Scott McInnis

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!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding individual who has dedicated his life to serve and protect the citizens of the State of Colorado. Corporal John Donley, of the Pueblo Police Department, has loyally served his fellow Coloradans for over thirty years. After a long and successful career as one of Colorado's finest, John announced his retirement from the force in November of last year. As he enjoys his well-deserved retirement, I would like to take this time to underscore John's service to his community before this body of Congress, and this nation. John began his service as Motorcycle Burglary Patrol Officer, was honored for his quality service, and reassigned to the Traffic Division in 1974. Receiving a promotion to corporal in 1976, John was recognized for his expertise as a crime scene-diagramming expert and was often called upon by his fellow officers to render aid at the scene of a crime. John also dedicated much of his time to the Pueblo educational system by volunteering his experience and expertise in seat belt safety and safe driving as a School Resource Officer to a local high school. He has been a tremendous asset to the City of Pueblo both as a peace officer and as an educator. I am honored to bring forth his accomplishments today. Mr. Speaker, today's peace officers face a wide variety of dangers and hazards in their daily duties. These individuals work long hours, weekends, and holidays to guarantee their fellow citizen's rights and protection. They work tirelessly and with great sacrifice to their personal and family lives to ensure our freedoms remain strong in our homes and communities. Their service and dedication certainly deserves the recognition and thanks of this body of Congress, and a grateful nation. Thanks for your service John, and I wish you all the best in your well-deserved retirement.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the efforts of State Representative Todd Saliman and his efforts to improve the lives of his fellow constituents and the State of Colorado. Todd has served in the Colorado General Assembly since 1994 and has dedicated countless hours of his time and energy to his position and constituents. Now, after eight years of service, Todd is retiring and I am honored to take this time to thank him for his service to Colorado. Todd is a native Coloradan whose family has lived in the state for generations. During his tenure as a representative, he served on many committees including the Joint Budget Committee, Finance, Appropriations, and Local Government committees. Throughout his time in the legislature, he has championed the issues of health care, children and families, the environment, education, and transportation. He is known throughout the community as a devoted husband and a proud father of a new son, and is often found providing his support to the board of directors at the Developmental Disabilities Center and was instrumental in the assembly for securing funds for children's and senior's health services. Mr. Speaker, Todd's hard work in the legislature has not gone unnoticed during his tenure and he has been recognized repeatedly over the years for his legislative accomplishments. Today, I continue to honor his service by thanking him for his devotion and dedication to his community, his state, and his nation. Thanks for all of your hard work Todd, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Bill Webster and thank him for his contributions in the Colorado General Assembly. His hard work and dedication is greatly appreciated, and I am honored to pay tribute to him today in front of this body of Congress. He will long be remembered as an effective State Representative, and will continue to be known as a leader in the community. As he moves on in his career, let it be known that I, along with people of Colorado, am grateful for all that he has done for the Colorado General Assembly. During his two terms in the Colorado State House of Representatives, Bill has served on a number of committees, including his two current committees, Agriculture, Livestock & Natural Resources, where he serves as vice-chairman, and Local Government. In addition, Bill served for eight years as the Weld County Commissioner, and worked at the Webster Land & Cattle Company. Not only has Bill served the community effectively as a member of the Colorado General Assembly, he has also done his part as an active humanitarian. He is the past president of the Greeley Chamber of Commerce, Greeley Rotary Club and the Boys and Girls Club of Greeley. He is also a past director of Safeway Stores, Inc., Colorado Water Congress and the National Cattlemen's Association, and serves on the Colorado Agriculture Commission and the Greeley Planning Commission. Perhaps most importantly, Bill is married to his wife Sylvia, and they have three children. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Bill Webster has served his state well by providing significant service during his distinguished tenure in the Colorado General Assembly. I am honored to be able to bring his hard work and dedication to the attention of this body of Congress. It is my privilege to be able to express to him, and to this country, my gratitude for all that he has done for our wonderful state, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the achievements of a member of the Colorado General Assembly, and thank him for all that he has done for the state. After two terms in the Colorado State House of Representatives, Glenn E. Scott is leaving the House in order to pursue other opportunities, and I can think of no better way to thank Glenn for his many years of service, than to bring his many accomplishments to light in front of this body of Congress. A resident of Westminster, Colorado, Glenn received his Bachelors and Masters Degree in economics from the University of Colorado. An Investment Portfolio Manager for LBC Investment Advisors, he was first appointed to the House in 1999, then elected in 2000, and has since served on several committees working to improve the lives of those in Clear Creek, Gilpin, Jefferson, and Summit counties. He has served diligently on the Appropriations and Finance Committees, and as chair of the Local Government Committee. In addition he has served in several vital community positions in Colorado, including numerous advisory boards to benefit Aurora and Boulder counties, and is a former member of the Westminster City Council. Mr. Speaker, I am positive that Glenn's colleagues and constituents will sorely miss the leadership and compassion that he consistently gave to the State of Colorado, and I thank him for all that he has done for the state. I am honored to bring his accomplishments to the attention of this body of Congress, and wish him all the best in the future. His hard work and dedication truly embodies the spirit of the State, and it is with a great deal of pride that I thank him for his many years of public service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to our discussion this evening. There are a couple of things I want to talk about. But first of all, I think it is important to address some of the comments that have been just made in the last hour. First of all, we ought to point out that the Blue Dogs who spent the last hour criticizing the administration, criticizing the majority party, never bring out in these comments that the Blue Dogs, in fact, are all Democrats. This last hour was a very partisan, one-sided point of view. This is exactly why we run into budget difficulties. Now, I agreed with some of the points that were brought up by these gentlemen. But I was amazed to hear these gentlemen, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), talk about how we have to control spending. We have got to stop the pork. We have to make sure we, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) said, lay everything out on the table. We have got to watch these spending programs that are outrageous. So I was curious. I decided to see how all three of these gentlemen voted on the farm bill, which is probably the biggest budget buster we have had up here in a long, long time. Now, clearly, somebody who spends an hour advocating a balanced budget, who spends an hour advocating these so-called Blue Dog ABC's about avoiding pork, about accountability and honesty in government, about voting here as you talk to your constituents back there, certainly you would expect that these gentlemen would be the first to stand up to a bill like the farm bill which, although it has a nice-sounding name, helps very few farmers in this country. It helps a lot of corporate farmers in this country. And take a look at where this bill started; take a look at where it started and where it ended up. How many billions of dollars more were added to it as it went through these Chambers? So you would expect these three gentlemen to, of course, vote ``no'' on a project like this. But all three of these gentlemen who spent the last hour attacking the administration, who spent the last hour attacking the majority understand this Blue Dog which means Democrat concept, all three of them voted for that program. All three of them voted for ``yes'' on what is, and I say it again, the largest budget buster we will have up here this year. Now, look, maybe their constituents wanted them to vote that way and maybe they are representing their constituents. I am assuming they probably are. If they come from a farm community maybe they are. But for gosh sakes, do not vote one way and talk the other way. I once had somebody tell me, if you want to stay elected in Congress, especially when you get outside the Northeast where it is solid Democrat, but out where most of the country is and that is moderate to conservative, go ahead and vote liberal in Washington but when you come home vote conservative. Go ahead and talk about a balanced budget when you are back in your district, but at the same time make sure you bring the pork home. And in my opinion that is what has been reflected in the last hour. So if you want to talk about accountability, if you want to talk about lay everything out on the table, my three colleagues should have probably said, oh, by the way, the only exception we have to the comments and the attacks we are making on the majority party, the only real exception we have that does not apply to our rules that we have just told you about for a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility is our own farm bill. Now, understand we are going to vote for our farm bill, but aside from that everything else ought to be scrutinized. That is the problem back here. I mean, all of us, that is where you have got your problem. But I have sat here for the last hour, most of the last hour, and was amazed that first of all my colleagues stand up and make it sound as if they are some independent organization out here when, in fact, your Blue Dogs are comprised solely of Democrats and the attack was solely against the Republican majority. It was a partisan hour. That is fair game. That is what the House floor is for: debate. But somebody has got to stand up and say, wait a minute, just as they said should be done, let us lay everything on the table. And that is why I was curious and went back and looked at the actual voting record to see how one would speak on the floor but how one would vote outside the presence of the speech that they were giving. And I saw an inherent conflict. In other words, the vote that was taken on the farm bill certainly did not at any point in time in the last hour match the comments of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), or the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John). And they are all gentlemen. Do not get me wrong, they are colleagues of mine. They are professionals. I would assume they represent their districts well. My point here is not an attack on these three individuals. But I believe in what they are saying and that is accountability. And if you are going to talk about a balanced budget; if you are going to talk about getting rid of pork; if you are going to talk about avoiding budget buster bills, then you ought to talk about that farm bill. And you ought to say to your constituents, look, I talk about this budget buster, the balanced budget, the pork stuff; on the other hand, I voted for you on this farm bill. I think a balanced budget is important, but the only way we will break this is for you to take some tough votes, even when those programs apply to your particular district. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend the majority of my time this evening, I actually had an interesting visit with a constituent and good friend of mine. His name is Mr. Stroobants. And we got to talking about world jurisdiction and the United Nations. You know, the action taken by the President in the last few days, I felt obligated to come and speak about that action. The action was that the United States intends to pull out of the United Nations Criminal Court or the International Criminal Court. I want to spend the next 30 or 40 minutes talking about what is the international court. How does that compare to the court system we have in the United States? What does it do to our sovereignty? What are the political ramifications of conceding sovereignty or conceding authority over the American people, the United States Government of ceding our judicial authority over our people to other countries? For example, to a court that is primarily dominated by our friends in Europe, by the European Union. By a court that allows countries like Cuba, Libya and some of these other countries the same vote as the United States of America. By a court that, in my opinion, despite what the United Nations propaganda might say, despite the push that they are making out there, that a court here, instead of being one that would pursue actual criminals, like the likes of bin Laden and people like that, would over time be used to pursue American citizens. The United States of America is a sovereign country. The United States of America does not cede any authority of how we run our government, of how we elect our public officials, of how we have our court systems or our executive branch, of our judicial branch, of our legislative branch. That authority is determined by the Constitution of the United States of America. And our Constitution does not contain anywhere within its four corners a provision that allows the United States of America to give its authority to a worldwide power. The United States of America, to remind ourselves of a little history, was created because we wanted to become an independent Nation. We wanted to be a Nation that had its own people, a Nation of its people by the people and for the people; a Nation that stood for what we have thought was good. But what has happened is that we were seen more and more with the European Union more and more we talk about the European United Nations, more and more talk about a one-world government; a government where all laws will be decided by one authority; a government that would have a military under one authority; a government that would decide what your environmental regulations within the boundaries, within your own borders would be decided by. That is a socialistic type of approach. It is very clear that in Europe most of those countries are headed towards a socialistic type of approach with the European Union-type of adventure, so to speak. Now some parts of the European Union may make sense. I think it makes sense for the United States to join with Mexico and to join with Canada under our NAFTA agreements so that we are an economic bloc. And so I see why countries in Europe want to join together. So I understand why countries in Europe want to form an economic bloc, come together for the sake of economics. But it is a long way from coming together as an economic bloc and that of ceding your sovereignty to another country. Mr. Stroobants pointed out to me very clearly, he came to this country from Belgium, and he came to this country because this country was a capitalistic country. It was a country of democracy. It was a country that had its own checks and balances within its own borders. We have a very well-defined system as presented by our forefathers under the Constitution and under the Bill of Rights, but