Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding individual from Ft. Collins, Colorado. Over the years Debbie Tamlin has distinguished herself as a business executive, a community leader, and a vital participant in our political process. Debbie's achievements are impressive and it is my honor to recognize several of those accomplishments today. Debbie was raised in Colorado and received a Bachelors of Arts in Communication Disorders from Colorado State University. In 1978, she received her Colorado Real Estate Sales License followed by her brokers license in 1980. Since then she has immersed herself in an outstanding real estate career and served in numerous capacities of support for her field. She has served as Director for the National Association of Realtors, President of the Women's Council of Realtors, founding member of the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance, Director of Colorado Association of Realtors, and the Director of Fort Collins Association of Realtors. To help serve her community and State, Debbie has given her time and energy to the political process by providing guidance and support to aspiring political candidates. She has been a driving force in the Colorado Republican Party and worked on campaigns in various capacities for county commissioners, Congressmen, Senators, and even President George W. Bush. Debbie has also given her time to noble efforts in the community such as founding the Convention and Visitor's Bureau and serving as a leader in groups such as Citizens for the Protection of Personal Property Rights, the Women's Development Council, and the Colorado Women's Leadership Coalition. Mr. Speaker, Debbie Tamlin's list of achievements has not been overlooked during her career and her efforts have been repeatedly awarded over the years. It is now my honor to congratulate Debbie on her most recent and well-deserved award from her own community, the Realtor of the Year award. Debbie has been a model citizen for the community and I extend my thanks to her for her efforts. Keep up the good work Debbie and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Walter Wayne Thompson Jr. and thank him for his service to this country. Walter began his service as a sailor in 1941, joining the Navy at the age of eighteen. By the end of his service, Walter had served on two ships involved in several famous and infamous battles in the Pacific theater. Walter served on the U.S.S. Hornet as a stenographer to the ship's Captain. While serving on the ship, Wayne was present for the launching of the famous Doolittle Raid, America's first strike at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Following the raid, the Hornet engaged in the Battle of Midway, a battle considered a turning point in the war that stopped the Japanese fleet from controlling Hawaii. Following Midway, the Japanese focused on the island of Guadalcanal. Here the Hornet's crew found itself tasked with the role of defending the island alone after Allied naval forces sustained heavy losses. After Guadalcanal, the crew fought in the Battle of Santa Cruz in an attempt to weaken Japanese defensive forces for an invasion of the island. The Battle of Santa Cruz was to be the final engagement for the Hornet. The carrier was attacked and sunk by enemy forces and her crew rescued by the U.S.S. Anderson. After living through the travesty, Wayne finished his service aboard the U.S.S. Lexington, where he served until the end of the war. Following his discharge, he returned to his native state of Missouri and became a Baptist Minister. He served the ministry for over forty years before retiring in Montrose, Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to recognize Walter Wayne Thompson Jr. and thank him for his service during World War II. If not for dedicated citizens like Wayne, we would not enjoy the many freedoms we have today. Wayne Thompson served selflessly in a time of great need, bringing credit to himself and to this great nation. -

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to take a few minutes to talk about a number of subjects which I think are very important, especially considering the times that we are in. The first subject that I want to talk about is domestic terrorism. Specifically, I want to focus in on ecoterrorism and talk a few minutes about that. Second, an exciting program which has been implemented in many schools across the country, the program Character Counts. This evening I am just going to do kind of a teaser on it and discuss some of the elements of the program, but I intend later to go into much more depth about the program and why it would be important for my colleagues to try to encourage their local schools to adopt the program Character Counts. Then I would like to move on to a subject which I have addressed many times, and that is missile defense and the importance of missile defense. I would also like to touch on the military tribunals that the President has proposed for war criminals, not for American citizens but for those individuals who have committed acts of war against the United States. Keep in mind that military tribunals were first used by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and President Roosevelt. The United States Supreme Court on a number of occasions has found that military tribunals are constitutional, so our discussion this evening about military tribunals will not be on constitutionality because that issue has been determined. Our discussion this evening should center more instead on why they are necessary, why they are important and of what benefit are military tribunals to the United States of America in its continued and long-lasting fight against terrorism worldwide. Let me begin with terrorism on a domestic picture. For some reason, over the last few years there seems to be kind of a Robin Hood image given to those people who are so dedicated to the environment that they think that their dedication to the environment justifies acts of terrorism against the property of others and at some point in time against humans and other citizens in the United States. This Robin Hood picture is kind of being played on by the media. It is not a noble act. Environmental terrorism is not the way to accomplish their means. There are many active organizations in this country who care very, very deeply about the protection of the environment. Many of us on this floor, including myself, care very deeply about the environment. Obviously, on many occasions we have a difference of opinion. In fact, on this House floor, the two sides of the aisle are sometimes urban versus rural. We have deeply held differences with the people from the other side of the aisle or with our colleagues from another State. For example, in Colorado we generally find ourselves with strong differences on issues of Colorado water when we discuss that issue with Members from the State of California, which is a large user of water from the Colorado River. But never on this floor, never on this floor do we engage in conversation or strategy or do we engage in the actual act of terrorism against our colleagues who disagree with us on this floor. We have never even heard of that. It has never been considered. If it were considered, it would be quickly squashed by my colleagues under our own self-policing process. Members just do not do it. In America we have a process which has been defined more accurately against September 11, a process which allows us a legal venue to carry these disputes. There is no justification for domestic terrorism. I do not care whether we are talking about a bomb on the Greenpeace ship, or a threat on an abortion clinic, or if Members are talking about organizations like ELF, which is an organization completely focused on accomplishing goals for the environment through the tool of terrorism. It has no place in the United States of America. Recently, I contacted a number of environmental organizations across the country and asked them to join me, to join my coalition, my coalition consisting of several of my colleagues' joint effort with me, our coalition, to come out as a group and speak against, regardless of which side of the spectrum Members are on, come out as a coalition, just like we have done for international terrorism, to come out as a coalition and speak against domestic terrorism under the name of the environment. I have actually been a little surprised by some of the responses I have received. Over the weekend, there was a nasty article in the Denver Post, a letter to the editor. It is amazing how people squirm to somehow say why do you ask us to join your team against environmental terrorism? Do you think that we are terrorists? I have never said that. Organizations like the national Sierra Club, other organizations, I do not think that they are terrorists. But there are some organizations that, under the guise of the environment, are terrorists, and they commit acts of terrorism. It is justified to ask every legitimate organization in this country to join the coalition that we are putting together to speak out as a unified voice, to speak out against acts of terror and against those people who think that it is the lesser evil for protection of the environment. I had some negative responses to my letter, asking, not accusing anybody of terrorism, asking them to join our team, kind of like the President said, you are either with us or you are not with us. The same context as this letter. Hey, join us, help us. Because, frankly, environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, like some of these other national organizations, a lot of people look to them for guidance on the environment. In a lot of cases I disagree with the national Sierra Club, not so much with the local but the national policies, especially when it regards the Colorado Rockies in my district. But the fact is I have never considered that organization or the organization of Greenpeace a terrorist organization. They do not advocate it. I have never seen any evidence that they are proponents of terrorism. On the other hand, these groups are nationally recognized, and perhaps some of the radicals who are committing ecoterrorist acts will listen to what these organizations say and listen to their experienced opinion that terrorism does nothing but hurt the cause. It does not help forward the cause of the environment. Committing acts of ecoterrorism, as they did in my district and throughout this Nation, those acts did not further the cause of the environment. In fact, what it does is it makes the people who really care about the environment, the organizations like the national Sierra Club and others, it kind of draws them in by association. Even though they are not associated, it draws them in by association and starts to give a black eye to what otherwise might be a legitimate cause. So why would someone not join our effort, our coalition? I got some positive responses, though, and I think some very mature responses, one might say, very well thought-out responses. I would like to read one of them from the Natural Resources Defense Council: Dear Congressman McInnis and Chairman Hansen: Thank you for your letter of October 30 in which you and your colleagues invited us to repeat our long-held position concerning violence by some who claim to be part of the environmental movement. Let me state, therefore, that the Natural Resources Defense Council unequivocally condemns and abhors any act of violence committed in the name of environmental protection. Violence has no place in the struggle to protect the earth and its people from the ravages of pollution and exposure to toxic chemicals. There is no excuse for fire bombings and other acts of violence that you have detailed in your letter. We are blessed to be living in a country where people are free to have differing opinions on matters of public policy. Moreover, it is especially at times such as these when we see the horrible way in which disagreements are handled in other countries that we appreciate our American tradition of honest, forthright and civilized debate. As you know, the Natural Resources Defense Council's more than 500,000 members from all 50 States feel strongly that our children have entrusted the earth to us for safekeeping until they are ready to assume their place as leaders. We will continue to fight what we consider bad public policy with every legal means at our disposal. And as we find ourselves in agreement on at least one issue, that violence has no place in policy debate, I want you to know we would be pleased to discuss environmental policy issues with you, your colleagues and your staff at any time that is convenient. And that is signed by the executive director. That violence has no place in policy debate. There are lots of policy debates on environmental issues, but as it was very clearly stated in this letter, as I have very clearly stated on a number of occasions, violence has no place in this public policy debate. Over the weekend, I had an opportunity to write a response in the Denver Post. I would like very briefly to read this and put this as a matter of record. Let me say that in regards to ecoterrorism, this is not something that has happened since September 11. We suffered a horrible loss in our district, not horrible as compared to the horrible loss we have suffered over at the Pentagon and New York City. Those two do not compare, other than the fact that they are both acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, we had horrific loss of life on September 11. But what is happening with ecoterrorism in this country is gradually and over time throughout and probably riding this kind of concept that they are a Robin Hood or that it is the lesser of two evils, that somehow terrorism is justified in environmental policy arguments, we begin to see groups like ELF, which is the Earth Liberation Organization, and ALF, which deals with the animal rights group, we are beginning to see that these organizations are becoming bolder and bolder in their acts of property terrorism; and soon unfortunately I am afraid that these acts of property terrorism such as burning down the lodge in Vail which was a $12 million lodge and by the way as a result of them burning down this lodge, the ELF organization, what happened is now we had to use twice as many logs as we would have used before, they have put a lot of people out of work. There was clearly no justification for this, but they are becoming bolder. One of these days by accident or intentionally they are going to take human life, all in the name of the environment, which as I stated and I would like to repeat this letter because I think it is an outstanding letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council which, by the way, is a very well-respected, very active environmental organization. Bombing and fire bombings have no place in this argument. Acts of violence have no place in the policy debate of the environment. Let me read my response: ``Several comments attributed to me by critics are at best taken out of context, a self-serving manner in order to make their case appear stronger. As America begins the long haul back following the monumentally tragic events of September 11, we all have to come to