Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an exceptional and caring young woman, Destiny Folmer, who recently help raise $400 for the Colorado Brian Injury Association. Destiny's mom is a brain injury survivor who helped inspire her to engage in this worthy cause. Destiny recently tried to ensure that others suffering brain injuries will survive and recover by participating in the Pikes Peak Challenge. At only fifteen years old, she and her father performed the fifteen-mile hike up Pikes Peak and, after nine long hours, finished the grueling hike. By completing the challenge, she was able to raise the $400 for the Association. Mr. Speaker, not only is her family proud of her achievements, but her community is proud and appreciative of her charitable heart. Destiny Folmer has truly displayed a caring heart and the many that will benefit from her dedication are grateful for her selfless act. She is a special young woman that is worthy of the praise of this body of Congress. I would like to thank Destiny for being a role model to us all.

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.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Curtis A. Werden and his contributions to this country. Curtis began his service in the military in 1944, serving as a pilot in Italy during World War II. Mr. Werden flew the P-51 mustang fighter-aircraft and was assigned to the 31st Fighter Group, 306th Fighter Wing of the 15th Air Force. During his tour, Curtis flew fighter escort missions for B-17 and B-24 bombers over Nazi-held territory in Western Europe. During these missions, Curtis was assigned with providing air cover for the squadron from attacking enemy fighters. Curtis flew 63 missions protecting bombers, and allowing the Allies to carry forward the mission of repelling and defeating the Nazis. Mr. Werden retired from the Army Air Corps as a Captain in 1945. His decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with six oak leaf clusters and the European Campaign Medal. As a member of the 31st Fighter Wing he received the Presidential Unit Citation, an award reserved for outstanding units in the European and Pacific theatres. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and privilege that I recognize Curtis A. Werden for his service to this country. He served selflessly in a time of great need, bringing credit to himself and this nation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Judy Turner for her significant contributions to our educational system. Mrs. Turner has served the Montrose County School District Re-1J for over two decades and was the heart and soul of the School District. Judy Turner began her career with the District in 1975, as a volunteer for Oak Grove Elementary School. As a volunteer, Judy was instrumental in reestablishing the school library. Her work led to a full-time position as the media paraprofessional at Oak Grove. After five years, Judy moved on to Centennial Junior High School, where she held the position of guidance office secretary. After serving as secretary to the district's central office, Judy moved onto the district's superintendent office serving in a secretarial capacity for four superintendents. The current superintendent, George Voorhis, noted that Judy trained his predecessors, and lamented she will leave before he can finish learning from her. Mr. Speaker, Judy Turner has devoted much of her life and countless amounts of time and effort to the Montrose County School District for over twenty-five years. I would like to thank her for her commitment to the school district and extend my congratulations on her retirement. The District will certainly not be the same without her.

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 will start out by saying I take issue with the comment the gentlewoman made that it is about time this House paid attention to some of the needs of the people out here. What does the gentlewoman think the House is doing? Everybody in the House, Republican or Democrat, cares about the horrible losses that occurred in New York City, that occurred in the Pentagon, the economic losses across the country. I think it is wrong for any of my colleagues to stand up here and imply that one side or the other is not taking the time to care about the people of this Nation. I believe every Republican and every Democratic Congressman, and I do not agree with all of them, but I can tell the Members that all in one way or another are committed to moving this country forward in some type of positive fashion. Since the tragedy of September 11, I have not come across any Congressman that does not care about the children or the people who have been hurt by the consequences of that horrible, horrible tragedy. So I think it is important, and I think it is a responsibility of every one of my colleagues when they stand up here and speak and we address each other, that we acknowledge at the very beginning that Republicans and Democrats care about the needs of these people; and that while we may have debates, the fact that we have a debate should not signify that for some reason that means that people do not care about the people who have been hurt or impacted out there in any kind of negative fashion. So I do take exception with that comment, and I hope the clarification later resonates from some of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention, with due respect to my good colleague, Jerry Solomon, who passed away over the weekend, Jerry was a remarkable man. He was a Congressman from the State of New York, chairman of the Committee on Rules, and served 20 years in the United States Congress. He had a lot of guts. He spoke very eloquently on the floor. He represented his interests, the interests of the State of New York, the interests of the things that he believed in so strongly, veterans affairs and business issues that he was very well-versed in. He used to be an insurance agent. His unexpected loss last week is a loss to this Nation. I want to send my deepest regards to his family. I hear his service is going to be tomorrow. I intend to attend that service, and will represent my colleagues who cannot attend that. So our warm wishes and warm regards to the family of a very remarkable man who we all had the privilege of serving with in the House of Representatives. Also tonight on Hannity and Colmes, the TV show on Fox Network, I saw Charlie Daniels, the country western singer. I can tell the Members, he was talking about this newest song where he talks about the flag, and the pride in the flag. Charlie Daniels represents, in my opinion, a lot of people in this country. There are a lot of blue-collar workers out there. He is their hero. He is their singer. I just wanted to say I hope Members get an opportunity, if they ever see him, tell him to stick to his guns, by gosh, because he is right. What happens is there is so much of this politically correct garbage going on out there: Oh, my gosh, look at this song, it is not politically correct because it may offend some group out there. We need to move a little further away from political correctness and get back to realism. Charlie Daniels represents the views of a lot of people in this country. And how interesting, people who jump up and yell about his song, and they object to his song because at some point, through some type of interpretation, it might offend somebody, and therefore Charlie Daniels' song should not be allowed at some concert, those are the very same people that demand freedom of speech when they come up with a controversial issue. I just wanted to pass on to my colleagues, if they get a chance to listen to Charlie Daniels in an interview, he obviously holds his own. I want to send a commendation to that song. I think it is a great song, and I think it represents a lot of the views across this country. Tonight, for the main context of my remarks, there are a number of different things I want to talk about. First of all, I want to talk about the airline bailout bill. I am going to go into some of the promises and some of the thoughts that those of us who supported that bail-out bill have. I am not the kind of person, Members can tell from my record, who is inclined for a government bail-out of any type of industry, but I felt some convictions about this, the need for the airline industry to stay afloat. Frankly, I felt some sense of betrayal this week by United Airlines, which has a large location in Denver, Colorado. I want to visit a little about profiling, the need for profiling, who uses profiling in our society, and why I think profiling is an essential ingredient for law enforcement. Profiling is dictated by common sense, and every one of us in these chambers uses profiling every day in our life. Why all of a sudden, when we talk about using profiling to protect the security of this Nation, to provide homeland security for this Nation, to hopefully prevent another terrorist act, why all of a sudden should profiling then become politically incorrect? It makes no sense. I want to go into that in a little more detail. I want to talk about our borders. Clearly we have a problem on our borders. We have 500 million crossings, 500 million crossings every year on our borders. Maybe we ought to consider a dramatic tightening of those borders until we can get control of those borders. Some people said it is impossible to track those kinds of numbers. If we have a huge amount of numbers crossing the border and it overwhelms the operation of tracking, the only obvious thing, if we cannot upgrade that operation quickly, and obviously we cannot do that, we need to downgrade the amount of volume coming in. It is a pretty easy decision to make. I want to go into more depth on that. I want to talk a little more, again, coming back to this politically correct thing and the challenges that we face in this war that we are engaged in. We cannot fight a war being politically correct. We cannot be a nice guy in a war. In a war, the nice guy always loses. The nice guy never wins in a war. We have to be in the war, we have to be in there tough, we have to be tenacious, we have to strike horribly against our enemy. We have to hit our enemy so hard they swear they would never want to see us again, never want to ever cross our path again. When we tiptoe through the tulips, we are not made to go to war. This country has a war, here. This is not some far-off imagination of ours, this is a war that struck us in our homeland. We have to strike a horrible blow to those, I feel like calling them a horrible name, to those cancers, and I professionalize myself here on the floor and will not violate the rule. That is not what my gut says to call those people who brought across the ocean this horrible act against our country. The fact is, they started this war. They are the ones responsible for casualties and consequential or collateral damages that occur here. We do not owe anybody any apologies. The United States of America did not start this war. The United States of America did not dare somebody to come and destroy the World Trade Center Towers, or strike the Pentagon. The United States of America was the victim in this war, and now all of a sudden even U.S. citizens, I begin to sense some are becoming apologetic, politically correct, saying we have the Ramadan coming on, do not bomb during their holy holiday. Do Members think those people would not have set off a nuclear weapon in this country on Christmas day? If we think that, we are crazy. These people will do whatever is necessary. Remember, most of the Muslims, by far, the largest number of Muslims killed so far in this engagement were killed by the terrorists who struck the World Trade Towers and killed 400 or 800, I forget the exact number, but it is in that range, of Muslims and people that practice the Islam faith. That is where those casualties came from: They killed their own people. These people, these terrorists and bin Laden preached that they are standing up for Islam, and as part apparently of their interpretation of Islam they can go at will, at their choosing, at their timing, and kill other people of the faith. That is exactly what they did in New York City. That is exactly what they did at the Pentagon. Now people are saying we should handle these people politically correctly? We should tiptoe through the tulips for these people? I will get into that in more detail, too. I anticipate having a full evening in this discussion with these topics. Let us go back and let us start with the airline bailout bill. The airline bailout bill was about $15 billion. We face a situation which the airlines in this country have never faced in their history. No airline in the history of airline aviation has suffered two crashes, two crashes caused by an act of terrorism that hit a domestic target; two targets, two airplanes, two sets of terrorists, and a domestic target and thousands and thousands of casualties. United Airlines and American Airlines both suffered that fate on the same day, September 11. We all know the facts. We know what happened there. It brought the airline industry to their knees, but it almost brought them right on the verge of collapse. The United States Government for the protection of its citizens ordered that all airlines cease business for several days. And the consequences of that terrorist attack are obvious to all of us. Today I flew in on a plane in Denver, Colorado. It was United Airlines plane, a 737. My guess is it had the capacity to hold 120 passengers, I guess. We had 10 or 12 passengers outside of the crew on that airplane. The consequences of that act of September 11 are devastating to the airline industry. Now it has been devastating to a lot of us and to a lot of economic factors in our society. But this society of ours, this Nation of ours, the security of this Nation, the business of this Nation, the ability to move around in this Nation is very, very dependent on an efficient airliner service. So it is to the best interest of all of us that we keep the airlines, at least kept them from the verge of collapse. Sure we ought to let the Adam Smith philosophy of the market take place. I am a big fan of Adam Smith. I think he is right. But there are appropriate times for the government to step in. I believed when United Airlines talked and when the other airlines talked to us, I believed, even though some of my colleagues debated on the other side of the issue, I believed that this money would be well spent and that the airlines would exercise their responsibility in the utilization of this kind of money, and that the airlines would realize that they have a debt, not just to the stockholders as a corporation, but that they also have some responsibility to this Nation, that they too have to pitch in and be good neighbors. And a lot of those airlines did it, Jet Blue, American, some of these others, they have come, and they have risen to that responsibility. What happened over at United Airlines? United Airlines has a chief executive officer which I think has run that airline into the ground. His name is Goodwin. Well, Goodwin has been with United Airlines for 34 years. That is a lot of years of service. He has successfully done more to bring an airline to the verge of collapse than any airline executive I have known for a number of years. So over the weekend United Airlines decided because the capability of Mr. Goodwin to run United Airlines has been severely diminished by his own shortcomings, they decided they needed to pay the guy to leave. I want to give you an idea. Some of the people who opposed the airline bailout bill said this money is just going to fatten the pockets of the chief executive officers. I felt, come on, give the airlines a break. Frankly, several of airlines, including United Airlines, froze the salaries of their executives. And I think that is good will that has been put forth by some of these airlines. But while they froze the pay of some of these executives, look at what United Airlines just did today. By the way, I wanted to compare it. This morning I talked with a United employee in Denver, Colorado who had been with the company for 30-some years. Let us just call it 30 years. This particular employee was at the desk. I guess it is a ticket agent, an agent at the desk for United Airlines. This particular person was a 30-year employee over here to my left on this poster. Her retirement after spending 30 years with the airline is $2,000 per month which is approximately $65 a day. For the rest of her life she will receive approximately $65 a day. That is her retirement after serving for United with 30-plus years. Now, she did not run that airline into the ground. She did not help contribute to the near demise of United Airlines. Her service has been recognized throughout by the company itself. Now ironically, her retirement falls within two days of Mr. Goodwin's termination. Her time, her service with the company of 30-some years falls very close to the same time and service with the company that Mr. Goodwin's does. Now let us take a look at what United Airlines, after receiving assistance from the Federal Government to help bail them out, take a look at what that airline has just done to terminate their executive that has put their company on the verge of bankruptcy. I call it the United Airlines Bailout and then I move it over to Blowout after I saw this morning what the United Airlines has done for their executive. They added 6 years of service to his retirement. Now, this employee over here spent 30-some years, 30 years and some months with United. When this individual was given a choice, frankly, 72 hours they wanted people over a certain time to retire, they did not offer to this individual to say, hey, we will move you from 30 years to 36 years. But they did it with their chief executive office. They went to Goodwin. Again, I want to stress how strongly I feel that Mr. Goodwin is where the buck stops. That is the individual who has brought this company to the verge of bankruptcy. What do they do? They have given him 6 years added service. Although he did not work the 6 years, they will add it to his 34 years of service so his retirement treats him as if he had 40 years with United Airlines. Now, what does that mean? That means that his pension will be $500,000 a year. That is his requirement; $500,000 a year for the rest of his life. What does that figure out to be? Well, remember, my ticket agent over here that gets $65 a day for the rest of her life and this chief executive officer who almost runs the company into the ground will be making $1,400 a day. United Airlines agreed to pay him $1,400 a day every day for the rest of his life and his work is done with United. He walked out the door. That is not all. Take a look: 611,450 stock options have been granted to this chief executive officer. This is a company that my colleagues here, that the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the President of the United States has sent $15 billion to the airline industry and asked them to exercise responsibility in keeping their airlines above water and here is what they do: 611,450 stock options. Now today those stock options are under water which means they have no value. But these stock options are for 10 years. So if there is any bet at all, if United recovers at all, imagine that every dollar of recovery