Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I stand before you to honor a woman that exemplifies the qualities that are greatly needed in the education system today, Rebecca Watson. A creative, caring and committed teacher, Rebecca has spent her entire teaching career shaping the minds of the students that have passed through the halls of Taylor Elementary School in Palisade, Colorado. For two consecutive years, Rebecca has been nominated for the Disney Teacher of the Year award, and although she did not receive the award last year, the compliment of a second nomination this year speaks volumes of her influence as a teacher. Rebecca is a life long resident of the Palisade area; in fact she attended the same elementary school in which she now teaches. She also attended Palisade High School where she participated in many activities, including spending three years as a Varsity Cheerleader. Rebecca was eager to continue her education, leaving for Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado the summer after graduation, while her future classmates stayed home. During the course of her college career, Rebecca participated in a unique program by spending the summer educating young women in the correctional facilities near Denver, Colorado. The program was a great learning experience, teaching both Rebecca and the girls lessons that they could carry with them the rest of their lives. In the 26 years that Rebecca has been at Taylor Elementary she has taught a number of grades, but kindergarten is the grade level that she has grown to love. Rebecca continued to challenge herself and received her Masters Degree in Elementary education. In addition, she attends the Kindergarten Convention for elementary teachers every year. The minute you walk into her classroom you are sent back to being a five year old once again. The class is packed with colorful Sesame Street characters illustrating the alphabet or numbers. The irrepressible Cookie Monster is everywhere, reminding students that learning is fun. She is well respected among her peers and is often sought after for advice on classroom technique. Dee Crane, principal at Taylor, calls Mrs. Watson ``a real star.'' She compliments Rebecca on her creativity, her love of the kids, and dedication. Rebecca is not only recognized by Taylor Elementary staff, but she also received the Mesa County School District Teacher of the Year Award in 1999. The nomination for Disney's Teacher of the Year was a surprise only to Rebecca. Although she was not chosen for the honor last year, she was asked to share her ideas from the ``cookie class'' on the Disney website. This year Rebecca was nominated for the honor again. It is inspirational to know at a time when our education system is under such critical attack that there are teachers going above and beyond to insure the students leaving there class have every advantage. Mr. Speaker, as Rebecca's husband Allen, and daughters Kelly and Jodie, along with friends and colleagues wait to hear the final word on the Disney Teacher of the Year Award, I would like to wish her luck and thank her for her efforts. If all the teachers in this great Nation would follow Rebecca's example, the education system in the United States would benefit greatly. That said, I ask Congress to honor Rebecca Watson, she is truly an inspiration to not only her Colorado colleagues, but to teachers around the country.-

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to spending this evening talking to my colleagues about an issue that I think is fundamentally important to not only this generation in America but to every future generation in America, at least as far out as we can see. It is also an issue that is absolutely critical for our friends and allies throughout the world. It is missile defense. Now, I hope this evening to be joined by my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and the two of us will go through missile defense and talk a little about the necessity for it. We have heard a lot of rhetoric here in the last few weeks about how missile defense is going to set off an arms race, about how missile defense does not make any sense, about how missile defense is not technologically feasible. But tonight I want to go to the facts, to cut through the rhetoric, and I want to get right to the meat. Because this issue is so critical for us, we cannot afford to let the substance be diluted by the rhetoric. Again, do not let the substance of missile defense for this country be diluted by rhetoric, because all of us lose. I was at the World Forum in Vail, Colorado 2 or 3 years ago. Vail is in my district out in Colorado. And the World Forum, put on by President Gerald Ford, was a fabulous thing. Leaders from all over the world came there. Margaret Thatcher spoke. And when Margaret Thatcher spoke, you could almost hear a pin drop at this World Forum. She got up and said in response to a question on missile defense, she said to the leaders of the United States and to the leaders of the United Kingdom, you have an inherent responsibility. Now, remember, her whole sentence I am about to cite, her whole answer is maybe two or three sentences. But her response was that you have an inherent responsibility to the people that you represent to protect them, and failure to do so would be dereliction of your duty. Now, that is a summary of what she said. Failure to do so would be dereliction of your duty. We have a known threat out there. We know there are missiles aimed at the United States of America. We know that there are other countries, and not just what used to be the Soviet Union, which was the big threat in my generation. When I was a young child I remember my mom and dad telling me, during the Cuban missile crisis, that we were probably going to go to war in the next few hours. I remember the fallout shelters. And as I grew up, everything was Russia; the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union is going to launch an attack. And, of course, we in the mountains of Colorado were worried because we had Cheyenne Mountain, the headquarters for NORAD over in Colorado Springs. But has the threat subsided? The threat has not subsided. I do not understand the reasoning of some of these people who are trying to convince the American people that the threat of a missile attack has subsided. In fact, I would venture to say that the threat of a missile attack has actually increased, because we now have a multitude of nations that have tested nuclear weapons. We know there are a multitude of nations out there that have missile technology. We know, for example, that when the Soviet Union was the Soviet Union they had very strict control over their weapons. Today, we do not know what kind of control they have over their weapons. We know that we have China that is attempting to build up its military. And, frankly, I think China and Russia, as it now is, are more manageable than say a North Korea or a Pakistan or an India or over in the Middle East or some terrorist group. And, God forbid, what if we had an accidental launch against the United States of America? What if somebody did not want to destroy the United States, what if somebody just launched by accident a nuclear missile for New York City? How strong do my colleagues think their rhetoric would stand up the day after that missile hit, or the minute after that missile hit, after standing on this floor and saying that we should not have a missile defense; that a missile defense is going to start off an arms race; that we should not defend our people; we should stick to an old treaty, a treaty that was drafted in 1972, 30 years ago. How many of my colleagues are driving a 30-year-old car today? How many people do that? How many of my colleagues are using 30-year-old technology in their offices? How many people use 30-year-old technology in their airplanes? We do not do that, and we should not use that kind of technology to defend this country. Now, what am I talking about? What treaty am I talking about? It is called the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Let us talk about the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty. First of all, let me say to my colleagues that the theory of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was about really only two countries. There were two nations in the world that were capable of any kind of significant missile launch against somebody else in the world. One, the United States of America, and, two, the Soviet Union. These two superpowers possessed not only the knowledge of nuclear weapons, but they also had the capability of delivering these weapons, and delivering these weapons in multitudes and with deadly accuracy. So the theory of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 1968, 1969, and 1970, was, hey, look, Russia and the United States, and by the way I do not agree with this theory, but the theory was the best way for the United States not to attack Russia and the best way for the Soviet Union not to attack the United States was for both of them to agree not to build a defense. Because if these two countries have a missile, theoretically, and each knows it could be destroyed by that missile because it cannot defend against it, then each country will be less reluctant to fire their missiles. That is the theory of what happened. Now, what does this treaty contain? Let us take a look at a little of what the treaty says, because it is important. I will refer to my poster here to the left. Article I: Each party undertakes to limit anti-ballistic missile systems and to adopt other measures. And I will just summarize some of these. There is no need to go through each sentence. Each party undertakes not to deploy anti- ballistic missile systems for defense of the territory. Now, remember, as we go through this treaty and as I talk tonight, I am not talking about the development of offensive weapons. The United States has significant offensive weapons. I am talking about defensive weapons. I am not talking about firing a missile against another country, I am talking about defending the United States of America. So my discussion tonight is not as an aggressor. My discussion this evening with you is as a defender. A defender of the territory of the United States of America. And by the way, we should expand that as a defender of our allies in this world. For the purpose of this treaty, an ABM system is a system to counter strategic ballistic missiles. Each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy a defensive system which is sea-based, air-based, space- based or mobile land-based. So in this treaty, the United States of America agrees with the Soviet Union, which as my colleagues know, the Soviet Union no longer exists. It has been broken into a number of different countries. Each party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy a defensive weapon system. That is what that paragraph says. To ensure assurance of effectiveness of the ABM, each party undertakes not to give missiles, launches, or radars, other than ABM interceptor missiles, et cetera, or their elements in flight trajectory, and not to test them in a mode. That says you cannot test. If the United States determines that they want to test some type of system to defend our country, we cannot do it under this treaty. This treaty is not cloudy. It is black and white. It is very clear in its definitions. If you want to build a defensive system for your Nation, you are not allowed to under this treaty. There is no way around it. This treaty is totally incompatible with our Nation or any nation, well, our Nation or the Soviet Union because there are only two parties to this agreement, the Soviet Union and the United States. It is totally incompatible with this treaty for the Soviet Union or the United States to build some type of defense to protect their country from an accidental launch or an intentional launch of a missile against their country as long as this treaty exists. They understood that this treaty may not be good forever. In fact, they put provisions in the treaty. They had the foresight, they had the foresight to put provisions in this treaty which would allow the parties to the treaty, again the Soviet Union and the United States, which would allow these parties to leave the treaty. To go out of the treaty. I have heard recently and when I have read some of the press, some of you off this floor, frankly, who have made announcements that the United States would break a treaty. What would give any Nation the desire to make a treaty with the United States if the United States broke their word and broke these treaties. We are not breaking the treaty. The treaty has contained within its four corners, within the four corners of the document, it has contained provisions of how to withdraw from that treaty. So any representation by anyone that the United States of America through the Bush administration, which I commend for their leadership on this issue, any representation that withdrawal from this treaty is a breaking of the treaty is incorrect. The treaty itself contains provisions that allow withdrawal from the conditions of this treaty. Again to my left on this poster, this is the article. This treaty shall be of unlimited duration. Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty. It is a right. It is a right we retain for ourselves. It is a right the Soviet Union retained for themselves, and that is the right to be able to withdraw from this treaty. You have the right to withdraw from this treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interest. It shall give notice to the other party 6 months prior to the withdrawal from the treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events of the notifying party in regards as having jeopardized its supreme interest. Do we have circumstances which would justify extraordinary events? You know something, that is the easiest question of the night to answer. Have events occurred that are extraordinary in their nature which would allow us to withdraw from a treaty which prevents the United States from defending itself against missile attacks? Number one, the Soviet Union is not around any more. Number two, it is called Russia, Ukraine and other nations. The Soviet Union at that time in 1968, 1970, when these treaties were being negotiated, there was only one other country that had the capability to deliver missiles to the United States of America, and it was the Soviet Union. Let me show you today what we have got. It is no longer just Russia. Look at my poster to the left. It is no longer just Russia. No longer just the Soviet Union. Today North Korea has the capability to hit the West Coast with their nuclear missile. Pakistan has nuclear capability and missiles. India has nuclear capability and missiles. Israel has nuclear capability and missiles. China has nuclear capability and missiles. How much further do I have to go to justify extraordinary circumstances? Just one more nation other than the Soviet Union, in my opinion, justifies extraordinary circumstances. Let me go on. And other countries have all successfully detonated nuclear weapons, in addition, Iraq, Iran. Do those strike some kind of familiar sound? Do my colleagues remember a war not too long ago? In addition, Iran, Iran and Libya all have ballistic missile technology that they could use to deliver either a chemical or a biological attack. So we are not just talking about a nuclear warhead on top of one of these missiles. We are talking about the capability to deliver a biological weapon, some type of chemical weapon. These countries can destroy large portions of the United States of America; and we on this floor and our administration down the street, and the Senate on the other side, we have, as Margaret Thatcher has said, we have an inherent responsibility to protect the citizens of this country. So how can anybody stand on this floor and say we should not have a missile defense or the President is wrong because he said this ABM treaty, you cannot have the ABM and the missile defense both. The treaty does not allow for it. What the treaty does allow, it says in the treaty. The treaty says if you want to build a missile defense, you can withdraw from the treaty. We are not breaking the treaty, we are exercising our rights that we negotiated 30 years ago. That is to pull out of the treaty and build a defensive system for this country. By the way, the President just recently returned from Europe, and I have seen a lot of press about how the Europeans are opposing President Bush and his missile defense. He is some kind of roving cowboy. In Europe in the last few days, people are beginning to say, their leaders are saying, that George W. Bush is on to something. Somebody could launch a missile against Italy. Somebody could launch a missile against Spain, against London. We do not want to offend our other European brothers, but maybe we ought to look at it and see what Bush has in that bag. The United States, by the way, is going to make it technologically feasible; and I will address that in a few minutes. The Europeans are saying, I know what everybody is saying on the podium, and I know what the European press is saying, but frankly as a leader of my country, I have an obligation to defend it. So guess what happened last weekend? Italy's premier came out and said in a very aggressive nature, we support a missile defense system, and we encourage the United States of America to rapidly develop the technology to protect countries in this world from attack by a missile containing either biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Italy, the second one to jump on board. Our good friends, the United Kingdom, who have been wonderful allies, are on board. Guess who else? Spain. Spain is out there saying it is not such a bad idea. Maybe the best way, maybe the people that are most opposed to weapons in my opinion should be the strongest proponents of this. What is the best way to make a missile ineffective? It is the capability to defend against it. Whether it is in Europe or the United States of America, those people that oppose the development of missiles that are opposed to any kind of violence, they ought to be the first ones signing on the bottom line. They should say the United States has come up with a pretty good idea. Let me tell you that iron wall in Europe in opposition to American development of a missile defensive system, is showing significant cracks. It is my opinion, and the French usually lag behind, but it is my opinion that most of the European allies of ours and NATO over time will adopt the policy of the United States, and that is to defend their country from a missile attack. Let us talk just for a moment about what happens if we do not, just to give you an idea. On a Trident submarine, and the United States has Trident nuclear submarines. We have the most powerful military in the world. In fact, we have the most powerful military in the history of the world. We ought to have. I had kind of a fun thing happen the other day. I love high school students to stop by. The 4-H students stop by. The Boy Scouts stop by. We have some leadership programs back in Washington stop by. Usually we have groups, and I open it up for questions. One of the questions was from one of the students, and these questions are bright questions. This generation coming out, they are a bright generation. I have a lot of hope for the future of this country just based on these young people I have had the opportunity to meet. But back to the question. A high school student asked me, he said, Why do we need the CIA? Why do we need spies? My teacher, he implied his teacher thinks our country is being bad in essence because we have spies. I said, Let us answer that question. How many of you in here play high school sports? Almost everyone raised their hands. I asked one of the young ladies what sport she played. She said, I play basketball. I said, Tell me this. Before you play an opposing team, do you know the height of the person you are going to guard? Yes. Do you know how many baskets that lady made in the previous games? Yes. If it is a championship game, does somebody film them playing a prior game? Yes. I said, That is gathering intelligence. By gathering intelligence, you are able to disarm, dispose of the threat before the threat becomes destructive. That was one point. The second point, somebody asked why do we need such a strong military. I said it is very simple. This young man's name was John. I said John, if you were a black belt in karate and everybody in your class knew that and everybody knew if they tried to take your lunch or take something of yours, you would break their neck, how many fights do you think you would be in? John answered correctly, probably none. That is right. By having a strong military, and my theory, by having a strong military defense for your country, by defending the citizens of your Nation, you will avoid violence. You do not bring on violence, you avoid violence because the people who decide they want to undertake a violent act against you understand that there are repercussions that have a deadly impact. Or if we put up a missile defense system, they understand that they may not be able to produce any type of weapon that could give that harm to a