more fully appreciate and understand the cancerous effect of terrorism on free and civilized people. Now more than ever, America knows in its collective heart of hearts that terrorism, no matter its form, and no matter its motivation, is intolerable. Whether it is crashing a plane into the Pentagon, sending a mysterious white powder to an abortion clinic, burning up a Greenpeace ship or burning a Vail lodge into the ground, terrorism has no place. I am chairman of a House subcommittee charged with overseeing our national forests. One form of terrorism is high on the committee's radar screen, ecoterrorism. While not as menacing or destructive as the terrorist attacks of September 11, environmentally motivated violence has nonetheless reached such a level that the FBI now recognizes it as one of America's primary domestic terrorism threats. Let me repeat that. The FBI now recognizes it as one of America's primary domestic terrorism threats. Shockingly, ecoterrorists continue their war against American communities, fire bombing a biomedical research lab and a Federal facility just days after America was rocked by Osama bin Laden and his network of terrorists. ``Ecoterrorism is not an imagined problem. Environmental vigilantism is on the rise and it is for real. Recently the national dialogue about ecoterrorism took a heated turn when a handful of environmental groups objected to a letter written by myself and several of my colleagues urging organizations to openly disavow the action of ecosaboteurs like the Earth Liberation Front and its sister organization, the Animal Liberation Front. ``ELF, as the Earth Liberation Front is known, and ALF, as the Animal Liberation Front is known, have reigned terror on communities in all corners of the United States over the course of the last decade; setting fire to homes, academic research labs, government buildings and many businesses. ``Colorado has not been immune from this type of ecoterrorism threat. In 1998 ELF's henchmen burned a $12 million ski lodge in Vail to the ground. In all, these groups have prosecuted a campaign of terror with a price tag well over $40 million, and it is just a matter of time before human life is taken. ``Alarmingly, ELF and ALF, and other like-minded radicals, have found refuge in certain circles of the popular press. Instead of being forcefully condemned, too often these groups have received a wink and nod and a rhetorical pat on the head from those who view environmentally motivated violence as a lesser evil in the furtherance of a greater society of good. ``A National Public Radio guest commentator, and I stress guest commentator, when recently reporting on a series of arsons in Arizona, then thought to be the handiwork of ecoterrorists, offered a shocking on-the-air endorsement of environmental push saying she would be happy to buy matches for the ecoarsonists the next time they were prepared to strike.'' I should add, taking away from the letter for a moment, that National Public Radio readily acknowledged that this should not have been on the commentary, that it was not professional journalism, and I can tell my colleagues that National Public Radio apologized. I felt they acted in a very professional manner, but let me continue. ``In 1999, a story in the Portland Oregonian chronicled a subtle and sometimes not so subtle, claim that certain members of mainstream society offer groups like ELF. It is exactly this kind of thinking and rhetoric that fuels the destructive tendencies of environmental terrorists. If America is going to get the upper hand on ecoterrorists, we have got to strip away the Robin Hood mystique and perceived moral high ground that some gleefully give these radicals which brings me back to the letter of the environmental groups. ``The purpose was not to impugn or otherwise link organizations like the Sierra club to ELF or ALF, and nothing in my letter could reasonably send that impression. The letter has just one purpose, to send a powerful message to the ecocriminals of ELF and ALF and their sympathizers that even those who share a similar environmental ideology deny and reject the use of terror as a tool to promote those thoughts. ``Notwithstanding the self-serving criticism and outrage coming from the lips of certain excitable commentators, this letter is singly targeted at building a cultural coalition against environmental terrorism and provides the opportunity for those who care about the environment to openly express distaste and disapproval of ecoterrorists. Those who commit these shameless acts of terror should find themselves with no support because all of us can unite against it.'' My point is this, that environmentally motivated terrorism is not noble. It is not a noble act, and it is not some kind of lesser evil in pursuit of greater good. It does not work on domestic terrorism in this country. We have policy debate and acts of terror have no place regardless of how deep one feels, regardless of how intense the debate becomes. We have a system in the United States that allows remedy, that allows claims to be heard. We have the freedom of speech in this country. All of these rights that were written by our Bill of Rights and are protected by our Constitution were put in there for the very purpose of avoiding utilization of the tool of violence as a way to dissolve or resolve domestic dispute. So I intend to be very aggressive in my continued pursuit against the ecoterrorists of this country. I want my colleagues to know that this pursuit started well before September 11. In fact, we attempted and were eventually successful at subpoenaing the spokesman for the ELF organization, and I would like to read that letter very briefly, the response, so that my colleagues understand what kind of individuals that we sometimes deal with. This is a letter from a guy named Craig Rosebraugh. Craig is the spokesman of, although I understand he has recently resigned, was the spokesman for the North American ELF press office; and by the way, my colleagues ought to take a look at their Web site. If my colleagues think that I am exaggerating things, take a look at the Web site of the Animal Liberation Front, ALF, put it in a search. Just put ALF in a search and take a look at it or put ELF in a search. The Earth Liberation Front, now their particular Web site, look it up, take a look at what they talk about is justification within the borders of the United States to further their policy position. They advocate, they encourage and I think they coordinate acts of destruction and acts of terrorism. When we served this gentleman with a subpoena, first, however, before I served him with a subpoena, I asked him to voluntarily come back. This is the response I got: ``Dear, Mr. McInnis: I received your letter, whether or not I am available to testify at the upcoming hearing regarding the emerging threat of ecoterrorism on the national forest lands. It is unclear to me why my testimony is desired at such a function. Furthermore, the topic of discussion appears, at least to me, to be somewhat vague, with no stated goals in mind. ``By addressing the subject of ecoterrorism threat on national public lands, are you referring to the ongoing destruction caused by the State itself along with industry as both continue to exploit and alienate the natural resource wilderness and ecosystems for this country for the sake of profit or it is a given subject in reference to the State and mainstream media created label which attempts to place a negative stigma on those actions attempting to place life in front of profits? ``In answer to your question am I available, the answer is no. I see no value, unless I am mistaken in your intent, in cooperating with the same state,'' referring to the United States, ``in cooperating with the same state that is directly responsible for the ongoing murder and exploitation of life, both within this country and internationally.'' And it is signed by this guy. This is the leading spokesman for this radical organization. They are not environmentalists, they are terrorists. There are a lot of organizations in this country that you can label environmentalists that are legitimate and, in my opinion, on a number of occasions there are issues I actually agree with. But they represent the views of a lot of people in this country. These are organizations that speak for a lot of people, like the Natural Resources Defense Council, but they do it in a legitimate fashion. This should no more be accepted than bombing an abortion clinic. In my opinion, a bombing of an abortion clinic or burning down the Vail Mountain lodge, burning it down to the ground, and putting a bomb on the Greenpeace ship, those have no place in our society. And we as a society, regardless of where you stand on an issue, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, whether you consider yourself a Sierra Club member or not a Sierra Club member, whether you like Greenpeace or do not like Greenpeace, we can all come together as a coalition. We can all speak as one voice, that environmental terrorism has no place in policy debate in this great country that we have, because this great country has become great because there are platforms, such as this platform, that allow us to have policy debates, as we have day in and day out in this great chamber of this House of Representatives. So I would urge people, my colleagues across the country, representing places across the country, speak up against eco-terrorism. Emphasize that while someone may have deep, deep beliefs about an environmental issue, that at no time is there justification to pull out a pack of matches, as that commentator in Arizona said she would supply, at no time is there justification to go to Vail, Colorado, and burn the lodge down; at no time, if you are pro-life, is there justification to go after somebody who is pro-choice, or vice versa, pro-choice after pro-life. It just does not fit. It is not the policy of this Nation. We should not tolerate it for one moment. Now, I hope that we can come together, and I hope our law enforcement agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, our State investigative agencies, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, whatever law enforcement arm we need, will be able to crack down on the individuals who believe that terrorism is the correct tool to use to further their cause, regardless of what that cause is. Well, enough for that. I think it is important. I want to visit now on some other issues. I intend however to come back when I make comments to my colleagues and talk about environmental terrorism and talk about the importance of eradicating terrorism within our own borders, going after it, stopping it. This is how policy debate ought to be handled. Now let us move to another subject which I have seen a lot of discussion on lately in the last few days, discussion, as if this were an unconstitutional movement by the President of the United States, and that is military tribunals. The President of the United States, who has done a very, very able job of leading this country in a time of need, in a time of war, has proposed to do just exactly what previous great presidents have done when this country has been in a time of war, and that is to take war criminals, whether they are Nazi war criminals, or whether it is Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants. These people are war criminals. This is not a traffic violation or a civil violation or a U.S. code criminal violation or state code criminal violation. These are acts of war committed against the United States of America. Throughout the history of this country, for justice for those people, we have had military tribunals. Military tribunals were first utilized by George Washington at the beginning of this country, the birth of this country. Abraham Lincoln used military tribunals. Roosevelt used them in the war. Two times in the forties, as recently as the forties, the military tribunals in and of themselves were questioned in regards to constitutionality, and on both occasions the United States Supreme Court has ruled that military tribunals are constitutional within this country. So do not let people divert your attention on these military tribunals by saying it is an unconstitutional act, or somehow we are leaving what America is all about. America is about defending its borders. America is about bringing justice to the people who bring great harm outside the boarders of this country to the inside of the borders of this country. America is a strong Nation and should not bow to the politically correct who are afraid they might offend some of these war criminals. These war criminals are not going to have their rights violated. What rights do they have? How many rights did those people in New York City have when those towers tumbled, or, not very far from here, when the Pentagon was hit? Oh, sure, they are going to be granted certain rights, as they should be, during their trial. But I will tell you, they are not entitled to what an American citizen should be entitled to on a civil or criminal dispute, outside of an act of war. This is an entirely different picture. This is an act of war that we are talking about. So you are comparing apples to oranges. When you talk about a crime committed outside of an act of war in the United States, that is entirely different than talking about an act of war committed against the United States of America. Now, why are these military tribunals necessary? First of all, understand that any time, and take a look at the spy cases we have in our own Nation, one of the easiest tricks in the book for a defense attorney if they are defending under our current legal system, if they are defending a spy, for example, one of the first things they would do is to issue a subpoena to try and force the government to open up secrets, for example, everything they can open up, whether or not if it has the faintest thing to do with their case, like open up the CIA. I can just see it. If you were defending one of these people who committed this act of terror against the United States, the defense attorney would want to know all our secrets about the satellites that located the person for their arrest, all of our financial spy network that was able to locate how this person got their money, all of our communication equipment. They would want to know publicly and they would disclose it publicly. Why do they do that? These defense attorneys want to drive a plea bargain. That is exactly what happens in spy cases. Take a look at the most recent spy cases, any of the last five most recent. That is why plea bargains were driven, in part, because of the information that our intelligence services would have to disclose, that our enemies would love to get their hands on. So military tribunals avoid that. The military tribunals also do other things. It is a tested method for bringing these individuals to some sort of justifiable trial. Now, can you imagine, where are you going to locate this trial? It allows us to hold them on military bases. Can you imagine, you do not have to have juries that are disclosed publicly, like a civil jury would be or a criminal jury today in America is. So what I would say my comments tonight are not extensive, not