Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor Ethyl Kelham on being an outstanding teacher. Ethyl has been an inspiration to many and has helped many children throughout the various stages of their academic careers. At the age of 74, Ethyl has decided to retire and we wish her the best of luck. Ethyl worked in public school system for 25 years and helped support Pueblo Headstart during her time there. When she left the School District, she joined the Montessori Network and opened her own school about 15 years ago. The Pueblo Montessori School began at the Unitarian Fellowship where Byron Kelham, Ethyl's husband, was the minister. Ethyl's school then moved into a rented space and two years ago entered a new building. Some funding problems hindered the further development of the school and have since caused it to close. However, Ethyl will continue teaching since she will home school her two grandchildren. Touching people's hearts and minds compelled Ethyl to continue teaching and sparked the light of learning in many students. She has watched many children flourish intellectually and follow their dreams. Ethyl Kelham is retiring to spend more time with her family--time well deserved. Mr. Speaker, I honor Ethyl for her hard work and dedication to the teaching profession. Her formidable efforts deserve the praise and admiration of us all. I would like to thank her for her many years of service and congratulate her on her retirement.

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, I would like to pay tribute to Howard and Mary Louise Shaw for their generous gift which will help to prolong and improve the lives of countless cancer patients on the Western Slope. Howard Shaw, who recently passed away, did not let the opportunity slip by to set in motion the foundations for the Shaw Cancer Center. I would like to honor this great man and also to thank and recognize his wife, Mary Louise, who continues to watch the project progress. For years, cancer patients on the Western slope have been underserved; patients in six counties have had no option but to drive across the Continental Divide to Denver in order to receive cancer treatments. As a result, patients were left stranded from their family and friends at a time when a strong support system is most important. Mary Louise and Howard understood this need, and they decided to do something about it. They ``jump-started the project'' by providing over 2/3 of the estimated cost for the 60,000 square-foot, $19 million Shaw Cancer Center, located in Vail Valley. Not only will patients be able to receive treatment closer to home, but they will have access to state-of-the art treatment. Reporter Kathy Heicher quotes Dr. Rifkin, the Director of Medical Oncology Services for the Shaw Cancer Center, as saying, ``The treatment patients can get at the Shaw Cancer Center is as good as anywhere in the region. This is the opportunity of a lifetime for the patients and the people that will work there.'' Mr. Speaker, thanks to Howard and Mary Louise Shaw, cancer patients in the Western Slope can receive top-notch care without sacrificing the support of friends and family. Howard's legacy has already taken hold, and his generosity will relieve many of the added burdens associated with not having local care. I would like to pay tribute to him and to Mary Louise on behalf of Congress for this invaluable gift.

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, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Donavan Cullings for his many years of honorable service to the people of Creede, Colorado. Donavan has made the decision to retire from his position as a municipal judge and will be remembered for his years of dedication and time on the bench. Mr. Cullings grew up in Los Angeles, California until he was inducted into military service immediately following high school. During World War II, he was involved in activities in the South Pacific for three years, diligently serving his country. After returning home, Donavan married his high school sweetheart, Jan Elton, and later joined the Los Angeles Police Department. He dedicated 26 years of his life to law enforcement and then moved to Creede where he bought the Creede Drug Store. The town of Creede eventually had a vacant Marshal position, and Donavan decided to fill that role for eight years willingly. He also served as the County Coroner for 15 years. Another calling attracted Donavan and he answered it by accepting the job of Town Magistrate for Creede, where he honorably served as a municipal judge for 15 years. Mr. Speaker, Donavan Cullings has led a life to strengthen the fabric of the American character whether it be in troubled waters abroad or at home. His vigorous efforts deserve the praise and admiration of us all. As part of his retirement, Donavan will volunteer two days a week at Creede Museum and educate others about Creede's long-standing history. I would like to extend my warmest regards to Donavan upon his retirement and wish him and his family the best in many years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the Lake City Presbyterian Church. The Lake City Presbyterian Church celebrated its 125th anniversary last month, making it the oldest church in Colorado that still utilizes its original building. Lake City's Community Presbyterian Church, originally called Lake City's First Presbyterian Church, was started in 1876 with an organizational meeting in Del Norte, Colorado. Reverend Alexander Darley had scoured the area months before looking for Presbyterians and related religious groups to justify his idea to make Lake City the home to the first Presbyterian Church on the Western Slope of the Continental Divide. According to the church's historical record, Rev. Darley went to every house and tent within six miles of Lake City to acquire names for his petition. After the meeting in June of 1876, a piece of land was secured for the 24'x40' frame where the church was to be built. Construction began in August, and by the end of October the church was completed. The estimated cost of the church was $2,100. Rev. Darling was officially ordained as the minister in 1877, and served Lake City for three years before taking leave. Throughout the years, many ministers have taken the pulpit, including a tape recorder for the winter months of the 1940's and 1950's that filled in the gaps between the summer student ministers that traveled to Lake City. The membership has also fluctuated reaching a high in 1889 of 132 members to its current membership of 84. Many stories accompany the well-kept historical records of the church, and on June 24, 2001 many community members gathered to reminisce about the beautiful old church. One hundred and twenty-five years is a milestone, and that is why Mr. Speaker, I ask Congress to recognize the oldest church in the state of Colorado. It is an honor to have that distinction, and I salute the members of the Lake City Community Presbyterian Church for continuing its lasting tradition.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Herbert Olson for his contribution toward the preservation of Colorado's land and natural resources. Herb worked for forty-three years with the Colorado Bureau of Land Management before recently retiring. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Herbert for the huge strides he has made for Colorado. Herb was instrumental in establishing the land acquisition program for the BLM, which has acquired over 33,000 acres of private property during his time there. His talent for working with a diverse group of people allowed him to acquire land from willing sellers only; never did the BLM use the threat of condemnation to force a sale of land. Because of Herb's work, some of the most breathtaking lands in the world are now under the careful direction of the BLM. His dedication and leadership has provided current residents and visitors of Colorado with the assurance not only that they will be able to enjoy the lands, but also that the property will be preserved for future generations. The leadership that Herb demonstrated during his long tenure with the BLM has proven fundamental for the success of the program. I would like to thank him for his dedication toward our beautiful state and to congratulate him on a long and successful career. He certainly deserves our recognition.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, often times we do not fully appreciate what we have until it's gone. Life is no exception. As Diane Harden suffered from a serious form of heart disease, she was faced with the challenge of losing her heart. Her life was in limbo and every day she was alive it was a blessing. This experience of possibly loosing her life led Diane to gain a new perspective. While her name was placed on a waiting list for nearly 3 months for a donor transplant, finally an organ donor was found to replace Diane's heart. An eighteen year old, under organ donor status, was able to assist Diane and eight others in the pursuit of a healthy life. With only a few bouts of minor rejections, she has fought strongly for her life and lives every moment to the fullest extent. Today, 14 years after the operation, she lives every day with a renewed sense of hope. Diane now takes care of herself and her husband, who suffers from a disease that attacks the spinal chord. Throughout the couple's 31 years of marriage, they have grown together as they have both faced trying experiences with their health. At a time of celebration for her 50th birthday, Diane and seventy-six others gathered to honor her fourteen years of surviving an organ transplant. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my warmest regard and best wishes to Diane Harden and her husband. My prayers are with them for their continued health and renewed hopes.