The population grew probably like this, and Social Security grew like this. There is a huge gap in there that has to be paid for. What happens is I have colleagues, like the one who just spoke in the last hour, the gentlewoman from New York, who stand at the podium and make very pleasant promises, very nice rose garden promises to the American people, and then we have to come in and be the bad guys by saying, look, you know, it is a nice promise, it is a great program, but we have to pay for it. So I would challenge, and with all due respect, I would challenge my colleague from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) to tell us how we are going to pay for it; tell me exactly what constituents in your congressional district are going to pay for it; and tell me how often you have returned to your congressional district, which you say is a 90-minute ride back to your district so it is easy to get there, tell me when the last time it was when you stood up in front of your constituents back there and told them, you will pay for these services, across-the-board prescription care services, across-the-board medical care. My guess is that what is said here is often not what is said back in the district. The fact is you ought to be honest with these people. And I am not implying that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is not being honest, but I am saying directly to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), how are we going to pay for it? I want prescription Medicare. I would like the prescription that I took today, I would love it if somebody else would have paid for it. How can I say no to that? Somebody comes up and says, here, we are going to pay for your prescriptions today for your nose spray and for your knee, to help rebuild your muscle in your knee. We will have somebody else pay for it. It sounds great, but it does not happen that way. And we owe it to the American people to be straight with them, to say to them we do have a problem with prescription care. Prescriptions, while they have advanced tremendously, the pharmaceuticals, while they have advanced tremendously in the capability that they have, they have also advanced tremendously in cost. And I think, frankly, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) her energy would much better be exerted instead of standing on the House floor and promising the American people that we should provide prescription care for everybody across the board, that our energies would be much better expended going after the pharmaceutical companies that are trying to drive off generic drugs or trying to keep generic drugs off the drugstore market shelf. That is where we ought to focus. Promises to give everybody everything they want are empty promises. And too often, if this government has ever gotten into deficit problems, or if you can ever track how we get into budget problems, it is because not enough of us stand up here in front of the people we represent and say we cannot do it all for you. If we do do this for you, this is what it will cost you. You cannot go down to the car dealership and get a free car with somebody else having to pay for it. The dealership does not give away free cars, and the government cannot continue to provide 300 million citizens with their prescription care costs. So I think we need to keep that in mind. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about another issue tonight. I just came off CNN and had a very interesting discussion about ``profiling,'' ``racial profiling.'' The American Civil Liberties Union apparently today filed a lawsuit on behalf of five or six plaintiffs who allege that they were racially profiled by airlines in the process of going through security to get onto these aircraft of these particular airlines. And we had a discussion and, of course, the plaintiffs in this case talk about the fact that they were asked to leave the plane or they were questioned, they are convinced, because of their race or their color. And one of them said, it broke my heart and I will never be the same. You can see the kind of language in there. I mean, in my opinion, as I said on CNN tonight, the American Civil Liberties Union goes out there and hunts for these kinds of people and then races to the court and then runs to the national TV and has national press conferences about how horrible the security system is in this country, how racial profiling should never be allowed. I can tell you that the American Civil Liberties Union racially profiles, schools racially profile, CNN racially profiles, the Democrat party racially profiles, political parties do that. Now, what do I mean? Back it up with a little substance. The Democratic party, take a look at the discussions about Florida. Take a look at what the Democratic party does, as do all political parties, as do insurance companies, as does CNN to figure out who their viewers are. They will go in, based strictly on a person's race or color, they will go in and say, how will this person vote. If they will vote Democratic, if this particular race tends to vote Democratic, let us spend more money here to get them to vote our way, Democratic. It is the same thing if CNN goes into an area and says, who are our viewers? What age are they? What income bracket are they? Do blacks watch more than whites? All of this is done. Now when it comes to security, I think we have to take a step back. I do not think we should have what is called and what is trying to be directed towards the ACLU or the ACLU is trying to say to society that we are trying to justify, I do not think a person should be pulled off an airplane or given any extra scrutiny for the sole reason of their race background. I am Irish and I have got some Scottish. I do not think just because of the fact that I am Irish with no other risk factors in there, that is the key buzz word, risk factors, with no other risk factors in there, just because I am Irish, to pull me aside, to exclude me from an airplane. Now, keep in mind that with the plaintiffs that the ACLU is representing, this happened one time. And the representative for the American Civil Liberties Union tonight on CNN said these people are not looking for money. Because I said, look, all you are trying to do is it is a rush for the courts, to take what you can get. It is like a slot machine, let us see if we can get some money out of this deal. The ACLU answers and says, we do not take any money. We are here to make these people whole. Well, it happened one time to these people. Out of the thousands and thousands and thousands of times a day that people go through security, the ACLU goes out and somehow finds six of them that feel offended by the security and are now demanding that security not take into consideration at all a person's ethnic profile, even if it is in combination with other factors. I am here to say to you, look, we have a responsibility in this country to provide for security when you get on an airplane. I can assure you, in my opinion, that those six plaintiffs, had something gone wrong on that airplane and they had been the victim of it, they would probably have had a national news conference today, not with the American Civil Liberties Union but with a group of plaintiffs' attorneys, to sue the airline or to sue the government. My point is this, we have to provide security on those airplanes. Our country is very dependent, our economy is very dependent on those aircraft flying. A lot of us use airplanes and we want to know when we get on that airplane that we are safe. That requires some inconvenience on our part. In my opinion, it does not violate the Constitution, but it does require you, for example, when your suitcase is going through security they may open your suitcase, they may go through your underwear, they may go through your shaving kit. That is an inconvenience. It is not an unconstitutional strike against your basic human rights. And based on a risk profile, take a look at what hit us on September 11. It was not 11 Irishmen between the age of 40 and 45 years old who had jobs and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, of the Catholic religion. That is not what happened. We had a profile, not just the ethnic background, but it had their ethnic background; it had their age; it had their religion; it had their past history or some of their past history. I can build what is called a risk profile. And for the ACLU or for any of the political left to advocate that we should compromise the security of our airplanes or compromise the security of the American people so that we are politically correct and we do not offend somebody, and I can tell you there are people that are offended that you lift their underwear out of a suitcase to look at things. But that does not mean that just because it is politically offensive to them that we should compromise security to make them happy, and it is the same thing here. We do have constitutional protections that we have an obligation to recognize, that the airport people have an obligation to recognize. But the fact that they have used a person's ethnic background in combination with the other risk elements, it is not an evil attempt to be prejudiced towards a person. It is a very legitimate attempt to protect the security of the people, including that person who wants to get on that airplane. Now, what happens if you are a police officer? I used to be a police officer. And I can tell you if they give me a call that says, hey, we just had a white man rob a bank, he just robbed a bank, this white man, I can tell you we did not go into the black neighborhood questioning black or African Americans. We did not question them whether they just robbed a bank. No. We used our profile. We knew the bank robber was white. We knew the bank robber was about 5'6''. We knew the bank robber was say between 19 and 27 years old, so there was no use going stopping Caucasian or white females that are 60 years old and questioning