Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, technology has become an important tool today in terms of nearly every facet of our lives--from legislation to the completion of daily routines. It has been used to reinvent many systems and increase ties between people. Marc Holtzman, the first Secretary of Technology in the State of Colorado, has accepted this new and transformational role to merge technology with government, economics and education. I would like to recognize the work of this honorable man and all that he has done, and will continue to do, for the great State of Colorado. Following his graduation from Leigh University, Marc founded an investment firm called MeesPierson EurAmerica, which was later sold to become the 11th largest bank in the world. His time in Europe has allowed him to become an authority on political development. Now, he serves in the cabinet-level position for Governor Owens while earning only $1 per year. During the week, Marc resides in Denver, but during the weekend he travels to his house in the Roaring Fork Valley--a great opportunity to enjoy the mountain environment amidst his responsibilities. Colorado is home to many high-tech industries and Marc plays a crucial role in securing a successful future for these companies, along with creating an environment conducive to attracting new businesses. Furthermore, Marc has been put in charge of creating quasi-charter schools that aim to build a bridge across the technological divide with the support of Microsoft's Bill Gates. Throughout all of his projects, Marc has proven to be a valuable contributor to Colorado and has a high success rate in all that he does. Mr. Speaker, at a time when technology is becoming such an important part of our world, the convergence of technology and governance is inevitable. Marc is ensuring that we implement this technology and in return, benefit the people of Colorado. Additionally, his charismatic leadership has led to many innovative experiments and successes. He is truly navigating Colorado through this remarkable revolution. I would like to honor his contributions and recognize the importance of his service to the State of Colorado. I extend my warmest regards to him and wish him the best in years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, It is with profound sadness that I pay tribute to Maclovio ``Joe'' Lopez who passed away on September 11, 2001. Joe, 41 years old, was a native of Pueblo, Colorado and was traveling from Boston to Los Angeles on business when his United Airlines Flight 175 was hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City. Joe Lopez was born and reared in Colorado, the second oldest of seven children to Maclovio and Martha Lopez. Joe graduated from Pueblo County High School prior to pursuing a career that would ultimately require him to frequently travel from Los Angeles to Boston. Tragically, Joe's commute landed into the evil hands of cowardly terrorists who horrified our nation by attacking innocent American citizens. The events that took place on September 11, 2001 will never be forgotten. It is the duty of our nation not only to remember that day, but also to honor those individuals whose lives were so quickly lost. Joe Lopez was a loving and honorable man. My heart and prayers go out to Joe's friends and family during this time of mourning. They can rest assure that we will come together as a Nation to see that the proper course of action is taken against these criminals who perpetrated this senseless act. Joe was an outstanding member of his community and a heroic role model for others. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy and warmest regards to Maclovio ``Joe'' Lopez's family and my thoughts and prayers along with those of our Nation are with them.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, we experienced the most vicious and horrific terrorist attack on our soil in America's history. This deliberate and systematic assault on innocent American civilians resulted in numerous fatalities. One of the hijacked planes, United Airlines Flight 93, en route from Newark to San Francisco, crashed into Stoney Creek Township in Pennsylvania. Jason Dahl--a resident of Ken Caryl, Colorado--was the pilot of that plane. While three other hijacked aircraft made it to their intended targets including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this aircraft did not. While we may never know exactly what transpired on that aircraft and particularly in the cockpit of flight 93, Jason Dahl, in one manner or another, gathered the courage and bravery to resist the attack and avoid another massive strike on America. Due to his selfless act of sacrifice, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Jason Dahl today and recognize him as a hero worthy of this body. Last week, Jason floated an e-mail to his colleagues requesting a switch in flights because he wanted to spend more time with his family. Since no one was able to take the flight from Newark to San Francisco, Jason fulfilled his responsibility and as a result he, his co-pilot, 38 passengers and five flight attendants were led to their death by the terrorists on-board. Jason Dahl resided in the Ken Caryl Ranch area in Colorado. He was well respected and liked by his neighbors. Never shying away from the opportunity to extend a helping hand, Jason was a dedicated husband to Sandy, father to Matt, his son, and friend to many. Furthermore, he was a ``standards'' captain for United Airlines. This special role allowed Jason to not only fly aircraft, but also provided the opportunity to teach and test other pilots. Many of his counterparts recognized Jason as a very capable and skilled captain. Mr. Speaker, the wishes of the terrorists aboard United Flight 93 may never be understood, but we can deduce that something went wrong in the pursuit of their ultimate objective. Jason was probably the reason behind the failure of their mission, and in so doing, he saved American lives. While many people died in this tragedy, we must recognize the greater triumph of the situation and the battle against terrorism that was claimed in this particular moment. Mr. Speaker, Jason Dahl emerged as a national hero on September 11 and I would like to acknowledge his patriotic sacrifice. My warmest regards and deepest sympathies are extended toward his family at this time of remembrance. Jason Dahl will be remembered as a hero who gave his life to America and we will all miss him dearly.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor Richard ``Al'' Seagler for his service to our great nation in World War II. Anticipating that he would get drafted, Al courageously enlisted with the Navy. It is my pleasure to pay tribute to Mr. Seagler for the sacrifices he made in preserving the freedom of our nation. Mr. Seagler experienced many sleepless nights as Japanese forces made countless attacks on his construction battalion that was located on the island of Guadalcanal. The campaign at Guadalcanal cost America a great number of lives before the United States decidedly took the island and changed the course of the Pacific Theater in World War II forever. Mr. Seagler played a vital role in America's course of action by directing a construction battalion whose job included providing a workable infrastructure for American troops and maintaining open supply lines in Guadalcanal. These important construction battalions were known as ``Seabees,'' but their name and recognition have since disappeared from our national memory. Mr. Seagler sweated his days away in order to sustain the American operations in the region. In addition, Al accomplished many great feats in the construction battalion while dodging the enemy's bullets, living in a disease-infested jungle, and laying down to sleep to the sound of the Japanese fighter planes bombing the Guadalcanal coast. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Seagler showed great courage and heroism as a soldier in World War II. Therefore, it is my privilege to acknowledge his honor and pride for our great Nation. Al is still an active citizen in Montrose, Colorado where he has served as a role model for both young and old. I commend Mr. Seagler for his distinguished service to the state of Colorado and our great Nation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Glade Park, Colorado Volunteer Fire Department for their time and effort dedicated to the safety of their community. There are fifteen volunteer fire fighters in Glade Park who sacrifice their free time to ensure the security of their community. This is no small challenge in a place with 1,200 inhabitants that covers 525 square miles of unpaved, hard to reach terrain. These volunteers must be prepared to fight residential as well as forest fires at a moment's notice or any number of other emergencies. In the last year alone there were 70 calls to which they responded. Their dedication to the responsibilities of fire fighting has assured the Glade Park Volunteer Fire Department's success throughout the years. Mr. Speaker, volunteering to be a fire fighter is a noble cause and a huge responsibility. The volunteers in Glade Park have displayed their courage, dedication and resourcefulness in the face of danger. They selflessly offer their time to their neighbors to overcome obstacles that threaten their community and I find it important to offer them the praise and admiration of this body.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize two special individuals in Silverthorne, Colorado. Sergeant John Minor and Mark Watson are the only foreign-born police officers employed by the city. Silverthorne is relatively unique in its acceptance of non-citizens on the police force during a time when other towns debate whether this should be allowed or not; Silverthorne has set its own precedent. John Minor moved to the United States from Liverpool, England with his family in 1977. They moved to Colorado where they had relatives. John Minor took night classes after which he followed in his grandfather's footsteps and began a career in law enforcement. Eventually John Minor became a U.S. Citizen. John Minor is now paving the way for others to have the same opportunity. Mark Watson moved to Colorado because of his love for skiing in 1988. He too had a respect for the law, being the son of a judge in New Zealand. After settling down, he spoke with John Minor about how to balance his love of skiing with his interest in law enforcement. During the past year, Mr. Watson worked as Silverthorne's community service officer, which familiarized him with the procedures and structure of the local police department. Having recently completed the police academy, he will begin training as a probationary police officer. Sergeant John Minor and Mark Watson provide us with the type of diversity that would benefit any organization. Their dedication to law enforcement and their unique backgrounds provide us with a great learning opportunity. I appreciate their commitment and value their participation in such an important institution and they deserve to be honored for committing to protect and serve their second home.