what is happening in the international community is they want to form an authority that has oversight, that is a higher authority for the people of America, than their own government in America. The United States people should not cede one inch of sovereignty because let me tell my colleagues how they draw it in. Take a look at the United Nations and the propaganda that they use to talk about how great this World Court is. Number one, it is a permanent structure. It is not like the Nuremberg trials where we convened an international authority for a short period of time to try a very defined group of war criminals. That is not what this is. This is a permanent court, a worldwide court that will exercise authority over American citizens. How did we ever get there? President Clinton signed it on the last day he was in office. This does not ratify it. President Bush has given notice that the United States of America will not participate in this World Court, but how did we get there? That is the answer. On the last day of office, about the same time that the Mark Rich pardons were signed, President Clinton signed this deal as one of those who agrees with the World Court. That is not the exact buzzword, but that is in essence what happened. Fortunately, this week, the White House, President Bush, has given notification to this so-called World Court, to the United Nations, that the United States of America will not participate, will not participate in an exercise that deviates in any way or subtracts in any way the rights of American citizens. The authority for judicial oversight of American citizens belongs to the American people. It does not belong to the people of Cuba. It does not belong to the people of France. It does not belong to Germany or Belgium or Russia or China. The judicial authority over American citizens belongs to the government and to the people of the United States of America. This is their government. In our country, this is our government. This is not the government of the French. This is not the government of Belgium. This is not the government of some other country out there. Let us talk a little bit about what this so-called World Court does. First of all, remember, that every program out here, earlier in my comments we talked about the farm bill, for example, every proposal here, every bill that starts here has a good sounding name to it, and frankly, some of these start with pretty good intent, but once we create it, it is like a government program. Once we create this bureaucracy, we will never again disassemble it, and that bureaucracy will only grow and grow and grow. Think about it. Take a look at the United Nations as an excellent example. Fortunately, before the United States entered into being a partner with the United Nations we reserved to ourselves that overriding authority of the power of a veto. Four countries have it. We have one of them. So, at any time we feel that we are ceding sovereignty to the United Nations, we can exercise our veto, but what happens with these organizations? They start out with a good attempt. They are not about to tell us they are going to exercise their authority going after Americans who they think may have violated crimes against humanity because their gas tanker spilled on an interstate and had fuel going into the water or because they decide that for some reason that there has been a criminal violation by some elected official in the United States. That is not what they are telling us now. That is their goal. The goal here by the European Union, the goal by the other countries in this world is to exercise an authority over the United States, the likes of which has never been accomplished in the history of this country. This is a critical, critical issue for us. This is a sleeper. This is one of those things that sounds good, and sign on the dotted line, we will read the fine print later. We better look at the fine print today, and thank goodness, over on the executive side of this city the President, George W. Bush, did look at that fine print and did notify the world, look, United States is not going to enter into this arrangement. We are not going to enter into an agreement into which, I, as the President of the United States, cede the sovereignty of this country, to which I give someone else one iota of authority other American citizens from a judicial perspective. Let us talk about the details of this World Court so that my colleagues have a pretty good idea of exactly what they are asking for. The United States court system, as we all know, in our government, we have the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. I am not trying to be talked down or be repetitive about history or how the political structure in our country is, but there is a fact that in our Constitution, our forefathers looked into the future and said in order for this system of capitalism, this system of democracy to work, there has got to be checks and balances. There has got to be a way that everything is filtered through before the final process. Those checks and balances, they designed it into our system, first of all, with that wonderful document called the Constitution and then that document in the Bill of Rights, and then the document in creating a Supreme Court, and in our court system in this country, unlike some countries, but like many other countries, in this country, the courts do not make the laws. The courts are there to interpret the laws, and it is a very clearly defined separation of powers between the legislative branch, which does create the laws, and the judicial branch, which enforces and interprets those laws created by the legislative branch. In other words, a judge in a District court or in a municipal court, let us say in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, the municipal judge there has no authority on their own to create law. They have no authority on their own to just out of their own conjuncture, say all right, this ought to be against the law, I am going to make it against the law. We have accountability of those. Not only do we have accountability that the Justice Department does not create laws, we have accountability within the Justice Department and within the judiciary branch, and that is the process of election. For example, the municipal judge that I just spoke of, that municipal judge answers to the local city or the local authority. For example, the municipal judge in Glenwood Springs is held accountable to the city council of Glenwood Springs, and the city council of Glenwood Springs is held accountable to the voters, and it goes that way all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. In our country, the United States Supreme Court justices must be confirmed by the United States Senate. So we have lots of checks and balances. That is a very important element of the United States judicial system, and we will find that system is completely absent, completely absent from the World Court once they put that court into place. Once they put that prosecutor into place, they can create their own. They have no checks and balances. They answer to no supreme authority above them. In this country if a district court or a municipal court or a county court or some other type of quasi-judicial process out there, ultimately they would have to answer to the United States Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court justices answer to the United States Senate and the United States Senate answers to the voters, and it goes on and on and on. That is absent. Those checks and balances are absent from this proposed World Court. So here is the U.S. court system. Checks and balances. Again, very critical in our system. Another check and balance, by the way, the rights of the defendants, the rights of the victims. Those are a constitutionally guaranteed right. The Miranda warning, for example. I used to be a police officer. When we had somebody who was a suspect, we arrested him as a suspect, we had to give them constitutional rights. Why were those constitutional rights in place? Because it was a check and balance, designed in the system to protect the system from abuse, but this World Court has none of those kinds of rights. They are not required to advise anybody of their rights. There is no right to demand a jury trial in this World Court. There is no right to demand an accuser in this World Court. It is in our Constitution. None of those rights will we find in this new proposed World Court. In other words, we are losing a big check and balance there. Let us move on. The authority. The U.S. court system has authority. Clearly, they have authority to issue subpoenas. They have authority to conduct trials. They have authority to bring together a jury pool. They have authority to interpret the laws, but their authority has checks and balances, and the authority of the courts of the United States of America are reserved for the people of the United States of America. In other words, this judicial system is designed for the United States of America. It is not a custom designed court system for any other country in the world. It is ours, and the authority over the American people does not rest with the Chinese courts. The authority over the American people does not rest with the courts Fidel Castro puts together down there in Cuba. The authority over the people of the United States of America does not rest in Paris or in Rome or over in Germany or in Belgium. It rests with the courts of our country. We should not under any condition give the authority that our courts have over us, over the U.S. citizens, over this geographical location, over this Nation. We should not at any time give even a small sliver of that authority to an international organization that is permanent in structure, that in fact claims higher authority over our citizens than our own court system is allowed by our own Constitution. Jurisdiction. Think of the jurisdictional issues. This World Court wants jurisdiction, for example, over World Heritage sites as designated by the United Nations. The reason there is so much momentum right now for the World Court is we all want to get bin Laden. Bin Laden is a terrible, terrible criminal, but the fact is that bin Laden will come and go. He will over a period of time be eliminated, and this court will be looking for new ventures, new venues under which to exercise its authority, and I will tell my colleagues where they are moving next. The next place they are going to move is on the environment. Now, we all want a clean environment. That is not the issue we are talking about here. The issue is should we allow a court in Rome, a World Court, the jurisdiction to charge somebody say in Lynchburg, Virginia, with an environmental violation as a crime against humanity? For example, let us say that a gasoline truck driver is driving recklessly. He wrecks his tanker and the gasoline spills on the interstate near Lynchburg, and it goes into the water and causes some harm in the water. Should that person be subject to the courts of the United States of America? Well, of course. That is our Constitution. That is our Criminal Code. That is what the court system is designed for. When that truck driver, for driving recklessly and causing an environmental spill, when that truck driver is arrested, he or she has certain constitutional rights, and they have a right to a jury. They have a right to their Miranda warnings, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Well, under this proposal of a World Court, we cede that authority, and over time we will give more and more or maybe not give it, they will claim they can take more and more authority because we signed the treaty creating it. The next thing we know the World Court is going to be sending investigative enforcement officers to Lynchburg, Virginia, to take a look at this accident and decide whether or not the World Court should indict that truck driver who had that environmental spill. This is not exaggeration. This is exactly where this thing is headed. I am not trying to cry wolf here. I have just seen programs like this created. Take a look at the birth of the United Nations. If we did not have that veto power, take a look at the authority the United Nations would try and exercise over the United States of America. Take a look at how many members of the United Nations voted on a consistent basis against the interests of the United States or opposite of the United States over the last several years. You will be astounded. You see, the United States of America, this kind of system, United Nations and this kind of system, an international court, will be used as a political tool, and thereupon lies the threat. That is why we have to be very careful that the jurisdiction over criminal activity, over civilian activity by U.S. citizens or within the borders of the United States of America or its territories, that we keep that jurisdiction in our country; that that jurisdiction rests with the citizens of the United States and not with the citizens of some world court, which is comprised of countries throughout the world, who probably, most of the time, do not have the best interests of the United States of America or, more importantly, its citizens in mind. We may very well find a world court that decides they are going to launch a criminal investigation into the City of Denver because the City of Denver, Colorado has air pollution coming from vehicle emissions that pollutes the air to an extent that they think it is a violation against humanity. And there is no definition of how far this world court can go. That is exactly why President Bush has withdrawn from that court. The President recognizes that there are issues of sovereignty; that there are issues of politics; that there are dramatic issues involving jurisdiction. We are not a one-world government. This world court, maybe it will work for the European Union, maybe those countries, the countries of Belgium or France or some of the other members of the European Union, maybe they want to give their national sovereignty and their national jurisdiction to a one-unit court that is a world court, but the United States of America does not want to do that. And, fortunately, the President stood strong on this. Now, many of my colleagues will be reading in the next few days a lot of criticism coming from, guess who? Of course, the special interests, the world court, the European countries, and the other countries that know they have an opportunity to gain a huge advantage over the United States if they can get the United States to join this world court. These nations will know that for the first time in the history of the United States, our system of government has ceded its jurisdiction or its sovereignty, or at least a portion of those two, over to other governments. They will be elated if we sign up and participate in this so-called world court. Now, keep in mind, this differs from the United Nations. In the United Nations, colleagues, we have retained the power of veto. So no matter how many times those other countries vote against us, no matter how absurd or focused or politically motivated they become against the interests of the United States, we always retain the ability to exercise a veto. In the world court, the United States, in the creation of it, and the judges that are elected, there is no oversight once they are in. But in the initial authority, the United States has as much authority in this world court as does the country of Cuba, as does a country like Syria or some other country that wants to join it. This is not a court that some in the United Nations would like us to believe is intended to pursue the criminals that have taken such horrible and devious actions against the United States of America. This is a court that will assist those people. And I read an excellent article by a gentleman named Tom DeWeese, and I want to give Mr. DeWeese credit, colleagues, for this. He says U.N. criminal court threatens U.S. soldiers, threatens U.S. soldiers, in the fight against terrorism. Now, I do not like to read written comments. I am not going to read this article verbatim in whole, but I am going to take some excerpts from this article because I think this is excellent and I think it solidifies and supports the point that I am making here this evening. The United Nations sells the version of the ICC. Now, the ICC is the