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor and congratulate Dixie Luke for teaching English and social studies to seventh and eighth grade students for thirty years. After providing a positive influence for hundreds of students in their most critical years, she has decided to move on from the teaching profession. Dixie is a longtime Colorado resident--she was born in Hotchkiss, Colorado, and has lived in Glenwood Springs for thirty years. Even now she returns almost daily to her birthplace to build the foundation for her next adventure, which involves making sheep's milk cheese, including the caring for the sheep. She also plans on planting a nearby vineyard. In addition to teaching a more traditional English and social studies curriculum, Dixie used an interdisciplinary unit to give her students a different perspective on learning. One example involved taking students on a day trip to Meeker in order to relate literature to real life. The class first read The Hay Meadow, by Gary Paulson, which is about a boy in Wyoming who has to go to high country to spend a summer working with sheep. Dixie explained that many of her students are from cities and don't have the personal experience to help them relate to the novel's setting. The class then visited the sheep dog trials in Meeker, where they were able to watch the highly trained sheep dogs perform several maneuvers. Another example of a favorite part of the job is the ``Mosaic'' project, which involves teaching the students to use fourteen different reference sources, and then to cite them. While she is an old hand at working with kids, in the past few years, she has discovered a few new enjoyable aspects of the job. For instance, she says the results of new CSAP testing have provided more verification for how much her students have been learning. ``The Glenwood Springs Middle School had the highest reading and writing scores in the district,'' she proudly explained, and those scores are also well above the State average. ``I always thought that we were preparing the kids well, and it was fun to start seeing those results.'' Also, during her last five or six years of teaching, Dixie has enjoyed working with new teachers. One fun thing is ``helping young teachers . . . to work with the kids in the classroom in a successful way,'' she said. Mr. Speaker, Dixie Luke has been a fantastic teacher for thirty years. She has committed herself to her students and has helped to equip them with the education and confidence vital for their success. I would like to thank her for her longtime dedication, and I wish her luck on her next adventure.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to remember the life of Virginia Andrew from Steamboat Springs, Colorado, who passed away on Wednesday, July 25. At the age of 86, many will miss her as we all mourn her passing. Virginia was a columnist for the Steamboat Pilot, the local paper in Steamboat Springs. She was employed there for more than 50 years. While her original column ``Sidney News'' was named after an area that no longer exists in the Yampa Valley, her memory will live on in the hearts and minds of the people that she touched. Throughout her career, Virginia covered a wide range of topics ranging from rural news to daily events. She even had issues pertaining to agriculture and politics. Beyond the life of a journalist, she also operated a Farmers Union Insurance Office for 20 years starting in 1945. She also was a founding partner in the Unique Shop--a cooperative that provided second-hand goods and other items to the elderly population. Amidst all of her activities, the town was always able to recognize her when she drove by in her large blue Oldsmobile sedan. Mr. Speaker, Virginia Andrews was a person who lived an accomplished life. She always cared for people and wanted only the best for them. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy and warmest regards to her family at this time of remembrance. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Harry Butler for all of his contributions to Grand Junction and the state of Colorado. In addition, I would like to congratulate him on his recent election to the Grand Junction City Council, which marks the first person of African-American descent to hold a position on the City Council. Harry has always been persistent in his efforts to achieve his goals. As a young child, he used to attend church services in the Handy Chapel located in Grand Junction. The chapel was also a residence for him and his wife, Danielle, after they were married. At that time, they exchanged rent for cleaning the facility. The church filled a large portion of his heart. Today, Harry serves as a minister and leads the Saturday morning services at the church he used to reside in. From the age of seven, Harry has done everything from delivering newspapers to working for the Job Corps in Collbran for 11 years. Harry has consistently extended a helping hand to warm the hearts of others. He worked for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in Grand Junction and has become an outstanding minister. He and Danielle have been happily married for 37 years and are proud parents to three children. Throughout his trials and tribulations, Harry strengthened his faith and found compassion in the Bible. He never takes a moment for granted and truly understands the value of life. Now as a City Councilman, Harry hopes to work on issues of community safety, drug utilization and transportation. Mr. Speaker, Harry Butler has done great things throughout his life and I am certain he will tackle his new position with the utmost attention and dedication. I would like to extend my warmest regard to Harry and his family and wish him the best throughout his term as a councilman.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Bonnie Hudgeons for setting an example and for providing hope to transplant patients. In 1986, Bonnie, a longtime Lake City, Colorado resident, was given blood that was infected with Hepatitis C during her heart bypass surgery. Not until 1991, when she had an angioplasty surgery, did her doctors realize that she had the infection. In 1997, she was first considered for a liver transplant, but because the demand for liver transplants outweighs the supply, Bonnie was turned down. ``They thought I was too far gone,'' she told Nicole Ashton of Silver World. She persisted by asking for a second opinion, and this time her name was added to the waiting list. Bonnie's health deteriorated from there. She fell into four of five comas, once for a period of five days and she was unable to care for herself even when she was conscious. In March of 2000, after 14 months on the waiting list, Bonnie got the okay for a transplant. The surgery lasted for seven hours, and she had several complications afterward, including temporary kidney failure and memory problems. In spite of the difficulties with the surgery, Bonnie said, ``I had faith, trusted in God, and made it through.'' Bonnie emphasizes her gratitude for her donor. Through the hospital, she was able to get in touch with the donor's family, and they exchanged letters. Bonnie wrote, for instance, ``I will forever marvel at the miraculous gift of life an organ donor gives.'' Bonnie eventually also met her donor's parents and sister. ``We still email back and forth,'' she said. ``I carry a picture of Chad in my billfold.'' Mr. Speaker, Bonnie Hudgeons, who is sometimes called ``the miracle girl,'' is a source of hope for anyone who faces difficult odds. I would like to pay tribute to her for sharing her story, and for being an inspiration both to those who need a transplant and for those who are contemplating becoming a donor.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor Dr. Richard Hoffman, Colorado's chief medical officer and state epidemiologist. Richard recently resigned from his position at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, after serving as state epidemiologist since 1987, and as chief medical officer since 1998. Richard has remained active, professional, and reliable throughout his time with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. He has drafted laws, seen his writings published in over sixty peer- reviewed journals, written for ten non-peer-review or public health publications, written two book chapters and five published letters. According to Dr. Sue Binder of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, he also directed one of the division's most successful traumatic brain injury (TBI) surveillance projects. In addition, he helped to launch the Colorado follow-up registry. These efforts have ``led to the first credible estimate of TBI-related disability and health services usage prevalence in the United States.'' The Colorado TBI registry, wrote Dr. Binder, ``blazed the trail for our planned efforts to create spinal cord injury registries.'' In addition, according to a draft of the Colorado Board of Health Resolution, Richard ``epitomizes public health leadership and leaves an indelible legacy of accomplishments.'' The resolution says, also, ``Dr. Hoffman's efforts have paved the way for significantly improving the health and welfare of our state's population.'' Jane Norton, the executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment agrees; she wrote, ``The bottom line is that his efforts have translated into making Colorado a healthier place to live and raise a family.'' Mr. Speaker, Dr. Richard Hoffman's expertise, leadership, compassion, and hard work have improved the state of Colorado. I would like to thank him for his positive influence on Colorado's health care, and I wish him well on his future endeavors. His dedication is certainly deserving of this honor.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Steve Rippy for helping to build a successful assessor's office in Garfield County, Colorado, and to wish him luck on his next endeavor as New Castle Town Administrator. Steve served as Garfield County assessor for almost seven years, and his total time in the office amounts to twenty years. In addition, he served as New Castle Mayor for seven years and as Councilman for eight years. Steve was also a member of the Town Planning and Zoning Commission for fifteen years. Steve reflected on his time as Garfield County assessor, telling Mike McKibbin of The Daily Sentinel, ``I think I'm proudest of a well- organized and efficient office with appraisals of property.'' Steve's satisfaction is certainly well founded, as the ``significant reduction in the number of appeals (of reappraisals)'' during his time there reflects. Certainly related, too, are Steve's communication skills. ``We're very willing to listen to people,'' he said. In addition, Steve demonstrated his ability to overcome adversity. While the assessor's office employed sixteen people when Steve began working in 1981, they lost nearly one third of their workers when the oil shale bust forced the office to lose five employees. However, under Steve's direction, the assessor's office bounced back nicely. ``Now we're almost back to where we were and I think we're able to handle so many more new subdivisions,'' he said. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, Steve Rippy is an excellent community servant and a skilled leader. I would like to congratulate him for a job well done, and to wish him well on his new career.