that United has, his profit goes up $611,000. Every dollar that that United stock moves up from this point through the next 10 years, if it moves at all, he will make in proportion $611,000 for every dollar rise in that stock. Now on top of it, it is not enough that United agreed to pay him $1,400 for every day for the rest of his life, United felt apparently that Mr. Goodwin who almost took their company into bankruptcy, Mr. Goodwin was not being treated well enough, so they decided to get him severance pay. What is that severance pay? Well, we cannot get an exact number. We think just to get him to walk out the door, they gave him $5 to $7 million. Here is your check for $5 to $7 million, Mr. Goodwin. Thanks for almost destroying the country. By the way, here is your $65 check, ma'am, for being a ticket agent at one of our counters for 30 years with United Airlines. But it does not stop there for Mr. Goodwin. They continue to go on. Forty thousand more shares given to him on termination. So they give him $5 million in severance. They say they will pay him $1,400 a day every day for the rest of his life, and then on top of it because maybe his feelings have been hurt, the board throws in another 40,000 shares at today's values, another $700,000. That is not all. They decide just to make sure that Mr. Goodwin's future is well cared for, he get his membership at the country club. Tell me when is the last time they ever bought a dinner at the country club for one of these employees, for one of the United Airline employees that was not in Mr. Goodwin's office. So they agree to keep his membership in the country club. They agree to provide him with a company car. They agree to continue to provide his life insurance. Give me a break United Airlines. Where do you think your credibility is when some of us stand up and we are willing to take the heat that contrary to our philosophy and our support of Adam Smith, we decide to go out on a limb on your behalf and every other airliners behalf to try to save the airline industry as a result of the tragedy on September 11? This is what we are beginning to find out. This is where some of this money is going. Where is your credibility, United? I was really disgusted, and that is a strong word, but that is how I felt this morning. It just was ironic that I happened to run into that ticket agent whose last day is tomorrow after 30 years and to see she is going to be paid $65 a day for doing a good job for United Airlines, and then United Airlines turns around to the individual who has almost turned that company, and I would not be surprised if that company does go into bankruptcy, but to that individual who has almost driven that company into bankruptcy, they will pay him $1,400 a day, $5 million check on the way out, maybe a $7 million check on the way out, $700,000 for stock shares they just gave him that day. Go ahead. We will keep you in the country club. And, by the way, that car you are driving our there, we will pay for the car, the gas, et cetera, et cetera. No wonder people feel there is some sort of class division in the country. No wonder people feel there is a little injustice. No wonder Congressmen like myself end up biting their tongue and having second thoughts about this airline bailout, and whether or not this money is really going where it needs to go, and that is to keep a healthy airline industry from collapsing through the floor as a result of acts of the terrorism against this country. Let me move on from my dismay with the way that United Airlines has handled this situation and talk about profiling. I think profiling is a pretty interesting subject. Recently I have heard politically correct shows and some of my colleagues here on the floor, do not dare reach out and profile people at the border. Do not profile people on the street. Profiling should have no place in law enforcement. Yes, it is pretty ironic to hear that kind of argument. Profiling is used at every stage of our life. Everywhere you go. Everyone on this floor uses profiling. We use profiling in our own campaigns. We go out to our district and we have experts that come in, we have polsters that come in and they say, all right, in this age group, 18 to 23, we know this percentage of these people are going to register and, of the registered, these percentage of people are going to vote; and that percentage routinely is pretty low in your district. But over here that age group, 45 to 50, and they may be white male, they may be Hispanic, Irish, whatever it is, they tend to go along more with your issues. They have a much higher voter turn-out. So we want you to target this age group. Do not go after the age 18 to 21 because there is not a high enough percentage. They will tell you, go after the white male or the single parent or the head of household or the person that brings the income in, the income earner. They are very targeted. They profile in our own campaigns; and every one of my colleagues has been the beneficiary of this kind of profiling. We use profiling with insurance. We know, for example, that if you have a young man who is between the ages of say 16 and 23 that that individual is more likely to drink and drive, more likely to drive a car at a high speed and much more likely to run a stop sign than somebody that is 45 to 50 years old. And as a result of that kind of profiling, we can determine where our higher risks are and we can adjust for that in regards to the insurance premiums that we charge. So we use it in our campaigns. We use it to determine insurance. We use it to determine risks. We use it in schools, our testing mechanisms. We test and we profile. We profile in our school neighborhoods. We profile to see which particular segment of population, whether it is a white at certain poverty level, whether it is black, whether it is mixture, whether it is geographic location, et cetera, et cetera, we put a bunch of factors in there so we can determine which kind of education will get the best results and be the most benefit to that particular profile group. So we use profiling for campaigns, we use profiling for insurance, we use profiling in our educational institutions. Do not let the newspapers who run these editorials, some of the liberal newspapers in this Nation, who run editorials about profiling and how bad profiling is. Man, talk about hypocritical. Take a look at that newspaper and see what kind of profiling they do, what kinds of marketing they do to figure out where their advertisers are, where their market is, who is going to buy their newspapers, who reads the sports page. Any newspaper in this country will tell you very accurately what percentage of their readers read their editorials, what percentage of their readers read the sports section, which is the most read page in the newspaper, what age segment reads the sports section. They probably do not have a lot of people 70 and above that read the sports section. They may read the social page. But they know between about 12 and, say 35 that that is their main focus in a newspaper. Newspapers profile. They have very dramatic profiles. It is smart business. Of course they do it. No matter where we look in our society we see profiling. Even sports teams, they profile. They know who goes to their games, they know who buys their tickets and who to appeal to. They know where to place their advertising. Even in recruiting their athletes, they know which areas are more likely to produce a better athlete than other areas. They use this profiling extensively. So, for God's sake, why do we not use profiling to protect the national security of this Nation? Why are some people out there saying the politically correct thing to do is, well, all in all we better not profile at our borders, we better not stop somebody who is suspicious just based on the fact that they, let's say for example they are Arab, come from the Islam faith and come from a particular age bracket. Listen, we know those statistics. We can develop risk statistics from profiling. Now, obviously, I do not support, and I do not know any of my colleagues on this floor, not one Democrat or one Republican, that supports profiling based solely on race. That is discrimination. Nobody questions that. We ought to have zero tolerance for that. In other words, we should not just go and say, hey, that individual is Irish or that individual is black so they must be a suspect. We only take that so far. I mean if we have a bank robbery and the description, the profile, of the bank robber is a white male between 19 and 24, why would we be in the black neighborhood interviewing black people to see if they were the bank robber? Clearly, at some point, we begin to profile. But that is one of the factors. I do not want my colleagues or anyone to be drawn into signing a statement or acknowledging that, look, profiling has no place in a war against people that want to tear our guts out, against people that killed thousands and thousands of people at the New York World Trade Center, or over here at the Pentagon where they killed hundreds of people. We ought to use every weapon we have against these people. We ought to be prepared to use whatever method, whatever weapon, whatever energies we have to win this battle. We cannot afford to be the nice guy here. Oh sure, war has kind of a parameter of what should be done, but the fact is that in that spectrum there is a lot of horrible things that happen in a war. I wish we could avoid this war. I do not know anyone out there that wants to be engaged in the war we are in. I do not know anyone that chose to have us get into the predicament that we are in today. Maybe there are some out there, I hope not, but I do not know many people out there that think we had this coming. This is a war that was brought upon us. The United States did not strike out against anyone. Thank goodness we are too great a Nation to do that. We do not do those kinds of acts of terrorism. But when somebody strikes at the United States, the kind of blow they dealt us on September 11, and we have felt every hour and every minute and every day since September 11, we need to strike back with a horrible, horrible swift sword. Now, there are a lot of people out there that are counting on the fact that the United States of America might be too timid to strike back and that the United States of America just does not have the resolve to strike hard, that there is going to be a little pretend bombing over here, hit a soft target there, and a soft target there and declare a victory. Well, thank goodness we have an administration that in my opinion is not going to go by that playbook. This administration, in my opinion, George W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, these people, they understand we are engaged in a war. We cannot stop a war for the holidays. The Taliban would not stop for us. The Taliban wants one thing: They want every man, woman and child in the United States of America destroyed. They do not want to save the children of the United States. They do not want to avoid the loss of children. They do not want to save Muslims in the United States of America. They do not want to save the people of the Islam faith in the United States of America. They want to destroy them simply because of the fact that they are in the United States of America. You can take that to the bank. Take a look at what happened at the World Trade Center. There were many people of the Islam faith that were destroyed and their families destroyed through the consequences of these actions. We had many Muslims that may not even have been of the Islamic faith that were destroyed, that were killed. They were slaughtered in New York City. So do not give this Taliban or ben Laden any kind of badge of courage. Do not give him any kind of credibility because you think they fight with honor. They do not fight with honor. They fight with cheap shots. They would just as soon gut you in the back as to fight you face-to-face. That is the kind of war we are engaged in with these people. This is a tough situation that we have. We have to use the weapons and the tools that are available to us. There is a vast array of those, but the one I am focusing on here is profiling. Again, let me reiterate that profiling based solely, and the only reason to do it is to discriminate, we do not tolerate. That is not what I am talking about, and I do not know anyone who supports that. But let me just say that we had 19 hijackers. Of those 19 hijackers, 19 of them were Arab. Of those 19, they were all within a certain age range. Of that, they were all male. All 19 were male. Of that, they were all active in this fundamentalist Islam faith. Not representative, by the way, of the general Islam faith, but active in a fundamentalist, corrupted, perverted view of that. So we can begin to put a profile together and we ought to be looking at people who fit in that category. If there are people that fit into that kind of category who attempt to cross the borders of the United States, we ought to pull them aside and ask them some questions. Obviously, we ought to detain them. Of course we should refuse them entrance into this country if they fit within certain risk factors. We would be crazy not to. Let me reiterate that this kind of profiling is used in every stage of our life, even when we are born. What happens when a baby is born? They figure out how much the baby weighs, they figure out what the race is, they figure out if the parents are married. They send all this information in for statistical gathering. That is how we can determine, for example, in parts of the country, where we have a lot of unwed mothers. We profile unwed mothers. We go in and say, why do we have so many unwed mothers. Why do we have such a high level of teenage pregnancies. We profile it. We go out and figure out, okay, what can we do to alleviate teenage pregnancies like we have. We put it to a beneficial use. My premise here this evening is that we can put to a beneficial use for the protection of the national security of this Nation profiling. So do not run away from it when a discussion is had on it. And my colleagues will hear about it back in their districts. I was asked the question, and when I started with my response, the reporter that was talking to me said, boy, you are taking on a hot potato. Do you really want to go into this kind of detail on profiling? Do not run from it. We have to use it. My problem, again coming back, we cannot take this so-called theory of political correctness from the far left liberal side of the spectrum and let that determine whether or not we are going to use that tool to protect this Nation's security. The question here is can we reasonably and in compliance with the Constitution of the United States profile and use it as a weapon of our choice and a weapon for our benefit? Absolutely. The answer is absolutely yes. And every law enforcement agency in this country ought to use profiling as a tool for their assistance. Again, do not let people try to drag you into, well, you must mean race profiling, or you are out to go and get the Irish or the African Americans. That is not what we are talking about. That is a nice side show, that is a nice diversion, but that is not the focus here. The focus here is the security of the United States of America. The focus is what tool do we have that we can use, and that is why I feel so strongly about standing up when we participate in discussions on profiling to tell the other side of it. Tell why it is important. Take a look in our society and have discussions about where we use profiling and the benefits of profiling, because there are a lot of benefits of profiling. We have huge benefits, particularly if we profile and one of these people shows up at our borders and they fall within that risk category, and we are able to stop an act of terrorism. We have plenty of evidence to do it. By the way, most countries use profiling. Regardless of how wide you want to use it, a lot of countries are using racial profiling. They use whatever profiling they darn well feel like using. I am not saying we should stoop to that, but I am saying that it has proved to be an effective weapon. They stopped the bombing of, I think it was a Swedish airline about 15 years ago. A lady walks up and she fits into the category because she bought her ticket with cash. Bing. One element of the profile. She had no check-in baggage. Bing. She is going here with no check-in baggage, and she was going transcontinental. So they asked her where she was going. She said my destination is here. They said, we know that, you bought the ticket. How long are you going to stay there? Oh, three weeks. She has one little tiny bag, no check-in bags. She falls within a certain age that they know they have had problems with. Bing, bing, bing, bing. This profile begins to set itself up. It alerts them, so they ask her some more questions, this and that. All it does is bring up more red flags. Then they search her. Guess what they find? When the suitcase is emptied and they weigh it, it weighs more than an empty suitcase should weigh. Sure enough, they find a false bottom and it is filled with high-level plastic explosives intended to blow that airline out of the sky. We better profile. It is to our benefit and to the benefit of this Nation's security. It is to all our benefit, no matter what background we are, to go to war with every tool that we can use. Now, let me move on very briefly and discuss our borders. I want to give some statistics that I think are pretty interesting. Our borders are crossed 500 million times a year. Five hundred million times a year through 300 checkpoints we have people coming across those borders. Now, the largest number of people coming across the borders are tourists. The largest number by far, 99.9999 percent of the people that come into this country come in with good intentions. So how do we focus on that very, very small percentage? How do we get our sights on that very small percentage with the minimal impairment to the larger percentage while still accomplishing the security for the national interest? It is a tough job. Just imagine trying to track 500 million crossings a year. I am not sure we have the technical capability. We certainly do not have the technical capability in place today to do it. Maybe we will have that technical capability within a few years, but not today. So the question comes up, should we continue to let the 500 million crossings occur every year or should we begin to clamp down on who comes across that border? Now, I have a basic test, a litmus test, as to how to come across that border. My feeling is that I ought to treat it like somebody who wants to come into my house. When somebody knocks at the door of our house, rings the doorbell of our house, we look out the peephole. In other words, we do not allow them to come in right off the bat. We size them up, kind of profile them, look at them. We say, maybe we should ask this person a couple of questions. Then we may open the door but still not let them in the house yet. If I know them, I welcome them in. If I feel comfortable with them, I welcome them in. If they meet certain standards, I welcome them in. Obviously, if they fit the profile of a newspaper delivery person, and I know the person and they come by every time of the month