world court. He says ICC, I am going to put world court in there. The United Nations sells the vision of a world court as a tool for bringing international criminals like Saddam Hussein and Lybia's Qadhafi to justice. The truth is the court is more likely to be used as a tool for those criminals against the United States. Let me go on. The world court defines as a war crime any attack by our soldiers with knowledge that inescapable collateral deaths or injuries, quote, to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread long-term damage to the natural environment, meaning if we are engaged in a war and we cause long-term damage to their environment, in other words when we bomb Afghanistan, if we, as a result of our bombing we damage the environment on a long-term basis, and it was clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated, then we are subject to a violation of their criminal code. In other words, you can have a war, as Tom says, but do not break anything and do not hurt any civilians and do not hurt the environment. Let us go a little further. He says, and he is accurate, war is not a video game. It is not an Olympic event. You are going to have innocent people killed in a war. You try to avoid it, but in every war ever known to man there has been collateral damage. And how would you attack Afghanistan without doing some damage to the environment? How would you sink a ship without doing some environmental harm to the ocean? You have a ship that has sunk into the ocean. How would you intercept a missile coming over the skies without damaging the environment by exploding the missile in the air? Now, some would say that that kind of thing would not happen. I want to tell you, colleagues, how many programs have we seen created back here or worldwide where when they initiate the program they assure you over and over again, that is not going to happen; that is an exaggeration; we are not going to go that far; that is overreaching. Then, pretty soon, that institutional memory of what was originally said was overreaching in fact comes within reach, and the next thing you know, it has been gathered and put in the nest. That is a concern. Here I continue with this article. The court can prosecute anyone who violates United Nations treaties. This world court can prosecute anyone who violates United Nations treaties, including environmental agreements, like the Biodiversity Treaty and those covering world heritage sites. For example, if we had entered into the Kyoto Treaty, and there was a company or a business, let us say a printer, a printer had some ink and put the ink in the wrong garbage can and it was a violation of some type of international treaty, even a Kyoto Treaty; or a U.S. company based in, let us say, Connecticut, had emissions that violated Kyoto, they could find themselves in front of a criminal court that is a worldwide court. That is the absurdity of what we are talking about here. My reason for speaking this evening, and I will go through these other points, but my reason in speaking this evening is to give some support to what the administration has done. I think of any action I have seen the administration take, next to proposing to get rid of that death tax, but any policy I have seen them take, from the judicial system point of view, it is the administration's decision to back out, not to join in this effort or this new configuration of a world court. Kudos to the administration. I think it is our obligation, every one of us, to join the President in that effort. Anybody in these Chambers who would vote for the creation or for the entry of the United States of America into this world court, they need to go back to their constituents the weekend after they vote and explain to their constituents that they just ceded over to a world court, to wipe out checks and balances of our judicial system and cede over the authority that belongs, and has belonged throughout the history of this Nation, since this Nation was created, the authority that belonged to this Nation, that as a congressman or congresswoman they felt it necessary to share that authority with other world governments and jurisdiction. My colleagues need to go to their constituents and say to their constituents, look, I decided to support the world court. I have decided to give jurisdiction over so-called criminal activity, which could become civil activity, but is originally proposed as criminal activity, I have decided to cede that authority to other governments in the world and, for the first time in the history of our country, take that authority which was reserved solely for the United States, the body of the United States Government, that was reserved solely for this government, and as an elected leader of this country have decided that it would be better placed in the hands of a foreign country, in a foreign world court. That is what happens if we do not support the President on his decision not to join the world court. Let me go on. Another right. The United States, since day one of our history, has always recognized the inherent right of self-defense. Nowhere in the documents that I read of this so-called world court, nowhere in the documents that I read about this world court is there an inherent reserved right to self-defense. It does not exist, to the best of my knowledge. Let us talk about sovereignty again. For those of my colleagues who think they can support or think they are going to oppose the President's decision, remember the President's decision is that the United States will not join an international world court, but for those that object to that decision, they need to be prepared to explain to the American people and, frankly, to explain to their colleagues, I think, why they are willing to give up sovereignty that has always been reserved not for this court down here but for the government and for the people of the United States. And let us talk about the political aspect of it. Take a look at what happens with politics. Now, I had a very vigorous discussion with my very good friend Mr. Stroobants. I have had a vigorous discussion with many of my colleagues. But take a look at how the propaganda in this world, the worldwide press can turn propaganda into a media-eating machine. They can present a picture that may or may not be accurate. And the best example is to pull out The New York Times, pull out any of the major newspapers in this country and take a look at any European country, take a look at the BBC, take a look at CNN, take a look at any news media you can find that has worldwide reporting, say about 4 weeks ago, and see what kind of political propaganda they were putting out there about the massacre at Jenin. Take a look at it. Take a look at what they talk about, the massacre that took place over on the West Bank. Well, guess what happened? You know what happened? No massacre took place. Sure, there were soldier deaths, there was some collateral damage. I can assure you we have had collateral damage in Afghanistan. But all of a sudden, the media has become quiet. In fact, there was no massacre. In fact, one of the most liberal organizations in the world, that apparently sent their own investigators out, came back and said, well, we did not like what they did, but there was no massacre that took place. Well, that example is the same kind of thing that a world court can do. A world court condemnation, for example, of things that are the business of the United States, they can turn worldwide opinion against the United States. This worldwide court could be manipulated so easily. Why could it be manipulated? Because it has no checks and balances. Now, every court system can be manipulated, but the way you minimize that manipulation is to have checks and balances. You have weights and counterweights. So in the United States, where a court may be manipulated, and there are arguments on that, for the most part it is the best system that the world has ever devised because it has those checks and balances. But in the world court system, what check and balance exists? Nothing. What kind of restraints are on the prosecutors? Nothing. What can the prosecutor decide to do? Anything he really wants to do, as far as criminal prosecution. And I think, over time, it will be turned into civil prosecution as well. What kind of geographical limitations will there be on this prosecutor? None, at least for the countries that sign up for this world court. What kind of claims can be made by this prosecutor against government officials? It is amazing. You know, if they decided that they felt that Henry Kissinger had not done a good job, this prosecutor could actually put out an arrest warrant and have Henry Kissinger arrested at an airport when he lands in Paris. This court actually has the jurisdiction to prevent U.S. citizens from going anywhere because of the concern for arrest. Take a look at what this court would do to our American men and women fighting in our military. If this court, comprised of all of these other countries, including Cuba, and other countries that we have on our terrorist list, if this prosecutor decides, he may say the American soldiers, I do not like what they did so we are going to charge them with criminal acts against humanity. That is what I mean by the political nature of this world court. So the arrow that I have pointing down here means exactly that. We would dive it right into the ground if our government was to give up an inch of jurisdiction or an inch of sovereignty when it comes to the judicial system that this country has perfected. Very briefly, America believes in justice and the promotion of the rule of law, and the rule of law is very balanced. The rule of law has been set by legislation, by statute, by precedent. It has been set by experience. The courts in the United States are not fresh created courts. These are courts with 200-some years of experience. These are courts which have been tested and have checks and balances. That is what the United States thinks is necessary. Those that commit the most serious crimes of concern to the international community should be punished. We agree that the Hitlers, the bin Ladens that commit heinous crimes against people should be pursued. That is why the United States was the primary sponsor, underwrote it, played the major role in the Nuremberg trials; but those were trials of a temporary nature, and those were trials that had numerous checks and balances and which had sunshine transparency. Those trials and that system has a lot of differences from what is being proposed under the world court system, that states, not international institutions, are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system. Our belief in this country is that not an international government or an international court should have oversight over specific countries. Those countries have laws of their own. Every country ought to be able to have their own judicial system and not be subject to the whim and call of some prosecutor in a so-called world court. But the best way to combat serious defenses is to build a domestic judicial system, strengthen political will, and promote human freedom. Finally, let me talk about this world criminal court here, what is on this poster, because it is important. It undermines the role of the United Nations Security Council in maintaining international peace and security. I am not a big fan of the security council, but the fact is that we are a part of it. The reality is that we do have control and a veto, and so we cannot be run over in an avalanche of countries that do not like the United States of America. But this security council is beginning to dilute its own authority. We can live with the security council authority because we have the right of veto. To get around that right of veto, we are finding countries that are getting the United Nations to say let us take that authority from the security council of the United Nations, and move it over here to the world court because in the world court the United States of America does not have a right of veto. We can finally get our hands on American citizens, or we can dictate what citizens of America, the laws that they will be subject to, even within their own boundaries. Thank goodness the President did not agree to this and stood tall and said that the United States will not be a participant in this world court. It creates a prosecutorial system that is unchecked in power. This prosecutor of this world court will have more power than any other prosecutor, in my opinion, in the history of the world. This prosecutor will have the right to go past national boundaries, to go past state boundaries. This prosecutor will have the right to reach into small communities and villages, high atop the mountains in Colorado, or reach into the major cities of Moscow or Berlin or Brussels or Paris; his or her reach will be unparalleled anywhere in history. Should we sign off on that? Should anybody in this Chamber agree to a world court system like this? This thing almost became a reality until the action taken this week by the President. Let me go down here, a search jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty that threatens U.S. sovereignty. The United Nations claims under the World Heritage site, they have authority over what goes on at Yellowstone National Park or that under worldwide environmental laws that the United Nations has come up with, that they should have the authority to reach into the sovereignty of the United States. They can say whatever they want. The fact is that they have no authority. The United States does not recognize it. The United States has not ceded any of its authority to the United Nations; but if we sign onto a world court, we sign it away forever. That is the danger of this world court. That is the danger of that treaty. It is built on a flawed foundation, this world court. These flaws leave it open for exploitation and politically motivated prosecutions. If we had a world court in place in the last 6 weeks, what do Members think, how many charges would have been filed by now against the country of Israel or against Yasir Arafat, who is a known terrorist, a lifelong terrorist? It would be so lopsided. Regardless of which side of the issue Members are on, it is very clear that the propaganda machine in the last month has been anti-Israel. Everything is Israel's fault. It has been completely ignorant of Arafat's history or the homicide bombers on Passover. Mr. Speaker, that is my concern about this world court. The prosecutor and the judges of the world court, they have no supreme court that sits above them. They have no checks and balances that determine whether or not the course of action that they have chosen is an appropriate course of action, is a course of action that could be supported by the rule of law. They are not subject to anyone. They answer to no one. Accountability in our judicial system is what gives the foundation of the judiciary its strength. If there are no checks and balances, no accountability, that is defined as a dictatorship; and the prosecutor would come as close to a judicial dictator as any we have ever seen in the history of the judicial system in a free country, in countries of democracy. Let me just review a few key points about my comments this evening. The world court, the President of the United States in the last few days has issued a directive, which he has the authority to do, that the United States will not participate, will not be a participant in the world court. The world court is a new entity that is being formed, being primarily driven by the European Union. This court would be given unparalleled jurisdiction over the territories of all countries in the world, purportedly even over the United States, even though the United States will not cede any of its sovereignty. They can say anything they want, but they will not have any jurisdiction unless we give it to them, and the President chose not to give them that authority. The President chose not to give up our sovereignty. How did we get here? The reason is President Clinton in the last minutes he held office signed a sheet of paper that said we will go ahead with this treaty, sounds good to him. It is not good. The United States of America should maintain its own judicial system, a judicial system that cedes authority and power to no one but the people of the