them to see whether they robbed a bank. We used a risk profile. Now, I am the first one to stand up and say this has its boundaries and it can be abused. And when it is abused, we should stop the abuse. But that is not what the American Civil Liberties Union is doing. The American Civil Liberties Union is pressing so hard that what is happening at our airports, and at some time pull an airport security person aside and say, do you ever not search someone or do you ever not ask questions because you will be accused of being racially motivated. And I bet you the answer on a lot of them will be yes. That is what they said to me. I have asked one another day. I said, I do not get it. I got on an airplane. There was a lady. She was about 75 years old and her baggage was all laid out on the table and they are going through it item by item. Then there were some people ahead of me. They were of Arab descent, but the interesting thing was they had packages. I am surprised they could get them in the overhead. And the woman had a veil over her face. You could not see whether it was a female or a male. I am assuming that it was a female. And they were both, I could not tell with her because of the veil, and I guess it was a her. He was about 19 or 20 years old. They boarded the plane and that was fine. Then they came to me and stopped me. I asked the person, I said, I do not mind being searched at all. I think it is good. I do not mind if you search everybody on this airplane, but why did you pick me out? Well, because you are a Congressman, the person said, and people will think we have special treatment of Congressmen if we do not search you when you go through. So we picked you out just to show other people, look, just because the fact that he is a Congressman does not mean he gets searched. I said, how about that lady up there? Why would a lady like that be searched? Well, again, to show we are not focusing on a high risk group or a group of a particular ethnic background. I said, wait a minute. What if you have somebody that fits the risk profile? They are the right age, they are from a country that is questionable as far as the relationship with the United States, they meet other risk criteria in there, but they happen to be, say, Irish or they happen to be Arab; just based on the race thing does it cause you any reluctance to ask them any questions? Absolutely, he says. I do not want to get in any trouble. This person told me that. The person told me they felt very intimidated to step forward and ask somebody, especially somebody of Arabic ethnic background or of ethnic color, to ask them any of those type of questions because they are afraid they would be accused of racial profiling or racism. At that point I said to the person, you know the best way to trick the United States is look the part because you probably will not get stopped and questioned. In fact, what I said to the ACLU tonight, I think the opposite is happening. Some of these people that are so politically correct and putting security second and third and fourth seat back are in fact opening a big gap in our security blanket in this country by making our security checkers intimidated, concerned about, oh, my gosh, I better not ask that person because they are not white and Caucasian, or I better not ask that person because they are African American. I do not want to offend this person because they are Irish. That is one of the problems we have got. So I do not know any of my colleagues on the House floor, I do not know any of them that would advocate profiling somebody based on race alone. I think that goes, I do not understand the boundaries and I think there is a constitutional argument there. But when you combine that with other risk factors or other factors known to you, I do not think that should be excluded from that list. I think it should be included in that list. Let me tell you, in my opinion, I cannot think of a responsibility that the United States Congress or any elected official in the United States, I cannot not think of a responsibility we have that is more inherent to the obligation for us to the American people in our hearts and souls, it is more inherent to us than providing security for the American people. What we have seen in the last 10 years and what we have seen in the last 10 months and the further and further we get away from September 11, what we are beginning to see is the grip of political correctness has once again come into our cookie jar, frankly, and locked it up. That is what is happening. We are so concerned about political correctness that once again we are going to get hit hard. Now there is a balance out there and it is called common sense, and I think political correctness has gone too far off the track. It is not on the common sense track. And I would venture to say that most Americans want you searched when you get on an airplane if you meet certain risk factors. Americans want security on those airplanes. I did not complain about the fact that I was searched and this group ahead of me was not searched; but boy, if somebody fit what I would consider a profile, considering what we had on September 11, 19 people, all male, all within a certain range, all within a certain ethnic background, all with a particular religion, most with passports from a particular area of the country, I mean that is a profile, and if somebody fits that profile, we ought to go after it, regardless of their ethnic background. It does not benefit our country to put handcuffs on the very people that we are placing the responsibility to provide us security with. Clearly we have to give them direction. We do have things like the Miranda rights when you arrest somebody. We have certain things that are observed but because a person, or because somebody at the airport says, ma'am, we are going to have to open a suitcase or someone says, Congressman, we are going to have to open your suitcase and look at your dock kit and your underwear and your jeans and your running shoes, that is not unconstitutional. Sure, it is an inconvenience, but it is what we have to have for security on our airlines. So tonight on CNN, I found it very interesting, many in my opinion the American Civil Liberties Union could not wait to race to the courtroom, could not wait to file a lawsuit against all of these airlines, again using the age-old plaintiff's favorite statement racial preferences or racial prejudice against the airlines. Go for the deep pockets, accuse them of racism and see how many of them we will get to fold. That is exactly what I perceive this lawsuit to be about, race to the courts by the American Civil Liberties Union, have a national press conference. They did not write the airlines and say maybe they had some misbehavior here, they would like to have an apology and we would like the airline to fix their ways. They should stop what they did to this particular plaintiff. They did not do that. They do not want to do that. Their mission is not to correct a wrong. Their mission is, one, to get attention; two, to drive this political correctness so that it fits their agenda; and, three, to enrich the plaintiffs here. Our country has become lawsuit happy. No matter how we cut it, no matter what angle we look at it, whether we want to talk about malpractice, whether we want to talk about asbestos, whether we want to talk about racism, they are not alleging, the American Civil Liberties Union, whatever it is they think they can get the slot machine to kick out some change, they are going to go to the court and do it. In the long run it hurts those plaintiffs. In the long run it hurts our society as a whole. If someone has truly, truly been wronged, they ought to be made whole, no argument there; but I can tell my colleagues that a lot of people allege to have been wronged, exaggerate just how badly wronged they were, and being made whole is not their idea. Being made rich is their goal, and so we can see this cycle. It was a very interesting debate on CNN this evening. I have covered a couple of areas tonight. One of them, of course, prescription care and the fact that we want to provide prescription care to the extent that we can afford it, and we want to do things that can help hold the costs down. For example, allow generic drugs, encourage generic drugs, encourage competition out there among the pharmaceuticals; but it is wrong for us to make a promise to the American people, which was made on this House floor tonight, and we should provide all Americans with prescription care service. We cannot pay for it. We do not have the money. Nice, the empty promise. It is an empty promise. They have promised a rose garden. By the way, they did not tell my colleagues that they are not only going to have to plant their roses, they are going to have to plant everybody's roses, and the rose garden does not have any water and nothing in it when they get into it. The second thing we talked about was whether or not a person's ethnic background, whether they are Irish, Arabic, whatever they are, is that an appropriate element to fit a risk profile. My belief is that it is, that when we combine it with other factors, we can build pretty good profiles, and profiles help us. Keep in mind, these profiles are used by our local schools. For example, our local schools might say, hey, in this neighborhood, we have a particular minority and this minority is scoring lower, this minority has lower math grades than this group over here. So by doing that, by profiling, by going in there and determining what is affecting this group versus this group, we say, all right, we need to focus more money or more resources or more help to bring this minority's math grades up to par. It is a tool. It is a legitimate tool. It is a tool that we use in our schools. As I said earlier, it is a tool that the media networks use to determine who reads their paper. It is a tool that the political parties use to determine who is going to vote for them. Why