Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Harry Mussell and thank him for his extraordinary contributions to his community and to his state. As a resident of New Castle, Colorado, Harry has dedicated his life to improving the community by selflessly giving his time and energy to a number of volunteer organizations. His remarkable philanthropic accomplishments are surpassed only by the level of integrity and honesty with which he has conducted himself each and every day of his life. As we celebrate his tremendous accomplishment of having a day, ``Harry W. Mussell Day,'' named after him by the citizens of New Castle, let it be known that I, along with the people of Colorado, applaud his efforts and are eternally grateful for all that he has done for the community of New Castle and the State of Colorado. Harry has served in the Glenwood Springs Rotary Club for nearly 35 years, having a perfect attendance record for 32 straight years. Even when Harry was out of town, he always made a point to find a local Rotary Club Chapter, so he could attend the weekly meetings. Not only is Harry a lifetime honorary Rotarian in Glenwood Springs, but he also started Rotary Clubs in Aspen, Carbondale and Rifle, and has attended nine international Rotary conventions. In addition to his dedication to the Rotary Club, Harry has devoted an enormous amount of time to a number of other organizations. He has been a volunteer with Colorado Mountain College's Senior Programs, serving on the advisory council of the Retired Senior Volunteer Program for several years. In addition, he has volunteered at ``The Gathering'', a senior lunch program held every Monday in New Castle and Wednesday in Silt. In 1997, Harry was a candidate for the Glenwood Post Humanitarian Service Award, and has previously served on New Castle's Senior Housing Committee. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Harry Mussell is a man of unparalleled dedication and commitment to his community and to the people who reside in it. 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. He is a remarkable man who has achieved extraordinary things and enriched the lives of so many people. It is my privilege to extend to him my sincere congratulations on the advent of ``Harry W. Mussell Day,'' as he is most deserving, and I wish him all the best in the future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to recognize the life and contributions of the former County Commissioner and livestock auctioneer Howard Roland. His life-long dedication to both his job and the people of Mesa County is matched only by the level of integrity and honesty with which he conducted himself each and every day. As his family mourns his loss, I think it is appropriate to remember Howard and pay tribute to him for his many contributions to his community. Howard began his service to Mesa County as County Commissioner in 1975. He served in this position with dedication and distinction until 1979. Howard was also renowned throughout the region for his honesty and integrity as an auctioneer. Using these qualities and his extraordinary knowledge of the stock show business, Howard opened the Grand Junction Livestock center in 1966. Howard will be remembered by his community as a humble man who was dedicated to both his work as a civil servant and as an auctioneer. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to Howard Roland for his contributions to the Mesa County community. He was known for his kind heart and gentle demeanor, which he displayed throughout his life. His dedication to his fellow man certainly deserves the recognition of this body of Congress and this nation. I would like to extend my thoughts and deepest sympathies to Howard's family and friends during this time of remembrance and bereavement.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sandra Wilkins and thank her for her extraordinary contributions in the Chaffee County Treasurer's Office. Her life-long dedication to both her job and the people of Chaffee County is matched only by the level of integrity and honesty with which she has conducted herself each and every day while at her post. She will always be remembered as an employee with the utmost dedication and talent, and will continue to be known as a leader in her community. As she celebrates her retirement, let it be known that I, along with each and every person with whom she has worked and the people of Chaffee County, are eternally grateful for all that she has accomplished in her more than 30 years of public service. Sandra went to work in the Chaffee County Treasurer's Office in 1971, working for John Hughes. After Mr. Hughes retired in 1986, Sandra ran successfully for the post of county treasurer, and was subsequently re- elected three times. For over 30 years, Sandra has selflessly given her time, energy and unrelenting commitment to the people of Chaffee County, and although Chaffee County is no doubt sad to lose her services, everyone is happy that she will now have more time to travel, relax, and enjoy her well-deserved retirement. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Sandra Wilkins is a woman of unparalleled dedication and commitment to both her professional endeavors and the people of her community. It is her unrelenting passion for each and every thing she does, as well as her spirit of honesty and integrity with which she has always conducted herself, that I wish to bring before this body of Congress. She is a remarkable woman, who has achieved extraordinary things in her career and for her community. It is my privilege to extend to her my congratulations on her retirement and wish her the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor a woman whose passion for life and whose incredible human spirit is an inspiration to us all. Clara Horan, a Colorado resident of almost sixty years, who will soon achieve an extraordinary milestone, celebrating her one-hundredth birthday with four generations of her friends and family. Clara was born on April 11, 1902 in Elba, Nebraska. She was raised by her parents, Peter and Katherine Andrzejewski, on a cattle, corn and wheat farm with her eight brothers and sisters. On December 7, 1921, Clara married Lloyd Horan of Cotesfield, Nebraska. The couple relocated to Mesa, Colorado in 1943, and then moved to Clifton, Colorado five years later. Her friends and family fondly refer to her as ``Grandma.'' Incredibly, Clara is the matriarch of a family that includes 3 children, 8 grandchildren, 16 great-grandchildren and 10 great-great- grandchildren. It is an impressive lineage of which she is extremely proud, and which, more importantly, is extremely proud of her. She has been a member of St. Ann's Church in Palisade, Colorado for nearly 25 years, and continues to volunteer on a weekly basis at the Migrant Center in Palisade. She still loves to attend to her garden, and finds time to fish on Grand Mesa. The remarkable longevity of Clara's life is a testament to the extraordinary passion for life that she has always carried with her, and her family and friends are all fortunate to be able to share in a life as rich and varied as hers. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I bring to the attention of this body of Congress the life and spirit of such an incredible woman. She has lived her life with extraordinary passion and kindness, and possesses an innate ability to brighten and invigorate the lives of those around her. She is truly an inspiration to all of us, and I, along with the many people whose lives she has touched, am honored to recognize her tremendous accomplishment in reaching her one-hundredth birthday, and more importantly, her passion for life and indomitable human spirit.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this morning the Committee on Resources heard testimony from investigators and from the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife and others in regards to a scheme put forward by several Federal employees to alter a lynx study in the northwestern part of the Nation. It is very important for us as government employees to maintain the integrity of the process, and a part of that goes clear down to our field employees upon whom we depend very heavily to deliver a product that they are required by protocol to deliver. What do I mean by this? What happened is we had several biologists, Ray Scharpf, Mitch Wainright, Sarah LaMarr and Tim McCracken, Federal employees involved in a lynx study in the northwest part of this Nation. These are professional biologists or associated with professional biologists. Their job was to go out and determine whether or not there was any evidence of lynx in a forest, to then determine whether or not further investigation was necessary. What these individuals did was go out and planted evidence. They planted evidence, just like a bad cop goes into a house and plants drugs. They planted lynx hair and submitted the lynx hair to the laboratory in hopes that the laboratory would assume that there were now lynx in this area that they had studied. The average biologist that we have working for the Forest Service or for the Fish and Wildlife are people of high integrity. I cannot think of a biologist that I have met that I have not been fairly confident of the integrity and the standards that they rise to. But in this case, these Federal employees brought a disgrace upon the United States Government and brought a disgrace upon these agencies by planting evidence and submitting false samples for a survey. Unfortunately, these employees are still employed by the Federal Government. Fortunately, we had a whistle blower. An employee on his last day called in the fact that false samples had been submitted to this survey. My point in taking the floor today is that I appreciate the Members who attended the hearing today, and I especially appreciate the investigators who went out and came up with these conclusions. We know that these employees knew that what they were doing was wrong and outside their protocol, but they still carried out their actions. Mr. Speaker, today we had a good hearing about it, and I think we will be able to install some fire walls that will prevent this type of scheme from happening again. In the meantime, it has unfortunately cast a small shadow upon the profession. What we need to do is assure that that profession has no shadow at all because their importance in our studies out there are absolutely critical. We depend on them very much, very much; and we have good reason to depend on them. They are the experts, but integrity comes first and above all.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Marvin Beeman and thank him for his extraordinary contributions to the National Western Horse Show. His life-long dedication to both his job, as a large animal veterinarian, and to the National Western Horse Show, as its manager, is surpassed only by the level of integrity and honesty with which he has conducted himself each and every day while at his posts. As the manager of the National Western Horse Show, he will always be remembered as a man with the utmost dedication and talent, and will continue to be known as a leader in the veterinary field. As he celebrates his retirement, let it be known that I, along with each and every person with whom he has worked and the people of Colorado, are eternally grateful for all that he has done for the National Western Horse Show and for the state. Marvin has dedicated his entire life to the care and treatment of horses. Growing up on a 28,000-acre ranch, which was owned by the Phipps family, his father was a professional huntsman who managed the horses and hounds of the ranch and taught him how to care for and appreciate horses. At as early an age as seven years old, Marvin realized that he wanted to be a horse vet. He doggedly pursued his dream, and earned a doctorate in veterinary medicine from Colorado State University in 1957. Shortly after, he began working at the Littleton Large Animal Clinic, where he has worked ever since. Marvin has had a distinguished career as a large animal veterinarian. He is the past president of the American Association of Equine Veterinary Practitioners, chief huntsman for the Arapahoe Hunt Club, and the only vet to be a trustee on the American Horse Council. In addition, he serves on the American Quarter Horse Association research committee and was inducted into the AQHA Hall of Fame. In 1997, Marvin took the prestigious post of Horse Show Manager at the National Western, where he served until retiring after the 2002 show. During his tenure, he markedly improved the quality of the show, as well as increased interest in it. Because of his dedication, knowledge and hard work, he will be sorely missed by everyone involved in the National Western, and by the thousands of people who enjoyed his work each and every year. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Marvin Beeman is a man of unparalleled dedication and commitment to the National Western Horse Show, to his veterinary practice and to the people of Colorado. 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. He is a remarkable man, who has achieved extraordinary things throughout his career, and it is my privilege to extend to him my congratulations on his retirement from the National Western Horse Show and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a truly dedicated teacher at Otero Junior College, Mr. Ralph Newby. Ralph has dedicated countless hours to helping others understand and succeed in the field of computer studies at OJC. He has gone far beyond what is required in the classroom and touched the lives of his students in such a profound way that he was recently named OJC Teacher of the Year. Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is only appropriate during this moment of distinction for Ralph that we, as a body of Congress recognize his efforts. For fifteen years, Ralph has remained dedicated and committed to his students in their pursuit of computer studies. He has consistently kept up on the ever-evolving world of computers in order to give his students the best skills for their future jobs. He is known to his colleagues and his students for his loyalty, his willingness to be involved in their lives and his innovative teaching style. However, he is best known for his perseverance in his teaching; he will not quit trying new methods until his students fully understand a concept. Ralph has served his fellow teachers as the Chair of the Faculty Assembly and he has served his state as the Vocational and Technology Advisor to the State Community Colleges. Ralph is not only an extraordinary educator but also a pillar of the community. He has been involved in organizing the Arkansas Valley Career Fair, regional FBLA conferences, Kids College, and Phi Beta Lambda. Ralph also coaches recreational sports, sponsors a marching band and is involved in church activities. He is also known as a loving father and husband. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to recognize Ralph for his service to his community and the students whose life he has changed. The diligence and commitment demonstrated by Ralph Newby certainly deserves the recognition of this body of Congress, and this nation. Ralph's achievements as a teacher serves as a symbol to teachers throughout Colorado, and indeed the entire nation. The honor of OJC teacher of the year is proof that hard work is rewarded. It is people like Ralph who help to ensure that our future generations are guaranteed the opportunity to improve their lives through the resource of education. Congratulations Ralph, and thank you for all of your hard work.