missile. It makes a lot of sense for the United States to have a strong military. It makes a lot of sense for us to be able to defend this country. Let us take a look at what happens. Let me step back just for a moment. The Trident submarine, nuclear launching base. We probably have 18 or so of those out there. I am not giving you anything that is classified, obviously. We probably have 10 or 12 of them at sea at any given time. Do you know that one Trident submarine, one nuclear submarine of the United States, has more firepower than all of the countries combined for all the years of World War II? That is how powerful. A nuclear submarine can launch 195 nuclear warheads. We have a powerful force out there. But the other side has got a powerful force, too. And no matter how many submarines you have out there, you have got to have the capability not to just fire a missile if that, God forbid, ever became necessary, you have got to have the capability to stop an incoming weapon. Because if you do not, the odds of you having to fire your missiles out of one of those deadly submarines becomes much higher. If somebody shoots a missile at the United States of America and we are able to intercept it on its launching pad through a space intercept method or we can intercept it in space, we could prevent a war. Let us say, for example, that somebody launches a missile by accident, an accidental launch. Let me tell you, it happens. We have planes that crash by accident. As we all know the tragedy, we lost a spacecraft by accident. Accidents happen. It is logical to say that, at some point in the future, there might be an accidental launch of a nuclear weapon or an accidental launch of a weapon containing chemical or biological elements that would be devastating to this country. If we knew we had an inbound missile coming in and we did not have the capabilities to stop it, we may very well go to war with that country. If that missile hit, for example, New York City or if it hit Washington, D.C., or it hit Orlando, Florida, we may very well go to war instantaneously. Our retribution would be quick, and it would be decisive. But what if we found out later that the launch was by accident? What the missile defense system allows us is if the missile defense, if we have got that capability and there is an accidental launch that comes over and we are able to successfully stop that missile from hitting the mainland United States, we may have an allowance of time to find out that it was not an act of war, that it was an accident and because we had a missile defense system in place, we stopped the next world war. That alone justifies what President Bush is attempting to do and that is build a missile defense system for the United States. Do we have the technological capability? Of course we do. We do not have it all in-house today, but about 2 weeks ago, remember, we did a test. We have had four tests. Two of them have failed. Two of them have been successful. Remember that when the Wright brothers flew their airplane or when we ran the car, any other major invention, the first time, how many space missions we had to have before we could finally figure out and how much money we went through, how to land on the moon or how to fly an airplane or how to make a car. We are going to have failures. This technology is advanced. Remember that in order to intercept a missile in the air, en route, somebody told me one time it is the equivalent of throwing a basketball from San Francisco and making it through the hoop in Washington, D.C. This is tough technology. Two weekends ago, the United States of America fired a missile. That missile was traveling 4\1/2\ miles a second. Imagine, a bullet, 4\1/2\ miles a second inbound. We fired a missile to intercept it, and it was traveling at 4\1/2\ miles a second. 4\1/2\ miles, 4\1/2\ miles, and we have got to bring the two together, and they cannot miss by that far. They cannot miss by a foot. They have got to hit. Guess what happened? We brought the two missiles together. We intercepted. We will have the technology. We will have the technology to make a missile defense system in this country possible. We have an obligation to put on an expedited basis the necessary resources that it is going to take to bring us that technology. Let me give you an idea of what just a couple of missile heads would do if we do not defend, for example, and somebody fired a two-warhead attack on Philadelphia. Two warheads, one-megaton devices, detonating the results. If they fired one warhead with two heads on it, just one, with two on it, we would have 410,000 people killed like that. Some of my colleagues and some of the scholars in this country are saying and criticizing this country for saying that it should develop a system that will stop an inbound missile, that will stop a two-headed missile from wiping out 410,000 people in Philadelphia. What do we do today? If some foreign country, just so you know where we are today, one, we have a treaty that says we cannot defend ourselves with a missile defensive system. And, two, we today have a detection unknown before in the history of the world. It is called NORAD. It is located in Colorado Springs, the district of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), Colorado Springs, Colorado. NORAD has the capability to detect a missile launch anywhere in the world, and they can detect it within a few seconds. So our country today, within a couple of seconds, can detect a missile launch anywhere. We can tell you within a few seconds more where that missile is going, at what speed it is going, the likely type of missile it is and where its target is. But after that today, what can our country do? We can call up Philadelphia and say, you have an inbound missile, it has got, we think, two warheads, a minimum of two warheads on it. It is going to hit in 16\1/2\ minutes. That is all we can tell you. There is not anything we can do for you. We will pray for you, and we have alerted the White House so that we can prepare to go to war immediately. The President is prepared to launch an all-out nuclear retaliatory attack. Why should we have to go through that? Why should we have to go through what at some point in the future is not going to be a test but is going to be a realistic either accidental or an intentional missile launch against the United States of America when we do not have to do it, when we can stop it? This may very well be the secret to stopping a war in the future. So why would any of my colleagues oppose the President's position, number one, that the treaty, the antiballistic missile treaty is not valid. You cannot have that and a missile defense system at the same time. Do not think there is a way to tiptoe around the treaty. Do not think there is a way to talk fuzzy, warm talk and pat the Russians on the back and tell our European friends that, okay, we will do this, water it down a little here and there. The fact is very clear and simple. You cannot have the treaty and have the missile defense system. You have got to do something with the treaty. The treaty allows you to do it. We are not breaking the treaty. I have said this three times in my comments this evening. The President is not advocating the breaking of a treaty. The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and Condolezza Rice, they are not saying break the treaty. What they are bringing to our attention, and they are absolutely correct, what they are bringing to our attention is that the treaty contained within its own four corners allows us the rights, we have rights within this treaty, the right to withdraw from this treaty so that we can properly defend our country if extraordinary circumstances occur. As I said earlier, what more extraordinary circumstances do you need as justification other than the fact that North Korea, India, Pakistan, China, Iraq, Iran, and several other countries now have nuclear capability and have missile technology? Mr. Speaker, the old days of only the United States and the Soviet Union having missiles are over. Our generation, my generation, worried about the Soviet Union, but that is all we had to worry about was the Soviet Union as far as a missile attack with nuclear capability. That is what we had to worry about. Unfortunately, for the generation behind us, they have a multitude of concerns that they are going to have to worry about unless we accept our responsibilities in this generation and that is the responsibility of some type of vision to defend this country so that, as this new generation comes of age in our country, they are going to be able to relax knowing that if somebody launches accidentally against the United States or intentionally against the United States we will not have to sustain casualties in the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands. We will not have to do it because we will have the capability to defend against it. Now, some of my colleagues, interestingly, have said, and some of the press, ``Well, let's just have a very limited missile ballistic system. Let's just have a few defensive missiles in Alaska and nowhere else in the country. Let's just have a little bit.'' Give me a break. Give me a break. You cannot do it halfway. You cannot afford to be derelict in your responsibility. You cannot afford to say to the United States of America, all right, we will protect this portion of the Nation, but the rest of you, because it happens to be politically correct today, we are not going to put a missile defensive system that will help you. By the way, the missile attacks may not necessarily come against the cities. A good place for a missile attack may be Hoover Dam, knock out 70 percent of the water in the West, knock out the power generation. Psychologically, think of what you would do to a country. You could hit a nuclear generation facility. There are a lot of different targets out there. You cannot just say we are going to defend a little tiny part of the country. That is what some of my colleagues are saying. I think some of my colleagues have picked this issue up not because they really believe that the United States should not have a missile defense system. I think some of my colleagues have picked this issue up simply because it is a big issue for our new President, George W. Bush, and so politically they are searching for something to attack the President on and this happens to be what they have gotten. Let me beg all of you, and I said beg. I do not like begging anybody--neither do you--but let me beg each and every one of you, do not use this as your political issue. This is the wrong issue. From a bipartisan point of view, we all have an obligation, as fundamental as protecting our children when they were babies. We have a fundamental obligation to the people we represent to provide a defense for them, to make sure that nobody, friendly in case of an accidental launch or unfriendly in case of an intentional launch, we have an obligation to give our people the maximum protection, the maximum protection against that type of an attack. Let us talk about the system the President has proposed. Real briefly, before we get into that, let me just show this poster because I think this poster accurately reflects and gives you an idea. Remember, that in 1972 when the Soviet Union and the United States signed the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, this map only had two areas of blue color, over here in the Soviet Union and right here in the United States of America. Look at where we are today. Look at where we are today. These colors reflect right here countries possessing ballistic missiles. Take a look at the number of countries that we have on this poster to my left. Let us start over in the extreme left, the Ukraine, UAE, U.S. obviously, Vietnam, Yemen, Taiwan, Syria, South Africa, Slovakia, Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, Libya, Pakistan, Poland, keep going, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Hungary, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bulgaria. Take a look at that. Let me say, look to my left at this poster. How can any one of my colleagues say that with this kind of threat, and everywhere there is purple there is a threat to the United States of America, with this kind of a threat you are saying to the people of the United States of America that we should not be able to defend against this? How can you look at your constituents when you go back to your district? Or, even more importantly, how can you look at yourself in the mirror and say that under these kind of circumstances with this kind of current existing threat, not even assuming what will be in existence 10 years from now, but even under the current conditions of the threat, how can you look yourself in the mirror and say, I am not going to allow the country that I represent to build a missile defensive system? You cannot do it. You cannot do it. We have that obligation. We owe it to the people of this Nation, and we have an obligation for vision to the people of the next generation and the next generation to make sure that no matter how spread over here on my left, no matter how spread this purple is, no matter how many countries in the world have missiles, we will have a missile defense system that will stop it. We will have a missile defense system that, by the way, we are willing to share with our friends. We can do it. We can do it, and we have an obligation to do it. Now, let me shift. Earlier, as I said, I wanted to talk for a few moments about the capability of the technology that we have got. What do I envision of a missile defensive system? Well, what we have got, we are going to have to have several elements of it. I do not have my diagram here this evening to show you, so I am going to explain it the best I can. You do not want a missile defense system which intercepts the enemy missile or the accidental launch of a missile over the United States. That is the last resort. Why hit a missile over New York City? If it is going to hit New York City and you destroy it a mile above New York City, you may in fact have more casualties. You do not want to have to bring down a nuclear missile over the air space of the United States of America. So that is the last choice you want. Now, that may be, under some circumstances, the only alternative you have got. But under the technology we are trying to develop, and, let me tell you, if the United States of America can put a man on the moon, if the United States of America can discover penicillin and utilize it in this country, if the United States of America can do some of the amazing accomplishments that we have done, whether it is the invention of the airplane, cars or et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, we can develop the technology to do what I envision, what the President envisions, the type of defensive system we need. What would it include? It would have to have a space laser intercept. The advantage of being able to utilize a defensive satellite with laser intercept in space is that you can move that satellite to any trouble spot. So if, for example, and again referring to my map on the left, if, for example, we end up with a problem down in this area, and we have got a satellite defense system over here, take a look at this poster to my left, we can move the satellite so it is right over the country that is our threat. Now, obviously if we have an accidental launch, we want to be able to pick that accidental launch up. But a lot of our threat in the future will begin with or be preceded with tensions between the countries. There will be high tensions. We will know that a conflict is approaching. So, as a defensive move, as a preemptive move, we will move our satellite over that vicinity where we think their missiles are located. What we want to be able to do, the ideal situation is to destroy a missile that is targeted for the United States of America, to destroy that missile on its launching pad. Let the country that is going to send the missile our way, let them deal with the missile exploding on a pad right there in their own country. How many countries do you think are going to want to fire a missile against the United States, a nuclear missile, or a biological missile, if they know that the United States has the capability of destroying that missile while it is still in their own country? There is not a lot of incentive to do that kind of thing. So we have got a system that, upon its launch, or being able to destroy on its launching pad the missile. If the missile gets off its launching pad and begins to come across, then this is going to really be a three tier system, space, sea and land. So out over here, you are going to have to have intercept missiles based on ships that are going to be able to target and hopefully destroy that missile while it is out over the ocean, where it is going to have the minimal amount of impact. Now, remember that any time you destroy a missile in air space, you still have air currents, so the fact that we destroy this missile out here somewhere over the Atlantic does not mean we are not going to have an impact over the continental United States. In fact, because of the air currents, we may very well. But we do know this: We are a lot better off to destroy that missile here before it hits here in New York City or Colorado Springs or Los Angeles. Finally, the third part of our technology, the land-based system would be our last resort, which means that our laser beam and our space defense system missed it, our ship sea defense system missed it, so we have got a final try, and that is our land-based system, as that missile comes into the final few miles before it hits its target. My interest on discussing technology tonight is to tell you that the technology will be available; that the United States of America is leading every country in the world in the development of this technology; that this test that we had 2 weeks ago, where a missile was fired and approaching the target, 4\1/2\ miles a second, 4\1/2\ miles a second, our technology that we have right now, we were able to launch an intercept missile also going 4\1/2\ miles a second, and we were able to, in essence, bring two bullets together out there in the air space, and we stopped it. It was a successful test. Now, we have a long ways to go, but we can accomplish this. I think one way to help us with this technology in this area is for us to give it political support. My purpose here tonight is not to act like a scientist. I am not a scientist. I can no more tell you about nuclear physics, I am not much better at frying an egg than that. I can tell you about political support. The President has stepped forward, I think in a very courageous manner, to say, look, somebody has to say what needs to be said, and what needs to be said is that the United States of America needs a defensive system; a defense not only against an intentional launch, but an accidental launch as well. And this President, George W. Bush, has had the courage to step forward. All the politically correct people, the Europeans, people in our own country, people on this House floor, jump up as an issue, not because I think they really believe in it, but as an issue, and say, how dare you talk about the United States having a defensive system, a system that would protect them from an intentional or accidental launch? How dare you do that. That is not politically correct. But our President is determined, and our President has in his heart and has as a principle of his entire philosophy that he has inherent responsibility to the people of the Nation that he serves to protect them from a missile launch. So he said what has to be said. We need to give that President political support. Do not take cheap shots off this floor. Do not go to your newspaper and talk about technologically it is impossible. Our former President, I heard a former President say this morning, I heard a quote about it is a technological impossibility or something similar to that. Wake up. What happened 2 weeks ago? We do have the technology available to get us to the point we need to get that will provide a defensive system for this Nation, for this generation and for the following generations, to protect our own children, not just ourselves, but our own children and our grandchildren from a missile attack. So we will have the technology. But we are not going to get to the technology and we are not going to get to the point where we can protect the citizens of this country if we do not have enough guts to stand up and do what is necessary, and that is give the political support to the President and to the administration with a green light to go ahead, and say, Mr. President, build a system that will protect your and our country. Mr. President, you have an obligation to defend this country. You are on the right track. Every one of us in these chambers, to the person, ought to be willing to stand strong against political correctness and say to the world, Look, world: No matter how much you criticize, the United States is not going to make itself a target for many multitudes of countries in the future to launch a missile attack against us. The United States will not allow itself to get into a position where some small country, or some large country, or any