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, fire fighters place their lives on the line every time they battle a blaze. This challenge requires serious training, dedication and compassion for other human beings. The Gateway/Unaweep Volunteer Fire Department in Colorado was experiencing difficulties until a team of individuals collaborated to rekindle the spirit of the department and enable it to become a reliable emergency response unit once again. Due to this unwavering persistence, the Gateway/Unaweep Volunteer Fire Department has been able to once again become a viable community resource and I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the efforts of the members of the department for all that they have done. Fire fighting in this area of Colorado did not always have the benefit of modern tools. This basic level of equipment did not deter Dean Rickman, a web site designer from Chicago, from relocating and joining the department. After being inspired by Oprah's Angel network, Angela Morgan decided she would help others through involvement in the fire department. Shane Burton has tackled the position of being the assistant fire chief in charge of all the other duties. Through numerous hours of coordination and examination, these and other members patched the fire department back together and have created a sustainable plan to ensure its vitality. Currently they are seeking ways to make it more financially stable and have recently launched a new program called Project Human Touch to make certain that victims have access to supportive resources. The Gateway/Unaweep Volunteer Fire Department persists diligently for the benefit of their community. Through their hard work, the members have been able to increase the department's fleet size and upgrade the coverage area and equipment. Mr. Speaker, the services these volunteers provide are priceless in any community. Although such a role always requires a sacrifice, the fire fighters at the Gateway/Unaweep Volunteer Fire Department have gone above and beyond the call of duty to resurrect this fire department and sustain operations once again. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the sincere sacrifices the members of the department have made and extend my best wishes to them in many years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, Dave Sanger helped to shape and open the minds of students at Salida High School in Colorado and after 30 years of teaching, has announced his retirement. It is with great pleasure that I recognize the tremendous contributions Dave has made to the future of our country and to the lives of those students he has taught. Dave began teaching at Salida High School in 1973, after attending graduate school at the University of Colorado in Boulder where he was pursuing a master's degree in history. While at Salida High School, he taught history for twenty-eight years. While Dave had no intention of teaching at Salida for this length of time, he has received much joy out of seeing his students blossom intellectually and challenge their future. Mr. Sanger has been recognized for his energetic and insightful lectures, even to the extent that students who have graduated have returned to experience another Sanger lecture. While teaching requires enormous dedication, Dave found time to serve his community in other ways as well. He helped to establish the soccer program in Salida and continues to track its success. Furthermore, he served on the Democratic Central Committee and was a judge for a mock congressional hearing for high school students. His wife Nancy and he opened a bookstore called Sanger's Books that thrived during a rough economic time between 1985 and 1991. Dave and Nancy have both also served as lay ministers at St. Joseph Church. Throughout all of his efforts, Dave Sanger has opened doors for many students. His teaching will live in the hearts and minds of all those who have been in his classroom. He has truly been an integral and respected member of his community. Upon his retirement as a history teacher, I would like to honor his dedication and years of service and extend my warmest regard to Dave and his family.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with much sorrow that I would like to take a moment to honor the memory of Mel Stein. He was taken from us on the morning of Sunday, June 24th after suffering from injuries as a result of a head-on car accident the night before in Montrose, Colorado. Mel lived a long, accomplished life during which he contributed in many ways to our American community. Mel was born in Chicago, Illinois on May 18, 1927. Upon graduating from high school he served in WWII as a member of the U.S. Army Air Corps. Following his service he returned to Chicago to attend law school at DePaul University. Mel spent the next 10 years as a trial attorney and Special Agent with the U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service before going into private practice. He was very successful and influential in the legal and immigration fields; so much so that his children followed his lead and have chosen the same profession. He also spent a great deal of his career helping immigrants achieve their U.S. citizenship, including offering help to my office when we had a tough case. It is always tragic to lose someone so unexpectedly and my heart goes out to his wife, Llois, his daughter, Doree and his son, Eric. He served his country during times of conflict and helped to ensure others got the chance to pursue the American Dream. Mel has given so much to so many--his contributions will not be forgotten.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the courage and patriotism of Mr. Philip Eilebrecht. Now 83, Mr. Eilebrecht was one of the brave Americans who fought for our great country during the D-Day invasion at Normandy on June 6, 1944. Mr. Eilebrecht's life was changed forever on January 29, 1942 when he left his father's ranch in Gunnison, Colorado at 24 years of age and was stationed within the ranks of the 102nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron in Fort Riley, Kansas. He was sent there because of his knowledge of horses but was soon transferred to Columbia, South Carolina where his unit turned in their horses for ``greyhound'' armored cars. Only a few months later he found himself maneuvering his armored car along the sandy shores below the cliffs at Omaha Beach. He and thousands of other American soldiers bulled their way through the German forces that had held earlier forces at bay. Mr. Eilebrecht returned to Colorado with the Bronze Arrowhead Medal where he has remained and eventually retired after 25 years as a brand inspector. Mr. Speaker, Philip Eilebrecht displayed his willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for his country by fighting in one of the most legendary and bloody victories in the history of the United States. I would like to honor Philip Eilebrecht for his valor in the face of such immense danger and destruction. The United States appreciates his patriotism and recognizes him as a truly heroic American.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to honor Mr. Thomas Anderson for his service to our great Nation during World War II. Captain Anderson's achievements during World War II and throughout his life deserves recognition. It is my pleasure to pay tribute to an individual who put his life on the line sacrificing his well-being to the broader interests of the United States of America. As a lieutenant, Thomas Anderson first saw action in Germany during the latter half of World War II. As a brave young pilot, Lieutenant Anderson flew a number of missions in his Northrup P-61 Black Widow Night Fighter. One of Lieutenant Anderson's most notable accomplishments was being the last pilot on a combat assignment in the air in the European theater of operations. Moreover, Mr. Anderson flew the final air combat mission of World War II through treacherous weather that caused his entire aircraft to entirely freeze over. Captain Anderson nearly lost his life and plane, but managed to land the aircraft safely where crewmembers had to use ice picks in order to remove Thomas from the cockpit. After a trying tour in Europe, Captain Anderson was reactivated during the Korean War where his experience and leadership were imperative to the United States campaign in the region. Captain Anderson is a respectable, humble, and honorable citizen-soldier. It is our duty as Americans to acknowledge Thomas Anderson's accomplishments and recognize the honor, pride and valor in which he served our Nation. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I honor and recognize Captain Thomas Anderson (Retired) for the courage and heroism that he displayed while serving in World War II and Korea. Our Nation owes Captain Anderson a debt of gratitude and his actions will never be forgotten. I commend citizen-soldier, Thomas Anderson for his honorable and distinguished service to the State of Colorado and our great Nation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as the United States expanded westward and Colorado's western slope was essentially untouched wilderness, Episcopalian clergy decided to place the first church in the region at Lake City, Colorado. 125 years later, this church is celebrating its founding and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the congregation's dedication and perseverance since its inception. The Right Reverend John Franklin Spalding, Episcopal Bishop of Colorado, and Reverend C.M. Hoge conducted the original sermons and confirmation processes for the church in 1876. After many trips and openings of other church organizations, Bishop Spalding recalled that the church at Lake City was the first church in Western Colorado. Following the efforts of Bishop Spalding and after relocating to numerous sites throughout the town, the Episcopal services were finally housed at a former carpentry shop and one-room schoolhouse in 1877. Lake City has the honor of hosting four churches and St. James Episcopal Church most resembles its original design. A Gothic-style 1910 Estey organ still fills the sanctuary with its unique tones. The balance between traditional architecture and contemporary needs has not escaped the congregation and accordingly they have adjusted their facility to accommodate modern-day advancements. New propane heaters have been installed and a new foundation has been poured along with beautiful stained glass windows. Despite the small size of the church, with an average attendance of 40 people during the summer and 10 throughout the winters, the setting is conducive to intimate teachings and reflection. Mr. Speaker, the St. James Episcopal Church has withstood many tests of time and continues to provide a place of worship for the Lake City area. It is truly a great landmark and I would like to congratulate the congregation on their successes and extend my warmest regards and wish them the very best in years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, this evening I want to talk about a number of different issues with my colleagues. As my colleagues know, we have just come back from our August recess and there are some issues that have come up. First of all, I hope later in the week to talk a