Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by some of the comments of the previous speaker. Who does not want peace? But this speaker criticizes the administration because they have not engaged in diplomacy? I wonder what the speaker would recommend after September 11. Should the United States of America have called bin Laden and said, ``Let us engage in diplomacy''? I would say, with all due respect to the previous speaker, take a look at the history of dealing with Yasser Arafat. Take a look at how many administrations have tried to engage, have come up with different types of agreements. The only common denominator we see throughout that history of engagement is Yasser Arafat. Take a look at every administration. I am amazed that one would have the gumption, I guess we would say, to stand up here and criticize this administration because they are not engaging in ``diplomacy.'' Some Members of Congress, some of us sometimes, and I refer to all of us as Members of Congress, since when do we know all of what is going on in the Middle East? Maybe before we are so critical of the administration in the height of a crisis in the Middle East, maybe we ought to learn a little bit about what goes on behind closed doors, what are those negotiations that are taking place. What do we expect Israel to do? What we would do if suicide bombers kept coming into our shopping malls or came over on Passover? That bomb, that suicide bomber on Passover would be like coming into America on Christmas Eve and blowing up Santa Claus. What do we think the response of that country is going to be? Every nation in this world has an inherent, an inherent right, in fact, an inherent obligation to protect their population, to protect their people. What do we think the United States of America, and I refer to the previous speaker, what do we think the United States of America would do if somebody started walking into our shopping malls with suicide bombers? Do we think we would engage in a diplomatic fashion with the aggressors? No, we would not engage with them, any more than we would engage in diplomatic discussions with bin Laden. Once we knew that bin Laden was the person who was in charge, who coordinated, who ordered that devastating blow against our Nation on September 11, I did not hear one American, with the exception of maybe a couple of Congressmen, I did not hear one other American say, gosh, we ought to dial up Mr. bin Laden and we ought to sit down with him and have some diplomatic discussions with him. My gosh, Mr. bin Laden, look what you have done. You have killed 3,000 people in America. You have killed hundreds of people from 80 separate countries. You have killed men. You have killed women. You have killed children. You have killed mothers. You have killed fathers. You have killed sisters. You have killed brothers. But, Mr. bin Laden, let us sit down and have a diplomatic discussion with you, because if we do not sit down and have a diplomatic discussion with you, we must not be as the previous speaker said, ``engaged,'' and that is upon the premise which the previous speaker criticizes this administration. Look, I think before one criticizes the President or before one criticizes Colin Powell or before one criticizes the efforts, one ought to know what is going on behind closed doors. What are the facts? What kind of contacts have they had? And regardless of where you stand on the issue, what country in the world can continue to sustain suicide bombers coming in with devastating blows against their innocent population? These are not military strikes. These bombers do not have enough guts to meet at the O.K. Corral and have a showdown on Main Street. Instead, they sneak in the back door of a department store and blow it to smithereens. I heard on Public Radio the other day, Public Radio had this long discussion about a Palestinian woman who was pregnant and who was about to deliver, but she could not deliver because the Israel military had occupied the street and they could not get an ambulance to her so she had to deliver in her home. Not once during that discussion on Public Radio, not once did we hear any kind of discussion about that pregnant mother that was blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber, no chance at all. We have got to be a little fair in our approach here. I am amazed, to me, the more and more I hear the anti-Jewish rhetoric, the anti-Israel rhetoric, I would like to ask any of you who are perpetrators of that kind of comment, what would you do if somebody walked in one of your relative's house and blew it to smithereens? Do as the previous speaker said? Call them on the phone and say let us have some diplomatic engagement or be subject to criticism because you went over and you tried to eliminate the person who has done everything they can to destroy you. I am no expert on the Middle East. I read about it every day. I spent time today flying on the plane, most of my time; my reading was on the Middle East. I grab all the information I can about the Middle East. But I am awful careful before I jump out and criticize the administration on their policy on the Middle East unless I think I have got a better answer. And, frankly, I do not know what the solution in the Middle East is. But I do not think the solution is to criticize our leaders because they have not sat down so-called sat down and had diplomatic engagement. Anybody that alleges that there has not been diplomatic engagement in the Middle East shows a very clear demonstration of a lack of knowledge of history. There has been time and time and time again of diplomatic engagement in the Middle East. Of course, everybody wants to settle it peacefully. We would like to have settled issues peacefully prior to September 11. But sometimes the aggressor offers you no choice. Do you realistically think that on September 12 America thought that one of the options we had was to sit down with bin Laden and to have ``diplomatic engagement'' with this villain, with this man so full of hatred that he killed thousands of innocent people with one strike? And if he is alive, you can be sure he is not thinking about diplomatic engagement. He is not thinking about anything to further his religion. He is thinking about an evil strike, how else can he get back at the United States of America. Tell me what the mind was, what kind of sound minds of these suicide bombers or these perpetrators, for example, on September 11. They did not target one specific group. They did not care whether they were Muslims. They killed Muslims in those towers. There were people of the Islam faith that were killed. They killed people of 50 different nationalities from 80 different countries. They did not discriminate between men and women, between children and mothers and fathers and so on. Sometimes I am surprised at the remarks, although having been here for a few years I am getting kind of used to it; but sometimes I am a little surprised at the remarks made on this House floor, and especially to have in my opinion to stand up here at the height, hours after they have just had another event in the Middle East and to have some who would describe it as audacity to criticize this administration because they have not sat down and held hands and talked peace. Again, it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the history of the Middle East. I think all of us would be much further ahead, and I think it would advance the interests of this country and advance the interests of our constituents if, when we discuss a subject like the Middle East, at least we have some extensive background in it, at least we come in with some historical knowledge of the subject of which we offer ourselves experts. I think we ought to have that responsibility. I do not think we ought to come in here half-cocked and start criticizing the administration in the Middle East hours after what is alleged to be, I do not know what is on the TV, alleged to be a 10- year-old suicide bomber, a 13-year-old suicide bomber. Tell me how you can sit down with people who would take a young child, strap bombs on them and throw an ambush in against another country, and you tell me about diplomatic engagement. Talk to me about a bomber that goes in on Passover, which again is like Christmas Eve, like blowing up Santa Claus at Christmas here in the United States, tell me how many people would be excited to have diplomatic engagement with those kind of people. Let us be honest about it; there are evil people in the world, and there are people that have to be dealt with on their own terms. There are a lot of people in this world that they do not like this touchy- feely stuff; they do not understand that kind of thing. They understand strength and they understand fear. And if they can get fear over strength, that is exactly how they weaken the strong. Now, I do not mean to get all riled up up here, but I think all of us have an obligation whether the administration is Democrat or Republican, I think we all have an obligation before we criticize the administration within hours of a suicide bomber, that we learn a little information instead of standing up here and saying no diplomatic engagement. What we need is engagement, engagement. Give me a break. Look at the history of the Middle East. We are trying to figure out the answer. There is engagement 24 hours a day over there in the Middle East. Some of the brightest scholars our country has ever produced have not figured out what to do in the Middle East. I would be awful careful. I would be a little cautious about criticizing people who are a lot more engaged in the Middle East than those of us sitting on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is not to take away the right to question, or the right to visit with these people or understand that history and then have a debate here. But gosh darn it, we ought to learn a little bit more about the subject before we pretend to be expert on the floor. I listened to the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Weldon) discussion, who was two or three speakers back. I commend what the gentleman said. I think a lot of what the gentleman said, a lot of what he pointed out was accurate. How do you address the situation where somebody continually sends suicide bombers, not against your military targets, but against your shopping malls, against your citizens, into restaurants, one of them was a wedding reception? I think the gentleman's points were pretty valid. The Middle East is a tough situation. Afghanistan is a tough situation. OPEC, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) said it very well. Take a look at OPEC. OPEC, so-called allies of ours, OPEC has taken every advantage they can to manipulate the price of oil so that they can take a lot of those revenues, frankly, and direct them against U.S. interests. Now look, it is a free market system. We are capitalists, and OPEC has a right to do that. But we should not just sit by and be idle. What happens? Take a look at the old Adam Smith theory. If you come into a community and you have a product that people need, but you continue to gouge the people and gouge the people and gouge the people, and you have a capitalistic society like our society is, what happens? Somebody in that community is going to say, you know something, the gentleman's product over there, the product he is selling, he is gouging us on it. I think I can get a product that offers the same benefits his product does. I can sell it at a cheaper price. I will not gouge the people. I will sell more of the product, and in the long run I will actually make more money. I think that kind of leads us into a discussion I wanted to talk about this evening and that is energy and production of energy in this country. I have heard, and unfortunately, without trying to be too partisan, but it is reality, it is kind of a general philosophy of the Democratic side, well, what we need to do is more alternative energy methods, and we need to conserve more, but no more exploration or limit the exploration. Let us go into conservation and alternative energy. I agree with two of the three points that the Democrats are saying. In fact, a lot of what they have said on the first two points were presented by the Republican side. Number one, of course, we ought to look for alternative energy. That is exactly what happened in my previous example here. The guy comes into town. He starts gouging on a product. The people in the community start looking for alternatives so they are not subject to the rule of that individual. That is exactly what we have to do with energy. I wholeheartedly endorse, wholeheartedly endorse that we look for alternative methods of production of energy. But that does not mean we should go on some white elephant chase. We hear continually if you do not subsidize this or you do not subsidize that, you do not support alternative energy. The fact is it has got to make some sense. It has got to have a realistic chance of succeeding, and then I think the government should get behind it. We have been able to develop a lot of things throughout the history of our Nation. Our Nation is one of the greatest nations in the history of the world because of our innovative capabilities, because of our innovation. And when the challenge is in front of us, we can accomplish that. Even that said, it will take some time. Twenty years from now, 30 years from now I project that people back then will look at the way we transmit electricity through wires and say, Why did they ever use wires? They will have some other type of system to transmit electricity. They will look back at what we had today and say, Wow, what an antiquated way to provide our energy. Their furnaces will probably be the size of a drinking cup. There are lots of things that will change in the next 30 years, but it will take time. In the meantime, conservation alone, which is very, very, very important, will not fill the gap between oil needs and oil production. What fills that gap right now is OPEC. And the less we are able to produce out of our own resources, the more we have to buy from OPEC. The more we buy from OPEC, the more we feed this problem in the Arab countries, the more we provide resources for these countries to turn around and use them against us and the more susceptible we become to their whims. For example, yesterday, Saddam Hussein, our old pal over there in Iraq, a guy who poisons his own populations, decides on a whim we will stop, no more production for the United States and Israel, no more oil for the next 30 days or until Israel pulls out of the occupied lands, whichever comes later. You know, what we have become is dependent on madmen like this. The tail is trying to wag the dog. That is exactly what is out there. That is why unlike people who say, look, the only way out of this energy crisis is conservation and alternative energy, the fact is there is a third element, and that is you have got to continue to produce resources until these other two completely fill, or significantly fill, that gap. I think the easiest thing every one of us can do, every person in this Nation can do is conservation. And it is really easy to do. There is a lot of conservation that can take place without an inconvenience to your life-style. There is a lot of conservation that we can do that is of no pain, no economic pain to you. As I just said, no inconvenience to your life-style. But we have got to do it. All of us can participate in it. For example, a hot summer coming up. Instead of having the air conditioning set at 68, see if you can get by with 70. Just think, across the country if we had everybody doing that, trying not to idle your car so much, if we just walked out of the room and shut the light off after we left the room, think how much electricity we could conserve. Take a look at water, and water is a sensitive area for me. I come from the West. My district is Colorado. It is the only State in the Union where all of our free-flowing water goes out. We have no water coming in. Conservation benefits us a lot but conservation alone will not fill the cup that we need filled. Conservation, we have got a bucket and we have got to go get so much water in that bucket to feed our cows or we have problems, and we do not have an alternative yet that is going to fill up much of the bucket. It puts a little water in the bucket. Conservation puts a little more, but the fact is we have got to drill a well. We have got to get some water out of there or we cannot feed the cows. That is as simple as it is. So what I am urging my colleagues to do is let us accept the reality that we have to look for production. We have to continue to produce from our own resources, while at the same time urging our constituents and the citizens of this Nation to conserve, while at the same time supporting, giving incentive and encouraging alternative energy production. There are lots of exciting things out there, but we are not there yet but we will be there. I want to tell my colleagues about an experience. I wish I would have brought it today. Oh, probably a year ago, I was on an airplane and I sat next to a young person, very bright, very capable, it seemed to me. She was about, I guess, 21 years old. I asked her what she was studying, what she wanted to do, and she said what she wanted to do was study