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Earnest ``Doc'' Walcher of Gypsum, Colorado. After 25 years of retirement, Doc is now lending his hand to the town of Gypsum. He and town manager Jeff Shroll, it turns out, make a great team as well as good neighbors. Doc Walcher was born in 1921 in Oklahoma, and he moved with his family to Gypsum during the Depression. He enlisted in the Army during World War II as an aircraft mechanic, serving at Guadalcanal and in the Philippines. After the war, he returned to Gypsum, where he has resided ever since. Doc served the people of Colorado diligently before his retirement, working as head supervisor of the Colorado State Highway Department. He helped build and maintain Highway 24, Tennessee Pass, and Interstate 70 over Vail Pass before retiring in 1976. Jeff Shroll, Gypsum's Town Manager, ``noticed that Walcher, who lives directly across the street. . .had the most manicured and best-kept lawn in town.'' Jeff asked Doc if he might be interested in helping to keep up the lawns in Turgeonville, a property owned by Gypsum. Walcher eagerly accepted, and now that he is working again, he is ``loving every minute of it,'' according to Julie Imada-Howard of the Vail Daily. The feeling seems mutual; Jeff says that it has been ``great to work with'' Doc. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor Doc Walcher for his continued service and willingness to help the community. He is truly an inspiration to us all.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I know it is late in the evening, but this evening I wanted to visit with you about an issue that I think is inherently important to every citizen of America, and not just the citizens of America, but to the world as a whole, to every country in this world as we go into the future. Tonight I want to speak to you about a subject that I think we have an obligation to use some vision about, to think about future generations, and what this generation needs to do not just to protect our generation, but to protect future generations, to give future generations the type of security that as American citizens they deserve, that as American citizens they can expect their elected officials, they can obligate their elected officials to provide for them. Tonight I want to visit about missile defense. Now, we have heard a lot of rhetoric in the last few days about missile defense. Well, we do not need it. It is going to escalate the arms race. Why, building a defense to protect your country and to protect your citizens from an incoming missile is not something we should undertake. In fact, the recommendation seems to be, leave our citizens without a shield of protection. I take just exactly the opposite. I think every one of us have an obligation to protect our citizens with a shield that will mean something, not simple rhetoric. I have to my left here a poster, and tonight I am going to go through a series of posters. If you will pay close attention, I think you will find that these posters advocate a strong case of why this country, without hesitation, should move forward immediately to engage in a missile defense system, to put into working order with other countries some kind of an understanding that the United States of America feels it has an inherent obligation to protect its citizens with some kind of shield. Let me go over a couple of points here. First of all, to my left, I call this poster ``probability of events.'' When you look at it, you see my first box, my first yellow box is called intentional launch. There I am referring to an intentional launch of a missile against the United States of America. I call this a probability. I have the next box called accidental launch. I call this a probability. At some point in the future, against the United States of America, some country, unknown to us today as far as which country will do it, but the facts are that some country will attempt to launch a missile against the United States of America. That is why it is our obligation as elected officials representing the people of America, who swear under our Constitution to protect the Constitution, which within its borders obligates us to provide security for the citizens of the United States, that is why it will be our responsibility to begin to provide that security blanket for the American people and for our allies, that when this intentional missile launch comes, we will be prepared/: The second thing I speak about is an accidental launch. Do not be mistaken. We know the most sophisticated, most well-designed aircraft in the world, take a civilian plane, a 747, once in awhile they crash. Take the most sophisticated, the finest invention you can think of, whether it is a telephone, whether it is a radio, whether it is a computer, whether it is an electrical system; there are accidents. In fact, I am not so sure that we have had much of any invention that at some point or another does not have an accident. It is probable that at some point in the future some country, by mistake, will launch a missile towards the United States of America. And, right now, as you know, an accidental launch against us, number one, we would not know whether it was accidental or not, and, two, the only defense we have today, the only defense we have today against an accidental launch, is retaliation. And what is retaliation going to bring? Because of an event, a horrible consequence of a missile launched against us by accident, by accident, our retaliation could initiate the Third World War, the most devastating disaster to occur in the history of the world. Yet we can avoid this, because if we have a missile defensive system in place and a country launches a missile against the United States by accident, or intentionally, but here we are referring to the accidental launch, the United States of America can shoot that missile down and they can stop that war from occurring. There are plenty of other less severe, significantly less severe measures, we can take against a country that accidentally launches against us. Retaliation is not one of them that we should take, but retaliation is the only tool left today. I can assure you that the President of the United States, whatever party they belong to, if some country by accident launches a nuclear missile into Los Angeles or New York City or into the core of this country, into the middle of Colorado, where my district is located, the likelihood is that the President would retaliate forthwith. Now, I had an interesting thing happen to me this evening while I was waiting speak, listening to my colleagues. I was outside talking to a couple of officers, Officer Conrad Smith and Officer Wendell Summers. Good chaps. I was out there visiting with them, and they brought up an interesting point. They said, ``What are you going to speak about tonight, Congressman?'' I said, ``I am going to speak about missile defense, like an intentional launch against our country, or an accidental launch against our country.'' Do you know what Officer Smith said? I did not think about it, but it is so obvious. Officer Smith said to me, ``Do you know what else we could use a missile defense system for? It is space junk. Like, for example, Congressman, if a space station or like the Mir Space Capsule is reentering the United States, we could use our missile defense to destroy that in the air, so that it doesn't land on some country or kill some people when it reenters from space.'' I never thought about that. Now, there is a logical use for a missile defense system; dealing with space junk. As we know, space junk falling out of space as it begins to lose momentum in its orbit is an issue that future generations are going to have to deal with on a fairly extensive basis. Our generation has gotten away with it because we are launching into space, and by the time our generation moves on, there will be lots of objects in space that have lost their momentum and begin the reentry. Officer Summers and Officer Smith had something to add tonight, and I think they are right, and I can assure my colleagues that I am going to put that right here. We will see a new yellow box on my next poster in regards to missile defense. Now, what kind of responses do we have? My poster lists the responses. Look, it is real simple. It is not complicated. The responses are: one, we have a defense; or two, no defense. That is the choice. It is as clear as black and white. That is the choice. We either defend against a missile, incoming missile to the United States, or we do not defend against it. There is no muddy waters, there is no middle ground. We either defend against it or we do not defend against it. Where are we today? Where is the most sophisticated, the most technically advanced country in the history of the world today? We are today check-marked the second box. No defense. What do I mean by that? We have a military base, we share it with the Canadians, called NORAD, located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the district of my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) in Cheyenne Mountain, the granite mountain. We went into the mountain, we cored out the center of the mountain, and we put in there an airspace system for detection. What does that system provide for us? Very simple. It can tell us anywhere in the world at any time of the day, with any kind of weather conditions, under any kind of temperature when a missile has been launched. It can tell us the approximate speed of the missile. It can tell us the target of the missile. It can tell us the estimated time of impact of the missile. It can tell us what type of missile they think it is. It can tell us whether or not, based on the information that they have gathered, whether the missile has the likelihood of a nuclear warhead on top of it. But then, guess what? That is it. That is it. They can call up the President of the United States, and they say, Mr. President, we have an emergency at NORAD. Mr. President, we have an incoming missile. We believe the target of impact is Los Angeles, California. Mr. President, we think that the time of impact is 15 minutes and counting. Mr. President, we think this is a realistic threat; our confidence factor is high. We have confirmed an incoming missile. The President thinks, what can we do? Of course, the President knows what we can do, but just for this example, what can we do, Mr. President? The President says, What can we do? to his military commanders, to our space command. Mr. President, you can contact the mayor of Los Angeles, tell them they have an incoming missile, they now have 13 minutes, we will say prayers for them, and that is it. Now, you tell me