country, can intimidate, threaten, or force the United States to take an action they do not want to take, simply because they have the capability to launch a missile into a city in the United States of America. We owe this to the people. We owe it to them. So let me in my remaining moments, these last 12 minutes, kind of reiterate the importance of the issue that we are talking about tonight. Obviously Social Security is critical for us. Health care is an important issue for us. Education, I could tell you about that. I would love to talk about education. To me in the West, public lands, water issues. There are a lot of important issues for us. So I am not meaning to discount any other issue. I am not meaning to dilute your own personal platform as far as what you think is important. But I can tell you this: I sincerely believe that if we lay out all the issues, we put them on this table, I cannot believe of an issue that is more important nor a threat more impending than missiles, and that issue of missile defense is something important for every one of us on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, what I am sensing is that my colleagues, a good number, not all of my colleagues, but some on the liberal side of the Democratic Party, the liberal aspects of the Democratic Party, have decided that a missile defense is not good for this country; that this country should not defend itself from a missile attack. More than that, I think the real thing that is driving the liberal side of some of these thinkers is that it is President Bush really pushing it. He might get it done. We certainly cannot allow him to accomplish this kind of thing. So I am asking all of you, and I asked in my previous comments, set the partisanship aside. Set it aside and think about the vision that we owe for future generations. Think about what we need to do to assure that people even 10 years from now will not be intimidated or have the entire future of this country at risk because somebody launches, accidentally, not even intentionally, somebody launches accidentally a missile against the United States of America. We can all stand together. This is an issue that is not Republican, not Democrat. It is an issue that we can join with the administration, with George W. Bush, to take to the American people, and we can deliver to the American people a security net; a security net that is as important to the American people as a seat belt is to you in a car. We can deliver a security net that will assure the American people, and our allies, and our allies, that no other country in the world can threaten or launch a missile successfully against the United States of America. Now, earlier in my comments I mentioned about political courage, and it is very interesting to hear all the bashing that has gone on about President George W. Bush's position of missile defense in Europe, that the Europeans, the way you read the media, you would think the Europeans are entirely unified in opposition to this; they are aghast; they are astounded that a Nation like the United States would think of building a system that would defend themselves from a missile attack. But, do you know what? That wall has cracked. Do you know what? There are countries over there in Europe saying, wait a minute. You know, I think it is nice to bash the United States of America, but, you know, they got a point here. This missile defensive system, you know, it might work. In fact, after this test 2 weeks ago that they did, this thing is going to work, and the United States is going to have a system that defends their citizens from attack. Maybe we ought to do the same thing. Who is saying that? Look at the United Kingdom, the Brits. They are saying, hey, we support the United States. Take a look at Italy this last weekend. Take a look at the comments from Italy. Their leader has said in Italy, we strongly support and strongly advocate the United States of America building a defensive missile system. Take a look at Spain. They are not far behind. Do you know what is going to happen? As the rest of the world has in the past, as they are amazed by American technology, they are going to come on board. My prediction is 15 years from now, almost every Nation in the world will have some type of missile defensive system. And what happens when that happens? What happens when that happens? You know what? It takes that very deadly, lethal weapon, the missile; it significantly lowers the risk of impact, negative impact, from that missile. Because what good are missiles, especially in any kind of volume, if a defensive missile system will stop them from being effective, or, even more importantly, if you have a defensive missile system that will destroy the missile on its launching pad in the country that wants to fire it, so it does devastating damage to that country? You know, there is not a lot of incentive to fire a missile against the United States, if you know the United States can pick it up, fire a laser, and stop that missile on its launching pad. It kind of makes short history of the people around your launching pad. There are so many things that are essentially common sense in missile defense. Common sense in missile defense. Think about it. Go out and talk to your constituents this weekend. First of all, ask your constituents, find out how many of them today think we have some type of protection. It is surprising. A lot of our constituents think that today we can defend ourselves against a missile defense attack. We cannot. Once you get by that with your constituents this week, sit down, put your partisanship aside, and for the liberal segment here, for the liberal people, put that aside, just for a few moments and ask the people, person-to-person, all politics aside, person-to-person, do you think it would be a good idea for this Nation to defend itself against an intentional or accidental launch against our citizens? Guess what? You will get a resounding yes and probably followed by a comment, why have we not done it already? What are you guys doing? I thought we had a defensive system in place. That is what the American people are saying to us. We are their leaders. We are not kings. We have been elected by these people in a representative government to come up here. We have fiduciary duties. That is the highest responsibility of duty to our Nation and to its people, to do what will protect the public interest and will protect our country and allow our country to remain strong into the future. Right now, the number one issue at the very front is a missile defense system. In conclusion, I ask every one of my colleagues, regardless of what State you are from, whether you are from Massachusetts or Florida or Oregon or Colorado, that you step forward and start giving political support so that we can then advance the technological support to implement, as President George W. Bush has asked, a missile defensive system to protect the citizens and future generations of this country. It is our responsibility. It is not our neighbor's responsibility. It is our responsibility. I hope each and every one of us carries it out to the fullest extent.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remember the accomplished and unforgettable life of Gladys ``Skeeter'' Werner Walker. She was truly a kind person and an outstanding athlete. As family and friends mourn her passing, I would like to pay tribute to this longtime resident of Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Skeeter was born in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, with the rest of her family, and was the oldest of three siblings who grew up to ski in the Olympics. She and her two brothers, Buddy and Loris, trained locally on Howelsen Hill and traveled later to ski in the Alps. The Werner family's prominence in the skiing world flourished to such an extent that the name of the ski mountain in Steamboat Springs was changed from Storm Mountain to Mount Werner in their honor. Skeeter began skiing at age one and entering competitions by the age of five. Perhaps one of her greatest achievements was being selected as the youngest member of the U.S. Alpine World Championship Team in 1954, at the age of 21. At the downhill event in Sweden, Skeeter placed 10th. Her triumph was awarded when she graced the cover of Sports Illustrated and became recognized as one of America's great Olympians. When Skeeter again returned to the Olympics in 1956 in Italy, she again garnered a 10th place finish in the downhill race. Skiing was not Skeeter's only career. After retiring from skiing in 1958, she relocated to New York where she was a model and a fashion designer. The Yampa Valley drew Skeeter back in 1962, and along with her brother Buddy and his wife Vanda, they opened two ski shops in Steamboat and Skeeter initiated the first ski school at Storm Mountain. Every step of the way opened a new opportunity for Skeeter and her family that allowed them to have a dramatic impact on the Yampa Valley that will last forever. She fell in love with and, in 1969, married Doak Walker, the 1948 Heisman Trophy winner. Together, Doak and Skeeter helped to shape Steamboat and the skiing community. Doak passed away in 1998 following a skiing injury several months earlier. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Skeeter was a person who lived an accomplished life. Although friends and family are profoundly saddened by her passing on Friday, July 20, each can take solace in the wonderful life that she led. At the age of 67, Skeeter was an outstanding member of the community and a heroic role model for others. I know I speak for everyone who knew Skeeter well when I say she will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take time to recognize two individuals, David and Sue Ann Smith. They have shared a life together for fifty years. These two were married in Gallup, New Mexico on December 28, 1951. This is a special and ``golden'' occasion, and quite an event in times when marriage doesn't always endure these long years. It shows great dedication and hard work, exemplifying such values for future generations in their family. As family and friends will gather to celebrate this joyous occasion, I too would like to recognize them at this special time. David and Sue Ann have built and shared their life together these fifty years in Meeker, Colorado on the Smith Family Ranch that has been in the family for well over 100 years. It is a Centennial Ranch in Colorado. David and Sue Ann expanded the ranch in the late 1960's by adding the Barrett ranches and the Ed Sprod Ranch, and the ranch now surrounds the town of Meeker on all four sides. In addition to the responsibilities of the ranch work, David and Sue Ann both have been heavily involved with their community. Both have been active on numerous Community Boards. David served on the School Board, worked with the Cub Scouts, served on the Planning and Zoning Commission and served as a Rio Blanco County Commissioner. He has been and still is involved with many water issues. He currently serves on the Meeker Town Ditch Committee, the Highland and Yellow Jacket Ditch Groups, and is also a long-standing member of the Colorado River District Board and the Colorado Water Conservancy Board. Sue Ann has worked as a den mother for the Cub Scouts and has been a leader for various Girl Scout troops. She has also been active with the Colorado West Mental Health Group and many 4-H groups. She is now working with the Safe House Group, the Build a Generation Group, and she started the Walbridge Wing Family Support Group. As you can see, these two individuals have contributed and still contribute many hours of service and dedication to their community. Their largest contribution has always been to their family. They have raised five children: David W. Smith, Brent A. Smith, Phillip M. Smith, Lori E. McInnis, and Brian E. Smith. They now have eleven grandchildren. Through their work on their ranch and all of their community service, they have provided their children and grandchildren with morals and values for hard work and the giving of oneself to others. The largest gift given is the example set forth through fifty years of a strong and determined love for each other. David and Sue Ann, congratulations on your fifty years together. We wish you many more great years together.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, without the courage, patriotism, and self- sacrifice of United States veterans, past and present, we as citizens would not enjoy the freedoms we so often take for granted. I would like to thank a true hero, Doug Sterner, for his commitment to help honor those men and women who have brought honor, freedom, and glory to our Nation. Doug was recently appointed as the new Chairman for the Colorado State Board of Veterans Affairs. A Vietnam War veteran and co- founder of the Home of Heroes campaign in Pueblo, Doug is certainly the right man for the post. I would like to congratulate him, and to thank him for his continued dedication toward bringing services and recognition to America's heroes. As Doug begins his new role, he will help direct a new grant program that allows veterans access to direct services. For instance, the program will help provide transportation so that veterans can take advantage of needed services. In addition, he plans on developing a statewide Operation Recognition Program that will help allow World War II veterans who did not finish high school to go back and receive an honorary diploma. Dennis Darrow, of The Pueblo Chieftain, recounts Doug as explaining, ``the program brings more patriotic education into schools while honoring World War II veterans and other military personnel.'' In addition, Doug has started a series of school assemblies in the Pueblo area, which feature Medal of Honor recipients. He has also established the website HomeOfHeroes.com, which details veterans' stories, provides free booklets and videos, and allows kids to interact through quizzes and games. This elaborate website provides a wealth of information for children and adults, and has been recognized by The Pueblo Chieftain as ``The nation's leading Web site for information about patriotism.'' Mr. Speaker, I was involved in some of the ceremonies recognizing Medal of Honor recipients as part of the Home of Heroes campaign. I can say from personal experience that Doug Sterner devoted much of himself to see the Home of Heroes project through, and in doing so brought a tremendous amount of needed attention to the sacrifices made on our behalf by Medal of Honor recipients from Pueblo and everywhere else for this Nation. Mr. Speaker, Doug Sterner exemplifies patriotism and deserves the praise and admiration of this body. His appointment as Colorado State Board of Veterans Affairs Chairman reflects the huge strides he has made in providing education, support, and recognition for those who fought for our fundamental rights. I would like to thank him on behalf of Congress for his extensive work with our Nation's veterans.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to honor a man who has been offered a unique opportunity, Paul Zschokke. Paul has been nominated to spend a week at Space Camp learning the mental, physical and emotional strains that face this Nation's astronauts. This experience will not only benefit Paul, but also the thirty, ten- and eleven-year-old students Paul teaches each year at Highland Park Elementary School. For eighteen years Paul has been a teacher in Pueblo and in that time he has molded the minds of hundreds of students. Paul was not always interested in teaching, when he was younger electronics was his interest, but when he got to college he decided to major in psychology, because he wanted to spend his life with people. His early interest in science is apparent in Paul's lesson plans. He has been trying to incorporate science and math into his writing curriculum, because writing is such a crucial skill at any age. For the last eight years Paul has been working closely with the Pueblo Boeing plant, to expose his students to aerodynamics, aerospace and how real business functions bring to life math and science. The field trips to the plant have allowed his students a unique perspective on the real life application of the subjects that seem so abstract in the school setting. The program that Paul has implemented, Pueblo with Boeing, is the main reason that Paul will be attending space camp. Although Paul never wanted to become an astronaut, he did say, ``I always wanted to be one of those guys in the white shirts on the ground trying to figure out the problems.'' By the end of his week at Space Camp, Paul will be at mission control in Houston watching those men ``in white shirts'' in action. Throughout this experience Paul has set the personal goal of finding more ways to merge English with science. If Paul accomplishes his goal, not only will his life be enriched by this experience, but also the lives of his students. In a time when Congress is continually looking for a way to improve education in the United States, it is commendable when a teacher takes the initiative to improve his skills and knowledge for the benefit of his students. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I stand before you to recognize Paul Zschokke. Good luck at Space Camp, Paul, and I hope you continue to strive to be the best teacher you can be.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to congratulate and thank Dan and Mary King of Ouray, Colorado, for having the courage and initiative to take on a project that will enrich the City of Ouray. The couple, who are working to completely renovate the historic Beaumont Hotel, will provide residents and visitors both with a sense of history and foundation. Dan and Mary, who are from San Antonio, Texas, have made a huge investment in the once crumbling hotel. They purchased what Lori Cumpston of The Daily Sentinel called ``the pink elephant--an eyesore'' at an auction in 1998 with the hopes of transforming it into ``a revitalized hotel with retail shops, restaurants, and a spa.'' Currently, the Kings have found fifty workers to help them update the building with new electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and fire suppression systems, as well as handicapped access to all floors. They are also baring the natural brick that has long been covered with bubblegum pink paint. ``Every square inch, including the mortar, has had to be hand scraped,'' Mary said. While the new Beaumont will portray new amenities, however, they are also keeping the hotel authentic. Dan said, ``We want to change as little as possible. We want the experience to be that it's 115 years old.'' Even though Mary and Dan estimate that the hotel will not be finished until the summer of 2002, the first shop owner in the hotel is already enjoying the King's project. David Smith, whose business is the first in 37 years to open in the Beaumont Hotel, has already opened Buckskin Booksellers at the Beaumont, which houses over 4000 new and rare books. Smith says of the Beaumont, ``Most people see this as becoming the core of the town.'' Mr. Speaker, the Kings have done a great service in transforming what used to inhibit the town's atmosphere into what might be the new ``core'' of Ouray. I ask we pay tribute on behalf of Congress to their personal sacrifice and their initiative.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, we live in a world where thousands of children are neglected or abused, where television is a common substitute for parenting, and where many parents feel insecure or even indifferent about their ability as parents. Terry and Vicki Brady have not only refused to become part of this dangerous downward spiral, but they have reached out to help direct others, serving as leaders and role models in the most important occupation. For their efforts, they have been selected as Colorado Parents of the Year, and they certainly deserve our thanks and congratulations. Terry and Vicki, who live outside Idaho Springs, Colorado, are the proud parents of eight children, ranging in age from 5 months to 24 years. They have encountered challenges endured by all parents, as well as a few most hope they never have to face. Their first child, Emily, nearly died in her infancy from a rare disease. Emily survived, but when she began school, severe learning disabilities caused her to be deemed ``uneducable.'' Instead of giving up, Vicki taught Emily at home, eventually helping Emily to learn in ways the family had been told were impossible. As a result of this experience, Vicki and Terry decided to home school all of their children, and to help guide others in the same endeavor. The two currently run Home Education Network (HEN) Radio, which has led to national recognition in the field of home schooling. Vicki, Terry, and three of their children share the responsibilities of the radio station where they broadcast nationally the programs Just a Mom and Homeschooling USA. Vicki, a radio host, facilitates discussions between parents with a wide range of backgrounds, as well as answering questions from callers. In all, they produce live broadcasts four times per week, using it as a means to serve and minister to others. In addition, Vicki has authored Quiet Moments for Home School Moms and Dads and The Basic Steps to Successful Homeschooling. Terry serves as president of HEN and executive producer of the two live programs. Mr. Speaker, Terry and Vicki Brady have been excellent role models for parents, particularly those who home school their children. They have contributed to a vital movement toward making our nation's children our first priority. Their outstanding efforts deserve the praise and admiration of us all. My thanks to them for a job well done.