energy and how to capture energy in ocean waves. There is energy that is produced every time that water moves. I thought that was pretty interesting. Then pretty soon she says, look, pulling out a little piece of paper about this long, probably about, oh, an inch and a half long, and probably a half an inch wide, and at the end of it, it had two wires and on the end of the two wires, it was connected to a small light bulb. I do not know what was in the paper material, but there was some kind of material that would conduct power, electricity, and she would wave it like this and the light would come on. She said, there is so much energy in the world that we are not capturing. She said, we think that if we can do that, we can really supply lot of energy needs for our country. I was pretty excited about it, and that is how our energy is going to be produced one of these days. But in the meantime, do not pretend that we are not relying upon oil. We have got to have those resources. And if you are going to be one of those that do not think we need to be relying on oil, who objects across the board, not to a specific area, where digging oil, for example, might be objectionable to the particular environmental conditions around that particular site, but if you are one of these people that just across the board opposes that kind of production, then you ought to not just talk the talk, you ought to walk the walk. Quit driving your car, quit riding your mountain bike that is made of different resources. I mean, everything we have is reliant on that product, our medicines. I ride a mountain bike. That is why I used it as an example. I could not have my mountain bike if I did not have those kind of resources available. I could not have the vehicle that we need to get around on our roads in Colorado. We would not have heat, et cetera. My colleagues know the story. Obviously it is a reasonable approach to take, but it is not a reasonable approach to say stop oil production or no more oil production or do not even bring up the debate of exploring more oil in Alaska. Or, if we do bring up the debate, let us debate solely on a motion, not on facts. Unfortunately, on the House floor, a lot of the decisions we make are driven by emotion. Has anyone ever wondered when they look at legislation, I do not care whether it is at the State level, maybe even the city level, I have never worked at the city level, but at the State level or the Federal level, has anyone ever noticed that legislation always has a great name to it? Save the animal organization, save the planet, or save small business, et cetera? There is a reason for that, because a lot of the debate on this floor and a lot of debate in the legislative arenas throughout this country are based on emotion. There are times that while that may be appropriate, there are times where we have an obligation as elected representatives of the people, we have an obligation to stand back and make a decision based also on facts. What are the realities that we are dealing with? If something has not brought it to our attention in the last 48 hours, when a renegade country like Iraq that is obviously producing weapons of mass destruction for use against one target, the United States of America, decides they are going to stop their oil production, maybe it ought to wake us up a little more and say we ought to be ready for this. What if that oil embargo begins to spread throughout the Middle East? The United States must become less dependent, not more dependent, on foreign oil resources, and the only way we can do it is to continue to advance our technology to develop the resources that we have, while at the same time figuring out alternatives for the future, while at the same time encouraging our populations to conserve. As I said earlier, we do not have to go out to our constituents and ask for a great sacrifice for them to conserve. There are a lot of things a lot of us can do in our everyday living that can help conserve energy that will not impact us at all, like turning off the light switch. I mean, even if we do not run the water the whole time we brush our teeth, put the toothpaste on the toothbrush, put a little water on there, brush our teeth, have our water off, then have the water on, the average person runs, by the time they are done brushing their teeth, if they brush their teeth for the 2-minute prescribed time to keep away from the dentist, how many gallons of water run through the sink, if one has the faucet on? Two or 3 gallons of water for someone to brush their teeth. These are the kind of things if we just turn it off while we are brushing, brushed and then turned it back on, we would probably use less than a tenth of a gallon. Those are simple things. They did not impact us. Our teeth are not any less clean and we feel better because we have helped with a challenge that our country faces. There are a number of obligations that as Congressmen I think we owe to the people that we represent. One of them is the future, to secure this Nation for the future, and it means not only secure the Nation in the future for energy, not only to secure the future generations for things like education and health care and a good economy and a government that does not override the ability for individual freedom, the right of private property ownership. These are all elements that are very strong that I think have to be passed to the next generation. I also I think what must be passed to the next generation is the necessity to be strong, strong in security for our people, and a part of that is assuring that we have the natural resources to defend ourselves against blackmail by a country like Iraq, against security threats by renegades like bin Laden. On September 11, a lot of people said what a huge hit against the United States. Obviously it was a horrible, horrible disaster for the United States of America. But take a look at the things that went right. It did not cripple the United States of America. Oh, sure it hurt us, and many, many, many families suffered horrible tragedies. Our country suffered but our country did not buckle. Our country responded because previous people, people ahead of us that served in Congress, prepared this country over decades, prepared us in the sense that we have a strong National Guard, prepared us in the sense that we have a strong Army and Marine Corps and Air Force; that we had the capability through our intelligence services to figure out who did this grievous act to us; that we had the hospital facilities and the EMTs and the firefighters and the police officers and the local organizations and the statewide organizations and the monetary contribution of our citizens to keep on our feet. We kept on our feet. They did not knock us off our feet. They broke a rib, but they did not knock us off our feet. That is because the great leaders of this country have prepared this country in the same sense that we have to prepare this country for the future, and that is the capability to sustain an attack, to be able to turn around and stop the attacker in a military sense. What is going on in the world today is tragic. What is going on in the Middle East, obviously. I mean, I wish my colleagues knew the solution. I am not sure anybody has got it figured out there yet, but the reality of it is that no matter how long we pray, I know it is very helpful, and I do it a lot, no matter how long we pray, no matter how much we hope, and touchy-feely things we do, the reality of it is the world will never know total peace, but we can go a long way towards that. The best way we can go towards that is to negotiate from a position of strength, and that is exactly what the United States, its leadership in the past, they have placed our country in a position of strength, and that is the obligation that every one of us on this House floor has to future generations, to continue to keep this great Nation of ours in a position of strength, to allow this great Nation and its future generations to go forward from a position of strength. From a position of strength this great Nation has helped hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. From this position of strength our Nation can help many, many other nations throughout the world. We can help escape poverty. We can help escape tyrannism. We can help escape communism. And we can go on and on, but it all starts with the core of our strength. We cannot help our neighbor if we are not strong. We need to be strong. We are strong, but we need our commitment to stay strong. That means a strong defense. That means a strong educational system. That means a strong welcome system. It means a strong energy policy. Working together, I think we can continue the strength of this great Nation. So I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future, but let me summarize by saying a couple of things. Number one, I think it is a mistake for my colleagues to take this microphone, as I witnessed this evening, and criticize this administration for not being diplomatically engaged, as if diplomatic engagement has not taken place in the Middle East for decades. I am amazed that while we have a great deal of knowledge available to us, while we can have classified briefings, and many of us receive classified briefings on countries of our choice and so on and so forth, our level of knowledge and our level of expertise on the Middle East, for example, is somewhat limited. I would venture to say that the administration, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, obviously the President, have a little bit more access and a little bit more knowledge of what is going on over in the Middle East minute by minute. We simply have not been able to make ourselves available to that. So before we criticize the persons that have the knowledge, before we are so critical from the House floor, my colleagues ought to learn a little bit more exactly what is occurring. Because while we were speaking this evening, bullets have flown over there, and it is amazing that while machine gunfire is taking place, while allegedly 10-year-old or 13-year-old suicide bombers are running in to kill one side or the other, it is a little surprising to hear one of our Congressmen or the Congress as a whole maybe, which has not happened, I guess particular colleagues of mine, to stand up here and say, well, we have not diplomatically engaged. If any of us have a better idea that is going to work, not just to get publicity back in our district, if someone has really got an idea that is going to work, if they think they have got a solution for it, advance it. Do not wait till nighttime on special orders to come down here and say, well, how easy it is to criticize you because you are not a diplomatically engaged administration, and what we ought to do, hope for peace, that is how we solve the situation in the Middle East. We want peace. All peace-loving Americans want peace, and I am quoting directly from some of the previous comments. Well, that is a nice statement to make, but how are we going to solve the problem? What are the nuts and the bolts of the solution? When we have a crisis like the Middle East, I get a little impatient, as I would hope my colleagues get a little impatient, with one of us standing up here and constantly criticizing the administration but never coming up with a solution of their own. Mr. Speaker, the easiest thing in the world is to criticize. The toughest thing in the world is to lead. I have seen a lot of criticism, but I am not sure how much leadership I am seeing. I am trying to learn everything I can about the situation in the Middle East, and I hope that the administration is doing the right thing; and I have placed my faith in this administration, as I have placed my faith in the United States. I think we are doing the right thing with what we have and what we know. I hope that our common sense leads us to some type of solution; but I can tell Members this, it would be a cold day in Members-know-where before I would jump up and make the criticisms while the guns are firing. I think we need to be a little more supportive.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention the story of a truly courageous young man from my district. Chance Kittel of Grand Junction, Colorado, has recently overcome great obstacles, and a potentially life long handicap, to beat the odds. Today, he lives a full and active life. It is my honor to tell the story of Chance today, for his life speaks volumes about courage in the face of difficult and trying circumstances. During Christmas of 1997, Chance and his family, like many families that time of year, were preparing their home with lights and decorations for the upcoming holiday season. It was during this time an unfortunate accident occurred and injured young Chance. As he and his father Randy were placing the lights over a tree, a power line was accidentally caught in the light string. As a result, Chance was badly burned, suffering second and third degree burns to his left arm, his head, and stomach. In saving his son's life, his father also suffered terrible burns to his arms as he pulled Chance free of the lights. After his initial treatment, Chance was taken to Children's Hospital and began a long ordeal of pain and suffering on the road back to recovery. Chance's forty-three day hospital stay involved numerous treatment techniques and surgeries to repair his badly damaged body. This initial stay was followed by returns to undergo five additional surgeries to complete his healing process. I am proud to report that today, Chance has recovered remarkably well and now leads a normal and active life. His recovery is amazing when you consider that at times, his hope of recovery was slim and potentially physically inhibiting. But Chance beat the odds, worked hard, put trust in his doctors and parents, Randy and Tori, and today is healed. Mr. Speaker, Chance's story is similar to this nation's as we move through these difficult and healing times. Many Americans suffered on that tragic day in September, and today they are on their own road to recovery. I believe Chance's optimism and story of recuperation is a symbol of hope to them all; that despite the odds and the obstacles in their way, they can persevere and recover their lives, as well. Chance, you have a bright future ahead, and if you continue to fight with the determination and diligence you have demonstrated in your struggle, there is nothing that will stand in your way. It is an honor to represent you and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to recognize the life and contributions of Otto ``Tink'' Snapp of Pueblo, Colorado who peacefully left us on a Monday morning, February 18, 2002. Tink was a popular member of the community and was often sought by many for his listening ear, advice, and warm smile. He served his country and fellow Coloradans for over a half century, and as his family and friends mourn his loss, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight his accomplishments and generosity to his fellow man. Tink began his service to this country in 1942 as a member of the Army Air Force in China, serving in the hostile China-Burma-India Theater. It was in this area during World War II that our nation fought and held Japanese advances into China. Tink, along with thousands of soldiers and airmen, braved the hazards of the environment to ensure that democracy and freedom reigned throughout the world. After the war, Tink returned to his native Pueblo and continued his service to his community as an employee of Minequa Bank. Over the years he served in several positions; beginning as the bank bike messenger and eventually rising to the position of executive vice president. Tink's is the kind of story that lends substance to the American Dream. His long career spanned almost fifty years, ending in 1994 with his retirement at the age of 75. Tink was well known throughout the community as an avid sportsfan who enjoyed a wide range of sports, from golf and tennis to basketball and softball. For over twenty-three years, he traveled as a referee at home and on the road to ensure fair and unbiased officiating for local Colorado sporting events. Tink also served his community as a deacon and elder of the First Presbyterian Church and as a member of his local Masonic Order, and the Colorado Bankers Association. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to Otto ``Tink'' Snapp for the great strides he took in establishing himself as a valuable leader in the Pueblo community. His loving wife Lorraine, sons Ronald and Bruce, and stepson Scott survive him. His dedication to family, friends, work, and the community certainly deserves the recognition of this body of Congress, and this nation. Although Tink has left us, his good-natured spirit lives on through the lives of those he touched. I would like to extend my regrets and deepest sympathies to his family and friends during their time of remembrance and bereavement.