that is not a dereliction of duty of every one of us elected in these Chambers. Every one of us in these Chambers, we have the technical capability to put in place a missile defensive system in this country. We have that technical capability, and we have a commitment from this President, who has been very solid on his support and on his leadership. Thank goodness he has stepped forward. President George W. Bush has stepped forward to lead us into a missile defense. We had a test 3 weeks ago. It was a remarkable test. It shows that we are well on our way towards coming up with the technology that is necessary to deploy a missile defensive system for our country. What happened? They put a target, an incoming missile into the sky. It was approaching at 4\1/2\ miles per second; 4\1/2\ miles per second. That fast, 4\1/2\ miles. We then fired an intercept missile. Now, remember, these two missiles cannot miss by a foot; they cannot miss by six inches. These missiles have to hit head-on. We cannot afford a missile miss with an incoming nuclear warhead. What happened? Our intercept missile coming at 4\1/2\ miles per second, the incoming missile at 4\1/2\ miles per second, and we brought two speeding bullets together. That is a major accomplishment. Do we know what is happening around the world? We have heard a lot of publicity lately. The Europeans, for example, Europe is aghast that the United States would even think of abrogating the ABM Treaty, which I will discuss in detail here in a moment. Why would they think about building a missile defense system? Well, let me, first of all, make it very clear to my colleagues that when we hear people make an objection to our missile defense system and we hear them say, the Europeans are opposed and it is going to break our relationships with the Europeans, let me tell my colleagues something: the Europeans are not unified in their opposition to our missile defense; they are not unified in their opposition to a missile defensive system. In fact, the leader of Italy has come out and not only strongly supports, but encourages, the United States of America to, as quickly as possible, deploy a missile defensive system. Our good friends, the United Kingdom, the British, who are always at our side, have come forward. They support this President on building a missile defense system. Spain. Spain has taken a very careful look at the missile defense system. Do we know what is going to happen? Count on it. Count on it. Just as sure as I am telling my colleagues today, we can count on it. Those European countries, one by one, will have to answer to their citizens why they do not have some type of protective shield, some kind of security blanket like the United States offers for its citizens and, one by one, those European countries will come across the line from opposing and from being a check mark in this box to my left of ``no defense,'' one by one, led by Italy and the United Kingdom and Spain right behind them, one by one, they will cross that territorial line and they will go into the defensive category. They will build, or will be the beneficiary of, a defensive missile system. Let us talk for a few moments about the new strategic study. We have right now really a three-pronged attack threat against the United States of America. The first one is something that has just come of age here in the last few years called informational warfare. We have all heard about it, I think. In the last few days, we received an alert about a Code Red, some kind of virus that has been put into the computer systems around the world, specifically targeted at the American defense system. It is amazing to hear from the Pentagon how many people, how many people try and break into our national defense computers 24 hours a day. Now, how many of those culprits are foreign countries or agents of foreign countries? We do not know. And we are not going to be able to figure that out. What we have to do is just the same as we do for our computers. On our computers, we do not put our defense computers out there and say we are not going to build a shield against people who are trying to break into the computer system or put a bug in our system. Do we know what we do with our national computer systems, our defense computer systems, our military computer systems? We build a defense for the bug. We put in shields within our computer programming. We put in walls wherever we can. Those are the technical things; we put in walls to prevent those people from coming in. Why would we not do the same? What is the difference between an incoming missile and somebody trying to manipulate one of our computers, perhaps manipulate a computer to issue a false order regarding a military exercise, for example. So we have to worry about information warfare. We are addressing that as we speak right now. Obviously it is a priority of the military: How do we protect our communication systems? How do we protect our information systems? How do we protect our software? The second threat is a terrorist threat. This is a tough one. Now, do not let people say, well, missiles are not the real threat to this country, the real threat is somebody carries a vial of bacteria and they come to Washington, D.C. and drop it into the water supply. Well, of course it is a threat, but do not discount the third threat, and that is a missile-delivered attack right here, weapons of mass destruction, WMD. The delivery of a weapon of mass destruction attack, a biological weapon, a nuclear weapon, some other type of poisonous weapon. Some states are developing terrorist and missile capabilities. We know that is happening. I know on here: U.S. reserves the right to strike terrorist bases. We know this. We have to reserve that right. But my point with this poster is we really had that three-pronged attack, information attack, attack on our information systems, and we are building a defense for that. We have a defense in place. We constantly have to change that defense. Because every time we put up a wall, somebody tries to figure out how to get around it. It happens thousands of times every year. It happens around the clock with the Pentagon's computers. We know it is happening. The second one, the terrorist threat, we are addressing that. We are building defenses against that. We were fortunate enough, for example, to catch a couple of years ago at the Canadian border through a lot of good luck, but nonetheless through a lot of good police work, we would be able to stop what could have been a horrible disaster at one of our airports. Of course, the missile delivered weapons of mass destruction. But what is happening? I have some of my colleagues on this House Floor who, in my opinion, with all due respect are in make-believe land when they think that we should not build a defensive system for our citizens, to give our citizens protection in the future as soon as we can get it in place against an incoming missile, whether launched by accident, or whether it is intentional. Now, let us talk about the big roadblocks that some people have been putting up as a reason not to have a missile defense. It is called the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, the ABM Treaty. Let us just go over some of the basics of it. Let me tell my colleagues the basic thought pattern of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. First of all, understand that this treaty was made almost 30 years ago. It was a treaty not between the United States and a number of other countries; it was a treaty made between the only two countries in the entire world, in 1972, there were only two countries in the entire world that could deliver a missile anywhere in the world; only two. It was the Soviet Union and the United States of America. So in 1972, the Soviet Union, which, by the way, no longer exists, and the United States of America entered into a treaty. The thinking was that since there are only two countries in the world, the way to protect ourselves is we will both agree that we cannot defend ourselves. Now, how does that make sense? The theory being, we would be reluctant as the United States to fire a missile against the Soviet Union if we were prohibited from defending a retaliatory attack against us. In other words, we knew that any attack we made on Russia would be retaliated on, because we were not allowed to build a defense. That is the thinking behind the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. Now, I do not agree with it. I do not think the thinking was very solid in 1972, but it did have some justification in thought in 1972 because it was built entirely, and let me say this repeatedly: the Antiballistic Missile Treaty was built entirely on the premise that only two nations in the world had the capability to deliver a missile anywhere in the world. This treaty, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, was not built on the premise that a number of countries in the world would have the capability to deliver a missile anywhere in the world, and that is the situation that we face today. Mr. Speaker, we have had extraordinary circumstances which have changed in the last 30 years. Take a look at your car. Take a look at a car in 1972. There have been a lot of dramatic changes in 1972, and we should not be afraid since 1972 to stand up; in fact, I think we have a responsibility to stand up to the people that we represent. Today, the threat to America, the threat to the citizens of America is a whole lot different and a whole lot more serious than the threat to citizens in 1972. We have an obligation as elected officials to make sure that our country stays up to speed; that our citizens do not drive 1972 cars and our citizens do not rely on a 1972 defensive system or nonsystem to protect them. Let us look at the treaty very quickly; again, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. Each party agrees to undertake limited antiballistic missile, these are defensive missile systems, and to adopt other measures in accordance with the treaty. I am going to skip through here at this point. The treaty, by the way, is not a complicated treaty. It is very easy to get your hands on, 3, 4, 5, 6 pages. It is not a treatise that is a big thick book like that, it simply is 4 or 5 or 6 pages. For the purposes of this treaty, it is a system, a defensive system, the ABM. Each party, and this is crucial language in the Antiballistic Missile Treaty: each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM defensive missile system, or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based or mobile land-based. Each