about this period of time to collect a fee, I let them in the house and I give them a Coke or a Pepsi or something. So what we ought to do here is look at our borders. I think for a temporary period of time we have to really clamp down on our borders until we begin to make significant strides in regards to this war. Right now that percentage of people that wants to do significant harm to the United States of America has grown rather dramatically. As we know, this United States of America is now under a national alert for an act of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I can tell Members that the likelihood of that act of terrorism, we can go ahead and put together what that group would look like. Number one, they probably are not native born United States citizens. Number two, they probably have come across the borders in the last year or two. Number three, they probably had a background that if checked significantly, we would find that these are not the kind of people that we would want to let in our house or country. I am not saying close the borders. That is not what I am saying here. Almost all of us are beneficiaries of the immigration policy of this Nation. I am saying in order for the immigration policy to work, we have to have rules of the game, and we have to enforce the rules. When we have somebody who violates the rules, we cannot let them continue playing the game if they are going to continue to violate the rules. You have to have enforcement of the rules and enforcement of immigration policy of this country. Clearly if there has ever been a demand for enforcement of the policy currently in existence, it is right now. We have 3 or 4 million people a year come across our borders on visas, and they stay after their visas expire. Three or 4 million people a year stay in this country even when the rules of the game say you have stayed all you are allowed, now you have to go home. It is similar to a guest coming to your home for an hour for lunch, and pretty soon they are intending to spend the night. The INS is doing a good job, but the reality is that the INS has two things they have been trying to do. One is to keep foreigners from turning into illegal U.S. residents. Two, to investigate domestic crimes involving foreigners. As quoted here, keeping track of foreigners' whereabouts in this country was not considered anyone's job. We have allowed these lax policies for much, much too long. It makes a lot of practical sense that one of the tools and one of the weapons that we can use in this war that we are engaged in is to tighten our borders. That means the utilization of profiling. That means if somebody has a student visa, that we require that university confirm that person's presence, we set up a tracking system. That means that we start saying no to people. It means that we start getting numbers of people that we allow across our borders so we can manage. There was an ad, I do not know if it is still running on television or not, but some people set up a business on the Internet. They are waiting for their first order. They are worried. They have put in all of this investment, and all of a sudden order number one comes in. That is not much, but at least we got one order on the first day of business. All of a sudden 2, 3, 4. All of a sudden a hundred orders come across. They are smiling and happy. All of a sudden it does not stop and it goes to 1,000 orders to 10,000 orders to 100,000 orders. They are in panic. We cannot possibly manage 100,000 orders. We cannot manage it. Mr. Speaker, the same thing is happening on our borders. Most people in the world dream of coming to the United States of America. A lot want to live here. It is the only country in the world where we do not have a problem keeping people. We cannot open the borders in such a way that the numbers are so huge we cannot manage them. Today that is exactly where we are. We have so many people coming across the borders that we cannot manage it. We need to reduce those numbers so that it is at least manageable. So that we know that people that come across our border, those 3 million people that currently every year come across the border and do not go home when they are supposed to, that we can begin to develop management tools to fill that gap. That is one of the weapons we can use in our war against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I know it is not politically correct to talk about we had better cut down on our immigration. I know it is not politically correct to talk about tightening our borders, but we got a real dose of reality on September 11. We woke up in the morning leading a normal life, and those of us fortunate enough to be alive at the end of the day got a real wake-up call. We have to change our management practices, and one of the management practices we have to change are our borders which have become unmanageable. There are other things we have to change. You notice people agree across the board that we have to change the check-in procedure and security at our airports and nuclear facilities. Members will notice that Secretary Mineta today ordered no flying of aircraft by nuclear plants, et cetera, et cetera. We are changing our management practices. We need to change our management practices in regards to these immigration policies. Now the President, of course, has taken the lead on this. Yesterday the President talked about student visas. We have a big problem with student visas. We have a lot of people who never show up at the schools. Student visas have kind of become the popular tool of choice to get into America, and then not have to worry about being held accountable to anybody. Frankly, we have some universities, institutions of higher education, that depend very heavily on student visas because of the tuition that they charge foreign visitors. Those golden days will have to come to an end, despite the lobbying up here on the hill to leave student visas alone. We ought to stop the abuses, limit the number of student visas that we grant until we can get a management grasp on it. That is what I am asking for. Get it in our control. I think we should quit hesitating about what we do allowing students of countries that mean us harm. Do you think we ought to allow students of Libya or some of these other countries, Iran, Iraq, to come into this Nation? Should we educate them and train them how to fly planes? There are a lot of foreign students taking airline pilot instruction courses in this country as I speak this hour. We should not be ashamed of saying no to some people, and we should not be so worried about being politically correct that when we see someone from a country that is listed as a terrorist country, we ought to have enough guts to say at the border, You are not coming over here for your education and taking the benefit of our society to later on down the road turn against our society. The National Journal, October 27, 2001 reported on a bill over on the Senate side which will require the airlines to submit their international passenger lists to the INS in advance so names can be run through the agency's look-out system. Well, today most airlines voluntarily submit those lists. Today most airlines, notice I say most, voluntarily give their list to the INS to see if there is anybody on that list that is on a suspect listing or on the look-out system. Guess which airlines that fly into the United States refuse to turn their lists over to the INS? Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. My response to that is if the airline coming out of Saudi Arabia, if the airline coming out of Kuwait, if the airline coming out of Egypt, if the airline coming out of Pakistan does not want to give us the list of their passengers that are flying into the United States of America, landing in an airport in the United States of America, to be dispersed once they get off the airplane into the cities of the United States of America, we should not allow those airlines to land in the United States. We are not asking too much to go to these airlines and say, we want your list. We want to know who you are bringing into this country. Is that asking too much? I do not think so. Just another example of sloppy management. I want to commend the President. Yesterday he made comments about the tightening we need to take on these borders. He talked about student visas. The President and the administration is on the right track and he deserves the support of the United States Congress. Let me move on to some final points I want to make, and that is about the battle that we are engaged in. I notice in the last week, there has been a lot of publicity about, gosh, maybe we're stuck in Afghanistan, maybe we're not accomplishing militarily what we hoped to accomplish. You know what people are doing, we are comparing the first few days. We controlled all the airspace over Afghanistan within 3 days. It is always when you go to pick fruit, at least when I picked fruit, when somebody hired me especially to pick fruit, I always filled my basket. The easiest time to fill a basket was when I first got to the tree because that was the fruit that hung the lowest. That was easy pickings. So the first couple of bushels came real fast. But when I had to get to the third and fourth bushel, it took a lot more work. It was not because I was bogged down in the apple tree, it was because of the fact you had to exert a little more energy. You had to climb up into the limbs, you had to reach out, you had to hunt those apples. You did not have four our five apples hanging where you could just put them right in the basket. You had to get up in the tree, you had to reach, you had to move the limbs to find them. That is exactly what we are engaged in right now. Do not try and urge the President to stop this war, or to slow down this bombing for some holiday that these terrorists would use simply as a shield to rebuild, take a fresh breath and recoordinate their strategies. We have got to go after those guys and gals that have instigated such horrible damage to this Nation. Actually the worst thing we can do and the best thing that could happen to them is for American people to begin to lose faith in the military effort that our administration is carrying forward. These are not tough warriors when you are able to get them out of their caves person to person. We will destroy them. There is no question about it. If you got them out of their caves, you got them in an open field, we destroy them. There is not even a contest there. Some people think that these Taliban fighters are supermen. They are not supermen. They have emotions. They are susceptible. I would much rather have our weapons than have their weapons. The fact is we have to locate them. They have extensive cave networks. They hide in the mosques. They hide in the schools. They move their weapons so that if you try and get them or their weapons, you have got to kill some of their civilians. That is exactly the kind of strategy they are using. There is one other strategy they are using against the United States. When it comes down to it, they do not think the United States of America has the resolve to go after them. They think all they have to do is take a couple of Americans, capture them, skin them alive, torture them, send their bodies back in body bags and that the American people will lose their resolve to win this war against terrorism. If that happened, it would be the greatest military victory probably in history for an organization like the Taliban. It would be a huge defeat for the United States of America, because you are not eliminating the cancer. The Taliban is a cancer. If you do not get rid of that cancer, it will come back and it will come back in a harsher form than you ever believed it could return in. We have got to destroy the Taliban. Last Friday, I think, in the Wall Street Journal, Senator McCain, our colleague, wrote an excellent article about victory, victory in a war. This is a war. I would suggest to my colleagues, read this article. It is excellent. It talks about that war is dirty, that the consequences of war are horrible, but Winston Churchill once said, the only thing worse than war is losing it, and that is exactly what we face tonight. The only thing worse for us than this war that we are currently engaged in is to lose it. Do not try and urge our Armed Forces to lay down their arms until the job is finished. Support the administration until the job is finished. The President stood right here on this floor, right here at this podium, and he told us and he told the American people, this battle will be a long battle. This battle will be an intense battle. But that we have hereby resolved that we will eliminate terrorism, that we will fight this war. And so 4 weeks into it, I see some commentators saying, gosh, are you spinning your wheels? Are you stuck? How come we haven't wiped out the Taliban? How come you haven't found that miserable little guy in this cave somewhere? Give me a break. These are the very commentators that ought to drop that type of comment and ought to be saying, what can we do to help? This is our country, too. I heard a commentator the other day that said, we have responsibilities in the media, to remember that yes, we are Americans, but we should not let that take away from the point that we should be a neutral party and that our obligation is to report the news. It sounded as though if you are a journalist, that you have a higher calling than being an American, you have a higher calling and that is of a journalist. And if it means that you leave the auspices of sanctity of your country to complete your job, that is the necessity of being a journalist. I could not disagree with that respected journalist more. I do not care whether you are a journalist or a Congressman or whether you wash windows or drive taxis, America comes first. Your country comes first. Your obligation is not to your profession, your obligation is to your Nation. You need to stand for your Nation. We need to support our administration, and obviously our military troops, to carry out this mission until we win. Not until the Ramadan holiday starts. That was not a part of war. We need to carry this mission out until we destroy the enemy, until we cut their heads off, until we are so savage to these people, so horrible to the enemy that the enemy will never again have a future under which they would consider attacking the United States of America. The price that they will pay has to be so high that they never ever again want to be in that war. That is what we have got to do. We have a mission. Every citizen in America has this mission, and, that is, your country comes first. The values and the principles of America have never been matched in the history of this world. Never has there been a country as great as our country. Never has a country done as much for the poor people of the world as the United States of America. Never has a country gone to more aid and assistance and gone to war across vast oceans to help friends. Never has a country contributed more to health care, to education, to industrialization than the United States of America. The United States of America does not deserve what occurred, what has happened. But the United States of America must accept the fact that it has happened and that the United States of America must respond with a horrible, horrible sword, because anything short of it will make you think of what Winston Churchill said, and, that is, the only thing worse than war is to lose it. For our generation and for all future generations, we cannot afford to lose this war.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, those who seek to improve the lives of others in the community play a very important role. Larry Black is such a person and upon his retirement from the Bayfield School Board, I would like to acknowledge the priceless contributions that he has made to Bayfield and to those that he has touched. Larry is a man of compassion and holds an elevated understanding of citizenship. Part of this comprehensive understanding is service to his country. Larry volunteered for the infantry in Vietnam and because of his bravery he earned a bronze star and a campaign medal. During this time, he served for two years in the infantry but continued to serve in the California Air National Guard for four years. Larry has also volunteered much of his free time to the United Way, helping those less fortunate. According to his wife, Tempe, the most fulfilling work he has done is having the opportunity to serve on the Bayfield School Board. Prior to serving on the Board, he was an active member of the PTSA and also a committee member on the District Advisory Committee and the Student Accountability Committee. The past four years Larry has sat on the Bayfield School Board and filled this role with enthusiasm and charisma. He looked at this opportunity as a chance to give back that which others gave him when he was a child. Additionally, Larry is active member of the First Baptist Church of Bayfield and is a devoted husband and a loving father. Mr. Speaker, Larry Black has been an outstanding leader for the Bayfield community and has helped to enhance the futures of many students through his service. To give of yourself unselfishly, as Larry has done, certainly deserves the praise and admiration of us all. I wish to offer my congratulations to Larry at this time of celebration on his retirement and extend my warmest regards and best wishes in many years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago Albert Einstein predicted a new form of matter that has since been called the Bose-Einstein condensate. This matter has been elusive for quite some time, however the secret no longer eludes mankind. Through his hard work in physics research, Professor Carl E. Wieman of the University of Colorado in Boulder along with Eric A. Cornell from the National Institute for Standards and Technology, created this matter in 1995, and because of the outstanding nature of their work, were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics to be received this December. The prize was also awarded to a scientist at MIT who separately worked on the same discovery. I would like to take this time to recognize the dedication of Carl to this project and for opening many doors through scientific investigation for the future. Cornell and Wieman were able to capture and chill rubidium atoms in order to bring them to a near motionless state so that they would act as one superatom. The progression that this discovery promotes would allow scientists to control their usage in new and innovative way that could lead to much faster and smaller electronics. The power of this condensate could lead to better computer chips, more precise measuring instruments and advances in navigational instruments. Additionally the discovery of this method to isolate Bose-Einstein condensate has spurred a new branch of atomic physics to emerge across the globe. In the age of technological advancement, these discoveries help to ensure our continued success and help to tap the understanding of the universe around us. This manifestation of Einstein's thought and has been a tremendous benefit to physical scientists everywhere. It is through his diligence and dedication that Carl was able to fabricate the Bose-Einstein superatom. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the hard work and dedication of Carl Wieman and Eric Cornell and congratulate both of them on winning the Nobel Prize. Their efforts certainly deserve the praise and admiration of us all. The contributions they have made will endure the test of time and his creation will enhance the lives of people all over our world.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember an honorable and distinguished man who proudly served his nation for twenty years in the United States Army. It is with profound sadness that I now rise to honor the life and memory of Hildagard (Chief) Alexander. Chief Alexander has witnessed some of the most frightening scenes in American war history. The Chief enlisted in the Army in 1942 and was soon in the thick of battle landing on Omaha Beach in Normandy. Chief Alexander went on to serve in the Korean War before being discharged in 1962. It is my privilege to acknowledge Chief Alexander for the sacrifices he made so future generations can enjoy the freedoms and liberties that shape the American way of life. Furthermore, I wish to honor Chief for his role as a community leader in Colorado's Western Slope. Perhaps others best remember him as the children's representative for the Shriner's Hospital. He dedicated much of his time toward bringing joy and happiness into the lives of children. Chief was a proud man whom many had deep respect for. We will miss him greatly. Mr. Speaker, Chief Alexander will be especially missed by his wife, Margaret, his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. As family and friends mourn his passing, Chief's compassion will shine through the hearts of those closest to him. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy and warmest regards to his family during this time of remembrance. Chief Alexander will surely be missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember the life of Johnandrew Wilfred Madrid, the Executive Director of the Ute Mountain Indian Tribe, who died on Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at the age of 67, due to heart complications. I speak for everyone who is associated with the Tribe when I state that he will surely by missed. Mr. Madrid worked with the Ute Mountain Indian Tribe for thirty years performing many functions in his role as Director. Johnandrew worked his way through the hierarchy of the Tribe as an accountant, Chief Financial Officer and finally as Executive Director. He managed the economic development of the Tribe as well as the educational program and the Indian Health Services. Mr. Madrid was very valuable member to the Tribe not only with its internal functions, but also in lobbying for the Tribe's interests. One of his greatest accomplishments was including protection of the Ute water rights in the Animas-La Plata project. Mr. Speaker, Johnandrew played an immeasurably valuable role for the Ute Mountain Indian Tribe. The members of the Tribe loved him and respected him as they would one of their own. He helped to make the Tribe the success that it is today. It is with a solemn heart that I express my condolences to Mr. Madrid's family as well as the members of the Tribe who he so passionately served. He was a great man, leader, and friend.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker. I'd like to take this opportunity to honor Mrs. Helen Thye for her response to a need with such loving generosity. My nieces, Gracie, Annika, Ellie, and Lucy through the efforts of their parents Carmie and Bruce Raaum, recently broadcast a challenge to other elementary students to donate their own hair for children who have lost theirs due to illness. Once donated, the hair is made up into wigs and given to children in need, free of charge. Mrs. Thye responded to this challenge with a wrapped package of beautiful, long, dark brown hair. Along with the hair was a note that read: ``This is my first hair cut in 1944 at the age of eleven. I tied it with the string and wrapped it with this white tissue paper and held onto it all these years. Now I want to donate it to Locks of Love.'' This beautiful hair came from a beautiful heart. Mrs. Thye is an avid Braves fan and a mother of seven, of which six survive. One of her daughters has multiple schlerosis and Mrs. Thye suffers from cancer. Both face the possibility of losing their own hair as a result of their diseases but this did not deter Mrs. Thye from her act of love. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I point out this act of compassion by Mrs. Helen Thye. Acts of generosity such as this should not go without recognition. Thank you Helen for your generosity and kind heart, I'm sure the recipient of your selfless act will be grateful.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Harold Kreuger on being awarded the John Campanius Holm Award on October 27, 2001 that is presented by the National Weather Service. Harold is one of only twenty-five people to receive this distinguished award and it is an accurate reflection of the hard work, discipline and patience that Harold has displayed throughout his career. Mr. Kreuger will be receiving this award in honor of his exceptional service in the Cooperative Weather Observer program. He became part of this volunteer organization when he established the Cochetopa Creek observing station at his ranch in Cochetopa Creek, Colorado in 1947. Harold has been collecting and recording daily weather data for the program ever since. The data that he collects plays an essential role in gaining further knowledge of weather patterns and aids in more accurate weather predictions. Harold's efforts are of enormous importance in Colorado due to the state's ever-changing weather conditions. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have this opportunity to recognize Harold for his superior service to the National Weather Service for the last fifty-four years. He has patiently volunteered his knowledge and experience and, in turn, provided invaluable data that has furthered the advancement of meteorological science. Thanks Harold for your time and your commitment.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the vicious attack unleashed on our country on September 11, 2001 left tears in many American's eyes. Many people were victims in this tragedy and as the recovery efforts continue, many innocent citizens are being uncovered amidst the bricks and steel of the collapsed buildings. On that day, Richard Miuccio was killed at the hands of this terrible and malicious assault. I would like to take a moment to pay tribute and recognize the life of Richard. Richard was born on May 23, 1946 and was raised on Staten Island in New York. This city served as his residence for his entire life. Thirty-four years ago he married his childhood sweetheart, Joyce Black, and they became the proud parents of three children--Owen, Laura and Thomas. Rich was employed for thirty-five years with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and served as the Auditor Supervisor in the last years of his employment. He served honorably in the United States Army and from 1967 to 1968 Rich served in active duty in the war in Vietnam. St. Mary's Church on Staten Island always held a special place in Rich's heart and he was a member of the church for 20 years. Faith played an integral part for Richard and his family and they routinely attended services for solace. Richard was battling prostate cancer and his fight proved victorious. He credited much of this to his faith and his family. Mr. Speaker, Rich will always be remembered as a man who had a quick smile and a gentle spirit. His passing leaves an emptiness in the lives of those who knew and loved him. Rich will always remain in our hearts and in our prayers. While the flag of our great nation flies high, the lives of those who were lost in this incident will never be forgotten. I would like to stand together with this body and offer our deepest sympathies to Richard's family at this time of remembrance. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to acknowledge an extraordinary individual who resides in Colorado's Third Congressional District. Becky Smith, who will be stepping down from the Board of Education in the Bayfield School District, has dedicated her life to education in her community. It is my privilege to have the opportunity to thank her for twelve years of exceptional service. Ms. Smith has made considerable efforts to support education and children's athletics both inside and outside of the classroom. She is a computer teacher in a neighboring school district and volunteers for numerous school related activities while teaching quilting and sewing classes in her free time. During her tenure on the Board of Education, Becky has held several positions and accomplished many initiatives. As President, Vice-President and Director of the Board, she has helped in acquiring funding for a new elementary school addition, renovating the middle school, building a new high school which included a new athletic facility for the students and surrounding community. Becky is a role model for others who will succeed her on the Board of Education. Mr. Speaker, Becky Smith has been a true asset to the Bayfield Board of Education. Her contributions to education in her community and her selflessness deeds will not be forgotten. The Bayfield School District and the surrounding communities are grateful for the guidance and leadership that she has displayed. I would like to thank Becky and wish her the all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have been fascinated by the previous remarks. I think it was excellent, and I commend the gentlewoman from California. I think it highlights the issue overall, and that is not just the abuse that the Taliban throws upon women in their society, but the abuse they throw upon their society as a whole. For them to represent that they somehow speak for the religion of Islam, that they somehow speak for the Muslims of the world, is an insult. Obviously the Muslim world does not believe in the kind of abuses that the Taliban throws upon its women, nor does the religion of Islam. In fact the religion of Islam respects women, and that certainly is not something that you see in any kind of fashion whatsoever. In no fashion whatsoever do you see women given respect that they are entitled to or to the privileges, the equal rights or the access that they should have. Obviously that is not given when you talk about Afghanistan. There are a couple issues, Mr. Speaker, I want to visit about that I think are very important. First of all, I listened to some of the previous speakers on the airport security bill. Obviously the airport security we have in this country has to be tightened dramatically. It has been tightened dramatically right now with the temporary use of the military. We have taken some very dramatic steps. As you know, it was a pretty incredible event on September 11, that the Department of Transportation, upon order of the President of the United States, was able to take 2,600 or 3,000 commercial aircraft and bring every one of those aircraft down to a safe landing within about a 2 hour period of time. There were a lot of things that went wrong on September 11, but there were a lot of things in response to that horrible tragedy of September 11 that went right. For example, the military alert, the high alert that went out to our military throughout the world. Just picture yourself as a skipper of a carrier group out in the Pacific somewhere, or out in the Persian Gulf, and you are scrambled a message that the United States of America has just been attacked, that structures have been taken down in New York City, that the Pentagon itself has been struck. Our military was immediately upon order of the President taken to probably the highest alert that they have been in in decades, and we did not have one misfire. Not one misfire. Not one officer who acted out of what the rule book says they should act. It was a good, solid response and it shows you that in time of emergency, there are a lot of things that can be done right. We saw it, as I said, with the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, NORAD, which was contacted within minutes of the hijack knowledge and was able to try and track some of these commercial aircraft that were being used as weapons by the hijackers. There were a lot of things in our system that worked. But one of the things that failed us was airport security across this country, and I do not know any of my colleagues that do not think that we do not need to increase airport security. Obviously we have got to improve the airport security in every airport in this country. Whether it is in Grand Junction, Colorado, or whether it is at LaGuardia, or whether it is at National Airport or Denver International Airport, we have got to improve security. But the question is, how do you get the biggest bang for your buck for security? What kind of approach should we use to enhance that security, that we can be ensured that a year from now or 2 years from now or 3 years from now that the system is working? Now, some have suggested that the only way to do it is to quickly act and for the Federal Government to create a new bureaucracy and hire tens of thousands of people, tens of thousands of people, as Federal employees, and put them in these positions of airport security. To me, that makes about as much sense as the Federal Aviation Administration hiring all the pilots. Clearly and absolutely there is a role for the Federal Government to oversee security at these airports. They have to put down very tough and stringent guidelines as to what will be allowed and what will not be allowed; what training is required for the people that work in that security, what people will be allowed there, what kind of clearances they have, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But before any of my colleagues, and some have, obviously, but before you sign on that the only way to answer this is to create a new Federal bureaucracy, think of the problems that we have. Some inherently disagree with me. Some out here like a bigger Federal Government. Some think that the only people that can get things done correctly is the government. I am saying, I do not think so. I think the government should oversee it. But take a look at what happens if you hire these people. Take a look under our Civil Service regulations, where you cannot hardly fire a Federal employee if we have misbehavior. You cannot hardly move a Federal employee. To take an example, look at what happened in Denver and some of the other areas when we required Federal Aviation Administration personnel to move 50 miles or something like that. Take a look at what a racket that ended up being. We lose lots of flexibility when, in a very short period of time, we put tens and tens and tens of thousands of people in the Federal payroll and create them permanently as Federal employees. It is not going to work. That is not the efficient way to provide the maximum amount of security that we want for our airports in this country. Now, President Bush recognized this. President Bush's approach to this, which I think, by the way, is the correct approach, is number one, we all agree we need tougher airport security, we all agree that the status quo is not working, but as the President says, there should be Federal oversight, but it does not have to mean a new huge Federal bureaucracy for airport security any more than as I said earlier the Federal Aviation Administration should all of a sudden be required to hire all of the pilots in this country. Clearly, the Federal Aviation Administration has a strong role in pilot qualifications, in how many hours the pilots fly, in the type of training that they need for particular aircraft and the type of training that they need for approached airports, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So the Federal Government has a strong role to play, it is just we should not take it across that line and, in a few weeks, end up hiring tens and tens and tens of thousands of people to become full- time, permanent, Federal employees. So I am asking my colleagues to take a careful look at that. We do not need to have that many more new employees. What we need to do is review these procedures and make our airports safer. I look with disgust upon any of my colleagues that suggest that because some of us say we do not need a new Federal bureaucracy, that they make the suggestion that we do not care about airport security. I do not know one Member in this House, I do not know one Member in this House that does not want improved airport security. Not one. Not from the left, way over on the left to clear over on the right. We do not see it. Everybody in these Chambers wants better airport security. But the question is, how do we most effectively get there? Take a look at the track record. Frankly, the track record of the Federal Government on previous attempts at things like this has not been very good. I want the best airport security that we can get out there. I want to move on to another subject, and I want to talk a little bit about what I sense in the national media. I do want to visit this evening about the different types of weapons of mass destruction and our kind of a threefold strategy that I think we have to utilize which would also include a missile defense, information defense, and defense against domestic terrorism; for example, a truck bomb or things like that. But I noted with interest, and let me say it this way. I am kind of a fan of 60 Minutes. I have watched 60 Minutes, as many of my colleagues have here, for a long time, for decades, in fact. I think 60 Minutes overall has done a very good job. But I have to tell my colleagues that I was very, very disappointed when I saw 60 Minutes last weekend. Do we know what they did? They spent the first 25 minutes or so of their show pointing out to the world, pointing out to the world the weaknesses of our nuclear generating facilities in this country and how various types of attacks on these may very well be successful and the catastrophe that they could create. Now, I think it is great that 60 Minutes went out and uncovered this weakness, although I would not give them that much credit. Other people have complained about the lack of security. But my question is I think that the media has a responsibility to play post-September 11 disaster as well, and that responsibility would have been much better exercised by 60 Minutes by simply taking their information over to the Pentagon or over to the Nuclear Regulatory Administration or over to the White House or to the Congress and say, look what we have discovered out there. We have some weaknesses in these nuclear facilities, and we need to be aware of it. Mr. Speaker, 60 Minutes chose not to do that. 60 Minutes instead thought it was much better to broadcast to the world the weaknesses that currently exist in our nuclear reactors. I mean some of these terrorists must just be sitting back in their caves or in their places of abode just smiling and saying, what a great society these people are in America. They provide us with our next target and they give us all kinds of information. We get good ideas by reading the American media. I think all of us have a responsibility