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor and congratulate Anne Flick Steinbeck on her retirement for the Gunnison/Hinsdale Department of Social Services. When she retired on June 11, Anne had given the department more than 38 years of dedicated service. Her presence will surely be missed. While being recognized at a gala retirement event, Gunnison County Commissioner Perry Anderson called Steinbeck a ``miracle worker.'' Although the Gunnison/Hinsdale Department of Social Services has undergone numerous changes during the time Anne has served, the primary aim of assisting fellow human beings has remained the same. Touching the hearts of others has undoubtedly been a motivating factor for her as she has served selflessly for the people of her community. After many years of service to others, Anne and her husband have decided to travel and spend a considerable amount of time with their family. I wish Anne Steinbeck the best of luck and thank her for the dedicated effort she has put forth.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart I would like to recognize the passing of Leo S. Altman. Leo was a compassionate husband and grandfather, a dedicated lawyer and a skilled woodworker, who resided in Pueblo, Colorado and died on Thursday, July 12--on the birthday of his wife, Helen, who passed away last year. Leo gave of himself unselfishly and made a difference in many peoples' lives. As a figurehead, young lawyers would look to him for advice not only because of his helping hand, but because he was a remarkable lawyer. His teachings he was able to inspire others and truly set an example for many to emulate. Beginning in 1935 and as a partner in Preston & Altman; Leo did not end his career until a month ago when his health began to fail him. Beyond the scope of his occupation, Leo loved to travel and visited 108 countries throughout his lifetime. Woodworking was another passion that he developed and he has made everything from tables to jewelry boxes. The idea of service to others filled his heart and was witnessed by his involvement in the State Board of Bar Examiners. He also served as the president of the Pueblo Bar Association and in other positions as a municipal judge and police magistrate. Throughout World War II Leo was a judge advocate and retired from the Army Reserve with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. As his wife was nearing the end of her life, Leo comforted her. Since then he has lived by himself. His humility pervaded his character as did his patience, professionalism, and care. Seemingly always giving more than expected, Leo was a dedicated man and well respected. Leo Altman shall be remembered as a man with an intense mind, delicate character and a big heart. Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with his family and I would like to extend my warmest regards and deepest sympathy to them.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I would like to remember the life of Joseph Maxwell ``Max'' Clifton, who passed away on July 12, 2001. He was a dedicated businessman and a compassionate individual. In 1966, Max and his son-in-law started a car dealership, a Datsun franchise, in Pueblo County, Colorado. Establishing a market for these cars was a daunting task since there were less than five Datsuns registered in the area. His business was later purchased and was turned into a prosperous dealership in the community. The success of the business is a testament to the charisma and passion that Max exhibited at work. Max truly valued his employees and knew how to manage the business successfully. Whether it was through summer picnics or just day-to-day comments, he was well respected and admired. Besides his automobile venture, Max owned a Christian radio station--KFEL. Max provided an example as to how to treat others, and his legacy will endure in the actions and hearts of those individuals. Not only was Max an integral member of the community in Pueblo County, Max was also an important part of many peoples' hearts and minds. His memory will live through those he touched. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my deepest sympathy and warmest regards to Max Clifton's family and my thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, freedom, as we know, is not free and requires large doses of perseverance, dedication and sacrifice. Since his extensive tour of duty with the Navy during some of the most tumultuous times in World War II, Vernon Joseph Charron Jr. has traveled to numerous schools and other settings to inspire the youth of America with a similar passion for the United States that he holds. Vernon is a man who has aided the battle of freedom and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize his service to our country. ``Vern'' was awestruck at the sight of his ship arriving at Pearl Harbor in 1942. The battle cruiser U.S.S. Atlanta was the ship that would be his home during the ensuing conflict. Located on the island of Guadalcanal and three months after the main conflict there, the Americans held a rudimentary airstrip called Henderson Field. Surprise confrontations and unplanned attacks stemming from the Japanese still plagued the island and resulted in many casualties. Obtaining and maintaining control of the waters surrounding the island was critical, and it is here that one of the most gruesome battles occurred and Vernon fought. On the night of November 12, 1942, as 14 ships from the Japanese fleet attacked the Henderson Field, the U.S.S. Atlanta and 12 other U.S. ships confronted the aggressors. After the battle, the area would be known as ``Ironbottom Sound'' due to the number of casualties and sunken debris. Twenty-seven ships attempted to destroy each other. The U.S.S. Atlanta, by the end, had been hit 49 times before it ultimately sank. Although Vernon was the thirteenth man in his crew, he was the only survivor. Amidst flame and further attack, the U.S.S. Atlanta lost 170 men that night and although men of this generation were taught not to cry, a tear fell from Vern's eyes as he recounted the demise of this great ship and her crew. Only upon further examination did we discover that Vernon went from one firestorm to another because he also served in the battle of Midway and also in the Solomon Island Campaign. During these momentous times and occurrences, Vern was only 17 years of age. Following the trials of war, Mr. Charron was employed by the Russell Stover Candies company and continued his position there for 49 years. While the USS Atlanta rests below 80 fathoms of water near Guadalcanal, Vern uses his experiences to light the fires of patriotism in youth to perpetuate the great spirit of America. His service is commendable as he gave of himself unselfishly to our remarkable nation. I applaud him and thank him for his efforts. He has certainly demonstrated the cost of freedom and his teachings will persist as testaments to America.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor Ed Smith as we sadly mourn his passing. Ed was a man devoted to his family and served a dedicated career as the Centennial football coach and school district administrator. Ed has been a model to us all, teaching us how to win, how to lose graciously, and how never to give in. Professionally, Ed was revered by his colleagues. Central coach, principal and teacher John Rivas told Loretta Sword, of The Pueblo Chieftain, ``He was the godfather of it all, you might say, and he was always there to help me if I had a problem or a situation I didn't have a handle on.'' His initiative helped ensure that the Dutch Clark Stadium had the financial and community support necessary to be built. Also, he made certain that the annual All-Star games were properly organized when they were in Pueblo, and that everything went smoothly and safely. For his success, he was named Honorary Meet Director of the Colorado statewide track meet he helped bring to Pueblo, and was honored for his work with the athletic arena for the community. Ed was a gifted athlete himself, and he never lost his love for competition, or his skill at it. When he was 91 years old, he shot a hole-in-one with thirty-year-old golf clubs he received as a retirement gift. Throughout his life, Ed received many honors and awards, including having his name included in the Greater Pueblo Sports Association Hall of Fame and the Centennial Hall of Fame. Perhaps his greatest reward was that, as former coach Sollie Raso attested, ``I honestly think . . . Ed and his wife, they were at peace with one another, their family, and their God.'' Indeed, Ed was a dedicated husband up until his wife, Margaret Boyer Smith, passed away. He also devoted himself to his two sons, Dr. Dean B. Smith, who preceded him in death, and Dr. E. Jim Smith. Ed also had sixteen grandchildren and nineteen great- grandchildren. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Ed Smith was an inspiration to his students, colleagues, family and friends. His dedication and devotion to all of his endeavors are unparalleled and should not go without recognition. I am proud to have this opportunity to pay tribute to such an amazing man, he will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the Pueblo County Sheriff's Department for its dedicated professional service. Recently, the Department received the highest award given by the National Sheriff's Association, the Triple Crown Accreditation. In recognition of this award, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring them for their remarkable service. The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc, awarded the Sheriff's Office this prestigious accreditation. The honor was given after a process of ``thorough, agency-wide self-evaluation'' in addition to ``an exacting outside review'' by an independent team of assessors. The Pueblo County Sheriff's Department self-evaluation showed an efficient operation and respect among staff, while the impartial committee observed the same excellence from the outside. The Sheriff's Department was also commended for its compliance with Standards for Health Services in Jails. The requirements to pass the assessment for the Triple Crown Accreditation Award are so stringent that only 33 organizations in the world earned all three accreditations. Sheriff Dan Corsentino rightfully shows pride in his organization in saying, ``We are a professional organization, we are a united organization, we are an organization that plans, and we are an organization that is worthy of the Triple Crown Accreditation that was awarded to us . . . in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.'' As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Pueblo County Sheriff's Department has set an example for other corrections offices throughout the world to follow. In every sense, the people of this department are the embodiment of all the best in law enforcement and they deserve our praise and admiration. My thanks to them for a job well done.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like honor a man whose contributions should be looked upon as an inspiration to all. James Samuelson, longtime resident of Glenwood Springs, recently passed away. James served in World War II, flourished as co-editor and publisher of The Glenwood Post, volunteered in his community, and gave his time and contributions to help those in countries less fortunate than our own. As we mourn his passing, Jim will be remembered for his dedicated service with the Army Medical Corps during World War II. During his committment, Jim served in many places including North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. After the war, Jim pursued his journalism career where he used his skills working as co-editor and publisher of The Glenwood Post with his brother, John, until 1966, after which he earned his Masters of Education from the University of Wyoming. Thoughout his life, Jim enjoyed many activies such as skiing, fly fishing, and playing sports. He also was an active volunteer with the Lions Club, American Legion, and the Mountain View Church. As we remember his life, let us not forget Jim's efforts to aid those less fortunate living in foreign countries where he helped establish medical clinics for the underserved in both Haiti and Mexico. For 55 years, Jim was married to his wonderful wife, Marilyn. Together, he and Marilyn raised a daughter and five sons, and were the proud grandparents to fourteen and great-grandparents to two. He and Marilyn enjoyed traveling to such places as Europe, Israel, and Turkey, making their last trip just three years ago. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I honor Jim Samuelson for his many contributions throughout his life. His formidable efforts deserve the praise and admiration of us all. His service to his community, and to those less fortunate, is something that we should all seek to emulate. I know I speak for everyone who knew Jim when I say he will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Florence Hoffman on receiving the Jackson County Council on Aging 2001 Senior of the Year Award. Florence's giving heart and gentle spirit have been instrumental in the Council's success. I am encouraged by her determination and willingness to help others and would like to take this moment to honor her. Florence is a long-time resident of Cowdrey, Colorado. After her husband passed away, Florence came to rely on the community's senior citizens' OATS van, which provides alternative transportation for those who request its aid. Mr. Speaker, the contributions that Florence has put forth certainly deserve the praise and admiration of this body. Florence has made significant monetary contributions annually to the service and also offers sizable increases to the usual fee for each ride that she takes. Her notable acts of selflessness have bolstered the OATS van and have ensured its consistent availability to the senior citizens of Jackson County. It is with great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I congratulate Florence Hoffman on being named the 2001 Senior of the Year by the Jackson County Council on Aging. I would like to say thank you for the donations made to the service, which the entire elderly population in the area depend so much upon. We are proud of you, Florence!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to honor and remember Elmer A. Johnson, who gave of himself throughout his life to serve his country and the citizens of Colorado. Elmer, a true patriot, was a man blessed with outstanding business and leadership skills. His presence will surely be missed. Elmer was a devoted husband and father who was married to his wife, Philomena Mancini, for fifty years until she passed away. He gave his wife, his son, Robert, and his two granddaughters much to be proud of. In 1941, his patriotism drove him to enlist in the Army Air Forces, where he rose in rank to serve as master sergeant in the China-Burma- India theater during World War II. It was following the war that he began running his father-in-law's printing business and editing a weekly newspaper. Then, in 1958, he was elected for the first of three times to the Colorado State House. He earned a distinguished reputation with those who knew and worked with him there, including former state Rep. Wayne Knox whom The Denver Post quotes as saying, ``He was a very well- respected, reasonable, moderate legislator,'' and ``a nice guy, a very good guy.'' Elmer had the honor of chairing the House Finance Committee and served on the Joint Budget Committee as well as on the Legislative Council. His drive to serve others didn't stop there, however. In 1963, he began working as Manager of Revenue and Director of Budget and Management for the City of Denver. He also served on the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League and became president in 1970. Incredibly, he also found time to serve as a board member of the Regional Transportation District, and as a member of the Sons of Norway. In addition, his leadership stretched to serving for a term as the International President of the Municipal Finance Officers of the United States and Canada. Mr. Speaker, Elmer Johnson was a distinguished veteran, a devoted father and husband, and a selfless leader. Today, I would like to pay him tribute on behalf of Congress for his lifelong dedication and honest leadership to the people of the United States.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, sometimes there are people that inspire others, just by living, George GooddeCurnou is one of those rare people. George has been faced with the strongest of adversity and has slowly triumphed. His survival after what should have been a fatal accident four years ago is due in part to a miracle, but also due to George's fighting spirit. Four years ago, George an avid cyclist from Golden, Colorado, was riding in a race in Santa Fe, New Mexico when a drunk driver crashed into him at seventy miles per hour. It was a miracle that George was still alive when his wife, Luann, was rushed to his side in the emergency room. Luann's training as a physical therapist alerted her to the immediate conclusion that there would be severe brain damage, when she noticed that George's right hand was clenched in a fist. The severity of the damage would be unclear until George woke up from his coma. Doctors predicted that George would never walk again, and that his mental capacity would be diminished. George rejected this prognosis, and has gone through numerous types of therapy to achieve his new goal, to ride in a 100-mile bike tour again. George has come along way in four years, he now speaks complete sentences, although the effort exerted to express his thoughts is great, he does not give in. George's refusal to accept his injury, and his chance meeting with the therapist Rick Olderman, are the factors that brought George to another race in Santa Fe. Rick understood George's need to ride a bike once again, and gave him the encouragement George needed. Three years after the accident George was on a bike again. Although the ride lasted only five minutes, it exhausted George, but left him with a feeling of gratitude. Four years later amongst the other two thousand cyclists, George GooddeCurnou, mounted his bike. He pedaled for 29 miles, leaving him with a mixed feeling of pride and sadness. George has already set a goal of 50 miles next year for the race in Santa Fe, and will continue to push himself to the limits. His fighting spirit and courage against adversity is an inspiration to all, and that Mr. Speaker, is why I believe Congress should honor George. I wish him the best of luck in life, and I will be rooting for him to accomplish next year's goal of 50 miles in Santa Fe.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault in recognizing the dedication Deb Duley has exhibited to helping sexual assault victims in Colorado over the past 6 years. It would not be without her compassionate heart and an open ear that these victims receive the support they most delicately need. Profiled for her volunteer work since 1995 in the Glenwood Springs Post, Deb has volunteered at least 48 hours per month at the Advocate Safehouse while maintaining a full time job as an engineering technician with Schmueser Gordon Meyers. Only a few years before her volunteering began, one of her friends was involved in a case of domestic violence that sparked the flame that fuels Deb's passion today. As noted by Julie Olson, the Executive Director of Advocate Safehouse, Deb has given up numerous evenings and nights to offer her assistance to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. ``She is truly a special star among the many stars in our advocate group.'' Deb has spent many hours holding conversations and listening to victims. Unselfishly contributing her time and enthusiasm has assisted not only the victims themselves, but also the Advocate Safehouse Project that provides these helpful services in times of detriment and despair. Deb was one of the first advocates to complete the specialized training for the Sexual Assault Crisis Intervention Team, which was organized in 1996. In addition, she recently received the Victim Services Award from the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Perhaps most notable are the lives she has influenced in the dark moments that overshadow the vitality of life. When people experience domestic violence or sexual assault they turn to people like Deb Duley for guidance, tenderness and compassion. Mr. Speaker, through her volunteering, Deb has assisted many lives and I commend her on her public involvement. Although she maintains a humble character, it is with great admiration that I thank Deb and offer my congratulations on the Victim Services Award.