extensive on these military tribunals, but before you buy into the rhetoric that they are unconstitutional on their face or they are somehow unfair, take a look at the legal history, take a look at the legal history of this country, and you will find out that while they are different than a bank robber might be tried, for example, the type of tribunal or the type of court system that a bank robber would go through, in fact they do allow defense for the defendants. They do allow the defendants certain rights, but it is taken in a different context. It is viewed by this country and by the United States Supreme Court as an act of war against the United States, and it is justified to have these types of military tribunals, this type of venue for remedy, not only for the country, but a remedy that provides legitimate protections to the defendant, while not going overboard to the politically correct sometimes theory that we ought to just open the door and let these defendants get the best of everything we have got in this country and force disclosure of some of this Nation's top secrets. So, give it a chance. Read about these military tribunals. Everyone from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times, there has been lots printed just in the last 2 weeks. But I think when it all comes down to the bottom line, colleagues will agree with me, or most will agree with me, that military tribunals have a legitimate place in our justice system, and that that legitimate place has found a proper venue under the circumstances that our Nation faces today. Let me move on. Let me visit about a real positive program called Character Counts. Now, I intend later on this week, I hope, or perhaps early next week, to have much more, many more extensive comments in regards to this program. This is a program that has a Board of Directors that are nonpartisan. In other words, it is not a politically driven program. It is not sponsored by the Democrats, it is not sponsored by the Republicans. It is a program that was put together by leaders, various national leaders, leaders of the communities, leaders of religion, leaders of community groups, all types of facets of society. The way the program was put together was people were invited to come together and say, look, what do we need to do for our young people in this country? How can we define the word ``character?'' What can we do to bring character back as a process of our education of our younger generation? How can we once again deploy character into maturity when we speak of the youth of this country? How do we do this, and how can we do it in a way that is not racially offensive, that is not religiously offensive, that is not political or partisan in any fashion whatsoever? So this group of people got together, and I will go into this in much more depth in the next week or so, but this group of people, to summarize it, got together and said, hey, let us define the elements of character, in other words, the characteristics of character, and see if we can come to an agreement. And they did come to an agreement. They wanted to call the program Character Counts. You know, whether you are in the Boy Scouts or whether you are in the Girl Scouts or in some other type of organization, all religious organizations, community, activist organizations, all of these have as a fundamental base character. That is what it is about. The greatness of this country was developed through the character of its leaders, through the character of its citizens, through the character of the everyday person who believes in honesty, who believes in hard work, who believes in diligence. That is what has made our Nation great. But that trait is not an inherited trait, those traits. It does not just automatically appear in our young people. It has to be taught and it has to be taught not only in a classroom sense, it has got to be taught by example. So we, too, have to adopt those characteristics of character and follow those, and we have to deploy the education of those characteristics of character in our schools and in our educational system in hopes that character begins to replace what some people would say is not politically correct, that it is not politically correct to talk about character. It is politically correct to talk about character. It is a very important thing to the foundation of our Nation. Let us look at the various elements that I have over here to my left. Character Counts. Trustworthiness. As you will see as we go through these characteristics, there is not one of these on this chart that any of my colleagues could object to, not one, and put together as a unit, it is a very powerful message to educate, not only ourselves, but our young people, and to take into our schools. Character Counts. Trustworthiness. Responsibility. The ability to trust. The ability to be responsible, responsible for the actions that you take, responsible for the work product that you come out with, responsible for your family, responsible for yourself, responsibility. Citizenship. You know, one of the horrible things that has occurred to our country in many, many decades, some would argue throughout the history of this country, although I would argue perhaps the Civil War was more of a horrible thing, but you take a look September 11. What has it brought out? There are some good things that have emerged from that horrible, horrible disaster. One of them is, people now are taking a much more positive view towards citizenship and what it means to be a citizen in the United States of America and what kind of price we have to pay to make this country and to continue this country to be the greatest country in the history of the world. Citizenship is a big part of it. Recently, there was a book by Tom Brokaw, and that book I think was titled ``The Greatest Generation.'' I do not agree with that title. I do not think there has been a greatest generation. I think every generation has great people within it. I think every generation in the history of this country displays the greatest, not just one generation, although certainly the generation that Tom Brokaw talks about that my father and mother were involved in, the war effort, et cetera, these were great people. But every generation has great people, and we can continue, and I think we can measure greatness through trustworthiness, through responsibility, through citizenship, and respect. Respect is an important element in our society. Mr. Speaker, when I grew up, my folks, I never was able to call anyone that was more than 1 or 2 years older than me anything other than Mr. and Mrs. In fact, there are friends of my parents today that I have known for decades and I could not tell my colleagues their first names. I have always known them as Mr. Delaney or Mrs. Delaney or Mr. Jackson or Mrs. Jackson or Dr. Jackson, et cetera, et cetera. Respect. When I was growing up, we always opened the doors for the elderly, or for women. And I realize that society changes on some of these things, but respect can be demonstrated in many, many different ways, and every generation has a different way of demonstrating that, a different use for respect. But respect must make the transition from generation to generation. It is an important element of character. Fairness. I think fairness has been demonstrated clearly by President Bush in his response to those acts of terror on September 11. The United States has a reputation for fairness. That is what has made it the greatest country in the history of the world. When we talk to people about the United States who have a nonbiased view of the United States, they will talk about the fairness in the United States. Fairness, it is important. Not only is it important in education, it is important in every aspect of our lives, fairness and caring. Think about caring. We go over, and I have heard a number of people, and we have held the war in awe about our military machine in Afghanistan. But if people think our military machine has been mighty and something to behold, wait until they see the American feeding machine. We are over there in Afghanistan and we care about the people over there that did not commit an act of wrong against this Nation. We care not to make innocent people the victims if it at all can be avoided. This country does not go in and take care of its business and then walk out. This country has gone on, it has gone after the war criminals, and it will hunt them down one by one and destroy their empire piece by piece. But the innocent citizens, the citizens who have now seen liberation, liberation of playing music, liberation. This winter, with the tough winter, they will see more food in that country than they have seen in many, many years, because the United States of America cares about those people. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America cares about people other than themselves. There is no country in the history of the world that has done more charitable acts, contributed more foreign aid, helped more countries in need than the United States of America, and that is because the United States of America cares. So these are the elements of Character Counts. Now, when I continue my comments later on in the week or early next week, I am going to really talk about the structure of the Character Counts program and why that program is important for all of my colleagues to encourage their local school districts to deploy within their classrooms, to utilize as one of their core courses, so to speak. Because I think in the end, by relooking, by reemphasizing responsibility, by reemphasizing to our young people through our educational process responsibility, the caring, take a look at this, the citizenship, the fairness, the trustworthiness, the only winners by educating Character Counts are us, our Nation and our future. Let me wrap up. Let me conclude my remarks with a final subject, a subject which I have talked about on a number of different occasions, and that is missile defense. Many people in the country today are especially aware of the military might of the Nation, and they are asking a lot of questions that we never thought of asking before. Mr. Speaker, prior to September 11, many people in this Nation thought that wars were fought outside our borders and that what we worried about within our borders were domestic murders, for example, an act of violence like that. No one imagined that we would have the strike against this Nation that took place on September 11. Now people do, and many of my colleagues' constituents are beginning to ask the what ifs: What if we had another act of terrorism? What are the acts of terrorism? What if we had a biological attack? And one of the questions that needs to be asked is what if a missile were launched against the United States of America? What if the United States of America were the victim of a missile attack? What could the United States of America do to defend itself against a missile attack? Remember, a missile attack, a missile being launched against the United States of America does not necessarily have to be an intentional launch. We could very easily have a missile launched against the United States of America that was an accidental launch. And if we do not think accidental launches cannot take place, take a look at what happened over the Black Sea about a week after the September 11 event when the Ukrainian navy accidentally fired a missile into an airliner and blew it out of the sky. These accidents happen, and it could happen to the United States of America. I think it is important today that we all stand up and support the President's determination to put in place for this country a missile defense system. Now, most people believe that if a foreign country fired a missile against us today, that our NORAD command center, which is located in Colorado Springs, buried deeply within a granite mountain, that NORAD would quickly pick up on its radar and on its devices the fact that a missile has been launched; and that is, in fact, accurate. They would pick it up, in fact, within a few seconds. NORAD could tell us that a missile has been launched. It could tell us the size of the missile, it could tell us the speed of the missile, it could tell us the approximate target of the missile, and it could tell us the estimated time of arrival of the missile. But, after that, there is not much more NORAD can do. A lot of our citizens, I say to my colleagues, assume that we then would fire a missile to stop it or somehow we could defend ourselves. But all we can do today is quickly advise Oklahoma City or somewhere else, hey, there is a missile, an in-bound missile, and it is going to strike at this point in time. That is all we can do for you. Today, our responsibility has risen to a higher standard as a result of the events of September 11, and that standard is to follow the President's lead and deploy within the borders of the United States of America a missile defensive system that will protect its citizens, that will provide a defense for the security of this Nation. Failure to deploy a missile defensive system is, in my opinion, gross dereliction, gross dereliction of our constitutional duties to protect the security of this Nation. This is critical that we put this type of system into place. Now, some will tell us, wait a minute. There is a treaty out there called the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. It is a treaty between the USSR and the United States of America that prohibits either country from building a missile defensive system. That treaty ought to be trashed. That treaty has within its four corners, and it is contained right here, let me show my colleagues. It allows, the legal rights of that treaty called the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, it allows within its four corners each party, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from the treaty. It is a right to withdraw, the right to withdraw. We are not abrogating the treaty. We are not breaking a treaty. We have the right to withdraw from that treaty. But it is subject to one condition, and that condition is that if it decides extraordinary events relating to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. Have extraordinary events jeopardized the supreme interests of the United States of America since this treaty was signed between Russia and the United States? The answer is clearly and undebatably yes. It has changed for Russia, and it has changed for the United States. Take, for example, the proliferation of missiles, the proliferation of missiles that have taken place since that treaty, countries that possess ballistic missiles. Look at them. Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Belarus, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, France, India, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, this list goes on and on. When that treaty, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty was signed, there were only two nations in the world capable of delivering these missiles. It was the United States and Russia. Whether or not we agreed with the merits of the treaty at that point in time, surely today we would agree that the circumstances have changed dramatically, that it is in both Russia's best interests and the best interests of the United States of America that we provide the people of this Nation not further offensive missile capability but defensive missile capability. Every peace advocate in this country ought to be a stronger advocate of a missile defense system. Why? Because it could possibly avoid a war. Let us say that some country launches accidentally. Let me tell my colleagues, the consequences of being able to stop a missile over the ocean or stop it before it gets very far off its launching pad, dealing with those consequences are much easier to settle than dealing with the consequences of a missile landing on a major city in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, the time has come. The time is here today to follow the lead of our President, and that is to deploy a missile defense system for the defense of this country. Every one of my colleagues, in my opinion, has an inherent, an inherent obligation, an inherent responsibility to provide the constituents, the citizens, and the people of this Nation security on the home front by putting in place and deploying a missile defense system. At some point in the future, at some point in the future, a missile will be launched against the United States of America. That is my opinion. And if we today, while we have the opportunity, fail to provide a defense against that missile, how could we ever, ever face ourselves again in a mirror and say that we carried out our responsibilities for the protection of this Nation? Mr. Speaker, I will continue to speak strongly, because I feel deeply committed about our obligation, I say to my colleagues, to provide our citizens, to provide the people of this Nation a security blanket, and that security blanket in a missile defensive system, is one that is technically available, it is economically available, and it is an absolute must. Again, I repeat, it is an inherent obligation of the leaders of this Nation, and we are leaders in this Chamber, to follow our President's lead and to put that security blanket of a national missile defense system in place and to do it without haste or waste. We can do it. I expect that we will have to do it much sooner than later.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember and honor the life of one of America's true leaders. Not only was he a patriotic soldier during World War II, but he was also a civic leader in his community. Francis M. Bain passed away at the age of ninety-two on November 1, 2001, and it is with a solemn heart that I would like to pay tribute to his life and memory. Francis Bain was born in Springfield, Illinois on November 7, 1908. He spent the majority of his childhood growing up in Tungsten, Colorado, outside of Boulder, where he completed his high school education and graduated from the University of Colorado in 1931. He went to Europe during World War II, where he served for four years as a Lieutenant Colonel in the 65th Infantry Division of the United States Army fighting to defend the freedom we hold so dear in the United States. Mr. Bain's role switched from a military soldier to civic leader when he returned home from Europe to Colorado. He joined his brother to manage the family business, Campbell-Sell Baking Company. Throughout the years he undertook several civic responsibilities including such posts as a member of the Denver Board of Education for 16 years, president of the Metropolitan Council for Community Service, and Trustee of the Temple Buell College and Iliff School of Theology among others. Mr. Speaker, Francis Bain contributed so much to our nation and gave selflessly of himself to the community. He was a leader and role model for the people of our country both at home and abroad. He has touched so many lives and his contributions will not be forgotten. I would like to express my condolences to his family and friends during their time of mourning.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life and memory of Robert Tillman Mantlo who recently passed away in Grand Junction, CO on November 13, 2001. Robert, known by others as R.T. and Chief, will always be remembered as a dedicated leader of the community. His passing is a great loss for a community that relied on R.T. for his knowledge and wisdom in times of hardship and prosperity. R.T. served the citizens of Grand Junction for over 50 years. He began his service as a fireman in 1945, serving in the department until his retirement as Chief in 1986. As Chief, R.T. ran the department for 12 years and was instrumental in the creation of two additional fire stations in the city. The firemen of the city can be especially grateful to R.T., as no man lost his life to fire under R.T.'s command. Following his retirement, R.T. continued his service to the community and entered the field of politics. R.T. was elected to the City Council in 1987. He served two terms and was admired by his constituents throughout the area. His exceptional service paved the path to the office of Mayor where R.T. was again elected for two terms, first in 1989 and second in 1994. After his term expired, he continued his public service as a member of the Grand Junction/Mesa County Riverfront Commission and the Grand Junction Housing Authority. His contributions to the community did not stop at the realm of the political arena. As a sports enthusiast, R.T. was active in the creation of several athletic organizations in the community. These clubs included the Recreational Softball League and the National Junior College Baseball World Series. R.T. not only helped create the league but also served as a coach to several teams. Mr. Speaker, R.T. will be missed by many whose lives he has touched in the community. It has always been known that his greatest passion was his love and dedication to his family. R.T. is survived by wife Betty, sons Dick and LaVern, and daughter Tanna Fowlds. It is with a solemn heart that we say goodbye and pay our respects to a patriarch of the Grand Junction community. Robert Tillman Mantlo dedicated his life to the city of Grand Junction, CO, and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize David Pollard of Cedaredge, Colorado, and thank him for his contributions to the people of Kosovo. For the past year, David has been involved with the ``Youth With A Mission'' organization that helps people throughout the world by building homes and fostering relief projects in troubled areas around the world. David began his work with YWAM after training in Trinidad, Colorado for several months. His first assignment was to be sent to Kosovo as a member of the outreach team. The team's duties included building housing for families that have been displaced or lost their homes in the recent conflict in Kosovo. Living with a host family, David contributed to his team by providing the labor to construct these homes. David reached out further to the communities by interacting with locals and spreading moral messages based on the Bible and the Koran. David ended his first mission to Kosovo last summer. Since, he has returned to Trinidad and assisted in the training of more teams to continue with YWAM's mission. After his second round of training, he was instrumental as a co-leader for a new team of volunteers and accompanied them back to Kosovo. Some people might say that two missions are enough in a place that has experienced such devastation and hardship for so long, but David continues his assistance to Kosovo. He is now planning to return to the country, on his own, at his own expense. Once arriving, David hopes to find work with relief organizations and continue his service to the people of Kosovo. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor David Pollard and his contributions to a country in a time of need. Like other members of ``Youth With A Mission,'' David has provided his services without compensation. His volunteering efforts are well appreciated and bring great credit to himself, his family, and his community. Thanks David.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life and memory of Bernice Elaine Force who recently passed away in Glenwood Springs, Colorado on October 25, 2001. She began her life in Kalamazoo County, Michigan, born to Fred and Bessie Bishop Barber, where she attended the University of Michigan School of Nursing. After her marriage to Jack Force in 1932, the couple moved to Mesa, Colorado. Throughout her life, Bernice was dedicated to providing healthcare services to those who were in need. She served in several hospitals throughout the state including Veterans Hospital in Grand Junction, Faith Hospital in Collbran, and Valley View Hospital in Glenwood Springs. In her free time, Bernice enjoyed various activities and interacting with others who were in her life. Her most cherished time was spent with family. She was a dedicated wife, mother of three, grandmother to five, and great-grandmother of four. Bernice enjoyed gardening, fishing, baking and cooking. She was also an active member of her church. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that we mourn the loss of Bernice Elaine Force. She devoted most of her ninety years to others and will be missed by those she touched. Her family and friends are grateful for her dedication and service to Glenwood Springs. As we mourn her passing, our thoughts are with those who knew her.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the students of Roy Moore Elementary School of Silt, Colorado and thank them for their dedication to helping the children of Afghanistan. The students, led by their student council, have begun efforts to raise money for America's Fund for Afghan Children. They began their effort following President Bush's call to help the Afghan children caught in the current conflict. The students have been occupied with finding the means to earn dollars and donate money to the fund for some time. Several students have donated allowances, found chores to earn money and contributed from their savings. The school has raised more than $200.00 for the children in Afghanistan. The students of Roy Moore Elementary have shown great kindness and compassion by their efforts. More importantly, they have realized that the children in this conflict are not responsible for the attacks on this country and that they too, are victims in this struggle. Their efforts can act as a model for other schools around the country participating in this worthy endeavor. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the students of Roy Moore Elementary School for their efforts to such a noble cause. The students and faculty have brought great credit to themselves for dedicating their resources to those in need. As we all look for a way to help, Roy Moore Elementary deserves the praise and admiration of this body as we commend them for their contributions.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a truly dedicated volunteer, Ms. Gene Parker, from Southwest Colorado. Gene has spent over a century of her life working to help better understand previous cultures and the archeological preservation of the Anasazi culture. Ms. Parker began her work as a volunteer for the Bureau of Land Management's Anasazi Heritage Center in Dolores, Colorado. Her duties include the inventorying of the center's collections, where she is relied upon to verify that each piece was properly documented for its historical study. Gene has also volunteered her services to the center's library, assisting with special events as they occur. She is also a member of the Anasazi Historical Society. Gene has dedicated her time and effort for two days a week for the past fifteen years. Following recovery from a broken hip in 1999, Gene remained committed to continue her duties where she has amassed 1,814 volunteer hours. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to recognize Gene for her service to help preserve the artifacts of the ancient Anasazi culture. Her dedication to a worthwhile cause certainly deserves the praise of this body. Because of her efforts, many will now be able to better understand the Anasazi culture.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Paul Jordan for his contributions to this country. Paul began his service to our nation in 1942 by reporting for duty as a new army recruit at Fort Logan, CO. Following his training, Paul was assigned as a tank assistant gunner for the invasion of Sicily, Italy in June of 1943. Mr. Jordan's company supported cover for the 45th Division and served in the initial invasion of Sicily. The Allied success brought Paul to the invasion of Salerno in September of that same year. It was during this invasion that Paul had his first tank destroyed by enemy fire. Paul survived and later was reunited with his company and assigned a new tank. After fighting for three months near Monte Cassino, Paul was assigned to yet another invasion force, this time the invasion of Southern France. Fighting near Cannes in 1944, Paul's tank was again destroyed by an enemy attack. Evading enemy forces once again, Paul was promoted to tank commander upon reaching his unit. The war ended for Paul in Strasborg, France close to the German border in 1945. Mr. Jordan returned to Colorado in November 1945. He married his sweetheart Ellen and raised three children. He went on to work in the Delta County School District for almost 30 years. Paul and his wife Ellen recently traveled back to France to visit a small village his unit liberated during the war, and to visit a memorial to five of his comrades who died during the fighting. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to recognize and pay tribute to Paul Jordan for his service to his country during World War II. He served selflessly in a time of great need, bringing credit to himself and this nation. Paul is one reason that our country enjoys the freedom that we hold so high today.