party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM launchers for launching more than one ABM interceptor missile at a time from each launcher, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. What has happened? What is the rest of the treaty about? Let me bring up another part of the treaty. Remember, this treaty was put together by scholars. This treaty contains within its four corners, within the four corners of the document, this treaty contains certain rights, certain rights bestowed upon the United States of America, certain rights bestowed upon the Soviet Union. One of those rights which is being wholesalely ignored by the rhetoric of the people who are trying to convince the American people that they should not defend themselves in the case of a missile attack, one of the arguments they put forward is ridiculous, to say the least. What is that argument? Their argument is, oh, my gosh, if you want to abrogate or pull out of, if you want to pull out of the antiballistic missile treaty, that means the United States would start violating treaties all over the place. That means the United States walked away from treaty obligations. That means the United States broke their word on a treaty that they are a signatory to. That is so inaccurate it borders right on the edge of inaccuracy and an outright lie. The treaty contains within its four corners the right for the United States of America or the right for the Soviet Union to pull out of the treaty. That is a right. It is not a breach of the treaty. It is not described as a breach of the treaty. It is a right that is bestowed by the language, specifically bestowed by the language. Let us take a look at the specific language that I am speaking of. It is important that we go through this. Please, look at my poster here, Article 15 of the antiballistic missile treaty: ``This treaty shall be of unlimited duration.'' Now, obviously I highlight this next section. This is the right of which I speak, which we can use. Any time we hear someone say we are breaking a treaty, we are not breaking any treaty. Someone who says we are walking away from a promise we made, that is baloney. This is the treaty right here. These are rights contained within it. Let us go on. Number two: ``Each party shall,'' ``shall, in exercising its national sovereignty have the right,'' the right, that is what I have been speaking about, ``to withdraw from this treaty if it decides that extraordinary events,'' and ``extraordinary events,'' that is a key buzz word, ``extraordinary events,'' and I am going to show some extraordinary events very shortly. Let us go on: ``If it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.'' That is another buzz word, ``jeopardized.'' Do we have in place, number one, extraordinary events, right here, extraordinary events; and do we have a jeopardizing of our national sovereignty? Then, ``It shall give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months prior to the withdrawal of the treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.'' Thank goodness, the President of the United States today, George W. Bush, understands that we cannot have this treaty and a missile defense at the same time. Thank goodness that the President of the United States, George W. Bush, understands that it is not a violation of the treaty to withdraw from the treaty; it is not a violation of the treaty to notify the other side that we will no longer, after a 6-month period of time, be held to the obligations of the treaty. Why? Because within the treaty it is a right for us to withdraw. Fortunately, the people who drafted this treaty understood and had the foresight that future generations may have extraordinary events that jeopardize the sovereign nationality of their country, that threaten that sovereignty, and that it may be necessary as a basic right of this treaty to withdraw from the treaty. Let us talk about what could jeopardize the United States of America and our sovereignty, and let us talk about what could be extraordinary events. Do Members know what, I have a poster that I think explains it. A picture, as they say, is much better than words. Take a look at this poster. Let us talk about an extraordinary event. Remember back in history in 1972, there were two nations in the world, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, that had the capability to deliver a missile anywhere in the world. No other country, no exception, no other country had the capability to deliver a missile anywhere else in the world. Frankly, no one envisioned that for any reasonable period of time in the future that any other country in the world, that any other country in the world would obtain that capability. Can Members imagine anyone in 1972 imagining that in the scope of 30 years this would happen, this poster to my left? This is an extraordinary event. Clearly, what this poster depicts jeopardizes the national sovereignty of the United States of America. Let us take a look, extraordinary events: no longer just Russia, no longer what used to be the Soviet Union. Every one of these points, every one of these arrows, see the arrows here on the map, and they are small, Mr. Speaker, but all of these arrows point to one thing. They point to North Korea, they point to Pakistan, they point to India, they point to Israel, they point to China. All of those countries I just named, every one of those countries has the capability to deliver a nuclear missile, to fire a nuclear missile. That is nuclear. Let us continue. In addition, Iraq, Iran, Libya, all have ballistic missile technology that can deliver a chemical or a biological weapon. In other words, it is extraordinary that now there are not two countries but there are any number of countries in the world that can launch a nuclear missile. I am going to show a poster a little later on to show just exactly what North Korea could do to Alaska, for example. Members do not think, with this kind of threat facing the United States of America, we do not think that as Congressmen of the United States, that we do not have some type of inherent commitment or obligation or duty to provide our citizens with a protective shield. Of course we do. Failure to do that would be the grossest negligence in recent history of this country, in my opinion. Let us move on. Do Members want to talk about extraordinary events, a threat or something that jeopardizes the future of the United States of America? Do Members want to see it? It is right here. If Members can take a look at this poster, and after looking at it, walk away and with a straight face say to any one of our constituents that the United States of America should not deploy a missile defense system, then that Member has just performed great disfavor and has brought discredit, discredit to the vision that one is obligated to provide for future generations in this country. Ballistic missile proliferation, countries that we know today are possessing ballistic missiles. Remember, in 1972, 30 years ago, there were two nations, the United States and the Soviet Union. The treaty that those two nations signed between each other said that we are the two, and the way to defend that this does not get out of hand between us, let us put this treaty into effect. But when we put this treaty into effect, if we think that if extraordinary events occur, as a right of this treaty, a basic right of this treaty, that jeopardize the national sovereignty of either the Soviet Union or the United States of America, we could walk out of the treaty and withdraw from the treaty. It is not a breach of the treaty; it is a right of the treaty. Here we are. Take a look at it. Ballistic missiles: Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, France, North Korea, South Korea, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Argentina, Bulgaria. I think I mentioned Croatia. How much more proof do we need? Where is the proof? Right here is the proof. We do not call this an extraordinary event? We do not think that this kind of map here, look at the blue. That is where there are ballistic missiles. Are Members telling me that this little area right here, the United States of America, that its elected officials, that its President, should not build a defensive system that protects it from an incoming missile from any one of these countries, either accidental or intentional? How can Members even step forward with that kind of an argument? There is only one choice we have. The extraordinary events that have occurred in the last 30 years offer us only one choice. That choice is, we have no option other than to build a defensive security system for the citizens of the United States of America. Failure to do so would be dereliction of our duty and our oath, sitting here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Let me just reemphasize another startling poster. Let me show something else, in case some of my colleagues so far have not been convinced that extraordinary events have occurred since 1972. If some of my colleagues are not convinced that we face the jeopardizing of our national security, of our national interests, take a look at this poster, just in case they need convincing. Nuclear proliferation, here we are. Every red spot on this map has the capability of delivering a nuclear missile into the United States of America. Those are the ones we can confirm. We have high suspicion, I think probably verifiable, that we have countries who have that capability today. They are Iran, maybe not the capability, but right on the edge; Iraq, right on the edge; North Korea, I think they possess the capability to hit the United States of America, first of all Alaska, and soon the coast of California; Libya. Now add onto that back here Britain, nuclear missile capability; China; France; India; Israel; Pakistan; Russia; and the United States. There has been a proliferation, a proliferation of offensive nuclear weapons in this world. We as leaders have an obligation to step forward and provide for our citizens some type of defensive system. I mentioned earlier about North Korea and the capability of North Korea. Let us look specifically at North Korea as an example. North Korea can currently reach Alaska with ballistic missiles. It will only be a matter of time before they can reach the continental United States. What do we mean by ``a matter of time''? I mean a matter of months to maybe a few short years, if they do not already have the capability to launch a missile, a ballistic missile, against the continental United States. And remember, maybe not necessarily intentionally. For a little country like North Korea to intentionally