would we, on God's Earth, why would we eliminate it as a tool to provide ourselves with security against acts of terrorism or acts of our enemies that want to do us harm? Why would we say to somebody, oh, you are Irish, I cannot ask you if you are Irish; it is unconstitutional by meshing with these other factors. So you go ahead even though it may compromise our security? So that is a debate all on its own. In the few remaining minutes that I have left I want to talk about something entirely different, and that is, first of all, the fire season that we have got out there. I want to commend our firefighters, our national firefighters, our Federal firefighters, our State firefighters, our volunteer firefighters, our district firefighters across the Nation. In my particular district in the mountains of Colorado, and this district by the way is larger than the State of Florida, we have had fire after fire after fire. This is a drought the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years. It is classified as an extreme drought. That is exactly what it is. The latest fire we had over the weekend took 83 or 85 homes, burned their homes, destroyed these people's possessions. Fortunately, we had no injuries in the fire. I want to commend our firemen, and when I say firemen, I say that generically, plural, firemen and firewomen. Those firepeople out there are courageous people; and what is interesting is last year we put in a fire plan, and my colleagues can take credit for this because it was an act of Congress in coordination with our Federal agencies to really beef up our firefighting capabilities last year. We hired thousands and thousands of new firepeople to fight these fires. We went out and purchased capital, purchases of thousands and thousands of pieces of new equipment. We really geared up for this year's fires, not knowing how serious the start it would get off to, and now our benefits are paying off. This fire in Canyon City, while it was a horrible fire, we should have it 100 percent contained within the next 2 days. The many, many fires, and I probably had five or six major fires in the last 3 weeks in my district, major fires, type I fires, break out in my district, were all contained in a pretty quick period of time because of the investment that we and those Federal agencies and most importantly those firemen on the scene on the line put into this effort. So I want to publicly acknowledge from the House floor those firepeople from across the country and all those Federal agencies that are helping fight these horrible fires that we are seeing besiege us this year. In the next couple of days or perhaps next week, I want to take an entire hour and speak about the water situation in the West. As many of my colleagues know, I have had a series of discussions here talking about the public lands and what impacts us that is different in the West than the East. I am continuing to make a very conscious effort at trying to educate and work with my colleagues to tell them how the geographical difference, the public land location difference in our country has significant, significantly different needs, for example, in the western United States than we have in the eastern United States; and I want to spend a good hour talking about the issue of water, defining and making clear the difference between what is surface water, the water that originates on the surface or is accumulated on the surface, versus the water that is subsurface, that we dig a well down into. Many in the East get their water from wells. Where I live most of our water is surface water. In fact, in Colorado 80 percent of our water that we use in Colorado is dependent upon the snow pack. Colorado happens to be the highest place on the continent, and our mountains reach high into the skies, and they gather that snow; but water storage is very critical for us, and just the same as I have seen an effort in health care towards a socialized type of system, i.e., the government takes care of all of it, the government pays for all of it, do not worry about the prescription costs, the government will pay for all of it, we are seeing the same kind of effort being made in the West in regards to water. Right now water in the West is a private property. This country was built on the premise of private property. If we were to list some of the freedoms, say the top 10 freedoms that Americans feel so strongly about, that were the foundation of the founding of this country and the foundation of the greatness of this country, in those top 10 items we would find private property listed by almost everyone who listed those top 10, private property; and in the West water is a property issue. Generally what we see is those who do not have it or did not buy it or did not think to get it make a very conscious effort of saying, wait a minute, those who have it ought to share it with us. That is exactly the premise upon which socialism was built, and we are seeing it in the West; and it is being seen in the West by something called the public interest doctrine, i.e., when it comes to water, we do not consider the individual's private property rights. We do not consider the individual's rights of usage. What we consider is what is good for the public as a whole. So in other words, it might be that someone has owned these water rights out in the Colorado mountains for a long time, and it might be that that family is dependent upon ranching; but the fact is, since in Colorado agriculture is only a small percentage of the entire economy, but yet uses a larger percentage of the water in proportion to the size of its economy, public interest demands that we take water from them. That is exactly the effort that is being made, and frankly, I think this year in Colorado under a populist type of banner, they are going to attempt to put a question on our ballot, should a person's water rights have to take backseat to the public interest doctrine. It is a very, very dangerous move towards a socialistic society. I can tell my colleagues that there are some people's water I would like to have, some people's property I would like to have, but it is not my private property. It is their private property. They earned it, they paid for it, they worked it or whatever; but it is their property. For us to begin to move this country in a direction that because we as a public think we can put it to a better use, that the public interest doctrine should be introduced and the property should be taken from them is the wrong approach. So next week I fully intend to spend a full hour talking about the special needs of water, the special needs in the West. In the West water is like blood. That is what they say. Water runs thicker than blood, in fact, they say in the West. We will talk about where it originates, the importance of storage in Colorado and the West. We will talk about the public lands that are primarily located in the West and not located in the East. We will talk about gravity, how gravity has a lot to do with the situation that we are in today. We will talk about those who do not want water being utilized for their home or for no development, for example, and see it as a way to control or stop development. Frankly, in some regards, I think the abuse of water has been ignored. We will talk about that, too. We will talk about the environmental issues of water. Water is a very boring subject by the way. It only becomes interesting to all of us when all of the sudden we are in a drought or when we turn on the faucet and the water does not come out; but in fact, when we look at the future generations, what issue is so, so important to sustain life, to sustain agriculture, to sustain recreation, to sustain the environment, we are almost always going to come back to water. Colorado politicians and Colorado citizens throughout its hundred- plus years of being a State have recognized the importance of water. If we go in the State capital of Denver, we see in every painting in the rotunda somewhere depicts someone doing something with water. It is very, very important. The Colorado River is called the mother of all rivers. Why? Is it a big river? No. It does not look like the Mississippi. In fact, I grew up understanding how important the Colorado River was, but I also thought it was the biggest river. I about fainted when I saw the Mississippi River, the first time I saw a picture of it. It was huge. The importance of the Colorado and what makes the Colorado the mother of all rivers is the fact that it is the only water available for many of the people out there. Whereas when you get into the Mississippi, in fact, in a lot of the East, the difficulty is getting rid of water. In the West, it is the capability of being able to store water. So I look forward to visiting with my colleagues next week, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lyle Nichols of Clifton, Colorado. Lyle is an extraordinary individual who devotes countless hours to admiring and preserving life's beauties. Lyle is an exceptionally talented artist, and today I applaud the talents he adds to our community. Lyle is an individual who collects assorted bird nests, and scrap debris he discovers. He is also an artist of many sculptures that are admirable in their magnificence. His collection is substantial in size and it grows continuously with every sculpture. These self-created masterpieces sit, kneel, and stand in and around his home, in particular a 14-ton statuette arching over his front lawn. Lyle is truly a talented individual, whose amazing talents have connected his passion for art to every individual who comes to admire his work. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation towards Lyle for allowing us the pleasure to admire his beautiful creations. It is with great honor I proudly recognize Lyle Nichols as an artist before this body of Congress and this nation. I commend Lyle's artistic abilities, and praise his contributions, which assist in enhancing his community's future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Fruita Monument High School in Fruita, Colorado for their incredible acts of patriotism and loyalty. After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Monument High honored the bravery of our American citizens by creating a beautiful, patriotic mosaic. Today I applaud the spirit and dedication of the students and faculty of Monument High, and I recognize the efforts and achievements of such artists. Standing eight feet tall, by eight feet wide, and weighing 500 pounds, ``United We Stand'' encompasses the ideals of America's freedoms and liberties. The finished mosaic illustrates the talent and hard work supplied by each student and it serves as a marvelous addition to any art display. Near Ground Zero in New York City will be its final destination, and its new home will be in Desoto Elementary School. Earning its creators numerous awards, ``United We Stand'' has touched all who have the privilege of viewing its meaningful message. Mr. Speaker, I honor Fruita Monument High School with sincerity because they have taken the time to honor the true heroes of our nation. Today, I recognize ``United We Stand'' as an inspiring work of art before this body of Congress and this nation. Additionally, I recognize its nine incredible artists as esteemed patriots to our nation. It is my hope that all may some day admire this mosaic and remember it as a memorial, created to honor those who gave their life for our country.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor I take this opportunity to recognize St. John Neumann as an institute of education, dedicated to providing a firm foundation for its community's youth. Established in 1977 in Pueblo Colorado, St. John became the new beacon of light for all who sought to provide their children with the option of a private education. It is with highest praise that I recognize St. John's 25th year of operation. Each day, 230 students convene to mature and study in an atmosphere which embraces every child's eagerness to learn. Instructors provide a one-on-one relationship with students, tailoring the instructor's dexterity to the child's ability. Additionally, St. John promotes parental involvement in their child's education, and seeks to provide an atmosphere comparable to that of a family gathering. Marking St. John Neumann's 25th anniversary of operation, this year's graduating class will be prepared for the journey ahead, confidently supported by a firm education at an extraordinary school. Many senior administrators have watched St. John grow and develop into a distinguished, highly acclaimed establishment within its community. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I applaud an institution which provides its community with the groundwork to build a better future. St. John Neumann strengthens the integrity and character of each of its students. I commend the hard work and diligence which the faculty, community, and students have contributed to place St. John Neumann Catholic School amongst the leaders in education today.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize the contributions and achievements of Peter H. Coors. As chairman of Coors Brewing Company and the President/CEO of Adolph Coors, he is a shining example of personal success and civic responsibility. A native resident of Golden, Colorado, Peter, known as Pete, has continued to lead his family's brewery in a manner befitting its fine reputation. As the head of this company, Pete provides the leadership and vision needed to bring this family tradition into the twenty-first century. His positions on the boards of directors of companies like US. Bancorp, Inc., H.J. Heinz Company, and the Energy Corporation of America are a reflection of the respect that Pete has earned from his colleagues. Pete is also a member of the International Chapter of the Young Presidents Organization. Pete is a true Coloradan is his business and in his nature: he can often be found outdoors appreciating the beauty and splendor of Colorado. In addition to Pete's contributions to Colorado's economy, he has also given his time and energy to humanitarian causes as well. He is on the executive board of the Denver Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America, a member of the National Western Stock Show Association executive committee, and a trustee for the Seeds of Hope Foundation. Pete, who has a MBA degree, knows the value of higher education and remains active as a trustee of the University of Northern Colorado and a member of Denver University Daniels School of Business' Advisory Board. Most importantly Pete is the husband of his wife Marilyn and is a father to his six children. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and privilege to bring to light the excellence of Pete Coors to this body of Congress and this nation. In every aspect of his life Pete has excelled to the highest level of achievement. He has no doubt touched many lives through his civic work and leadership in our country and will continue to do so in the future. On behalf of this nation, thank you Pete for all that you have done and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to recognize Dave Sarton for his contributions to the State of Colorado. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District for sixteen years, he is moving his talents and experience to other endeavors. Dave has been an integral part of securing and distributing Colorado's most precious resource, water. As he reflects on his service to a grateful board, community, and state, I would like to commend him for his efforts to improve the lives of his fellow Coloradans. Dave has proven himself a valuable community, business, and governmental leader over the years and has served on countless committees in support of his community and state. He has served on the Colorado Springs City Council, on the Energy and Environment Committee of the National Association of Regional Councils, as director of the Colorado Springs Department of Public Utilities, as director and chairman of the Pikes Peak Area Council of Government, as president of Sunset Sertoma Club, as chairman of the El Paso Task Force on Alcoholism, as chair of the ARK Board of Directors, and as vice-chair of the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce. In addition to his community duties, he is a proud business owner and operates a quality service for Colorado Springs as the president of Sperry & Mock/The Floor Store, Inc. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring the accomplishments and achievements of David Sarton before this body today. His leadership, hard work, and dedication to improving the lives of his fellow Coloradans is an example for all aspiring community leaders and it is for this reason that I wish to bring his accomplishments before this body of Congress, and nation. Thank you for all your hard work Dave, I wish you all the best, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Thousands.

Mr. McINNIS. The gentleman agrees with me there is something to be learned by September 11. We have learned a lot of things, whether it the design of our skyscrapers, what we could have done to assist our firefighters and our policemen more, maybe what we could have done for our fighter jets that scramble out there. There are lots of things we could learn from that. That was not the effort that was being made on Thursday. It was not an approach that said let us get together and figure this out. Maybe put our minds together and think out what constructively we could do to improve the situation. Instead, it was a very targeted attack on the President of the United States alleging or implying or outright saying the President of the United States had knowledge prior to September 11 that would have allowed us to avoid September 11. That did not exist. And there is not anybody in these Chambers that had that kind of information. And to the best of our knowledge only the hijackers and bin Laden and his organization knew what was going to happen on September 11. If we come together as a team, we can continue to put together or march forward to do, again, what was our number one calling. And our number one calling is to provide for the security and the protection and safety of the people of the United States of America.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, we saw it on Thursday. I am telling the gentleman, we saw when the minority leader, and this was strictly for political purposes, went out there and did this little media circus. That is the kind of thing that I speak so strongly about up here. Let me also point out that we have sources that are bad sources. We have false rumors. We have people who want to paralyze us by calling in false alarms. But the fact is, we have good sources out there. Maybe the most important key we can talk about here is the necessity to protect the good sources. The President has access through our intelligence network to many, many people. I think Condoleezza Rice said it yesterday, that many, many people throughout the world care about the United States of America. They have good information to give to the United States of America, and they share it. Those sources need to be protected. Those names should not be given to a task force or a blue ribbon committee here in the United States Congress. They should not be given to us at all, except under extraordinary circumstances. These sources need to be protected. It is a part of the structure of the protection blanket that we are trying to form over the United States of America and for our allies. It is just as important as our missile defense system to keep our sources secure, and we have a structure in place that does it. We have got to let that structure work, and we have got to refrain from making the kind of partisan attack that we saw that took place against President Bush when he was, as our local newspaper in Colorado said, bushwhacked. Then