little more about natural resources and talk about our public lands. I was up in Alaska and had the privilege to enjoy Mt. McKinley and Denali National Park. Beautiful. Alaska, as we all know, is a great, great State and I learned a lot on my trip up there. I also spent a good deal of time back in my district, the Third Congressional District of Colorado, which many of my colleagues know includes almost all of the mountains of Colorado. In fact, the Third Congressional District of Colorado geographically is larger than the State of Florida. And of the 67 or so mountains above 14,000 feet in the United States, 53 of them are located in my district. It is the highest district in the Nation. As a result, there are a lot of things that are particular to the Third Congressional District not found in many other districts in the country. Seventy-five percent of the land in this Nation, including Alaska, 75 percent of the land above 10,000 feet is in the Third Congressional District of Colorado. The Third Congressional District contains the majority or the largest amount of ski resorts of any congressional district in the United States, world-renowned resorts in Aspen, Colorado; Vail, Telluride, Durango, Steamboat, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So I hope later this week to get an opportunity to address my colleagues on some of the issues like public lands, like water, like wilderness areas, national parks, and national monuments because these issues are very important. But tonight I want to talk about a couple of other subjects. I would like to visit for a few minutes about the President and the budget and the economic situation that we are in. As many of my colleagues know, I serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, and that committee is working very hard on both sides of the aisle to try to figure out some answers to what would be the appropriate government interaction in regards to the economy. I would also like to talk about missile defense and the importance of missile defense. And the third thing I would like to talk about, and which I will start out at the very beginning with, is sex and interns. I have come under a great deal of criticism in the last month when I have addressed the issues of inappropriate relationships between a United States Congressman, and I am speaking generically here, no specific Congressman, but speaking generically of the United States Congress and exactly what its ethics rules are in regards to inappropriate relationships with interns. That, I have received criticism for. I have had people across the Nation, editorials across the Nation asking why would I think we need an ethical rule in the United States Congress to say that a sexual relationship with an intern is inappropriate? Well, we need that rule in the United States Congress for the same reason that we find that very rule, that very specific content in rules in every educational institution in the United States. I defy any of my colleagues and I defy any of those editorial boards to pinpoint for me one high school in this Nation, to show me one college in this Nation that allows a teacher or a professor to have a sexual relationship or an inappropriate relationship with a student. They do not allow it. A teacher, a professor who engages in a sexual relationship with a student, they are gone. They are fired. It was this body not very many years ago, as a result of Tailhook in the United States Navy, that addressed this with the Department of Defense and the executive agencies. They have very specific rules in our military. A commanding officer engaging in a sexual relationship with a consenting adult, an adult who is consenting but falls below them in the hierarchy of command, is gone. That fast. It does not matter. Why? Because they have a position of authority over the person they are having that sexual relationship with. That is exactly what we have in the United States Congress. We have a position of authority over these interns. But in a lot of these cases these interns, in almost all these cases these interns are students. Now, sure, by the technical definition, these students are adults. I do not know what it is in D.C., maybe 15 or 16. So, theoretically, if they are above statutory rape age, 15 or 16 years old, they are an adult. So some of these editorials and even some of my colleagues have said to me, hey, they are grown up. Give me a break. Why does the field of medicine, doctors, prohibit themselves from having sex with patients? It is considered an inappropriate relationship and it is in their ethics. They can lose their medical license for an inappropriate relationship. Why does the clergy prohibit it? Because a clergy person, a priest or a minister, is not supposed to have an inappropriate relationship with a parishioner. It is against their ethical rules, their in-house rules. Why does the legal profession, lawyers, prohibit by the ethics of their bars their members from having an inappropriate relationship with their clients? It is because they exercise a great deal of influence over people. Now, what I have proposed, contrary to some of the news reports across the Nation, is not precedent setting. It is not some novel idea that I came up with. It is simply taking the language that applies in the military, that applies in the clergy, that applies in the teaching profession, that applies in the medical profession, that applies in the legal profession and apply it to the one institution in this country that has no ethical rule about it, to the best of my knowledge, and that is the United States Congress. I am not saying going out there and trying to legislate morality. My proposal is not a piece of legislation. I have not introduced a bill. What I have asked is the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to give me an opinion as to whether or not under current ethics regulations, and it is clearly not clear, but under current ethics regulations if this type of relationship is prohibited. And if it is not prohibited, I have asked for an in-house rule, not legislation. We are not trying to draft a bill. I am not trying to legislate morality, I am just trying to say the same rules that prohibit us from misuse of government credit cards, for example, or things like that, that we put this in there as well. Just like every other major institution. Now, remember, these interns are in the United States Congress. First of all, the internship program is what I care the most about, and I want to see that program preserved. It makes me sick that the late night talk shows spend a good deal of their jokes about interns in Washington, D.C. I have seen editorial cartoons across the Nation, and one in particular where they show an intern in a life raft, and I saw this the other day, an intern in a life raft, and her legs are hanging over the side. Underneath the life raft are a bunch of sharks and they have Congressmen as the names for the sharks. I can say to the parents who have interns back here, that this is an exception, this type of inappropriate conduct with an intern. This is a program that has made many changes in young people's lives, and these are young people. These students and interns are not hard to determine who they are. Back here in the United States Congress, interns have separate IDs. Interns have a separate pay classification. They are back here as students of government. The interns are students of government and we are the teachers. We as the Congressmen exercise a disproportionate amount of influence, a disproportionate amount of authority over these young students, and we ought to have certain responses that we follow. I saw last week where somebody asked, why do we need a rule; our own moral beliefs ought to tell us we should not have an inappropriate relationship. Well, why do schools need rules; why do high schools or colleges need them? Why does the clergy, the medical or legal profession need them? Because of the fact there are some people who pay attention to those rules. In my opinion, every Congressman that is now serving today, all 435 of us, reads the rules. And I would venture to say that all of us, or almost all of us, when we read the rules, we will modify our behavior so that we fall in compliance with those rules. If the rules say that we cannot send out constituent mail, say, with political advertising in it, I would venture to say that most Congressmen do not send out congressional mail with political advertising because the rules prohibit it. They follow the rules. So what I have suggested here is not something that should be deserving of ridicule in editorials or under-the-breath talk by some of my colleagues, because what we are trying to do is preserve the internship program. A poll was just recently conducted, and parents were asked if they would trust the Congressmen to send their children back to, their students, their young people, back to be interns. Of course, as you might guess, the answer was overwhelmingly no. This is a program that a lot of my colleagues came through themselves. This is a program that has exposed the young people to the American government and its workings. Every intern in my office, I believe, will remember their internship in Washington, D.C. in a very positive fashion, and it has made a significant change in their life. So I think it is important to preserve this program. Now, I have three children, two daughters that are internship age. One is 22 and the other one is 19. Both of them have been back here in Washington, D.C. And as a parent I want to know, as every parent wants to know with their young son or daughter, that when they are back there they are in a professional relationship. They are back there in a relationship that has a fiduciary responsibility so that they do not have to worry about the Congressman exerting influence over their child. And they are still students. I do not care whether they are technically adults. The fact is they are students of government. Do not forget, in college, or in the military, if a professor in his or her class has a student that, say, is 25 years old, the age does not matter. It is the fact they are a student and it is the fact that there is a position of authority over the student and that is why these educational institutions across the Nation prohibit inappropriate relationships. Now, some people have suggested I not take the floor to discuss this. I feel it is important, because I think it is getting a little out of hand. Not the inappropriate relationships, because contrary to popular belief, in my opinion, most of the Congressmen in these chambers, if not all, and I am not aware of others, all of the Congressmen I know maintain themselves in a professional mode. They are highly ethical when it comes to the treatment of interns and there is not widespread abuse in the internship program. But the perception that has gone out there is in part caused by the fact that our own ethics do not prohibit it, or apparently there is some confusion as to whether our ethics prohibit those types of relationships. So we owe it to the internship program, we owe it to the program to put forth a proper in-house rule. Not legislation. We are not legislating morality, we are putting in our own in-house rule, the kind of prohibition that, as I have said three or four times in these comments, the same kind of prohibition that exists in our churches, exists in our schools, exists in our hospitals, and exists in our courts. Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say I would be interested to look at some of the major news networks who waste editorial space on me, I would venture to say most of them probably have prohibitions against inappropriate relationships with their student interns that are in there to learn how to be journalists. I would ask my colleagues to support me and publicly acknowledge that it is appropriate for us to have in our House rules a rule which prohibits inappropriate relationships with interns. I will wrap it up with this: Let me say that we are talking specifically about interns. I am not talking about a congressman who may choose to go outside of his or her marriage and have a relationship with someone who does not work as a student intern or one staff member dating another staff member. I am not talking about those kinds of relationships. What I am talking about, very, very specifically what I am talking about is a congressman and a student intern. I cannot stress enough that these interns are students. They are students of the government. We do not have to use interns, by the way. As a congressman, we are not required to hire interns. But if we do, we ought to assume some professional responsibility. As I have mentioned several times before, all of my colleagues that I know do assume that professional responsibility, contrary to popular perception. Whether Democrat or Republican, they handle their interns on a professional basis when I have seen them. But I think the internship program, and certainly the reputation, is in danger because of the fact of some of the things that have gone on. Mr. Speaker, I think one way to help rebuild the reputation is to at least put in place a rule; and then if somebody breaks that rule, let them suffer the consequences. We have a process for that. We have checks and balances in that process. There is absolutely no reason that the United States Congress should not have a House rule prohibiting inappropriate relationships between a congressman and a student intern. Let me move on briefly to cover a couple of points. During the break, the liberal side of the Democratic Party has been lambasting President Bush on this tax cut. What the liberal side of the Democratic Party seems to be forgetting is that my good colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), introduced an amendment on this House floor, and that amendment was a tax cut. That amendment called for a tax rebate. It was very similar, not exact, but very similar. Certainly pretty close to exact in concept, but it was very similar to what the President put into place. The debate here on the floor was not the amount of money of the tax cut, the debate was between the Democrats and the Republicans, and really between the liberal side of the Democratic Party because several of the conservative Democrats supported President Bush's program for tax cuts, so it was not a clear Democratic/Republican bill, but the Democrats that opposed it, their primary argument after listening to hours and hours of debate, was not about the amount of money, but it was focused on who should get the rebate. Those Democrats said that the tax rebate should go to people who paid payroll taxes but paid no income taxes. The Republicans and the Democrats who supported the Bush program countered that argument by saying the people who ought to get the tax rebate back are people who paid taxes in. You should not give a tax rebate to people who had no tax liability. That is where the intensity of the debate focused. Now because our economy continues to go south, which everyone acknowledges, it really started to do that about 6 months before President Clinton left office, but now that the economy continues to go south, instead of joining together as a team, which is what the American people are demanding, we are seeing the Democrats starting to pile on President Bush, and I heard over the weekend one of the leaders said Bush is the architect of this bad economy. What does he mean? Does my colleague think Bush went out and designed a bad economy? Does my colleague think any of us are comfortable that our economy is going back and continues to worsen? No. But there are some people who are going to use this bad economy, and some people in leadership positions throughout this country, that want to use this bad economy for their own political advantage. They are not worrying about what do we do for the American people to improve this economy, but instead trying to figure out how can we win the elections next year by monopolizing on how terrible this economy is and doing the blame game. The time has come. We cannot allow this economy to continue to go in its downward direction and perhaps get into an uncontrollable spiral just because you want political advantage next year in the elections. Every one of us, the Democrats, the Republicans, have an obligation to come together as a team. Sure we will have some debates, but our primary focus ought to be what can we do in working with the President of the United States to try and get this economy to at least level out or hopefully begin a recovery. There are a lot of unique situations about the economy that we face today. One of those is that the entire world is in an economic recession. Many of the countries, a lot of the countries in the world are in an economic recession. The world is in an economic slowdown. The United States is swaying back and forth as to whether or not we go into that economic recession. Mr. Speaker, so in a time like this, there is a demand for us to work together as a team for the benefit of the American people so that they have a healthy economy. I would advise my colleagues, take a look at the Sunday talk shows, and take a look at which one of our colleagues really want to work as a team to improve this economy or really want to take advantage of the sour economy for political purposes for next year's elections. If you know some of them, obviously you know who the ones are that want to take political advantage, you ought to say, I understand that we want political advantage, but maybe we better pay attention to what is happening. While we are preparing for next year's elections, the ship has a big hole in its side. We are taking on a lot of water. We may be so worried about next year's elections, by the time we get that secured and take a look at the boat, we may have too much water to save the boat. I expect now that we are back in session that we are going to see people popping up here and there trying to take political advantage of this economy. On the other hand, if my colleagues want to see examples of leadership, take a look at which Members of those parties stand up and are willing to walk back and forth across this aisle and say, Hey, as team, what are we going to do on this economy? How are we going to control spending? Are we going to need further tax cuts? The Democrats over the weekend on national television on the Sunday shows acknowledged that additional tax cuts may be necessary. Why are they necessary? We need to get more money into the economy. That is why the interest rates have been lowered. That is why Greenspan lowered the interest rate. That is why President Bush put into effect his tax cut. That is why we are talking about additional tax cuts, and we need to figure out in what areas of the country government spending makes some sense, and what do we need to do about deficit spending. Will deficit spending become a necessity to prevent the country from going into a recession? Mr. Speaker, I have some ideas to those questions, and I take it upon myself to have the responsibility, and I think most of my colleagues do, and I hope all of them do, to assume that responsibility to come across that aisle and talk. I invite the liberal Democrats, put down your arms and come across and help us come up with a solution because in the end, maybe next year's elections you will have an advantage, but in the meantime, you may very well be a participant in driving this ship to the bottom of sea, and now is our time to avoid it. I hope to see some effort of cooperation from the Democratic side and from the Republican side in an effort to improve our economy, or at least get this country going in a positive recovery from where we are right now. Mr. Speaker, for the balance of my time I would like to talk about missile defense. I think missile defense has been mischaracterized in the last month. There are a number of issues of missile defense that I want to discuss. First of all, we will talk about the anti-ballistic missile treaty. I want to talk about the capabilities that this country is going to need for the future, about the weaknesses that we have, about the responsibilities and the obligations we have to the next generation in regards to the defense of this country. This country is not the most popular country in the world. It certainly is the strongest country in the world, the strongest country in the history of the world. This country has done more than any other country in the history of the world. This country has some of the best of everything. But it is all at risk if we do not continue to defend ourselves. We have to be on constant alert that somebody else wants something we have or somebody else wants to do harm to us. I had a group of high school students in my office, and we began to talk and we talked about defense. I can tell Members, the students today are smart young men and women. They are very thoughtful, and they look into the future. We talked about defense. I asked them, I said what student do you think in your school gets in the least amount of fights. One said the person who is in the best shape, the person that is the strongest, the toughest. Not the person that picks the fights, but the person that avoids people picking a fight with them. That is right. If you have in your class or group of friends, if you have somebody who is a black belt in karate, and everybody knows that and everybody knows if they decide to take them on they are probably going to get their nose busted, how many people are going to fight with the person that is a black belt in karate? But the moment they notice the person with the black belt in karate is no longer staying in shape, when they notice that person is not practicing, getting overweight, his or her moves are not what they used to be and really kind of just becoming lazy, what happens? Somebody then begins to take a look, and then the temptation starts. Maybe now when they are not properly defending themselves and not staying in shape, maybe now is the time to take that person on; and it is the same thing with the United States of America. We are in pretty good shape right now, but we cannot bank on the good shape we have been in in the past. We have to bank on how well we keep ourselves in shape for the future. What do we have in regards to military apparatus and defense. I know there are a number of people out