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Debbie Johns and thank her for the contributions she has made to the School District 51 Board in Clifton, Colorado. Debbie has served on the school board for over sixteen years, and though she will be dearly missed, I am happy to congratulate Debbie on her retirement. Debbie was elected to School District 51 Board in 1985. She ran for office because of concerns she had over school redistricting and how it would affect her children's lives. Since then, Debbie has been elected three more times to the board with the help of her campaign staff and her family. She has been instrumental in many changes that have occurred to the district during her tenure. While in office, six new schools have been built and another twenty have undergone renovations. When not meeting with the board, Debbie can be found distributing her time between managing a doctor's office and caring for her family. This is no easy task considering Debbie works an average of seventy hours per week in her management position. Despite her newfound freedom, Debbie already plans to fill the void by donating her time to the Mesa County Public Library literacy program. Mr. Speaker it is a great privilege to honor Debbie Johns and wish her the best as she steps down from the School District 51 Board. She has dedicated her energy and time to the community for the last sixteen years and certainly deserves the praise and admiration of this body. Debbie, thank you for your dedicated service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Verne L. Wikert and his contributions to this country. Verne began his service to this nation in the 1940's, serving as a Merchant Marine in the Pacific theatre during World War II. Mr. Wikert joined the Merchant Marines at the age of seventeen. Tasked with the position as oiler aboard the S.S. Coast Trader, Verne and his crew were responsible for supplying the Pacific theatre with troops and supplies throughout the war. On June 7, 1942, a Japanese submarine torpedoed his ship. Following the attack, Verne fought his way from below deck to escape the sinking ship. This event put the crew through a five-day ordeal, fighting for their survival off the coast of the state of Washington. Upon rescue, Wikert, in a coma, was near death. Mr. Wikert recovered from this experience and continued his service to his country, surviving two more torpedo attacks before the end of the war. As is customary in the Merchant Marines, he received no awards or decorations for his contributions to the war effort, but is worthy of the praise of this body of Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor Verne L. Wikert for his service to this country. He served selflessly during a time when the country was in great need. His actions have brought great credit to himself and his nation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Glenn L. Grayem and recognize his contributions to this nation. A native of Holyoke, Colorado, Glenn began his service as a soldier at the age of nineteen, during World War II, when he was assigned to Ft. Wheeler, Texas for basic training. Upon completion of training, in 1945 Glenn was sent to serve in the Pacific and take part in the invasion of the Philippines. Glenn was assigned to the 25th Infantry Division with the task of liberating the island of Luzon. For months, Glenn's unit fought the Japanese army for control of several towns located throughout the region. During the battles, the Japanese were instructed by their leaders to fight to the last man and surrender was not an honorable option. Glenn fought through enemy defenses for over three months until the end of the campaign. Over 156,000 Japanese and 30,000 Allied soldiers lost their lives in the Battle of Luzon. Glenn went on to serve as part of the occupational force in Japan following the victory. He returned to his native Colorado upon the completion of his enlistment. Some of Glenn's decorations from his service include the Bronze Star, the Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal, the Philippine Liberation Ribbon, and the Army of Occupation medal. Glenn Grayem now makes his home in Montrose, Colorado. Mr. Speaker it is a great privilege to recognize Glenn and thank him for his dedicated service during the war. If it were not for soldiers such as Glenn, America would not enjoy the many freedoms that we have today. He served selflessly in a time of great need, bringing credit to himself and to this great nation. Thanks Glenn.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I would like to take this opportunity and pay tribute to an icon of the Pueblo, Colorado community who recently passed away. Charles Bollinger, who was fighting Alzheimer's disease and a brief illness, died at the age of 85 and as his family and friends mourn his loss, I think it is appropriate that we remember Charlie for his many contributions throughout his life. Charlie owned and operated Bollinger's Confectionary, a magazine/ bookstore located in Pueblo. Bollinger's Confectionary began as a candy store that was started by his uncle in 1927. In 1946, Charlie bought the business and moved it to a new location. While there, he added the magazine collection that made Bollinger's a favorite store in the community. Charlie was an adamant sports fan throughout his life. He was a longtime, devoted Denver Broncos fan and his love of sports was clearly reflected in his store magazine selections. His legendary collection included over ninety titles covering sports from football to baseball, and outdoor sports including hunting and fishing. Mr. Speaker it is with profound sadness that we remember the life and memory of Charlie Bollinger. He will be remembered for his kind heart and the gentle demeanor he displayed throughout his life. As family and friends mourn his passing, I would like to recognize the wonderful life Charlie lived. We will miss you Charlie.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the significant contributions of a member of the community in Durango, Colorado, Patty Burkholder, who was recently honored by her coworkers for thirty years of involvement and leadership in the banking industry. Not only has Patty helped improve the banking industry locally, but she has also spent a great deal of her time and effort providing for the needs of the area in many capacities. Patty moved to Durango in 1993 where she assumed the position of President at the local Wells Fargo Bank. She worked her way up through several different banks holding positions that ranged from secretary to personal banker and vice president to president. The employees at the new Wells Fargo Bank recognized the special relationship that Patty had with them as well as the customers that has influenced the success of the business. She is a team player who consistently supports and encourages her staff to perform at the highest level, giving staff the flexibility to perform at their best. Not only has Patty given to the Durango community through her role at the bank, but also she actively participates in other local organizations. She is a member and past President of the La Plata Development Action Partnership, and is past President of the Durango Area Chamber and Resort Association and served in several other local volunteer positions. Mr. Speaker, Patty Burkholder has played an important role in shaping the community of Durango, Colorado. It is my pleasure to recognize Patty for her significant contributions both to the banking industry and to the community. Patty is a role model for us all as an active and responsible member of the community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize John and Merle Glenn for their contributions to the American Red Cross. For over three years, the Glenns have volunteered their time and effort to their local Red Cross chapter. While trying to stay active after their retirement, the Glenns began to volunteer their time and to contribute to their community. This year alone they have responded to over 150 calls from the organization. They have responded to disasters ranging from air crashes to wildfires, and the World Trade Center disaster. Recently they have donated their time to train New York state volunteers in the alleviation of fires in urban environments. As is common in the Red Cross, volunteers only receive compensation for expenses while on assignment. The Glenns have often overlooked this formality in response to calls. They have amassed thousands of miles on their personal vehicles and have not sought reimbursement. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to recognize John and Merle Glenn for their volunteer efforts to the American Red Cross. Their dedication to helping others in a time of need reflects positively upon themselves and their community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize William G. Aiken and his contribution to this country during World War II. Bill began his service in 1943 at the invasion of Salerno, Italy and fought courageously to defend freedom and this great country. Mr. Aiken operated mortars in the 84th Mortar Battalion of the 5th Army. He was tasked with the assignment of providing artillery field support to the invading allied forces. As such, Aiken's unit was often in the lead of several invading beach assaults; including nine tenuous days on the beaches at Salerno where they clung to the beachhead as the Nazis tried to repel Aiken's squad and the rest of the American units. Mr. Aiken returned to Colorado after the war and retired in 1978. Among his decorations are the Purple Heart for wounds he received in combat and the Bronze Star for valor. Mr. Speaker it is a great privilege to recognize William G. Aiken for his service to this country. He served selflessly in a time of great need, bringing credit to himself and this nation. If it were not for men like Bill, we would not enjoy the freedoms we so value today.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of the true pioneers in Colorado's ski industry. Mr. John Conway recently passed away from natural causes at the age of 84, and as his friends and family mourn his passing, it is only appropriate that we thank John for his contributions to the Vail area and the State of Colorado. Mr. Conway was a major figure in the creation of the Vail ski area. He began by serving as a real estate appraiser in the 1950's. As the idea for creating the ski area that is now Vail took shape, John began finding land suitable for the resort. John was tasked with the responsibility to personally convince ranchers and farmers of the need for a ski resort in the area. Working side-by-side with the landowners, John convinced the different owners to sell their land to the corporation that came to be known as Vail Associates. The steps that John took to put together the foundation for Vail ski area was a necessary step to making Vail ski area one of the premier ski destinations in the nation and the world. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that we remember John Conway. His vision, dedication and service to the resort industry has allowed Vail to become a popular and successful ski area in the State of Colorado.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life and memory of Eldon H. Strode and thank him for his contributions to the community of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Eldon passed away this October at his residence in Wickenburg, Arizona. Mr. Strode came to Colorado in 1945. He began work in the ranch industry, working the land for more than two decades. After his work in ranching, he ventured in the coal industry for thirteen years until his retirement in 1981. Eldon was an avid sports enthusiast in the Glenwood Springs community where he was a member of the basketball and softball league. Eldon also volunteered his services as a member of the youth baseball program and as a member of the chain crew for many football games at Glenwood Springs High School. In 1980, he was honored for his contributions to the team. Mr. Strode continued his involvement in the ranch industry by volunteering his knowledge to several cattlemen associations such as the Colorado Cattleman and the Holy Cross Cattleman's Association. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that we remember Eldon H. Strode. The many people he impacted will remember his contributions and dedication. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this difficult time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, all Americans have been going through very trying times since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Despite our struggle, we have pulled together and become a stronger nation due to the resolve of our citizens. Today, I would like to recognize two patriots from Pueblo, Colorado who have made significant contributions to our nation's recovery efforts. Pueblo County Coroner James Kramer, and Brian Cotter, a mortician, were members of the Disaster Mortuary Response Team that went to New York City to aid in the recovery effort at the World Trade Center disaster site. They were at ground zero with other forensic pathologists helping to recover and identify the individuals who we lost in the disaster. Mr. Speaker, James Kramer and Brian Cotter committed their expertise to our country during an overwhelming time of need. Just as we have seen with the rest of the country, both James and Brian provided some stability to our nation at a time of crisis. I am proud to have this opportunity to recognize these upstanding individuals for their significant contributions to the recovery and relief effort in New York City following the World Trade Center disaster. James Kramer and Brian Cotter deserve our recognition and praise.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a little time this afternoon and have an in-depth discussion on a couple of different issues that I think are very important with the current matters that we have facing us. The first matter I would like to discuss at some length would be profiling and the need for profiling for the national security of this country. I have some experience in security. I used to be a police officer. I have a pretty good idea of what we need to do to look out for suspects and how we can help and assist all citizens of this country, regardless of their background, in being sure that they are secure and safe as they walk the streets of this country, or as they go up into a building. The second thing I want to discuss at length this afternoon is missile defense. It is absolutely critical at this juncture in our Nation's history that we prepare, that we prepare a missile defense system for this Nation. Anything that falls short of a complete missile defense system for this Nation, in my opinion, would demonstrate dereliction of the duties that we have, the responsibilities that we accepted when we were sworn in to represent the people of this Nation. Let me start with profiling. I have seen, and I have been very disappointed and discouraged recently, about some people playing what I would call the race card against profiling. We have to talk in a very serious tone and with thoughts of the consequences of doing things and not doing things, about tools of enforcement that we can utilize within the borders of our country and outside the borders of our country and for the people that want to cross the borders of our country and for the people that want to leave the borders of our country, tools that we can use to help secure the national security. One of those tools is profiling. Now, let me distinguish at the very beginning the difference between what I describe and what I define as racial profiling, which most people in this country, including myself, are justified in opposing, and utilizing race as one of the components of a threat profile. We will see on this chart to my left, again, how do I define racial profiling. My colleagues will see I have obviously a red circle through racial profiling. Racial profiling is where that is the only determinant factor that one utilizes in one's profile construction. Now, obviously, if race is one's only determinant factor, the only factor considered, it raises a balloon for a very legitimate argument that one is creating or causing discrimination. Now, there are some cases where one may not have any other factors other than the person's ethnic background; and in that case, for example, one puts out a description only using the ethnic background because that is all the information one has. Let me give an example. One is called to the scene of a bank robbery and the witnesses at the bank robbery, within moments after the bank robbery is