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a solemn heart that I take this opportunity to remember the wonderful life of Mr. Charles Teed. At the age of 87, Mr. Teed passed away on Friday, June 29 in Grand Junction, Colorado. A talented writer and reporter, Charles spent much of his life working for The Daily Sentinel, the local newspaper in Grand Junction. He served as a reporter and a photographer from 1964 to 1974. In addition, he acted as the editor of the weekly church page and wrote the ``Slope Action'' consumer-complaint column. Perhaps Charles's most notable work began in 1983 when he started writing the ``Philately'' column. This column allowed him to highlight the stamps which he collected from all corners of the world. The column ran every Sunday for ten years. Teed's travels to Iceland, England, France and Canada were never complete unless he obtained stamps from these locations to augment his collection. ``Philately'' was a weekly column on his personal collection that was initiated with the purchase of a stamp from Mozambique. His collection included stamps of mainly cars, railroads and famous writers. Charles is survived by his wife Lois, their three children, 13 grandchildren, 20 great-grandchildren and two great-great grandchildren. The Teed's moved to Colorado during Charles' college years in New York state, where he was born and raised, and where Lois and Charles met. Their 65th wedding anniversary would have been on July 14. I would like to extend my deepest sympathy and prayers to his family as we mourn his loss. It is through his past works and columns that we will all forever recognize his contributions to The Daily Sentinel, the Grand Junction area, and stamp collectors everywhere.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, when Ms. Mary Walker Clark was asked to reveal her age, she replied, ``A lady never tells that kind of information,'' then added with a smile on her face, ``I was born in 1894, you figure it out.'' It brings me great pleasure to have this opportunity to offer my congratulations and admiration to Mary Walker Clark who celebrated her 107th birthday on July 16 in the town of Montrose, Colorado--making her the oldest living individual in the entire state of Colorado. In quaint Angels Camp, California, Mary was born in 1894. When she was only 40 days old, her family relocated to Ouray, Colorado. Today, Mary lives at the San Juan Living Center in Montrose, Colorado. She was blessed with two sons--Jack, who is a business owner and lives in Ouray, and Lester who resides in Grand Junction, Colorado. No day would be complete for Mary without her son Jack delivering a small soda and an order of french fries from the local McDonald's restaurant. Since she was old enough to have solid food, Mary has always loved french fries and her affection for these potatoes has sparked a keen interest in her community. She was recently been asked to perform the ribbon cutting ceremony at the grand opening for the new McDonald's in Montrose. Mary attributes her longevity to not only the french fries, but also the hard work and dedication that she has performed throughout her life. When Mary was in junior high school, she quit her formal schooling to assist her mother in cooking, cleaning and washing for the local miners in order to feed the six children in their family. Since that time, it seems that she has never stopped providing for others. Mary often cooked for community dinners, aided her brother at his market, carried on her husband's moonshine business after he passed away, and operated a legitimate liquor store following Prohibition. In addition, she did numerous tasks at two hotels and also offered a helping hand at her son's bakery. Not surprisingly, at the age of 97, she was still carrying her own coal to her furnace--two buckets at a time. Mary often wonders ``why such a fuss'' is being made over her. Mr. Speaker, Mary Clark is a phenomenal individual who has dedicated her life to the service of others through her hard work. French fries and a strong work ethic have contributed greatly to her longevity and it is with great pleasure that I honor her today. Happy Birthday Mary!

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I come before my colleagues this evening to discuss one of my favorite topics, of course, the American West. I plan to spend the next few minutes talking about the differences between the western United States and the eastern United States. I talk quite regularly about these issues because, of course, being a native of the wonderful State of Colorado, I believe very strongly, very strongly in the American West and the virtues and the values of the American West. I think it is important, because of our small population out there, that we continue to be heard in this country; that our way of life in the American West somehow be preserved and not trod upon. I had a wonderful experience this last weekend. I was in Buena Vista, which in Spanish stands for ``good view,'' Buena Vista, Colorado. I and a couple of friends and my wife, Laurie, we went to Buena Vista for one purpose: We wanted to hear a singer, somebody who I had known, a person of great character, a gentleman named Michael Martin Murphy. This is an individual who is not only able to sing in such a way that it warms your heart, but also has the very canny ability of passing on and communicating through his music about the values of the American West. Not only can Michael Martin Murphy communicate about the values of the American West, he also communicates about the need and the necessity of character, of real character; of the standards that we as Americans ought to live up to. When we went to Buena Vista and we heard some of the discussions, we had an opportunity not only to listen to the music of Michael Martin Murphy, who I pay tribute to today; not only to meet his good friend, Karen Richie, but also to listen to some of the background and some of the values and the future that people like Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, and Marty Robbins saw about the American West. I can say that Michael Martin Murphy in my opinion rises to the level of those legends, the legends of Marty Robbins, the legend of Gene Autry, the legend of Roy Rogers; that he rises to their level, because in my opinion he is able to communicate the message as those people did for their generation, and Michael Martin Murphy does that for this generation. I think his music will carry that message to future generations. It was a wonderful experience. We were up on the mountain plain, Chalk Mountain right in the distance, of course among 14,000-plus foot peaks. The wind was blowing slightly, the sun was going down, not until about 9 o'clock. It was cool. The mountains can get awful cold this time of year; not like winter, obviously, but very, very cool. It was just the perfect setting. It was the perfect setting to let one's mind rest for a few minutes and to go back in history and remember the values upon which this great Nation was built, upon the individual characters that stepped forward to settle the West, to stand strong for the West, to make sure that the wrongs were righted, because we know there were wrongs that were committed in the acquisition of the West. It is interesting, when we look back in history, our history professors tell us, Mr. Speaker, that history often repeats itself, and that if we look upon the strong values of this country, the foundation that made this country the greatest country known in the history of the world, when we look back we see certain characteristics that I think have been represented in music, at least in the West, by the legends of the Gene Autrys, the Marty Robbins, and Roy Rogers, and in my opinion, Michael Martin Murphy. I intend here in the next few days to issue a tribute for Michael Martin Murphy, because I think it is so important for the generation, for our generation, the obligation of our generation to pass on to the next generation what life in the American West really is about; how wonderful it is and how important it is to preserve that independence, that love of nature, that mountain area way of life. There are several ways we can do it. Of course, we can put it in history books. We can teach it in our classes. Those are all important. But it seems to me one of the most effective ways to pass the message from one generation to the next generation is through music. Michael Martin Murphy does exactly that. I was not enthralled, so do not get me wrong, I was not starstruck by Michael Martin Murphy. I was impressed, because I felt that I had met an entertainer who was much more than an entertainer, but an individual who really cared about the American West, an individual who understood the land values and the need for open space and the beauty of the Rocky Mountains, yet firmly believed that people had a right to live in those areas; that people have a right to enjoy that. In Michael Martin Murphy I saw not a superstar, but I saw a star kind of different than like a Hollywood set. What I saw was a superstar in character, a person who spoke about the characters that are necessary for our new generations; about the obligations we have, the obligations that were fulfilled by previous generations. We live in a great country, wherever one lives in this country. I just happen to have a prejudice towards the mountains, whether it is in Virginia or in the Missouri flats or up in Montana, up in those areas, Idaho, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and of course my district, the Third District of Colorado, which is essentially the mountains of Colorado, whether one is in Durango, Buena Vista, Walsenburg, Steamboat Springs, Meeker, Colorado, Glenwood Springs, Beaver Creek, all of these communities. What is important is that there are a lot of generations that have come ahead of us, including multiple generations on my side of the family and multiple generations on my wife's side of the family. It is a way of life. It is a way of life that I think we can preserve. It is a way of life that we should not allow the elitists to come out and destroy. It is a way of life of those people who come out and buy property in the mountains, or come out to the West and buy land, whether it is in the prairie or in the mountains. It is a responsibility that kind of runs with the land. It does not disappear from one owner to the other, it is a responsibility that should go with everybody who touches the land. It runs with the land, and it should run with the land for all future generations. A part of getting that message out is through the music of the likes of Michael Martin Murphy. So for that, I intend to issue a tribute, because I consider him in that bracket, having met that standard of a legend, not just for the music, which by the way is beautiful, whether it is Wildfire, or his rendition of the Yellow Rose of Texas, or I could go through a number of different songs; but most importantly, what Michael Martin Murphy says and what he practices and what he encourages other people to do in regard to the preservation of the American West. Let me point out some differences in why life in the West requires some special attention, why it really does. I am not trying to preach to my colleagues this evening, but I am trying to say that out in the West we have a unique situation. It is not found in the East, or very rarely in the East. It is unique to the West. We have to have a good understanding of it if we really want to comprehend the challenges that we face out West. It all started years ago with the founding of this country. As we all know, the country was not founded on the west coast. It was not founded in the mid country, it was founded on the east coast, out in this area. The population was up and down the coastline. As our forefathers decided to expand this wonderful dream of theirs to build a country of freedom, a country that was free from the king, a country where we would have no king, a country which allowed for a representative and democratic type of government, to do that they in to expand, so they purchased land. They needed to encourage people to occupy that land. What happened back then, just because one had a deed, they had a piece of paper that said you owned this piece of property, that did not mean much. What meant something was for an individual to be actually placed on the land with both their feet. Possession of the land. And frankly, not only possession of the land, it also probably required in a lot of cases, a six-shooter strapped to one's side. This was a new frontier for us, and it was a frontier we wanted to build into the country. And thank goodness they had the raw courage and the persistence to go out west. Despite the illness, despite the fact that there were no maps, despite the fact that they had to break the trails and hunt for their food and negotiate with the Native Americans, we still had people that did it. That is where, by the way, the saying came from, ``possession is nine-tenths of the law.'' That is where that came from. So let us go back to this map. We know we have people settled on the East Coast. We know that the Government wants them to move to the West. Now remember, to the West could be simply getting them out to Missouri. Somehow we have got to get the American people out into this new land that we want to expand into a country, the United States of America. So they tried to figure out ways and incentives for the American people to move west. Interestingly, they came up with an idea. In 1776, what the Government did, and this is very interesting, by the way, for those who are history buffs, in 1776, the Continental Army decided, hey, let us offer free land to people. Let us allow, in effect, homesteads to soldiers that will defect from the British Army. If they are defectors, we will reward them in our new country with free land. Well, years later, as our expansion began to take place, and remember our expansion was delayed somewhat because of the ongoing battles between the North and the South. The North and the South, neither one of them wanted to have the other get an advantage over this new land, an advantage that would allow slavery or an advantage that would not allow slavery. So the expansion and the possession of these lands was somewhat delayed. But when they got finally to a position where the Government could really encourage it and take it as a serious effort to go out and settle the American West, they decided that the incentive should be to give away land, and they called it homesteading. Again, that idea originated in 1776. Now, maybe if there is a history professor amongst my colleagues, they may have a date preceding that, but my reading shows about 1776 with the defections from the British Army. So now we speed up again back here where we are possessing the country. How do we get people out there? So we decide to homestead. They offer people to go out into Missouri, into Tennessee, out west to Kansas and to Colorado. Go out there and farm, set up their families, and be given 160 acres. If they would go out there and work it for a fee of like $12 and a closing fee of like $5, they could have this land, 160 acres. And every American, even today, every American dreams of owning their own piece of land. That is one of the beauties of the United States of America, one of the things that sets our country apart from other nations throughout the entire world is the right of private property. It is deep in our heart. It is deep in our heart to own a piece of property. So the Government encouraged families to go out west and be given ownership to 160 acres. They had to go out and work it. They need to put their family on it. The Government wanted it to be farmed, to be productive land. And if a family would make it productive land, if they were dedicated to the cause, meaning that they persevered through all the tough conditions, after a period of time, a few years, they got to own that land free and clear. However, there was a problem; and the problem is clearly demonstrated by this map that I have to my left, and that was that the frontiersmen, and I say that generically, because clearly it was families that took on this challenge, not just the men of the country but families. And back then the conditions were harsh. Think of women in childbirth, the death rate of women in childbirth. It was horrible. The sacrifices were enormous that these people made to expand our country and in part to go out and find the American Dream. But as I said, there was a problem; and it is demonstrated by this map. Take a look at this map very carefully. The western United States has lots of color on it on this map. The eastern United States, with the exception of the Appalachians, a little shot down there in the Everglades, a little shot up there in the northeast. With those exceptions some of these States hardly have any color in them at all. Why? The color denotes government lands. Now, my colleagues might say, well, gosh, there are hardly any government lands in some of these States. And the lands that have very little government land, what we call public lands, are in the East. They are not in the West. Why? Why would be a logical question on this map to my left. Why would all the West be in color or public lands and very little in the East, comparatively speaking? Private property is held by private individuals. That was the problem they ran into. What happened was, as the frontiersmen began to hit the Rocky Mountains, they discovered that 160 acres not only would not support a family, it would not even feed a cow. So word got back to Washington, and it kind of put a stop in the expansion plans. They said, hey, we are having a problem. This Homestead Act has worked very, very well getting people halfway across the country, because 160 acres in eastern Colorado, unlike 160 acres in western Colorado, can support a family. 160 acres in Missouri can support a family. Same thing in Kansas. Same thing in some of these other States. But when they hit the mountains, it was a lot different. So how did we resolve this? What do we do? How did we encourage people to go into those mountains and take the sacrifice that was necessary for us to expand this great country of ours? One of the answers was, well, to get people into this area of the western United States, if 160 acres does not do it, let us give them 3,000 acres. Let us give them whatever amount of land it takes to be comparable to that family in Kansas or Nebraska that can make do on 160 acres. But somebody said, well, we cannot do that. Politically we could never give that much land away to an individual. So somebody else, one of the other policymakers, came up and said, well, let us do this. In the West, where we meet the mountains, let us just go ahead and keep the land titled, the actual ownership of the property, let us keep it in the name of the Government but let us allow the people to use it as if it were their own. And, in fact, let us encourage them to go out there and use it. And let us call this land that is owned by the Government, it is not a title that fits here in the East, it is a title that was designed for this block of color in the West, let us define it by a land of many uses, public lands. This was a title held by the Government but described as a land of many uses; a land that will allow people to support families, land that will allow people a sense of freedom, land that will allow people the enjoyment and, in my opinion, the absolute pure pleasure of being able to live in the Rocky Mountains or go up into the plateaus of the Grand Mesa or down into the San Juan Mountains and see the fresh water streams and the waterfalls. It allows this to be a land of many uses. What we have seen, though, recently is that we have more radical environmental organizations. Now, I think some of the strongest environmentalists are the people who have had to put their hands in the ground, the people like my family who, for generations, next to their family, their deepest appreciation was for where we lived and they loved the land. It is like Michael Martin Murphy. His deepest appreciation was being a part of the American West and a big part of the American West, as he very ably described in his comments and in his music, is the beauty of the land, the ability to get on a horse and ride and not see other people for a long ways. And yet the ability to take that horse back to a barn where hay can be grown to support it, grain to support that horse, and to have a family that could enjoy that horse. As of late, some of the more radical environmental groups in our country have decided that the Government, what they want to do is go to the populations, and remember most of the populations, when we look at this map to my left, most of the populations, with the exception right here, and again we see the private property, the big white section here in California, that big white section, and the East, that is where the population in the country really is. Here in the West, that is sparsely populated land. So what has happened is some of the more radical environmental organizations, groups like Earth First, groups like, the National Sierra Club, they are trying to educate people in the east that this land in the West is unfit for human occupancy, unfit in their description so that humans should have minimal contact with these public lands; that the design of these public lands was