they went on to say, what did Bush know prior to September 11? Their conclusion was, very little, let him do his job, get off his back, and this is nothing but a political distraction. That is what has happened. That is exactly why I took the podium this evening. We have to call it as we are seeing it. What we are calling here is what took place last week was not right. They hurt the efforts of the country. It seems to me that apparently there has been some backpedaling by the minority leader and some of the leadership of the Democratic party, although I must say there is a colleague from the gentleman's State who certainly has not backpedaled from her allegation that Bush did this on purpose to assist military contractors. But the realization is, we have to come back to our senses. We have to get back to steady as she goes. We have good guidance of this country with President Bush. He is doing a remarkable job under these kinds of circumstances. He is leading this country in a time of war, and he is fully and completely focused. Dick Cheney is completely and fully focused in responding to the President. Condoleezza Rice is fully aware, as the national security adviser; Colin Powell, as our Secretary of State. I could go through all the list of names. We have probably the most experienced team by far anywhere in the world in a government and military structure protecting this country over any other country in the world, but it still has some holes in it. So we can talk about how we patch the holes, but in the process of doing that, in the process of figuring out how to get our goose to lay a better egg, we do not pull the goose's neck off. So this is the point, that I think we are well prepared, and I think we have had a good discussion this evening. I might add, I would ask if the gentleman has any concluding remarks. Our time is narrowing.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman joining in on a constructive conversation during Special Orders. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentleman. I do not think we need another task force. My main focus here this evening was the allegations and the points that were made by the minority, frankly, last week as we were getting out of session. If the gentleman will recall, there was media running all over the place, the headlines: What did Bush know, as if Bush knew something. This media circus was fed by the minority leader, frankly, the Democratic leader on the other side of the aisle. That is not fair game. I mean, it is so preposterous to think that any Member of Congress, let alone the President of the United States, who I think has performed admirably since September 11 in response to September 11, it is out of line to come up here and for the sake of media and an election year, start saying, well, the President knew about this before September 11 and we could have avoided it. As the gentleman knows, we have a very active Democrat here on the House floor who goes so far as to allege that the President not only knew about September 11, but let it happen because he was somehow benefiting from military contracts that were going to friends of his in the defense contract. This thing is getting out of hand. As the gentleman from Georgia has very correctly stated, we lost another American yesterday or the day before. We have a war going on here. We have a very capable President. We have a very capable Vice President, Dick Cheney. We have Condoleezza Rice; we have Colin Powell. We have our Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military, our military soldiers, from the private on up. Let them do their jobs. They are not back holding secrets from the American people that would cause harm to the American people, but by necessity, there are secrets that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence knows that we should not know in order to protect the lives of the American people. The security of America is number one. I cannot think of a job, I say to the gentleman from Georgia, and he would agree with me, I cannot think of a responsibility that is higher in its calling to the gentleman and I as Congressmen, elected by the people of this country, I cannot think of any other issue that is more important than for us to provide for the security of the people of this Nation, not only today but in the future, whether we talk about missile defense, whether we talk about the war in Afghanistan. When we start eating up each other, people would think we were Siamese fish. Friday or Thursday over here with this media circus going on, it was like putting 2 Siamese fish in the same bowl together. We are the same team. Siamese fighting fish are bred to fight each other. We should not be bred to do that. These allegations against the President were strictly for Democratic partisan purposes. As the gentleman from Florida said, not all of the Democrats agreed with that, and I agree that that is right. So I am not labeling all of our colleagues, but that is their leader. They need to get him back in the corral, in my opinion. We need to get on with the business at hand, which is not creating new task forces or so-called blue ribbon panels to oversee the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and then pretty soon we'll need a task force to oversee the blue ribbon committee that oversees the task force that oversees the intelligence force that shares intelligence with the President. Wake up. Common sense will tell us the American public wants us to get on with the business of protecting the people of this country and settling the score, frankly, of what happened on September 11.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and I would say to the gentleman, he is a member of the Committee on Intelligence, and if he does not mind staying for a couple of more minutes, maybe the gentleman could very briefly advise the rest of us of the differences in the secrecy levels, we are classified top secret, the secrecy levels between the gentleman from Florida and I. I take some comfort in what the gentleman is saying as far as it goes with the Committee on Intelligence, because the gentleman is trained; the gentleman knows he cannot do that. But when it goes beyond to the general body, our life rotates around the media; and that is where the media circus starts. So if the gentleman would just explain a little for the rest of us the difference between his secrecy and my secrecy.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I might add that the President himself, President Clinton, our previous President, his comments were when they asked him, what do you think about these reports, he said, it was nothing to do with intelligence. He said, generally what those reports are used for is public sources to speculate on what bin Laden might do. A lot of that is pure speculation. Our government every day, as the gentleman from Florida knows, especially on the Committee on Intelligence, we get thousands, thousands of reports every day about this could happen, that could happen; and I have had a number of my colleagues, and then I will yield to the gentleman from Florida, not my colleagues, but a number of citizens from Colorado who have come up and said, look, I think they are going to get our water supply here, or I think they are going to blow up the tunnels on the mountain. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. McINNIS. I might say to the gentleman, The New York Times is not charged with the protection of the people of the United States of America. In fact, we saw during the Afghanistan war several reporters, including Walter Cronkite, were critical of the media because they were taking too much of America's side. They are Americans. They are U.S. citizens. But we can see that several people in the media take it as their responsibility, although they are American citizens, although they receive all the privileges of this Nation, that they should be neutral parties. The fact is, if they want to assume that role, their utmost responsibility is not to provide for the security of the people of this Nation. That is our responsibility, and we do it at different levels. The President obviously has to know secrets. We do not allow everybody access to the nuclear codes, for example. We allow a very, very thought-out, delicate system to have that occur, and we do not have 435 congressmen and 100 senators who have that capability. We structure this thing. Last week we saw very quickly where I think several Members were perhaps envious of the fact that they are not the President; or for political purposes, they just got out of line. That is what I am saying tonight, that we have to come back together. This war is a war that is going to last for a long time. The tough part of the war has not even begun. We have not been hit twice. We got hit once. We got hit with the embassies and so on, but I mean since September 11. We know it is going to happen again. We have to be on our toes. On the other hand, we have to be reasonable about this. Every time somebody calls an office and says, hey, I think they are going to hit the Sears Tower today in Chicago, if they know that every time somebody puts an anonymous phone call in that they are going to blow up the Sears Tower, that the Sears Tower has to be evacuated, they can paralyze this country. It is like calling in bomb threats to a school. If we call one in day after day after day, there are lots of these kinds of things that go on every day in this country. What we do, what our responsibility is at the congressional level, is to make sure we have properly funded and properly provided for the staffing and properly provided other resources that are necessary for our Federal Bureau of Investigation and for our intelligence agencies to go out, pick up the dots, put the dots together, and present those dots, put together, to the President and to the Security Council and to our national security adviser, et cetera. That is what needs to occur.