committed, when you arrive at the bank, all they can tell you is I do not know what size they were, I did not see their face, but it was a white man. It was a white male. Then, one is justified in saying, in immediately putting out an alert, look, we know that the suspect was a white male. That is all we have at this point in time. All units be advised, there is a white male that just committed a bank robbery. I do not know anybody that says that is not a legitimate purpose or a legitimate means. But where one would run into problems and where one sees discrimination is if, for example, an Irish person is getting ready to get on a plane or an Arab is getting on a plane and simply because of the fact that their ethnic background is Muslim or Arab you pull them aside and question them, simply because, and the only determining factor in making that decision is their nationality or their ethnic background. That is not enough to justify it under our Constitution, in my opinion. I think it is discrimination, but we have to weigh out these situations. Now, I can tell my colleagues that my stand in utilizing ethnic, or not excluding, that is perhaps a better way to put it, my position is that we should not exclude ethnic background any more than we should exclude age or religion when we build a profile with a number of components. Now, some of the people who have opposed this frankly are taking examples, extreme examples of abuse by law enforcement where, in fact, they may be right, the people, the critics may be right, that in those particular cases, ethnic or what we would call racial profiling took place and there was a clear demonstration of discrimination. But let me tell my colleagues, for example, the other day in my debate I said, look, we have bad arrests in this country. We have a cop who makes a bad arrest, poor judgment. We have a lot of good police officers out there; but every once in a while, a bad police officer or a good police officer even makes a bad judgment call. If we have a bad arrest, should you immediately jump from the conclusion that you have had one bad arrest and therefore, logically, you should have no more arrests so that we avoid all future bad arrests? Of course we would not draw that kind of conclusion. That is exactly the type of conclusion that my critics are attempting to draw when I speak of national security and a profiling system that will help us protect our national security. What my critics try to do is they try to come out and say, look, here is a case. This person was detained as they wanted to board an airplane, only because of the fact that they were Arabic background. They are Arabs. That is the only reason they were detained. It is a clear case of discrimination. They go through all of these facts that of course make the case seem horrible. And maybe it was a bad, bad case. But that is not the situation that is occurring out there. I have said to people before, look, I realize that with the millions and millions of travelers that we have in this country every day, that there are going to be some select, some very select situations of discrimination. But it is very easy to overstate that number. It is very easy to criticize law enforcement. It is very easy to criticize airport security on this profile. What I have said to my critics is, produce the numbers. Show us case by case, and if we have a case where we have bad performance by law enforcement or bad performance by airport personnel or whatever personnel were involved in this, there ought to be discipline. Because we should have zero tolerance; zero tolerance for discrimination in this country. But let us not confuse who are the victims here. Who are the victims in this situation? Think about September 11. We have to quit being politically correct. What has happened is we have moved from being constitutionally correct to politically correct. I am telling my colleagues, there are law enforcement personnel, there are airport security personnel who are afraid to question certain individuals because they are afraid those particular individuals will complain that they are being discriminated against. That seems the easiest get-out-of-jail-free card one could use. If they are detaining a person in the airport and one has any kind of ethnic leverage, they could just complain they are being discriminated against: Why are you searching me? You are discriminating against me. I have yet to meet one traveler, and I fly a lot, as my colleagues do, I have yet to meet one of our constituents or one traveler out there that is not willing to go through what is necessary, to search their baggage and their fellow passengers' baggage, so they know when they get on that aircraft that that aircraft has been secured and is safe to fly. Part of doing those kinds of checks, until we are able to put into place our computerized system which, through technology, will check every passenger that gets on that aircraft, their background, et cetera, through either eye scanning or other devices, will check every piece of cargo that goes underneath that aircraft, will check every bag that goes on that aircraft, whether it is a carry-on bag, whether it is a purse that somebody has over their shoulder, or whether it is checked-in baggage, until we get to that point, there is a certain amount of random selection that needs to take place. That, at this point, until we get that in there, is the best alternative we have. We have no other alternative. We have to maximize immediately the safety of travel within this Nation and the safety of the citizens of this Nation, our national security. So how do we build a profile? What kind of profile am I talking about? I think, for example, ethnic background is a legitimate component of it. Take a look. Here is typical of what I call ``threat profiling.'' That is what I am advocating here, threat profiling. Who is it we are up against? We have some people out there that want to do very terrible things. We have obviously seen firsthand what they have wanted to do, as a result of what happened at the Pentagon and in New York City. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members, do not let people try and back us down by saying that the politically correct thing is to not question anybody who might be offended by questioning; do not dare approach anybody who could claim discrimination; do not infringe on anybody's right to board an aircraft simply because we are interested in a number of components for a profile. I actually have some constituents out there, Mr. Speaker, that think profiling, period, regardless of how we construct the profile, is not legitimate. I find that pretty interesting, because think about it, think about this: we find profiling in every avenue of our life. Think about it. Our schools, for example, our schools profile. Our schools profile which students are getting poor scores. Our schools profile neighborhoods: gosh, people from this side of the city are getting poorer scores than people from this side of the city. They profile by race; they profile by, okay, the white students in this age bracket at this grade are at this reading level, the black students are at this reading level, the Hispanic students are at this reading level, the Vietnamese are at this reading level. The colleges do it; they profile their top engineering students. We use it in education every day. We use it in marketing. We use it to assess risks. That is another area, in insurance and in marketing. The media, take a look at any newspaper or any television station that criticizes through editorials, or any radio station, and take a look at what they do. They profile every day of the week. They profile who their listeners are, who their viewers are, who is most likely to buy the products that they are trying to sell over their medium of communication. Of course they profile. Hospitals profile. Traffic is profiled. In fact, I challenge my colleagues to name one aspect, one aspect of our life that is not profiling. We profile. Our political parties profile. Frankly, the political parties also profile based solely on race, in some cases, based solely on ethnic background. For example, they might say, hey, this is a black district. Let us go in, because the blacks tend to vote Democrat, so let us not profile anything other than how many blacks in there are registered. They profile strictly on one factor, and the Republicans do the same thing with contingencies of, let us say in a particular community it may be that the Irish in that community support the Republicans in bloc form. They go and they profile, too. What I am saying here is, for God's sakes, if we allow profiling for marketing purposes, if we allow profiling out there in our schools, if we allow profiling in every step of our lives, why do we not or why are we resistant at all to profiling to protect the national security of the United States of America? This is not a game. The nice guy finishes last here. In this kind of matter, the nice guy finishes last. Take a look at what we do when we buy insurance, for example. Insurance companies profile for risk. That is what I am asking that we continue to do. We need to profile for risk. What is our threat profile? What is the threat? What is the risk? Think about it with an insurance company. Nobody says this is an illegitimate or somehow not politically correct matter. It is a fact of insurance. If they are going to insure somebody, they had better assess their risk. It is the same as if anybody wants to invest in business. If one wants to invest, they had better assess their risk. That is exactly what profiling does. Back to insurance. Let us talk about insurance. We know, for example, that males between the ages of 16 years old and, say, 21 years old, and then an additional profile between 21 and 25, we know that males in that age bracket tend to speed more. We know they tend to drink and drive more. We know that they tend not to use their seatbelts. Members see what I am saying: we can begin to build a profile of why, when somebody is a 16-year-old driver, why we charge a higher insurance premium to a 16-year-old driver than we do to a 36-year-old female, mother of children, et cetera, et cetera. Members can see the comparisons. We know that the risk of a 36-year- old female, say a mother, and there are some other classifications that can be put in, other components that can be put into the profile, is at much less risk of drinking and driving, for example. Probably uses her seatbelt every time she gets in the car; probably straps her children every time they get in the car. We can compare it to a 16-year-old white male who probably is not using that seatbelt, who speeds around, who is not, frankly, as mature as the 36-year-old is. It sounds like a lot of common sense. Nobody in these Chambers would disagree with this type of profiling. All I am saying is it is a huge mistake, a huge mistake for us to allow political pressure by a very select number of people to give any kind of commitment that we will not allow ethnic background to be considered as a component of a threat profile. We are correct, however, to accept pressure and to make commitments not to use as a profile the sole, the sole component of race, because, as we know, when the sole component is race only, that does tend to lead to the difficulty of discrimination which most people in this country, if not the overwhelming majority of people in this country, believe that discrimination should have no less than zero tolerance, zero tolerance for discrimination. So I am not a proponent of, nor are my colleagues proponents of, what I would call that type of racial profiling, where the only factor we have, looking to the left to my poster, the only factor that we have to consider is race or ethnic background. But I am strongly advocating that we continue to encourage, in fact that we mandate, until we come up with a better alternative, that we mandate threat profiling. It is common sense. It is not rocket science; it is common sense. For example, we can pretty well take a look at a person's behavior, what we may know about their behavior. We may know their age, we may know their gender, we know their nationality, we know the ethnic background. They may have certain flight information; for example, did they buy a one-way ticket, a round-trip ticket, et cetera, et cetera. We might know their religious background, educational background, criminal background. As we begin to get more and more information on these elements, the more information we get, the more accurate the threat profile becomes. Threat profiling is an essential law enforcement tool in this country. Threat profiling is no different than the type of profiling that many other walks of life utilize in our everyday life. As I said earlier, newspapers use it, TV stations use it; even the people who blast me in an editorial, for example, for what I call threat profiling, ask them what they know about their readership and how they got that information about their readership. The bottom line is simple. The bottom line is that I agree that ethnic background, and in fact, I advocate that ethnic background alone should not be used as the sole component of a profile. At that point, I think it is fair for us to call it racial profiling. But once we begin to use ethnic profiling as a component, one of several components to build a profile, I think it is very legitimate. I think it is smart. Obviously, it is constitutionally protected. It may not be politically correct, with a small number of people. It may be abused by a small number of law enforcement personnel. But overall, if it just saves one terrorist attack, and it will save a lot of terrorist attacks, we have proven evidence of that and we know it does, so if it can just assist our Nation and the citizens that we have a responsibility to protect in this Nation by giving them some assurance of protection and actual protection, then we ought to be using it. So I would ask my colleagues, as this continues, number one, very quickly ask for the facts of the abuses that are alleged. Ask them to lay out each particular case where this so-called abuse took place. We will find in some of those cases that abuse did in fact take place, but I believe Members will also find that most of these allegations are limited in number, maybe legitimate but limited in number. Then take a look at what a good threat profile, which allows as one of its components ethnic background, take a look at how much good that can do, how powerful that weapon is for protection of not just ourselves but protection of our fellow citizens. So I urge that my colleagues take into consideration and run away from the politically correct theory out there, and to take into consideration just how much we depend on threat profiling for the protection of our society. Mr. Speaker, I want to change subjects real quick and talk about one of my favorite topics, that is, missile defense. A little history on missile defense. We have a treaty called the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. My colleagues know what that is about. Back in the 1970s, there were only two nations, only two nations in the world, only two nations in the world that were capable of delivering a missile into