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different issues that I would like to address this evening; but I find myself, having listened to the last hour of comments, in need of a little rebuttal to some of these comments, especially those comments that were directed to us by the minority leader, which of course went unrebutted. First of all, the minority leader talks about some kind of secret Republican plan for Social Security. Where does he get that? What gives him the liberty to make those kinds of remarks? That speech that the minority leader gave, in my opinion, was one of the most partisan speeches I have heard on this floor. I challenge the minority leader to show me one Republican or show me one Democrat on the House floor, one in office in either our House or at any elected level, that is against Social Security. Show me one elected official in this country that wants to devastate Social Security. Show me one Congressman, Mr. Minority Leader, that meets the standards that he put out there: because they are Republican, they must be against Social Security. What really justifies some of those remarks, I would guess, is the fact that it is an election year, and now is the time to begin to position oneself as the savior of Social Security. The minority leader talks about, we should not talk about numbers, we should talk about values. He is right, the minority leader, we should talk about values. Part of those values are the preservation of that system. All of us on this floor, Republicans and Democrats, want to preserve the system; but in order to meet that value of preservation of the system, we need to talk about numbers. Let us talk about a few numbers. When that system was created 67 years ago, we had, what, 12 workers for every retired person? Today that statistic is three workers for every retired person, and in a few short years it is going to be that there are two people working for every retired person. Take a look at the math on that, Mr. Minority Leader, and take a calculation of what that means. Furthermore, take a look 67 years ago what the average age was, the average life expectancy for a male and a female, and compare it to today. I would suggest that the difference between 67 years ago and the life expectancy today is at least a minimum of 14, perhaps 15 or 16 years. And what will it be when the generations of my children grow, another 10 years, when people are living longer? And that is the good news. The fact is that our system is getting more and more weight put against it. We have got to come up with more and more dollars to continue the same kind of benefits. One, if we have less people putting in and more people taking out, we better talk about numbers, Mr. Minority Leader. And because of the fact that some of us who are fiscally conservative want to talk about numbers does not mean we are against Social Security. Mr. Minority Leader, there are a number of Democrats on your side of the aisle who are fiscally conservative. There are a number of Democrats who worry about those numbers. There are a number of Democrats who put the emotion aside, the rhetoric aside and try and sit down with us and those who are interested in trying to figure out how do we work with these numbers so that, one, we can meet the demands of the future. Any elected official that tells you that any other elected official wants to do away with Social Security, frankly, is not telling you the truth. I have yet in my years of service in the United States Congress, I have yet to find one Congressman, and we have gone through hundreds of Congressmen in the years that I have been in service, I have yet to find one Congressman who has told me to my face or I have heard it through an indirect conversation that has said what the minority leader said, and that is that the Republicans want to get rid of Social Security; that they have a secret plan out there for Social Security to slash the benefits of all of these people. Mr. Minority Leader, I think your approach would be better phrased if you said, hey, look, we better sit down, both sides of this thing. We better talk numbers. Obviously, the value is preservation of the system. I think everybody agrees with that. So there should not be any argument about who wants to preserve the system. Again, everybody that I know of in the United States Congress, and I defy the minority leader to show me somebody who does not, but everybody I know, every Congressperson wants to preserve the system. So put that argument aside. It is not an argument of preservation. It is a discussion of numbers. How do we work with these numbers? How do we figure it out? Take a look at 67 years ago, the benefits that Social Security paid out, and take a look at the expansion of benefits that have occurred in the last 67 years without a reflective expansion of revenue coming in. In other words, the Congresses through the years and the people of the country through the years have appropriated and approved more benefits than they have revenue coming in. Come on. You have got to deal with your family budget and you have a responsibility to deal with the budget of this country. The best way to preserve Social Security for the future, which we all want to do, is to act with some economic sensibility. Do not mislead the people by pretending to promise them things that you know several years after you leave office, several years after you accomplish what you want to accomplish politically, somebody else gets stuck with the bill. That is what happened years ago when 40 years of rule here stacked up deficit after deficit. Now we are back into a deficit this year, but it is not because of some kind of slight of hand. It is because we are engaged in a war and we are watching our revenue drop. We have to sit down and discuss that, just the same as Social Security. So those remarks at the beginning of this evening by the minority leader, again, some of the most partisan remarks I have seen on this floor, are clearly devised for election strategy. It is an election year, and as we proceed closer to November, you will see, unfortunately, more and more people using the strategy of this microphone to enhance their own political self-serving interest. And I hope we can avoid that, especially when it comes to Social Security. Many of us, many Democrats that I know do not take part, do not participate in those kind of partisan discussions. They instead sit together in groups of people and say, how do we figure out, how do we work the numbers? We have a problem. We have a lot more going out in Social Security over time than we have coming in. On a cash flow basis we are okay, but on an actuarial basis over time Social Security needs to have some adjustments. I do not condemn the President of the United States. I commend the President of the United States for stepping forward and saying, get some expert help. Let me reach out to a commission, a commission made up of Republicans and Democrats, a commission made up of experts and of people who understand the needs of that generation and the needs of future generations, people that know, that are experts in accounting and economics. That is the kind of panel that this President, President Bush, put together. Instead of condemning it and saying it is some kind of secret society out there which, of course, is obviously nothing but politically-charged language, the fact is they have come up with some suggestions, that the commission has worked long and hard to try to come up with something that is constructive towards preservation of the Social Security system. So I would hope that the minority leader would tone down these kind of partisan remarks; and instead of showing up at the microphone and firing out with this negotiation as an election year strategy, in my opinion, I think he would be much better served if he would join us and sit down and maybe go over to the commission and sit down in person with that commission and talk about what their ideas are and what we can do to preserve the system. Shadow Government Let me move on to a couple of other things that I think are very, very important. First of all, in the last few days I have seen a media barrage, a media barrage across this country, about how aghast some people are that President Bush, the Vice President and the administration have put into place a back-up government in case a terrorist attack took out the sitting government in Washington, D.C. Why would anybody be surprised about that? You better have a back-up plan in place. You know what happened at this U.S. Capitol on September 11? I was here. You know what kind of back-up plan we had? Zip. Zero. We were fortunate that a few brave souls, a few brave souls took a plane into the ground in Pennsylvania, because my guess is this plane would have been right here, coming through this dome in this Capitol and would have very easily wiped out the congressional leadership. That plane that hit the Pentagon very easily may have been intended to hit the White House and take out the leadership there. Sure, we have a line of succession; but what happens to that line of succession, as occurred on September 11, when in one central location are your Cabinet secretaries and your different agencies, and they have no direction from the selected government on how to run? Of course you better make up back-up plans. In fact, some of the people, some of my colleagues here have different bills they have introduced, for example, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) on succession. I think it is a very legitimate and, frankly, is a responsibility of this administration, after September 11 especially, to say, hey, what if this happens again? What if they would have wiped out the United States Congress? What if they would have wiped out the White House? Who gives direction to our government? What kind of safeguards do we have? So I commend the administration, not condemn it. I commend the administration for thinking forward into the future, for having some kind of foresight as to what we ought to do in case this scenario repeats itself again. We all know that there are people out there who hate the United States and would love nothing more than to destroy this great building and the people that work in it and to disable our government. So now is the time to prepare. So my opinion is people that have criticized this surprise me. Criticizing the President for, in effect, buying a back-up fire truck in case the fire station burns down. You ought to say, good job. Keep it up. That is the kind of forward thinking that we need to prepare against this ongoing battle against terrorism and this ongoing battle against people who wish evil against the United States of America. Honoring Chief Warrant Officer Stanley L. Harriman I want to move on from this and visit just for a moment about the horrible causalities that we have taken as far as in the last 48 hours or so. The deaths that were suffered were terrible, but I want to read, in fact, about the gentleman who was mentioned here, Chief Warrant Officer Stanley Harriman who lost his life in the last few hours in Afghanistan. I wanted to read a few comments out of today's New York Times from the families. This is a card last month that the Chief Warrant Officer sent his wife, an e-mail message rejoicing that he had been sent to Afghanistan. ``Honey, I am so excited about going to Afghanistan. I will be doing what I have trained for 16 years to do.'' His survivors, which include his wife, a 6-year-old daughter and a 3- year-old son, his father, who is retired military, and he has a brother; and of this family, the commitment of this family towards the duty of their father, towards the duty of their husband, towards the duty of their son, towards the duty of their brother, it is an amazing family, that the duty and the preservation and the great things that we have in this country called for him to be in Afghanistan. Let me share that card. Let me repeat a card that the Chief Warrant Officer sent to his wife, another card. He mailed a card to his wife from Kuwait which she received about one week ago. Mrs. Harriman, the wife, read from it during an interview. ``I know that it is not always easy with me gone so much, but we have so much to be thankful for. We are truly blessed by God, and these trials and tribulations will only make us stronger.'' Then let me say to you what his brother said, after learning of his brother's death. This is the Chief Warrant Officer's brother, Steve. He said that ``he hoped the military would not flinch at pursuing military operations to their conclusion. ``Stan would not have changed it if he could. He would do it the same way,'' Steve said. ``I hope they continue to do what they say they are going to do, to complete the mission.'' And the key words here are ``to complete the mission.'' We cannot allow the enemy to kill seven or nine or any number of our American soldiers over there and cut and run from our mission. Some of you may have had the opportunity to see the movie Black Hawk Down. Those are the results, that is the kind of results where the sight of a body bag convinces many of our enemies across this world, the al Qaeda and some of the other people, that all you have to do is show the American citizens a body bag and they will cut and run. If you want to break America's resolve, kill a few of their soldiers. As Steve said about his brother, his brother would want the military to complete its mission. And we have a very heavy mission on our shoulders, this country does, for the world, for the future of the world, not just for our generations and future generations of America, but for generations of all countries of this world. And that is to rid this world to the extent that we possibly can of the cancer that we discovered that had gone a lot further than we had ever imagined. That cancer had spread, and we discovered it on September 11. Now, we have been able to locate some of that cancer, and we have got to cut that cancer out. You cannot ignore it. You cannot love it off your body. You cannot pray it off your body. All of these things help. Do not get me wrong. That all helps. But the reality is you have to go in with chemotherapy. You may have to go in with surgery. You may have to go in with radiation. You have got to get that cancer. You cannot turn your face the other way. You have got to complete your mission. You cannot go in and get a few cells of the cancer. You cannot go in and nip the little end off of it. You cannot even go in a take a big chunk of it but still leave some vital cells of cancer still in your body. You have got to complete the mission. This country has taken a loss in the last few days of some very young and very brave American soldiers. But I would guess that the families of those soldiers and every one of those soldiers if they could say it today would say to the United States of America, complete your mission. Take out the enemy. Destroy those who would destroy this country. Destroy those who would destroy democracy in this world. Destroy those who, without any regard to nationality, any regard to sex, any regard to age would kill thousands of people in an act of terrorist attack. So I think that our resolve should be hardened. I do not think we should give any kind of message because I do not think it is true with the American citizens. I think our resolve should be hardened to complete this mission. We have learned from the past. In Somalia, it was a disgrace, frankly, our brave soldiers that fought and gave their lives. Vietnam was another example. We did not complete the mission. And you know what? We have trained people out there, we have convinced our enemies that the United States, again, all they have to do is have a death of their soldiers or torture some of their soldiers or drag them through the street like they did in Somalia, and within a couple of weeks after seeing their soldiers dragged through Somalia the president of the country will order their troops out and we will have beat the American giant. If we want to protect democracy in this world, if we want to stop terrorism before it stops us, and a better word, instead of stopped, is destroy us, we have to complete the mission. That is exactly what the Harriman family has relayed through the tragic death of Chief Warrant Officer Harriman, and that is ``complete your mission.'' I want to visit a little about the President and his dedication to the completion of this mission. I noticed some criticism in the last few days of some individuals who say, number one, the President ought to inform us of the operational details of what is going on over there. Listen, we are not military experts. We are Members of the United States Congress. We have some oversight authority and so on, and we work with the administration, but what do my colleagues want done? What, do they want the President to come over to Congress every day and say, all right, here is how many helicopters we have dispatched in this portion of Afghanistan, here is where this ship is, this is what we are doing? Let the President and the military administration do their job. I heard a complaint over the weekend on some of the news stories that we do not seem to really have a plan of where this is going. Well, I think the Vice President, Dick Cheney, did a very good job of responding to that. I think it was last evening, when he said, look, the people we are dealing with are terrorists. They are not going to meet us in some country and have a summit for peace or sign a peace treaty with us. There is not going to be some kind of long-term peace plan that they want to execute or cooperate in with the United States of America. There is no deterrent out there against these kind of people. They have one mission in mind: they want to destroy the United States, and they want to destroy anybody that is affiliated with the United States, and they want to destroy people that do not agree with them in any regard. These are not the kind of people we can draw out some kind of peace plan or conclusion with short of taking them into custody or destroying them. And we cannot just stop with the al Qaeda. We have to call people what they are; we have to call it what it is. I was amazed that after the President's speech, where he talked about North Korea, that all of a sudden some of my colleagues or some of the commentators across the country were starting to act like North Korea is a very amicable country; that the leadership, and not the people of North Korea, but the leadership of North Korea is not as evil as we portray them to be. What a misconception. Take a look what North Korea is all about. In fact, if I was a wealthy man, I would spend my money and I would take every high school graduate in this country, if they wanted to go, and I would fly them to Korea and I would take them up to the DMZ and I would show them that line that separates two societies, the society of democracy and freedom against the society of communism and dictatorship and ruthlessness. But all of a sudden, because our President and his administration, and a very able administration, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, because they say it so, we all of a sudden see them draw criticism. It was interesting that Colin Powell had to say the other day to even some of our allies in NATO, hey, every time you pound on the United States, why not pound on Iraq. And when the President talks about Iraq as part of the axis of evil and the evilness of Iran, do not forget the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, who has poisoned his own people. He has not used chemical warfare or other kinds of poison against an enemy, but used it against his own people who disagreed with his policies. Look at the mass executions in that country. Look at the oppression against women in that country. Look at the oppression against scholars. And let me remind my colleagues that they are not content to keep it within their own borders. North Korea is not content to stay within its own borders. Iraq is not content to stay within its own borders. They want to reach outside their borders, and they want to destroy the signs of freedom, and they want to destroy the evidence of democracy. And we had better stand up to it. Frankly, most of the people in America have given their support to the President and his leadership. We have got to draw the line in the sand. That is what the President has said, and he is willing to commit the American forces to complete the mission. That is what all of us need to do. But some of my colleagues stand up to the American people and say, well, where is this going and to start criticizing the administration at this point in time on our war