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Joe Jesik and recognize his contributions to this nation. A resident of Pueblo, Colorado, Joe began his service as a sailor during World War II when he joined the Navy and served in the Pacific Theatre. During his tour, Joe was stationed on the light cruiser USS Honolulu, which was involved in numerous engagements and battles throughout the South Pacific. He was recently awarded several decorations for his service over fifty years ago, and it is my pleasure to recognize his awards and service before this body of Congress and this nation today. The USS Honololu was in involved numerous engagements throughout the war and is credited with the sinking of a Japanese cruiser, four destroyers, and four enemy aircraft. Joe's exploits and service to his country were recently brought to light by his immediate family through a surprise ceremony attended by almost two hundred relatives. At the ceremony, Joe was presented with several long overdue decorations for his service to his nation during the war. Among the decorations awarded at the ceremony are the Navy Good Conduct Medal, the American Campaign Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, the Navy Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon, the Navy Unit Commendation Medal, and the Philippine Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon. Thanks to his loving family of twelve sons and daughters, and his dedicated wife Lucille, Joe is now properly recognized by his nation for his service to our armed forces and commitment to his nation. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege that I recognize Joe Jesik and his selfless sacrifice to this nation. Many men and women of his generation gave their lives long ago so that today we can enjoy the right and privilege of freedom. Joe Jesik served selflessly in a time of great need, bringing credit to himself, to his family, and a grateful nation. It is an honor to recognize the service of this veteran before this body of Congress today, as he certainly deserves the thanks of this grateful nation. Thanks Joe for your service, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and pay tribute to a wonderful woman and true caretaker of the community. Sister Marilyn Beavais of Pueblo, Colorado has dedicated her life to assisting others in times of hardship and great need. This year as she celebrates her fiftieth year as a nun and forty-seventh as a nurse, I would like to highlight her accomplishments and kind heart before this body of Congress. Last year, after a lifetime of volunteering for her community and its residents, Sister Marilyn retired from public service. She had been active with providing support and assistance to those in need through a wonderful organization known as Pueblo Services for Empowerment and Transformation for Well-Being. This organization, through efforts of volunteers like Sister Marilyn, has taught the less fortunate important skills and attitudes to improve their current standards of living. As a result of their kindness, many people today can credit the organization with providing the tools to improve their lives. Since retirement, Sister Marilyn still maintains an active schedule and now spends her time volunteering for St-Mary-Corwin's Good-Medicine program. This program assists the community with general healthcare screenings and checkups to ensure a healthy population throughout the area. Her nursing and gentle disposition are a vital contribution to helping those in need, and I cannot begin to tell you how proud I am of her efforts. Mr. Speaker, Sister Marilyn Beavais embodies the spirit of kindness and sacrifice that we all should strive for in our daily lives. She has helped many individuals in need over the years and I am proud to represent her in my district. Sister Marilyn has been a model citizen to the community and I extend my thanks to her and her efforts, and am proud to bring her accomplishments to the attention of this body of Congress. Keep up the good work Sister Marilyn, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I pay tribute today to Mr. John Woodard, an incredible man, who recently passed away at the age of 76. John was loved by each and every person whose life he touched, and he will be sorely missed by all who knew and loved him. He was a person of unquestioned integrity and of unparalleled morality, and is truly an inspiration to us all. As his family mourns his loss, I believe it is appropriate to remember John and pay tribute to him for his warm heart, and his many contributions to Saguache County and the State of Colorado. John was born and raised on his family's homestead just southeast of Saguache, Colorado, which was founded in the 1890s by his grandfather and great-uncle. He completed his higher education at Colorado State University, and then returned to the ranch, working with the land as both a rancher and a cowboy. John was a life-long rancher and ranching educator, creating pamphlets and other materials on the subject. During World War II, he took time off from ranching to serve his country in the Pacific theatre. John continued his service to his fellow citizens by becoming Saguache County Commissioner, selflessly serving three terms beginning in 1958. His service and dedication to his community and to his state are exactly the attributes that made John the incredible person that he was. I, along with the people of Saguache County, am grateful for all of the hard work and passion that he lent to his job and to his fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, we are all terribly saddened by the loss of John Woodard, but take comfort in the knowledge that our grief is overshadowed only by the legacy of courage, selflessness and love that he left with all of us. His dedication to the community of Saguache County was extraordinary, though his life was more so. John Woodard's life is the very embodiment of all that makes this country great, and I am deeply honored to be able to bring his life to the attention of this body of Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a young student from my district, Ryan Randall Patterson. His hard work and dedication have been rewarded with a great opportunity to pursue higher education and compete in one of the nation's most esteemed science competitions. Ryan recently won the 2002 Intel Science Talent Search, and as he celebrates his achievement, I would like to commend him for his determination and self-sacrifice in achieving this honor. I've personally met Ryan and words cannot explain how impressed I was with this young man and his achievements. He is certainly a well deserving recipient of this honor and I am pleased to represent him and his family in Colorado. Ryan, a student at Central High School in Grand Junction, designed and built a glove that translates American Sign Language into text on a portable screen. This invention has taken him to the international level in Intel's Science Talent Search, a competition that he won both this year and last. This incredible invention is just the latest in a long list of electronic devices that Ryan has developed over the years. Ryan's fascination with electronics began in the third grade on a simple circuit board, and he has been exploring new possibilities in electronics ever since. His curiosity and determination have certainly paid off. At 18 years of age, Ryan has won over $192,000 in scholarships, $15,750 in cash, two laptop computers, and two trips to Sweden to attend the Nobel Prize ceremonies. Throughout all of his achievements, Ryan has maintained his integrity and modesty. He hopes to use his gift for electronics and inventing to improve people's lives, particularly the lives of the disabled. Mr. Speaker, the innovation and commitment demonstrated by Ryan Randall Patterson certainly deserves the recognition of this body of Congress, and this nation. Ryan's achievements serve as a symbol to aspiring science students throughout Colorado, and indeed the entire nation. The recognition that Ryan has received is proof that hard work, attention to your studies, and a passionate pursuit of your goals can lead to great rewards. The opportunities offered as a result of winning the 2001 and 2002 Intel Science Talent Search are incredible and they certainly are going to a well deserving individual. Congratulations Ryan, and good luck in your future endeavors. You are a future leader in this country, and I am quite confident that this will not be the last honor you receive.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life and memory of Raymond Harold Peterson who recently passed away in Grand Junction, Colorado on February 17, 2002. Raymond, also known as Ray, will always be remembered as a dedicated contributor to his community and this nation. His passing is a great loss for his family and a town that relied on Ray for his kind heart, knowledge, and friendship. Raymond was born in Iowa in 1920 and served his country gallantly in World War II. As a member of the U.S. Army Fourth Infantry Division, Raymond served in Germany during the latter part of the war. His actions and wounds were recognized several times throughout the course of the war, notably with the Bronze Star Medal for Valor and the Purple Heart Medal for wounds sustained in combat. Following his service to his country in the war, Raymond married his sweetheart Kathleen in November of 1945, eventually settling in Colorado. There he worked for the General Services Administration at the Denver Federal Center until his retirement in 1967. Raymond remained involved in his community throughout his life and was often found immersed in his true passion, nature. He is survived by his loving wife Kathleen, daughters Judith and Connie, and several grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I know the passing of a love one is difficult, but I hope his family finds comfort in knowing that Raymond's kindness and generosity will live on through his family and friends. Mr. Speaker, Raymond Peterson will be greatly missed by the many whose lives he has touched in the community, and this nation. As a veteran, Raymond fought to uphold the values that we as Americans cherish dearly today and throughout his career he worked for his fellow citizens. I am grateful to Raymond and the many others of his generation who gave of themselves selflessly so that we may enjoy the freedom of democracy today. It is with a solemn heart that we say goodbye and pay our respects to a patriarch of the Peterson family and the Grand Junction community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome home an outstanding Marine and true American hero. Marine Cpl. Christopher Chandler recently returned home from protecting and fighting for our country in Afghanistan. As a young marine, Christopher traveled far from American soil to ensure that the attacks of September 11th on this country would not go unanswered. He has recently returned home to Colorado and I would like tell his story before this body of Congress and this nation. Corporal Christopher Chandler is a member of the 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division of the 15th Marine Expeditionary unit. He was stationed at the Kandahar International Airport in Afghanistan to ensure peace reigned in the region. While on patrol on December 16th, he was injured in an enemy blast, resulting in the loss of his left foot and injury to his hand. Following initial treatment, he was moved to Walter Reed Army Medical Center where he recently finished the initial healing process and began rehabilitation. For wounds sustained in combat, Christopher Chandler was awarded the Purple Heart medal. As his rehabilitation continues, Christopher thrives on the tenacity he demonstrated in his endeavor to become a United States Marine. He has refused to let his injury harm his spirit and has recovered remarkably strong. Believe it or not, Christopher now desires to return to active service. He is a remarkable young man, and if he continues to prod ahead through his life with the diligence and commitment to success he has achieved thus far, there is no limit to his future potential. Mr. Speaker, I am truly honored today to recognize Corporal Christopher Chandler before this body of Congress and this nation. His selfless sacrifice to his country serves as a model for all Americans who desire to serve their country in the most difficult and trying of circumstances. Many young men and women are now serving their nation without regard to personal safety to ensure we enjoy the freedoms our forefathers paid for so many years ago. We are proud of and honor you Christopher, good luck with your recovery, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding individual from Penrose, Colorado. Over the years, Dale Sherfey has distinguished himself as a businessman, a community leader, and a vital participant in maintaining civic responsibilities throughout the region. Dale's achievements are impressive, and it is my honor to recognize several of those accomplishments today. Dale is a generous soul whose good deeds and actions certainly deserve the recognition he has recently received. Dale is the owner and operator of a local feed store in Penrose, a successful business he has run for many years. He has carried on a long tradition of quality guidance and service to his many clients in the area, resulting in an operation dedicated to remaining true to high standards of honesty and integrity. His success in the industry has led to several honors including a recent tribute presented by the Colorado House of Representatives. Throughout his success, Dale and wife Kathy, have remained active in their community. They have actively volunteered their time and energies to many local community organizations and Dale is frequently seen about the area lecturing to 4-H groups and farmers. Mr. Speaker, Dale Sherfey's achievements have also recently been rewarded by his community through the Penrose Chamber. The chamber named Dale the Penrose Chamber Distinguished Citizen of the Year, an award given to an outstanding and well deserving individual who has selflessly given of themselves to directly benefit their community. It is now my honor to congratulate Dale on his most recent and well- deserved award from this organization by bringing his good deeds to the attention of this body of Congress, and this nation. Dale, you have been a model citizen for Penrose and Colorado and I extend my thanks for your efforts. Keep up the good work and good luck to you and your wife Kathy in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not disagree with the gentleman. My sensitivity arose when I heard one of my colleagues talk about how Americans are taking a pass on the war in Afghanistan. We have disputes here regarding our budget, and we have disputes on which programs ought to be funded and which ought not to be funded; but I can tell my colleagues, there are some who stand up on one hand and say we need a balanced budget. On the other hand, when a huge bill like a farm bill or highway bill comes which has an impact on your district, you vote for those projects. That is where you get into problems here. I am just saying if you are going to preach the good word, you ought to follow the good word. That is all I am saying. Let me move on to the issue that I came here primarily to address this evening. I find myself continually taking the microphone on the House floor to try and talk and have a conversation about those of us who live in the West, our issues in the West compared with those issues that you deal with in the East. Instead of taking on a whole gamut of issues, I have tried to narrow it down to two specific issues I want to cover in the next few weeks, issues of which there are distinct geographical lines between the eastern United States and the western United States. Those two issues are, number one, water; number two, public lands. Tonight I intend spending most of my time on public lands, but I think it is important to cover first of all the water issue. The eastern United States has suffered from a drought this year, including the Rocky Mountains. Colorado, where I come from, we have not had the kind of snowfall we are accustomed to. But on an average year in the East, one of your big problems is getting rid of the water. Our problem is storing the water. Unfortunately, when the good Lord made our country, the good Lord did not equally divide the water resources with the population. The good Lord did not spread the water equally across the country. In fact, if Members look at the map of the United States, and if I drew a line that went from here, that came down probably about like this, and then up about here, this section of the country to my left would have 73 percent of the water. So this section would have 73 percent of the water in the country. If you went over here in the Northeast and took a little box like this and came down here, so you intersect at this point right here, that section of the country would have about 13 percent of the water. Then the balance of the country, this huge portion right here, the portion where I live, has 14 percent of the water, although it has over half the land mass of the Nation. So water is a huge difference between the West and East. The State of Colorado, our lowest elevation is about 3,500 or 3,400 feet. Colorado is the highest State in the Nation. It is the highest area of the continent, the Rocky Mountains. Colorado is the only State in the Union that has no incoming water for its use. All of the water in the State of Colorado flows out for other people's use. The Colorado River, for example, when we compare it to the Mississippi, it is not as big as compared to