launch a nuclear missile against the United States of America, talk about a suicidal thought, the United States would retaliate with a minimum amount of retaliation and wipe North Korea out. So maybe North Korea would not fire intentionally a missile against the United States, but do Members think that North Korea has the type of fail-safe systems on their nuclear systems that we would feel comfortable with? I do not think they do. So what if North Korea by accident, by accident hit the button and launched a missile against the United States of America? Do Members think we should be prepared for that kind of consequence? Do Members think that it is responsibility that demands that we have that kind of preparedness? Of course it is. Look what happens. Look at this right here. Look at the range. First they were here, then they got out to 1,500 kilometers, then out to 4,000 kilometers; and now look where they are, 6,000 kilometers. Let me ask the Members, how much more clear can a threat be? Again, for those who are not convinced that any country would ever launch intentionally against the United States, first of all, with due respect, I think they are being naive. But if in fact they truly believe that, how many can assure their constituents, can assure the American public or our allies or our friends that an accidental launch will never occur against the United States of America? They cannot do it, and they know they cannot do it. Let us for a moment assume the unassumable, the worst kind of scenario we can imagine next to an intentional launch. Let us assume that a nation that has the capability of hitting the core, hitting the middle of the United States or even the eastern border; let us take Philadelphia, for example. It fires a nuclear missile by accident against the United States, and the incoming missile will impact in Philadelphia. Let us say it is not a particularly big missile. It has two warheads on it. As many know, nuclear missiles have multiple warheads on them. One of our submarines, a Trident submarine in the United States naval force, can deliver, what, 195 missiles because of the multiple missile warheads that we have? Let us just say that just two of those, a small missile with two warheads on it, was fired accidentally against the city of Philadelphia. What do we have? Take a look at this poster right to my left. I will tell my colleagues exactly what we have. We will have 410,000 people dead, 410,000 people dead in an accident that was preventable. Dead in an accident because we on the House floor, we in the Senate have neglected to give our President, in my opinion, the necessary support that he is demanding to protect the United States of America with a missile shield, a shield of protection. We have that obligation. President Bush and the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, are practically begging us to give them support; not fight them. This is not a partisan issue. Now, some people are trying, as usual, to say that anybody that wants a missile defense system are war mongers. But the fact is this is about as strong a nonpartisan issue as exists in the United States House of Representatives today. This is not an issue of the Republicans protecting the United States of America with some kind of protection shield and the Democrats refusing to protect the United States of America. This is an issue that crosses party lines. This is a responsibility placed squarely on the shoulders of every one us sitting in this room. For those of my colleagues who are refusing to carry the weight that has been placed on their shoulders, defending this country, I just want to say, shame on you. Now, why do I say shame on you? Because someday, someday that is going to happen. Those fortunate to be a survivor had darn well better be able to look in the mirror and say, I did what I could for the citizens of America to protect them from exactly what is depicted on this poster to my left. Now, how does a missile defense system work? I want to show how we can do it. Technologically, this is going to be done. Technologically, future generations are going to have the capability to do exactly what I am saying needs to be done, and that is to provide a system in this country for defense. How does it work? Let us take a look. Space-based. We know we are going to have a space-based unit. Why? Because a space-based unit, or that staging of our missile defensive system, allows us to do a couple of things. One, satellites we can move. Satellites are not stationary. For example, if we see a threat arising in Pakistan or we see a threat arising in North Korea, we can move our satellite so that satellite is over that country, so that the laser beam that would come out of that satellite, and we have that technology, the laser beam that can come out of that satellite can be shifted around. It is a mobile defense. What is the other big advantage of having a mobile defense? The other big advantage is we can stop that missile on its launching pad. How many of these countries would want to have a missile preparing to fire against the United States only to face the threat that the United States could fire an instantaneous laser beam and destroy the missile on its pad, meaning that that missile would go off in their country instead of its intended target, the United States of America. That is why we have to have a space-based ingredient in this missile defense system. The second point. Sea-based. We have to have the capability to hit that missile, if the missile is successfully launched either intentionally or by accident off its launching pad, and we are not able to stop it on the launching pad as it heads over the ocean, we need to have the capability from a ship-based defensive system to take that missile down while it is over the ocean. Now, we will have wind currents and things like that, but the minimal amount of casualties will occur if we can somehow bring that missile down even without exploding it or detonating it. If we could hit it with some type of laser or some type of device to bring it down without detonation. And if we can do that, we need to do it somewhere over the ocean where, obviously, we do not have a heavy population. But let us say it goes beyond that. Air-based. Here is a good demonstration. Here is our laser-based satellite. Here is the incoming missile. Now, remember, this entire period of time may take, at a maximum, probably 30 minutes to go from a far point to the United States. We also need an airborne laser so that if we miss it on our satellite laser, if we miss it on our sea-based laser, we still have the capability from aircraft to fire a laser rendering that incoming missile incapable. And then finally, over here on the end, we have our command and control. We have an interceptor missile. That is the type of missile I was talking about earlier where we had a successful test 3 weeks ago. Now, some people, and I do not understand their argument, but some people are saying, look, if we have a failure, if the test does not work, we should abandon a missile defense system. Give me a break. Give me a break. How many times did we have to try surgery or try the new invention of a machine, how many times did the Wright brothers and others have to get in those airplanes and figure out accident after accident after accident, test after test after test how to improve it, how to make it work? That is exactly what we have here. Not all our tests are going to be successful. We know that. And we need to admit it up front. Last week we had a successful test. We are going to have more success in the future. And eventually, and I mean in short order, I think in a matter of years with the leadership of our President and the support of this Congress, and the support of future Congresses, through testing and through dedication and through resources and research, we will have fulfilled our duty by developing, from a technological point of view, a missile defense system. So let me review what I think are a few very, very important points. Let us start out with a premise. We have an anti-ballistic missile treaty that is called the ABM Treaty. That treaty was executed in 1972. It was negotiated in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, and, again, executed in 1972. Now, at that point in time two countries in the world, two countries in the world, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, were the only countries that had the capability to deliver a missile anywhere they wanted in the world. At that point in time, not China, not North Korea, not South Korea, not India, not Pakistan, not Argentina, not Israel, none of these countries were thought to have at any time in the near future the capability to fire a missile, a nuclear missile, anywhere in the world. But let me step back just for a moment. The vision of the people who negotiated this treaty on both sides of the treaty was that there could be extraordinary circumstances, for example, other countries having the capability to deliver missiles; for example, many other countries developing nuclear capability; for example, the acts of terrorism that we have seen in these last few years. Those are extraordinary events. And the drafters of this treaty understood, and though I do not agree with the premise under which they drafted this treaty, they understood there might be extraordinary events that threatened the national sovereignty of a country. And if that occurred, it should be a fundamental right, a basic right contained within the four corners of that treaty, that allowed a country, a United States or a Soviet Union, to withdraw from the treaty. And that is exactly where we are today. We have no choice, in my opinion, but to withdraw from this treaty, and we have no choice but to offer protection to the American people. What has happened in these 30 years? We know, from my earlier graph that I showed, that nuclear proliferation now exists throughout the world. We know that the probability of a missile attack against the United States, either intentionally or accidentally, is going to occur at some point. In fact, every day that goes by gives us 1 more day to make sure that when that missile attack occurs or when that accidental launch occurs, we are prepared to defend against it. Now, if we fail, for example, and the worst failure or the worst scenario I can imagine is some country, because they do not have the fail-safe mechanism that our country has, accidentally launches against the United States. Under those circumstances, right now our only response really is to do nothing, which no President is going to do