here and it includes the media, and that responsibility is, hey, maybe we ought to figure out that what is being read by what we publish out there, what is being seen by what we televise, or what is being heard by what we put over the radio, maybe we should screen a little of that information. Now, some of the media, frankly, has been pretty darn responsible. Bob Woodward not too long ago, 2 or 3 weeks ago, unfortunately, on the Senate side, there was a leak of information, as my colleagues know. The President got very upset about it. It is my understanding from a source in the media that Bob Woodward did the responsible thing. He got ahold of some information that he himself questioned whether it should be published, and he contacted the appropriate government officials, which I would guess would be the White House and said, should I be putting this kind of information out? They asked him not to, and Bob Woodward respected that. That is responsible journalism. I do not think it is responsible journalism to go out and spend 20 minutes televising to the world where the weaknesses are in America's nuclear generation facilities and how a strike against these nuclear facilities, and they even describe on 60 Minutes about how if the plane hit it at this angle or this happened or that happened, what the consequences of that would be. That is like going down and saying, guys, let me tell you where the weakness is in the local bank alarm system. I will bet my colleagues that 60 Minutes, Dan Rather, the whole crew there at 60 Minutes, I bet they never televised the weakness in their home alarm system: if you come to my house at this time, that is the weakness in my home alarm system, or I do not have this window taped so you could get access there and you could cause a lot of harm to my house because I keep a lot of material in there. The point being to me it is incumbent upon all of us to talk to our friends in the media and say, look, we all have to be more responsible. The world changed on September 11. The days of being absolutely politically correct, the days of Harvard not allowing the U.S. military, the ROTC on their campus, those days are gone. Our society has to adapt to some realities out there and the realities are that there is a cancer out there, there is a horrible cancer out there. Bin Laden happens to be a key cell in that cancer, but he is not the only cell of cancer we have out there. If we do not act aggressively to eradicate that cancer, it will kill us. It will eat us alive. I noted with interest tonight, going back to Harvard University, I noticed with interest tonight that at Fox News Network, they claim that one of the people, one of their guests, it was not Fox News, but it was one of their guests said that Harvard actually accepts money from the bin Laden family, takes money from the bin Laden family, either in the form of scholarships or grants, but refuses to take any money from the United States military to pay for or allow an ROTC recruiting officer on Harvard University or ROTC training. Give me a break. Come on. After September 11, we all have to put more weight on our shoulders; we all have to accept more responsibility of being an American. Being an American is not too bad a deal. It is the greatest country in the history of the world. Do not let people start to apologize for America. I think I am beginning to sense some sympathy towards this bin Laden. I noticed today, all they talked about today is the fact that we have collateral damage hitting a Red Cross warehouse. I am sorry. I feel badly about that. We do not intend to target innocent civilians, but the fact is, we are engaged in a war. We have very sophisticated weapons, but we do not have weapons that can go out and paint a red laser cross across bin Laden so that we go in and we take out bin Laden and nobody else gets impacted. Obviously we have to be careful. I am not suggesting intentional civilian deaths. But I am saying that there is a point in our society where we have to accept the fact that we are going to suffer some casualties. There are going to be civilian casualties. But let me tell the Members, when the news media starts talking all day long about the fact that one of our bombs hit a Red Cross facility by mistake, I might add, do not forget, that score starts at 6,000 to nothing. Six thousand innocent citizens lost their lives in New York City, and that is a statistic that ought to come in over and over and over and over again. That does not justify going and taking 6,000 Aghan citizens, but do not come down on the United States military in such a way that we think we are going to be able to go in and find and eradicate this cancer without taking or hitting a few healthy cells on the way in. I do not know how else we can do it. We have gotten through several decades of being able to engage in military actions without a lot of U.S. casualties. Our weapons have become much more precise, and thank goodness they have, because if we take a look at conflict after conflict, our collateral damage is being lowered and lowered and lowered; in other words, there is less and less and less collateral damage because our weapons are becoming more and more and more sophisticated. But this is not the time to start to sympathize with bin Laden, to start to criticize the United States military, because I think they are doing a pretty darned good job out there. When we get into or when we are engaged in a war, we are going to have mistakes. It is just like the State patrol of a State. Over a period of time, some State patrolman is going to have a car accident. We regret the fact that that happens, we try and avoid that from happening; but that does not mean we sympathize with the crooks more because a State patrolman may goof up and have an accident. I think these points are very important, because I would not want us, as we get further and further away from September 11, I do not want our memories to begin to fade about what a horrible thing that cancer did to us. Do Members know what? That cancer still exists out there. It will take a very dedicated effort. Thank goodness we have the President that we do. Thank goodness we have the team that we do, whether it is Vice President Cheney, whether it is Condoleezza Rice, who, by the way, did an excellent job on ``60 Minutes'' the other night, or whether it is Don Rumsfeld, we have the right kind of team dedicated to go in and do the surgical procedure that is necessary to eradicate most of that cancer. But we have to give them a break and give them our support. So far this country has been very solid behind our President. I think the average mainstream American out there does not want people like ``60 Minutes'' talking about the weaknesses of our nuclear generating facilities. Instead, I think the average American out there wants this President and this Government to do what is necessary to make the security of this Nation safe for all future generations. That requires some pretty nasty stuff. War is nasty. But as Winston Churchill said, ``The only thing worse than war is losing the war.'' It is the same thing here. The only thing worse than eradicating terrorism, and I assure the Members, there will be collateral damage, the only thing worse than that is losing to bin Laden; losing to the fact that America would have to live under the threat of fear from this point on; that America would have to live and tolerate what the Taliban does to its own people, as reflected in the earlier comments by the gentlewoman from California regarding the rights of women in Afghanistan, and what bin Laden and the Taliban have done, what they have done to the women in Afghanistan. So I think it is very important for us to understand that there is nothing wrong with being patriotic, that there is nothing wrong for the United States of America to do what it is doing. I think sometimes when we find out that there has been a mistake, a regrettable mistake, that a bomb is dropped on a Red Cross warehouse, that we tend to forget what has gone right. Take a look at the military targets that day after day, night after night, our military has successfully hit without collateral damage. Take a look at how well executed this military mission has been. There is a lot to be proud of here. Our military has an incredible machine. Our military has very sophisticated command centers. Our military has the most sophisticated weapons ever known in the history of man. These are weapons that try and minimize collateral damage. So I am a little concerned when I start to see sympathy actually heading to the Taliban, when I start to see some kind of justification for what the Taliban has done. We do not see it directly yet, but we are headed that way. Kudos, by the way, to the Mayor of New York City, who had a $10 million check in his hand but gave it back because he said nothing can justify the horrible actions of these evil people. What they have done is evil. They are evil. There is only one answer with evil, we have to eradicate it. We cannot love it away, we cannot hope it away, we cannot go and hold the hands of the Taliban and say, We would like you to adapt yourself more to Western behavior. We would like you to commit to us that you are going to give women rights in your country. That is not going to happen. These Taliban leaders and bin Laden and his outfit, they are cancerous. It is a deadly, horrible cancer. We have tasted some of it. It hit us hard in New York City, and it is going to hit us again if we do not pursue the eradication of it in a relentless fashion. That is our obligation as Congressmen. That is an inherent requirement of the Government, that is, to provide homeland security for the people of America and for our allies. One of the things that I think we need to improve on, I talked to airport security. Clearly, we have to improve immediately airport security, and we have. Obviously, the Federal Aviation Administration and others, the security has been stepped up significantly. But on a long-term basis we have to make dramatic changes in our airport security. As I said earlier, I think we can do that without creating a Federal bureaucracy of tens of thousands of new Federal employees. So we need to have airport security. We also need to do a couple of other things. We need to tighten up our borders. I know that is not politically correct, to say that, look, if you are a guest in the United States, we are going to check into your background. If you are coming to visit the United States, if you want to immigrate to the United States, we have some certain rights as the United States to see who we are letting into this country. We were getting to a point in our society where it seemed to be politically incorrect, where it would be wrong for Members to go to a student whose visa expired, and by the way, of the terrorists, the Wall Street Journal today had an excellent article. Three or four of those terrorists were on expired student visas. The student visa program in this country has gone awry. It is out of control. We have, I think, 2.5 million people, and I can look that up, but I think there are 2\1/2\ million people in this country today that are on expired student visas; and we are not doing much to get them out of here. When people come to visit the United States, that is a privilege. This country has to start to enforce our borders. That is not to say at all, not in any way, that this great country should shut its borders. I do not believe in that. Unless one is truly Native American, we all have been the beneficiary of America's policy on immigration. It has built a great country. But having open borders does not mean we have to have uncontrolled borders. We should be having open borders that are controlled and managed and worked to the benefit of everybody. It works for the protection of the people even coming into this country. So our borders have to be tightened. I will tell Members something else we have to deploy at our borders. We have to put in those face-scanning computers that are able to determine if one is wanted or if one is a terrorist anywhere in the world, or find out just exactly who it is that is coming across, are they using false IDs, et cetera. We have to use other high-tech equipment at these borders. Some people, they jump up, and I have already heard this as a result of our antiterrorism bill, and say, Invasion of privacy. Do not invade privacy. Let me tell the Members something, I have not seen a proposal yet that has been on this floor that is unconstitutional, an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. It is not the intent of anybody in this House to invade or violate the Constitution. After all, we take oaths to stand up and protect the Constitution. We do not take some kind of assigned mission to violate the Constitution. So it is not that we are violating the Constitution with, for example, face-scanning computers and other technical equipment. The fact is, life is going to be a little more inconvenient. When we go to the airport, we are going to have to open our suitcases two or three times. They are going to have a right to look through our loose clothes, to look through our purse or wallet, which we may consider private. But the fact is in our society we have to take some affirmative steps to provide homeland security for our Nation. What is wrong at the borders with having computer-scanning equipment and data like that that can give us the kind of information we need? A lot of this is a game of quick information. We cannot sit there and detain or stop the borders while we spend 3 or 4 hours questioning everybody who wants to come across. We have to depend on quick information. We have to depend on an informational system that could quickly give us that kind of information. That is the computer- technical equipment. In Britain, take a look at Britain, the United Kingdom, who have been wonderful allies. Boy, have they stood with us through this from day one. From hour one, from the moment that Tony Blair and his government found out that the United States had been attacked, they stood tall, as did many of our other colleagues. But I want to talk about Great Britain right now. They have suffered terror for years. They have had terrorists blow up bombs in London and places like that. They have put pretty good security equipment in London and throughout their country. They have those face-scanning cameras. They do not come out and stick a camera in your face. They are on light poles, or they are on the sides of buildings. They have lots of security cameras almost on every city block in London figuring out exactly what is going on. They scan the city. It has not brought down a violation of privacy in the United Kingdom. In fact, it has made the United Kingdom a lot safer. It is kind of like putting a guard in the bank. I can remember as a young man, when I used to go into the bank, there were never police officers standing in the lobby of a bank; and well, then bank robberies kept happening and happening. Guess what happened when we put a police officer in the lobby of the bank? It did not violate anybody's privacy on banking laws. What it did was lower the crime in that bank, made it safer for everybody. That is exactly what we need to do at our borders and athletic events that what we need to do, where it is otherwise feasible, is provide the kind of security, the TV cameras and things like that we can do without intrusion into the Constitution. So I have not seen any, any movement that violates the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, the point I am making here, we have to, and I would like to point out on this border, is that we have got to do something very quickly. Just as important as our airport security is our border security. We have got to tighten up the border between, for example, the United States and Canada. For the most part, that border seems to be unsecured. We have cooperation from our neighbors to the north. Canada is a wonderful country. They are great allies. I do not think one could ask for two better neighbors than we have. Mexico on one side on the south and Canada on the north. In fact, just for my colleagues' information, we have had recruiters that have told us that down in the South they have gotten calls from Mexican citizens who want to come up and join the United States military because they want to fight for the United States against this terrible cancer that we suffered on September 11 and we are now trying to eradicate. So we have got cooperation to tighten those borders, but let me give you some statistics, and this is off of Senator Feinstein. She put out a press release. She identified weaknesses of the U.S. visa system. I think this is an excellent piece of work. I want to just give a few statistics. An unregulated visa waiver program in which 23 million people arrived in this country in fiscal year 2000 from 29 different countries, almost no scrutiny. An unmonitored nonimmigrant visa system in which 7.1 million tourists, business visitors, foreign students, and temporary workers arrived. To date, the INS does not have a reliable tracking system to determine how many of these visitors left when they were supposed to leave. The INS cannot track it. Among those 7.1 million nonimmigrants, 500,000 foreign nationals entered on foreign student visas. The foreign student visa system is one of the most underregulated systems we have today. So there are a couple of things that I want to bring up, just review very quickly. One, we have got to increase airport security, but we do not need to create a new Federal bureaucracy to do it. We clearly have no Federal oversight on it. Two, we have to tighten our borders, and let me just talk about the third thing I think whose time has come. This is the third thing I wanted to visit with, and that is the new strategic setting. This is a three-pronged threat as I have got on this poster. I will go in reverse. Information warfare. Clearly what does the United States have to do to protect, as we know, everything in our lives today is focused very, very heavily on computer and information. How do we protect that information? How do we protect homeland security to our information warfare? Terrorist threat. Clearly it was demonstrated to the United States that we had some huge gaps in our security system, our homeland security to provide protection from terrorist attacks. Now, remember, that gap was a horrible gap; and the results were horribly, horribly tragic. But the fact is we have had a lot of terrorist threats, including the one on the millennium that tried to come across the border that was stopped. We can protect against that. We can enhance that. The one I really want to focus on is the missile-delivered weapons of mass destruction attack. Keep in mind when we talk about missile defense, which I think absolutely has to be imminent for the defense of this country, and I think it is an inherent obligation of all of us sitting on this floor to provide a missile defensive system for this country. Keep in mind that a lot of people out there assume we already have missile defense; that if somebody fires a missile against the United States of America, that we have the capability to defend against it. We do not. We do not have that capability today. And that ought to be our highest priority as far as national