not in fact the concept of multiple use, or a land of many uses. They use it as one of their priorities to destroy what we knew the land to be, a land of many uses or, in short, multiple use. Their belief is that multiple use should be eliminated or at least minimized in many, many areas, vast amounts of areas out here in the West, regardless of the impact that it has on the generations of people who started back in the homestead days. So there is a big difference between the East and the West. And we who live in the West feel very strongly about the fact that we, like our friends in the East, like Virginia, for example, when I go into Virginia, my good friend Al Stroobants, he lives in Lynchburg, Virginia. He came from Belgium, but the pride he shows in being an American and the pride he has for Virginia and the Virginia mountains. There is a very strong dedication to our States, and I see it in my friend Al and all his friends down there in Lynchburg, Virginia. Well, we feel the same way as our Virginia colleagues or as our Kentucky or Florida colleagues, or some of these other States. We feel the same way about the American West. We feel very strongly that our way of life should have as much opportunity to be preserved as the way of life in Virginia or Kentucky or Tennessee or Maine or Vermont. We are lucky. We have 50 of the greatest States in the world. We have probably the most beautiful land mass. We have not only the strongest country economically, education-wise, militarily; but we also have perhaps the most beautiful geography in the world. When we take it all together, we have to come out on top, especially when we add in our little bonuses like Alaska and Hawaii. But my point here this evening is this: I ask my good friends from the East to understand the differences that we in the West face. And it is not just the geographic differences as a result of public lands, but it is also the fact that we are totally dependent in the West, we are totally dependent, completely, 100 percent, I do not know any other way to say it to describe our dependency, on public lands. The concept of multiple use is the foundation for the utilization of public lands. If we do not have multiple use, if my colleagues buy into some of the more radical organizations in our country, that the way to eliminate multiple use, for example, is to burn down the lodges in Vail or go to Phoenix, Arizona, and burn down homes, luxury homes. That is sometimes the kind of tactics that they revert to to eliminate multiple use; that is wrong. And one of the other more legitimate ways, although I disagree with it, is to try to educate the mass population in the East that life in the West is kind of like life in the East; not to educate the people on the need for multiple use. If I went down the street here in Washington, D.C., I bet I could stop 100 people; and of those 100 people, I bet I could not find two, maybe not even one, maybe not even one who could tell me what the concept of multiple use and what public lands really means. Now, I will bet also out of those 100, based on the educational efforts of some of these more radical environmentalists over the last few years, I bet the perception of a lot of those people out of that 100 is that in the West we are destroying the lands; that Yellowstone is being drilled upon; that we are cutting down all of the forests. It could not be further from the truth, colleagues. Most of you probably vacation in my particular district because of the resorts. I would hope that you take an opportunity, especially during our August recess, to go out into these public lands. Take a close look at them. Put all the propaganda aside and go out and see it for yourself. Go out to Jackson Hole. Go out to Beaver Creek. Go over to Durango. Go to Buena Vista and see just how well that land is cared for. If you have an opportunity, which should be a basic requirement of your visit, just go stroll on down to the coffee shop. Go talk to a cowboy or cowgirl and ask them a little about the lands. You know what you will get? You will get the same kind of feeling I get out of Michael Martin Murphy and a lot of people, millions of people get out of Michael Martin Murphy. You get a sense of belief out of the American West. You get a sense of the love that these people have for the land upon which they live and upon which they thrive. You get a sense of our inherent responsibilities to protect this land while at the same time enjoying the use of the land, but to protect it in such a way that we can pass on this gem, and that is what it is. It is a gem. It is a diamond in the rough. Pass this on to future generations. That vision for future generations, as I just mentioned, we consider it an inherent obligation, a part of our heart. Out in the West it is a part of our heart. We need your support here in the East to help us in the West to continue to thrive and continue to enjoy the type of life- style that our forefathers upon the founding of this country intended for us to have. That does not mean, by the way, that we turn our face the other way if we sense abuse out there. I think you will find the first people to crack down on abuse are the people that are most closely impacted by it. The people that are most closely impacted by abuse of the lands are the people that live on that land. I have zero tolerance for people that leave decimated trails and tear up the terrain. I have zero tolerance whether it is mountain bikes, whether it is SUVs, whether it is a canoe or a kayak or a sloppy hiker. I have zero tolerance for people that drop litter, for people who do not properly care for the lands, for people that do not leave the land as much as they found it, for people who do not have respect for that land. If we allow that to occur we then dilute our obligation and our vision for the next generation. So we do feel very strongly about enforcement, but we also believe in balance. We do not think balance is by burning down the lodge at Vail on top of the mountain. We do not believe that balance is going out into a subdivision just because some people who are building these homes have money and burn their homes into the ground. We do not believe you ought to put spikes in trees. We do not think that is necessary. We have a lot of different projects. I will talk to you about the Colorado National Monument and our special conservation areas. In our community we felt that we really needed to instill some vision for this generation. To take the Colorado canyons and the Colorado National Monument and come up with some kind of plan, some kind of strategy to preserve those lands in a special way for the future. Do you know where that inspiration came from? It did not come from Washington, D.C. That inspiration did not come from some radical organization like Greenpeace or Earth First. That inspiration came from the hearts of the people that lived on the land, from the hearts of the people that listen to the music of people like Michael Martin Murphy, from the hearts of the people like David or Sue Ann Smith or Cole and Carol McInnis who lived there and had their family there for generations. That is where that inspiration came from. Do you know what we were able to put together? We have people like the Gore family up on top of the monument in Glade Park. We have people like the King family, Doug and Cathy, from the King ranches. We have people like Mr. Stroobants from his ranch up in Glenwood Springs to sit down with people from our active environmental community, with people from our chamber of commerce, with locally elected officials like our county commissioners in the various counties, with our State representatives and our State senators. You know what? We were able to put together a vision that helped preserve this land but at the same time allowing multiple use. We put tens of thousands of acres in the wilderness. That is the most extreme management tool you can use out there. That truly does exclude most of the population from touching that land. At the same time, we have put in special conservation areas so that people could continue to enjoy their horses for their horseback riding. People could take their hikes. People could spot wildlife. People could go down to the mighty Colorado River and sit on its bank and wonder about the millions and millions of lives and the environment and the heritage of that river. All of this was done as a result of people who lived on that land coming together, not as a result of a coalition out of Washington, D.C., who thought they knew better about how to describe life out here in the West. We can do it. We are not a bunch of numbskulls out there or rambling cowboys as some people have the image. In fact, we are pretty proud of ourselves. We think we are pretty thoughtful. We think we are thoughtful in that we understand your concerns here in the East. There are a lot of people in the East who are justifiably concerned that, regardless of where you live in this country, whether it is the beautiful mountains in Virginia, whether it is the hills of Tennessee, whether it is the coastal areas of Florida, we all as a Nation should be concerned about the preservation of these lands and about the life people lead. A basic and fundamental part of that concern should be a communication, an expression and participation from the people that live on the land or live on the shore or live on the hills or farm on the plains. Those people ought to have a strong voice at the table. Why? Once you sit down with them as we did with the Colorado Canyon Lands Project, once you sit down with them you will find out that that old geezer has something to say. There is a little history there. You sit down with somebody like a David Smith and you find out more about water than you ever thought you would know in just a few minutes and about the importance of water in the West and why life in the West is written in water. It is so dry out there that water is fundamentally important. Mr. Speaker, my real concern this evening, I think I have ably expressed, and I want to deeply again express my appreciation to the communicators in the West, the people who are able to communicate the balance that is necessary so that we can come together as a team to preserve our way of life in the West. Amongst those communicators are the people like the locally elected officials, the State representatives, the State senators, our local county commissioners, our Chamber of Commerce, our local environmental organizations. Those are communicators, ordinary people that love the land, that know the history of the land in the West, that are proud to be a part of the American West. Also, as I have mentioned several times, I pay special tribute to one of the finest communicators of today's modern day through music, and that is Michael Martin Murphy. It is obvious I have a bias towards his music, but when one goes beyond the music and looks at the message and looks at the intent and deep dedication and the focused love of the communicator, one understands that this is a good way to communicate the word of the importance of the American West. Not long ago I heard somebody say, ``You better get used to it. Your days in the American West are limited. That is something in the past. We have moved on. The old frontier is out of here. There are no more great, vast areas.'' These are the kinds of people who want to destroy our open space. These people want to come out and tell people they are not allowed to farm and ranch the land. They are not allowed to do this and do that, the big brother out of Washington, D.C., knows best for the West. And that somehow they reinterpret or reinvent the history of why this block of color is located in the West, while there is hardly any color in the East. Mr. Speaker, they want to educate and use propaganda to say this was intended to be kind of off limits to people. Here in the East, we already have our piece of land. We already have what we want. But out here in the West, we want to control your lives. We have no use for that type of philosophy. We think at the local level, at the regional level, with input at the national level, because it is one Nation, that we can put together a plan, a blueprint so that the next generation can experience the West as we have experienced it. Fortunately, because of the visions of people like Teddy Roosevelt and others, in the communication of Gene Autry, as Michael Martin Murphy pointed out so well, or Roy Rogers, they were able to in that generation figure out a blueprint so that the appreciation of the West could continue to my generation. Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have laid out a blueprint or been a participant, whether it is the Colorado Canyonlands, whether it is Sand Dunes National Monument which last year we put into a national park, whether it is the Black Canyon National Park which Senator Campbell and I created about 4 years ago, we hope that we have somehow participated in that blueprint to pass on the dreams and the life of the West. Mr. Speaker, it is not something that needs to be eliminated. It is not something that in the East you have to force your way of life upon. It is something that you, too, as American citizens or as visitors to our great country can enjoy. But when you come out there, do not come out with earplugs in your ears, and do not come out thinking that you know it all or trying to impose your values, which may be good values, but for your area. Do not come out and try to impose your values on us in the West. Do not listen to all of this propaganda that you hear. And I can tell you the propaganda machine about what ought to happen in the West is a well-oiled, well-moneyed machine in the East. I am not saying totally discount what the other side has to say. Listen to that propaganda, but take the time to look up what the other side of the story is. You know the old saying: ``There are two sides to every story.'' That is why I take this microphone tonight, colleagues. I am asking take a look at the other side of the story. Because. When you do, you will understand why we are so proud of our heritage in the West, why we think that we take pretty good care of the Rocky Mountains and the Dakotas and Utah, Montana, and the Colorado River. It is our lifeblood. We care about it. I want you to care about it and care about it in such a way that the next generation and the next generation can live on it, enjoy it, preserve it and respect it because, if we do that, we will have accomplished a great deal for the next generation and for the future of our country. Mr. Speaker, the rest of this week looks like it is going to be very busy, and it looks like we are going to be working quite late nights. I was hoping to make some comments tomorrow evening and go into specific detail on missile defense. So break away those 40 minutes about which I have spoken to you about the American West, and let us shift our mind into missile defense and talk for just a few minutes. I will not be able to brief Members this evening like I intended to brief Members tomorrow or Thursday evening, but it looks like I will not have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, we had a pretty remarkable success with the missile defense this weekend. We had a targeted missile coming under our scenario, a missile aimed at the United States traveling at 4\1/2\ miles per second. And we had an intercept missile coming in at 4\1/2\ miles. The two of them had to hit. Remember they could not miss by more than three feet. It is like hitting a bullet with a bullet, the effect of shooting a basketball in California and making it through the hoop in Washington, D.C. It is a tremendous success. Now some would say, oh, especially the Chinese and the Russians, how terrible. Who could imagine the American people ever agreeing to protect themselves from incoming missiles. Mr. Speaker, most American citizens believe that we have some kind of protection from American missiles. They have heard of Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs, the home of NORAD. Do my colleagues know what NORAD does, NORAD detects? It is a huge complex, built within the granite mountain of Cheyenne Mountain. They can detect missile launches anywhere in the world. There are a lot of things that they can do for our security. But once they make that detection, that is about all they can do. They can call you on the phone and say to you, hey, look, despite all of the treaties, despite all of the promises made, we have just had a foreign country launch a missile against the United States, against the people that you are sworn to protect. That missile is going to land in about 30 minutes, and we believe it is carrying a nuclear warhead. What else can we tell you? What are we going to do? There is not much we can do. We can repeat what we just told you, where it is going to land, the nuclear warhead that we think is on top of it. I think that there is a responsibility for the leaders of this country, not only for this generation and the future generation, but for the people of the world, to provide missile defense so that we do not end up in some kind of horrible, horrible situation, with a world at war, because a missile, an incoming missile, was not stopped before it hit a city like Los Angeles or New York City or Washington, D.C. We can stop that. The best way to stop a war from happening, the best way to maintain peace is to disarm your neighbor, especially if it is an unfriendly neighbor. Think about it. Why on earth would you say we should not defend ourselves against incoming missiles? It does not make sense. It is kind of like your neighbor having a gun, and your neighbor deciding that he wants your watermelons. And the neighbor is known to sometimes use that gun against you. Do you think it is crazy to set up some kind of defense, maybe a big fence that your neighbor cannot get over to come use his gun? That is exactly what we need to do here. At some point in time in the future, and mark this, Members who are opposing some kind of missile defense network, at some point in the future, somebody will launch a missile against the United States of America. For those of you who oppose a defensive system, not an offensive system, a defensive system, for those of you who will cast a vote against a defensive missile system, you, I hope, will be around to answer to the survivors of a missile attack against this country. I hope that you will never have to do that. I hope that the idea that a missile would be launched against the United States does not happen. But I think every one of us has to be realistic here. The fact is, the odds are that somebody at some point will launch a missile against the United States of America and that the United States of America is fooling itself. There is a saying out there. The last person you want to fool is yourself. The last person that the United States of America wants to fool ought to be itself. Kudos to the President. Kudos to our defense and our military operational heads to say, look, we cannot afford to put blinders on and pretend. Look, nobody is going to fire a missile against us. Look, nothing is going to happen against us by these rogue countries. Take a look at how many rogue countries now have missiles. Take a look at how many of these rogue countries have nuclear warheads on those missiles. Do you think that the United States of America by patting them on the back is going to get them to destroy those missiles, or to disarm? No way. These countries are not going to disarm. They could care less what the United States of America tells them. Having a nuclear missile or any type of missile, that is a pretty macho thing in some of these countries. In some of these Third World countries, having the ability to simply reach over and push a button and take on the strongest country in the history of the world and destroy one of their cities or, even worse, it makes them feel pretty good. We play right into their card game; we play right into their game if we do not build some kind of defense. We need to have a defense. We use it everywhere else, not missile defense, but we use defenses everywhere. Take a look at highways. We put speed bumps to slow you down. Why? Because we do not want an incoming car. We want to slow them down. Every one of my colleagues could think of example after example after example where we deploy a defensive mechanism to protect our health and well-being or the health and well-being of our children. That is why we have speed zones at schools. That is why we have crossing guards. That is why we have tough law enforcement, so that we can preserve those things that are special to us. Now, for us not to put out a defense that protects a country that is special to us is foolish. Now, because I cannot go into the details, but I will in the next week, I hope, I am going to have some diagrams and some charts and show you why this system will work. Now, remember that the critics of this system will tell you, first of all, we have offended China and Russia. Do not offend China and Russia. And our European colleagues, they are upset about this because of the fact we might offend Russia and China. Who do you think is likely to use a missile against the United States? Not only those rogue countries, but do not discount China and do