against terrorism, when they have not sat 10 minutes as the commanding officer of the United States, our chief military officer; they have not sat for 10 minutes in a lieutenant's chair in this mission. We need to give these people confidence. We need to give them our confidence that the job they are doing is what needs to be done. The cancer that is the al Qaeda, the acts of these terrorists, must be stopped. And thank goodness we finally have an administration that, despite the fact that we have taken some casualties, understands that if we are going to clear out the rats, if we are going to get in there and get those cancer cells, we are going to take casualties. There is a lot of dirty work ahead for us to get rid of this threat. But if we do not get rid of it now, the casualties we take today will be nothing, nothing compared to the many casualties we will take in the future and the regrets we will have in the future because we did not support this administration and take out the al Qaeda while we had the opportunity to take out the al Qaeda; while we had the opportunity to do something to restrain the expansionist mode of Iraq and the ideals of Iraq to use nuclear weapons, or biological weapons, or any kind of weapon of mass destruction against the rest of the free world. So I would urge my colleagues to be a little slower in their criticism; study the facts a little more and do not pretend to be some kind of tank captain out there who knows how to run the battlefield. We have experts out there that do that. Now, I am not saying that Congress should forgive or forget or release our oversight responsibilities and our budgetary responsibilities, et cetera. I am not saying that. I am just saying that I am beginning to sense that Congress and some Members of Congress are beginning to run interference on their own team. As our quarterback is getting ready to throw the ball, it is not a member of the enemy team that has broken through the line, it is some of our own people, kind of confused and running back there and asking the quarterback if he ought to be throwing the ball, right in the middle of the play. That does not work. This country, I think, has shown very admirable dedication to what this country is all about, and that is freedom and the protection of people throughout this world. Clearly, it has been reflected by our military, which has done an outstanding job. It has done such a good job that up to this point we have been able to limit casualties. But now when it comes to hand-to-hand combat, which is a necessary part, now when it comes to digging in real deep to get those cancer cells, we are going to have casualties. I wish we would not have casualties. Everyone in this Chamber wishes we would not have casualties. These poor families who have suffered the worst loss a family can suffer wishes they had not suffered that. But it is my opinion that almost everybody, almost everybody comes to the same conclusion, and that is that sometimes we have to fight. We cannot run. Sometimes we have to do what is right. Sometimes we have to draw that line in the sand; and when the other person steps over it, we have to stop them. Because if we do not, we will pay a very, very heavy price in the future. Let me talk very briefly about NATO. As my colleagues know, NATO is our North Atlantic defense council or European council treaty organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is very important. They have played an important part in our war in Afghanistan. Within hours after the September 11 attack against the United States of America, NATO, for the first time in its history, for the first time in its history, invoked what is called article 5. Article 5 in the NATO agreement says, simplified, an attack against one is an attack against all. Within hours after that, NATO agreed to give the United States of America whatever was necessary, whatever the United States requested to assist them going after the people who committed that atrocious act of war against us. And the United States took advantage of that offer and took advantage of our membership in NATO. We called upon our friends to help us track down the financial network that supported this from a financial point of view. We called upon our friends to help us with intelligence and to help us break up those cells, those terrorist cells, located throughout the world, including some located in the United States of America. We requested, and it was supplied, NATO AWAC aircraft. For the first time in the history of the United States, we had nine U.S. aircraft patrolling our skyways while we sent our AWAC aircraft over to the theater of operations. I just recently returned from NATO meetings; and when I listened to the British, it was like listening to your own brother. The British are there. They are there 100 percent. And the British people, the ambassador over in London, told me what it was like hours after September 11. Tens of thousands of Britons came to the embassy to sign the condolence books. They could not get a phone call out because there were so many condolence phone calls from the British people to the American people. Tony Blair's resolve was instant and has only strengthened. It has not weakened. He came to the assistance of the United States. And so I want to commend NATO, but at the same time that I commend our partners in NATO, I want to remind some of our fair weather friends in NATO that this is not going to be an easy battle. Do not let these casualties of the last few hours scare you off. This, clearly, is a battle for this next century. This is a battle that determines the safety and the freedom and the future for all of our countries, whether you are in NATO or not. This time around it was the United States of America. It was New York. It was Washington, DC. Next time it might be Paris or next time maybe a terrorist attack in the country of Luxembourg or, God forbid, some other place in this world. We need to stick together as a team. This is not the time to pound on the United States, as Colin Powell has said. It is time to recognize who the enemy is, to acknowledge to the American people and to all world people who that enemy is, and to do something about the enemy. It is time to get a rope around that wild horse and bring it in. This cancer that is spreading throughout the world must be stopped, and it is not going to be stopped through weak knees. It is only going to be stopped through teamwork, through dedication, and, frankly, through sacrifice. The sacrifice reflected in the last few hours by the loss of American soldiers is exactly the kind of medicine that unfortunately is going to be necessary to take that cancer off that body. So let me, in conclusion of my remarks, just repeat what I said earlier, and these are the remarks of the brother of Chief Warrant Officer Stanley Harriman, who was killed in action in the last few hours, here is what his brother says; and this is how I conclude my remarks this evening: His brother Steve said that he hoped the military, and I add to that NATO and all our allies throughout the world, he hoped the military would not flinch in pursuing military operations to their conclusion. Stan would not have changed it if he could. He would have done it the same way. Steve said, I hope they continue to do what they say they are going to do, to complete the mission. Our military, with our support, and the administration, which is doing an outstanding job of leading this effort, must be allowed to complete the mission, to protect the freedom of the world and democracy as we know it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a truly dedicated teacher from Pueblo, Colorado, Ms. Tina Sandoval. Tina has spent countless hours helping others understand and succeed in their academic endeavors at Pueblo Community College. She has gone far beyond what is expected in the classroom and touched the lives of many of her students in such a profound way that she was recently named Pueblo Community College Teacher of the Year. Although Tina has always been passionate about teaching mathematics, her real love is working with people. Originally from Walsenburg, Colorado, Tina was drawn to teaching after seeing the impact teachers had on students' lives. Tina set out to obtain her education and went on to receive both her Bachelors and Masters Degree from Regis College. After a brief career in accounting, Tina found that she missed working with people and decided to become a teacher. Her dedication and commitment paid off and today she is responsible for touching the lives of many who have passed through her classroom. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to recognize Tina for her service to her community and especially to the students whose lives she has changed. The diligence and commitment demonstrated by Tina certainly deserve the recognition of this body of Congress, and this nation. Tina's achievements as a teacher serve as a symbol to other teachers throughout Colorado. The honor of the Teacher of the Year is proof that hard work and persistence can lead to success in achieving your goals. It is people like Tina Sandoval that ensure our future generations are guaranteed the opportunity to improve their lives through a quality education. Congratulations Tina, and thank you for all of your hard work!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Olive Morton and thank her for her extraordinary contributions to Routt County and Colorado Mountain College. Olive's life-long dedication to the pursuit of excellence as an educator and volunteer for community organizations is matched only by the level of integrity and honesty with which she has conducted herself each and every day. She will always be remembered at Colorado Mountain College as a person with the utmost dedication and talent, and will continue to be known as a leader in her community. After over thirty years of service, Olive is retiring from her position as Director of the Alpine Campus of the college. As she celebrates her retirement, I feel that it is only appropriate to recognize her achievements and dedication to education expressed throughout her career. Olive has been a pioneering spirit all of her life. She began her career as one of the first employees at the Colorado Mountain College-- Alpine Campus. Through her countless hours devoted to the college and its students, she has helped to bring Colorado Mountain College from its infancy to a well-respected and renowned institute today. Olive not only has shown the strength to be the foundation for the college but has also crafted the vision for its future. Known among her colleagues for her inspiration, her professionalism, fairness and her leadership, Olive will be deeply missed. Olive has brought her strong work ethic and commitment to excellence to community activities for many years. This year Olive is continuing to serve as the Republican Chairperson for Routt County in Colorado, a position in which she has served for several terms. Her commitment as an educator and as a civil servant has led her to combine her two passions, and as a result she has faithfully represented the academic world and her political party. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Olive Morton is a woman of unparalleled dedication and commitment to both her professional and civic endeavors. It is her unrelenting passion for each and every thing she does, as well as her spirit of honesty and integrity with which she has always conducted herself, that I wish to bring before this body of Congress, and this nation. Olive Morton is a remarkable woman, who has achieved extraordinary things in her career and in her community, and I would like to extend to her my congratulations on her retirement and wish her the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a Lions Club member from Grand Junction, Colorado whose hard work and dedication has been rewarded with the highest honor given to any Lions Club member. Russ Soderquist was recently awarded the Melvin Jones Fellowship, and as he celebrates his achievement, I would like to commend him for his commitment to excellence that has resulted in this honor. He is certainly a well deserving recipient of this Fellowship and I am pleased to represent him and his chapter of the Lions Club in Colorado. Russ has served as a member of the Grand Junction chapter of the Lions Club since 1969. Throughout the years, Russ has become famous for his writing on a variety of issues and subjects, drafting letters with concerns and comments to the President of the Lions Club and his fellow citizens. What set Russ apart is that not only is he active in raising concerns to the attention of others, but he also proposes actual solutions. In addition to his letters, Russ also writes numerous articles, several of which have appeared in the Lions Club international magazine. Russ is well known throughout his community as a compassionate man who is dedicated to his community and improving the lives of others. He always conducts himself with sincerity and honesty, both in his letters and in his everyday life. Mr. Speaker, the diligence and commitment demonstrated by Russ Soderquist certainly deserves the recognition of this body of Congress, and this nation. Russ' achievement serves as a symbol to community members throughout Colorado, and indeed the entire nation. The Melvin Jones Fellowship is an incredible honor that has been awarded to a well deserving recipient. Congratulations Russ, and thank you for all of your hard work!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I wanted to talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart, obviously a subject that is important to all of us, no matter where you reside or what district you represent in the United States, and that is the issue of water. Now, water generally is a pretty boring subject, as long as it continues to run out of the tap, or when you turn on the bath water it is there, or when you want to go fishing and the lake is at the right level. But water is a very critical issue for us to keep an eye on. The United States is very unique in that the geographical layout of this country is such that water is dramatically different and the issues dealing with water are dramatically different in the western portion of the United States than they are in the eastern portion of the United States. For example, half of the land mass of the United States, half of the land mass, which I will point out a little later on, only has 14 percent of the water. If one draws a line down, say, between Kansas and the State of Missouri, from north to south, that eastern portion has 70-some percent, maybe 72 percent of the water in that smaller portion of the Nation. So we have got a Nation that is large, but the water is not equally divided. Likewise, the State that I represent, the State of Colorado, is the only State in the Union where it has no inflowing water. No water comes into Colorado for use within the borders of Colorado. Colorado is a very unique State, and I intend to spend some time this evening talking about the relationship of Colorado to the Nation's water, specifically the Colorado River. The Colorado River, of course, is called the Mother of Rivers. Colorado is interesting in that Colorado is the highest State in elevation of all 50 States in the country. In fact, there are about 67 mountains in the United States, including Alaska, that are over 14,000 feet, and of those 67 mountains, 56 of them, I think, 56 of the 67, you find in the State of Colorado. Mountains over 13,000 feet, there is like 700 mountains in the United States that are over 13,000 feet; and of those 700, 600 of them are located in the State of Colorado. That is critical. The reason the elevation is critical because, obviously, at the higher elevations is where you have your massive accumulations of snow and moisture during the winter months. That, of course, is very determinative as to what kind of spring runoff and what kind of water you are going to have for a good portion of the Nation as far as surface water is concerned for your months where you do not have heavy moisture. Colorado really is a very dry State. In fact, that part of the west of the United States is a very arid portion of the Nation. It gets very little moisture. I will give some statistics as we go on into this conversation we are having this evening. But when one takes a look at Colorado, it is very arid during most months of the year, which makes it even more dependent on those winter months and that snow accumulation and its relationship to the months that we have very little rain. By the way, I never really knew what rain was until I came to the East. In the West our droplets are very cold and very little droplets of rain. You come to the East, man, it seems like it rains forever. But out there in Colorado we are very dependent in the months where we have very low rainfall, which are most months of the year. We then have to rely on the water that we have either been able to store or accumulate because of the snow that has come down on those mountains. What is interesting in history is one of the first dams ever discovered goes back in the Mesa Verde National Park around 1,000 A.D., and there they found an ancient irrigation system. It did not take man very long to figure out that water does not always necessarily flow on where you need it and when you need it. So when you need it, that is when man first began to develop some way to store it, because, obviously, the stream did not stay at the same level all year-round and where you needed it. It led man for the first time to take water and move it from its natural course, to divert it to where the man or animals or agriculture needed it. Every person in America diverts their water. Every person in America diverts water for their use. That is how you get water diverted from its source into, for example, your house, or onto your farm field, or into your communities, or into the buildings that you visit. So there are a lot of interesting things about water. But you can start off by looking at the water supply throughout the world. When you notice the water supply in the world, something is very