there that say and kind of go on the theory we should stop military spending and we should limit defense spending, and do it in peaceful discussion. We should settle things in peaceful ways. And I have interest, in the last year there seem to be a lot more people saying violence has no place in our society. Well, I am here to tell Members violence does have a place in society. That is exactly how we took care of Hitler, and that is exactly what our police officers do. But these people are correct that while violence is sometimes necessary, it ought to be the last remedy that we use. Obviously we need to have the ability to communicate, and communication is a very important part of a Nation's defense. That is why our Secretary of State, and fortunately we have an excellent Secretary of State in Colin Powell, that is why the position is so critical. That is why we have ambassadorships. One of the best elements of our defense is communication with other countries. Talk to people. Have the ability to negotiate. Have the ability to try and understand where they are coming from; but sometimes that fails. We saw it in the Persian Gulf. Despite repeated warnings by the President, that country failed to communicate; and we gave them every chance, and finally we had to resort to violence; but as I said, it should be the last remedy. When we talk about our country, we need to talk about something. Let us look back, for example, in history, in the sixties and the seventies, about 30 years ago. At that time, as you know, the Russian empire was in existence, U.S.S.R., Soviet Union, Communist, threatening to take over the world, Krushchev and people like that had been their previous leaders, talked very strongly about the United States was the number one enemy. The United States knew that it had to build up and they did so, and even in the Kennedy years and so on; and we had the Cuban missile crisis and so on, we began to build up. Somebody came up with an idea that said, you know, Russia has got a lot of nuclear missiles and the United States has a lot of nuclear missiles; maybe what we ought to do is sign a treaty between the two, communicate between the two and a treaty should be what we call the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, and this is very, very important. The Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty as its concept, as its original thought of the basis of this treaty says that one country cannot defend itself against the other countries. Now, remember, that the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, often called obviously ABM, the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. The Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty which was executed, signed, only had two parties to it. There are only two parties that are subject to the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Why only two parties in the 1970s? Because there were only two parties that were capable of delivering a nuclear missile upon the land of another country, and they were the United States and the U.S.S.R. That is why you had two parties. Well now, today, how many parties to the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty? Well, theoretically only one because the U.S.S.R. does not exist anymore. The Communist regime fell. But realistically let us say two, still two. Now remember, back in 1970 there were only two countries capable of delivering one missile into another country, only two. That was in the 1970s. What is it today? I do not know: 12, 14. There are lots of countries today. You can start off with China. You can move to India. You can move to Pakistan. You can talk about Israel. You can talk about Iran. You can talk about North Korea. You can talk about South Korea. There are a lot of countries today who are not subject to this Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. So based on that alone, the treaty needs to be modified or eliminated. Let me tell you that when this treaty was drafted, the thought of it was one country would not build a defense. They would agree not to defend themselves against missiles. So the United States agreed not to build a missile defense system. Russia, at the same time, the U.S.S.R., the Communist regime, agreed they would not build a missile defensive system. The theory being that the United States would not fire upon Russia because they knew Russia would retaliate and we would have no defense because we do not have a missile defensive system; and obviously it works the same thing with Russia. Well, the people that drafted this, while I disagree with that concept, that is clearly the basis upon which the treaty was drafted; and while I do disagree with that, I can tell you that the drafters of that document had a lot of foresight in that they knew that as time moved on there may be other circumstances that were unforeseen that entered the picture. Therefore, they put within the four corners of this agreement a clause. They put a clause in there that said that this agreement, they could end the treaty, that the treaty could be abrogated and they called for that. That is a right of the treaty. It is a basic right in the treaty. Now, President Bush has said and the administration has said that the United States could very well terminate that treaty because of our best interests and the risks we have against the best interests of the American people. I have noticed that, frankly, some of the more liberal journalists in the country have said what do you mean you are going to abrogate that treaty? What do you mean you are going to walk away from the ABM treaty? You cannot do that. Read the treaty. Read the treaty. Of course you can do that. It is a fundamental right. It is in the language of the treaty. Of course you can do that, because the people who drafted that 32 years ago knew that in 32 years things might change; and boy, have they changed. Who would have ever imagined 32 years ago that North Korea could deliver a nuclear missile? Who could have ever imagined the fire power of China or India or Pakistan or Israel or other countries in the Middle East or Iran? And not just with nuclear warheads, but with biological warheads as well. Look, we are kidding ourselves, and I can tell you that as Congressmen we have an absolutely inherent obligation, a fiduciary obligation to the American people to provide the American people a defense, a military defense against the aggressiveness of another country. We are fools, we are kidding ourselves, if we continue to think that we should not build a missile defense for this country. In Colorado Springs, Colorado, there is a mountain. It is called Cheyenne Mountain. Cheyenne Mountain is a granite monument, a beautiful mountain. Years ago on the inside of that mountain, they went out and they bored out the center of that mountain. They took the granite out of the center of the mountain, or a portion of it out of the mountain, and they put in there the NORAD defense detection. Inside that mountain, we have the capabilities of detecting within seconds, anywhere in the world, a missile launch. We can within seconds tell you where that launch took place, where the trajectory is of that particular missile, what type of missile we think it is, what kind of warheads we think it has on it. We can tell you where its target is. We can give you the estimated time of arrival. So let us say that North Korea launches a missile, or let us say China launches a missile. Let us say that the target is Oklahoma City, the military base in Oklahoma City. We have the capability, we have it today, we have the most advanced technology in the history of the world. We can immediately know within a couple of seconds we have got a missile launch, it is coming out of China, it is headed for Oklahoma and it is going to hit in 15 minutes. Then what can we do? All we can do is call Oklahoma. Governor, you have got an incoming missile. Sorry, Governor, we decided not to provide a missile defense for this country. Sorry, Governor. We had a lot of people that said we should live by the laws of 30 years ago. Sorry, Governor, we pretended that that threat out there did not exist, even though in fact, Governor, we knew it existed. And sorry, Governor, there is nothing we can do. You are going to have a missile hit in about 13 minutes. God bless you. We will think of you in the future. That is all we can do today. President Bush has had enough guts to stand up and several Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, have had enough guts to stand up and say, uh-oh, we better stop, enough time has gone by, we better pay attention to our responsibilities to the American people. We need to put in place a missile defense system. Missile defense is very complicated. Obviously, we are going to have to research it. Take a look at how much research it took to fly an airplane. Take a look at the money we spent on the space program. Take a look at how much research there was to figure out a TV. You do not just go out there and wave the magic wand and have a perfect missile defense system. Some of my colleagues are saying, Oh, my gosh, we don't have one ready today to go, so we shouldn't build one. Is that ludicrous? Is that crazy? We do not have the technology today, although we do have the technology today, but we do not have one in place, so let us not build one because we have to spend too much time on research. Give me a break. Of course we have got to spend time on research. We need to get a system that is perfected. And it is going to take some time. But we have no time to spare. If we start today, if we give the President the money that the President has requested to put a missile defense system in place, it will still be several years down the road before we can deploy that missile defense system. In the meantime, China has built up more, Iran has built up more, Iraq has built up more, North Korea; and I can go right down through the list. Times have changed. What do we have to do with a missile defense system? You, in effect, have two missiles, two bullets speeding through the sky. You have got to be able to connect your missile defense, it may be a land-based missile, has got to be able to hit this incoming missile. It is like hitting a bullet with a bullet. They are both traveling at very, very fast speeds. You have got to be able to connect them. You cannot just do it with a land-based missile. The best place to stop an enemy missile is where? Where is the best place to stop an enemy missile? On their launching pad. Not while it is over New York City or over the continental United States, but stop that missile when they are getting ready to launch it. How do you do that? You cannot do it with a land-based missile in the United States. You have got to do it with some kind of space technology. You have got to be able to do it with laser. Every peace-loving person in America who is against war, and I guess we are all against war, but who is antimilitary or is against violence, you ought to be the strongest proponents there are for missile defense. Because what happens if that missile leaves the launching pad? Think. For example, a big danger today is not necessarily an intentional launch of a