not discount Russia. I hope it never happens. I hope we become allies with these people. And if we do become allies, then we do not need to use a defensive missile system. You just have it in place. You never have to engage it. But the reality is somewhere in the future there is going to be a difference of opinion, a professional difference with these two countries. A rogue nation, a rogue Third World nation may not need a reason to fire a missile against us. People have been willing to blow up our airplanes, they have been willing to shoot athletes at the Olympics, they have been able to set off a bomb at the Olympics. Do you not think that someday somebody may want to launch a missile against the United States? Now, the critics, as I was saying earlier, will say, well, the system has had too many failures. How many failures did we have before we came up with penicillin? How many failures did we have before we mastered the car? Of course you are going to have failures. The technological requirement, the expertise to have two objects that are traveling 4\1/ 2\ miles a second, to be able to bring them together and to be able to intercept right on the spot, you cannot afford to miss. You do not get two shots; you get one shot on that intercept over the weekend. It worked. I can assure you that our European colleagues and that the people, the leadership in Russia and China are saying, wow, American technology. By gosh, we may disarm Russia and China simply by coming up with a defensive mechanism. Why put all your money in an offensive missile system if the country that you are concerned about, the United States, has the ability to stop them? You want to know what is going to stop missile growth in this world? It is the ability to make them an ineffective weapon. But how do you make them an ineffective weapon if you do not have some type of shield against them? What we are talking about with our missile defense system is a shield, a shield that not only protects the United States but a shield that we would share with our allies. Frankly, a shield that the more it is shared, the less likely that there will ever be a missile attack because the missiles, which are very expensive and the technology that is required is substantial, those missiles become pretty darn ineffective. How could somebody legitimately argue that we should not deploy a strategy that will make missiles less effective? Mr. Speaker, we have a heavy burden on our shoulders. That heavy burden requires that we protect. We have an inherent responsibility to protect the citizens of this country from somebody who decides they want to launch a missile against us. This is not starting a war. It is not starting an arms race. That is rhetoric. And even if it was not rhetoric, are we going to let them bully us into not defending our citizens? Members, we are elected to the United States Congress in part to not only protect the Constitution but to protect the people of this country. We have deep, running obligations to the people and the safety and the welfare of this country. It is in every bill we pass. A part of doing that requires us to deploy, in my opinion, a missile defense system so that the United States and its allies, 20 years from now, I want them to look back and say, gosh, those missiles, that is what used to scare them back then. Today, nobody could fire a missile anywhere because you could stop it in flight or better yet you could stop it on the launching pad. So there is a lot to think about with the missile defensive system. But the basic philosophy, the basic thought ought to receive a ``yes'' vote from everybody in these Chambers. Everybody in the Chambers, every one of my colleagues ought to be in support of a missile defense system. I think you owe it to the constituents that you represent. In summary, we need a missile defensive system for this country. Technologically we are going to be able to do it. Sure it is going to be expensive. The airplane was expensive when we deployed it. Landing a person on the Moon was expensive. Sending a ship to Mars was expensive. There are lots of things the technology requires is expensive. Conservation is going to be expensive for us but it works. And this missile technology worked this weekend, and we have years of testing left; but it will work and it will be a lifesaver for hundreds of millions of people in this world. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues had an opportunity to listen to my comments on the American West. I am proud to be an American citizen, but I am deeply proud of being able to have been born and raised in the American West. I hope all of my colleagues have that opportunity to experience what I have been able to spend an entire lifetime experiencing.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments of my Special Order to address a very sad situation that occurred yesterday in Winthrop, Washington State. As my colleagues know, this time of year is the time of year in our Nation across the Nation that we face horrible forest fires. Most of the time, we are able to conquer those fires through the able leadership of the Forest Service, the BLM, our professional fire departments, our volunteer fire departments and volunteers across the country. But every once in a while the fire gets the best of us, as it did in Storm King Mountain in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, the town that I was born and raised in. I was in Storm King at the time of the incident and I remember the situation very well. I remember the horrifying fire that took Storm King Mountain. I remember the horrible tragedies and the tears of the young children and the widows and the mothers and the fathers and all the families and the friends and the shock of that community. We had hoped that Storm King Mountain in Glenwood Springs, that the incident would never repeat itself, but we knew at some point in time that it would, because it is almost like part of a fate of fighting fires. Over a period of time, we are going to have casualties. It is a war of its own, really. We think about it, thinking about a fire that is unpredictable, in some cases; some cases it is predictable, an enemy that has no discrimination as far as who it picks to destroy. We see it destroy animals, we see it destroy mountains. We know that basically, it is a force that can erupt, just like the force erupted yesterday. Yesterday we had a fire of about 5 acres and we had what we call the blowup. The thing that scares anybody dealing with fires, the worst condition that we can have are the conditions that accumulate in the incident called fire blowup. That means we have low humidity, we have very dry timber, and we have a wind that is unexpected that comes in. This fire which burns 5 acres over some period of time exploded from 5 acres to 2,005 acres in a matter of moments. These firefighters that lost their lives yesterday, 4 of them, had no chance. By the way, I understand we lost another firefighter who was a pilot on a slurry bomber at another fire; not this fire, but at another fire somewhere in the northwest as well. So my words of honor this evening are for all 5 of those firefighters. But I am only knowledgeable on the incident of the 4 firefighters who lost their lives yesterday. I would like to mention their names. Tom Craven, Tom was 30 years old. He was from Ellensburg, Washington. Karen L. Fitzpatrick. Karen was 18 years old, of Yakima. Devon A Weaver. Devon was 21 years old of Yakima. Jessica L. Johnson. Jessica was 19, of Yakima. Tom, Karen, Jessica and Devon 2 days ago were alive. Two days ago, when our country called upon them to respond to a fire, they did so without hesitation. Now, despite the young age and, in fact, this was one of the first fires, or not the first fire for one of those individuals, despite the age, they received training. And at some point, one has to fight their first fire. At some point, one has to pick up actual field experience. Almost every firefighter we have had in the history of this country gets through those first few fires. In fact, almost all of our firefighters are able to retire, or at least leave it without a fatality. But that was not meant to be the case for these 4 young people. We lost a lot of spirit. We lost a lot of youth. Two days ago, we did not have families in mourning, we had families who were excited that their children, in most cases, and I am sure in this case, were doing what they dreamed of doing for a long time, and that is going out and taking on fire, and going out and helping our country in a time of need. Going out and literally saving communities, saving animals, saving vegetation, saving our mountains. We have seen it. We have seen it throughout our country, what these people do. I saw it at Storm King Mountain in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, about 7 years ago. So my comments tonight are intended to be in honor of these 4 firefighters. In fact, I expand that beyond those 4 firefighters to the fifth firefighter who I understand lost their life yesterday, to all firefighters across the Nation. To those firefighters who today cannot of course hear these words because they are camped out on the side of a mountain fighting a fire somewhere in Colorado or fighting a fire in Oregon or Washington or out there in California. These are gutsy people, and they carry out a mission that takes a lot of risk. They know the risk. They go into it with full knowledge. But I guess if one is a young spirit, one always goes into it thinking, I can overcome, I can get by it, but they did not get by it, and we should recognize them for the hero status that is properly bestowed upon them. I can say to the families of these 4 deceased, our Nation, the United States of America, owes your family a great deal of gratitude, that we consider these lost firefighters heroes, the way the word ``hero'' should be used, not for some celebrity sports figure, but for a figure to me that is much more of a hero than any movie star or sports figure could ever be, and that is these 4 young people who gave their lives yesterday for the United States of America. Energy Crisis in California Mr. Speaker, I would like to move on to my topic discussion. As usual, as my colleagues know, we have had preceding speakers here on the floor, and it was interesting when I listened to my good friend, the respected gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the respected gentleman from California (Mr. DeFazio). Both, most of the time, seem to be fairly knowledgeable on the subjects that they address, but I have disagreements with the statements that they made this evening. I was surprised that the gentlemen from California, when they talked about the energy shortage that they have had in California, as has become typical with some of the people out of California, blame everybody else; blame everybody else. If we listen to the gentlemen from California this evening, or if we listen to the gentleman from the northwest, one would think that everybody in this Nation is to blame for the shortage, the energy crisis that they have experienced in California, that the blackouts in California have nothing to do with the political leadership of the State of California. That the energy blackouts in the State of California have nothing to do with the fact that they have not been able to build a power generation plant in California for years and years and years. The fact that they have an energy crisis in California has nothing to do with the attitude of some people out there in that State that say, do not build in my State, do not build in my backyard. We do not need electrical generation plants. We do not need gas transmission lines in our State. Let the other States generate it and we will buy it from them. It was interesting to hear that the gentleman in the northwest is blaming what he calls the greedy companies. Well, I have seen plenty of greed in my life, and perhaps that is one of the contributing factors, but do not continue to run away from the fact that it was poor policy in California. I say California versus the northwest, because in the northwest it was not necessarily poor policy. In the northwest, they have a minor problem. The Columbia River is going dry. They have had a drought. They did not get the rain or the moisture that they expected, so they were not able to generate the hydropower which, by the way, is very clean power, a very clean way to generate energy. So the northwest is a little unique. But let me focus in on California. They did not have a river go dry on them. What happened out there is that they refused to accept the responsibility, especially the political leaders in California, to look to the future, to have a vision for the future, to know that they have to provide energy for their constituents. Now, I also heard the gentleman say, whacko environmentalists, that those who have criticized the State of California say it is because of whacko environmentalists. Well, there are some whacko environmentalists, there are some whacko developers. But putting that aside, the fact is that California has got a lot of balanced, reasonable environmentalists who understand the fact that they need clean generation of power. But the leadership in California, whether it is at the local level or the State level or the governor's level, have refused to allow it to occur. They kind of brought it upon themselves. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from California says he was tired of hearing people say, California brought it upon themselves. Well, let me say how interesting it is that out of 50 States, California stands alone. Do they in California not think that the political leaders in California had a little something to do with the problems that they are facing out there? Now, my colleague mentioned, well, several of his colleagues have said, the heck with California, that is their problem, let them suffer. That is not the attitude of this Congressman. I think California is a very important State in our Nation. I do not think we can just walk away from California. But it is awful frustrating for those of us who want to help the State of California to see that there are those in California who are too stubborn or too lazy or have an idealogical philosophy that they will not even pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, that some in California will not provide self-help. That is what the problem is. We cannot walk away from California. This is a nation. This is a nation of 50 States. We are like brothers and sisters. We are tied together. It is a good union of being tied together. But the fact is, when somebody is not pulling their load, we have to be frank about it and say, you are not pulling your load. It is like pulling a wagon up a hill. If we have somebody that is supposed to be pulling and they continually jump in the back and ride the wagon and you say to them, hey, Johnny, you got to get out of the wagon, you got to help pull it. Johnny gets out and says well, the whole reason I have to get out of this wagon is because the rest of you are not pulling hard enough. That is exactly what California is saying and that is exactly what some of my colleagues from California, especially the gentleman who spoke earlier, and that is a good analogy. We have said to the gentleman from California, look, we are not going to let the wagon go, we still have to get this wagon to the top of the hill, but you have to get out of the wagon and help pull the wagon up the hill. Do not just sit there and complain about how abused you are because the rest of us asked you to get out of the wagon to help us pull the wagon up the hill. Get out of the wagon, get off your duff and help the rest of us. Mr. Speaker, ever since I was young my folks took us camping. My district is the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, born and raised, multi- generations in Colorado. My folks had a little rule. That is, if you went camping with them and you wanted to enjoy the campfire in the early mornings when it was quite chilly, as we know it gets, my district is the highest in the Nation, so it gets cool there in the mornings, or cold. So if you want to enjoy the camp fire, guess what you got to do? You got to help gather the firewood. In California, it is the same thing. If you want to have enough energy, not just for this generation, but for future generations, you got to help gather the firewood. You got to help build electrical generation facilities. You have to plan natural gas transmission lines in your State. You have to be serious about conservation. To California's credit, let me say that this energy problem that we have, conservation can make a big dent in it, and California does deserve credit. In the last couple of months, the citizens of California have been responsive to conservation issues, although I am concerned that as this energy problem begins to resolve itself, people will put conservation along the side. I think in this Nation, all of us, every American, needs to adopt conservation on a permanent adoption basis. Conservation is important. But California, do not expect the rest of us not to be frustrated if they are not going to help themselves get out of this mess. Do not continue to blame the President. That is what Gray Davis, the Governor out there, did for some period of time. When he found out that was not working, he blamed the greedy companies down in California. Then he threatened to seize the companies, like it was some type of socialistic government that we operate in this country. Everything except themselves they have blamed for this crisis. I am saying to the leaders and I am saying to the Governor of the State of California and I am saying to my good colleagues here on the floor from California who are taking these issues up about how badly treated California is, we want to help, but they have to help, too. Simply going up and saying, ``In 2 weeks I am going to show up in San Diego and cut the ribbon for a power generation company, now pat me on the back, and by the way, you are responsible for our power crisis,'' that does not cut it, California. We want to help, but they have to help themselves. How do they help themselves? The entire Nation can help itself with conservation and alternative fuels, those things. But alternative fuels really are something of the future. Today if we took all of the alternative energy in the world, all of the alternative energy in the world, and we put it all into the United States of America, we are talking about 3 percent of our power needs, 3 percent of our energy needs. So clearly, alternative energy is going to be what the generation behind myself, my children's generation, my three kids and their generation, they are going to be primarily dependent on that like we are dependent on fossil fuels for our generation, and the two generations preceding us were dependent upon it. That is going to be important. But in the meantime, what do we do for the current generation? We have to do a couple of things. California has to allow generation facilities to be built on a reasonable basis. The gentleman from California, as supported by the gentleman from Oregon, seemed to suggest that we set aside, or people on both sides of the aisle say that the suggestion is that we set aside their environmental regulations and safeguards and build generation facilities wherever we want. They want to sound like heroes, that, ``We are not going to let these environmental regulations be set aside. Why should we destroy our environment, like everybody outside of California wants us to do?'' That is absurd on its face. We can build generation facilities that are balanced. We can build generation facilities that have an acceptable impact on the environment. I am not asking, and I do not think many of my colleagues, are asking for the State of California to drop all of their environmental laws. I do not know anybody in here who really is calling the mainstream environmental community in California wackos. I do not think they are wackos at all, and that is a direct quote from the gentleman from California who had spoken previously, about an hour ago. What we are saying to California is, hey, there is a balance with the environmental regulation. There is a balance with the zoning. They are going to have to have a power line in somebody's backyard in order for everybody's backyard to enjoy power. They have to be reasonable. It is unreasonable for California to be the only State in the last 10, 15, 20 years that has not allowed an electrical generation power facility to be built in their State. California, is it not a little odd that they are one out of 50? Is it not a little odd that they are now the one out of 50 that is suffering the crisis out there? The rest of the country is not in an energy crisis. Now, we have gotten a very clear warning, no doubt about it, but we are not in an energy crisis. Why? Because the other States have taken a more reasonable approach than has the political leadership of the State of California. I am telling the Members, in my opinion, the Governor of California has taken absolutely the wrong direction on how to solve the problem. First of all, about 2 or 3 or 4 weeks ago, maybe 5 weeks ago, at the height of the market, the Governor finally decides he is