when you lose hundreds of thousands of people, or to retaliate. Mr. Speaker, no President is going to go without retaliation. So if anything, you want to have a missile defense system in place so that an accidental launch does not start World War III. So if someone launches against the United States, or if somebody launches against an ally of the United States of America, or let us take it further, let us say some country accidentally launches against an enemy country, let us say someone launches against North Korea, the United States of America, our vision will allow our country to have the capability. We find out from our command center that India has by accident just launched a missile against North Korea; we should have the capability to stop that missile so it does not even hit a country like North Korea throughout the world which can prevent a horrible disaster from occurring, only if, however, my colleagues on this House floor support the President of the United States in demanding that this country forthwith deploy a missile defense system on behalf of the citizens of the United States of America. That is an accidental launch. Let us talk about an intentional launch. Do you think you will continue to see in the future a proliferation of missiles if the people building the missiles know there is a system in the country that will stop their missiles on the launching pad? That there is a system that the United States of America possesses that will not only stop an incoming missile from hitting the United States or an ally, but is so technically advanced that they can destroy their missile on their launching pad? How many more missiles do you think they will build? The vision that I have for the future, for my children's generation, for my grandchildren's generation is that they will look back at us and say, missiles were those useless things back then. Nobody has any use for a missile today because anytime a missile goes off, it is stopped instantaneously. That is the goal. We should not stand by some treaty that says the way to stop proliferation of missiles in the future is not to defend against them. Give me a break. That is like saying the way to stop the spread of cancer is not to take any chemotherapy. Do not offer chemotherapy as a threat, and maybe then people will stop smoking. That does not make any sense. It is the same thing here. It does not make any sense at all to the way, the theory to stop missile proliferation is not to defend against it. By the way, there are only two countries in the world subject to the anti-ballistic missile treaty. India is not subject to it. North Korea is not subject to. China is not, Pakistan is not, Israel is not subject to it. Only two countries: the United States of America and the old Soviet Union. The day has arrived, colleagues. The responsibility has arrived. The duty has arrived. We owe it to the people of America. We owe it to the people of the world to build a missile defense system. We have the technology, or we will secure the technology within the no- too-distant future. I cannot look at any of you more seriously than I look at you this evening to say that your failure to help this Nation build a missile defense system for its citizens and for the people of the world is a gross dereliction of duty and responsibility bestowed upon you when you took the oath to serve in the United States Congress.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, in his forty years of working with cancer research and treatment, Dr. Ira Jaffrey has contributed to a movement that has saved many lives and has enhanced the quality and duration of many others and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him. While his technical expertise has proven essential for providing professional and quality health care, his emotional understanding and support have made him a hero. After working at Mount Sinai Hospital and School of Medicine in New York, Ira and his wife, Sandy, headed to the western slope of Colorado where they started Western Slope Oncology in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Currently, Ira works with Valley View, Aspen Valley, Clagett Memorial and University hospitals, and the Vail Valley Medical Center. In addition, he is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and a treasurer and state delegate for the Mount Sopris Medical Society. Sandy is a registered Physician's Assistant with extensive training and experience in oncology nursing. Between the two of them, they care for between 350 and 500 patients. Ira and Sandy have personally experienced the challenges and destruction that cancer brings; Sandy is a breast cancer survivor, and Ira lost his sister to cancer in 1970. Perhaps because they grasp the understanding that can only come with experience, they give their patients the most dedicated care, such as encouraging their patients to call them at home. Ira explained to Heather McGregor of The Glenwood Post-Independent that he deals largely with people for whom cancer will ultimately prove fatal. ``My job is to eliminate pain and suffering, to improve their quality of life, and to increase their survival time,'' he told her. ``There are lots of ups and downs, and we have to be there for them.'' Mr. Speaker, for forty years, Dr. Ira Jaffrey has not only worked as a skilled and talented oncologist, but he has acted with compassion and sensitivity toward one of the most destructive diseases of our time. I would like to take this time to thank him for helping improve the quality of life for the many people today who suffer from cancer.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. One hundred years after the United States became a Nation, Colorado became the 38th state in the Union. In recognition of this historic moment, I stand here to pay tribute to the great State of Colorado. I would like to share a little historical background, and some lesser known facts about the state in honor of this anniversary. According to the state archives, when the Colorado Territory was populated by only approximately 100,000 people, thirty-nine members of the constitutional convention gathered for the purpose of preparing Colorado's constitution. President Grant declared Colorado a state on August 1, 1876, one week after the Governor's secretary, John Reigart, set off toward Washington, D.C. with a copy of the constitution and other necessary documents. Since then, Colorado has continued to make history. The stunning view from Pikes Peak inspired Katherine Lee Bates to write one of our country's most popular patriotic songs, ``America the Beautiful.'' On a less serious note, Denver ``lays claim to the invention of the cheeseburger,'' according to 50states.com. Colorado is also home to some of America's greatest heroes. Pueblo, for instance, has held the honor of being the only city in the Nation with four living recipients of the Medal of Honor. In addition, Colorado Springs is home to the distinguished United States Air Force Academy. Among its natural wonders, Colorado is home to the world's largest outdoor natural hot springs pool, which spans over two city blocks. The pool was visited by former president Teddy Roosevelt, and by ``Doc'' Holliday, who hoped the natural springs would cure his tuberculosis. Other geological marvels include Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument and the Great Sand Dunes, plus fifty-two mountain peaks over 14,000 feet high, and the headwaters of over 20 rivers. The Nation's highest city, Leadville, which boasts an elevation of 10,430 feet, also rests in Colorado. In addition, Colorado holds three quarters of the Nation's land area with an altitude over 10,000 feet, along with 222 state wildlife areas. With such a variety of natural beauty and resources, it is no wonder that Colorado provides agriculture, summer and winter recreation, and a pioneering spirit to millions of residents and visitors each year. Mr. Speaker, there is no end to the wonder and greatness of this state. It is with great pride that I stand here today in honor of the 125th anniversary of the State of Colorado.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I would like to recognize Mr. Otis Meril Chartier, who received the Bronze Star for his service during WWII. He served our country 56 years ago and just recently received this distinguished honor. At a family picnic not too far from Parker, Colorado, Otis was awarded the Bronze Star in recognition of his courage in February of 1945. During WWII, he and another soldier took on a German machine gun haven where they disrupted its activity and eliminated two enemy soldiers. A howitzer shell then bombarded the nest and the area was neutralized. For this valorous effort, Otis was granted the Bronze Star. His courageous act was executed only 4 months before the end of the war. After joining the Army in 1940, Otis was put in charge of the Victory Garden due to his background in farming, and was eventually sent to infantry school. This was followed by his deployment to France in December of 1944. In his first battlefield experience, his 12-member squad was sent ahead of the group to scout. This scouting effort lead to the group being ambushed, leaving only Otis alive as the other soldiers were killed in the line of duty. One other notable battlefield experience that caused his life to flash before his eyes happened as he and two other soldiers were rushing into town when a mortar shell hit immediately in front of them, causing permanent damage in his right ear. On December 20, 1945, Otis returned home to find employment as a carpenter. Although this paid the bills, his true passion was music. He joined a band in 1946 called the Trailblazers and ventured to Montana to play for audiences for about three years, until his hearing would not permit him to continue anymore. Otis then returned to Colorado and was employed by Gates Rubber Company for 31 years. Today, he enjoys spending time with his family. While much time has passed since the war, the importance and acknowledgement of the heroism that Otis Chartier exhibited shall not vanish with time. He was a part of the victorious effort to ensure peace across the globe. It is my pleasure to offer my congratulations and sincerest thanks to Otis for his dedicated service and patriotism.