security from an outside source. I think it is really, really critical. Let me mention a couple of other things. Most people, when we have talk about missiles coming against the United States, think of a nuclear missile. Of course, that is a worst case scenario; and we know that there are countries, there has been proliferation around the world of countries capable of delivering nuclear missiles. But when we also talk about nuclear missiles, a lot of people think about an intentional launch against the United States. I want to say, think about this for a moment, I believe that the possibility of an accidental launch against the United States of America is very possible with a nuclear warhead or a missile with a chemical type of weapon on top of it. So a missile defensive system protects us not only against an intentional launch against the United States but an accidental launch. A lot of people, including some of our colleagues, have pooh-poohed the idea that I say this could happen by accident. They do not give it too much credibility. Guess what happened 2 weeks ago. Out in the Black Sea, the Ukrainian Navy fired, by accident, a missile. What did it hit? It hit a civilian Russian airliner. It shot it right out of the sky. It killed everybody on board. That was accidental. If it can happen in a military exercise out in the Black Sea, let me assure my colleagues, it can happen with a missile aimed at the United States of America. I am not trying to create any kind of panic because I think the United States of America has some time, not a long period of time, but some time and we have the technological capability to do it to provide a missile defensive system for this country. There was a treaty signed not too many years ago and I intend to go into that in much more depth later on this week, but it was the Anti- ballistic Missile Treaty. The President of the United States has justifiably and very accurately called that treaty obsolete. The treaty is obsolete with the exception of one provision within that treaty, contained within the four corners. The authors of that treaty, the first people that drew it up, realized that times on would change. They must have realized that the United States and Russia in the 1970's were the only two countries capable of delivering missiles, either intentionally or accidentally with nuclear warheads. They must have realized if it is possible that in the future it could expand and there could be proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries. If that occurred and if that became a threat to the national sovereignty of either Russia or the United States, then under this treaty, the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, there would be a clause that is contained in the treaty, that would allow either country to withdraw from that treaty upon a 6-month notice. That is the first step that has to take place from an administrative point of view. This administration is preparing to do exactly that. They ought to do that. That is what leadership calls for. From the technical point of view, this government and this Congress and, fortunately, our colleagues down the hallway have dedicated resources to continue the research to perfect that technology that we have. We are very close. We are very close to providing the necessary information to build a missile defensive system in this country. We have got to get closer and we have got to close that gap and we have to put that defensive system into place. Let me point out that the threat is real. 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 are: Iran. Iran has nuclear weapons, they have chemical weapons, they have biological weapons and they have advanced missile technology. Iraq. Iraq, same thing: Nuclear, chemical, biological, advanced missile technology. Libya. Well, almost the same thing, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, advanced technical information. North Korea has all four of them. Syria has all except the biological weapons. This chart tells us a lot. This chart tells us that there are people out there in the world that are not friends of the United States. In fact, they are foes of the United States. And while we sit without a missile defensive system, they continue to build a missile offensive system. How can we, as Members of Congress, continue to sit idle or even advocate the idea of sitting idle, not building a defensive system, when we know there are countries like these countries out there that are aggressively building an offensive system? These systems are not defensive. These countries are designing these weapons to go after somebody, to fire at somebody, to destroy somebody. And let me ask my colleagues, who do you think that target is? After September 11, I think it is easy to conclude. It is not just an asset of the United States located somewhere in the world. It could very well be within the borders of the United States of America. That is why I am urging my colleagues to join the President, to join the administration and come together as a team to build a missile defensive system that protects the security of this Nation. We can do it. And do not let people tell you we are walking away from the treaty. The treaty allows us to do it. It is contained within the rights of the treaty. So it is absolutely necessary for this country to move forward with the development of a missile defensive system. Let me conclude my remarks this evening by just quickly going over or repeating some of the key points. Key point number one: the airport security in this country must immediately be improved for a long-term basis. Mr. Ridge, the new head of the Homeland Security Agency understands this. I think he has a good grasp on it. But the key element here is that we can dramatically and must dramatically improve that security. I think it is a mistake to rapidly go out and hire as Federal employees tens of thousands of people and put them on the Federal payroll. I think the Federal Government has a very important role in the tightening of airport security by issuing and overseeing the regulations, but I think it would be a big mistake creating a brand-new bureaucracy. These bureaucracies are very, very difficult to manage, very, very inflexible, and usually not very productive. We cannot afford to have an agency, an agency-bungling, so to speak, of airport security. It has to be improved and improved in a dramatic fashion. Point number one. Then point number two. The borders. It is now, in my opinion, absolutely correct, not politically incorrect but absolutely correct, to talk about what we have to do to tighten the borders of this country and who we ought to have in this country as guests and who we should not have as guests. And when the guest stays too long, we, this country, ought to be there to say it is time to go home; it is time to go back across the border from which you came because your invitation has expired. You have been around just a little too long. Right now, as I demonstrated with some of the numbers and statistics that I gave in earlier comments, this is not controlled at all in our country. We have tens of thousands, tens of thousands of people who are in this country on expired student visas. And do not let the university system and the college system come to the defense of these expired visas. And do not let the college or university system come and say, well, these student visas are absolutely essential for this purpose or that purpose. We need a balance. Now, a lot of these schools and universities get money, a high tuition charge for those people; but the fact is we have to bring it back in tune. I am not saying stop student visas, but I am saying we have to control them and enforce them; otherwise they are meaningless, and they provide a threat to the security of this Nation. Finally, the third point that I covered this evening, and I will reiterate it as long as I am a Congressman in the United States Congress, is that this Nation must proceed, as the administration has urged us to do, as President Bush has told us to do, this Congress and this Government must proceed with a missile defensive system for the borders of this country and for the borders of our allies. Failure to do so would be, in my opinion, the most horrible dereliction of duty in the history of the United States Congress. That is how strongly I feel about that. We have an absolute obligation, a responsibility to protect the security of this Nation by providing a defensive missile system. Keep in mind how many countries throughout this world are building offensive, offensive, attack systems. We know now after September 11 that the United States will very likely be at the top of the target list for many, many years to come. So we, colleagues, have an obligation to understand that reality and to defend against that reality. A missile defensive system should be the first and the highest priority on that list in regards to the missile offensive system of these other countries. We need to defend against it. We have fair warning and we have a little period of time to do it and we ought to do it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it brings me great pleasure to have the opportunity to congratulate Thelma Herman, who recently celebrated her 103rd birthday. It isn't often that one encounters a person with such longevity and, according to her friends at Belmont Senior Care, she is still going strong. Thelma has spent much of her life living in Pueblo, Colorado. As a young adult, she worked as a telephone operator and at a pharmacy. She has outlived both of her siblings and has only one surviving relative. Thelma cannot quite nail down exactly why she has survived so long, but she has always been relatively healthy. Thelma has developed a wide variety of healthy habits throughout her life including drinking a glass of water with every meal, taking a walk each day, never snacking between meals and brushing her teeth several times per day. Her advice to young Americans today is to be a good citizen. Thelma has been a good role model and citizen who has voted nearly her entire life. Mr. Speaker, it brings me great pleasure to congratulate Thelma for this phenomenal achievement. She is an exceptional individual and I wish her only the best and continued prosperity. Happy Birthday Thelma!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the life and memory of Anthony T. ``Capps'' Capozzolo, a man who always sought to brighten the horizons for others, especially through increasing educational opportunities. Born at his father's dairy farm in Pueblo, Colorado, Capps learned what hard work was at a very early age. At one time, he sold newspapers while attending school and tending to the chores of his family's farm. Capps followed his heart, however, and proved to be a fantastic dancer. At the age of 18, Capps left Pueblo and joined his brother in California where he pursued his passion for dancing. It was here that he met his dance partner, Theresa Harmon, who would eventually become his wife. The couple performed in numerous reputable studios like Columbia Pictures and MGM. Capps and Theresa also worked to help raise money for charitable contributions. Beyond his dancing performances, Capps served his community whenever he could. He was a charter member of the Assistance League in Palm Springs, California, the Desert Hospital Auxiliary and the Opera Guild of the Desert to name only a few. Upon the death of his wife Theresa, he founded a gallery of art at St. Martin's Abbey and College in Lacy, Washington. Furthermore, Capps became a generous donor to the performing arts at the University of Southern Colorado and funded a scholarship and various activities of the University. In August of 1998, his honorable service to others was recognized with the 1998 Pope John XXIII award offered by the Italian Catholic Federation, which recognizes community achievements, civic involvement and religious vitality. Mr. Speaker, Anthony Capozzolo was an honorable man who will be remembered by many. At this time, I would like to acknowledge the outstanding contributions that Capps made and recognize his selfless acts of kindness. He truly was an example for others to emulate. I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to the Capozzolo family during this time of remembrance and I would like them to know that my thoughts and prayers are with them now and for years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a person who truly understands the importance of education. Roberta Barr has spent a majority of her life dedicated to helping others and ensuring that all who cross her path receive only the best education possible. Even after retiring from her formal role as an educator, she has continued in her quest and has remained diligent to helping others. Roberta Barr, now 87, grew up in La Plata County, Colorado. She graduated from Durango High School in 1931 and went on to receive her teaching certificate from Fort Lewis College. From 1933 to 1979 Roberta taught at many different local schools and was appointed Principal of Mason Elementary School in 1962. Roberta returned to school earning a Master's Degree at Western State. She has been retired from teaching for the last 22 years, but continues to contribute to educating others in her community. Roberta and her husband Robert never had any children of their own, so after her husband passed away she established the Robert and Roberta Armstrong Barr Foundation. This foundation has been set up to provide up to ten thousand dollars in scholarships each year to students from the State of Colorado who attend Fort Lewis College or Western College and plan to become teachers. The foundation provides financial assistance to future educators and is designed so that the funds do not diminish, even after Roberta is gone. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have this opportunity to recognize Roberta Barr for the significant contributions that she has made to educating her community. She has spent her life teaching others and through her foundation will now be able to continue her life's ambition indefinitely. Her selfless dedication certainly deserves the praise and admiration of this body.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I hope all of the Members have had the opportunity at 8 o'clock, so about an hour and a half ago, to listen to the President of the United States address the Nation. It was a press conference, but I think the President made several pertinent comments. Let me begin by saying this: I think the President of the United States and his team, whether it is the Vice President, Dick Cheney, whether it is Condoleezza Rice, whether it is Don Rumsfeld, whether it is John Ashcroft, I think they are doing a heck of a job. If this kind of horrible tragedy had to occur, I think that it could not have occurred with a better team in place than the team we have today. I think it was indicated and reflected by the President's comments during his press conference this evening. Mr. Speaker, I want to go through a few of those comments and discuss them at length. I, of course, want to finish what I started yesterday, and that is a discussion, I think a good discussion, of missile defense and why this Nation needs missile defense, and why we as Congressmen have an inherent responsibility for the security of this Nation to provide missile defense. I want to talk about that tonight. But let me talk, first of all, about a few comments that the President made. I also want to visit briefly about civil liberties. I also want to talk for a few moments about the great fight that we are involved in. We have heard people use the term ``war.'' That is exactly what this is. As the President very ably said tonight, ``This is not a conventional war that we are fighting. This is a war unlike we have ever experienced in the past. First of all and foremost, we have been attacked by the enemy within the borders of the United States. We have suffered horrible losses in civilian casualties. These people, as the President said, they did not agitate this, they did not provoke this kind of thing. It was a blind attack of cold-blooded murder. There is no justification.'' By the way, kudos to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani today, who received a $10 million check, a $10 million check from an individual. But that individual, in handing that check, issued a statement that said that the United States, as a result of this action, should reexamine its policies in regard to Israel. Rudolph Giuliani in New York City today said ``Look, you may have just given us $10 million for our recovery fund for New York City, but do not dare try and justify or say that perhaps there is some legitimacy; to take a message across, regardless of the merits of the message; do not try and legitimize this as a vehicle for communicating that message, the act of terrorism. It is not justified.'' These were the acts of evil men, as the President said this evening. So Rudolph Giuliani gave the $10 million back and said, ``We do not want the money. Do not come to us, no matter how much money you have, do not come to the United States, do not come to New York City and offer a lot of money, which was appreciated for the recovery effort, but to have a little string attached to it that says, hey, maybe if terrorists commit these kinds of acts against the United States of America, America will adjust its national policies as a response to that terrorist act.'' That is the wrong thing to do. We should not let this kind of act that occurred on September 11 gain any kind of credibility whatsoever, zero credibility, because if we begin to give those kinds of attacks credibility; in other words, allow them to legitimize their cause, even a slight legitimization of their cause, we in fact are contributing, in my opinion, to the awful acts that are a result of terrorism. They should not do that. Thank goodness, the Mayor stood up to that tonight. I thought the President's comments about this war, it was amazing to me. I thought the reporters on a couple of occasions tried to trap the President: ``Can you give us an assurance, Mr. President, just how long we are going to be engaged in this?'' Of course the President did not fall for that trick. He said, ``We are going to be engaged in it until we get the job done.'' Congratulations, Mr. President. That is exactly the response that the American people wanted to hear. That is exactly the response that the American people feel in their heart. This country cannot afford to do this job half-heartedly. We cannot do the job halfway. We have to complete this job. We have to do everything we can to minimize the threat of terrorism anywhere in the world. Terrorism has no legitimate spot. Terrorism has no legitimate spot anywhere in this world with any country. It must be eradicated, or as close to eradication as we can possibly get. And the President said he is committed; that as long as he is the President, he will stay the course. Did my colleagues hear that? He will stay the course. And that is exactly the kind of commitment that the United States Congress has to give to the President as well. There will be lots of trials and tribulations that we ourselves as leaders in this country will come across, but we need to stay the course, keep her steady as she goes. Keep her