United States of America. The United States of America, our borders and our territories, should be ruled by the rule of law that our Constitution provides, that our Constitution, which gives rights to defendants and rights to the victims, which assures that somebody accused of a crime can face their accuser, which assures that somebody who is tried for a crime can have a trial by a jury of their own peers. Those kinds of rights are fundamental in our Constitution, and they are fundamental for the judicial system being so successful, relatively speaking, to any other system known in world history over this last 100 years. The United States does not belong in a world court. The President was correct, and the President and the administration should get a strong voice of support from every Congressman, keeping us out of a world court and keeping that authority within the borders of the United States. This is not partisan. The fact is, it is American. Americans should keep what they have. What they have is the greatest judicial system known in the history of the world. Let me make my final summary. I began this evening talking with my respected colleagues from the Blue Dogs, and I listened with interest to their comments given over an hour period of time. Some of their comments had some validity, but I felt the remarks were so partisan and such a strong attack on the majority party, the Republicans, and such an attack on the administration and our President, but it was never pointed out by the Blue Dogs, they identified themselves as Blue Dogs. I think it is important to point out while they may belong to an organization called Blue Dogs, the fact is that they are all Democrats. There are no Republicans in the organization. It is a Democratic organization, and it is an election year, and the purpose of one party is to try to gain advantage over the other party in an election year. Keep in mind that those Members in that 1 hour of attacking the budget and the majority and the administration, one, is not responsible for coming up with a budget; two, is not in the majority; and, three, is doing it for partisan purposes, in my opinion. The next thing I want to make very clear, I think if one were to stand up here and talk about how terrible it is that the majority has pork projects and how terrible that we cannot balance our budget, how we need to stand up and worry about the future of our kids, as if any Member of Congress does not care about the future of kids, and how senior citizens are being abandoned by Social Security, as if any Member thinks that we should abandon senior citizens, that is the tool of fear. The fact is that one ought to vote as they speak. It would seem to me that someone who is talking about a balanced budget, who is talking about stopping the pork programs, about moving that money into education and where the money really helps us the most, should be amongst the most vocal opponents of the farm bill. The farm bill has some magic to it because it is called the farm bill. Take a look at the budget-busting numbers of that bill. I thought it was very ironic that these three gifted speakers, very dynamic in their focus on controlling the budget and controlling spending, when we look at the voting record, each Member voted yes, yes, yes, on the biggest budget-busting bill we have had in a long time up here. That is the kind of transparency that we should have. Mr. Speaker, look at this world court. I hope each and every Member can support the President in the President's move to pull the United States from participation in this so-called court. Keep in mind it is countries like Cuba, and any other country has the same authority that the United States does, that the prosecution has no oversight, there is no Bill of Rights, there are no constitutional rights. This would be the most powerful system, the most powerful political organization known to the world once it gets up and going.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Nolbert Chavez and thank him for his contributions in the Colorado General Assembly. His hard work and dedication is greatly appreciated, and I am honored to pay tribute to him today in front of this body of Congress. He will long be remembered as an effective State Representative, and will continue to be known as a leader in the community. As he moves on in his career, let it be known that I, along with people of Colorado, am grateful for all that he has done for the Colorado General Assembly. During his four terms in the Colorado State House of Representatives, Nolbert has served on a number of committees, including his two current committees, Criminal Justice and House Services. In addition, he is active in the North Denver Democratic Party, was appointed twice to the Governors Developmental Disabilities Planning Council. Not only has Nolbert served the community effectively as a member of the Colorado General Assembly, he has also done his part as an active humanitarian. He is on the Board of Directors of the Colorado Hispanic Media Association, and is the past director of the Denver Community Development Corporation and El Dorado Development Corporation. He is a Public Information Officer with Denver Options, and is also a real estate broker. Perhaps most importantly, Nolbert is married to his wife Judy, and the two have a daughter, Hope Christina. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Nolbert Chavez has served his state well by providing significant service during his distinguished tenure in the Colorado General Assembly. I am honored to be able to bring his hard work and dedication to the attention of this body of Congress. It is my privilege to be able to express to him, and to this country, my gratitude for all that he has done for our wonderful state, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to recognize the work of Pat Pascoe, a woman whose dedication and commitment to her fellow citizens deserves the attention of this body of Congress and this nation. After serving as a senator in the Colorado State Senate for three terms Pat is retiring from the Colorado General Assembly. It is with a great deal of respect that I take this opportunity to honor her accomplishments. Born in Wisconsin, Pat came to Colorado in order to pursue her undergraduate degree, and has remained ever since. She began her career as a writer specializing in politics and education, and then went on to become a professor at Metropolitan State College and the University of Denver. Elected to the Senate in 1989, 1994, and 1998, Pat has dedicated countless hours to her fellow citizens in Colorado. As a State Senator, Pat has served on numerous committees, including her current posts as chair of the Public Policy and Planning Committee and Vice-Chair of the Education Committee, as well as Appropriations and Transportation. Pat has a passion for her work, taking on a variety of issues, including family, education and the environment. - Pat is a woman who recognizes the importantance of humanitarian service, as well. She is a Member of the Consortium of Community Arts Councils, and a board member on the Colorado Endowment for Humanities, as well as Opera Colorado. She is a member of the Samaritan House, the Capital Hill Club, the Lions Club and many neighborhood associations. She is also a devoted wife and mother of three who enjoys music and singing. Mr. Speaker, during her tenure in the Colorado General Assembly, Pat has compiled a long list of accomplishments, and they have not gone unnoticed. She has received numerous prestigious awards including the Donor Awareness Award, Children's Champion Award, and the Religious Freedom Award. Through her hard work and commitment she has also earned the respect and admiration of her colleagues. Pat is truly a valued member of our Colorado community, both as a state senator and as a citizen, and her hard work and dedication certainly deserve the attention of this body of Congress. Thank you, Pat, for all that you have done for your community, your state and your country.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Frana Araujo Mace and thank her for her extraordinary contributions in the Colorado General Assembly. Her dedication to both her job and the people of Colorado deserves the recognition of this body of Congress, and, indeed, this nation. She will be remembered as a State Representative with the utmost dedication to her constituents, and as she moves on in her career, I would like to thank her for all of her hard work in the Colorado Legislature. Frana was appointed to the Colorado State House of Representatives in 1995 to fill a vacancy, and was subsequently elected in 1996, 1998 and 2000. During her tenure in the State House, she served as the House Minority Whip and was a member of the House Services, Local Government, Transportation, and Energy committees. She was the mayoral appointee to the Denver Board of Adjustment and Zoning Appeals from 1976 through 1986, was the Governor's appointee to the Commission on Aging, and served as the party finance chair from District 4A. Not only has Frana served the community effectively as a member of the Colorado General Assembly, she has also done her part as an active humanitarian. She served as the President and Chairman of the Northside Community Center, and on the Servicios de la Raza cooperative endeavor. For her hard work and dedication, Frana was named the Hispanic Woman of the Year/Political Division in 1995. In addition to her community endeavors, Frana is married to Gilbert Mace, and is the proud mother of five children. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that Frana's colleagues and constituents will sorely miss the leadership and compassion that she consistently gave to the State of Colorado, and I thank her for all that she has done for the state. I am honored to bring her accomplishments to the attention of this body of Congress, and wish her all the best in the future. Her hard work and dedication truly embodies the spirit of the State, and it is with a great deal of pride that I thank her for her many years of public service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mary Ellen Epps and thank her for her extraordinary contributions in the Colorado General Assembly. Her dedication to both her job and the people of Colorado deserves the recognition of this body of Congress and this nation. She will be remembered as a State Senator and Representative with the utmost dedication to her constituents and as she moves on in her career, I would like to thank her for her hard work in the Colorado General Assembly. Mary Ellen was elected to the Colorado State Senate in 1998 after being elected to the Colorado State House of Representatives in 1986, and has served on a number of committees during her tenure. She served as chairwoman of HEWI, and the Medically Indigent Committees, and has been a member of the Judiciary, Transportation, Legislative Legal Services, Adult Criminal Justice, Juvenile Offenders, House Services and Health Care Committees, among others. As an elected official, Mary Ellen has long been an advocate of criminal justice and healthcare. She has effectively implemented a number of programs and legislation to help aid the citizens of Colorado in these areas, including mandatory immunizations for children and automobile insurance penalties for the uninsured. Not only has Mary Ellen served the community effectively as a member of the Colorado General Assembly, she has also done her part as an active humanitarian. She is a charter member of the Security Lioness Club, a lifetime VFW member, and a member of the School District #3 Advisory Board long-range task force. She is also an active member of the Optimists Club and has served on the El Paso County Planning Commission. In addition to her humanitarian endeavors, Mary Ellen is the proud mother of three daughters, Marsha Epps, Kelly Hromas and Heather Segura. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Mary Ellen Epps is a woman of dedication and commitment to her state and its citizens. I am honored to be able to bring her hard work and dedication to the attention of this body of Congress, and to this nation. Thank you, Mary Ellen, for all of your hard work, and I wish you all the best in the future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor today to recognize the accomplishments of Edwin George Perlmutter and his tenure in the Colorado General Assembly. For many years, Ed has faithfully served his constituents and fellow Coloradans in his service to civil, business, and volunteer communities. He is now leaving the state assembly to pursue new undertakings, and as he finds use for his talents elsewhere, I can think of no better way to thank Ed for his hard work and service than to bring forth his accomplishments before this body of Congress, and this nation. Ed is an attorney providing law services to his community with the firm of Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Easton, P.C. since 1978. In 1994, he began his political career in the state senate and has served as Vice- Chair of the Public Policy and Planning committee, and a member of the Legal Services and Legislative Council committees. He is well regarded as a selfless volunteer to needy causes and divides his time among various charities in his area. He serves as a member of the Applewood Business Association, as well as the West, Northwest and Golden Chambers; and is frequently seen providing his energy to multiple sports youth associations, Maple Grove Elementary School, the Girl Scouts, and the Applewood Community Church. When Ed is not working in the legislature he is serving in his other role as loving husband and devoted father of three children. Mr. Speaker, Ed has long been a valued member of our Colorado community, both as an elected official and as a citizen. While I am sure he will be missed in the Colorado State Senate, I know that he will undoubtedly succeed in his future undertakings and I am proud to be able to bring his hard work and dedication to the attention of this body of Congress, and this nation. Thank you Ed, for all of your hard work for Colorado and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I take this opportunity to pay respect to the passing of Robert Gustafson, who recently passed away after almost a century of commitment to his community and his state. Robert was a pillar of the Grand Junction, Colorado community, and as his family mourns his loss, I think it is appropriate to remember Robert and pay tribute to him for his contributions to Colorado. Robert was a shining example of a man thoroughly involved in his community. Robert was a member of the National Rifle Association, the Orchard Mesa Gun Club and the Lutheran Church. He was a past district leader of the Grand Junction YMCA, a past commissioner of the Health and Safety Boy Scout Western Council, a merit badge counselor to the Boy Scouts Western Council, and a lifetime member of the Colorado Association of School Boards and the National Association of School Boards. In an effort to serve his community, Robert gave his time and leadership as the Vice President of Grand Junction Kiwanis Club, as Vice President of the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce and President of the Wiseman's Club Grand Junction. Robert also served his country proudly during World War II as a member of the Ration Board. Robert was known for his love of outdoor activities, including fly fishing and gardening, and was well known for his abilities as a silver smith, gunsmith, and woodworker. His musical abilities on both the violin and the saxophone were well regarded, and he was the first chair violinist in the Mesa College Symphony Orchestra. Robert was a favorite uncle of many nieces and nephews and will be remembered by many for his kind soul and gentle spirit. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to Robert Gustafson for his contributions to the Grand Junction community. His dedication to his family, friends, work, and community certainly deserves the recognition of this body of Congress, and this nation. Although Robert has left us, his good-natured spirit lives on through the lives of those he touched. I would like to extend my thoughts and deepest sympathies to Robert's family and friends during this difficult time of bereavement.