the Mississippi, but it is critical in the West. The Colorado River supplies water for 23 States, 24 million people, probably more now because that statistic is a couple of years old; 24 million people depend on that water for their drinking water. The Colorado River is one of five rivers that have their headwaters in the State of Colorado. We have the Rio Grande, the Platte, the Arkansas, the Colorado, et cetera. That is why they call Colorado the Mother of Rivers. But water is something that I urge my eastern colleagues, when we have issues that come up and we hear about our dam storage projects or Lake Powell or Lake Mead, do not summarily agree with some of the more radical movements in our country that say those dams ought to be taken down. These dams are critical for our existence in the West. In the West from a State like Colorado, for a period of about 60 to 90 days we have all of the water we could possibly use. When does that period of time fall? That period of time falls starting about right now. It is called the spring runoff. In Colorado we have over 300 days of sunshine a year, but that does not mean that it is warm enough to melt the snow. This time of year we get temperatures close to 70 degrees and drop down to 20 degrees at night. The spring is starting. Those massive amounts of snow that have accumulated in the mountains will begin this runoff. For this 60- to 90-day period of time, water is plentiful; and that usually does not coincide with the time of need for agriculture. Most of the water across our country is used for agriculture. It is not used for direct human consumption, although obviously going into agriculture, it ends up in human consumption. It is that period of time after the 60 to 90 days that we are concerned. We have to have the ability to store the water. If we take a look back at the Native Americans and the first people that occupied the West to the best of our knowledge, you will find that they stored water. Why? Because you cannot exist in that country without the storage of water. We do not have enough water on a continual basis that comes down for us to be able to exist year round. That is why we have those storage projects; and, unfortunately, we cannot ever really time what days are going to be the warmest days. Some years the sun in Colorado, which is almost always out during the day, the sun in Colorado sometimes heats up faster than we thought. Days in March, for example, which we thought would be around 40 or 50 degrees may jump up to 70 degrees. So the water may run off sooner than expected. There are a lot of factors of nature we have to deal with; and, yes, we have to alter nature, not alter nature where there is permanent damage, but to provide for mankind. We cannot just ignore the use of the water. We have to divert and grow our crops. I ask for understanding because I know that in some of these upcoming bills, including the farm bill, there are I think people with good behavior, colleagues with good intent, who are inserting water language in things like the farm bill that do not impact people in the East because they do not deal with the issue. The water law in the West is different than the water law in the East, but the ramifications to the people of the West on some of the water language that is being inserted in some of these bills is huge. It has very significant impacts, and rarely does an Eastern Congressman insert into a bill language dealing with water that has a beneficial or a positive meaning for water in the West. We constantly find ourselves in the West, because we have the smallest population in the country, we constantly find ourselves under siege when it comes to issues of water. I am asking for more understanding from my colleagues of the East because a lot of people depend on that water that comes out of the West. A lot of my colleagues that are from the East do not really know. I bet some did not know until tonight that our water law is significantly different than the water law in the East. Take a look at what the water laws are for the State of Massachusetts or the State of Kentucky, and compare it to the water laws of the State of Colorado or the State of Utah. We have two entirely different systems, water systems, and the law recognizes that. That is why we have two distinct sets of water laws for those States. But it is unfair for one State to impose obligations or to impose some kind of commitment on another State's water system when that State does not have a clear understanding of the water law of the other State. Or, unfortunately, in some cases they do have a clear understanding of the damage that that language will do to water in the West, and they intentionally insert it in. That is why we in the West constantly feel we have to be on guard, especially when it comes to our water issues. We could talk about water for the rest of the evening, but I want to cover that in more detail later on. I want to talk about now the other distinct difference between the East and the West, and that is our lands. Public lands. Public lands are just exactly how it sounds, lands owned by the public, lands owned by the government. In the East, there are very few lands that are owned by the government. In the East, when we first settled this country, of course, our population came in the East. Our primary population was on the East Coast. The idea, when our country was first settled, that the government would own the land was only an idea of temporary duration. People were trying to get away from the British throne where the government controlled you. They wanted independence. They wanted the ability to cultivate their own lands. They wanted the ability to own land, to have the right of private property. And so when our country was first settled, any lands that were owned by the government or conquered by the government or purchased by the government were very quickly turned over to private ownership. People got to enjoy that right of private property. But soon what happened is, they began to settle the West. You began to see a vast accumulation. If you look over here on this chart, the color on this chart reflects government lands. Look at the East. Where is the white part of the chart? It is in the eastern United States. Your public lands, your massive amounts of public lands are not in the East; they are in the West. They are not spread evenly around the country. The public lands are concentrated in one portion of our country and that is the western United States. Needless to say, there are big differences between somebody who lives on land that is not surrounded by public lands, where the government owns very little of your neighbor's land, or is not your neighbor, versus somebody who has the Federal Government as a neighbor, who is completely surrounded by government ownership. My district is a good example. In my district, there are approximately 120 communities; 119 of those 120 communities are completely surrounded by Federal lands. If you take a look at my district, we have four national parks. We have any number of national monuments. We have BLM lands. If you take a look at this, just make that comparison, I will point out, if you look to my left, my district is right here, this colored area of the map. Compare that even to eastern Colorado or compare that to some of these other States, Illinois or even back here in Kentucky, Virginia, some of these States over here on the East Coast. You do not see that public land. And so we in the West, just like our water, feel like we have to take even a more aggressive or progressive step toward trying to work with our colleagues in the East to say, look, we are dealing with something that you never deal with. We are dealing with something of which our life is entirely dependent upon and you do not have to worry about that dependency. In the East you are not dependent on Federal lands or public lands for your well-being. In the West, we are completely surrounded by them. What do I mean by dependence on public lands? Think about it. Pick a town that many of you would know right off the top, Aspen, Colorado. I was just in Aspen yesterday. Aspen is a community completely surrounded by public lands. You cannot drive to Aspen without crossing public lands. You cannot fly to Aspen without flying over public lands. You cannot recreate near Aspen without recreating on public lands. You cannot have any water in Aspen without getting it either coming across public lands, stored upon Federal lands or originating on Federal lands. You cannot have a cellular tower without it being on public lands. You cannot have power come in your community without it coming across public lands. These are issues that for the most part my good colleagues in the East do not have to deal with. And we have to deal with it. And so my purpose here this evening is to just kind of give you an idea of the vastness of the public lands and the concentration of those public lands in the western United States. If you take a look at the forest, we often hear about the forests in the West. Here is an interesting factor for you. Do you know that the forests in the eastern United States, the forests over in this area as compared to the forests in the western United States are about equal? That is kind of surprising. In other words, the forest land in the East is about equal to the forest land in the West. So what is the difference? The difference is that the forests in the East are privately owned. The forests in the West are government-owned. Here is another interesting thing for you. More than 80 percent, if you take a look at the lands here, 80 percent of your public lands are in the West. Take a look at your national parks. There are at least 375 to 400 national parks. Let us say it is 375. Of the 375 national parks, 114 of those parks are in the West. So roughly a third to almost a fourth. A little over a third of the national parks are in the West. But 87 percent of the national parklands are in the West. So your national parks in the East, you may have a national park, but your land mass is very small. Why? Because it is primarily private property. But when you come to the West, we only have about one-fourth, a little over one-third of the parks, yet we have over 87 percent of the land that is located in the West. Before I take this map off, let me just reemphasize. The color on this map depicts government lands. Let me give a little history, very briefly, before I take this map off. Primarily the reason that you have got these massive amounts of Federal lands, in the early days it was fully expected that the citizens of this country would have private property, the right to have private property. They were trying to escape the throne, so the government was not going to own that land. Then as the country began to expand, our leaders in Washington said, how do we encourage people to leave the comfort of the East Coast and to go west to conquer the land, so to speak? Back then a deed did not mean anything. If John and Susan had a deed to a piece of property, it did not mean much like it does today. Today a deed protects your interest and protects your rights. You do not have to possess the land, to be on it, to own it. But in the old days, you had to be on the land probably with a six-shooter strapped to your side. You could not just have a deed. It did not mean much. You needed to get out there and sit on it. And so what we saw happen was a policy begin to become developed that, look, we have got to give some kind of incentive to these people to go to the West. We cannot let this land go unoccupied or some other foreign country will take the land from us. We need to get our people onto these lands. How do we do it? And somebody came up with the idea, let's do the same thing that we did in the Revolutionary War. What we did in the Revolutionary War is, we tried to bribe the British soldiers to join the American forces, and in exchange for them deserting the British forces, we would give them land, land that they could own, land that they could have of their own, land grants. That is what our leaders in Washington, D.C., decided to do, give land grants to the settlers that go to the West. If they go out there, we will give them 160 acres if they till the land, cultivate the land, live on the land, and they use the land as if it were their own. We will give them 160 acres or 320 acres. As you can see, as depicted on this map, that worked pretty well until they hit this area. What is this area? A good part of that area is the Rocky Mountains. What happens when you hit the mountains, when you hit 3,000 feet in elevation? That is the lowest elevation in the State of Colorado. Where I live is at about 5,000. The average elevation in the State of Colorado is 6,000 feet and this area of Colorado represents the highest place on the continent. When you get into the Rocky Mountains, all of a sudden instead of taking 160 acres to support a family, it may take 500 acres or 1,000 acres or 2,000 acres to support a family. You can feed a lot of cattle on 160 acres in the East. Sometimes you cannot even feed one cow on 160 acres in the West. So they came running back to Washington, D.C., and said, look, the people are not settling in the mountains, they are going around. They are going to the valleys in California. They cannot support themselves with just 160 acres. So a very conscious decision was made, not a decision to keep the land in the West in the government's hands so no generation could ever utilize that; in fact, just the opposite. The decision was made, look, because we have given so much land to the railroads and we are under a lot of political heat for doing that, we cannot really give out the 3,000 acres or 2,000 acres or whatever would be the working equivalent of 160 acres in the East, so let us go ahead and keep these lands in the government's name and let the people go out there and use the land as if it were their own. There are certain responsibilities that they would have to carry out, and as time goes by and we understand more of the issues of land use, of environmental use, of water and so on, we put more and more guidance in place of how to utilize those lands, but we have always protected the concept called multiple use, a land of many uses. When I grew up, the government lands, as you entered government lands, especially as you entered national forests, there was always a sign there that said, for example, ``You are entering the White River National Forest, a land of many uses.'' That is how the land in the West was developed, the land of many uses, whether it is recreational uses, whether it is to cultivate a field, whether it is to build a home, whether it is to use the water, whether it is to protect and enjoy the environment in those areas, it is a blend of those uses. Oftentimes, here, we are challenged with very, I guess, targeted groups, very special interest groups who live in the East and who enjoy the comfort of the East and who are not threatened by public lands. Their special interest is to eliminate our way of life in the West by eliminating the concept of multiple use. We have right now, for example, dealing with public lands, some wealthy individuals who have moved into several of our States, including the State of Colorado, and are filing across-the-board blanket objections to every grazing permit, not grazing permits where they think they can prove somebody was bad, a bad operator on the land, and if we have got a bad operator on the land, get rid of them; we do not object to that. But what they are doing is, they are taking their big money out of the East, they are taking the money in their pockets and they are putting it out and they are trying to eliminate all grazing, all use of the public lands for our farmers and ranchers. Remember, if you are talking about some State out here that does not have public lands, that is not a big issue to you. But if you are talking about the State of Colorado or Wyoming or Idaho or Utah or Montana, big parts of California, you are talking about our livelihood. Think about it: The elimination of our farmers and our ranchers to be able to utilize the land in a responsible fashion through a permit process that is monitored during the period of time that they utilize that, this group of wealthy individuals are filing legal actions and other types of actions to eliminate that use of public lands. It is their goal, over time, to eliminate multiple use. They think the toughest people out there to take down will be the farmers and the ranchers, because there is still a feeling of romance about farming and ranching in our country. So they figure if they can take out the big ones first, then they can go after the other things that we depend upon. For example, our usage of water. As I said earlier, keep in mind that in these vast areas of the West, almost all our water comes across Federal lands, is stored upon Federal lands or originates on Federal lands. So the next thing they will go after is any kind of use of water that flows across Federal lands or originates on Federal lands. And we have already seen some effort in that way. Obviously, they are going to try to take out ski areas, eliminate the use of being able to ski. They will go after the recreational use. They have pretty well eliminated in many of these States timbering and things like