interesting: 97 percent, 97 percent of the water supply in the world, is salt water. And until we are able to come up with desalinization at an economic price, and I am sure the future generations will be able to do that, but for our generation in existence today it is not economically viable to take that salt water and convert it to clear water with any kind of quantity. So 97 percent of the water in this world really right now is pretty much off limits. Then you take a look what the balance is, and the balance of the 3 percent. You have got 3 percent left of water that is clear water. Most of that 3 percent, most of it, almost all of it, in fact, again 90 percent of that 3 percent, is water that is not salt water, but it is tied up in the iceberg, frozen solid, so we do not have access to that as well. So really the amount of water that is available for consumption that does not have high levels of salinity is very limited when you look at the picture as a whole. Now, as I mentioned earlier, it is pretty interesting, because a lot of people, including myself, I was stunned when I first saw this poster to my left, and I would like to point out some of it to you, because I think it is pretty interesting. It is amazing, it is stunning, to see how much water is necessary, how much water the average person uses in their daily consumption. I do not mean just glasses of water or the bottles of water that one may drink during an average day. I am talking about the quantity of water that is necessary for your food, for example, or for your everyday living needs. I think this chart is one of the best demonstrations that I have seen of what water usage is, so you have a pretty accurate picture of just how dependent you are on water. Water usage. Americans are fortunate. We can turn on the faucet and get all the clean and fresh water we need. Many of us take water for granted. Have you ever wondered how much water you use each day? Look at this chart. Direct uses of water. Drinking and cooking, 2 gallons. Now, this is per person. Per person. Two gallons of water to drink it and cook with it. Flushing the toilet, 5 to 7 gallons per flush. Now, that has come down just a little with the new toilets we have, but basically that number will probably be accurate going from about 3 to 6 gallons per flush. Washing machine, if you do one load, 20 gallons of water just to do a load of wash. Your dishwasher, 25 gallons per load. Taking a shower, 7 to 9 gallons per minute. Now, look at this: growing food. That is what is really fascinating. In order to produce one loaf of bread, in other words, prepare the farm field, grow the wheat, et cetera, process the wheat, bake the bread, et cetera, one loaf of bread requires, by the time that loaf of bread is ready for consumption, 150 gallons of water. Mr. Speaker, 150 gallons of water to prepare one loaf of bread. One egg. One egg. That is not a dozen eggs; one egg requires 120 gallons of water. These are numbers that we have never even imagined. But take a look at it. One quart of milk, 223 gallons of water to produce 1 quart of milk. A pound of oranges, it takes 47 gallons of water. A pound of potatoes takes 23 gallons. It takes more than 1,000 gallons of water to produce three meals a day for one person. For one person to have three meals a day, it takes over 1,000 gallons of water to produce that food product. So clearly we can see that the amount of water that is consumed in our society is primarily consumed for our agricultural needs. What happens to 50 glasses of water? This chart I think demonstrates what I have just said. If we lined up 50 glasses of water and we begin to move those glasses as to where their consumption was, we would take our first 44 glasses of that 50, scoot that aside, that is just what is necessary for our agricultural requirements in this country. Three glasses are used by industry for production. In other words, even the wheat production, we take the wheat off the farm, we move it into a production facility, say, for example, to bake the bread. Those requirements are about three glasses; three of those glasses would go for those requirements. Two glasses are used by the cities, and one- half of a glass is used out in the country. I think it is a pretty interesting chart. It lets us realize just exactly how important water, how important water is. Let me move on just a little from there. I think this is a pretty clear map right here to show some of the differences, pretty dramatic differences of the layout of the United States. Remember that when they settled the country in the early days, that most of our population lived on the East Coast. The population in the United States is not evenly spread now. In fact, I heard a statistic the other day that if we took all of the population and put it together like in one large city, it only takes a very, very small fraction of the amount of land that currently exists in the United States. Obviously, our population is not put together like that, it is spread out through the country. But in the early days of the founding of the United States, the population was primarily focused on the East Coast. As our government began to acquire additional land, to expand this ever-growing Nation, to create the United States of America, as they acquired this land, they had to figure out how to really get control of the land. Now today, in this country, when we buy a piece of property, we do not actually have to be on the property. We can have a piece of paper, a little thing called a deed; and that deed filed at the courthouse protects our rights on that land. But that is not how it was back then. In fact, a piece of paper really was not worth a whole lot. The only way back then, or the primary way back then for one to protect the rights that one had on that land was to possess the land. That is where the old saying came from, that possessions is nine-tenths of the law. That is exactly where that came from. So in the early days of the founding of this country, as we began to acquire this land, our leaders back on the East Coast said, how do we encourage people, how do we get people to leave the comfort of the East Coast and move to the West? West being maybe only as far as western Virginia, or not very far west at all. How do we get people to move out there? How do we settle this country. Well, the answer was, look, everybody in America, the American dream, even in its early stages of this country, the American dream was, one, individual rights and, two, the opportunity to own a piece of property. In other words, the land would not be owned by the government. People got to own a piece of property that they could build a home on, that they could farm on; and back then, in excess of 98 percent of our population lived on farms and agriculture and put their hands in the soil. So owning a piece of land back then was just as important as it is today. We all dream of owning our own homes. So our leaders decided to take advantage of that and say, look, the incentive that we should give to these people is if they will go out and help us settle the West, help us settle this new country, we will give them land, the land grants or the homestead acts. Remember that it was not new. It had already been tested. In fact, our government used it during the Revolutionary War to try and bribe British soldiers to defect and come over to our side; and if they did, we would give them a land grant or we would give them a homestead. That land could be their land that they would individually own. Well, this worked pretty well. The government began offering, and we can see by this chart entitled ``Government, Lands'' the government began to see the populations become westward and moving to the west. Do we know what happened? We discovered that on 160 acres out in Kansas or Missouri or even in eastern Colorado or up in Nebraska where some of the most fertile land in the country is, all of these people out in Virginia, a family could be supported off of 160 acres, that the soil was so fertile that that was an adequate amount of land to give. But then word got back to Washington to our leaders. Hey, we are having a problem, because as the population begins to hit those high elevations in Colorado, when the population runs into the mountains, the Rocky Mountains, the Continental Divide, they are not staying there, because they are discovering that with 160 acres, one can not even feed a cow with 160 acres. They cannot possibly support a family off only 160 acres. So our leaders in Washington sat down and said, How do we persuade people to go ahead and settle in these areas? What is happening is they are going around to the Imperial Valley, as demonstrated here in California where we have this white spot. So they had a lot of debate back in Washington; and the conclusion really was, well, one of the ideas or one of the solutions was, let us give them a proportionate amount of land. If 160 acres is what is necessary in the State of Nebraska to support a family, let us give a family in the Rocky Mountains 3,000 acres. Maybe that is what is necessary to support a family. Well, during this period of time from a historical basis was also the time when we had the building of the Continental Railroad, for example, and other land grants that were going out there. Washington was under a lot of pressure not to give away so much land. So the conclusion was, look, giving away 3,000 acres to just one family is too much land to give to just one family. We cannot just give it away like that. So somebody came up with the idea of well, instead of giving the land away, why does the government not go ahead and retain title. The government will continue to be the owner in name of this land, but we will let the people move onto the land. We will let the people use the land. We will come up with a new concept called multiple use. We will let people use the land for many purposes. They can live on it. They can have roads on it. They can recreate on it, fish on it, enjoy it. Let us do that. But for formality purposes, we will just keep it in our names so we do not have the political pressure of giving away too much land. That is exactly what happened in the West. On this map to my left we will see that all of the colors on this map indicate government-owned land. We will see in the East, it is almost, with the exceptions of the Appalachias down here, a portion of the Everglades, a little up here in the Northeast. But some of these States do not have any government land at all to speak of. Their government land is the local courthouse. But when we hit the West, look at what happens. Big blocks of land. Now, some people today, I would call them revisionists who like to revise history, would like us to believe that the reason the government owns this land is that that was to be preserved to the extent that human use was to be eliminated, and their goal is to take multiple use and get rid of multiple use. One of their goals too is when people want you off this land, what is the best way to get you off the land? If they cannot get the Congress to go along with it, if they cannot get the population to support it, then go for the most important asset that you have on that land, and that is the water, which brings us to kind of a full circle in our discussion of water. It is interesting, because right through here we have something called the Continental Divide, and Colorado follows my pointer here as it goes down through this way. The Continental Divide, although most of us know what that is, but it is very interesting; it is a dynamic of nature upon which side of the line we can actually see it in place. The Continental Divide, the water on one side goes towards the Atlantic, the other on the other side goes towards the Pacific. The Continental Divide is really, at those high elevations where the Continental Divide is, that is where water is amongst the purest water; and that water is very important, not just for human consumption, but actually, a lot of that water is important to allow it to flow into the streams so that it can flow down and protect our environment. There is lots of multiple uses, not just on the land, but multiple uses of the water. Now, Colorado begins to emerge in the country as probably one of the most critical, if not the most critical State in the Union in regards to water. One, as I spoke of earlier, the high mountain ranges and the accumulation of water. Colorado provides water for what, 26, 27 States. Colorado provides water for other foreign countries. The country of Mexico, for example, actually gets water from the State of Colorado from the Colorado River, the Colorado River Compact, the compact that they made with Mexico. It is interesting how Mexico, down in this area, ends up getting water that originates, 70 percent of the water in the Colorado River Basin originates in the high Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Now, how does Mexico end up getting rights out of the Colorado River? Interesting story. Not really the basis of this speech, but interesting enough to bring into these comments this evening. What happened was, during World War II there was a concern that the Japanese would invade Mexico. So the Mexican Government came to the United States, and we had a mutual meeting. Mexico did not want the Japanese in Mexico. The United States did not want the Japanese right next to them in Mexico, so they made an agreement. And the agreement was that if the Japanese or the Germans or the axis there, the enemies, if they crossed the border or if they attempted an invasion of Mexico, the United States would enter Mexico and defend Mexico. They would fight for Mexico. They would fight to push them back out of Mexico. Now, of course, the Mexican Government seemed to have a little leverage, I guess we would say. They seemed to be a little smarter in the negotiations. To summarize it, it is accurate to say that the Mexicans said, all right, it would be a good idea, United States, for you could come down and defend us if we are invaded; but you know, for you to come across the borders and come into our country to protect us, it really ought to be worth something to you because you do not want the Japanese in here either, so why do you not give us a part of the Colorado River. So the Colorado River is actually designated for the country of Mexico. Now, Colorado is the home for four major rivers; four major rivers have their head waters in the State of Colorado. We have the Platte River, we have the Arkansas River, we have the Rio Grande River, and one of the rivers that I am going to focus on today, and that is the Colorado River. The Colorado River really is called the Mother of all Rivers, the Grand River. Let me talk a little about the water climate in the State of Colorado. I would remind my colleagues that Colorado again is unique as we look at our maps, and the line would be very hard for my colleagues to see, but basically, this is the State of Colorado. This is the only area of the United States right here, the only area of the United States where there is no water that flows into the State for its use. Every other State in the Continental United States, every other State has water that flows into their State for their use. Colorado is the exception. Keep in mind, also, my earlier comments. If we drew a line here down through Kansas and Missouri out like this, this portion of the country right here has 73 or 74 percent of the water in the country. This portion of the country right up here has about oh, I do not know, 13 percent or so of the water is right up in this area. And then for the rest of these Western States which consist geographically of half the Nation, only 14 percent of the water in the Nation has to provide for that massive land area, which makes water storage very critical. The Colorado River, that is where, for example, we have Hoover Dam and Lake Mead. That is where we get huge hydropower facilities. Water storage is absolutely critical for all of us. In the East we need it for flood control, primarily. In the West we not only need it for flood control, but we need it for year-around usage, so we are able to store the water when the water is coming down the mountain, because most of the months the water is not coming down the mountain in the kind of force we need and are able to store it. Let me give an idea of our statewide climate. Statewide, Colorado gets 16.5 inches of water each year, although that can vary depending on population. Down in this part of Colorado near Durango, Colorado, we have a pass called Wolf Creek Pass. Twenty-some miles from Wolf Creek, it may snow 15 inches of snow a year. Go those few miles up to Wolf Creek Pass, we may get 550 inches of snow a year. So the geographic nature of the State provides for dramatic differences in the moisture and precipitation that follows. In Colorado's high altitude, the semi-arid climate, 85 percent of the State's precipitation is lost. Eighty-five percent of our water in Colorado is lost to evaporation. Why? Because Colorado as a State is known as the Sunshine State. In the State of Colorado, we have over 300 days of sunshine a year, over 300 days of sunshine a year. At that high altitude, we have to worry about evaporation. There is not much we can do about it, but most of our water that falls in the State of Colorado then is evaporated. Keep in mind that water, water is the only renewable resource that we have. Now, we have resources that we have not captured the energy from, for example, the sun. But once the sun ray comes down, if we do not capture the energy, the energy disperses and it is gone; a gallon of oil, if we burn it up, it is gone. But water is a renewable resource. So the key to water is one person's waste may be another person's water. What do I mean by that statement? For example, on the Colorado River, we may have a diversion into an irrigation ditch. Somebody may say, well, to help conserve on water we ought to line that ditch with concrete so the water does not seep into the soil until it gets to the point we want it. That water seepage into that irrigation ditch may actually provide somebody else's water for a spring. Today we do not have