steady as she goes. As the President said, slowly but surely, slowly but surely we are gaining ground; and we are gaining victory in this battle against these evil people. Now, I say they are evil people. I compared them in comments I made yesterday and in comments I have made since the September 11 tragedy to a cancer. There is no way to justify a cancer, ever. There is no medical doctor in the history of the world that has come up with some kind of a justification for not the cause, but some kind of a justification to say that the cancer helps the human body. Cancer never helps the human body. It is a foreign agent inside the body, and it has one purpose in mind and that is to destroy the human body. That is what cancer is about, to destroy the human body. It has one mission: destruction, destruction, destruction. There is no difference between bin Laden, between all of his followers and between other terrorists in this world; there is no distinction between those terrorists and cancer. They all are out for the same thing. They are out there, as the President said tonight very ably, and with a lot of credibility, he said what they have done is hijacked a religion. They are trying to cloak themselves in Islam. Islam does not allow terrorism. Islam does not permit the striking of innocent people. Certainly Islam does not preach striking down other people of the same faith, of those practicing Islam, that same faith. Keep in mind that these terrorists, these evil people, when they hit that tower, they did not just kill Americans; they killed the citizens of 80 separate countries. They killed fellow Muslims, they killed people who practice the Islamic faith. They killed Irish, they killed black, they killed Canadians, they killed British, they killed Belgian, German. Eighty countries suffered. These terrorists did not discriminate amongst their victims, and now they have the audacity to cloak themselves in religion, one of the great religions, as President Bush said tonight, the religion of Islam. Come on. We know that is a falsehood. And we have an obligation to continue to look through that falsehood. As the President said tonight again, and well said, I think, that bin Laden is just one part of the puzzle, just one part of the cancer. And there is more than one element to that cancer. Bin Laden is just one of the cells there. We have a number of cells that we have to eliminate to cure ourselves, to cleanse ourselves of this horrible cancer that has found its way to us. So I thought the President spoke well. He spoke of our determination, our will and our patience. The President has been very methodical in his planning. He and his team have been very focused, and they are determined, and they are strong, and they are patient. And I think the President said it very well this evening. I was very dismayed in the last week or so when one of our colleagues here criticized the President, saying how could the President launch an attack in 4 weeks; that he does not have enough preparation; he had not done enough planning. Well, that colleague of mine was out of order, in my opinion. Our constituents should know that we do not sit in the war room and help design the day-to-day combat activities of our military forces. Thank goodness, we do not. That is not our job. We are not military experts. A lot may think they are military experts, but the fact is we are not military experts. So to stand up at this point in time and criticize our President, saying the President did not do enough planning, when this colleague of ours did not spend 2 minutes in the assistance of that planning, how the heck does he know what went on down there? What you do, as the President said tonight, you measure by performance. And you can go turn on the TV tonight and look at the performance. Slowly but surely, as the President said, we are gaining ground. Obviously, we are gaining ground, and we are going to gain ground every day. Now, some days we may get set back a little. But every time we are set back, the sun will come again and we will gain a little more the next day. The end game is that America will prevail. America and its allies will prevail. This Nation is too great, its civil liberties are too strong, its freedoms mean too much to the world for the United States of America to fail, and it will not. Failure is not even an option. Failure is not even something to be discussed. The United States will be victorious at whatever the cost, at whatever the sacrifice, at whatever amount of time it takes. Mark my words, the United States of America will prevail over this evil cancer. Now, I want to mention a good friend, a good colleague of mine, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger); and he and I were talking about missile defense. We were also talking about civil liberties. Now, the gentleman from California and I agreed, and we agree on most things; but we were talking about the fact that I want the American people to know that in our anti-terrorist bill, for example, that we bring up tomorrow on this House floor, that we need to let the people know that we are not out there violating the constitutional rights of privacy or the constitutional civil liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. That is not what is going to happen in this Congress. What is happening is this: we are saying, look, we all have to pitch in together. So what if they check our baggage a little more closely at the airport? In fact, the previous speakers were talking about how necessary that is. So what if someone decides they want to cross the borders where they have a computer, a television face measuring computer that will tell them whether or not an individual is wanted anywhere in the world? So what if someone is requested to give a fingerprint if they want to cross the borders into America? The fact is America is going to have to tighten its borders. We cannot afford to have 2\1/2\ million students, students who are guests of the United States of America, we cannot afford to have 2\1/2\ million of them stay in our country after their visas expire. Of course, we have a huge gap in regards to our student visa program. And it was amazing to me the other day, even in my own State, that some of the colleges and universities in my own State said that we should not clamp down on student visas. The reason is because they need the money. They want the money. They may charge high fees for these foreign students to be educated in the United States. Well, it is about time the United States thought of the United States. Our homeland security requires that we have a border policy that makes sense; that we have a border policy that protects America; that we have a border policy that lives within the philosophy of America. That philosophy of America is that America has always opened its arms to citizens of other parts of the world; but we have to do so within a system that is regulated. We just cannot open the borders and allow anybody in here that wants to come in here. As we have seen, unfortunately, on September 11, not everybody has good intentions in mind. Some of those people are cancerous; and they want to lay cancer on every woman, every child, and every man they can, regardless of their religion, regardless of their ethnic background. These people want to destroy. We have every right, without violating the Constitution, to tighten up our borders. We have every right, and it is not a violation of our civil liberties, if someone wants to fly on an airplane and checks on baggage, they should expect that someone is going to look in their suitcase. They may even be looking through your nighties or your pajamas. The fact is there are certain inconveniences, not civil liberties, but there are certain inconveniences that all of us will now have to suffer to try to keep our country safe from this active cancer and the acts that these terrorists are trying to put upon us. I think the President handled very well tonight this general threat, this seemingly high level of confidence of a legitimate threat against the United States. Obviously, the President and the law enforcement arms in our country, and by the way, kudos to our law enforcement people that are so dedicated and put themselves out there on the front line, and all of our emergency personnel, whether firemen, ambulance drivers, et cetera; but the President made it very clear he does not have specific information. Obviously, if they did, if it was a train that was threatened or an airplane that was threatened, they would shut it down. They just have a general threat against the well-being of the United States. I almost thought I heard criticism of the President not being more specific, when the President did not have more specific information as far as what the targets would be. The President made it very clear this evening that the targets were not specific. I think the President did an excellent job in his communication to the people that he leads, to the people that he has assumed a major responsibility, the ultimately responsibility for their security. So the fact is, as the President said this evening, all of us have to be more aware of our surroundings, and that is not just for the next 2 or 3 days; that is kind of something we are going to have to permanently put into our minds. If we see something that looks odd, it probably is out of place; and it probably arouses enough suspicion we should call the authorities. The old saying, if it looks unusual, it probably is. That is the kind of thing that we are facing here. I used to be a police officer, and we did not develop any sixth sense, as people say, that police officers develop. What we actually did is develop common sense. Common sense that if in the middle of the night you see somebody coming out of a window of a retail store that is locked up, you might think that is a little unusual, and you would then take appropriate action. That is what the President is cautioning the American people to do, to just use common sense. If it does not look like it makes sense, report it to the authorities. That is how we are going to get ahead in this ball game. Let me move on from the President's comments, although I want to repeat once again that I thought the President did an excellent job. I think the President and his team, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice, this entire team, combined with all those young men and women that are serving in our military forces throughout the world, combined with our people like our volunteers in the Peace Corps, with the Government employees, with all the law enforcement agencies across this land, the firemen, et cetera, et cetera, we are all coming together as a team to provide the security that every citizen out there has a right to expect from their government. And thank goodness we live in the strongest country in the history of the world. Thank goodness we have a country that has freedom of religion, that has freedom of speech, that allows its borders to be open to the world with reasonable regulations. That is what has made this country such a strong country. And the blow we suffered on September 11, and the blows that we will face in the future, if we stay together as a team, if we bring together as a group but act as one, we will survive this and come out of this stronger than we were before. Sadder than we were before, because of the friends and the family and the good people that were lost in this terrible tragedy, but stronger. Let me visit about the question that the President was asked this evening, an area that I spend a lot of time on, and that is missile defense and the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Let me put out the premise right now that I think every one of us in these Chambers, every Congressman, every Senator in Washington, all of us had better not live on a hope that we never get attacked by a missile. The far left in this country, the radical left, wants the American people to hope and believe that a missile will never be launched against the United States, and that a missile probably will not be just based on that hope. It is like hoping away cancer. It is not going to happen. At some point in the future, the United States of America will face a missile attack. It may be one missile that is accidentally fired against the United States, or it may be a series of missiles that are intentionally fired against the United States. Today we have time to prepare for it. That is exactly what we need to do. There are several steps that we need to do. First of all, this body has to stay together. We have to give the President the support that he has asked for in building a missile defense system for this country. Keep in mind what the country has today. This country has tremendous capabilities as far as detection of a missile launch is concerned. In fact, within moments after that missile was launched by accident by the Ukrainian military during military exercises and hit a commercial airliner one week ago, the United States of America, it was the United States of America that knew about the launch. We picked it up at NORAD in Colorado Springs. We were within a couple of seconds able to figure out what kind of missile it was or at least a good guess, the direction, the target, et cetera. But once our NORAD defense system determines that a missile launch has taken place, and after they figure out what size missile it is and where its likely target is, all they can do is call up the victims of the likely target and say, say a prayer, it is over. You have an inbound missile. Its expected time of arrival is 15 minutes. Nothing we can do for you. Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation. We are required to protect the American people, the American continent and our allies. How can we stand up in front of our constituents, colleagues, how can we stand in front of them and say that we have chosen not to provide an actual missile defense system. Instead we have chosen the policy of the far left which is let us hope it never happens, and it is crazy to think that someone will attack this country with a missile. I think a lot of people have thought some crazy things that we never thought would happen, i.e., a terrorist attack would occur that would kill thousands and thousands of American citizens. It occurred on September 11. Who would imagine during a military exercise that a military, under strict discipline, under careful scrutiny, would accidentally launch a missile that brought down a commercial airliner. The concerns we have in the future are not entirely focused on an intentional launch of a missile against the United States. It could be an accidental launch. Mr. Speaker, I think the likelihood of an accidental missile launch against the United States is pretty high. I think there is a good likelihood it could be as much accidental as it is intentional. That is why I think it is imperative that the Congress of the United States follow the lead of the President of the United States, and that is to deploy a missile defense policy in this country. Let us go through the different arguments brought up. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and I talked about, we do not have the technology. That technology is almost there. We have the laser technology. We have the satellite technology. We have the detection technology. Two months ago we were able to intercept an incoming practice target missile. That technology is going to be there. Sure it is going to take some trial and error to get there. People say what if we fail. One way you can guarantee failure is not to try at all. That guarantees it. So my colleagues in these Chambers who do not want to try at all to provide missile defense for this country, you have guaranteed failure to your constituents. We have the capability to come up with the technology. We have the resources to deploy a missile defensive system to protect the people of this country, and we ought to do it. Some people will say what about the anti-ballistic missile treaty. That was the question tonight to the President. When you meet with President Putin from Russia, are you backing off, abandonment of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the President said that treaty is obsolete. It does no good for Russia or the United States. Let me tell you a little history about the anti-ballistic missile treaty. A few facts about it. First of all, the anti-ballistic missile treaty is a treaty between two countries. Only two countries are signatories to the treaty, the United States of America and the Soviet Union. This treaty was signed in the 1970s. The treaty is well over 30 years ago. It went on a theory that was abandoned a long time, a theory whose premise was questioned from the very first day. What is the theory? At the time of the Cold War, at the time the anti-ballistic missile treaty was drafted in the 1970s, there were only two countries capable of delivering such weapons in the world, the United States of America, and the Soviet Union. Some people, that administration, thought it was logical for the United States and Russia to get together and say look, you are the only two in the world capable of delivering these types of missiles. Make a treaty that will give you the ultimate resistance to fire a missile in an offensive state against Russia or against the United States. So the treaty they came up with is called the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, and it works like this: Russia agrees not to build a missile defensive system, and the United States agrees not to defend itself with a missile defensive system. The theory being if you do not have the capability to defend yourself, you would not fire a missile against the Soviet Union because you know the Soviet Union would retaliate, and your fear of retaliation would be enough incentive not to fire your missile in the first place. Well, the one good thing they did when they drafted this treaty was they put a clause in there. The people that drafted this said, justifiably, Look, we are not smart enough to be able to read the future. We do not know what the future holds for the Soviet Union. We do not know what the future holds for the United States of America. So as we draft this treaty, the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, let us make a provision, let us put a right within the treaty for the treaty to be modified for either party, the Soviet Union or the United States, to withdraw from the treaty. Let me show Members that specific language. This is it right here. Article XVI of the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. That treaty is called the ABM. This treaty shall be of unlimited duration. Each party, and look at this emphasis that I have put on here. This is a guaranteed right. The parties have a right to abrogate this treaty. This is not a breach of the treaty. It is not a breaking of the treaty. It is exercising a right contained within the four corners of the treaty. That is exactly what this language is. Let us go through it. Each party, remember there are only two parties to the ABM, the Soviet Union and the United States of America. Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty. See the word ``right.'' It is not iffy. It is a guaranteed right of the treaty. The treaty has it within its provisions. 