that. So we have a big challenge out there facing these public lands. To take a comparison, I want to show the U.S. holdings, the government holdings as they are in the United States. This is, I think, a very helpful chart. I will direct you to the chart to my left of major U.S. land holdings. The Federal Government owns more than 31 percent of all the lands in the United States. By the way, in my comments here, I am talking about the continental United States. In Alaska, I think 98 percent of that State is owned by the Federal Government. If you want to see what kind of impact it has on the Native Americans up there, of all the people that are in those lands, ask the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), for example. Its impact is dramatic. State-owned, 197 million acres. The Federal Government owns about 700 million acres. These are interesting breakdowns. The BLM owns 268 million acres; the Forest Service, 231 million acres. Now, remember what I said. The forests in the East are about equal to the forests in the West, but the big difference between the forests located in the East and the forests located in the West is the forests in the East are privately owned. The forests in the West are owned by the Federal Government. Other Federal, about 130 million acres. The Park Service has 75 million acres. Recognize my comment there earlier. We have about 375 national parks; 114 of those 375 are in the West. Although we only have 114 national parks, those national parks take in 87 percent, 87 percent of the Federal park land in this country. Tribal lands. Now, look at this. The Bureau of Land Management, we really have two agencies out there that manage the land for the people. One of them is the United States Forest Service. That is right here. The Forest Service manages an area of the West larger than the size of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York all combined. That is Forest Service responsibilities. The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for a land mass larger than California and Oregon combined, mostly the drier rangeland used for grazing, mineral and energy exploration, as well as recreation. Those two agencies manage, are the primary management agencies, for us, the people, for the Federal Government out in the West. What I am asking my colleagues to do, and why we often find ourselves at battle, not Republican and Democrat, but a lot of times East to West, where we find those differences, the origin of a lot of those differences is the fact that we in the West are concerned that some of our colleagues in the East do not understand the differences in life- style that come about as a direct result of whether or not your land is owned by the government or the land you own is surrounded by the government. Let me show another chart. Keep in mind what I said earlier about the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the State of Alaska, that 96 or 98 percent of that State is owned by the Federal Government. So you can see a difference. I have prepared a chart that gives you some States in the West and the amount of government ownership of land compared to States in the East. By the way, the population here is in States in the East. The majority of your population is on the East Coast and the State of California. Let us look at these western States. First of all, this box: 88 percent, 88 percent of the Nation's Federal public lands outside of Alaska lie in 11 Western States. That is where I am from. That is the message; that is the story we are trying to tell tonight. In one of my subsequent conversations with my colleagues here, I am going to bring some letters. I am going to tell you about some of the families in the West, about how the West was won, so to speak, about survival out there. It is tough. What you hear about are the Aspens and the areas like that, all in my district, which I am very proud of. But you need to hear about the little towns like Meker, Colorado, or Craig, Colorado, or Lander, Wyoming, or some these areas, and take a look at the good lifestyle that these people provide for their families. But let me go on. Eleven contiguous western States, Nevada, 82, 83 percent roughly of that State is owned by the Federal Government. Compare it with Connecticut, less than 1 percent. The State of Utah, 63 percent of the State of Utah is owned by the government; Rhode Island, about one-third of one percent. Idaho, 61 percent owned by the government; New York, about three- fourths of one percent. Oregon, 52 percent; Maine, just a little under 1 percent. The State of Wyoming, almost half the State is owned by the government, compared to the State of Massachusetts, 1.3 percent of that State. Arizona, 47 percent; Ohio, 1.3 percent. California, almost half the State of California; Indiana, less than 2 percent. Colorado, 36 percent; Pennsylvania, 2 percent. New Mexico, 33 percent; Delaware, 2 percent. Washington, 28 percent; Maryland, 2 percent. Montana, 28 percent; New Jersey, 3 percent. Where we see a difference, where we see a rift, so to speak, or see what we perceive as a lack of understanding, is from some of our colleagues in these States and the people of these States; and that is why I am standing here in front of you this evening. When you take a look at the differences, what you have and what we have, and the differences it makes in your life style, whether it is whether you get water, whether it is your transportation, whether it is your recreation, whether it is your environment, this is where we see a lot of problems originate between the States, because we in the West oftentimes feel that our good friends and our fellow citizens in the East do not understand the need for us to have the concept of multiple use. My guess is that in most of these States, go up to Rhode Island and stop 100 people on the street. Ask how many of them know what is the concept of multiple use, what does multiple use mean. Give them a hint: it applies to the Western United States. What does multiple use mean? My guess is out of 100, 99 cannot tell you. I am not saying they are ignorant or being critical of them; I am just saying it is not in their environment. They are entirely removed from the concept of multiple use. They are entirely removed from the ramifications of public lands. But you go to a State like Alaska, for example, which is 98 percent owned by the government, or Nevada, and stop 100 people in Nevada and say what is the concept of multiple use? What is the concept of public lands? You are going to get an entirely different viewpoint, because those people experience it. My purpose here this evening with my colleagues is to tell you that as we talk about some of these land-use decisions, as we talk about the Endangered Species Act, as we talk about our national parks, as we talk about our Bureau of Land Management, as we talk about the U.S. Forest Service, as we talk about people that recreate, whether it is on a mountain bike or kayaking, or as we talk about water in the West, understand, please understand, there is a clear distinction between how and what the ramifications are of those issues here in the East versus those in the West. I have often heard people say, well, now, just a minute, Scott. This land belongs to all of the people, and that we people in the East, you should pay more attention to us, because this land in the West, that should be preserved. I do not disagree with that comment at all, and we do a darn good job of it. We do a darn good job, because, you know what, we depend on that land. If we abuse the land, we suffer first. But what kind of gets under our hide, gets under our saddle back there in the West, is when we have people who say to us, look, go ahead and kick the people in the West off their lands; but since we privately own it in the East, it will not have any impact on us. What we are saying to our colleagues in the East is, look, understand what the concept is. Before you draw a position down, before you take a vote, try and determine or take a look or educate yourself on the concept of multiple use. You know, when you hear from somebody, for example, the National Sierra Club, I do not think the National Sierra Club, which carries a lot of heavy weight here in the United States Congress, I do not think they have ever supported a water storage project in the history of that organization. Now, a lot of the things that that organization may do might be good; but before you sign on in opposition to water projects in the West, before you sign on to some of the ridiculous things that have come out, like, for example, take down the dam at Lake Powell and let the water go, understand what water in the West means; understand what multiple use in the West means. The public lands in this country, as I have said over and over in my comments this evening, are not evenly spread across the 50 States. In fact, they are concentrated in about 11 States. That is where the majority of your holdings are. Eighty-some percent of those government lands are in those 11 States. The consequences to those 11 States are a whole lot different than the consequences to the other 39 States, some of whose public lands, really, are just the local courthouse. So in conclusion and as a summary of these remarks tonight, I am just asking that my colleagues in the East begin to have a better understanding of what we face in the West. We are here in the West and we speak loudly from the West because, one, we are small in number because of population; but we also have the clearer understanding of what it is like to live with the government at your back doorstep, at your front doorstep and your side windows. Everywhere you look you have got government around you. I would ask my colleagues from the East, work with us in the West. Help us protect that concept of multiple use. Help us continue our balanced use of the lands out there. Help us provide for future generations by using a balanced approach and by not automatically saying no water storage, not automatically saying no grazing, not automatically saying no utilization, not automatically saying take the recreation off those forests lands or take the recreation from those BLM lands. We are totally and completely dependent upon these lands. We could not live in those States, nobody, nobody could live out there in those States in the West without this multiple use concept of Federal lands.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, before I start on my night-side chat, so to speak, to cover some issues that are very important in regards to the layout of the United States, the eastern United States and the western United States, and how the lands are situated, I do want to bring up a couple of points that were discussed by some of the previous speakers. Specifically, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to the remarks made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). The gentleman from the State of Texas says that Americans, speaking of the war in Afghanistan, and I am quoting him fairly accurately I think, he says that Americans are taking a pass on this. I am not sure that that is what the gentleman intended. In fact, many of the remarks I heard previously are remarks I agree with. But nobody is taking a pass on what happened on September 11 in this country, the least of which would be the American people. Because of the fact that we have to go into debt to finance this war effort does not mean the American people are taking a pass on it. Our situation on September 10 was a whole lot different than our situation on September 11. We did not anticipate on September 10 having to spend the kind of money that we realized on September 11 and days that followed were necessary. No American is taking a pass on this. Every American is contributing to this. We have a lot of Americans that are working in this country, and their tax dollars are going into this. So I do not think the gentleman really intended his remarks to be quite as stinging as at least I took them. Madam Speaker, let me mention a couple of other things that I think were brought out in the gentleman's remarks. Not speaking specifically to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), but some of the people that share his ideas, they speak courageously about the fact that we need to have a balanced budget and vote no, but there are some who speak very bravely on one hand, but when it comes on votes which impact your State, you vote the other direction; you vote to continually increase the budget. You talk about how fiscally conservative you are and how we need to keep the budget in balance and how the other party is trying to spend our children's future into oblivion, and I do not know how many times I hear the term Social Security. Show me one Congressman who wants to eliminate Social Security. Well, the war in Afghanistan, the spending on the war in Afghanistan, we threaten Social Security. If we do not win that war, everything is threatened. Madam Speaker, I would be very interested in seeing where some of my colleagues that have just spoken, for example, where their votes were on the farm bill. The farm bill has a great impact on the State of Texas. That farm bill has gone up dramatically. That is a tough vote to take. That is one of the votes that they speak of. Maybe it is not the popular thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. The right thing to do. Let us check a specific legislator or Congressman who speaks about how we are going into debt and how the budget continues to increase; and if they are from a farm State, let us see how they vote on the farm bill or the highway bill, the bill that benefits their State with specific projects. On one hand they say that they voted for new highways, and then they go to the conservative sections of their State and say I want a balanced budget. We cannot have our cake and eat it too; but at the microphone there is an obligation to say that Americans are not getting a pass. We are all contributing. It has to be a bipartisan debate. I should say, and I notice one of my colleagues from the State of Texas is standing here, the gentleman's comments were pretty much in line. I do not disagree with what the gentleman from Texas said. I think it is very important that we have a balanced budget and we need to keep a handle on the debt. The management of that debt was a whole lot different on September 10 than it was on September 11, or 2 years ago when our economy was booming than it is today when our revenues have decreased. The management of the debt was so important 3 years ago, but now take a look at what that debt is today and take a look at the small businesses that are going out of business today. They need some tax relief. This is not the time to increase taxes on small businesses.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to recognize the life and contributions of Gertrude L. Benzel of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Gert peacefully left us on a Saturday morning, March 9, 2002. Gert was a popular member and patriarch of the community and was often sought by many for her listening ear, advice, and warm smile. Gert was a native of her state, born in 1911 in Delta, Colorado and resided in Grand Junction. In 1942, Gert, along with her late husband Alex, moved to Glenwood Springs and purchased a sheep ranch. Gert soon thereafter found herself desiring to improve the lives of her fellow community members. She was often found spending her time as President of the State Woolgrowers Association, as a charter member of the Glenwood Springs Golf Club, or at various charitable and volunteer organizations throughout the area. What I find truly amazing is how Gert was able to stay completely involved in her pursuits and still be able to raise a family that appreciated and valued the importance of hard work, honor, and perseverance. She raised her children John and Joanne to be respectful and hardworking individuals determined to succeed in their own pursuits. Gert's influence touched many lives outside of her immediate family and she was a well-revered and loving mother, grandmother, wife, sister, and friend to many. Gert's passing is especially hard for me as she was like a second mother to our family. I have such warm memories of those days of my youth that I spent visiting our neighbors, the Benzels. Whether it was hunting with John, handling sheep up Storm King with Shep (Alex), talking with JoAnne, or watching Jeannie with baby Julie, they were all wonderful times. But truly, I will miss that special time with Gert. The ranch, the golf course, the kitchen (baking cakes for my parents birthday), the kittens, all of it was good living and we will miss her very much. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to Gertrude L. Benzel for the great strides she took in establishing herself as a valuable leader and patriarch of the Glenwood Springs community. Her dedication to family, friends, work, and the community certainly deserves the recognition of this body of Congress, and this nation. Although Gert has left us, her good-natured spirit lives on through the lives of those she has touched. I would like to extend my regrets and deepest sympathies to Gert's family and friends during this sad and difficult time. We're going to miss you Gert.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, as the first in order of number, we will take the gentleman on our bill. Mr. Chairman, the point is, we agree on the substance of the abuse that is taking place out there, and we want to close the loophole. This is not the bill to close the hole. This is not the Committee on Ways and Means, and this is not the Committee on Ways and Means' bill. What has happened here is they put this amendment out, I think, simply to express our disdain, properly express our disdain with what is going on out there and with what some of the corporations are doing, including Stanley Tool Corporation and some others that I think ought to be held publicly accountable. In fact, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I was at a dinner last weekend with several hundred blue-collar workers, mechanics; and I urged every one of them not to buy Stanley tools as a result of what Stanley Tool Corporation is attempting to do. While our American young people fight overseas, we have these corporations that enjoy the protection of this putting up a post office box in Bermuda. This simply has nothing to do with it. This amendment deals with diversity. This amendment deals with standing. To try and link, to make that leap, we are not making the link. So the issue is right and the platform is wrong.

Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia is absolutely correct. This does not accomplish what the intent behind it may be, and the proper discussion that is taking place here really will take place in great detail in front of the Committee on Ways and Means with both of our bills, and I urge that is where we move it back to and get on with the business at hand.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. First of all, I agree with the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I agree with most of the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). I think it would be beneficial, and we would ask the gentleman to merge his bill with our bill.

Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to take jurisdiction from the gentleman's committee, obviously. I disagree that this amendment is going to do what the gentleman is saying it is going to do. I say that with all due respect. I think this amendment out there is simply to bring up this discussion. We ought to have lots of discussion and public exposure, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), on what is going on out there. It is wrong. But this is not the platform to do it. This amendment does not accomplish what the sponsors say it will as far as the legal corporation for standing in class suits and diversity. I think it is a good discussion, wrong place.

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to recognize an extraordinary man whose kindness and good deeds embody the spirit of Colorado, and this nation. Charlie Gallagher is a pillar of the Denver, Colorado community, but the impact of his contributions reaches beyond the city to touch the entire state. In recognition of Charlie's many accomplishments and philanthropic generosity, the Ancient Order of Hibernians chose him as the 2002 Irish Person of the Year. This is a distinguished achievement that recognizes the dedication and commitment of an individual to his or her community. As Charlie celebrates this achievement, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge his kindly spirit before this body of Congress. Charlie Gallagher has overcome numerous obstacles in his life and has used his experience to help others overcome similar circumstances. He started out in an inner-city Irish neighborhood in Toledo, Ohio, living in a house where ten family members shared one bathroom and three bedrooms. The grandson of Irish immigrants, Charlie's family instilled in him the values of education, hard work and determination. It is this foundation which Charlie used to found Gallagher Enterprises LC, an extraordinarily successful private equity firm in Colorado. Like many Americans, Charlie rose from hardship to prosperity, but has remained true to his roots. He has adopted the motto, ``if you've been blessed and if you've been lucky, you gotta give back''. He has lived his life accordingly. Charlie funded the establishment of several buildings and additions for many educational institutions, ranging from grade school to higher education institutions, in his home state of Ohio. For almost twelve years, he has supported over 100 students from underprivileged backgrounds by providing them with full tuition, room and board. Beginning this year, Charlie has pledged to fully fund 100 students at Denver's Metro State College for five years. In addition to his philanthropic contributions, Charlie continues to serve his community as a board member of the Metropolitan State College of Denver Foundation, Denver Area Council of Boy Scouts of America, the Catholic Foundation for the Archdiocese of Denver and the National Jewish Medical & Research Center. He is a Trustee of the Irish Community Center and the Vice Chairman of the Denver Art Museum. In addition, he helped to raise $50 million for the art museum and was instrumental in securing city bonding for the museum's expansion. To continue his generous support of the community, Charlie and his family frequently donate their time, money, and energy through the Gallagher Family Foundation of the Denver Foundation. This organization gives generously to numerous causes every year and serves as a model for philanthropic foundations throughout the nation. Mr. Speaker, Charlie Gallagher is an extraordinary individual and it is my pleasure to bring forth his accomplishments and generosity before this body of Congress, and this nation. Charlie's life serves as an example for anyone who has ever faced and overcome adversity in their life. Charlie, thank you for all you have done for the State of Colorado and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to spending a little time with my colleagues this evening. There are a number of different issues I would like to talk about. But first of all, I want to mention a fine young man from Grand Junction, Colorado, Ryan Patterson. Ryan was just selected on Monday of this week as the best young scientist in the world. What Ryan did is, first of all, he has won several contests, scientific contests. He is a very, very gifted young man. He was back here, he racked up another $100,000 in scholarships and is being recognized here. Let me just go through a couple of things. Prior to Monday, he won $192,000 in scholarships, about $16,000 in cash, two laptop computers, two trips to Sweden to attend the Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies. Throughout all of his achievements, he has obviously maintained his modesty. What Ryan did is came up with a glove, a glove-type of apparatus that can take sign languages, as they work sign language with the finger, and it instantaneously puts it into the written word in a little computer screen. So someone who only knows sign language or who has some other type of handicap and their primary language is sign language can actually go to a McDonald's restaurant or some restaurant, hold the little screen there and put it out instantly, instantly on to that screen. This is a young man still in high school; he is a senior in high school. I am awful proud of him. Obviously, he is from my district, Grand Junction. But the achievements and the recognitions he has received this last year probably top any other student in the country in the scientific field and, obviously, in the latest recognition he was seen as the youngest and best scientist in the world for his age. So Ryan, congratulations. I was going to speak and still intend to speak on some water issues. As my colleagues know, the district that I represent is in the State of Colorado. The State of Colorado is the highest point not only in the United States, but also the highest point on the continent. So I am going to speak a little about Colorado, the dynamics of our snowfall up there, some of the land, the dynamics of the land and the situation facing Colorado, facing all of the States. There are many States that depend on the State of Colorado. I will talk about the geographical nature, a number of different things that I want to visit with on Colorado, but that is going to come later. Today, I just pulled this off the computer, and I am amazed: ``Lawmakers doubt the need for a missile defense plan.'' As my colleagues know, I spend a great deal of time on this House floor talking about the absolute necessity for this Nation to have a missile defense. It is unbelievable to most of the citizens that I represent that this country, the United States of America, has no capability, zero capability, zero capability to stop an incoming missile into this country. Now, we have lots of capability to determine that a missile has been fired against this country. In fact, the primary location of that headquarters is in Colorado, NORAD, Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado Springs. We can, within seconds, determine anywhere in the world that a missile has been launched. We can within seconds of those seconds determine where the destination of the missile is, what type of missile it probably is, what kind of warhead it is probably carrying, the estimated time of arrival. Beyond that, as far as preventing the horrible destruction that it could wreak, the havoc that it could wreak on the country that it is directed towards, the United States cannot do anything. Fortunately, our President and this administration, as have some previous administrations, have made a very dedicated effort towards providing this country with a national security blanket for some type of defense against a threat by enemy missiles. Now, I am amazed to read that some of my colleagues today in a committee hearing act as if a missile threat does not exist out there. Where were they a couple of days after September 11? Can my colleagues recall what happened on September 11? We know September 11. Can my colleagues recall what happened a few days shortly after September 11? Think about it. Think about a missile, what happened with a missile. Do we remember what happened with that missile? A missile was accidentally fired in the Black Sea by the Ukrainian Navy by accident. Guess what that missile hit? It hit an airliner and it blew the airliner out of the sky. Now, the horrible, horrible events of September 11 overshadowed this tragedy. The only reason I bring this tragedy back up to the House floor is there is a perfect example of a missile that was not intended, they did not intend to shoot down a commercial airliner, there was no intent to do that. That missile was targeted at that airliner by accident. Once that missile was launched off its ship, there was no way to stop it. Some people think that the only missile threat to the United States of America is an intentional missile launch against this country. Wake up, folks. I am telling my colleagues that there is another threat out there. It is called an accidental launch against this country. Think of Russia, how many nuclear warheaded missiles they have in that land. It is possible. In fact, it is pretty possible that at some point in the future, one of these ballistic missiles may be, totally innocently and by mistake, could be fired by one nation against another nation. I hope that our country has in place a defensive mechanism that could stop the horrible, horrible events that could follow an accidental launch of a missile. I will talk about intentional firings here in just a minute. But every peace activist in the world ought to be the biggest cheer leaders out there for a missile defense system. What would the United States do if, for example, a sequence of missiles fired by mistake were launched out of Russia against a major city in the United States of America? If the United States could stop those missiles before they did any damage, it is something that could be worked out at the bargaining table. But if the United States does not have, and some of my colleagues would wish upon the United States that we not have a missile defensive system, if we did not have a way to stop those, what would our response be if our Nation was hit by several simultaneous missiles from another country, and that country says, wait a minute, do not retaliate. We did it by accident, and we are sorry we wiped out four or five of your cities. We did it by accident. That is why I say peace activists. Let me tell my colleagues, it is a lot easier to sit down at a bargaining table if we were able to stop the incoming bullet than it is after we look around and see our colleagues dead and our cities destroyed. Now, let me read a couple of quotes. Let me say that I am not going to use the names of the colleagues that these quotes are attributed to, because I am not sure of the accuracy of these quotes, outside of the AP wire that I pulled it off of this evening. But let me say one of my colleagues says this: ``Why would someone send a missile when they can just put it in a suitcase?'' Well, my friend, my colleague, the fact is they can perhaps, we are not convinced of it, but they can, perhaps, put it in a suitcase, and we ought to prepare for that. But because they might put it in a suitcase does not mean they will not put it in a missile. I can tell my colleague right now that there are a lot more ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads sitting on them aimed at the United States than there are nuclear suitcases being carried around. Only because, frankly, they do not have the technology in a lot of countries to get their hands on a so-called nuclear suitcase. I can tell my colleagues that one ballistic nuclear missile makes that suitcase look like an amateur's program. These nuclear missile heads can destroy entire cities. They can launch countries into war. We better prepare for those. I can remember Margaret Thatcher at the World Economic Forum, Beaver Creek, Colorado, 3 years ago. I cannot quote her exactly, but I can remember the quote pretty closely. She stood up and she looked at our Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen at the time, under the Clinton administration, and her words were similar to this: she says, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, your Nation has a fundamental and fiduciary responsibility to provide its citizens with a missile defense system. Failure to do so would be pure neglect and would shirk your responsibility as a leader of this country. Now, that is pretty close to what Margaret Thatcher said, and that is right on point. Do not let some of my colleagues here be naysayers and say, well, it costs too much to defend ourselves. The fact is, we had better do something about these nuclear missiles. Do not try to convince our constituents that they do not exist, or that one is not going to be launched against the United States of America or one of our allies. We have the technology. We are almost there. Sure, it seems like a huge challenge right now. But what do Members think the airplanes seemed like to the Wright brothers? What did it seem like when they wanted to fire a weapon through a propeller on one of our fighter planes, when they were doing that? Look at all the technology. It is all a challenge. There were a lot of people who said it was impossible when they first did it, but we are talking about the future of this Nation, the security of our citizens. We have an absolute obligation, we have an inherent responsibility, to provide a security blanket for this country and for our allies. Let me go on. This is a quote, again, from my colleague. And again, let me say that this is from the AP wire, so I am not sure of its accuracy. That is why I am not mentioning which colleague said this. But if it is accurate, I will not hesitate next time I am up here to use the gentleman's name. It is inexcusable for this administration not to recognize that possibility and act on it. Speaking of this, why would somebody send a missile, instead of just putting it in a suitcase? One of the reasons they might is because they have one. There are a lot of countries in this world that have missiles. Let me show a poster. My poster: Ballistic Missile Proliferation. Look at this: Countries Possessing Ballistic Missiles. To my colleague who asked the question, Why would someone send a missile when they can just put it in a suitcase, well, maybe some of these countries here who do not have missiles would not send a missile. But look at these countries that have missiles. The reason they would send the missiles is because they have them. They have the capability. They have the accuracy of these missiles. Unfortunately, several of these countries have nuclear capability, nuclear warheads on the tops of those missiles. The day of wishing that there were not missiles out there aimed at the United States has long since passed. Wake up. The reality of it is, the United States is going to be a target. It was a target on September 11, it was a target in 1941, and it is going to be a target in the future. We are the leaders of this country. We are the ones who are charged with some kind of capability to look forward into the future and say, All right, what do we see as future threats against this Nation? One clue might be if Members have a map that looks like this, that has all of these