the borders of the other nation: the United States and the Soviet Union. There was a theory back then that there was an arms race that was going to get out of control, and as one of the ways to slow down the arms race in the seventies, somebody came up with a theory: let us create what we call the Antiballistic Missile Treaty; in other words, antimissile. That is exactly what the treaty is called. What they said in that treaty, or the way they put kind of the structure of the treaty together, was to say, all right, if Russia is not allowed by treaty to build a defensive mechanism against U.S. missiles, Russia then would not initiate an attack against the United States because they would have no protection when the United States retaliated against Russia. It also works vice versa: Why would the United States initiate an attack against the Soviet Union if the United States had no way to defend itself from the multiple missile warhead that the Soviet Union could deliver into the borders of the United States? So they put together this treaty. In this treaty, they said Russia will not build a defense system and the United States of America will not build a missile defense system. For many years the treaty really has gone unnoticed. A lot of people did not pay much attention to the treaty. In fact, we could ask the average citizen, and at one time one probably could have asked me, before I became a little more knowledgeable on the subject: Okay, if a foreign country launches a missile against the United States, what happens? If that person was somewhat up to speed they would say, well, we have the NORAD space command, the detection service in Colorado Springs and Cheyenne Mountain. It is a granite mountain. They hollowed out the inside of that mountain, and we have within that NORAD, the alliance between Canada and the United States of America, to detect missile launches, or to detect foreign objects, or to kind of put a radar in the sky; kind of our eye in the sky. That is NORAD. Then if somebody fires a missile against us, NORAD would be able to detect a missile launch, which yes, they can do anywhere in the world; they would be able to do it within a few seconds, and that is accurate. And they would be able to tell us where that missile is going to hit, and that is accurate. They would be able to tell us the speed of the missile, and that is accurate. They would be able probably tell us what type of missile it is, and that is accurate. But now we begin to leave the accuracy and what most people thought was the truth. That was, once they figured all that out, we would somehow fire a missile and stop that missile from striking the United States, and that is a falsehood. The United States of America today does not have the capability to defend against an incoming missile. Let me tell my colleagues that just a month ago people were mocking, saying, the United States, nobody is ever going to fire a missile against the United States. I have advocated for some period of time that not only do we have to worry about an intentional launch of a missile against the United States of America, we have to worry about an accidental launch of a missile. We all know that the old Soviet Union had, what, 6- or 7,000 nuclear warheads. We cannot be assured today, even by the capable leadership of Russia, we cannot be assured by the leadership today that they have all of those weapons; that they know where all of these missiles are; that those missiles have all been kept up on their maintenance, et cetera; and some people would not take me seriously. Some people said, how can anybody accidentally launch a missile? About a month ago it happened. It happened in the Black Sea. The Ukrainian military launched a missile by accident, and what was the result? They shot down a passenger airline. They shot it right out of the sky by an accidental launch. If the Ukrainian military can launch, by accident, a missile against a passenger airplane, I can assure my colleagues that at some point in the future the United States of America, we, will be the victim, in my opinion, of an accidental launch. Let us shift real quickly from an accidental launch to an intentional launch. Remember, when the treaty was drafted in the 1970s, there were two countries capable of delivering a missile against each other. That was the Soviet Union and the United States of America. Let me tell my colleagues what has happened in the 25 years since the signing of that treaty. Take a look at this poster to my left. Again, let me reiterate, in the 1970s, when the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was negotiated and when it was signed, there were two countries capable of delivering missiles against each other, the Soviet Union and the United States of America. Look what has happened in the last 25 years or so. Countries that now possess ballistic missiles: Afghanistan, that is something we have heard about; Algeria; Argentina, look at it; Belarus; China; Czech Republic; Egypt; France; Jordan; Hungary; Russia; obviously Saudi Arabia; Slovakia; South Africa; Syria; Taiwan. The blue on this map indicates countries that now have ballistic missile capability. That is a big change. Twenty-five years ago the only blue on that would have been the Soviet Union and the United States. We would not have had any blue down here. We would not have any blue over here. We would not have had this blue over here, would not have blue around these areas, out there in Taiwan. That did not exist. We would say, well, did not people back in the 1970s, when they were talking about putting this Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty together, did they not think about that? Did they not ever think that maybe somebody in the future would also deliver or develop the capability for ballistic missiles? The answer to that is yes. In fact, the people that executed that treaty, the people who helped draft that treaty knew that the circumstances could change. They also knew when they put that treaty together that the circumstances could change so dramatically that the treaty would be of no use to either party, that the treaty would actually work to the detriment of the Soviet Union and to the detriment of the United States of America. I can tell my colleagues that today, actually several years ago, but today the point is here. This treaty is now a detriment to the national security interests of the United States of America. This treaty is now a detriment to the Soviet Union. Why should the United States of America not build a missile defense system? Why should the Soviet Union not build a missile defense system to protect their citizens and their allies, frankly? Look at what we have got going on today. We have a war going on in Afghanistan. What if we lost control? What if the Pakistani Government lost control of its nuclear missiles and nuclear capability? What if bin Laden got ahold of one of those missiles? Do my colleagues think he would hesitate for 1 second to fire that missile against the United States and destroy hundreds of thousands of people instantaneously? Of course he would not. We have an inherent obligation, it is our job, it is our responsibility, number one, to pull out of that treaty; and number two, to build a missile defense system that will protect the interests of the United States of America. And we can share that information; we can share that information with our allies like the Brits, for example, or the Italians, who support this, to go out and build their own missile defense system so they are not under a threat by some rogue country or under a threat by a very legitimate country that, by accident, launches a missile. What about that treaty? What did the treaty say? They did have the foresight, the people that drafted this treaty, they had the foresight to put provisions within the treaty that would allow us to abrogate the terms of the treaty. Within the four corners of that treaty, they foresaw that at some point in the future the circumstances of 1970 might not match the circumstances of 2000 or 2001, and that is where we are today. Let me show my colleagues exactly what the treaty says. We are just going to look at an article on this treaty, but it is the pertinent clause of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that allows us, as a right, as a right, to withdraw from the treaty. We are not breaching the treaty. We are not breaking the treaty. And the Soviet Union, if they decided to withdraw from the treaty, would not be breaching the treaty, and they are not breaking the treaty. Some columnists in the journalistic world out there like to parlay to their viewers or their readers out there that if the United States or the Soviet Union were to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that they would be breaching or breaking, like breaking a contract. These people obviously have not read the treaty because the treaty, within its own four corners, within the document has specific, specific language about allowing a country, either the United States or the Soviet Union, to pull out of this treaty. Remember that no other nation in the world, no other nation in the world that has ballistic missile capability, no other nation in the world other than the United States and the Soviet Union is subject to this treaty. They can do anything they want. They are not subject to this treaty. Let us take a look at the specific language contained within the treaty that allows us to withdraw from the treaty. Article 15 of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the poster to my left. ``This treaty shall be of unlimited duration.'' Number two, key paragraph. ``Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty,'' the word ``shall,'' ``have the right to withdraw from this treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.'' Let me go through it again. ``Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right,'' it is a right, it is not a breach of contract, it is not a breach of the treaty, it is a right contained within the contract, within the treaty, ``the right to withdraw from this treaty, if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months prior to the withdrawal from the treaty. Such notice shall contain a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.'' Let us look at the key part of this paragraph. Number one, each party has the right. The Soviet Union has the right to pull out and the United States of America has the right to pull out from the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty. They have that right only if they decide that extraordinary events, extraordinary events, now, remember, that extraordinary events are not defined within the confines of that treaty. They are not defined. But I think we can define it within a couple of paragraphs, and I will show that in a few moments. ``If it decides that those events are related to the subject matter.'' Obviously, there are lots of events that are related to the subject matter of missile defense. Extraordinary things have happened in technology, in those people, that contain ballistic missiles in the last 25 years. ``Have jeopardized the supreme interest.'' I will state, jeopardization of our supreme interests must include within that category an accidental or intentional launch against the United States of America, not only by the Soviet Union, but by any other country or any other regime in the world that has the capability to do it. So what would be those extraordinary events that would justify this? Let us pull up the previous chart. This is an extraordinary event. Compare, look at what has happened in the last 25 years. Twenty-five years ago the United States of America and the Soviet Union had ballistic missile capability. They were the only two countries in the world that could deliver those missiles. And then some extraordinary things happened. All of a sudden other little countries all over the world begin to get not only nuclear capability but the ballistic missile capacity to deliver that nuclear capability, or a traditional warhead, conventional warhead, through the utilization of that missile. That is extraordinary, unfortunately, extraordinary in kind of a fearful way. But it is an extraordinary event that has taken place. If for one moment we do not think that the proliferation of these missiles throughout the world is not a threat to the national interests of the United States of America, of course it is a threat, and it is a direct threat. And mark my words, just the same as the Ukraine military by accident fired a surface-to-air missile and by accident brought down a passenger airline, at some point in the future of this country someone will either intentionally launch or accidentally launch a missile against the United States of America. Now, we can completely neutralize that treaty if we allow our administration, which has been very aggressive on their commitment to build a missile defense system for this country, we, every one of us in these Chambers, in my opinion, have an inherent obligation to help our administration build, first of all, we have the technology so it is to a point now where it is almost time to build missile defense for this country. This is an extraordinary event. Let me show some other extraordinary events, as if proliferation of ballistic missile capabilities throughout the world is not enough, standing alone, to fill out the definition of an extraordinary event. Let me show some others. The threat is real, as posted on my left. Rogue states and weapons of mass destruction. Among the 20 Third World countries that have or are in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction. Take a look at this. These are extraordinary events as was intended by the people that drafted the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. These are the kind of extraordinary events that the drafters of this treaty must have thought of as a legitimate reason for the United States or for Russia to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and to build a missile defense system that would protect the national security interests of their respective countries against a threat. Who would have ever imagined 25 years ago that the country of Iran would have nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons and advanced technology for ballistic missiles? Who would have imagined that Iraq would have had nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons and advanced ballistic missile technology? Libya, same thing. North Korea, same thing. Syria, same thing. These reflect, in my opinion, extraordinary events. These reflect the necessity as recognized by our administration, as recognized by George W. Bush, our President, and our Vice President, Dick Cheney, and their Cabinet, their very capable Cabinet. This indicates, it demands, it insists that the United States, that the leaders of this country back this administration and allow this country to go forward with a missile defense system. We owe it to our citizens. Now, until September 11, many people never thought it would happen and we could delay it to another day. Well, let the next generation worry about it. I am saying today, today, colleagues, we cannot afford to let the next generation worry about it. We have