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. So we know that the right to abandon the treaty is contained within the four corners of the treaty if in fact extraordinary events have occurred. So the argument here is have extraordinary events occurred to the extent that the supreme interests of the parties have been impacted? Of course they have. I am going to show Members that in just a moment. It shall give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months prior to withdraw from the treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests. What are extraordinary events. Take a look at what has happened in the world in the last 30 years. This is ballistic missile proliferation. Remember at the time the treaty was drafted, there were two countries, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, that were capable of ballistic missile delivery against each other. Only two countries. That is why only two countries signed the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Take a look at what has occurred in proliferation in countries throughout the world as indicated by the purple color on this chart. This is the proliferation of ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles do not have to contain a nuclear warhead. They can, in fact, contain a warhead that has got a biological weapon. So these can be missiles with incoming biological weapons. The fact is numerous countries throughout the world have acquired the capability to deliver a ballistic missile against the United States or against other countries or against allies of the United States or in fact against Russia. It is in Russia's best interests as well as the best interests of the United States that we acknowledge the fact that the world, that extraordinary events have occurred, and at the very top of that list is the capability to deliver a biological or nuclear weapon in either one of our countries by people who have not signed this treaty. That is the proliferation. That is an extraordinary event. On that alone, this treaty should be abrogated. Let us look here. Remember again when we signed the treaty in the 1970s there were two countries with nuclear capability. Two of them, the Soviet Union and the United States. Now take a look. These are countries that now possess nuclear weapons: Britain, China, France, Pakistan, Israel, United States. I would add to that list North Korea. Of concern over here, I think North Korea has already accomplished it, Iraq, Iran, Libya. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing, unfortunately, extraordinary events take place with the proliferation of countries, rogue countries, Third World countries, that are doing everything they can to acquire nuclear weapons. We stand back and say we should not build a missile defense. We are doing an injustice to future generations of this Nation. We see the disaster coming. We see the disaster coming. We have the opportunity today, the American people, the leaders of the American people, the government of the American people, we have the opportunity today to build a system that will stop missile delivery of nuclear weapons. That will stop missile delivery of biological weapons. That is our obligation. We can do it. So any kind of argument that we see in these Chambers about the fact that the United States does not need missile defense are ill-founded on their face. Of course this Nation needs it. Thank goodness the President of the United States recognizes the fact that the Anti- ballistic Missile Treaty, which is the only thing standing in the way of an effective missile defense for this country, thank goodness that the President recognizes that extraordinary events which trigger the ability to leave the treaty have occurred. The President's response tonight, which I thought was very eloquent, he talked about it is to Russia's benefit as well. The United States is not developing a missile defensive system to the exclusion of every other country in the world. It is our intent to develop a system that we can share with our close friends like the British, like Canada, and Mexico and frankly be willing to share with other countries. If we build the right kind of system, satellite laser system, we actually could assist any country in the world, friend or foe, from a missile attack against that country. Just imagine for a moment if Russia, for example, by accident launched a missile on this country. A nuclear missile. Let us say that it hit Philadelphia or some city and wipes out a city. You know, the retaliation or the repercussions of the actual hit, the result of that missile, would be so significant none of us can even imagine. It is as hard to imagine those kinds of results as what we saw occur in New York City on September 11. What would it mean? Would it mean a new world war? Would it mean such massive retaliation by the United States that Russia then would fire whatever they had left at the United States? We have an opportunity to avoid that disaster by providing this country with the capability to stop incoming missiles whether they are accidentally fired at the United States or whether they are intentionally fired against the United States. Now, some people will say to you, ``Well, now look, you know, Scott, this kind of missile thing is not going to happen. Let's hope it away.'' And I just tell you 10 days ago, although the press has been very heavy on Afghanistan and our military theater of operations over there, consider the fact that about 10 days ago, a missile was fired by accident, and a missile did hit a target that no one intended for it to hit and it did in fact bring down a commercial airliner and killed everybody on board. That ought to tell you that accidents can happen. We are naive, and we are almost shameful if we do not think that in the future at some point this country is going to be challenged by a missile that is inbound, and we have the opportunity today to stop it. We have not only the opportunity today to stop it, we have the obligation to stop it. And we can do it. So missile defense, I was so pleased that that question was asked of the President tonight. This President intends to lead this Nation not only to victory over the cancer of terrorism but he also intends to lead this country to victory in its defense of its homeland security. And a part of that is to build a missile defensive system that will give us the kind of security that a lot of us think we have right now. There are a lot of people out there that think we have the capability to stop these kind of things. So this President, as he is doing with other causes, is taking the leadership role. I for one am more than happy to stand tall behind him. As all of us are standing, most of us, tall behind his leadership against the cancer of terrorism, let us too be counted standing behind him for the missile defense system of this country. Let me go back, leave this subject for a moment, and talk very briefly about the economy, because the President also covered the economy this evening, and I think his remarks were very important. This economy will recover. This economy has some very fundamental strengths to it. This economy has been bruised by the September 11 attacks. The economy was limping along prior to September 11. It happens. Our economy runs in cycles. It has run in cycles throughout the history of mankind. The economies of every country in the world run in cycles. We are in a cyclical state. The worst thing that can keep us in a downward cycle, the worst thing that can continue to propel us into the ground is loss of confidence. It is just like the worst thing that could work against us is the fear of fear. Our greatest fear is but fear itself. And it is the same thing, too, we should apply to our economy. We as Americans need to continue to go out and do what we can to bolster our economy, increase our job performance. Employers, you need to pay your employees what is necessary to keep them so that they can support their families. Our inventors, our capital investment, our inventors need to continue to invent the great products that this country is known for. We need to keep incentive in the system out there. I am very confident that the economy will continue through its cyclical correction but that the country will again see an uplift in our economy. So I urge people not to panic. I urge people that as the Christmas season approaches, go out and buy and spend as you would in a normal Christmas. I am not saying to do it unwisely. I am not saying to waste money. But I am saying that your consumer confidence, our constituents' confidence is the big engine that is driving this economy. And if we can, whatever we can do to sit down with our constituents and tell them just what the basic fundamentals of our economy are and how strong they are, we are not going to have a recovery tomorrow. We are not going to see the boom times with the stock market. People were actually writing and selling books about what happens when the Dow hits 30,000. We are not going to see that. But what we are going to see is a cyclical correction that also leads to the recovery of an economy. We here in the United States Congress will be acting on a stimulus package. In fact our fine chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), will be chairing the Committee on Ways and Means upon which I sit tomorrow to consider debate and to report out a bill for some type of stimulus package. The government cannot do it all. I think our constituents understand that. We do not need to lecture our constituents. They understand the government cannot do it all, but the government can help. Alan Greenspan has helped by putting more money in, by lowering interest rates. Any of our constituents that are out there that are paying credit card interest that is at all above 10 percent in my opinion, I would consider it excessive. I mean, Greenspan has lowered those rates so dramatically that every American, every American that uses credit, whether it is on your credit card or whether it is for your house ought to be seeing the benefit. And if you are not seeing the benefit, if your constituents are not seeing the benefit of lower interest rates from their credit card companies, tell them to dump that company and go with a company that is going to be fair with them, that is going to give them a rate that fairly evaluates the risk that is involved in doing business with them. There are a lot of things out there that are going to work in our favor. One of the things that I think that can come out of that stimulus package tomorrow is broad based tax cuts, not tax cuts for one specific individual or one specific industry but broad based. We need to get consumer confidence back in an upward mode. A stimulus package cannot do it all, as I said, but we can go a long ways, in putting incentive out there in the system so that once again our economic engine warms up and begins that climb up the hill. I know I can; I know I can. We know that that is going to happen. So I feel confident about our economy. To wrap it up, I want to first of all thank my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for the discussion, I thought a very thorough discussion we had this evening on missile defense. I think the President did a very commendable job. And I, like many, many hundreds of thousands of Americans, and I like most of my colleagues, if not all of my colleagues on this House floor, stand in gratitude for the leadership that the President has shown to this country, to the leadership that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice and the other Cabinet members and our national security team and our military leaders and our military personnel, all across this country, thank God we have got these kind of people that are dedicated, in many cases with their lives, are dedicated to the cause of the United States of America. Thank God we have got people who are willing to make it their entire focus, in a patient, strong but dedicated way to make sure that the United States of America continues to prevail for the next generation in the good way that it has prevailed for our generation. Thank goodness we have got a country that recognizes all types of different religions, that allows people of different ethnic backgrounds to thrive in this country. We are equal under our laws around here. There are some countries in this world that will not allow foreign people to come in and be citizens. Many countries do not have open borders at all. They have closed borders. There are a lot of countries in this world who discriminate very clearly against other religions. But in the United States of America, whether you practice Islam, whether you are a Catholic, whether you are a Methodist, Episcopalian, a Mormon, even being an atheist in this country is protected by our Constitution. It is the strength of that Constitution that will increase the strength of this country. It is being respected by this President and his team. My final remark is that I stand tall with all my colleagues in backing the President and his team. Let us go out there and let us eradicate the cancer that has fallen upon us. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to future generations. It is an obligation and a responsibility of our job. And, frankly, we can get the job done.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the city of Pueblo and the surrounding community has lost an exceptional member of their community and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the distinguished life of Mr. George Andrews. George Andrews died at the age of seventy-two after suffering from illness for several months. Mr. Andrews was a dedicated family man who was also very successful as a business manager. George's life centered around his family and their foodservice business which was started by his father and uncle in 1926. The business survived the Great Depression and has undergone many changes in clientele and inventory since it first originated. George Andrews took over his father's interest in the business after his death in 1950, eventually acquiring sole ownership. Andrews Foodservice remains family owned and operated and still provides an important service to the community. Mr. Andrews expressed his generosity through his relationship with his employees and his community. It wouldn't be surprising to see George providing the Colorado Highway Patrol with gifts to hand out to travelers during the holiday season. Mr. Speaker, George Andrews was successful not only with his business, but also with the bonds that he nurtured with his family and the community. He was a gracious man with a strong character and he will be missed. I would like to express my condolences to Mr. Andrews' family and friends. He will not be forgotten.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to honor Mr. Laurence R. (Campy) Campton as he celebrates his 85th birthday on October 27, 2001. I want to recognize Campy for his love of his country and dedicated patriotism first exemplified during his service in World War II. Campy has seen some of the most horrifying scenes in American war history. Mr. Campton landed on Utah Beach at Normandy where Campy and his comrades in the Fourth Infantry Division made the initial push to drive the Nazi forces back into Germany. German soldiers later captured Campy during the Battle of the Bulge. He remained a captive of the Nazi troops until he was finally liberated by American soldiers and spent the remainder of his tour in Europe in a hospital bed in France. It is my privilege to acknowledge Campy for the sacrifices he made that future generations would enjoy the freedoms and liberties that shape the American way of life. Furthermore, I wish to honor Campy for the bravery he showed on the battlefields of France and the leadership he took back to Colorado where he became an active member of the community. Campy and his wife Daisy have made significant contributions to their local neighborhood in Salida, Colorado where they have lived since 1949. Campy has always put his community first serving as the Chaffee County Veterans Services Officer and was recently named the Veterans Service Officer of the Year at the annual state convention. Campy is also a devoted family man as he and Daisy raised three children to respect and love their country. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Campton is a role model to all Americans. Campy represents a thread in the fabric of our nation. It is my honor to recognize a Mr. Laurence R. (Campy) Campton for his lifetime of achievements from the battlefields of France to the local Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Salida, Colorado. It is my pleasure to offer Campy the thanks from our nation and my warmest regards.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I would like to pay tribute to the life of Steven Westhoff who has recently passed away. Mr. Westhoff was a valued member of the community in Glenwood Springs and those who knew Steven will surely miss him. I went to high school with Steve and considered it a privilege to be his friend. Steven Westhoff was born on June 5, 1954. He spent his childhood growing up in Boulder, Colorado and moved to Glenwood Springs in 1967. During his many years as a resident of Glenwood Springs, Steven took on many duties ranging from his most recent employment as a Project Manager for Schmueser Gordon Meyer Consulting Engineers and Surveyors to the head of the Ski Patrol at Ski Sunlight. Mr. Westhoff was also a valued member of the Garfield County Search and Rescue operation. Steven will be remembered as a hard worker, an avid outdoorsman, and a loving husband. Mr. Speaker, the loss of such an exceptional individual is never easy to accept. We will remember Steven through the memory and the experiences he shared with those to whom he was close. I would like to express my deepest condolences along with the sympathies of this body of Congress to his family and friends during these trying times.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all in regards to my colleague before he leaves the House floor, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) I want to tell the gentleman he is exactly on point. As the gentleman from Washington knows, we probably came within 30 minutes of a plane hitting this facility or the following day we had an evacuation notice of the Capitol. There is an interesting article that I just read about an hour ago in regards to executive replacement and how every corporation is being derelict in its duty to its shareholders if they do not have some type of transition plan for the chief executive. It talked about how many chief executives died unexpectedly last year and what it did to the corporations, including Atlas Corporation whose president died in a plane crash in the State of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I do not think many of us, including myself, were aware that there was no provision in place in light of a tragedy like this. Now because of this tragedy I think the gentleman has very competently brought up the issue that we better fill in that gap. I hope it never happens, but the fact is it might and we need to have something so that the beat goes on, as our friend, Sonny Bono, used to say. The beat can go on and that is what we need. I compliment the gentleman for his remarks.