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute today to a man who has embodied the spirit of the State of Colorado through his life-long dedication to serving his state. A member of the Colorado General Assembly, the hard work and dedication of William Swenson, known as Bill, is a testament to the Western pride and character of my state and its citizens. Bill is now leaving the Colorado State House of Representatives after selflessly serving since 1994, and I can think of no better way to celebrate Bill's retirement than to honor his many achievements before this body of Congress and this nation. A resident of Longmont, Colorado, Bill has served in various local government positions before his election to the House, notably as a City Councilman and Mayor of Longmont. Elected to the Colorado State House of Representatives in 1994, he has served several committees, recently as a member of the Local Government committee and Chairman of the Transportation and Energy committee. During this time, he has been a valuable proponent for local government, tax relief, and water and natural resources conservation. - Bill is regarded as a loving husband and devoted father of four as well as a key member of the community. He is currently a member of Rotary International, the First Lutheran Churchmen and serves as the church treasurer. His work ethic is reflected in his membership in the IBM Quarter Century Club, an honorarium for his thirty-four years of service to the company. Mr. Speaker, Bill has been a valued member of our Colorado community, both as an elected official and as a citizen. While I am sure he will be missed in the Colorado State House of Representatives, I know that he will undoubtedly succeed in his future endeavors, and will continue to serve his fellow Coloradans. Thank you Bill, for all of your hard work and efforts.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Doug Dean and thank him for his contributions in the Colorado General Assembly. His hard work and dedication is appreciated, and I am honored to pay tribute to him today before this body of Congress. As he moves on in his career, let it be known that I, along with the people of Colorado, am grateful for the work he has done for the state, and the Colorado General Assembly. During his time in the Colorado State House of Representatives, Doug has provided his leadership to many legislative endeavors. Currently he serves the assembly as Speaker of the House, and has served on numerous committees during his tenure, notably the Executive committee, Legislative Council, the Business Affairs, Labor, State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committees. He has provided his focus and leadership not only as speaker, but also as Vice-Chairman of the Education committee and as House Majority Leader from 1999 to 2000. He has remained committed to many ideals throughout his terms, and has promoted the issues of education, judiciary affairs, telecommunications, law enforcement, and commerce. In addition to his duties as a state representative, Doug is known as a devoted husband to Gloria, loving father of three, and is an active member of his community. He is a small business owner, and can often be found volunteering his time and energies as a volunteer parent for the United Way and on the sports field as a volunteer coach for youth baseball teams. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to bring to the attention of this body of Congress the accomplishments of Doug Dean and his service to Colorado. His contributions to his state and constituents, as both a member of the Colorado General Assembly and community volunteer, are an example of public and civic commitment to us all. Thanks for your leadership and commitment to Colorado, Doug, and I wish you all the best in the future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding individual who has dedicated his life to serve and protect the citizens of Pueblo, Colorado. Corporal Robert A. ``Bob'' Tristano of the Pueblo Police Department has faithfully served his fellow Coloradans for over thirty years. After a long and successful career as one of Colorado's finest, Bob announced his retirement from the force in December of last year. As Bob looks forward to retirement, I would like to take this time to highlight his service to his community. Bob began his service with the force in 1968 as a patrolman and within five years was promoted to the rank of corporal. For over twenty years, he remained active in the patrol division, guarding our streets and providing our community with safe and open routes of travel. He later served a tour at the Pueblo Memorial Airport, and in 1997, accepted a position as a summons and warrants officer. At the time of his retirement, Bob was the most senior member of the force and undoubtedly will be missed by those who sought his expertise and support in their daily lives. Always respecting those who have served before him, Bob was a key supporter of the Pueblo Police Benevolent Association and was often found dedicating his time and energy to the foundation. Mr. Speaker, as a former law enforcement officer I am well aware of the dangers and hazards our peace officers face today. These individuals work long hours, weekends, and holidays to guarantee their fellow citizen's rights and protection. They work tirelessly with great sacrifice to their personal and family lives to ensure our freedoms remain strong in our homes and communities. Their service and dedication deserves the recognition and thanks of this body of Congress and this nation. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I bring the name of officers like Robert A. Tristano to light today. I wish you all the best Bob and good luck in your future endeavors. Thanks for your service to Pueblo, Colorado.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I stand before you today to pay tribute to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White, one of the most extraordinary men of our times. Justice White was a true renaissance man who embodied the ideals, abilities and endless potential upon which our country was founded; and did so in an unassuming, self-effacing manner that won the respect, and more importantly the hearts, of citizens throughout Colorado, America and, indeed, the world. Justice White dedicated his life to improving the lives of each and every human being he came into contact with, from his family and friends to his colleagues and peers. His extraordinary career was punctuated with a myriad of accomplishments, any one of which would serve as the pinnacle of a successful career, but for Byron, each served as simply validation that his efforts to better the nation and its citizens were doing just that: making peoples lives better. I stand before you today, humbled by the life and legacy of Justice White, and honored by the opportunity to pay tribute to such a remarkable man. Born in Fort Collins, Colorado on June 8, 1917, Byron proved to be the consummate scholar and athlete, excelling both in the classroom and on the playing field. He attended the University of Colorado, where his prowess as a student and an athlete gained him national notoriety. He was an All-American tailback for the Buffaloes, star on the basketball court, but more importantly, especially in the eyes of Byron himself, he was the valedictorian of his graduating class, earning a 3.9 grade- point average. After graduating, he played professional football for the Pittsburgh Pirates, and was named Rookie of the Year in 1938. Showing his preference for intellectual endeavors over athletic ones, despite his success on the football field, Byron gave up his career in the NFL to accept a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University. The outbreak of World War II brought Byron back to the United States, where he played football for the Detroit Lions, before serving as a Navy officer in the war. After the war, Byron attended Yale Law School, graduating in 1946, and then returned to Colorado to practice law in Denver. While attending Oxford University, Byron first had the opportunity to meet John F. Kennedy, and later came in contact with him again while serving as a Navy officer in World War II. After becoming actively involved in politics, President Kennedy appointed Byron to the post of Deputy Attorney General, and then, in 1962, appointed him to the Supreme Court. In his remarkable 31 year career as a Supreme Court Justice, Byron gained the respect of his colleagues and of his nation as a conservative judge willing to stand firm for what he believed was just and fair. In 1994, the former Denver Post Office, after being remodeled for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was renamed the Byron White Courthouse. Justice White, is, without question, one of the most talented, knowledgeable, charismatic and selfless leaders that our country has ever known, and I am in awe of what he has accomplished on behalf of our country over the course of his illustrious career. Mr. Speaker, I am truly at a loss in trying to verbally convey the achievements of a man whose extraordinary contributions so profoundly changed the face of our great nation. Aside from his extraordinary accomplishments, it is his unrelenting passion for each and every thing he did, as well as his spirit of honesty and integrity with which he has always conducted himself, that I wish to bring before this body of Congress. He is a remarkable man, who, while faithfully and honestly representing the heart and soul of America, also managed to touch it. I stand before you today, humbled by the legacy that Byron White has left with us, but proud to pay tribute to one of the greatest Americans of our time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life and memory of Hildur Hoaglund Anderson. Hildur passed away in February of this year after ninety-four full and joyous years. She was a valued member of the Colorado community since 1907, and served as a teacher, musician, and an early pioneer of Snowmass Village. As family and friends mourn her loss, I think it is appropriate that we remember Hildur's many contributions to her community, family, and fellow Coloradans throughout her life. Hildur's life and testament embodies the spirit of Colorado's heritage and Western lifestyle. Born June 21, 1907, she was the youngest of six children and was raised on the family ranch. She attended school in a one-room schoolhouse and rode on horseback down to the town of Aspen for her piano lessons. In 1937, Hildur married Bill Anderson and together they raised a loving family of four children. Known for her quick wit and considerable wisdom, she was always willing to share her life experiences with others. Her sayings and quotes are known around the town as `Hildurisms' and will be a part of the folklore in Aspen for years to come. She began educating children at the age of seventeen, teaching children on the Western Slope the fundamentals of a quality education. She was known throughout the school system for her special attention to each child as well as her mentoring of young teachers in the community. Known for the vitality she displayed throughout her life, she was often found entertaining the community with her musical talents on the accordion and piano alike. An inductee at the Aspen Hall of Fame, it is clear that Hildur Hoaglund Anderson helped to shape the town of Aspen through her years of teaching, her contributions to the community, and witty bits of advice. It is my honor to be able to bring the contributions and life of Hildur Lillian Hoaglund Anderson to the attention of this body of Congress, and this nation. Thank you Hildur for all that you gave us, you will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Donn Culver and thank him for his extraordinary contributions to his city, his state and his fellow citizens. As an employee of GMAC Mortgage, Donn has dedicated himself to improving his community and the state by selflessly giving his time and energy to his job, his family and his fellow citizens. His remarkable business and philanthropic accomplishments are surpassed only by the hard work and dedication that he has poured into each and everything he has done. As we celebrate his tremendous accomplishment of earning the Colorado Mortgage Lenders Association's Hope for Homeowners Award, let it be known that I, along with the people of Colorado, applaud his efforts and are grateful for all that he has done for his state and his community. Throughout his personal and professional life, Donn has consistently represented the very attributes that this award recognizes, and I am honored to bring his achievements to light today. Donn is currently the Vice President and Regional Manager for GMAC Mortgage, with responsibility for covering seven middle western states, and is active in a number of housing initiatives at GMAC. He has spent 23 years in the financial services industry, with 16 years in senior management, including a post as National Production Manager for Pulte Mortgage Corp. He is an active member of a number of committees, including the Fannie Mae Advisory Council, he serves as Co-Chairman for the Colorado Mortgage Lender Association's Affordable Housing Committee; and is a member of the Residential Lending Committee, the Responsible Lending Task Force for Colorado, and an instructor for the Salvation Army and Heritage Foundation Homeless to Home Ownership. In addition, he is an outstanding advocate for first-time homebuyers, and has been active in trying to prevent predatory lending practices. Donn earned a BS in marketing from Indiana University, and, perhaps most importantly, is married with two children. Donn is truly a remarkable man, who has always been eager to give his time and energy to the community, through both his professional and philanthropic endeavors. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Donn Culver is a man of unparalleled dedication and commitment to his job, his community and to his state. It is his unrelenting passion for each and every thing he does, as well as his spirit of selflessness and dedication with which he has always conducted himself, that I wish to bring before this body of Congress. Donn has achieved extraordinary things and enriched the lives of so many people, and it is my privilege to extend to him my sincere congratulations on earning the Colorado Mortgage Lenders Association's Hope for Homeowners Award, and wish him all the best in the future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), who said it the best. When does it count being a friend? What is being a friend all about? I heard the gentleman from Texas say why is this resolution necessary? I will tell Members why it is necessary, because the public relations machine in this world is rolling over Israel. They are making Yasir Arafat, who is a terrorist, look like Robin Hood. Look at the Olympics. Take a look recently on Passover, when they send a bomber in to blow up a restaurant on Passover. The equivalent of that in the United States is showing up on Christmas Eve and killing Santa Claus. What do Members think we would be doing? We would be going after them. Arafat is a terrorist. He was a terrorist 25 years ago, he was a terrorist 15 years ago, and he is a terrorist today. There is only one country in the world outside of the borders of Israel that has enough guts to stand up to that public relations machine and say enough is enough. For those Members who have some sympathy for this cause, take a look at how these people speak in English. When they speak in English they speak in moderation. When they speak in their own language, they speak in extreme tongue. There should be no question whether or not this resolution is necessitated. It is necessitated by the fact, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) said, they are our friends and we will stand with our friends against this kind of aggression. There is no justification for what that terrorist is doing. Finally, in summation, one of my colleagues said I wrote the President and the President did not write me back on my solution. Give me a break. President Bush is fully engaged in this. Condoleezza Rice is fully engaged, Colin Powell is fully engaged, as is the whole cabinet. This resolution deserves our yes vote.