Mr. McINNIS. I might say to the gentleman, take a look since last Thursday when this media circus began, take a look at how much time President Bush and his staff and his intelligence organization, our country's intelligence organization, take a look at how much time they had to devote to rebutting some of the allegations that were implied by the minority leader of this House. Look how much time was devoted from our national leaders to address these kinds of headlines. This is exactly what our enemy wants to see us do. They want to see us so confused within our own government. They want to see us like Siamese fighting fish, fighting each other within our own government. That is exactly what happened over this last weekend. We can bet that the President of the United States, instead of having his full attention focused on the war and on the possible threats against this country, they had to prepare for talk shows on Sunday, they had to defend themselves, and they had to get all of their staff to spread them out to talk to the media to try and defend themselves, that our President did not have knowledge prior to September 11 that this country was going to receive a surprise attack that killed 3,000 people. Let me conclude with this. I dare any of my Democratic colleagues, I challenge them, any of them, I challenge my Republican colleagues, I challenge anybody in America, show me one elected official today that would take information, knowing that one of the most horrible events in the history of this Nation was going to occur, and they would sit on it. Show me one. It does not exist. So before any of my colleagues go out there and make the implication or the allegation or the outright statement that the President of this country, who has done a tremendous job in his leadership as a result of September 11, show me, just show me one time where any of these people would have gone out and in effect have been a traitor to the country. It does not exist. We all care about the security of this Nation. It is incumbent upon us to provide for the security of the people of this country, and we are doing the best job we can. If we can improve our job in a constructive fashion, I am all for it. Last week, instead of contributing to or initiating the media circus, in my opinion, the minority leader maybe even could have called the President himself and said, Mr. President, I do not want to go out and talk to the media implying you knew something prior to September 11. How can I help? That phone call did not take place, and that is what ought to be happening. Instead of making our President spend an entire weekend trying to defend this position, we should have had our President spending the entire weekend doing what he was going to do, and that was focus on the immediate needs of all of the citizens of the United States instead of having to focus on political defense strategy throughout the weekend. I will yield to my colleague but would advise we are probably down to the last few minutes.

Mr. McINNIS. I would like to ask the gentleman if he would stay around. I have the gentleman from Florida that would like to join in the conversation.

Mr. McINNIS. The gentleman's buddy, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley). Mr. Speaker, I think we can have a good, legitimate conversation right here. Let me tell Members, the gentleman is well spoken and well thought. I agree with the gentleman, I do not think the President was well served. I do not think the dots were connected that maybe could have been connected. That is not my point here. My point is for people to come out here, and I agree with the gentleman, not all the Democrats did this, but the gentleman would agree with me, I think, it was your minority leader in that room over there, talking to the media, what did the President know, when did he know it, et cetera, et cetera. The implication of that, and, of course, one can see what the implication of it is as in Newsweek and all the newspapers throughout the weekend. That is what concerns me. First I will yield to the gentleman from Florida and then we can just kind of all join in, if you do not mind. Let us talk about what level of intelligence we should put out here in the U.S. Congress. My concern is that several of these memos, for example, may release innocently, may release the name of individuals, or somebody brighter than us can connect some dots out there and we are going to blow the cover of people, like Condaleeza Rice says, who are trying to protect these people. So I would look forward to just a few minutes, if the gentleman does not mind, to talk constructively about, okay, what should our role be and what, by necessity for the security of the people of this Nation, has to remain secret with the President and cannot be disclosed with 535 Members of the Congress. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. McINNIS. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman in a moment, if he will just give me a couple of minutes, because I would like to have a conversation about this. I am very upset about this. I am trying to say come on, instead of running right over here, and I will tell you, the minority leader did not even have time to put his suit coat on before he was over there preaching about what did the President know? We need to have a task force. The United States Congress ought to get a task force to find out what the President knew, when he knew it. Look, we are not investigating the President. Why are we trying to eat our own? The President did not know September 11 was going to occur. For God's sake, he is a Texan. Have you ever seen a Texan that knew a fight was coming that did not stand up to give the first slug? He did not sit there. He did not have the information September 11 was going to happen. Now, we all wish that our intelligence network would have been better, and it is always easy, it is always easy after a fire to figure out where the fire trucks should be, and it has never failed. I used to be a police officer, and I can tell you every serious crime I ever investigated, I would have people come up as we were doing the investigation that would say, you know, I told them there was going to be a murder over here in this neighborhood. I told them they were going to have a car accident at this intersection and they needed to put more traffic lights in here. I told them this school child was going to get hit and they needed to have intersection guards 8 hours a day instead of 7\1/2\ hours a day. It is always easy to second-guess. But what does this do to our country, what does it do to our Nation, when on a Friday we can get a little partisan pool of people speaking up, and the next week it leads to these kind of headlines? What do you think the foreign press does with that kind of stuff? We have a war to fight here. We ought to stick together, instead of coming up with this hodgepodge stuff about, well, Bush must have known, and Congress ought to be privy to all of this intelligence. Oh, yes, see how long a secret could remain if you had a task force made up of congressmen with highly sensitive material. Let the President do his job, and rest assured, not one Democrat or not one Republican in the Senate or in the House or any level of government would have sat on information that said you are about to lose 3,000 of your citizens on September 11, and say, well, let us put it in this drawer. I do not want to act on that. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, you have to have some patience to be sitting over here and listening to the last 20 minutes of Democratic rhetoric. Let us start with a little rebuttal because under the rules of the House, as you understand, they do not have to yield time and, of course, they would not yield time so their remarks all tell one side of the story. Let us start with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). In the West we would call the gentleman from Oregon on this subject kind of a Johnny come lately. Where has he been? I noticed he just ran onto the House floor, still in his Levi's, puts a suit coat on and starts talking about what the Republicans have not done with a company called Stanley Works which makes Stanley tools up there in Connecticut and is trying to avoid U.S. tax by registering with a post office box in Bermuda. He says nobody has heard anything about this. He acts as if he is breaking new ice. The gentleman from Oregon should have signed on to my bill. I have got the first bill on that to close that loophole. It is a terrible loophole. I had the chairman of that corporation in my office, and I gave that chairman a list of the American soldiers that lost their lives in Afghanistan trying to defend this country and the interests of this Nation. I said that any corporation that does business in America has more than an economic interest in this country. They have a moral responsibility to their community. They have an inherent obligation to their country that provides them with the freedoms and the fruits of freedoms that this Nation offers to business people. This country provides the defense for Stanley Tool Company. And, by the way, Stanley Tool Company, which is registering in Bermuda, has zero sales in Bermuda. They freely admit all they are going to do is get a post office box and save $30 million. What bothers me about this, I think we can all agree on the issue, Stanley Tool Works, and many of you today, by the way, if