the technology, although at some point in the future they will have the technology, but today we do not have the technology to look underneath the surface and see all of the different fingers of water and the connections of water underneath our surface that we cannot see above the surface. So our understanding, really, is based on the best science that we have. That is why we have to be so very careful when we talk about water, about where we put water storage or how we impact the water, what impact that has throughout the rest of that particular water system. Let me say that when I said earlier that our snow pack is so important, to give an idea of those few months of snow that we get in Colorado, 80 percent of the water, 80 percent of the water in this Rocky Mountain area comes from snow. Only 20 percent of the water that Colorado gets comes from rain. So we are very, very dependent on that snowfall. In a year like this in Colorado, we are having a dry year this year, and it runs in cycles. We have not been able to time the cycles, we have not figured out the cycles, but we know it runs in cycles. In Colorado, we have a very dry winter. In fact, some of our snow packs are only about 23 percent of normal. Right now, it does not bother us because we have all the snow, and 23 percent is still a lot of snow. But wait until about June or July. All of a sudden, Colorado and the States that depend on the Colorado River will have a lot of suffering. There are cities out there that have no water sources at all except massive diversions out of the Colorado River. One of them we know very well: Las Vegas, Nevada. Take a look at Las Vegas. At the Bellagio, that beautiful water show, that is Colorado River water. The same thing with the State of Arizona, same thing with the State of California, same thing with the State of New Mexico, same thing with Utah, and the same thing with the country of Mexico. A lot of States are very dependent on that high snow in those Colorado Rockies. Some of these States add to it. For example, the State of Utah, the State of New Mexico, they add a little water to the Colorado River Basin. But, basically, the State of Colorado puts 70 percent of that water into that basin. By the way, of the 70 percent of the water that comes from the State of Colorado into the Colorado River Basin, only 25 percent of it goes back to the people of the State of Colorado. The rest of it is utilized in other States. In the State of Colorado, as similar to our chart that I was showing earlier, 85 percent of the water that we use in Colorado, 85 percent of it is used for agricultural purposes. Let me just real quickly go over some kind of fun statistics, interesting things. Ninety percent of our naturally-occurring lakes in Colorado, and we are not a lake State, we do not have massive lakes, but the lakes that we do have in Colorado, 89 percent of them that are natural are above 9,000 feet. Imagine that, 9,000 feet. That is where 90 percent of our lakes are. Colorado has 13 different streams that we call Clear Creek, to give an idea how pure and how good that water is. As I said, Colorado is the only State in the Continental U.S. with all major waterways originating within its boundaries. Water flowing out of the State travels to the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, depending on which side of the Continental Divide it originates on. On average, 10,400,000 or 10,500,000 acre feet of water leave the State every year. An acre foot is how much water it takes to form an acre I think 1 foot high over a 1-year period of time. Most of the water that leaves the State of Colorado, about 45 percent of it is in the Colorado River Basin. And 87 percent of the water in Colorado, when we take a look at Colorado, 87 percent of the water in the State is on the western portion of the State. Eighty some percent of the population in the State of Colorado is on the eastern portion of the State, so we can see just because of the dispersement of the population in the State of Colorado, most of our population is not located where the water is; most of the population is located away from the water. Denver, for example, has no water that originates in Denver. It is the beneficiary of all that water that runs off the mountains. Or in the case of the Continental Divide, Denver, for example, or the cities on the eastern portion of the State, have decided to go over on the other side of the divide where the water runs this direction and redirect the diversion of that water, or the direction of that water, so it flows in reverse order and comes back to the cities. It is often said that water flows not downhill but flows towards the direction of money. That is exactly what has transpired over the years. Water has been impacted a great deal from what its original intent was. Let me just go over a few other statistics that I think are interesting. As I said, water sometimes can be a pretty boring subject; but I find it pretty fascinating. Now, all of the Members would be pretty interested in water if they turned on the tap tonight when they went home, they went to take a shower or cook dinner, and there was no water there. Then all of a sudden Members would become real interested in it. I think tonight the purpose of tonight's comments are to give kind of a basic education and talk really where kind of the apex of water in the United States is and how critical the State of Colorado is for the supply of that water. The largest reservoir that we have in the State of Colorado is the Blue Mesa. The amount of water, for example, throughout the country in the public water systems, if we have a city water system, do Members know what percentage of that is actually used to cook and drink? About 1 percent of the city water system. The rest of it is used for all of the other needs one has with water. I thought that was a pretty interesting statistic. Kentucky bluegrass uses 18 gallons of water per square foot. I do not have the actual statistic here, but it is amazing how many thousands of gallons of water are necessary for just one oak tree, for example. We do not even envision the huge quantity of water that is necessary to support one of those big cottonwood trees or a great big oak tree. Water and its recirculation through our society, and its recycling, and I do not mean man-made recycling, I mean recycling by nature, is really a feat, and pretty amazing, just to the extent that we know. My guess is that we have only tapped a small knowledge of how our water system in this Nation works. At any rate, back to my points, here. The Platte River was named, which of course ``platte'' means ``flat,'' and the water that is used in the Platte River was first used, of course, by the Native Americans. One of the interesting things that the Native Americans used early on in the State of Colorado were the hot springs located in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Some may have been to Glenwood Springs. It is a community near Aspen, Colorado. Actually, it is my birth home. But there we have hot springs, and I think the water there comes in at about 180 degrees Fahrenheit. The spring I think puts between 2 million or 6 million gallons a day of water at 180 degrees that comes out of the springs. We use it. We have a huge pool there. Anybody who has been to Glenwood Springs knows exactly what I am talking about. The Indians used to use that because they thought it was the gods that put it there for health care. We later used it, in fact the Navy used it in World War II for recuperation of its wounded sailors. They would ship them from the oceans into the middle of the country for recovery in Glenwood Springs with the hot waters. We have a lot of interesting things about the streams that we have in Colorado. We have about 2,000 lakes in Colorado. That seems like a lot, but our lakes are not very big. Our lakes really, in proportion, if we take a look at Minnesota or some of these States that really are States with huge lakes, we do not have much comparison there. But within the boundaries of Colorado, within the four corners of that State, we have over 9,000 miles of streams, 9,000 miles of streams. So we know we have the highest elevation in the country in Colorado with the Rocky Mountains. We have by far the largest number of mountains over 14,000 feet; and by far the largest number of mountains over 13,000 feet are in Colorado. Now, we know between all of these mountains, and coming down all of those mountains, we have 9,000 miles of streams that go through and circulate that water. It is pretty interesting when we take a look at the different diversions that we have. We have 48 million people in the United States that divert their water off wells. That is below-surface water. The rest of the people in the country depend on surface water. Go back to the Colorado River Basin, here. That river kind of goes like my pointer, down through here, out like this, out into here, and then kind of like that, and out into the country of Mexico. It is incredible to take a look, and I think I have a chart here. Hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power from the Colorado River, again, coming back to the Colorado River, where our focus is, hydropower from the Colorado River keeps the lights burning in many parts of the West, including Phoenix, Arizona, pictured here. Phoenix also obtains water from the Colorado River via the Central Arizona Project canals. There is Phoenix, Las Vegas, and all of those small communities, and many of the cities in California. The Colorado River, we do not really realize the importance of that water, the importance of it not only for the human population, not only for the agricultural population, not only for the energy needs, but for the environment, as well. The more we know about water, the more deep our appreciation becomes for that miracle matter that the good Lord gave for us to use. Let me kind of leave the charts here for a minute and wrap up my comments. I am going to do a series of speeches to my colleagues about the resources, the natural resources, we have over there. We have lots of debates on this House floor in regard to natural resource issues, in regard to the environment, in regard to energy and conservation of energy. I am going to give a number of different speeches to my colleagues, not just focusing entirely on natural resources, but talking about the energy demands that we have in this country, the future for alternative energy that we have in this country, the necessity for conservation of energy that we have in this country; the need to protect our environment, protect it in such a way that it is balanced; the importance of multiple use on our public lands. I intend to have a very thorough discussion here on public lands. In the East, because they do not have any government lands to speak of, many people do not know what public lands are. I do not hold that critically. I am not saying that critically. I am just saying that they do not deal with them. In the West, for example, in my district, I have a huge congressional district. I probably have approximately 120 different communities, and 119 of those 120 communities are completely surrounded by public lands. In other words, everything we do in our communities is totally dependent upon the government's lands. For our water that comes across it, our water that is stored upon it, our water that originates on it, our power lines, our highways, our recreation areas, our agriculture, we are totally dependent on that. In the East, you do not have that handicap. In the West, it is in fact a handicap; and I intend to spend a few moments with you discussing that, in future moments, when we are here together on the floor. My purpose here tonight is to kind of break the ice, you might say, coming back to water, to talk a little about water. If you ever have a moment to go to Denver, Colorado, and you go through the State Capitol there, you will find in their rotunda, every painting in that rotunda, in their murals somewhere in that painting has the subject of water, whether it is an irrigation canal, whether it is somebody fishing, whether it is animals drinking from the stream. Water is a critical, critical factor. In fact, the State of Colorado, as I said earlier, is the apex in this country. Four major rivers have their headwaters there. It is the mother of rivers. It is an interesting subject. I appreciate the moments I have been able to spend with you this evening.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, my understanding from the gentleman's side was that they were, first of all, going to run about a half an hour, but they certainly are entitled to an hour, so I have no objection to that. But now this is the second 5 minutes, and I would like to know when the speakers are going to end. We have another speaker behind myself, and we would like to stay on schedule. I was assured by the gentleman's side a few moments ago they had one 5-minute request, and now we are into two 5-minute additional requests. They have had an hour. I guess I would just like to know from the gentleman's side, how much longer it is going to continue.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I am going to let the gentleman go if he will just let me know, is this it?

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Esther Mash and thank her for her extraordinary contributions to the children of Mesa County and the State of Colorado. Her life-long dedication to her job as a schoolteacher and now as a volunteer at her local elementary school is matched only by the level of integrity and honesty with which she has conducted herself each and every day. The children whose lives she has touched are eternally grateful for all that she has taught them in her lifetime of public service. At age ninety-one, Esther is the oldest volunteer in the Mesa County Retired Senior Volunteer Program. Every weekday, Esther walks to Taylor Elementary to volunteer her mornings and afternoons to tutor needy children. Known to the children as ``Grandma Mash,'' Esther brings to the classroom the rare gift of a lifetime of experience gained as a teacher for over 20 years with District 51, located in southeast Colorado. She retired in 1975, after providing countless children with the gift of learning. Esther continued to dedicate her efforts to children when she moved to Palisade, Colorado in 1995. There, she began to volunteer at Taylor Elementary, and continues to enjoy the respect and adulation from colleagues and children throughout the school. The school community, from the principal and teachers to the children and parents, has repeatedly expressed their gratitude for Esther's volunteer efforts. Taylor Elementary recently awarded her efforts with the title of ``extraordinary volunteer.'' Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I bring to the attention of this body of Congress, and this nation, the life and spirit of such an incredible woman. Throughout her life, Esther has managed to enrich and improve the lives of those around her. She continues to dedicate her time and energy to bring the gift of learning to children throughout the community. Esther Mash is truly an inspiration to all of us and I am honored to recognize her passion for life and indomitable human spirit that sets an example of charity to us all.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I pay tribute today to Chris Parmeter, a Colorado Division of Wildlife officer, whose courageous act of capturing two dangerous fugitives went above and beyond the call of duty, and displayed a measure of heroism worthy of being brought before this body of Congress. During his tenure as a Division of Wildlife officer, Chris has embodied the ideals of integrity, honesty and courage that we, as Americans, have come to expect from the men and women who serve in our state parks. I, along with the citizens of Colorado, am both grateful and proud of Chris' extraordinary act of valor, and believe it appropriate to pay tribute to him for his courage and bravery. Though not typically in the job description, Chris' extraordinary efforts to apprehend two armed killers near Salida, Colorado on September 29, 2001 are a testament to his relentless dedication to his job, to his community and to his state. While manning a roadblock in the area where the fugitives were believed to be, Chris became involved in the search for the two killers. When they were finally flushed from hiding, it was Chris, along with other state wildlife employees, who apprehended the two suspects, and ultimately brought them into custody. Because of his incredible bravery, these criminals are now in the hands of law enforcement officials, and of no threat to anyone else in the area. His courage in the face of both fear and adversity is truly remarkable, and I applaud him for his actions. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to rise and pay tribute to a man whose actions are the very essence of all that makes this country great, and I am deeply honored to be able to bring them to the attention of this body of Congress. It is in times of great need that true heroes emerge, and I am proud to say Chris Parmeter is a hero not only to me, but to his family, his friends and to this country. It is with a great deal of pride that I stand to honor him today, and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I pay tribute today to senior Colorado State Parks ranger J.W. Wilder, whose courageous act of capturing two dangerous fugitives went above and beyond the call of duty, and displayed a measure of heroism worthy of being brought before this body of Congress. It takes a truly special person to put himself in harm's way, not out of duty or obligation, but out of simple benevolence and civic responsibility. I, along with the citizens of Colorado, am both grateful and proud of J.W.'s extraordinary act of valor, and believe it appropriate to pay tribute to him for his courage and bravery. Though not typically in the job description, J.W.'s extraordinary efforts to apprehend two armed killers near Salida, Colorado on September 29, 2001 are a testament to his relentless dedication to his job, to his community and to his state. After checking on a colleague who was manning a roadblock, J.W. became involved in the search for the two killers. When the two fugitives were finally flushed from hiding, it was J.W., along with other state wildlife employees, who apprehended the two suspects, and ultimately brought them into custody. Because of his incredible bravery, these criminals are now in the hands of law enforcement officials, and of no threat to anyone else in the area. His courage in the face of both fear and adversity is truly remarkable, and for his efforts, J.W. was named the outstanding ranger of the year by the Colorado State Parks. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to rise and pay tribute to a man whose actions are the very essence of all that makes this country great, and I am deeply honored to be able to bring them to the attention of this body of Congress. It is in times of great need that true heroes emerge, and I am proud to say J.W. Wilder is a hero not only to me, but to his family, his friends and to this country. It is with a great deal of pride that I stand to honor him today, and wish him at the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, this evening I would like to cover a couple of subjects. The first subject that I would like to spend some time on is on the President's axis of evil. I really do not want to focus entirely on that particular subject, but I want to talk more specifically as kind of a jump from that subject on to missile defense, the importance of missile defense for the United States of America; in fact, the absolute necessity for the United States to deploy as soon as possible a missile defense to secure our borders against future attempts, either accidental or intentional, to cause harm. To lay a basis for this, I have just returned from NATO meetings. Our NATO delegation here out of the House of Representatives is chaired by the very able gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). We went to our NATO meetings and then after our NATO meetings went and joined another group with the British American parliamentary assembly which was chaired by our very capable Member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). And from these meetings, it was very interesting to go to these meetings. First of all, let me state that it amazes me, it absolutely amazes me that we do not have to get very far from September 11 before the old European criticism of the United States starts to rear its ugly head. Now that said, let me tell you that I think it is somewhat out of proportion this criticism. Mind you, it is the criticism that gets played up by the world media. It is not the things that are going right. And I can state a lot of relationships are probably more solid today with some of our European allies, for example, the British, than they have ever been in the history of relationships between these two countries. Let me compliment the United Kingdom. The Brits have been with us from the moment those planes hit the Pentagon and targeted New York City. And they have not faltered, they have not weakened, they have not backed off one inch. My compliments to the British people. Unfortunately, that strong commitment to the goodness of what our societies represent, not the United States alone, the United States is not standing alone. The United States is willing to go it alone, but the United States wants help from its allies. That is why you have allies. But unfortunately, in my view, not all Europeans, specifically the French, the Germans, even Luxembourg, I was a little discouraged by some of the comments I heard at some of these meetings about the United States, that the United States being the only super-world power is kind of pushing unilateralism. That is not what is happening out there. The United States of America is without question the only superpower in the world. But the United States of America is not arrogant about this. The United States of America has never ignored its friends. The United States of America does everything that it can to have a strong alliance with its natural allies. And the United States of America reaches out more than any country in the history of the world, more than any country in the history of the world. The United States of America reaches out to help other countries. It reaches out to give individual freedoms throughout the world. It reaches out and, sure, we talk and try and use education to tell people how the goodness of individual freedoms and individual rights and how it makes a country stronger and not weaker. We are not sensitive to criticism, unless the criticism is a little unjust. It was interesting over the weekend, there was an editorial in one of the London newspapers. And they remembered the quote that Lyndon Johnson had back in the de Gaulle days when de Gaulle said to Lyndon Johnson that he wanted the American troops, the United States troops off European soil. And President Johnson immediately replied, does that include the American troops buried beneath your soil? Twice in the last century the United States at the expense of many thousands of lives went to the defense of Europe. And I feel very confident that if Europe were challenged tomorrow, the United States would once again find itself in battle on behalf of the Europeans. The United States thinks very highly of the European nations. The United States of America thinks it is very important that we have friendships that are strong into the future. But let me tell you something about a friendship. You have got to be willing to help that friend of yours that might need some help. Now, the United States of America through the leadership of our fine President has committed to eliminate, to the extent possible, terrorism throughout the world. Not just terrorism focused on the United States of America, but terrorism focused wherever it raises its ugly head; and it has asked for assistance from other countries, other countries in Europe. Now, that is not acting as if you were arrogant. That is not going forward on some kind of unilateral message or unilateral path. The United States of America does not accept arrogance as its policy of moving forward. What the United States of America accepts as its policy is strength, strength through the ability to negotiate, strength through military might, strength through doing whatever you can to assist countries rebuilding themselves. Take a look at Afghanistan. It is our obligation, we feel in this country, we feel an obligation to help build that country, to have text books in those schools, to build those schools, to allow women the rights they have never seen in that country before, all individuals in that country to begin to exercise individual rights. And the United States of America is willing to step forward not only with its military might, but with its economic might as well, as well as its compassion, whether it is the Peace Corps or whether it is the thousands and thousands of items that have been contributed throughout this Nation, whether it be jackets or school books, or whatever, sent to the country of Afghanistan. I think it is a mistake, a deep mistake for our European allies, not all of them but for some of those European allies, to think that for some reason because the United States of America has the guts and, frankly, I think the obligation to stand up toe to toe with these terrorists, and destroy them where possible, do whatever we can to overcome the fear in the hearts of the American people and the people of this world that these terrorists have put there. And the United States is willing to be the first one out of the foxhole. But it is a little interesting when some of the people still back in the foxhole have enough malfeasance, in my opinion, of their professional responsibilities to criticize the United States because it is the first one out of the foxhole, because the United States of America is willing to take on this terrorism, not only for our Nation's security but for the world's security. And the President has made that very clear. The Secretary of State has made that very clear. We are not out to rid the world of terrorists that only attack the United States of America. We are out to contain and destroy to the extent possible the terrorists that rain their terror upon anywhere in the world. And we have asked some of our European allies, all of our allies to join us. It amazes me, it discourages me, it disappoints me that we have some of the countries in Europe who are speaking ill of the United States. It was surprising to hear how often I heard criticism of President Bush's axis of evil, the three countries that President Bush highlighted as direct threats, evil countries. It reminded me of the days when President Reagan had enough guts to stand up and call Russia the Evil Empire. You know what bothered a lot of people? The fact that he was right. And here President Bush is right. Sure, you can sugar-coat it. You can decorate your language, try and hide it, try and kind of through statesman negotiations, I guess, not really call these countries what they are. But what would you call North Korea? I asked some of my European friends, What is it that you would describe North Korea with? You want to get a Webster's dictionary and find me another word in the dictionary that would fit North Korea more appropriately than axis of evil or a combination of evil? Take a look at the suppression that North Korea does with its own citizens. How can you justify calling North Korea anything but evil when they starve their citizens to feed their military? Then you can move on to Iraq. When we talk about biochemical warfare, do you know what country in the history of the world has used it on its own citizens? Iraq. Do you think somewhere in Webster's dictionary you could find a definition other than the word of evil to fit the nation of Iraq? The people, the masses of Iraq deserve more than they are getting from that leadership. Saddam Hussein is evil and his leadership regime is evil. The country, the people of North Korea, the people of Iraq, and to a lesser extent the people of Iran, are all begging for some kind of new leadership out there. And Iran is no guardian angel. Iran seems to have at least some momentum moving towards reform in their country. But the fact is right now the three primary threats to the free world are Iraq, number one, North Korea, number two, and Iran, number three. So we have got a President that has enough gumption to be the first one out of the foxhole, to say it as it is, to talk about it in terms that are necessary for it to be talked about. And that is that these evil empires are doing not only injustices to their own people, but they threaten tremendous injustices to other nations in the world. That is what this President is standing up for. And that is what I hope our European allies understand, that the United States is not trying to snub, has made no attempt whatsoever to snub its allies anywhere in the world. In fact, it is the United States coming out of that foxhole not only for itself, not only for our Nation, but for all nations of this world, to rid this world of a terrible, terrible cancer. And there is no other way to describe the acts of these terrorists, whether it is the kidnapping of a Wall Street Journal reporter, whether it is flying a plane into the World Trade Center or flying a plane into the Pentagon or unleashing any other act of terror. Somebody has got to have enough guts to face up to them. Let me say, and I want to make it very carefully said that throughout my remarks the one sole strong exception standing so solid out there in the European continent is the United Kingdom. We have some other allies in the European continent that are standing with us, but the strongest out there are the British. And I want to commend my colleagues in Britain for standing with the United States of America. And I want to encourage the other European continent to join us in this battle. Not join us just in soft talk. Join us in strong action. That is what it is going to take. This cancer that we have discovered, this cancer that we discovered through the horrible events of September 11 is not just going to disappear on its own. In fact, every day that goes by that cancer begins to spread. Now, we took a pretty good whack out of that cancer with our military action in Afghanistan. And thanks to a lot of European allies who have helped us with intelligence, who have helped us with the money racketeering going on out there, we have been able to crawl somewhat into the cellars of some of these terrorist headquarters and begin to destroy that cancer. But the fact is cancer still exists. We cannot pray it off us, although that may help. We cannot wish it off us. Wishing is something for a dream, but it is not going to get rid of that cancer. You cannot love it off. You cannot talk it off. You have got to get in there, and you have got to take it away. Now in my opinion several of our European allies agree that the cancer needs to be taken away. But they want it done with the absolute opportunity of, I guess you would say, anesthesia for the patient. Get the best anesthesia that you can get and deliver and put it into the patient before you begin to remove the cancer. Frankly, I agree with that. Make the patient as comfortable as you can. But the problem is the patient and the cancer are here today. The anesthesia of which these people, the European allies, some of them, are referring to, we do not have it in the operating room. We need to go after that cancer now. We cannot wait for that anesthesia to arrive because if we do, it may be too late for the patient. So in an idealistic world, while we would like to have all of the anesthesia we need right there for that patient, in the realistic world, not the idealistic world, but the realistic world, we may have to go after that cancer before we have the kind of anesthesia that we would like to have. Those are the facts. And it is not because we are being egotistical. It is not because we want to act in a unilateral method. It is because we are saying that our fellow doctors in that operating room, look, we have got to get that cancer. Everybody agrees, right? Right. We have got to do it now. Yeah, we need to do it. We need to do it now. Somebody in that operating room has to take charge. And the United States of America is willing to lead. In fact, as Vice President Cheney has said, the United States of America today in the world is the only one who has the capabilities from all angles in a broad statement to take on this terrorism. We want our allies with us. We want to protect our allies. That is a natural. Of course you want to protect your friends. So I would have expected when I went to Europe to find many of my friends from Germany or find many of my friends from France, although the French are tough to bring along in most cases, find our friends from Luxembourg, find our friends from some of these other countries jumping up and saying, hey, we are ready to get out of the foxhole. We are firmly committed behind your Nation. I happen to believe that most of the people in Europe agree with the United States of America in that the number one issue out there is security and that we have got to somehow repeal this horrible cancer that has stricken the world. Granted, on September 11, it hit the United States of America, but I am telling my colleagues it is not long before it hits somewhere else in the world. That is why it is our obligation, all of us, all of us, to get out of that foxhole, under the leadership of the United States of America, and take it on. I saw an excellent editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. I do not like to read into the Record, but this is an important editorial, and so I want to read. It is not a long editorial, but I ask my colleagues to listen very carefully to the words, because the Wall Street Journal editorial I think covers very precisely the type of feeling that I had at the NATO meetings that I was in attendance. Again, dated February 26, title of the editorial is Axis of Allies. To read the papers these days, you'd think Europe and the United States were headed for a giant fall over President Bush's ``axis of evil'' policy. Certainly European critics have earned all of the headlines. But there's another side to this story, which is that much of Europe actually supports Mr. Bush. We certainly would not call it a silent majority. But it includes some very big names, starting, for example, with the Spanish Prime Minister. Since you won't read about it anywhere else, we thought we'd tell you what he said. `` `I think that the position Bush has taken is of historic dimensions,' '' the Prime Minister said last week in an interview with European journalists. `` `It is comparable to the choice made by Truman, who in the postwar took a strong position against the Russians, and to the declaration that Reagan made at the beginning of the 1980s which defined the Soviet Union as the evil empire.' '' The Spanish Prime Minister added that, `` `I believe that today it is more important than ever that Europe strengthen its ties with the United States: Alone we Europeans will be able to do nothing, not only on the international scene but also even inside our own continent, as the crisis in the Balkans demonstrated. There are those who want to make an impression by lining up against the U.S., but I do not agree with this attitude.' ``Also largely unreported was the comment last week of'' the European Union ``foreign policy chief, who spoke of `overstatements of differences' with Washington.'' The policy chief's ``remarks were widely taken as a slap in the face of Chris Patten, the EU external affairs commissioner who warned, in widely quoted comments, that Mr. Bush was in `unilateralist overdrive.' ``Something is clearly getting lost in translation of how Europeans view America right now. When a French Foreign Minister calls U.S. foreign policy `simplistic' or the German Foreign Minister Fischer accuses the United States of treating European nations as `satellites,' their remarks make news on both sides of the Atlantic. But when a European