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to talk about a number of different subjects, but primarily the subject is going to center around natural resources and water, especially water as it pertains to the West. As many of you know, my district is the third Congressional district in the State of Colorado. The State of Colorado is the highest place, when you take the average elevation, it is the highest place on the North American continent. And as a result of that elevation and the mountainous terrain and the arid region that Colorado is kind of the apex of, there are a lot of different issues that deal with the West that you do not find in the East. But before I do this, I want to talk a little about this weekend. I read tonight, maybe you will read it here in the next couple of days in the paper, but I read where a celebrity here in the United States, a celebrity who has been the beneficiary of the great things that this country offers, a celebrity who, to the best of my knowledge, has never had to pick up a weapon to defend their country, a celebrity who has made the comments that are about to be established from his yacht, his 130-foot or 150-foot yacht. And as I understand these comments, and, again, this is being credited to him or it is in this interview, as I understand these comments from this celebrity, this celebrity is criticizing the Fox News station for being too patriotic, for being too patriotic. This celebrity has come out and said that the station had too much red, white and blue on their station, on their news network at September 11. Can you envision that? Did you ever think that anyone in this country, that our forefathers would ever think that a celebrity who is the beneficiary of all the fruits that this country has provided to him, would have the audacity to say that our country is too patriotic? I want to compare these short-sighted remarks, those selfish remarks, to what I experienced this weekend out in Colorado, and all of you have, I am sure, experienced the same things when you get out with the people that you represent. I was in Pueblo, Colorado. I started out the day by going to a group of a number of probably about 200 young people, I would guess anywhere from 13 years old to 19 years old. These kids, they were trying to tell them to stay off of drugs. It was amazing. Drugs, alcohol, and drive with your seatbelts on. It was a great assembly that was put together. But I was surprised and, frankly, I was very encouraged and felt very positive by talking to these kids, how many of these young people wanted as a career to go in and serve our country in the military, how strongly these kids felt about the United States of America. And from this assembly I went on to a couple of town meetings. Do you think in any of these town meetings I heard from constituents any indication at all that we should be less patriotic or our news networks are too patriotic? In fact, what you generally hear is just the opposite. How come they never tell the side of the greatest country in the history of the world? How come they always make us look like the bad guys? That is the kind of things you might hear. Then that afternoon I have to go and I listen and I have an opportunity to participate in awarding the Korean medal for a former veteran. This veteran had received five bronze stars and this veteran had his entire family, 70, maybe 80 people at their function where we have presented the medal. And I tell you something, you talk about pride in this country and you talk about feeling good about the future of this country, the gentleman to whom I presented the medal served in the Korean War. He was in his 70s, maybe in his early 80s, so he had three generations, he had great-grandchildren there. And the red, white and blue around that yard, I wish I could have grabbed that celebrity and brought him to this yard, back yard in Pueblo, Colorado, and shown him what people in America feel about patriotism. The United States of America has nothing to apologize about. What this celebrity ought to be doing is talking about what America has done for the rest of the world. There is no country in the history of the world, no country in the history of the world that has given away more in charity to the rest of the world, that has educated more people for the world, that offers better health care than anywhere else in the world, that has provided more tractors and more agricultural resources so that people can grow food and be more efficient on the growth of food than any other country in the world. There is no other country in the world that has offered more freedoms than the United States of America. None, zero, zip. No other country in the history of the world that has offered the freedoms that the United States of America has. There is no other country in the history of the world that has stood up and put its young men and women, paying the ultimate sacrifice, at risk in other continents, to save those continents as we did in World War I, as we did in World War II, as we did to try in an attempt, a failed attempt, an attempt to stop communism from moving on to Vietnam, as we did in other places, as we are doing today. The United States of America is a great country. It is a strong country; but it is a strong country that demands upon every generation, including our generation, and probably especially on those of us who were elected to serve the people, to represent the people, to pass on to the next generation that sense of patriotism, that sense of obligation, to make sure that the greatness of this country continues to the generation that follows them, that responsibility to be good Americans, to care about your family, to care about the defense of your country. Bill Bennett wrote a book and says why do we fight. My colleagues will want to read that book. In fact, I think if I knew this celebrity would get the book I would buy a copy and send it to him. I was a little saddened by one of the people in our country, one of the people, this celebrity, the fruits he enjoys today would have been available to him probably anywhere else in the world, but in the country which gave it to him, he decides that maybe one of the news networks is too patriotic. Very short-sighted comment and a comment that I hope that individual at some point, at least in his own mind, retracts and begins to appreciate the sacrifice that a lot of people, generation after generation after generation in this country's history, the sacrifice that they have given so that people like him and other Americans can enjoy the fruits of our country. What is most exciting to me is all of the things that go right. My colleagues do not hear some of these celebrities talking about what is going right in this country. It seems to many a lot of time what comes out of Hollywood is criticism of the President. We hear the movie actors that say, well, we are going to leave the country if George W. Bush becomes our President, and by the way, none of them did leave the country. They changed their mind because they realized what they had here, and some of these people ought to take a little time and talk about what is going right in our country. When we look at what is going right as compared to what is going wrong, there is so much more that is right than wrong. Look at the young people and juniors and seniors and applicants to our academies, our military academies. These are some of the most qualified young people in the history of this country. Their capabilities, the tools that they have to learn, their focus is immense and I think is much greater than the previous generations. What we read in the media is they focus on the drug problems of this generation. They focus on the sex problems of this young generation; but what is beginning to happen, that young generation is showing that they do have the capabilities to carry on the responsibilities, to continue to make this country great. We are beginning to see a movement toward family. We are beginning to see more religious involvement with these young people. We are beginning to see absolutely much, much more learning in their preschool years as they come up. So there are a lot of things that are going right, and that is what made me feel good about the weekend. I spent the weekend seeing things that were going right, only to read this quote or these quotes that have been attributed to this celebrity, and I think that my colleagues may have seen it in today's papers or certainly will be in tomorrow's papers about what this person has said. I hope any of my colleagues that have admired this person somewhat discount that admiration when they take a look at the comments that this particular person made. That is enough for that. Let me move on to the subject that I really want to talk about this evening and that is water. As I mentioned earlier at the opening of my remarks, the western United States geographically, obviously, is different than the eastern half of the United States. There are a lot of things that differentiate the West from the East, and one of them is water. I want to show my colleagues a map. This map here will depict a number of things which we will go over here in just a minute. Let me tell my colleagues about the first thing the map is going to depict. That is the ownership of public lands versus public lands in the East. Remember that upon settlement of the United States, the population, when our country just got started, as we all know, the population was along the east coast and that as our country began to grow, in order to get people out into the land, we had to give them some kind of incentive. Back in those days, one could not just get a deed that says you own the land. They actually needed to possess the land; and as I said before, that is where the saying that possession is nine-tenths of the law comes from. So for our country to grow, we needed one incentive to get people to move off the comfort of the east coast into the new land that this country wanted to expand into, and we wanted to get possession of that property so that another country could not come and take that land from us so we could protect the land. In order to do that, the government made a very conscious decision, and that is, to give land away through what is called land grants. They had first made land grants actually in an attempt to bribe British soldiers to defect from the British troops to help us in the Revolutionary War, saying to these soldiers we are starting a new country and if you come with us we will give you land in our new country. That is how the Homestead Act in this country, actually what we would call the land grants, first came from. This worked pretty effectively. What they would do is they would send families west. They would give them, say, 160 acres; and 160 acres in most of the eastern United States was enough acreage for a family to survive upon, and let me point out here. My colleagues will note that on this map, most of the map east of, say, Denver, Colorado, here in this point, we come right down here, most of the white part of this map is land that is privately owned. That is because in almost all of these locations here where the white is and almost all of those locations, one can support a family off 160 acres. The land is very fertile. In fact, to give my colleagues an idea of the water, and we will go over this point again, but 73 percent of the water precipitation, surface water, stream water in this country is in this part of the country. So this is a very, very, very fertile land. Once we get west of Denver, Colorado, into this land with all the color that is where we get into the public lands, and that land is very, very dry, very arid, very dependent upon dams. What happened is the settlers began to come west. This idea of putting people out on the land was working pretty effectively, but then all of the sudden when they got to Denver and they hit the Rocky Mountains, word got back to Washington, they are not settling up there. They are going around it. They could not feed a family off 160 acres. They had to go out to the Imperial Valley in California to find that kind of fertile land. Washington knew that they needed to do something, something to claim that land for the country. What did we do? How do we figure out how to get people to occupy those lands so that the government knows our citizens are on it? So what they decided to do in that mountain country where 160 acres could not support a family is one of the ideas, well, let us go ahead and give them an equivalent amount of land, maybe let us give them like $3,000 acres maybe, that is the equivalent of what needs to match 160 acres in the fertile grounds of eastern Colorado or Nebraska or some of these other States. At the time, they had given a lot of land to railroads, and they were under a lot of political pressure not to give that land away. So they decided instead, in this west, in this arid part, they would allow the people to go ahead and use it. They would give them incentives to use it, but they would retain the title to the government and keep those as public lands, but they always had the concept that these public lands would envision multiple use, many uses. When I grew up and we went into a national forest or public lands, there was always a sign that hung there, for example, ``Welcome to the White River National Forest, Land of Many Uses.'' That is the concept upon which the West was really settled as far as land ownership goes. The reason I am telling my colleagues this or the reason why we are reviewing the public lands and private lands issue is because it has a lot to do with the water issues that we face out in the West that again differentiates us from the East. Remember my statistics and let me draw on this map for just a moment. If we drew a line approximately like this, 73 percent, 73 percent of the water, surface water in the country is in this portion of the United States. That is where 73 percent of it is. We have got about 13 percent of the water in the Pacific Northwest. We have got 13 percent of the water there, and then the rest of it, the rest here for that many States, that is 14 percent of the water. Look at those numbers again. Seventy-three percent of the water on this part of the country, 13 percent up here in this section, and 14 percent for all of these States down there. This is arid country. This is country where out here a lot of times the dispute is in the East on how to get rid of the excess water. Hey, do not drain it on my property. How are we going to drain it? Put it here; put it there. In the West, our primary issues are how do we conserve the water, how do we store the water, how do we use the water. And of course, in the West, as in many lands in the east, agricultural plays a very important part. Remember when we talked about water, there are a number of different things to keep in mind. First of all, 97 percent of the water in the world, 97 percent of it is salt water, and under today's technology, we really do not have an economical way to convert that to desalinate that water from ocean water to clear drinking water. So right off the bat we are dealing with 3 percent of the world's water. Three percent of the world's water, about 78 percent of that 3 percent, about 78 percent of that 3 percent, is tied up in the polar icecaps. So the actual amount of water that we have to deal with is really very, very small. In fact, if we wanted to use a percentage number, I will write it on the chart here, but how much of the world's water rivers contains, it looks like this, .001 percent. That is what small amount of water is contained in the rivers in the world, and the rivers are our life blood. In fact, in the Colorado State capital, in their rotunda written on there, they have something to the effect that I think it was Hornsberry that wrote, that says in this land life is written in water, and many people have said water runs almost as thick as blood out there in this dry region. Let me talk about real quickly how water is used. One of the things that amazed me as I got into water, remember, water is a very boring subject. Most people do not care much about water until they turn on the faucet and there is no water coming out of the faucet and they flush the toilet and no water comes into the bowl or they go out to recreate or fish and the stream's dried up. There are a lot of different uses of water. I started studying water about 20 years ago; and to this day, to this day, the most amazing thing about water to me is the quantity of water that is necessary to do things