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I would like to pay tribute to the Grand Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center for receiving the 2001 President's Quality Award that highlights continued improvement and management of high caliber care to veterans who so diligently served our Nation. This facility serves all veterans in an area of 50,000 square miles and 17 counties in Western Colorado and Eastern Utah. With the overarching goal of being ``the preferred health care system for all veterans,'' the Medical Center constantly strives to improve itself and help those in need of their services. The President's Quality Award highlights the Center's integration of their innovative management techniques, outstanding dedication to customer service and dynamic performance that will enhance the Center's capabilities in the new century. The Grand Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center has implemented a ``virtual circle of care'' policy that involves every patient, and this program has inspired similar programs around the country. Not satisfied with just internal improvements, the Center has added new community outreach efforts that seek to build upon their primary, specialty and extended care. All of these continued efforts have resulted in consistently higher scores in patient care and satisfaction from the Department of Veterans Affairs and from external agencies and hospitals. The Grand Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center truly is an exemplary model of the care that our distinguished veterans deserve. While providing the highest care and improving their overall performance with an emphasis on customer satisfaction, the Center has worked very hard to become one of the finest facilities in the Nation. The invaluable services that Grand Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center provides truly deserve the recognition of this body.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the 50th wedding anniversary of Mr. and Mrs. Casey and Jean Brown from Ignacio, Colorado. As family and friends will gather to celebrate this joyous occasion, I too would like to recognize them at this special time. Following their hearts throughout this 50-year journey has led to happiness and a loving life together. Casey and Jean were married on August 5, 1951 in Hatch, New Mexico after meeting each other at New Mexico State University. Following a honeymoon in Mexico, the couple relocated to Laramie, Wyoming, where Casey received a Master's Degree in Sheep and Wool Production. After his schooling and a brief stint as a college professor, the couple joined Casey's father in his sheep business located in Aztec, California. Casey and Jean decided to move one more time in 1958 to a small farm in La Plata, New Mexico. It is here that they raised their five children. Following suit with past experience, the family moved one more time to Ignacio in 1978. Jean had always dreamed of becoming a nurse, and this served as the catalyst to pursue her dreams. She was employed by Mercy Hospital in Durango until she retired. While Jean was a nurse, Casey once again started his own sheep business on their ranch. Even amidst all of their responsibilities, they found time to offer services to their community where they were involved in the Woolgrowers Auxiliary, the American Sheep Industry Commission and other organizations. Love has flourished between these two hearts, but not without dedication and hard work. For this momentous occasion, Casey is treating his devoted wife to a trip to Scotland--her ancestral land. This celebration of 50 years is a remarkable accomplishment and is to be commended. Mr. Speaker, it is with excitement and admiration that I extend my congratulations to Casey and Jean and offer them my best wishes for many more years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember a caring and compassionate individual from Silvercliff, Colorado who has recently passed away. It is with profound sadness that I now rise to honor the life and memory of Susan Marie ``Susie'' Loafman who died on Wednesday, July 11, 2001. Susie had endured cancer and diabetes for sometime, but this did not stop her from giving so much to others in her life and in the community. After graduating from Custer County High School in 1950, she proceeded to open a local restaurant in 1964 and named it ``Susie's Cafe and Bar.'' The popularity of this establishment grew so great that people who knew of the restaurant would not drive by without visiting Susie's restaurant. Beyond the demands of operating the eatery, Susie was engaged civically with such organizations as the Chamber of Commerce, the Women's Club, the Altar and Rosary Society, the Merchants Association and the Custer County Cattlewomen. While adding to the community in this respect, she also built a strong foundation within the walls of her house by serving as a foster mother to over 30 foster children. Mr. Speaker, at the age of 71, Susie Loafman will be remembered and appreciated for her spirit and kindness. As family and friends mourn her passing, her lessons and tenderness will live forever in the hearts of those that knew her and that she assisted. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy and warmest regards to her family at this time of remembrance. She will surely be missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor Charles ``Chuck'' and Lorene Tobin for their many years of devotion to each other as they celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. After their marriage, the Tobin's moved to Dolores, Colorado in 1951, where Chuck began to work for the Texaco Bulk Plant and volunteered for the local fire department. After a dedicated career, he retired in 1992. Lorene was employed as a cafeteria cook with the Dolores School system until 1988. Since their retirement, they have both been enjoying the great outdoors and other events throughout the community. Chuck and Lorene met at the Old Del Rio Restaurant where she was a waitress, and the two instantly fell in love. They are the proud parents of two sons, Chuck and Mike Tobin, and a daughter, Lynda Grossberg. The couple still resides in Dolores, Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful privilege and honor to salute the 50th anniversary of Chuck and Lorene Tobin. It is with excitement and admiration that I wish them many more great years together.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I now rise to honor the life and memory of an outstanding person, Willard Allen Meyer. As family and friends mourn his passing, we all will remember Will's talents and remarkable life. Much of Will's life was spent educating himself. He received his B.A. in Economics from Southern Illinois University, becoming the first person in his family to graduate from college. He then continued his education at the University of Freiburg in Germany and the University of Massachusetts. After his formal schooling, Will taught economics at Allegheny College. In addition to his impressive academic career, Will was a proficient carpenter, mason, as well as a business owner, chef, civic volunteer, and community servant. Will was also a well-traveled man. His love of new experiences drove him to live throughout the United States, Germany, France and Switzerland. Will never ceased forging new adventures, and he passed away while on a much anticipated vacation with his family in Paris, France. Will held a strong belief that every citizen had a responsibility to try to make his or her community a better place. Throughout his civic career, he served as a Breckenridge town Councilman, as Boulder County Democratic Party's Treasurer, and as President of PlanBoulder. Will worked at the Colorado Legislative Council as a budget analyst for 12 years, serving until he passed away. He also committed himself to the City Planning Board, City Parks and Recreation Board, and the Affordable Housing Task Force, among other organizations. While his involvement with education and the community are to be remembered, Will's lasting legacy rests in his family. He was a dedicated husband to his wife, Lynne and a proud parent to his daughter, Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Willard Meyer was a man who lived an accomplished life. Although friends and family are profoundly saddened by his passing, each can take solace in the wonderful life that the he led. I know I speak for everyone who knew Will when I say he will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, our country has undergone dramatic changes in recent years, including continued urbanization of the American West. I would like to thank Michael Martin Murphey for his leadership in the crucial movement toward the preservation of our Western heritage. Michael is blessed with many talents, which he has applied to promote this cause. He is best known for his extensive musical ability, which has earned him countless awards and fans. His Pop and Country music have made him an award-winning artist in those areas, and his American Cowboy Music is the top-seller of its genre. For example, Michael's hit, ``Wildfire'' is one of the ``most-played songs in the history of radio'' according to the Murphey Western Institute of Oklahoma at Medicine Park. In addition, ``he is a five-time award winner in The National Cowboy Hall of Fame,'' and The Academy of Western Artists awarded him 1999 Best Album and Best Song. Michael conveys the essence of the West through his music, allowing his audience to experience the West, rather than only to read about it. In addition to utilizing his musical ability, Michael has sprung into action using his relationship with Western land issues, his leadership skills, and his writing ability to get the word out about the preservation of Western heritage and culture. He is publisher of The American West magazine, for which he writes articles supporting his cause, and he is currently working on his first book. He also started what Country Music Magazine called ``the best festival in the US,'' the Westfest, located in Vail, Colorado. This festival celebrates ``Cowboys, Indians, Country and Western music, Rodeo, Western Art and the world of the American West.'' Michael understands the need to help people experience the West, empowering them to incorporate Western heritage into their own lives. Along those same lines, he recently established the Murphey Western Institute, a not-for-profit foundation ``dedicated to the promotion, preservation and perpetuation of the culture and heritage of the American West through research, education, recreation and entertainment.'' Mr. Speaker, Michael Martin Murphey is a man of conviction, and a man whose tireless endeavors have reached millions. I would like to pay him tribute for all that he has done to preserve and promote the American West, a significant aspect of our nation's history, and one of the most precious aspects of our American heritage.