you buy Stanley tools, you ought to quit buying them, because Stanley Tools is no longer that American company. They will keep all their manufacturing here, for a while, anyway, but they are going to put that post office box so they do not have to pay taxes, like any of the rest of you in this room. So keep that in mind. Next time you go down and want to buy a tool, you need a tool, do not buy Stanley tools. What bothers me about the comments of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), he comes in here strictly on a partisan issue and starts bashing the Republicans. I would say to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), we have had this bill in place, it is my bill, I know a lot about it, we have had this bill in place for a couple of months. I did not see the gentleman at any of the meetings. I have not seen the gentleman at the Committee on Ways and Means. We have had several meetings in regards to this tax issue. For the gentleman to come up to the floor, just like a greenhorn, that is what we would call you in the West, somebody that pops on the scene, you know, is kind of fresh to the thing and thinks they know everything, before the gentleman starts up here giving these blasphemous words and language and partisanship against the Republican leadership, the gentleman ought to look up his bill directory, and I think the gentleman would be surprised. Not only do I have a bill there, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has a bill, and the gentleman might be surprised there are a couple of people on his side of the aisle that have bills. To the best of my knowledge, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has not been at any of these meetings in regards to our effort to stop corporations like Stanley Tool Company from incorporating in Bermuda for the simple reason of avoiding taxes in this country. So if the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) would spend more time working with us on our side, we are the majority. You were the majority. You could have shut this loophole when you were the majority; you did not. I hope we as the majority, in combination with people like the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) who want to work with us, will shut this loophole. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) was correct, it is not fair to the American people what this corporation is doing. I hope that the chairman of that corporation who the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) says will make many, many millions of dollars, and I happen to believe he probably is correct, I hope the chairman of that corporation has that list that I gave him of the soldiers who have given their lives so far. Now, this is up to a week ago. I know we lost a soldier yesterday. But up to a week ago, those soldiers who had given their lives so you would be free to do business in this country. I hope that chairman is having second thoughts ever since the moment he left my office. My guess would be that he has not. But the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), in my opinion, next time the gentleman wants to start blasting, it is obvious it is a political year, next time the gentleman wants to start blasting us, he ought to figure out if we have not already done the work on it. I think it gives the gentleman a little more credibility to come in here, not as Johnny-come-lately, but come in here and really come up with some new information and come up with something positive that will help us move the ball. Now, how interesting, I see in regards to the second speaker that attacks on a very partisan basis and says it is Bush's policy that we have to rely in the future on foreign oil, how little knowledge that individual, in my opinion, has on ethanol, for example. Take a look at I think today's Wall Street Journal. I would ask my colleague to take a look at that column, on the editorial, guest column on ethanol. Do you know it takes more fossil fuel to generate the Btus of ethanol, to provide a gallon of ethanol, than a gallon of ethanol can give off? This article points out there is a reason that the people who produce ethanol use fossil fuels for the generation of the ethanol. It is because fossil fuels are cheaper to produce, and ethanol, in the long run, you are better off to pour the gasoline in the ground than replace it with ethanol, because you use more gas, more Btus, to produce less Btus through ethanol. My colleague goes on and says all we have to do is have alternative energy. She ignores the facts, either intentionally or accidentally, ignores the facts of alternative energy in this country. Today if we took all of the alternative energy known to the world, all of the alternative energy known to the world, and were able to somehow magically put it in the United States of America, it would only meet about 4 or 5 percent of our energy demand. The fact is that alternative energy is the future of this country, but that future is still 15 or 20 years out there, and, in the meantime, you have got to have oil production in this country. Now, if you do not support that kind of thing, then you yourself ought to quit driving an automobile. You yourself ought to quit appearing in a Chamber like this, look how many lights are lit in this Chamber, so you can present your point of view. You ought to quit using anything that has an oil base to it, which includes, by the way, prescriptions, medicine, clothes, you know the gambit. Our everyday life is very dependent on those fossil fuels. The Republicans have led the way, in my opinion, with the help from Democrats, and there are a lot of things we have had a bipartisan effort on, of trying to work off fossil fuels. But before we leave fossil fuels, we had better figure out something that is going to work. We had better figure out something that is going to work. And today, throughout the whole world, as I said, everything that works outside of fossil fuels, including solar power, would only provide about 4 percent of our needs. What I would suggest to my good colleague from the State of Ohio, instead of coming up here hollering about alternative fuels and about this President, which is a direct misstatement, about how President Bush's policy is to remain committed to foreign oil, what my colleague would be much better, much better off doing is talking about conservation. If you want to save energy immediately, it is not alternative fuels, it is conservation. Put out every fourth light up there in that ceiling. Drive your car a little less. Do not idle your car. Turn off your light when you leave the room. Make sure your dishwasher is full when you wash your dishes. If you want to make a real dent in U.S. consumption of foreign oil, conservation is the answer, not come up here with some kind of partisan bashing of the Republican Party, which seems to be a favorite thing of the Democrats in this election year. Now I want to move on to another topic. I hope this evening, I really, really want to spend some time with my colleagues talking about the land issues in the West. My district is in Colorado. I am very proud of the State of Colorado. Colorado is a very unique State when it comes to whether it is energy issues, whether it is water issues or land issues or forest fire issues. I want to spend some time this evening talking about that. But I feel compelled, I feel compelled to come up and give the other side of the story. And there is something else that I want to give the other side of the story. Last week as we were about to adjourn, colleagues, oh boy, guess what happened? We had a media circus around here. We had a media circus. And I am not trying to be partisan here, but the fact is, just like this energy thing, just like this Bermuda tax shelter thing, the Democrats last week were jumping for joy as we were about to get out of here thinking that Bush knew that this country was going to be attacked on September 11 and he did nothing about it. That is, on its face, absolutely unfounded, absolutely ridiculous, and, in my opinion, scandalous. Show me one colleague, whether it is the most liberal Democrat we have in the House Chamber, whether it is the most conservative Republican we have in the House Chamber, whether it is the one independent or socialist, whatever he is, that we have in the House Chamber, show me one person, one person in here, that has ever served in here, that would get information about something happening like September 11 and would sit on it and do nothing about it. There is not a person that holds public office in America, whether it is the local mayor, whether it is the county commissioner, State legislator, governor, congressman or senator or the President, that would get information that September 11 was about to happen and sit on it, which was exactly the implication the Democrats tried to paint on our President last week. And guess what happened? You know, they accomplished their goal. Here is the kind of headlines we see coming out in this weekly magazine. ``What Bush Knew.'' One of the senators over there stood over there with the New York Post, I think, ``Bush knew about September 11.'' You know, the problem we have got, and let us talk about these briefings and the information we get. I got information not too long ago from a fortune teller, and she swore to me that there was a bomb that was going to go off on a cruise ship. I mean, what do you do with this kind of stuff?