leader speaks pointedly in support of America, he is shouting into the wind. ``The real story is the battle in Europe between the new politics and the old. It is no accident that those dowagers of the old socialism, France and Germany, tend to produce the U.S. critics, while exponents of a new centrist or center-right politics, primarily British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Mr. Aznar, support Mr. Bush. ``The internal debate in Europe is about its role in the world and the future shape of the European Union. Specifically, it focuses on the politics of European integration in which a French-led bloc wants to create a more integrated (and socialist) Europe. The issues will come up in elections in France and Germany this year. ``Both France and Germany also had business ties with Iraq that they are eager to resume; that won't be politically correct as long as Iraq is part of the `axis of evil.' A campaign (with tacit or explicit government support) to indict Western sanctions as the cause of Iraqi misery has also succeeded with the European public, making it that much harder for Paris or Berlin to support military action against Iraq. ``France and Germany are important countries, but they aren't all of Europe any more than America is Washington and New York. And even they may ultimately find a way to support American action in Iraq and elsewhere. In the meantime, President Bush can count on backing'' of Aznar, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Prime Minister of Italy, ``though they too will face political hurdles at home. ``A part of Europe sees eye to eye with the U.S. on economic liberalization and a foreign policy that attempts to rid the world of threats to peace and stability. Another part of Europe disagrees. Why do only the grumblers make news? '' I think it is an important piece, and I would urge my colleagues, if they have an opportunity, clip it out of the Wall Street Journal. Europe is very important for the future of our country. We need a strong relationship with the European countries, and we have a strong relationship. Twice in the last century, the United States of America took its boys, young men and women, overseas to fight for the Europeans, to fight on the European continent, and we would be willing to do it again tomorrow. But let me tell my colleagues, within the family, the criticism, while any good family allows for constructive criticism, it should always be somewhat justified criticism, and I think Germany or France or some of the leaders of these various countries of the European Union, some of those leaders that criticize the United States of America as acting in a unilateral fashion, have got it all wrong. The United States of America wants to act in a partnership. The United States of America wants Germany and France acting as strongly with us as Great Britain has. This problem of terrorism is not unique to the United States of America. They know that. The people and the officials of the European Union know that. The citizens of Europe know that. Let us form a team, as Powell said, our Secretary of State Colin Powell last week, that the Europeans, every time they pound on the United States, they ought to do a little pounding on Iraq. This is exactly what the terrorists want to occur. They want some kind of division to begin to pop up between the Europeans and America. Why? Because they know it is a lot tougher to take on two people coming out of that foxhole than it is to take on one coming out of that foxhole. So the United States of America wants our European allies with us as we come out of the foxhole. We are not asking our allies in Europe to be the first ones out of the foxhole. We are willing to do it. This Nation has the capability. It has the commitment. It has got the military strength and technology to be the first one out of that foxhole, but if you ain't going to fight, do not complain, and if you are going to fight, get out of the foxhole. This moves me on to the issue that I wanted to focus a little more on tonight, and that is the necessity for a missile defense in this country. I think the biggest weakness that the entire world faces are missiles, not just nuclear missiles. Obviously, we all fear the utilization of nuclear missiles, but ballistic missiles carrying conventional missile heads. Can my colleagues imagine what North Korea, the kinds of havoc that North Korea could wreak on South Korea, on Seoul, South Korea? Seoul, the Nation's capital of South Korea, is only 38 miles away from North Korean missiles. Can my colleagues imagine the protection and the leverage that we would be able to take away from North Korea if we could provide our ally, South Korea, with the missile defense? A missile defense is absolutely essential for the United States, for the security of our citizens and for the world, for the security of its citizens, any of our allies throughout the world. I had the opportunity several years ago, I think to the best of my recollection about 3 years ago, to be in Vail at the AEI's world forum that was hosted by a former President, Gerald Ford, and Margaret Thatcher was there. I cannot quote from memory exactly what the former Prime Minister of Britain said, but I can give it pretty darn close. I remember very distinctly that there was the current Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, and Margaret Thatcher stood and addressed Bill Cohen. As my colleagues know, the Clinton administration was very reluctant to commit, they certainly did not give any kind of commitment the likes of which we have seen from the Bush administration, in regards to a defensive missile system for this Nation. They kind of halfway, lukewarm supported it. Margaret Thatcher stood up, took a look at the Secretary of Defense in the United States and her words were similar to this. Mr. Secretary, she says, you have an inherent responsibility to provide the citizens of your Nation with a missile defense. Any failure to do so would be nothing short of gross neglect. Now, again, those words are very close to what she said. My colleagues could have heard a pin drop in that room. Why? Because Margaret Thatcher was right. We need a missile defense in this country; and, fortunately, we have a President who is absolutely committed and moving forward at full speed at providing a missile defense for our Nation. Remember, there are lots of threats out there, and the threats are not necessarily an intentional missile launch against the United States. In fact, we could very easily have an accidental missile launch against the United States, and do not think accidental missile launches are something that just are nightmares of the future. It has already happened. Not long after September 11, about 6 months ago, a Russian airliner was flying I think over the Black Sea, and the Ukrainian military was doing military exercises with their navy, and they fired a missile by accident at a commercial airliner, a Russian airliner, and they blew the Russian airliner out of the sky. They killed 70 or 80 people. They blew it to smithereens. Accidents can happen. An accidental launch against the United States of America could happen, and it could lead to consequences much, much more serious than just one missile being launched across the ocean. If that missile was launched and, one, we did not know it was accidental; two, we did not have the capability to stop it, the United States may end up in a response of a retaliatory fashion. So missile defense is important not only against an intentional launch against our country but the possibility of an accidental launch. As my colleagues know, years ago, back in about 1972, the United States entered into an agreement with Russia called the anti-ballistic missile treaty. To the President's credit, President Bush has abrogated that treaty pursuant to the terms of the treaty. The treaty itself, the basics of the treaty or the philosophy behind the treaty was that one nation would not defend itself against the missile attack, nor would the other nation. In other words, the United States of America would agree not to defend itself against Russian missiles if Russia agreed not to defend itself against United States missiles, the theory being that the United States would not dare attack Russia because they could not defend themselves against a retaliatory attack and vice versa. I think it is crazy, but that was the thinking and the philosophy in 1972 when this agreement was signed. In 1972, when this agreement was signed, keep in mind that only two nations in the world had the capability of delivering intercontinental ballistic missiles into the territory of the other, Russia and the United States. Clearly, since then, many, many other countries throughout the world have developed that technology, and that technology is much more readily available than it was 30 years ago. We have had dramatic changes in the world scene today in regards to missiles, missile technology and the capability to launch a missile into the territory of another country. That 30-year-old treaty was outdated within a few short years after it was signed, and today, with all of the countries in the world that have the capability of striking the United States, and we discovered unfortunately on September 11 that we can be hit within our borders, of all of the countries that have that capability, why were we reluctant the last 8 years under the Clinton administration, for example, to go full speed ahead on building a defensive mechanism? These are not offensive missiles. This is a defensive missile system for our Nation to protect the people of this Nation. As Margaret Thatcher said, anything short of a full missile defense system is gross neglect, gross neglect of our fiduciary duties to our citizens. Take a look at the treaty. Now, by the way, as many of my colleagues know, the President has given notice, under the four corners of the treaty, that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty and that the United States of America intends to proceed full speed ahead to provide a missile defense for its citizens. Let us look at the agreement that allows us to withdraw from the treaty. The treaty is obviously of unlimited duration; but as I mentioned earlier, it is now about 30 years old. At the time the treaty was signed, again just so we have a little historical basis here, there were only two nations in the world, Russia, the U.S.S.R., and the United States that were capable of delivering missiles to the other country. That changed within a very few short years after this treaty was signed. In my opinion, the minute a third country entered the picture, they should have either been brought into the agreement or this agreement should have been abrogated. President Bush is the first one, though it took 30 years, but President Bush had the gumption to step up and exercise section two. Section two, it has been highlighted for my colleagues' benefit, states that each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty. A right. It is a right within this treaty, if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized the supreme interests. It goes on to talk about the 6-month notice in this paragraph. That notice has already been given. And it says that the notice shall contain within it the extraordinary events, notifying the party regarding which jeopardizes our supreme interest. Now, have extraordinary events occurred which jeopardize the national sovereign interests of the United States of America? Of course they have. I cannot understand how anybody in these Chambers, any of my colleagues, would do anything but acknowledge the necessity for a military missile defense system in this country. And I do not know any of my colleagues that could stand up and tell me that extraordinary events have not occurred over the last 30 years. Obviously, they have occurred. Let us start with the first one, and I am just going to go through a few ``extraordinary events'' that have occurred that, in my opinion, giving us justification to go full speed ahead. The first one, again being repetitive, is that we are no longer talking about two countries. This treaty was between the U.S.S.R., which technically does not even exist any more, and the United States of America. Since then, let us take a look at what has happened. Number one, we have multiple countries that have missile technology and the capability to deliver those missiles into the territory of other countries. Number two, take a look in the last 30 years at what has happened with nuclear proliferation. These are countries. Now, the red countries have nuclear weapons. The green countries are countries that we are confident have or are concerned enough that we think they have the capability. We believe North Korea could easily have a nuclear missile or some nuclear missiles, Iran, Libya and Iraq. Now, looking at my pointer here, in 1970, it used to be just the United States and Russia. Here is what leads to those extraordinary events. Watch my left hand. First, we pick up India, Israel, Pakistan, Britain, China, France. Look at that list. That is an extraordinary event, not of a positive sense but of a realistic sense. There are multiple nations in the world that have nuclear missiles, and they are capable of launching those missiles. Our Nation must defend itself and its allies against that type of an attack. Let us go a little further. In the last 30 years, since the time this treaty was signed, look at what has happened with ballistic missile proliferation and countries that possess ballistic missiles. Look at them. One, two, three, four, five, six. Go across here. One, two, three, four, five, six. Roughly 36. Not exactly, but roughly 36 additional countries since 1972 have developed or now have missile technology capable of firing a missile against the United States of America or against another country within their territory. Now, what can we do with missile defense? Is the threat real? Here is the threat that we face today. Look at this chart. Weapons of mass destruction among 20 Third World countries that have or are in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons. Iran, we think has them, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria. Chemical weapons. Again, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria. Biological weapons, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Advanced technology for missiles. All of the countries. I believe there are serious threats outside the borders of the United States of America, and we have an opportunity to lead the world once again in a way to neutralize that threat. And the best way to neutralize that threat is to obtain the technology, and we are very close. The United States is very close to achieving the technological breakthroughs that are necessary to destroy a missile on its launching pad, to take a missile that has been fired against the United States and, somewhere along its route, destroy that missile, to minimize the casualties that that missile would create if it successfully landed on its target area. So the key here is this: the United States and our President, under our current leadership, is moving forward, and so is the United States Congress with financial commitments and financial backing for our President to build for the citizens of this Nation a security blanket, a capability to stop somebody from a ruthless attack or even an accidental mistake against this country. The United States is also going to be the first country to step forward with this technology and to hand it over to its friends. We will offer protection for South Korea. What is North Korea going to do when the leverage of their missiles is taken away? Maybe we will get a unified Korea, as we all hope in the future will occur. What will happen with some of these terrorist organizations or countries like Libya or Iran or Iraq when the missiles they have would not be capable of destroying or bestowing horrible destruction upon allies or the United States of America itself? My colleagues, we have an incumbent fiduciary obligation to our citizens to provide a security blanket for the protection of this Nation, and that obligation exists not only for the current generation, for the current people, but for future generations of this country. Today, we must develop that technology. We must put into position a missile defensive system. In my opinion, and I know sometimes I stand here and preach until I am blue in the face about the threat of a missile attack against this country, but all of a sudden on September 11 we all became a little more awake as to the fact that the United States of America could be a target too. We did not think on September 10 that action against this Nation was coming as quickly as it did. And who knows what the future holds? But I think we would be safe in assuming that the future holds further attacks against our country. I think we would be safe to assume that there are terrorist pockets out there that will do whatever it takes. They will destroy our children. Remember, in New York City, when they hit those World Trade Center towers, they killed the citizens of 80 separate countries. What we want to do is give those different countries the capability to defend themselves against these terrorists. Now, some might say, well, the United States of America should not have a missile defensive system. The United States should somehow feel guilty because of their military strength. The United States should become apologetic because they are so powerful. The United States should feel badly about leading the world in military technology. What a bunch of rubbish. The United States of America has the capability to lead the world in missile defense. And I could not more strongly compliment George W. Bush on his commitment for the security of this Nation. He understands, in his leadership team down there, whether it is the Vice President, whether it is Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, whether it is Condoleezza Rice, they have a clear understanding of their mission. And I think, colleagues, that we have an obligation to have a clear vision of our mission, and that is the security and the protection