countries in purple with missiles, one might kind of draw a conclusion, hey, in the future, one of the threats against our Nation is going to be a missile, a missile coming in, an incoming missile. As I said not many days after September 11, do not forget, that is exactly what happened. A missile was not fired at a U.S. commercial aircraft, but it was fired at a commercial airplane and it blew it out of the sky. This is by the Ukrainian navy. This is not exactly the most sophisticated navy in the world. This is not a country that is known for its military might. Yet, they are able to have the accuracy to fire a missile from a moving ship being rocked in the sea, fire that missile up and hit a small airliner in the sky and blow it to smithereens. We need to see these future threats. Those threats exist today; those threats exist in the future. We have a fundamental responsibility to address these threats. Let us talk about this. Here is what the missiles look like. That is the proliferation of missiles in this world. Imagine what it is going to look like in 10 years. How many of these white spots here are going to have ballistic missile capability? Now let us look at the next poster. Nuclear proliferation. Look at this: Countries possessing nuclear weapons: Britain, China, France, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia. Look over here: Of concern, we think Iran probably has nuclear capability. We think Iraq probably has nuclear capability. I am confident that North Korea has nuclear capability. Libya, I do not know; that one might be questionable. Members are saying to me that there is some question whether or not we need a missile defense when this many nations in the world have missile capability and have nuclear capability combined. Let me go on with a quote further. Again, the accuracy of this quote, I am depending on the AP press release. It came out of a committee hearing, apparently, by some of my colleagues. Here is one of my colleagues. By the way, he is a Democrat. The only reason I point out that my colleague is a Democrat is, come on, this is not a partisan issue. Do not just attack Bush on missile defense because he is a Republican. Put the partisanship aside. This is a threat to every one of us. Remember, these missiles are not going to discriminate between Republicans and Democrats. This is a bipartisan issue. Do not just attack the administration simply for political convenience. Listen to what this colleague of mine says: ``We can't afford to waste billions of dollars because of the Bush administration's theological fascination with missile defense.'' Now, this is the most ludicrous, ill-informed statement I have heard from any of my colleagues in my entire tenure in the United States Congress. This colleague of ours says, ``No threat assessment exists to justify the spending.'' My colleague is not on the floor this evening to hear this. I wish he was. I wish he could come up here and discuss this with me, ``No threat exists today to justify it;'' not nuclear proliferation, not ballistic missile proliferation, not any of these countries over here to my left that have ballistic missile capabilities. In my colleague's opinion, none of this justifies, none of this justifies a missile defense security blanket for this country. Let me go on and read some other things. ``The administration's comments followed news reports on its new nuclear posture review.'' By the way, every administration does this. It says, ``The Pentagon is developing contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against countries developing weapons of mass destruction.'' Let me ask my colleague, what are they going to do about a country like Iraq? Iraq poisoned its own people. They went out, and Saddam Hussein poisoned his own people in an attack against the Kurds. Do we think this guy is going to go to church with us on Sunday, or over to the temple or wherever? This is a very sick individual who may very well have weapons of mass destruction and is on a fast, mad race to accumulate as many weapons of mass destruction as he can get his hands on. How else are we going to address this? Do Members think they can trust this guy? Look at the history of Saddam Hussein. How many years did the United States deal with him on inspections? How often were the inspectors stopped at the gates, the inspectors? The United Nations finally threw their arms up in the air. They said, We cannot do it. We cannot get our inspections done. Why? Because this individual, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, has no intention of stopping their pursuit for weapons of mass destruction. That is a threat to the United States of America, and these weapons of mass destruction involve not only nuclear weapons, but ballistic missiles fired at the appropriate location. For example, take a look at North Korea and South Korea. North Korea does not need a nuclear missile to wreak havoc on South Korea. All they need to do is fire a couple of missiles, I think, 35 miles away and they can hit the city of Seoul; ballistic missiles, not nuclear warheads. What do Members think would happen to a city with a population of 20 million people if a few missiles hit one morning? What kind of panic would happen? Those are threats. Those are viable threats. The only way in the long run to provide some type of defense against these missiles is to build ourselves a security blanket. If we have a system that will stop an incoming missile, and the technology is there, or will be there, if we have that, it makes those missiles and it makes a lot of these countries' capabilities to strike not only at the United States less, but it also diminishes or eliminates their capability to strike at other countries in this world. We are being completely naive. We are refusing, maybe because we are afraid to, and I am speaking of some of my colleagues, we are refusing to confront the reality that we are not loved by everybody in this world. There are a lot of nations that would love to see the United States fail and be a nation destroyed. There are a lot of nations that, once they get the capability, if we do not have the capability, one, to retaliate, or two, to defend ourselves, they will not hesitate. They will not hesitate to take what steps are necessary to destroy the United States, for all historical purposes. How can we sit by idly and criticize the President, a President who realizes this, who has had the guts to step forward and say that we are going to confront it? No Chicken Little here. We have to face up to this fact. It is kind of like discovering cancer on oneself. We say, look, if I do not confront it, do not irritate it, maybe it will not spread. Yes, right. Do Members know what that cancer is going to do? It is going to spread. Do Members think it will stop because we hope it will not go any further; because we think by not confronting it, by not cutting it off, by not taking radiation or chemotherapy that it is going to stop; that it is going to stop because you are a great person? Do Members think it discriminates because of its victims? Just as deadly as cancer are some of these countries and people out there who are developing these weapons of mass destruction. Take a look at what they do. What is the number one country they trash? What is the number one country? They take their children as soon as they can learn and they teach them to hate the United States of America. Yet, we have Congressmen of the United States of America willing to say that, Gee, there is no threat assessment that exists to justify spending money for a missile defense system. I think Colin Powell said it best this weekend: One of the reasons for a nuclear policy, one of the reasons they called those missiles peacekeeping missiles, is because, and I am quoting Colin Powell, ``We think it is best for any potential adversary to have uncertainty in his or her calculus.'' We want people out there to know that if they decide to fire one of these ballistic missiles against the United States of America, if they decide to launch a September 11 attack against the United States of America, they are going to have in the back of their minds what type of retaliation this will bring upon them. Let me summarize what I have been saying here for the last 15 or 20 minutes. I was surprised today to pick up an AP wire entitled Lawmakers Doubt the Need for a Missile Defense System for This Country.'' That is naivete at its height. That is a remark based on kind of a shot from the hip, a reactionary remark. Think about the kind of threat that this country faces. It is not imaginary. We know that missiles have been launched by countries, including our own country, by mistake. Missiles are very lethal weapons and we add on top of the missile the leadership of a country that is politically unstable; we add on top of the missile a missile system that is not adequate, does not have adequate safeguards and could be fired by accident; we had on a missile, put on top of the missile itself a nuclear warhead; we continue to see the ballistic missile proliferation spread around the world, and then our colleague has the audacity to sit up and tell the rest of their colleagues that we should not be building a missile defense system, or as I quote, we cannot afford to waste billions of dollars because no threat assessment exists to justify the spending. No threat assessment exists to justify this spending. The threat not only is out there, it exists in a very threatening mode, and I am telling my colleagues the consequences. Do I think it is going to happen tomorrow? I hope not. Do I think a lot of countries are all of the sudden going to fire random missiles against the United States of America? No. But do I think countries throughout have that capability? There is no doubt they do. Do I think there are countries out there who are not friendly to the United States of America who, in fact, have made throughout their history open resentment towards the United States of America, had the capability and possessed missiles that could wreak destruction upon the United States of America today if they desire? The answer is yes. One of my colleagues, and I said earlier, one of my colleagues, and let me quote that colleague, ``Why would someone send a missile when they can just put it in a suitcase?'' The reason they would send the missile is because they had the missile. They have got the capability to wreak destruction with these missiles, and the other reason they would launch a missile is because they know the United States of America cannot defend itself against an incoming missile. What President Bush has done, Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, what this administration has done is not run from it, not pretend that the threat does not exist; but they have confronted it, and they have said to the world, and many of our allies, by the way, have joined in this statement, they have said to the world, the United States of America no longer intends to go into the future without a defense mechanism to protect its citizens and the citizens of our allies and our friends from a rogue nation firing a missile against us. It is unbelievable to me, unacceptable and frankly a violation of a fundamental obligation for any one of us on this floor to stand up and say that a missile threat does not exist against the United States of America in such a way that would justify us defending against it with a missile defensive system. That is stupidity, stupidity not referring to my particular colleague and his personality, but stupidity in the thought that by simply putting shades over your eyes, that the missile threat against the United States of America will just disappear. It makes as much sense as closing your eyes to cancer on your body and saying if I pretend it is not there or if I simply acknowledge that it is there and ignore it, saying that it does not justify me going to the doctor to see about this cancer, it will go away on its own. It will only grow, and it will only become more deadly and more threatening to a person's very existence; and the same thing happens here. Every one of us, whether Republican, whether Democrat, regardless of party affiliation, September 11 was a wake-up call for all of us and not just in the United States. September 11 was a wake-up call for the world. There are evil people out there who do not care who their victims are. It has been said 10 million times if it has been said once, the victims on September 11, they were not white Anglo, they were not U.S. citizens, restricted to those. They were every nationality, 80 different countries, all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. It did not matter. It was a son or daughter, mother or father, sister or brother. It did not matter to these people who did not care, and some of my colleagues who think that some of these evil people will care and will not launch a ballistic missile, and let me tell my colleagues they have got them out there, there are countries out there, will not launch some type of harmful missile against this country is naive. It is going to happen. It is going to happen at some point in time. The people who have made these remarks, if, in fact, they are accurate, I want my colleagues to put this in a little time keeper, and remember a few years from now, God forbid this ever happens to our country, but if it happens, I want my colleagues to remember the position they took in the U.S. House of Representatives with the statement, no threat assessment exists to justify the spending to build a ballistic missile system to protect our country. Let me wrap it up by telling my colleagues, we do not stand alone in the world. In fact, I think it is safe to say that every country in the world that could get their hands on a missile defense system mechanism would deploy it. Why? It only makes sense. It is like getting a bulletproof vest. The other side may complain. Maybe the criminal is going to complain because the police officer gets the advantage of a bulletproof vest, but if the criminal had the opportunity they would put them on, too. Why? Because it gives them an advantage. We have a lot of nations in this world that support the United States of America in building a missile defense system. We are in partnership with Canada. The Brits are supportive. The Italians are supportive. And I can guarantee my colleagues, once we get the technology mastered, there will be a lot of nations knocking on our door saying, hey, do you mind if we had that missile defense system; do you mind if we provide a security system for our citizens. So I urge my colleagues to reconsider some of the statements they have made today in opposition to a missile defense system, and frankly, get ready for it. My colleagues can jump up and down all they want for media attention, for partisanship advantage; but the fact is, this administration will do what is necessary to protect the citizens of this country with the security blanket for a missile defense. It is a critical and fundamental obligation that we have to not only our generation but future generations. Mr. Speaker, I am going to shift my comments pretty dramatically here. I was not going to speak about missile defense this evening because, frankly, I have had several discussions on the House floor here with my colleagues about that; but after I read those remarks today, I could not resist it. I mean, I felt fire in my belly to come up here to the House floor and talk about that. Now I want to move towards more the direction I had planned all week to come tonight and the comments I wanted to make. Let me start out as I said at the beginning of my comments, colleagues. My district's in the State of Colorado. For those of my colleagues that do not know, Colorado is the only State in the Union where all of its water runs out of the State. We have no water that comes into the State of Colorado for our use. All of our water goes out of the State, and Colorado's a very unique State in its geographical makeup and frankly in its geographical location and its elevation. It is the highest point on the continent. In our area, for example, I think there are 64 mountains in the United States, including Alaska, I think 64 mountains that are over 14,000 feet, 64 of them. Fifty-six of those 64 mountains are located in the State of Colorado, 79 percent of the Nation's 14,000 foot peaks, and over 600 peaks at 13,000 feet. We have over 1,000 mountain peaks over 10,000 feet. The average elevation in the State of Colorado is 6,800 feet. That is a thousand feet over a mile. Well over a mile is the average elevation in the State of Colorado. Take a look at the lowest point in the State of Colorado. It is about 3,400 feet. That is about the lowest point in Colorado. The difference between our lowest points and our highest points are 11,000 or 12,000 feet. So just as a result of the elevation alone, we have got dramatic weather; we have got dynamics that do not happen in other States. The State of Colorado is a critical State for a number of different reasons, but first of all, look at what we find within the boundaries of the four corners. First of all, we find the plains. A lot of people think that Colorado's just a mountain State, that it is the State of mountains; but half of the State of Colorado are the plains, and when we look at Colorado, and I will