missile. A big danger today is somebody pushes a button by accident. What if we had an accidental launch of a missile incoming to the United States? I mean, if we had the capability to stop that and we confirmed that it was an accident, we may have just stopped the next war. We may have stopped nuclear oblivion because of the fact we were able to stop it before it did harm and determined that it was an accidental launch. Today as somebody launches a missile, let us say that Russia, by accident, launches a nuclear missile or launches a nuclear missile with multiple warheads on it so that the missile comes into the United States and fires multiple warheads and hits several different targets. How convinced do you think the United States is going to be that that was an accident? What do you think our response would be? We could very easily end up with a nuclear war on our hands. So even those of you who are big proponents of no violence, and I hope you are successful in your efforts, by the way, but realistically I do not think you will be, but let us say those of you who are absolutely opposed to violence, you ought to be the strongest proponents there are of a missile defense system, because the best way to avoid that violence is to take away the tool of violence that they have, and that is a missile that they could deliver to the United States. So you have several different stages that you want to develop so that you can take out an incoming enemy missile or a missile launched by mistake. One, you want to be able to get it on the launching pad. Ideally, that is the best place to do it. If it gets off the launching pad, you want to be able to, at any different time, have satellite laser beam technology that hopefully can destroy that over the ocean. Then, finally, if it gets into the United States, over into our airspace, you want to have the capability of not only satellite laser beam but you also want to have the capability of ground-based or some other ship-based type of missile that could go up and collide with that missile and take that missile out. About 2 months ago, we had a successful test. They fired a missile and they fired an intercept missile and we hit them. That is pretty good. Think about it. You cannot miss by this far. You have got to hit. That missile is not that big around. When you take a look at the warhead on top of a missile, it is maybe the width of a car, so you have got to bring those two cars together out there going at the kinds of speeds that they are going at, and they have got to be able to hit. The test the other day was a successful test. We were able to calculate it. So it is a good step. But I am amazed at the people who, number one, criticize the President. He, by the way, is the one whom we charge with the leadership of this country. We say to President Bush, President Bush, you better take a look at this treaty. Are you protecting this country? You are in charge of it. You are the President. You are the guy that we are holding responsible to make sure that we can go to work every day without being concerned about being dragged into some kind of war or having a missile attack against us. Yet we tell them on this end, on this hand we say you are spending too much money, you are dreaming about missile technology that may or may not exist. The fact is, Mr. President, I am proud of you. We need a missile defense system in this country, and we need it, and we have needed it for some period of time; a leader of this country, to finally stand up and say to Russia, look, Russia, we will even share with you our capability to defend ourselves, but you better acknowledge, Russia, that there are no longer two countries in this world capable of firing missiles at each other. That number is in the tens and twenties, maybe even the high twenties, of countries capable; and every month, every year that goes by, some other nation out there is developing the capability to deliver a missile into another country. We have got finally a President who has got enough guts to stand up and say, all right, it is time to get back in shape. It is time to build a military missile defense system for the protection of this country and its allies. Of interesting note, the Europeans, as you know, probably the Brits, some of the strongest allies we have ever had, good allies out there, they are standing up for us. They want a missile defense system. Take a look at the Italians. The Italians, their Prime Minister, they support this. So do not be misled by the national media that may say the Europeans say that this could throw off the balance of power, and that the United States is a warmonger because they are trying to deploy a missile defense system. You watch what happens in Europe. You watch what the French do and some of the other people do over in those European countries once we perfect that technology. They are going to be at our front door. They are going to be at our front door with their Xerox machines, saying, look, can we get a copy of what you have got, because we too have an obligation to defend the people of our country. As far as I am concerned, I would like to see every nation in the world have a defense apparatus so that they could stop incoming missiles, because I really, really am concerned, really concerned, about an accidental missile launch. Now, some people who are, I guess, theoretical in the concept of peace, say, well, everybody should agree not to fire a missile. Everybody should lay down their arms. All we have to do is look at the Middle East. I mean, look, there are inherent things of human nature, and we better accept them, and most of us have accepted the fact that there will always be somebody who is not willing to lay down their arms, and as long as one people has their arms, you better be willing to defend against it. The United States, because of our prominence in the world, because we are such a strong power, will always have somebody who wants to take us on, who wants to launch a missile against the best interests of the citizens of the United States. Now, we have some appropriation battles coming up here pretty soon. We know the basis of our economy. It is requiring that we tighten our belt, like every other American citizen, that we manage the Federal budget just like the American families have to manage their own home budget, and we have to take a look at what programs are priority programs. The President has made it very clear that there are a couple of priorities for him, and when he says ``for him,'' he speaks of his concept for the country. In other words, there are a couple of programs that are of priority for the Nation. The first one, education. The President has asked for a considerable increase in appropriations and in reform, regulation, regarding education; testing, accountability, and more money for education. That is pretty hard to argue, although, as you might guess, on our floor we manage to find argument about it. But education is one of the priorities of this President. The other appropriation he is talking about is the military. Now, remember, when we talk about military, in excess of 70 percent of our military budget goes for salaries and wages. We have got to pay these men and women that are serving this country something above the poverty level. We have to be able to provide for them. So we have to be able to take that into consideration. But one of his priorities contained within that military priority is military defense. I am suggesting to my colleagues, no, I am not suggesting to my colleagues, I am telling you, the time has come. We have got to work with the President on a military missile defense system. We cannot continue to waste any more time. We have an obligation to the next generation, to my kids, to your kids, to your grandkids, to my grandkids, we have an obligation to provide a defense apparatus in this Nation so that they do not live under the threat of an accidental missile launch or an intentional missile launch against the United States of America. We are the ones today that make those decisions for tomorrow. That is why we were elected. We were not elected to sit here and not think about tomorrow. The President has said to the United States Congress, think about education tomorrow. What are the results tomorrow? And it is the same thing with our military defense. Think about tomorrow, because, before you know it, tomorrow is here, and we have added many, many more countries in the world that have that capability to launch missiles. Mr. Speaker, let me show this poster. Take a look at today. I am talking about nuclear warheads. But do not forget that on a missile you can also deliver biological or chemical warheads. Take a look. Every spot on this map is a country that is capable of delivering known or probable biological and chemical programs, and they can deliver those chemicals with a missile. Now, remember, in 1970 when that treaty, the antiballistic missile treaty was drafted, there were two countries, the United States and the USSR, there were only two countries in the world that had to be concerned about that. But, because of this expansion, things have changed. I want to stress to my colleagues, because this argument continues to come up again and again and again, and in my opinion it has no validity, and that argument is the proposition that we cannot build a missile defense system without violation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which we have no right to exit from. What I am saying here tonight is that Antiballistic Missile Treaty, fortunately, the people who drafted it, as I mentioned earlier, I disagree with the concept that the treaty was drafted 30 years ago, but fortunately the people who drafted that treaty had the foresight to say, gosh, over a period of time the consequences may change to the extent that the United States and the USSR ought to be able to walk away from this treaty; that the consequences are of such importance that it justifies withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. I think the President is justified in taking the position that with all of the countries today that can accidentally or intentionally launch a missile into the United States, that the circumstances have changed dramatically enough that the United States has to take a new approach; that the United States can no longer afford, can no longer afford to sit by and pretend that in our future there will be no missile attack against the United States. In fact, it is just the opposite. The United States must prepare today for tomorrow and for the future generations, prepare for the expectation that in fact a missile at some point or another will be launched against the United States of America, either intentionally or accidentally. But once that missile is airborne, it does not much matter as far as the consequences of the missile hit. But it does matter if we are able to stop that missile, let us say, on its launching pad; and let us say we are able to determine it was an accidental launch, that somebody made a mistake, that some mechanism, a malfunction, and we were able to stop a war or we were able to stop American retribution, which you know because of our capabilities would be