of the people of this country. I cannot think of anything more important that the leaders of a country have as far as their responsibility to its citizens than a national defense. I cannot think of anything more important. Obviously, there are a lot of important things out there, but what good is anything if we cannot protect our citizens? If we as leaders cannot protect this Nation, at least to the utmost of our capabilities, what good are the benefits of anything else that we could give this Nation? And protection, by the way of a nation, is not just necessarily a military missile defense, a strong military in regards to its capability to attack or in regards to its capability with technological advancement. I believe that the strength of a nation is displayed through its capabilities of negotiation, through its capabilities of helping other countries, through its capabilities of things like the Peace Corps and other efforts that we make like this, in foreign aid and foreign assistance with other countries. And the United States of America has no reason to apologize for any of this. The United States of America has led the world. There is no other country in the history of the world that has done more for other countries than the United States of America in regards to foreign assistance, in regards to educational benefits, in regards to open borders, in regards to opportunities. Now, that is not to say that I think the United States has got it all right. Many times we find out that we have made a mistake, but we learn from them. And basically, when we take a look at it, no one could classify the United States of America as anything but good, in my opinion. But to bring us back to this defense, we face very challenging times in the near future and in the distant future; and it is our responsibility as the leaders of this country, number one, to support our President and his team in their effort to provide the protection and the security that this country needs; and, two, to support our President and the President's team to provide the kind of security that our allies need. We need people to know throughout this world that the United States of America will protect itself, it will eliminate to the extent it can any threats against this country, and it will reach out to its friends to assist its friends and to protect its friends from those kinds of attacks. So as kind of a conclusion of this set of my remarks this evening, my colleagues, let me just summarize a couple of things. Number one, I say to our friends in Europe, our friends in France, our friends in Germany, our friends in the European Union, that the United States of America wants a partnership with you. We have had a partnership that has been tested through the loss of lives, hundreds of thousands of lives in the last century. Twice in the last century our partnership was threatened, and both times the United States of America contributed to the partnership and so did you. But this partnership must continue into the future. Europe is important for the United States, and the United States is important for Europe. But this is not the time for our friends in Europe to be shy about their support for this President. This is not the time for our friends in Europe to somehow give credibility to regimes like that of Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq. This is the time, instead, for friends and partners and allies to stand in unison against the common enemy and to do what is necessary to eliminate the threats of that common enemy. Madam Speaker, we have got the United States of America willing to be the first one out of the foxhole. We can lead. We are willing to put the money, the defensive resources. We are willing to do what it takes, but we want the European alliance to be right there with us. There is no other way that we want it to happen. Again, I summarize, the United States is prepared to come out of that foxhole by itself. The United States of America is prepared to go it on its own, but that is not our preference. This Nation has built its greatness through partnerships, partnerships of our citizens. And as we reach around the world to our allies and we once again are reaching out for this partnership and our friends in Europe, for example, Tony Blair in Great Britain, but some of our friends are pounding more on us than they are on the evil regimes of North Korea and Iraq. Remember, that cancer that we find in North Korea and Iraq cannot be denied. No serious assessment of either of those countries, or Iran, frankly, could justify what those nations have done to their own citizens or could justify in any way whatsoever what those nations intend to do to the rest of the world. There is no question in my mind or in the mind of anybody who has studied this, anybody of any consequence who has studied this at any length, that Iraq would utilize whatever weapon it had at its disposal, whether it was a chemical weapon, whether it was a nuclear warhead, whether it was the arm of terrorism, they will use whatever is necessary for an attack upon the free world. We must go against that. Let me also say that the United States of America feels very strongly about the religion of Islam, very strongly about the Muslims who are United States citizens and the Muslims throughout the world who are not United States citizens. The evilness of the terrorist acts of September 11 do not represent that religion. Even in that religion where there is an exception for violence in a jihad, the definitions of a jihad do not fit the acts of September 11. This Nation reaches out to all people of all colors, and we say we want individual rights, and we can come together as a team. There is a cancer that we have discovered. We must destroy that cancer, and we as a team can do it. Finally, let me say that again, I cannot stress it strong enough, and I am saying this from the center of my heart, our President has made absolutely the right decision to go full speed ahead, to provide the citizens of this country with a defense against missiles of other countries, with a missile defensive system. Right now many of our citizens believe that if a missile was fired against the United States of America that somehow we could defend against it. Our only defense at this point is a retaliatory strike. Is a retaliatory strike the best response? In my opinion, most of the time a retaliatory strike is not the best response. The best response is to neutralize the weapons being utilized against our citizens. We have an opportunity to neutralize one of the horrible weapons that could be used against the citizens of the United States and our friends. Madam Speaker, I commend the President and my colleagues who are supportive of the missile defensive system, and I beg those few Members who oppose the missile defensive system to reconsider. We need your support. We need to give this President the budgetary support that is necessary; and, frankly, I am confident that we will from both sides of the aisle. We will give this President the financial tools that are necessary to defend the interests of the United States

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an extraordinary man who embodies the spirit of my district in Colorado and whose contributions to society have been honored with his induction into the Pueblo Hall of Fame. Tony Fortino is a pillar of the Pueblo, Colorado community and has dedicated countless hours to the betterment of his beloved city. As Tony celebrates his achievement, I would like to commend him for his commitment to his fellow citizens and community. Tony's service to the City of Pueblo began when Tony took it upon himself to promote Pueblo's Downtown business corridor and the city itself. He served in leadership positions in the Greater Pueblo Chamber of Commerce, the Pueblo Economic Development Corporation and the Pueblo Development Foundation. His hard work ethic pushes him to take the initiative and provide leadership on projects, as he has done with the Pueblo Convention Center and the Downtown Hotel. Tony's leadership abilities shine through in his position as chairman of the Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority and as Pueblo's representative on the Colorado Transportation Commission. Tony served his country as a member of the Coast Guard in World War II. After the war, he came back to Pueblo and began a successful career operating a car dealership and as a commercial real estate investor. After his retirement, Tony generously gave to the Sangre de Cristo Arts and Conference Center and the Catholic Diocese of Pueblo Foundation. He has also helped to raise money for Pueblo Community College and serves as a member and chairman of the PCC Foundation. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Tony Fortino is a man of unparalleled dedication, evident through his efforts to improve the City of Pueblo, and his philanthropic contributions. It is his unrelenting passion for each and every thing he does, as well as his spirit of honesty and integrity that I wish to bring before this body of Congress. Tony Fortino is a remarkable man, who has achieved extraordinary deeds in his community, and I would like to extend to him my congratulations on his induction to the Pueblo Hall of Fame and wish Tony Fortino the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an extraordinary man who embodied the spirit of my district in Colorado and whose contributions to society have gone unrecognized for far too long. John W. Rawlings was a pillar of the Las Animas community but far too few remember his services. Fortunately, a donation recently made by this man's loving son will ensure that John W. Rawling's accomplishments and generosity will never be forgotten. Robert H. Rawlings, the current Pueblo Chieftain Publisher, remembers his father, John, as a kind, generous, and distinguished man. In order to preserve John's memory Robert has donated $150,000 in John's name to the Las Animas museum project. The project will help to move the Kit Carson Museum from outside of Las Animas to Main Street in this historic district. The new museum will be named in John Rawlings' honor. John Rawlings spent his childhood in Monte Vista in Colorado's beautiful San Luis Valley. In high school, John was a star football player, basketball player, and a top student. In the evenings, he worked as a janitor for the school to help support his family. John's hard work paid off and he won a full scholarship to Colorado College. After college, John served his country in World War I and was honored with officer training. He served in France in the 341st Field Artillery 89th division and was promoted to the rank of second lieutenant. John's career in banking began in 1920, and 21 years later he became the president of First National Bank of Las Animas. John's hard work and leadership skills were honored during his lifetime with roles in many organizations including the Southeastern Colorado Clearing House Association and the Colorado Bankers Association. John also served his community as the president of the Las Animas Chamber of Commerce, a member of the Las Animas Lions Club, and a commander of the Monte Vista post of the American Legion. After John's death in 1959, he was named ``The Outstanding Citizen of the Area'' and was greatly mourned by a loving family and grateful community. His dedication to excellence and his fellow man certainly deserves the attention of this body of Congress. Although it is certain that John's family and his community still miss him dearly, we hope that the new museum will keep the memory of this kind and generous man alive and intact for the future. Thanks John for your contributions to this nation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I pay today to senior Colorado State Parks ranger Casey Swanson, whose courageous act of capturing two dangerous fugitives went above and beyond the call of duty, and displayed a measure of heroism worthy of being brought before this body of Congress. During his tenure as a Colorado State Parks ranger, Casey has embodied the ideals of integrity, honesty and courage that we, as Americans, have come to expect from the men and women who serve in our state parks. I, along with the citizens of Colorado, am both grateful and proud of Casey's extraordinary act of valor, and believe it appropriate to pay tribute to him for his courage and bravery. Though not typically in the job description, Casey's extraordinary efforts to apprehend two armed killers near Salida, Colorado on September 29, 2001 are a testament to his relentless dedication to his job, to his community and to his state. After checking on a colleague who was manning a roadblock, Casey became involved in the search for the two killers. Being familiar with the area, he led a search team into the Castle Gardens area and later stood watch in the dark above a creek that ran though the area. After waiting for some time, Casey spotted the fugitives and ultimately coaxed them out of their hiding place, enabling other officers to join him in peacefully detaining the killers. Because of his incredible bravery, these criminals are now in the hands of law enforcement officials, and of no threat to anyone else in the area. His courage in the face of both fear and adversity is truly remarkable, and for his efforts, Casey was named the outstanding ranger of the year by the Colorado State Parks. Mr. Ranger, I am honored today to rise and pay tribute to a man whose actions are the very essence of all that makes this country great, and I am deeply honored to be able to bring them to the attention to this body of Congress. It is in times of great need that true heroes emerge, and I am proud to say Casey Swanson is a hero not only to me, but to his family, his friends and to this country. It is with a great deal of pride that I stand to honor him today, and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I take this opportunity to pay respect to the passing of Tom G. Roberts, who recently passed away at the age of 55. Tom was a pillar of the Hotchkiss, CO, community and as his family mourns his loss, I think it is appropriate to remember Tom and pay tribute to him for his contributions to his community. Tom was a shining example of a man thoroughly involved in his community. He was a member of the Hotchkiss Community United Methodist Church, the Hotchkiss Elks Lodge No. 1807, the Mt. Lamborn Masonic Lodge No. 102, and Sigma Phi Epsilon. In an effort to serve his community, Tom participated in several civic and business groups, notably the Hotchkiss Library Board, the Hotchkiss Chamber of Commerce, and the Delta County Livestock Association. Tom was a member of the North Fork Snowmobilers Association and was also a member of the Men's League and Mixed League at Valley Lanes, where he spent his free time playing one of his favorite games, bowling. Tom was well known for his love of outdoor activities, including horseback riding and snowmobiling. As a result of his intimate knowledge of the local forest and his attention to the news, he was often referred to as the ``unofficial wildfire reporter''. Between his responsibilities as owner of Robert's Short Stop, Tom always loved to visit with residents and tourists visiting the area. Tom loved children, especially his own, and was often seen at the local little league games as a fan and a sponsor. Tom will be remembered as a loving husband, a devoted father, and a friend to all. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to Tom G. Roberts for his contributions to the Hotchkiss community. His dedication to his family, friends, work, and community certainly deserves the recognition of this body of Congress. Although Tom has left us, his good-natured spirit lives on through the lives of those he touched. I would like to extend my thoughts and deepest sympathies to Tom's family and friends during this difficult time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding individual who has dedicated his life to serve and protect the citizens of the State of Colorado. Sheriff's Deputy Gary Nichols of the Moffat County Sheriff's Department has faithfully served his fellow Coloradans for years. After a long and successful career as one of Colorado's finest, the Advocates-Crisis Support Services, an organization created to handle and provide crisis support services to victims of crime, named Gary the ``Law Enforcement Officer of the Year.'' As he celebrates his recent achievement, I would like to take this time to highlight Gary's service to his community. Gary has faithfully served the Moffat County Sheriff's Department in various capacities throughout his career, but it was his ability to provide emotional support and attention to those in need that has led to this award. In every criminal situation, there is always someone who is directly affected by the crime, either a victim or bystander. Part of a law enforcement officer's duty is to not only protect our citizens from harm, but to also provide compassionate and caring assistance to those in need. Gary has repeatedly demonstrated these traits and proven he is an officer capable of compassion and dedication to his position as a peace officer in Moffat County community. Advocates-Crisis Support Services has worked diligently alongside officers such as Gary, and has rewarded past officers with similar traits for this important and dubious honor. I am extremely proud of not only Gary but also the crisis organization, as they both are our first responder units in times of hardship and crisis. Mr. Speaker, as a former law enforcement officer, I am well aware of the dangers and hazards our peace officers face today. These individuals work long hours, weekends, and holidays to guarantee their fellow citizen's rights and protection. They work tirelessly and with great sacrifice to their personal and family lives to ensure our freedoms remain strong in our homes and communities. Their service and dedication deserve the recognition and thanks of this body of Congress, and this is why I bring the name of officers like Gary Nichols to light today. Congratulations on this honor and I wish you all the best, Gary, and good luck in your future.