in our everyday life, and I am going to go over a few of those things with my colleagues right now. Take a look. Water usage, here is a fun chart. Direct uses of water daily, this is what the average person uses in a day drinking and cooking, 2 gallons. Flushing the toilet, 5 to 7 gallons per flush, although we have newer toilets, more advanced toilets that can now do it with 3 gallons. Washing machine, 20 gallons per load. Dishwasher, 25 per loads. Just to take a shower, 7 to 9 gallons per minute. Remember that using water is not like using gasoline. Water is a renewable resource. On gasoline, once it is used, it is gone; but with water they have often said one person's waste is another person's water, and there is a lot to be said there. Water recirculates. It has got an entire lifecyle of its own so that when we use water for these daily needs, it does not mean that we have wasted the water, but we still have to conserve that water. We have got to be careful that we do not go to excess. Take a look at what it requires to grow food, and I will give some acreage, some interesting statistics on acreage; but if we look over here to my left, look at this. Growing food for a loaf of bread, it takes 150 gallons of water from the time someone starts to prepare the field to grow the wheat, they grow the wheat and the other ingredients to mill the flour and things like that. By the time that loaf of bred is produced, they have used 150 gallons of water. An egg, one egg, not a dozen eggs, one egg, 120 gallons of water. quart of milk, 223 gallons of water. To have one quart of milk. One pound of oranges, 47 gallons. One pound of potatoes, 23 gallons. On average, and my colleagues probably did not know this, it takes more than 1,000 gallons of water to produce three meals a day for one person. More than 1,000 gallons of water a day to give us three balanced meals per day. Pretty interesting. What happens to 50 glasses of water? Forty-four glasses are used for agriculture, three glasses are used by industry, two glasses are used by cities, and a half a glass is used in the countryside. So, obviously, of those 50 glasses, if we had 50 glasses of water that represented the usage in our country, 44 of those glasses of water go to agriculture. Why so much water for agriculture? Again, some pretty interesting statistics. To grow an acre of corn we can expect off that acre that we will have 4,000 gallons of water a day evaporate off that acre. It takes 135,000 gallons to grow one ton of alfalfa. A hundred thirty-five thousand gallons. As I said, it takes 1,400 gallons of water to produce the meal of a quarter pound hamburger, an order of fries, and a soft drink. So if my colleagues go down to the local McDonald's restaurant and buy a hamburger, a soft drink and fries, 1,400 gallons of water were necessary for the complete process to get that food to the table. Forty-eight thousand gallons are needed to produce the typical American Thanksgiving dinner for eight people. Imagine that. When we go to Thanksgiving dinner, eight people sit down to have dinner, 48,000 gallons of water were utilized to bring all of the tidings of Thanksgiving to that table. It is immense the use of water that we have. That is why water is such a critical subject for us. It is boring, but if I had my way about it, I would make it a mandatory course in every classroom in every school in America. I would make it required so that all Americans have a better understanding of just how critical that resource is and has become. It takes 39,000 gallons of water to produce a domestic automobile, 1,800 gallons of water just to produce the cotton in a pair of jeans, and 400 gallons of water just to produce enough cotton for one shirt. So the shirt I am wearing right here, which is 100 percent cotton, took 400 gallons of water to get that shirt to where I can wear it. It is amazing. It is incredible. What is happening now, this year, of course, is that we have a drought. And as I mentioned earlier, the drought has hit different parts of the country very hard. Here in the east last weekend we had some good rains. I think we got up to 2 inches in this particular area. But in the west we face a drought conditions that, in many cases, we have not seen in 100 years. And the reason we say 100 years is that that is the first time records were kept. So I wanted to visit just a little about what that impact is and why it is so critical for those of us that live in the arid States to store our water, to have that capability. Remember, in a State like Colorado, and my district is the high mountains of Colorado, in an average year we have all the water we could possibly use for about a 60-to-90-day-period of time. When is that period of time? That period of time, on a typical year, is what is called the spring runoff, when the snow melts off those high peaks and we have that runoff. Sometimes, in fact, it floods, and we have terrible floods. But the dams have helped us control those floods. When that 60-to-90 day period of time is over, what do we do for water then? Again, the dams come back in. In the west, we need to have those dams because we cannot count on water continuously year-round. Unfortunately, these water resources have not been evenly allocated across this great country of ours, so the dams play more and more of an important role, for not only human consumption, but for electrical generation. Take a look at this chart. This reflects the primary use of dams. I think this is pretty interesting. The primary purpose or benefit of dams in the United States. And by the way, there is about 70,000 to 80,000 dams in the United States. Now, when we think of dams we think of Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon Dam, or smaller dams, like the Shoshoni Dam in the Glenwood Canyon, or different ones like that. But the first dams, for example, that we know of in the United States were actually the Anasazi Indians down in the southwestern part of Colorado, the Four Corners area. And there is evidence there that when they came and they learned how to dam up the water, because the water was again in such an arid area, it is thought that one of two things drove the Anasazi Indians into extinction, or at least out of that area. One of them was the lack of water or, two, dealing with the enemy. They had enemies out there, and somehow the enemies were able to get into the cliff dwellings. But we think primarily it was water. Look at the primary purpose or benefit of U.S. dams. Recreation, 32 percent; irrigation, 10 percent; public water supply, 19 percent; flood control, 14 percent; hydroelectricity, 2 percent; and stock and farm ponds, 17 percent. Now, you will see some national organizations that oppose dams. They oppose a dam no matter how justified it is. No matter how well planned it is, no matter what kind of protections have been placed for the environment and to the benefit of the environment, no matter what is done, there are large well-financed organizations that oppose dams regardless of the merits. But they do not understand, or maybe they do understand and it is a way of restricting the life-style that we have in the west, but it is so critical to look closely and get an idea of what happens to us out in Colorado, for example, after that 90 days or so when the spring runoff trickles down to small streams and our mighty Colorado is reduced dramatically in size, and what we have to do for water to get through the rest of the year. And it is not just drinking water. Take a look at now the dependency we have on hydroelectricity. That is the cleanest way to produce power of any power that we know, outside of nuclear. And even cleaner than the nuclear, because with nuclear we still have a waste material, as many of my colleagues know with our debate on Yucca Mountain in Nevada and so on. Water is truly the cleanest way to generate our electricity. The difficulty is we do not have enough rivers or enough dams to produce hydroelectricity in such a way that it could become our primary generation of electricity in this country. But where we can utilize it we should utilize it. And a natural benefit of a dam, when you back up water, you also provide recreation opportunities. In the western United States, the greatest recreational facility, I think, from a water perspective, is Lake Powell. The Colorado River, which is about 1,500 miles long, has several major dams on it, and one of those lakes that has been backed up as a result of Glen Canyon is Lake Powell. Lake Powell actually has more shoreline than the entire Pacific West Coast. Recreation is critical. For those who talk about family recreation and the importance for us to bring families back together, recreation on a lake like Lake Powell is an important factor out there in the west. Flood control. We have had some horrendous floods. Again, unfortunately, the laws of nature do not allow the river, like the Colorado, to run at a steady flow 12 months of the year. Sometimes it runs with horrendous bursts. In fact, if any of my colleagues ever have an opportunity and are near Gunnison or Montrose, Colorado, take the time to go see the Black Canyon National Park. It is a beautiful, beautiful national park. And when you get to the visitor's center at the Black Canyon National Park you will see rocks the size of this table over here to my right, the size of this table and probably twice as high. That is a sample of the rocks that are thrown through that river. That is how powerful that river is going through that canyon. That rumbling down of those rocks sounds like a tornado going on down there in the spring runoff. We have to be able to control floods. And take a look, while on the way to the Black Canyon National Park and, hopefully, you will go through a beautiful town called Grand Junction, Colorado. Grand Junction used to be desert. Desert still remains on the other side of it. But take a look at what irrigation did for that community. Grand junction, Colorado, is probably the clearest example in the country of what happens when you have water and what happens when you do not have water. The dividing point there is the interstate highway. As you go down the interstate in Grand Junction, when you look to the north, or if you are headed westbound, when you look to the right it is arid desert land. It is beautiful in its own way, but there are no people living out there. There is not much wildlife out there. In fact, there is not much life. There are no trees or plants out there. It is dry dirt. On the left-hand side, which is the south side, left hand as you are going west, the south side is the result of irrigation. There are orchards; wine orchards, apple orchards, and lots of wildlife. Obviously, that is where the people live. It is because we had the ability to store water and to release that water year-round so that side of the highway can stay green. Year-round, that portion of land can support wildlife, human habitation and, frankly, I think increase and improve the areas of the environment that we think are important, gold medal fishing, for example, and a lot of other things. Water is such a critical resource for us. Again, I urge my colleagues here in the east, during times when we have decisions to make about the west, please understand we are not trying to make a battle or make a geographical difference with the country. We do want Members to come to the realization, or at least understand that our needs in the west are dramatically different when it comes to some of these natural resources, whether we are talking about private lands or public lands, or whether we are taking about lots of water, like here in the east, where 73 percent of the Nation's surface water exists. Out there, in the center of the west, we have 14 percent. So when we talk about our water storage facilities, listen to us, support us. There is a move out there to take down Lake Powell. Many of in this room have never been to Lake Powell. If you want to do your family a favor, if you want to have a great trip, one of those kind of vacations that your family will remember for many, many, many years into the future, go to Lake Powell. Take a look at that dam there, how much electricity that generates, and take a look at the flood control. As a Congressman, they will give you a tour. They give general tours, but tell them you really want to know about this project. I urge my colleagues from the east to take a trip and go out there, and have one of your days set aside simply to learn about the project. So that when the radical fanatics come to these Chambers and try to get you to sign on to a resolution to tear down the dam at Lake Powell, you will have a very clear and immediate understanding of the ramifications that that has to the western half of your country, the kind of ramifications it has not only for hydroelectricity but for flood control, for water storage, for recreation, for farms. Remember that when you hear somebody approach you and say we need to take down dams. One of my biggest problems with the Clinton administration was the Clinton administration was always trying to show that they were the environmental administration, so they made some pretty brash statements and they made some pretty illogical decisions, like the Grand Escalante Staircase, without any input from State officials; with proclamations that we need to start taking down dams, not building dams. It was almost as if that administration had an anti-human bias built into their policy. Well, fortunately, that has been moderated and a common sense approach will allow people in the east to understand the special circumstances of those of us who live in the west. Let me mention something else. I want to show the drought conditions that we are currently experiencing. This is a color-coded map. Here are the codes: Abnormal dry, which means just an off year; drought moderate is the light brown; the dark brown is drought severe, and the red is drought extreme. If you look to the left of the poster, here is the State of Colorado. This actually is the Colorado River right here, going down like this. The Colorado River runs about 1,500 miles. Only a small part of it is in Colorado. The Colorado provides 75 percent of the water that goes into it. Maybe 200 miles of the Colorado River is in Colorado, of the 1,500 miles total. It goes down through Utah, Arizona, and actually ends up in Mexico. But my point here is to look at the drought conditions that we face. Now, we face some of these similar conditions on the East Coast, but out here in the west, where we start out with very arid conditions, look how much of it is in a moderate drought. All the light brown. But look what is in severe extreme drought. Look how much of that portion down here. Look at what this is. This is a tough situation this year. Do you know how we are going to get through it? Do you know how we got through the semi-dryness last year? Because generations before us had the foresight to build major storage projects so when we ran out of water or did not have enough snow in the high peaks, we would have enough water to give us a crutch to get through to the next snow season. That is exactly why we will survive the drought in Colorado, even though it is severe, a drought that we have not seen since 1977 is the last time I recall. It appears that this one is going to be much more severe. But we will be able to, we will be crippled, but we will be able to get through it because we have water storage. We have the capability to draw down on reservoirs. It is like your bank account. You always want to have a surplus in your bank account so if you have an emergency you can draw down on your savings. That is what these storage projects allow us. But what has happened in the last few years through a huge public relations effort, they have been very successful in giving a negative connotation to the world dams and water storage projects. We in the West find ourselves constantly trying to explain, look, it is not a nasty word. It is a word that is necessitated by our lifestyles out in the West. It is necessitated by our needs for the environment. It is necessitated for our electricity. It is necessitated for flood control. These water storage projects are very, very important for us. Now, what else happens when we face drought conditions? Fire. This year looks to be, if the conditions stay the same as they have up through this last