just use my pointer here. To my left I have a better map of Colorado, but when we get on the very western edge, we actually have the desert plateaus. On the eastern side of the State of Colorado we have the plains, and then of course in between the desert plateaus and the plains we have the Colorado Rockies and some other mountains, not just the Rockies. To give my colleagues an idea of the land mass of it, it is about the eighth largest State in the Nation. I guess it is number eight. It has got four major parks that are without trees. There may be a couple of trees but generally without trees, north park, south park, places like that. Colorado's a very unique State and one of our most important assets in the State of Colorado is snow. Colorado's a very arid State. It does not get much rain. We cannot depend on our rainfall for our moisture. We have to depend on our winter snows. This year, for example, we have a lot to be concerned about because our winter snowfall is significantly below average. Now, not only Colorado that is dependent upon the snow fall in Colorado, but many, many States in the Union, well above 25 States in the Union, are also dependent for their water upon the snow fall in the high mountain peaks of the State of Colorado; and we not only depend on the snow fall in Colorado for our water, but we also depend on it for our economic well-being. Our ski areas, as my colleagues know, Colorado probably has the finest ski areas in the United States. Certainly known throughout the world for skiing in Colorado because of its elevation, because of the light, dry snow. So snow is a critical factor out there in our mountain region. Before I move much further, I want to give a little history. I have reviewed this history before, but it is important to remember Colorado is a State that is unique. On the western side we have the mountains and the eastern side we have the plains, generally speaking; and Colorado really is almost like two States. I am not suggesting it is two States or that it should become two States; but the dynamics in public ownership, public lands, where the forest lands are, where the Bureau of Land Management is, where the mountains are, one part of the State is water provider. The other part of the State is a water user. There are lots of different dynamics that play within its boundaries for Colorado, but first of all, I thought we ought to look at the dynamics of the continental United States and where the West fits in, why life in the West is a little different than life in the east, why the water issues in the West for example are entirely different in many cases than the water issues in the East. In many places in the eastern United States, the problem is getting rid of water. In the West, the problem is storing the water. In fact, if we drew a line down through Kansas and Missouri kind of like this, that portion of the United States gets about 73 percent of the water. If we took a look at the mountain region here, which is about half of the United States geographically, it only gets about 14 percent of the water. When the good Lord created this continent of ours, for some reason there was not even distribution of the water. So water becomes a critical factor. Now, let us take a look and kind of go back in time, go back in history, when our country was first being settled. The real comfort, and where most of the people lived, was on the East Coast, over here to my left. And the West, really, if you went very deep into Virginia, you were considered in the West. There was not much settlement at all, except for the Native Americans, of course, and the Mexicans. This was the nation of Mexico here. We actually had France and a number of others, but I think my colleagues understand what I am saying. The population of the United States in our early days was on the East Coast, and our leaders wanted to expand the United States of America. They wanted to make it a great country and they wanted to conquer and obtain as much land as they could. But in those days when the land was purchased, it did not mean much. Title to the lands did not mean much. What was important was who possessed the land. And to possess the land, you really needed to be on it with a six-shooter strapped on your side. So as this young country began to grow and we began to expand to the West, our leaders said, Well, how do we encourage people to move from the comfort of their homes on the East Coast into the inner part of the country, into this new land we bought? How do we get them to possess it? And the idea they came up with was, Well, let us give away land, like we did in the Revolutionary War. Believe it or not, in the Revolutionary War is when we first had other land grants in this country. We would give land or offer land to British soldiers who would defect and come to our side. We would give them free land. After all, our leaders correctly assessed that every person's dream, or most every person's dream was to own a piece of their own property, to build a home, to farm. Back then in the early days of our country, 99 percent of our population was involved in agriculture. So to be able to cultivate your own fields, to have your own wheat, your own cow, your goats, et cetera, et cetera, was everyone's dream. So they decided to offer land to encourage people to settle in the West. People would go out there, live on it, and they would be given 160 acres, or 320 acres, depending on the program they were involved in. Well, that worked pretty successfully, except for one region of the country, and that region is depicted by the colors on this map to my left. You can see some of these States have very, very little Federal lands. In the East the only real big blocks of Federal lands are down there in the Everglades, the Appalachians, and a little up here in the Northeast. In a lot of States, when you talk about public lands, people think you are talking about the courthouse. That is because the government was able to successfully turn this land over to private ownership by encouraging people to go out and settle the land. Well, the problem was that as soon as they hit the Rocky Mountains, and take a look at the State of Colorado, right here, right where the white hits the color on this map in the State of Colorado is exactly where the mountains start. And what happened is, when the settlers began to hit the mountains, they discovered 160 acres would not even feed a cow. In eastern Colorado, again referring to my map and going over here to my left, in eastern Colorado, 160 acres could support a family. In Nebraska and in Kansas you could support families there. But as soon as you hit those mountains, boy, the dynamics changed pretty dramatically. So they went back to Washington and they said, What do we do? We are not getting people to live in the mountains. They are not possessing the land so that we can lay claim to the land. Although we bought the lands, our Nation says we need people to be up there. What happened was, they had discussions here in the Nation's Capital and they thought perhaps what they should do is give them an equivalent amount of land. If they gave 160 acres in eastern Colorado or in Nebraska, take what they can grow on that and see how many acres in the mountains it would take, and maybe give them 3,000 acres. Well, what happened was that at the time they were making a lot of these land grants, the railroads had already been given large amounts of land and there was political pressure not to give any more government lands away. So the government, our leaders in Washington, D.C., consciously decided to hold the land in the government's name for formality purposes, but to let the people go out into the West and use it for multiple uses. A land of many uses. Those are enchanted words for us in the West. That is what we grew up under. In my particular congressional district, which geographically is larger than the State of Florida, every community in my district, except one, every community in my district, which is about 120, 119 communities, is completely surrounded by government lands. We are totally, not partially, not just a fraction, but totally and completely dependent upon government lands for our water, for our highways, for our utility lines, for our telephones, for our agriculture, for our recreation, for our environmental needs, for our enjoyment, for our own open space. All of those are completely dependent upon public lands, and that is the major difference between the West and the East. So I oftentimes find myself listening to some of my eastern colleagues, for whom I have great respect, talking about but not really understanding why we are so sensitive in the West when people in the East say, Well, let us just take this land out of bounds, let us get the people off this land, let us limit multiple use. Clearly, we have to manage these government lands, but we have an entire part of our Nation's population that live amongst those government lands and live on those government lands. And before we make decisions here, we need to understand that. My colleagues need to put themselves in the same kind of living situation, in other words, completely surrounded by government lands as we are in the West. So that is the clear distinction between the West and the East. As we move further, and now that we have a little description, let us move back to the State of Colorado and let me pull this other poster up here quickly. Now, this poster is a little cluttered, but I think I can go through parts of it. First of all, because Colorado has an average elevation of about 6,800 feet, because it is the highest point in the continent, obviously we are going to have a lot of water that runs off when that snow melts. Now, in Colorado, we have all the water we need for about a 60-to-90- day period of time, and that is actually beginning as we speak. It is called the spring runoff. Colorado is known as the State of the Rivers, the Mother River State, because we have five major rivers that have their headwaters in our State. But as the snow begins to melt, the water available diminishes dramatically. For example, we supply water not only for other States, but we even supply water for the country of Mexico. Here in the State of Colorado, this bright yellow section, basically, are the public lands of Colorado. That is what the public lands look like. All the rivers, all the headwaters are up here in the high mountains, and they run all directions out of the State of Colorado, as the mother rivers. Let me give a couple of the rivers. We have the Arkansas River, the Rio Grande, the South Platte River, the Colorado River, and so on. Now, what I hope to do, what I wanted to do tonight, and I intended to get a little further in my comments than I have, but I wanted us to visit a lot about that missile defense system, so we did not get quite through the series that I wanted to this evening, more specifically, on water coming out of those mountains, and what the salinity issues are, what the dilution issues are, what the multiple use issues are, what the water storage issues are, what are the hydropower issues, and why is it critical that we have a good understanding all across this country of multiple use on public lands? What does it mean not to divert any water? So these are issues that I kind of wanted to just tempt you with a little this evening. Now, I intend to continue my comments next week in much more depth on the dynamics of the high mountains, on the San Juans down in the southwestern part of the State, on the below-average snowfall that they have had this year and what the consequences of that is to fellow, down-river States; what down-river really means; what the wilderness areas are and what kind of impact the wilderness areas have; the government lands, the range management. There are lots and lots and lots of issues that face us high in the Rocky Mountains that are unique to the mountains or unique to the West, not found very often in the East, in fact, in some States not found at all. So I look forward next week to discussing these issues with my colleagues.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to pay tribute to a man whose life-long pursuit of improving and enriching the lives of others is an inspiration to us all. Noel Cunningham has dedicated his life to improving the lives of his fellow man. In recognition of this, the Ancient Order of the Hibernians is honoring Noel as Humanitarian of the Year. Although Noel bases his philanthropy in Denver his kindness and generosity have extended far beyond Denver to touch the lives of people around the state, the nation and indeed the world. It would take hours to describe all that Noel has done for the Denver Community, however, certain projects of his stand out. Noel was one of the founders of Taste of the Nation, an incredibly successful program that raises money to help address hunger and poverty. Last year the event was held in 500 cities across the nation and raised $300,000 in Denver alone. The millions of dollars that were raised will be distributed to states and countries dealing with the issue of hunger. For ten years, Noel has also run an event called ``I Remember Mama'' in which every Mother's Day he opens the doors of his restaurant to women from the poorest districts of Denver who participate in the Meals on Wheels programs. All of these women, who are without family in the Denver area, are treated to an incredible brunch, roses, gifts and music. Every Christmas, for the past decade, Noel has also hosted 300 foster children for a holiday party complete with food, gifts and a Santa who arrives in a helicopter. Not only do Noel's efforts benefit individuals, they also have a tremendous impact on the community at large. Last year, Noel helped to raise a half-million dollars to build a brand new playground for the children of Garden Place Academy in Globeville, one of Denver's poorest districts. The playground was built with help from the surrounding community and by the students themselves. As a result, less than one year later, the discipline problem at the school has been nearly cut in half. Noel hopes to share his passion for helping others with the next generation through his Quarters for Kids program, where school children save a quarter so that someone else can have a meal. Thousands of children participate every year learning the joy of giving to others. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no one more deserving of this award than Noel Cunningham. He is a man of unparalleled dedication and commitment to both his professional and philanthropic endeavors. It is his unrelenting passion for each and every thing he does, 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. Noel Cunningham is a remarkable man, who has achieved extraordinary things in his career and in his community. It is my distinct pleasure to pay tribute to Noel Cunningham today, and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of Colorado's first class citizens, Mr. Stan Broome. As President and Chief Executive Officer of Club 20, Mr. Broome worked hard to promote the common interest in the economic future of Colorado's Western Slope. Stan's leadership was essential in developing Club 20's strong reputation for its ability to focus on important issues, while representing the interests of Western Colorado. As President of Club 20, Stan Broome maintained the high standards of dedication and commitment to the Western Slope and the State of Colorado that the organization has built its reputation around. Because of his leadership, we enjoy the protection of our resources, the promotion of tourism, improvements in our transportation systems, the rise and creation of new telecommunications capabilities, creation of a powerful business infrastructure, and the ability to provide recreational activities in our region. Mr. Broome has remained steadfast in the Club 20's commitment as the ``The Voice of the Western Slope.'' Stan has made a number of contributions to the State of Colorado, and although he is retiring, I expect that he will remain an active public servant in his community. Stan's background is rich in experience and accolades, working as the Executive Director of Region 10 and President of SB & A Consultants. In addition, he has held several positions in planning and development in Garfield and Grand counties, and served a term with the Colorado Governor's office. Stan has established strong ties with the Colorado communities in which he has lived and worked. These relationships with the residents and the land have inspired Stan to work with many organizations, including his chairmanship of the Colorado Rural Development Council, serving on the Economic Developers Council of Colorado, being distinguished as a fellow of the Society of American Foresters, and his association with the Colorado Forestry Association. Mr. Speaker, Stan Broome has dedicated his life to serving the interests of Colorado's Western Slope, both professionally and as a volunteer. It is my privilege to honor Stan for his many years of guidance and support of Club 20 and Colorado's Western Slope. His dedication and commitment to his fellow Coloradans deserves the recognition of this body of Congress, and this nation. It is with great pleasure that I wish Stan Broome a pleasant retirement and all the best in his future endeavors.