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to pay tribute to Joanne Klepinger Ditmer. Joanne has been an advocate for preservation for over 40 years. She has been instrumental in preserving not only the building and landmarks that make my state of Colorado so great but also the spirit of the Western frontier. In 1962, Joanne began her column ``Raising the Roof'' in the Denver Post. Not only was the column the longest running column in the history of the paper, only ending this year, but it also it was enormously effective in promoting action on land use issues and historical preservation. Clearly, Joanne knows the value of preserving our traditions and heritage--a past--from which future generations can learn. Joanne's approach to the subjects for which she is so passionate has inspired the everyday man, the civil servant, and the environmental advocate alike. Due to this, and the respect that she has gained from her colleagues, Joanne is being recognized for her efforts by Colorado Preservation, Inc. with the Dana Crawford Award for Excellence in Preservation. I am proud of the history of my state and I known the value of the work that Joanne does to preserve that history. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to bring the hard work and dedication of Joanne Klepinger Ditmer to the attention of this body of Congress and of this nation. On behalf of the people of Colorado and indeed this nation, thank you Joanne for all that you have done and will continue to do in the future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor I take this opportunity to recognize William T. Ward, III as an exceptional individual whose contributions to the University of Southern Colorado have helped shape a positive future for the University and its students. On June 28th, William, known as Bill, will retire, leaving behind a legacy of accomplishments. It is with great pleasure that I applaud an individual who has selflessly committed his time and energy to the betterment of his community. Bill and his family have lived in Pueblo since 1946 and their hard work helped build and uphold the principles and values of the Pueblo community. Because of Bill's devotion and dedication, it is fitting that he was elected as the President of the CSU Alumni in 1973. In 1986 he pursued a real estate career, and he ends his duties with dignity and integrity by retiring from his current position as the Director of Development and Alumni Relations at the University of Southern Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today we honor an individual who closes a chapter on a very fruitful and successful career. I commend the hard work and dedication Bill has provided to the association, and I am confident his experience and wisdom will benefit all of his future endeavors. Bill has been a model community member, and that is why I bring forth his accomplishments before this body of Congress and the nation. Bill's hard work is greatly appreciated and we salute his diligence to his community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the contributions a man has made to his community, his state, and his nation. Chris Nichols, a resident of Craig, Colorado, has selflessly donated his time, establishment, and energy to educating Craig, Colorado's youth on the terrible effects of drug abuse. For his efforts, the Substance Abuse Prevention Program, an organization dedicated to promote anti-drug messages throughout the community, recently honored him. As he accepts his award, I would like to commend his efforts to improving the community before this body of Congress, and this nation. In an effort to ensure our nation's children are educated on the dangers of drug abuse, Chris has provided consistent support to SAPP. As the owner of a local McDonald's restaurant, he has hosted the organization's annual pancake breakfast that provides SAPP with its financial means and funding. He began this effort after the local police chief began advertising his concern over the effects that drugs play in our schools and children. Answering the call to service, Chris began volunteering his establishment as a place to hold the fundraisers to create the financial support for the program. Mr. Speaker, our nation's communities and schools are fighting a long and difficult battle to rid their populations of drugs and the terrible impacts drugs have on people's lives. To combat this epidemic, we will rely upon men and women such as Chris Nichols to answer the call to community service, take initiative, and help win this war on drugs. Chris serves as a model citizen in this fight and I am honored to bring his efforts before this body of Congress, and this nation. Congratulations Chris, keep up the good work, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life and memory of Douglas Craig Frazier who recently passed away in Cortez, Colorado on March 27, 2002. Douglas, known to most as Doug, will always be remembered as a true inspiration and contributor to his community. For some time, Doug battled a long and difficult disease that threatened to tax his body to the limit, but never was allowed to affect his spirit. After a long and demanding struggle, he eventually succumbed to the effects of bone cancer. His passing is a great loss for a town that relied on Doug for his kind heart, strong spirit, and unwavering friendship. Mr. Speaker, not long ago I stood before this body of Congress to honor the Montezuma-Cortez Boys Basketball team and their well-deserved state championship. Today, I pay tribute to a source of inspiration for that title, a source of motivation to a young man, and a source of pride to a school's hometown community. As the Panthers moved forward in their quest for a state title, Doug Frazier was present every step of the way by providing support to the young players and of course, his son Layne. As the Panthers progressed through the season, Doug tried to attend every game, despite his pain, to see the team capture its ultimate prize. The young men succeeded in their goal and brought home the first state title for the school in nearly forty years, and Doug Frazier, confined to a wheelchair and medication as a result of the pain, was present with his support until the end. He passed away soon thereafter, but he achieved one of his final goals, to see his son and teammates claim the championship. Mr. Speaker, Doug will be missed by the many lives he touched in the Cortez community. It has always been known that his greatest passion was his love and dedication to his family. He is survived by wife Paula, daughter Amanda, son Layne, and a grateful community. It is with a solemn heart that we say goodbye and pay our respects to an inspiration of a Colorado community. Doug Craig Frazier dedicated the final days of his life to his family and the Cortez community, and his spirit continues to provide inspiration to those he affected with his drive and determination. Doug was a kind and generous soul, and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the vital efforts of an organization that has dedicated its mission to preserving our nation's and Colorado's western values and heritage. This year the Crowley County Heritage Society will celebrate an important accomplishment to settling the West, the emergence of irrigated farming. As the society celebrates this vital piece of Western culture, I would like to commend the society's efforts toward preserving the early Colorado achievements and accomplishments. This May, the society has chosen to recognize the thoughtfulness and forbearance of our early Colorado settlers. As this country was expanding, the need to create abundant and rich soil became a backbone to ensuring our settlement of Western lands. Using an available water source, the Arkansas River, our forefathers built several reservoirs and canals to gather and transfer large amounts of water that would be used to irrigate otherwise fruitless soil. Through a long duct known as the Colorado Canal, water began to be diverted to Crowley County allowing aspiring farmers to reap the benefits of an otherwise desolate landscape. Years later, more reservoirs would be created, several under the Twin Lakes and Colorado Canal company, who would further construct reservoirs and canals to bring the precious resource of water to several counties throughout Colorado. This was a remarkable accomplishment for those early times in our history and I am thankful organizations such as Crowley County Heritage Society have chosen to honor our early pioneers. Mr. Speaker, as this country continues to change and forge our future, we will rely upon these heritage societies to remind us of our difficult and humble beginnings. Today many of us in the West take for granted the ability to raise and reap agricultural products from the land and it is imperative that we remember the trials and tribulations of those early days that ensured a future for us all. I would like to extend my thanks to Crowley County Heritage Society and commend them for their fine efforts over the years to preserve our past. I wish you all the best with your celebration and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Bureau of Reclamation and congratulate all of its employees and supporters on reaching an extraordinary milestone. As the bureau celebrates its 100th anniversary, it is my sincere pleasure to congratulate each and every employee on many years of excellence in serving the Western United States and, indeed, the entire nation. The efforts put forth by this organization are truly appreciated by everyone who lives in the seventeen Western states that it serves, and I am honored to stand before you today and bring its many accomplishments to the attention of this body of Congress. For 100 years, this agency has worked diligently to make the Western United States livable, and I, along with the many residents that have benefited from their efforts, am proud and thankful for what you have accomplished. Started in 1902 by President Theodore Roosevelt in order to permit ``homemaking'' in the Western states, the Bureau and its employees have long been a vital part of Western life. Colorado could not be the vibrant and majestic state it is today without the hard work and dedication of each and every employee in the hundred year history of the Bureau. From the early beginnings, the employees have been the heart of the agency, involved in numerous projects not only in the administration of the program but assisted in the construction of the dams and canals as well. Today, the Bureau has twenty-two offices that oversee 180 projects and the employees still remain the core of the operation. In addition to the commitment of the supporters and employees of the Bureau of Reclamation, this vision and foresight of the agency have been vital to Colorado and the West. This agency has long recognized the thoughtfulness and forbearance of our early Colorado settlers. As this country was expanding, the need to create abundant and rich soil became a backbone to ensuring the settlement of Western lands. The Bureau of Reclamation has helped our forefathers build several reservoirs and canals to gather and transfer water that would be used to irrigate otherwise fruitless soil. As a result, the efforts of the Bureau have helped aspiring farmers to reap the benefits of an otherwise desolate landscape. This was a remarkable accomplishment for those early times in our history and I am thankful for the role that the Bureau of Reclamation played in assistance to our early pioneers. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to be able to congratulate each and every employee and supporter of the Bureau of Reclamation on this historic occasion, and wish each of them all the best in the next one hundred years. I commend each of you for your work in ensuring that the water needs of all of the residents of the Western States, from the early homesteaders to today's modern users, are addressed. I also would like to recognize the successful vision of the agency and I know that the Bureau will continue to provide that vision to take us into the twenty-first century. I am delighted to bring the efforts of such an extraordinary agency to the attention of this body of Congress. Keep up the great work; I look forward to the years to come!