severe, harsh, and instantaneous; that we were able to avoid that because we had in place a system that was capable of stopping an attack against the United States. So I urge every one of my colleagues, instead of playing the political rhetoric game, which I am beginning to see emerge up here, against the missile defense system, put that political rhetoric aside for the benefit of the future generations of the United States of America. Try and put in place a vision for the future, a future that allows the people and the population of the United States, and the friends of the United States of America, the capability of making a missile attack a nonissue, because we have the capability to stop it. For those of you who want to end violence or at least do what you can to minimize violence, you, as I said earlier, should be the strongest proponents we have for a missile defense system. So I congratulate the President, I congratulate the administration, and, frankly, I commend both Democrats and Republicans on the House floor that are coming across this aisle to stand in unison in favor of a missile defense system for this country. Let me just reiterate a couple points I made earlier. It is appropriate and it is timely for the United States Congress to put in our rules a rule which prohibits inappropriate conduct between a Congressman and an intern. I spent a good deal of time at the beginning of my remarks explaining why I have pursued this issue. I spent a good deal of time pointing out that we are the only major institution, the U.S. Congress is the only major institution in United States that does not have a prohibition against inappropriate relationships between a Congressman and an intern. For example, the teaching profession, every school in the Nation prohibits it; the medical profession prohibits it; the military prohibits it; the clergy prohibits it; the legal profession prohibits it; most major corporations prohibit it. The United States Congress ought to follow good example. It is not precedent breaking. We should set a good example, follow a good example, and put in place a rule that prohibits that type of inappropriate conduct. Finally, as my final remarks, I urge all of us to stand as a team to address this economy. This is not a laughing matter. This is a very serious situation. We are in a tunnel, we are not out the other side of it, and there is a train coming in. We need to stand in unison to figure out how to get out of that tunnel. And there is light. We can get out of the tunnel, but the more bickering and partisanship that we see on this House floor, the less likely that we can fulfill our leadership responsibilities and obligations and lead our country into some type of economic recovery.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember an honorable and distinguished man who served the State of Colorado for nearly three decades as a Colorado Division of Wildlife officer. It is with profound sadness, that I now rise to honor the life and memory of Mr. Phil Mason who recently passed away. Phil was a caring and compassionate individual who was dedicated to teaching youngsters about wildlife and their surroundings in Hinsdale County. Phil, for example, would often bring an injured eagle or hawk to the local elementary school to give children a firsthand experience with nature. He worked in Lake City as a Colorado Division of Wildlife officer, and was also engaged civically as Mayor and as Trustee on the Town Board of Lake City. Phil was committed both to his State and to his community by putting the interests of others before his own. Phil established himself in his community as an outstanding, hardworking, and respectable man who could be counted on as a friend, coworker, and teacher. Literally everyone turned to Phil for guidance and friendship. Phil's memory will live on with those whose lives have been touched by him. Mr. Speaker, at the age of 60, Mr. Phil Mason will be especially missed by his wife, two children, and brother. As family and friends mourn his passing, his compassion will shine through the hearts of those close to him and to those who knew him best. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy and warmest regards to his family during this time of remembrance. Phil Mason will surely be missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, after 20 years of gracious service to Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Ken Kieck has opted to retire as a member of the police force there. To serve the public in such a capacity is a position worthy of praise and I would like to recognize Ken's contributions to the people of Glenwood. Ken constantly acted with high levels of energy as he trained new officers just entering the ranks in the department. The new officers referred to Ken as the ``Answer Guy.'' He was very concerned with the proper education of the new officers and sought to ensure that they were taught the correct way the first time in every matter. Throughout his time on the force, Ken served as a patrolman, an interim Sergeant and an administrative officer. To honorably serve the public is a great task and Ken's service has been one of pride and dedication. While Glenwood is safer due to the efforts of this officer, his contributions will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ken Kieck for all that he has done and extend my warmest regard and best wishes to him upon his retirement and for many years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, to place your life in the line of duty day in and day out for the sake of others is an honorable and noble task, yet that is exactly what police officers do daily. Sgt. Tom McCorkle, who served as an officer in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, has recently announced his retirement after 23 years and I would like to accentuate the importance that he played in the community and thank him for his dedicated service. Prior to his service in Glenwood, Tom was a police officer for four years in California. Glenwood Police Chief Terry Wilson noted how incredibly quick and accurate Tom was in all that he did. Sgt. McCorkle suffered a shoulder injury from an incident in which he was saving a person's life in 1984. Despite many attempts to heal his shoulder, its hindrance has forced Tom to end his career in public service. Mr. Speaker, Sgt. Tom McCorkle acted with great professionalism in all that he did throughout his career. He truly sought to ensure that pride and respect was upheld in conjunction with the community. Tom never forgot that safety and protection were the most important part of the service he offered to the people he served. It is with great pride that I recognize Tom and I would like to extend my appreciation to him for everything that he has done and wish him the best upon his retirement and many years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember the life of Frank Nelson who passed away on Wednesday, September 5, 2001. Frank was the Director of Colorado's Commission for Persons with Disabilities for over a decade and I would like to recognize him for his contributions to the Denver community and for his diligent efforts and dedication. Frank was born in New Hampshire and relocated to Denver, Colorado when he was 2 years old. In 1981, he graduated with a degree in education from the University of Colorado. Following his formal education, Frank was employed by the Montana Independent Living Project, but returned to Denver in 1984 to work as a social worker and vocational counselor. During his tenure as the Director of the Commission, Frank and his colleagues strived to enhance the accessibility of municipal areas and sought to ensure that parking laws were enforced for the sake of the disabled. Besides these tasks, Frank's team also worked in conjunction with other parts of the city government to review new building plans and make them more accommodating for everyone. Whether it was the new construction of the Pepsi Center, Coors Field or the Denver Performing Arts Center, Frank always challenged the project for the benefit of disabled citizens. Due in part to his efforts, Denver was recognized as ``America's most wheelchair friendly city'' by New Mobility Magazine in 1997. Mr. Speaker, Frank was an outstanding citizen who constantly watched out for the well being of everyone, particularly the disabled. His contributions in Denver have aided numerous people in living life to its fullest extent. I would like to take this time to recognize Frank's hard work on the behalf of others and extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to his family at this time of remembrance. Frank was a great man and will be missed by many.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember a caring and compassionate family man from Salida, Colorado who has recently passed. It is with profound sadness that I now rise to honor the life and memory of Mr. Ed Bradbury. Born and raised in Granite, Ed was a dedicated citizen who spent time with the U.S. Army in Germany before heading back home to Salida in order to pursue a life in public service. Ed was elected and served on the Salida City Council for 10 years prior to being elected as a Chaffee County Commissioner where he served diligently for eight years. During this time, Ed worked hard for the people of Salida and Chaffee County and was known as a person who accomplished much during his time in office. He was also well known as the owner of the Salida Sweet Shop, which brought joy and happiness to countless children. Sadly, Ed died after falling down a mineshaft near his birth place of Granite, Colorado, in a mine he had worked since 1954. His family, friends, and those people whom he had served throughout his career as a public servant will miss Ed dearly. His wife, Estella and their three daughters Charlene, Theresa, and Dianna will solely miss their caring husband and father. Mr. Speaker, at the age of 71, Ed Bradbury will be remembered and appreciated for his family values and devotion towards the public sector. As family and friends mourn his passing, his lessons and service will live forever in the hearts of those who knew him and whom he assisted. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to his family at this time of remembrance. Ed Bradbury will surely be missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I would like to acknowledge the loss of a valuable member of our community. Conni Logan suffered from a brief illness that took her life on August 13, 2001, at the age of 59. Conni was a loving wife and mother who had a deep passion for the arts and dedicated her life to teaching that appreciation to others. Conni was born in 1942 as one of seven children in a family that valued and encouraged diversity. She went on to graduate from college with a degree in psychology after which she received master's degrees in art history and exhibition design. Although living in Santa Fe, New Mexico when she passed, she had made valuable contributions to the State of Colorado as an educator. In 1993, she was a Program Director at the Aspen Campus of the Colorado Mountain College, Center for Excellence in Arts. In addition to curating 30 art exhibits during her time there, she also developed and instructed art history and principles in art courses using the college's telecourse system. Her move to Santa Fe gave her the opportunity to work at the Santa Fe Children's Museum and the Conlon Siegel Galleries. Mr. Speaker, Conni made valuable contributions to the education of our community and through her creativity and leadership gave many a greater appreciation for the arts. Conni Logan will be remembered as a woman who saw the beauty of the world in a way that most of us do not experience. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to those close to Conni, as she will surely be missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment and pay tribute to the passing of a valuable member of our community. The life of Jim Bray, a former resident of Snowmass, Colorado, was cut short at the age of 66 when he was hit by a car in front of his home in Prescott, Arizona. I would like his wife, Susan, and his sons, Alexander and Dennis, to know that many hearts are reaching out to them in their time of mourning. Jim Bray was an accomplished man with a strong character. He was born in Halstead, Kansas in 1935. He graduated from high school in Houston, Texas in 1953 after which he attended both the University of Houston and the University of Hawaii. He then went on to serve in the United States Marine Corps and the United States Air Force. His enduring drive led to a respected career as a professional hotel manager eventually bringing him to Snowmass, Colorado where he was a driving force behind the construction of the Snowmass Resort Association's Conference Center. Although he remained there for only 5 years, he had made a valuable contribution to the community that will endure for years to come. Mr. Speaker, although the sudden death of Jim Bray is certainly unexpected, his memory will live in the hearts of many. His contributions and service to the community and the United States will not be forgotten. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Jim Bray. He will surely be missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Celia Dunham on being named Colorado Teacher of the Year 2001 by Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, and the Miss America Organization. Celia Dunham, of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, teaches first grade at Strawberry Park Elementary. For her accomplishment, she will be presented $2,500 in the name of Strawberry Park, and she will be considered for the national award. Celia has taught full-time in the Steamboat School District since 1978. She is the first to explain that she has benefited from her kids by teaching them. She told Avi Salzman of The Steamboat Pilot that ``their energy goes into me,'' and that, ``It's what keeps me young.'' As any good teacher acknowledges, she also realizes that ``she has learned an incredible amount from her kids.'' Before entering consideration for the state competition, Celia first won the local competition, which was chosen from nominees entered by local Wal-Mart customers. For that honor, she received $500 to use in her classroom. She was then entered into the statewide competition with 52 other candidates, where a panel of educational experts selected her as the winner. The contestants were chosen for their ``rapport with students, student performance and teaching standards,'' said Wal-Mart Spokesman Rob Phillips. Mr. Speaker, teachers provide a service vital to our Nation's youth. Celia has provided an excellent example for other teachers to follow. I would like to thank her for her dedication, and to congratulate her on being Colorado's Teacher of the Year.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor I would like to recognize Jake Kraus for his heroic efforts during World War II. His courage led to the liberation of thousands of half-starved American prisoners from the inhumane living conditions that they had been forced to endure. Jake Kraus grew up on a farm in Pea Green, Colorado. Mr. Kraus was drafted into the war and served as a tank driver under the command of General Eisenhower. The capture of the Ludendorf Bridge was due in part to Mr. Kraus and his Tank Destroyer Group, which in turn, opened the first permanent gateway to Berlin. This marked the defeat of Hitler's dream and the beginning of the long-awaited liberation of the American Prisoners Of War. Mr. Speaker, the service that Mr. Kraus gave our country will always be remembered by the soldiers whose lives he saved and by their families for the years to come. Even after putting his life on the line, Kraus insists that he did nothing heroic. But such a humble and brave individual deserves many accolades for his service to our country. It is with great admiration that I thank and congratulate Mr. Kraus for a job well done.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a man who has dedicated himself to the care and well being of others. Dr. William Shanks has not only sought to improve the lives of others through the practice of medicine, but he has also been actively involved in various political and community-based organizations throughout his career. Upon his retirement, I would like to recognize the difference that Dr. Shanks has made in so many lives. Born in Scotland in 1943, William came to the United States with his family and eventually took up residence in Philadelphia. This is where William studied from his early years through his medical schooling at Temple University. William's time was occupied not only with his studies, but also as a member of the local Teamster's Union. Following his medical education, his profession provided the opportunity to work at the Presbyterian Medical Center in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Shanks always harbored a sincere desire to serve his country and after his internship was completed in Colorado, he joined the United States Navy and was a diving and medical officer on a submarine. After serving his country, William returned for four more years at St. Joseph Hospital in Denver to complete his medical residency. In 1976, Dr. Shanks relocated to Grand Junction, Colorado to the benefit of the community of Grand Junction. Dr. Shanks joined the staffs of St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center and the Grand Junction VA Medical Center. Beyond the scope of his medical responsibilities locally as the Chief of Surgery and the Chief of Staff, Dr. Shanks chose to further serve his community by sitting on the board of St. Mary's Hospital, Colorado Trauma Institute, Colorado Medical Society Foundation and the Mesa County Independent Physicians' Association. Furthermore, William has had the distinct honor of serving as president of the Mesa County Medical Society, Denver Academy of Surgery and other organizations. At the intersection of medicine and politics, Dr. Shanks has recently been appointed to the Governor's Trauma Council. Equally important, William and his wife Stella have raised four children--Maggie Anne, Bradley, Fiona and Lorna. While maintaining a busy schedule providing care to his patients and the State of Colorado, Dr. Shanks always found solace in the great outdoors, woodworking and fishing. Mr. Speaker, William's retirement marks the beginning of his opportunity to spend more time with his family and hobbies. His contributions will never be forgotten, as his actions will forever touch the hearts and bodies of his patients. I would like to thank Dr. Shanks for his tireless efforts on behalf of the people of his county, the State of Colorado and the citizens of the United States. At this momentous time in his life, I extend my warm regards to Dr. Shanks and his family and wish them all of the best in the years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, many of our citizens dedicated their efforts to the success of our military forces. William Horace Raimer is the embodiment of service, success, and sacrifice and clearly deserves recognition from this body. Bill Raimer was stationed on the USS Flying Fish--an SS-229 Gato Class submarine that was 311 feet long and carried a crew of 67 men led by nine officers--as a radioman. On the morning of May 29, 1945, the USS Flying Fish submerged and left Guam to an undisclosed location that was later revealed to be the Sea of Japan. The Flying Fish was traveling in a wolf pack called Hydeman's Hellcats, which were three groups of three submarines. The crew was charged with the duty, under the orders of Commander Robert D. Risser, of spending two weeks in the Sea destroying the remains of the Japanese fleet and any supply ships heading for Japan. Their path was laced with mines at various depths and different locations. As the submarine floated by mines, crewmembers could hear the anchor cables of the mines brush against the outside walls. Under attack by depth charges, the USS Flying Fish felt the shakes from the explosions, but was not destroyed. However, a companion ship--the USS Bonefish--was not so lucky and 85 men were lost at sea. The USS Flying Fish was an integral part of the efforts to ensure the Japanese fleet did not succeed in World War II. Out of the nearly 300 submarines in that area at the time, 52 were sunk--a statistic that Bill Raimer remembers all too well. After the war, he moved to Montrose, Colorado with his brother 56 years ago. Although he was awarded numerous ribbons and medals, he is most proud of his Submariners Medal that was presented to him by Admiral Chester W. Nimitz. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to commend William Raimer on his service to this great Nation. His spirit of patriotism added to the success of the Allied Forces and ensured their victory in the Pacific Ocean. While 3,308 submarines never returned home from the war, William Raimer was a survivor and is able to share his story with others. I thank Bill for his dedication and extend my best wishes to him and his family in the time to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Retired Brigadier General Felix Sparks, who proudly served our nation by leading a Colorado National Guard contingent into the European theater during World War II. General Felix Sparks has seen and experienced the horrifying aspects of war that most of us cannot even imagine. Mr. Sparks has lost close friends in battle and although surrounded by death, his heroism shone throughout his service. Mr. Sparks was a member of the team of American soldiers who landed at Anzio and later he joined in liberating the Dachau concentration camp in 1945. After serving his nation, Mr. Sparks moved to Colorado and attended law school at the University of Colorado. After his education, Felix served as a District Attorney for a seven-county judicial district in Colorado's Western Slope and also served as a Colorado Supreme Court Justice. Mr. Sparks is a first-class citizen who dedicated himself towards bettering Colorado both as a justice of the peace and as a commander of the Colorado National Guard. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to a distinguished Colorado citizen-soldier, Retired Brigadier General Sparks. On behalf of our nation and the great state of Colorado, I offer Mr. Sparks my warmest regard and debts of gratitude.