to protect the next generation as well as this generation, and we have to do it as soon as we possibly can. The day is coming. The day of reckoning is coming when the question will be asked, or the question could be asked, why did we not stop that missile? Did we have the capability to stop that missile? Why did we not build a missile defense system? Or the day is coming when the comment could be made, thank goodness that our government saw fit and understood their responsibility to the national security interests of this Nation, and they put in place a missile defense system that stopped that accidental launch. And by the way, let me make a comment about all those people who are legitimately, well, I disagree with some of their points of view, but certainly have a protected right to be pacifists, who say, oh, my gosh, war is terrible. And, of course, all of us agree war is terrible. But just keep in mind what Winston Churchill said. He said, ``The only thing worse than war is losing one.'' Think about that. The only thing worse than war is losing one. And we can lose the war against missile defense if we do not provide missile defense for this country. But back to the pacifists. I think every pacifist in the United States, everybody opposed to the war in the United States of America should be urging and supporting President George W. Bush in his determination to build a defensive missile system for this country. Now, one might ask why. I will tell you why. Think about it. You could avoid the next war if you had the capability of stopping a missile. Let us say, for example, that by accident some country, say North Korea or Russia, by accident, launched a couple of missiles against the United States; that the missiles were in such a silo arrangement and the electronics were such that there was a multiple launch, by accident. So the United States not only gets hit by one nuclear missile; it may get hit by one, two, or three nuclear missiles. If we had the capability to stop it, there would be no retribution, or the retribution would not at least come in the way of a nuclear missile fired back towards Russia. But if we did not have the capability to stop it, because we simply neglected to build a missile defense system for the protection of this country, because of that neglect we were not able to stop an accidental launch, we could very well find the United States with no choice but to retaliate for the horrible, horrible results of a nuclear missile strike against the United States. That is why I think that people who oppose missiles, who oppose war as an answer, that is why those people should be saying, look, the best way to disable missiles is to be able to defend against them. And we can actually make missiles obsolete in the future if in fact it is a weapon that can be defended against. If we were able to develop a bulletproof vest which covered the whole body, we could make the shooting of a bullet against a police officer an obsolete weapon. We have only been able to protect a part of the body, and we cannot protect it against all shots. But we are very, very close to having the complete technology to provide this country the kind of missile defense that it needs. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues are very stubborn. I cannot imagine or fathom why anyone in their right mind would object not to an offensive system but to a system that will bring down any type of missile attack against the United States of America. And I hope my colleagues never ever use in front of me the excuse, well, it is not going to happen, or the odds of this happening are so small. And by the way, keep in mind, colleagues, that a missile does not have to have a nuclear warhead on it. As we know, it could have a warhead of a high concentration of anthrax in it. The possibilities, the horrible possibilities of what can be delivered by a missile is unimaginable, just as unimaginable as 3 months ago somebody would have told us that the World Trade Center Towers would have collapsed and the Pentagon, hit all in a simultaneous act of terrorism. It was unimaginable 3 months ago. It was unimaginable that the Ukraine Navy, or their military, on a military exercise, would accidentally launch a missile and bring down a passenger airline. These things take on a much more realistic view for us since September 11 of 2001. We are charged, my colleagues, with the responsibility of the security of this Nation, of the security of this Nation's people. And one of the tools that we must deploy immediately is missile defense. And as I said earlier, I do not understand how anyone could object to it. I guess we can complain about the cost. These things are expensive. Our defensive mechanisms in this country, our military operations, are expensive. We have no choice. But thank goodness a few years ago we spent money to make our military number one in the world; that when some SOB attacks our country, like these terrorists did, that we have the capability to defend ourselves. So please do not make money the issue, and do not make the issue that the technology is not there. I mean we did not have technology when the Wright brothers first flew an airplane. We did not have the technology to take that airplane across a State or fly it across the country or take it to high altitudes or to pressurize it. All of that technology came in steps. We had to start somewhere. Same thing with a car or anything else. We start somewhere. Our technology is advanced enough today for missile defense that the President is right; that the President's commitment to providing a missile defense for this country should be supported by each and every Member of the United States Congress. Any Member of the United States Congress who chooses not to provide a missile defense for this country ought to be questioned by their constituents in a public forum. And I would be very interested to see how they explain to their constituents that the United States does not need missile defense. And by the way, before my colleagues go out to their constituents, they better make sure not to get themselves in a corner by saying that we would be breaching a treaty; that the treaty prohibits us from doing that. Understand from my lesson today, from my comments today, that the treaty, in fact, allows us because of extraordinary events, which are very easy to justify, allows us, under extraordinary events, to withdraw from the treaty and build a missile defense system. So save yourself the embarrassment. Do not go out there and say the treaty does not allow it, because the treaty clearly does. Its language is as clear as can be that we are allowed to withdraw from the treaty, legitimately withdraw from the treaty and then build a missile defense system. And keep in mind, if you object to a missile defense system, not to get yourself in a corner on money. Obviously, we have to make sure the money is spent efficiently. We do not want pork. We do not want waste. But the technology is out there. Keep in mind that just 3 or 4 months ago we had the successful test. We had two missiles connect in space. Two missiles, an intercept missile and an offensive missile, coming into the United States. Obviously, it was a test. Both missiles were test missiles. It is working. Our technology has made giant steps towards being perfected so that it can provide an effective shield for the United States. That is what we are asking for. We are not asking with missile defense to enhance our capability to attack another nation, but there are lots of nations around the world that can do it. And as we now know, there are people in the world who wish great harm on this country. So all we are asking for is the capability to protect, to put a shield over the United States and give us the protection that our citizens deserve. Now, time is wasting. Ever since September 11 our realization of what can occur received kind of an aggressive jerk. We hit a pretty hard speed bump in the road. We now realize there are dangers out there that may be much closer to the United States than we ever imagined. So, colleagues, in conclusion with my two subjects today, let me say that I speak from the bottom of my heart when I say to my colleagues how critically important it is that all of us support President George W. Bush in his commitment to build a missile defense system for this Nation. We ought to give him a resounding ``yes'' vote. We ought to give this President what he needs to put that security blanket over the United States to prevent a missile attack against our country. And, finally, on my first subject of discussion this evening, do not run away from threat profiling. What we ought to prohibit is profiling that is based strictly on race alone. I am not asking for that. I think that does lead to discrimination, and I think we should have zero tolerance for discrimination. But I am saying that in the game, in the matter we are involved in right now, the nice guy finishes last. The politically correct guy finishes last. It is very important for us to allow our law enforcement agencies and our protection agencies to engage in what we call threat profiles. And threat profiles do not exclude ethnic background as an element or as a component, nor do they make that the exclusive element of the profile. It puts together a series of components so that we can then construct some type of risk profile, the same as we do in insurance, the same as we do in marketing, and the same as we do in our schools. It is exactly what we are asking to do for the national security of the United States of America.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, our nation has been experiencing very difficult times since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, but we have pulled together out of patriotism and resolve from the losses that our nation has suffered. I would like to take a moment to recognize the significant contributions to the relief effort by two remarkable young ladies from Snowmass Village, Colorado. Elizabeth Floyd and Rita Farrell, both 14 years old, dedicated their time and effort to directly aid the relief efforts in New York and Washington D.C. Elizabeth and Rita circulated throughout their community selling white and blue lapel ribbons for one dollar apiece; the proceeds of their venture to be donated to the American Red Cross. They have collected a considerable amount of money from their effort, sometimes meeting ribbon orders as high as two hundred. Mr. Speaker, these two young ladies are wonderful examples of how our country has pulled together after the devastating attacks on September 11th. They are role models to us all and worthy of the praise and admiration of this body. I would like to thank Elizabeth and Rita for the significant contributions they have made, not only to the American Red Cross relief effort, but also to the unity of our nation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to recognize a serviceman from World War II. Peter Loncar, a current resident of Montrose, Colorado, fought courageously for the freedom of our great nation in the Philippines during World War II, Peter endured battle and made tremendous sacrifices to protect his fellow Americans. Peter Loncar, along with the rest of the 108th Infantry Division, was sent to fight the Japanese soldiers in the Philippines. They made their way onto the shores of Luzon, an island north of Manila, and battled courageously until they gained control of the island. Each battle had its casualties, but the 108th remained diligent and was eventually able to defeat the Japanese forces. Peter Loncar left the battlefield and the war with several citations recognizing the significant contributions he made to the war effort. Some of his distinguished accomplishments include: the Good Conduct Medal, American Defense Medal, combat infantry badge, and four bronze stars. These are all lasting symbols of the valor that he displayed in the face of danger during the war. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America called upon Pete during a time of significant conflict and he responded. This nation and this body are indebted to him for the perseverance and the bravery that he displayed in his service to our flag. I would like to extend my warmest regards and thanks to Peter for his commitment and sacrifice to our nation during World War II.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor San Juan County Judge Allen Nossaman, as he celebrates his retirement. After 16 years of service, Judge Nossaman has stepped down from his position in Silverton, Colorado. It is my pleasure to recognize the many years of dedicated work that Judge Nossaman provided to his community. Allen Nossaman has decided that, due to health reasons, he will resign from his position as a judge and move to Durango, Colorado, where he will work on his writings of the history of San Juan County. Judge Nossaman has long been a champion of preserving Colorado's history and its historical landmarks. While in Durango, Allan will help expand the San Juan County's current three-volume history that he has already penned, preserving Colorado's past. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to Judge Nossaman for his contributions to the Western Slope of Colorado. Allen Nossaman's service as a judge and commitment to preserving Colorado's history deserves the praise and recognition of this body. I wish Allen the best and send my warmest regards to him and his family.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the life of Mr. Don Eastman who recently passed away. A native of Gunnison, Colorado, Mr. Eastman made tremendous contributions to the surrounding community as a leader and role model for others. As a young man, Don joined the Marine Corps as a 2nd Lieutenant and served in the Korean War. Don Eastman was a patriotic citizen who loved his country and put the needs of the nation before his own. Upon retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel from the Marine Corps Reserve, Don pursued a career in banking back in his hometown of Gunnison, Colorado. Don followed the footsteps of those family members before him when he was named President of the First National Bank of Gunnison, a position he held for 15 years before retiring. Don Eastman was well known throughout Gunnison and was well received by all people he came in contact with. Even though the Eastman name was a foundation of life in the community, Don made it a point to establish himself as a community leader. Don served with the Western Colorado Economic Development Council, the National Highway 50 Federation Commission, and Club 20. Don was also a member of the Rotary Club and the Gunnison County Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, Don's role in the banking business allowed him to provide assistance to local ranchers, small businesses, and college students. Don Eastman played a monumental role in the development of Gunnison and its surrounding community. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I recognize the life and passing of Mr. Don Eastman. Don dedicated his life to serving his nation and fellow citizens. Don will be missed most by his family and close friends who knew him best, as well as the community that he so proudly served.