week, this year could be the worst fire year since we kept records in this country. I want to say through the hard efforts of people like Gale Norton at the Department of the Interior, and Ann Veneman over at the Department of Agriculture, the head of the parks, these teams have come together and we have created a National Fire Council. Last year through a lot of efforts, both Republican and Democrat, we put together the resources necessary to upgrade our firefighting capabilities in this country. We hired an additional 5,000 firemen. We picked up thousands of pieces of new equipment. In the last several months, we have disbursed those equipment and resources throughout the country so when we have a fire, as we had in Bailey up in Park County, Colorado, last weekend, we were within a very short period of time able to devote substantial resources to fighting that fire. We have made dramatic improvements. Not only do we have a dry year, but we have had years and years and years of policies on the public lands, remember earlier my comments when we talked about the public lands, we have had years and years of policies of not allowing those forests to be cleaned. In essence, ignoring some of those forests. We now have lots of wastes on the floor of the forest. I call it gunpowder. What you see on my left, that will not be an uncommon sight in the mountains. We are going to see some of our biggest fires in Florida and in the East. I think this year we have the team together. We never know what we are going to face, but based on past history, we think that with a little luck and a little blessing and the good Lord, we are going to be able to fight these fires successfully, but it is going to be a challenge. Again, the importance of water storage. When we get out to some of these fires, one of the most important things to have is access to water. What does every fire truck in the West carry with them? They carry tarps. Why? A simple reason. As soon as they get to the scene of a fire, they create a dam. Think about it. Out in the rural areas, and I used to be a volunteer fireman, one of the first things that we learned was how to use a tarp. Firefighters put it in the stream and very quickly build up a dam so we have a water reservoir that we could pull the water out of to fight the fire. Again, another use of dams, another use of water storage that a lot of us do not think about in our day-to-day lives. Let me show Members the inferno. These are the kinds of things that we are going to face this summer. That is a blow up, meaning the wind and heat. All of the conditions are perfect for what is called a blow up. That kind of inferno, unfortunately, will occur. To a large extent we cannot help it. We cannot have more rain. That is up to the good Lord. We cannot control where lightning strikes; that is up to the good Lord. But in the management of our forests and in the management of our firefighting resources and in the allocation of our land management resources, a lot of these fires can be impacted or alleviated with proper land management. Again in the East, you deal with it differently because you do not have the public lands. In the West, we have lots of public pressure, a lot of times from people in the East who have never experienced life in the West, who are not acquainted with what it is like to be completely surrounded by public lands. In my district, I have about 120 communities. These are small towns with the exception of two which are fairly large. All but one of them are completely surrounded. In other words, 119 are completely surrounded by public lands. And the rules and regulations that we deal with with public lands restrict the amount of freedom. In a lot of cases, it is very justified. But as in most cases where the government gets involved, you will find on some occasions they go overboard. Sometimes they go overboard, for example, by not allowing people to clean up the forests. This is a contributing cause to this kind of inferno. Let me talk just a few more minutes about the importance of water in the West, about the importance of water storage in the West. I have made several key points to Members, and I want to summarize them. Keep in mind that 97 percent of the water in the world is in the oceans. It is salt water. We do not have an economic way to convert that water to drinking water that is affordable on any kind of mass scale. Of the remaining 3 percent, clear water, nonsalt water, 78 percent of that water is tied up in the polar ice caps. So we have a very small amount of water that is either not tied up in the ice caps or not salt water for our usage. Conservation is a critical element for us. As our country continues to grow in population, obviously we need to practice more and more conservation. But remember that conservation and water is much trickier than, say, conservation of fuel or electricity. I will give Members an idea. When somebody comes in and says we want you to line your irrigation ditches, in other words put in concrete, and we can prevent seepage so you lose less water. The difficulty is that your seepage in your ditch may very well be providing the water for the spring 3 or 4 miles away. Mr. Speaker, our generation does not have the capability to radar underneath the ground very effectively. We can pick up things above the ground, but what future generations will have the capability to do is they will have the capability to look underneath the ground, and at some point they will be able to figure out the logistics of those millions of miles of water streams underneath the Earth's surface. Then water management will make a lot more sense. Then conservation will be able to be done with much more precise science; but today, conservation is important. But the key of my comments to Members this evening is not only to ask, as I have done on a number of occasions from this very podium, to ask for your indulgence when we talk about land issues in the West, because of the fact that the public lands really for the most part are in the West, they are not in the East, so I ask cooperation from my colleagues from the East, try and take a few moments, really you have the responsibility to take a few moments and understand the issues that we deal with because we have public lands. We have to deal with the government every minute of our lives out there when your community is surrounded by public lands. Our communities are completely, not partially, and this is not an exaggeration, our communities are completely dependent upon the Federal lands. When we talk about water, out in my district, the water in my district either comes across, stores or ponds or originates on public lands. It is a big, big issue for us. The concept of multiple use is critical for our life-style. All of our highways, whether it is a radio antenna, whether it is our power lines, our fishing, our farming, our environmental protection, we deal with the government in every phase of that. Many in the East do not have to deal with any phase of that, at least as it pertains to the issue of public and private lands. You own the lands. We do not in the West. It is the same thing. There is the same kind of differential that begins to emerge when we talk about building water storage facilities on public lands, when we talk about the importance of water storage in the West. Remember my earlier statistic, 73 percent of the water in this country is east of the Mississippi. Seventy-three percent of the surface water is east of the Mississippi. The western mountain region, that western area which is huge, which is about half of the United States, not quite but almost half of the United States in land mass, we have 14 percent of the water. Fourteen percent of the water, and almost half the land mass of the United States. So water storage is so, so critical for us out there. Finally, keep in mind what water storage, what it does. It provides flood control. It provides hydroelectricity. It provides recreation. And probably as important as anything that I have just mentioned, probably more important than anything that I have just mentioned, it allows us to save water and build up a reservoir so when we face the kind of drought conditions that we are facing today in the West, we have the capability to draw from that reservoir, at least from a limited period of time to try and get us through until the next snow season. Colleagues, I appreciate your time this evening. I appreciate the fact that I am allowed, and have this great privilege in this country to come to this House well and try to work with my colleagues in the East, Republican or Democrat, to tell you how important it is that you understand the geographical differences, the water differences between the eastern United States and the western United States. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time, and look forward to Members' cooperation on these issues in the future.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Pueblo Cooperative Care Center and congratulate all of its volunteers on reaching an extraordinary milestone. As the Center celebrates its 20th anniversary, it is my sincere pleasure to congratulate each and every volunteer on so many years of excellence in serving the Pueblo community and, indeed, the entire State. The efforts put forth by the Center have been extraordinary, and are appreciated by each and every person whose lives it has touched. For 20 years, the Pueblo Cooperative Care Center has worked diligently to better the lives of the needy in its community, and I, along with the many residents of Pueblo, am proud and thankful for what you have accomplished. For twenty years, the Cooperative Care Center has dedicated itself to enhancing the Pueblo community by helping those members who are less fortunate. In response to local steel mill layoffs in 1981, the center was created as a joint effort among a number of Pueblo churches in order to address the needs of unemployed workers and their families. During its tenure in the community, the Center has always operated with four objectives in mind: to reduce hunger in the community; to assist with clothing, transportation and limited prescriptions; to increase communication with all human resource agencies; and to provide recipients with information concerning other programs available to help needy families. The organization has truly done an extraordinary job in its determination to enhance its community and the lives of each and every citizen that resides within it. Its diligence and hard work has, indeed, paid off, and the contributions that the Center has made over its twenty years of service is immeasurable. - Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to be able to congratulate each and every volunteer from the Pueblo Cooperative Care Center on this historic occasion, and wish each of them all the best in what I'm sure will be an even more eventful and exciting next twenty years. I commend each of you for your work in ensuring that the needs of the community are addressed, and I am delighted to bring the efforts of such an extraordinary organization to the attention of this body of Congress. Keep up the great work; I look forward to the next twenty years!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life and memory of Carl Edwin McMillen who recently passed away in Montrose, Colorado. Carl was a valued member of the Montrose community and he will be deeply missed by those whose lives he touched. Carl's memory will continue to live on through his devoted wife, children, grandchildren, and friends and as they mourn his loss, I think it is appropriate that we remember Carl for his many contributions throughout his life. Born, adopted and raised in Kansas, Carl graduated from high school in Winona, Kansas and went on to attend college in the city of McPherson. There he met his wife of sixty years, Betty and together they raised five children, later in life enjoying thirteen grandchildren and two great-grand children. As an orphan, Carl always took great pride and joy in his large and ever growing family and was known throughout the community as a kind and caring patriarch. Carl served this country in WWII as a surgical technician in the United States Army Medical Corps. For his service to this Nation, he was awarded the World War II Victory Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, and the American Theater Medal. In 1964, Carl and his family moved to Colorado eventually ending up in Montrose. Carl served the people of his community for over twenty years at Montrose Memorial Hospital and after his retirement, continued to volunteer his time and experience to the hospital as a medical records clerk and van driver. A devoted Christian and member of the Montrose Christian Church, Carl felt strongly that anyone who wanted to attend church should have the chance to do so. As a result, he was frequently seen on Sundays driving hospital patients to and from services. In addition to his church service, he remained occupied with gardening, singing, the Lions Club, the Chipeta Chapter of the Colorado Archaeological Society, and the Moore Demoret 17 Chapter of the Disabled American Veterans. - Mr. Speaker, after a long and full life, Carl passed away at the age of 81 of cancer. Carl had courageously faced the disease that would attack his body but never could touch his gentle spirit. Those who survive him must certainly feel lucky to have enjoyed him in their lives. It is a great honor to bring the life and compassion of Carl Edwin McMillen to the attention of this body of Congress and this nation. He was a gracious man and will be dearly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Bob Meisner and thank him for his extraordinary contributions to his community and to his State. As a resident of Rifle, Colorado, Bob has dedicated himself to improving the Rifle community and the State by selflessly giving his time and energy to his job, his family, and his community. His remarkable business and philanthropic accomplishments are surpassed only by the hard work and dedication that he has poured into each and everything he has done. As we celebrate his tremendous accomplishment of earning the Rifle Chamber of Commerce, John Scalzo Lifetime Achievement Award, let it be known that I, along with the people of Rifle, applaud his efforts and are eternally grateful for all that he has done for his State and his community. At the age of 72, Bob is most deserving of this lifetime achievement award, and I am honored to be able to bring his achievements to light. He began his extraordinary career in realty in 1955, beginning with a service station, and later a Phillips 66. After working for some time in the real estate business, he started Rifle Realty in 1973. Originally intended to capitalize on the shale boom in Rifle, the company was forced to reinvent itself as a property management company after the shale bust in 1982. Bob's ability to guide the business through both good times and bad is what truly differentiates him, and helped make him an unparalleled business leader in his community. He recently sold the business, so he could spend more time traveling with his wife, Lois. Throughout his career, Bob has been active in the Rifle Chamber of Commerce, serving as president in 1973 and being named person of the year in 1975. He has also been active in the fire department, the hospital district board and has served on both the Rifle home rule charter committee and as a council member. His philanthropic interests have further served to set him apart in his community, and have earned him much well deserved respect throughout Rifle. Bob is truly a remarkable man, always eager to give his time and energy to the community, through both his professional and philanthropic endeavors. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Bob Meisner is a man of unparalleled dedication and commitment to his job, his community and his family. It is his unrelenting passion for each and every thing he does, as well as his spirit of honesty and selflessness with which he has always conducted himself, that I wish to bring before this body of Congress. Bob Meisner has achieved extraordinary things and enriched the lives of so many people, and it is my privilege to extend to him my sincere congratulations on earning the Rifle Chamber of Commerce, John Scalzo Lifetime Achievement Award, and wish him all the best in the future.