going to sign long-term contracts, so he has bound the people of California into long-term contracts at the highest possible price that we have seen in any number of years for electrical power. So if they think they are going to get rate relief in California, citizens of California, through my colleagues here, they are not. The second thing is, the Governor of California has tried to say to the people, let us put on price caps. In other words, they say, let us artificially lower the price of the power. Let us not have them pay what the power actually costs to produce, the price that allows for some margin for reinvestment for the next generation, but let us subsidize the power price by either selling bonds, which is what the Governor of California has done, he has indebted in billions, by billions of dollars future generations to pay for this generation's power. If I was talking to the Governor, I would say that that is the wrong approach. First of all, this generation ought to pay for this generation's power. Furthermore, this generation has an obligation to exercise some type of leadership, some type of responsibility, some type of vision for the next generation. We need to start planning for their energy needs. California can join in and do it with us. Let me reiterate, I do not think California should be left alone. California, if it were a country of its own, would be the sixth most powerful country economically in the world. California has a lot of American citizens. It is a big part of our Union. It would be a deep, deep mistake for anybody on this House floor to turn their back and walk away from California. But it is not a mistake for anybody on this floor to look at our colleagues from the State of California and say, quit blaming everybody else, Governor. Quit blaming everybody else, newspaper editorials out there. Accept some of the blame. Consider and accept the fact that they have to have self-help, and let us move forward as a team. That is my message to California: We want to help them pull the wagon up the hill, but they need to help us pull the wagon up the hill. For 10 or 15 years they have gotten a free ride by riding in the back of the wagon. Now all of a sudden it is time for them to come up and help the rest of us. When they do, they are going to find out, just like I found out, when we help gather firewood at the campsite we get to sit by the campfire. But if they are not going to help gather firewood when they have the capability to gather firewood, then they should not sit by the campfire and enjoy the benefits of that fire. Let me talk just for a moment about conservation, because while we are on energy, I think it is important that we discuss conservation. I had a fascinating thing happen to me not long ago. I was talking to a young person. I would guess the person was 23, 24 years old, and seemed to me to be very, very bright, very capable. I got to talking, as I often do with that generation, and saying, what are you going to do? What is your career orientation? This particular individual said to me, well, my orientation, my career, is how do we get energy out of the ocean. How do we get energy out of movement? Every time there is movement, as those who have studied physics and so on know, every time there is movement, there is energy. In this particular thing, she said, I think there is energy in movement. How do we become more expedient, more efficient at being able to take movement, seize energy from it, and utilize it for or energy needs? It was not long after I visited with this young person that I ran into a gentleman. He was in the energy field. I was telling him about it. He reached in his pocket and he said, let me show you what she is talking about. I have one right here. See this? Members are not going to be able to see my demonstration, other than the fact that they are going to have to take my word that it is occurring. If the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, was dark, we could see the demonstration. This is simply a strip of material encased in a sheet of plastic. It has two wires going to a miniature light bulb right here on top. This is the miniature light bulb. What this person did to me, he said, this could capture energy from the waves. He began to go like this, showing movement. Now, Members are not able to see this because of the distance away from this, but I can tell the Members that as this moves up and down, this little light right here goes on. That is what is generating electricity, this simple movement. This gentleman said, just imagine if we could put this in the ocean, where we have natural, continuous movement, we could generate electricity. I thought that little thing right there was fascinating. I think that is what is the ticket for the future. That is what our generation has an obligation to try and help the future generation, encourage that generation, and then the generations that are not yet born to become dependent upon, to be more creative than using fossil fuels. But at the same time, we as a generation have an obligation to accept the responsibility that fossil fuels are what we primarily depend upon right now. I heard my colleagues earlier criticizing the Bush administration about the energy policy. Ironically, I would mention that the Clinton administration and Clinton and Gore had no energy policy for 8 years, had no vision into the future about what to do in regard to energy. The only one who has come up recently, stepping forward, stepping out of the line to take a leadership role, has been President Bush. I notice that they criticize right off the bat the fact that the President, in his budget, has cut some funds for some research. Let me tell the Members, this is an old-time Washington, D.C. trick. Every program in the Federal budget has a good name to it. It is either for the children or it is for the future or it is alternative energy. Why does every program have a good name to it? Because it is hard to cut it. It is hard to take money out of it. Once we create a program back in Washington, D.C., we can pretty well be assured that program has a life, a long life of being able to use taxpayer dollars. The first thing that happens back here with the special interests, and special interests that go the entire band of interests, these special interest groups, the first thing they do when they get a program, and this includes Federal agencies, the first thing they do when they get a program put into place is to put a protective shield around it, in case somebody ever comes and says, look, what is the bottom line? Tell me, what are we doing for accountability? Tell me what the results are. Oh, we would like to do an audit to see if you are doing what you said you are going to do. What kind of results have you given us for this money? Then they can immediately deploy their weapons, the weapons of special interest. That is to say, how dare you ask a question about whether or not, for example, money is being spent efficiently on the school lunch program? You must want children to starve. It is the same kind of thing we are seeing here. We have research programs that we have funded for years, year after year after year on energy, and the bottom line is the results are not there. They are not there. The minute we go up to them, as the President has done, and said, look, we are going to have to not take the money away and use it for some other purposes, use it for highways or something, we are going to put this money and put it into research we think is going to make a difference, the first thing they do is run to the local or national media and say, my gosh, the President is proposing that we cut research. How terrible, in an energy crisis. This is a President who only wants oil drilling. He wants to cut our research dollars. At best, at best that is a misleading statement. That is giving them the benefit, here. In fact, most of these programs, when we go after accountability, they are well-designed to do whatever is necessary to protect that program and keep that program alive. Let me talk for a moment about the energy policy of this country. I mentioned earlier that President Clinton, the former President and the Vice President, they had no energy policy. We need an energy policy. What happened in California, what happened up in the Northwest, now, the Northwest was primarily because of the Columbia River, but what happened in the Northwest was a warning shot to all 50 States. It was a warning shot saying to us, hey, one of these days we are going to face a real energy crisis. One of these days, we had better be prepared for it, because we are not going to get a second chance. We have to be prepared with energy alternatives. What do we need to do that? We need to have some kind of energy policy. That is exactly what the President has done. Now, Members may not agree with the policy. Members may not agree with elements of the policy. But I think every person in this country should agree with the fact that we need a policy. Now, it is debate on this House floor, it is debate that really should start in the kitchen of every household of this Nation, as to what kind of energy policy should this country have; what kind of components should we put together so that our Nation as a unified group of 50 States has a policy that will allow us to get through future energy crises, that will allow us the kind of vision, leadership, and responsibility that is necessary for future generations, that will allow us to propel our economy and keep it strong, that will allow us to do all of these things that energy allows us to do? Let us look at some of the elements that I think are important for an energy policy. First of all, there is discussion and debate. What President Bush has done is a favor to all of us by stepping forward and putting an energy policy on the table. And by saying we ought to put conservation on the table, and we ought to put alternative energy on the table. We have to talk about supply. We have to talk about exploration. Put it on the table. We have to talk about what areas of the country should or should not be explored for fossil fuel or should or should not be explored for other type of energy recovery. At least the discussion has begun. Now, that does not mean that we have to adopt everything they have put on the table. That is not what it means. But what it does mean is that we have an opportunity now to start to put this policy together. So discussion is an important benefit of what the President's energy policy has put forward. Now, let us talk about some of the other elements that are obviously very important for any energy policy. First of all, we have to ask what is it that every American could do? What could every American out there do to help our Nation on an energy policy, to help our Nation through these energy problems, to help our Nation assure future generations that an energy crisis is not going to be something they have to worry about? The first thing every American can do, every American that is capable of moving and thinking, is conservation. Even simple conservation. Now, there is a lot of conservation that can take place in our Nation without an inconvenience to our lifestyles. Let me give a couple of examples. Turn out the lights when we leave the room. Now, that sounds kind of simplistic. Sounds like, gosh, that is so basic, of course we turn off the lights. But what difference does it make if I walk out of the room over here and I have the lights off for 2 minutes? I am going to be back there in 2 minutes anyway. Imagine the difference if every American that is using lights right now as I speak shut off their lights for 2 minutes. How much energy would we save? How much conservation is that? It is significant. And let us put that together with a little less idling of our cars; maybe turning our air conditioning a little higher, at 70 degrees instead of having it set at 68 degrees; maybe in the winter having the heat set at 68 degrees instead of 75 degrees; maybe just simply checking our ceiling fans to make sure they are turning in a clockwise direction or motion so that they draw the cool air up and help cool our homes; maybe going to our car owner's manual and determining that we only need to change the oil of the engine of our car every 6,000 miles instead of every 3,000 miles, as the people out there that market oil products are trying to get us to do. There are a lot of ways that average Americans, every American, can help conserve energy, and that is a very critical part of an energy package. I think it is important for all of us to assume that we have an obligation to help with that. All of us have that obligation. But that is only a part of the energy package that we need for this country. What other element should be in that energy package? Well, of course, alternative energy. As I mentioned, I was fascinated by this little device, this device that I showed my colleagues earlier, which seizes energy from motion. That simple motion turns this little light on. That motion, through the physics and all the other engineering, we need to have that. We need to have research. But when we put research aside for alternative energy, we need to be able to have accountability from the people that we give this money to. We need to know that our research is at least moving us in the right direction. We need to know that the people doing this research have oversight. Because we do have an obligation not just to throw money at anybody that says I have an idea for future alternative energy, so give me money, Federal taxpayers. There are a lot of scams that take place out there, and most of the people getting scammed in this country are taxpayers. And most of the scamming is done by special interest groups who know how to give a program a great name and then take gobs and gobs of money without results. So while I say research is very important, it has to be research that means something. It has to be research that is going to come up with a result or at least move us towards the path of a result. So we know we need to have conservation. We know we need to have research for alternative fuels. We also need to face the fact, as I said earlier in my comments, that if we took all of the alternative energy in the world, all of it, whether it is wind power, whether solar power, whether it is some other type of generational electrical power, even like this little device, if we took all of it around the world and directed all of it to the United States of America, it would only supply 3 percent of our needs. So we need to face the fact that as we put this energy policy on the table and we are crafting what a future energy policy should look like, we need to face the fact that we are going to have to drill for oil. We have to come up with additional fossil fuel until that point in time that we have conserved and reached alternative energies so that we can lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. If we do not do that, the demand for fossil fuels still exists. So how do we fill that gap? I will show my colleagues. On this chart right here, this is oil field production. This is the oil that we are now bringing out at the 1990-2000 growth rates. It is flat. It is actually not flat, as we can see from the angle of my pointer. It actually is declining. Our oil production is declining. Yet if we look at the red line to my left, we will see a line that is labeled oil consumption, and we see that that is going at an angle up and the oil production, field production, is at an angle going down. That means we have a projected shortfall. That is the blue. How do we make up the difference? How can we possibly have oil consumption up here when we have energy production down here? Does not make sense, does it? Well, it does. Because what fills that blue spot on this chart, what goes in there and fills that big hole is foreign oil. Foreign oil. Our dependency on foreign oil. Remember the other energy crisis? Many are too young to remember, but the energy crisis in the early 1970s is when we were 40 or 30 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today we are over 50 percent dependent on foreign oil. This gap right here is becoming larger and larger and larger. We need to begin to close oil consumption through conservation, and we need to bring up our energy resources through not just alternative energy but also through our own resources so that we become less dependent on countries like Iraq and so on. So in my opinion an energy policy needs to be put together by this Congress. And we should commend the President. We do not have to agree with all the elements of an energy policy, but certainly everybody in these chambers should commend the President for at least stepping forward and saying, number one, we need an energy policy, which is a dramatic change from what we have had over the last 8 years under the previous administration; and, number two, we need to put an energy policy together that makes sense on a number of different fronts: Conservation, alternative fuels, research, and further exploration of fossil fuels. Now, there are some other areas that an energy policy brings up debate on this floor: Nuclear. Nuclear energy. Now, probably some of the most socialistic liberal groups in the world are the Europeans. Guess what, they have a 70 or 80 percent dependency on nuclear plants. The problem with nuclear, of course, is disposal. It burns cleanly, but we have disposal issues. Maybe we ought to put more of our research money into disposal. Then there is hydropower. That is the energy of movement from water as it drops from a high point to a low point, and we grab that energy as it comes down to spin a turbine to create electricity. The most beautiful thing about hydropower is we do not have to use gasoline. We do not have to fuel it. It is a natural occurrence of energy. We are capturing that natural occurrence of energy. Hydropower is by far the cleanest energy that we have out there, and it uses a renewable resource. The energy that we use to run our cars, called gasoline, is not renewable. It has become more efficient, and frankly it has to become more efficient than it is today, but it is not renewable. Hydropower provides us with a renewable resource. So my concluding remarks regarding energy this evening, before I move on to my other subject, are this: Number one, we heard previously comments from my colleagues from California and the State of Oregon. My message to the State of California is we are not turning our backs on California. We cannot. You are like a brother or a sister. We have 50 states. We all stick together. But the fact is, California, we cannot afford to have you riding in the back of the wagon anymore. We cannot continue to provide your energy or if we do, you will have to pay the price that we need to get to provide it for you. You need to get out of the wagon and help yourself. California, you have to help 49 other states that are not in the same predicament you are in for good solid reasons. You have got to help them pull the wagon. You cannot continue, California, to sit in the back of the wagon and point at everybody else and blame them for the fact that you are going to have to get out of the wagon and help pull too. California, the frustration that some of us have on this House floor is the frustration that you do not want to seem to use self-help. In the last 15 or 20 years you have not wanted any self-help. You have refused to allow generation facilities in your State. You have not allowed gas transmission lines in your State for probably 8 or 10 years. You need some self-help. California is too important to walk away from, even if they were not the economic power base that they are in this country. Even if it was the smallest State of the union like the State of Wyoming for population, we could not afford to walk away from California because we have an inherent obligation to the citizens of America to help our fellow States. But we also have the right within the realm of fairness to say, hey, if you are going to sit by the camp fire, you help collect the fire wood. Now, from these chambers we should be open to some type of energy policy. The President has got to start it. He has put some ideas on the table. He does not live or die by those ideas, but he has exercised vision for this country and leadership in saying that at least begin the debate, Congress. Let us put an energy policy together, Congress. We cannot afford, as we have done for the last 8 or 9 years, not to have an energy policy. So at least give credit to the President for stepping forward and putting an energy policy on the table. Now, it is up to us to add or delete. In the elements of that, number one, look at conservation. Number two, look at exploration of fossil fuels and other ways it can be picked up. Number three, ask the legitimate question: How dependent should we be on foreign oil? Is over 50 percent a safe number? Should we continue to buy in that quantity or should we begin to accept a little of that obligation or a little of that reservoir ourselves to go into our own resources? Those are all questions that I hope we have good healthy debate on. I know next week in several of the committees, including the Ways and Means Committee on which I sit, we are going to have that kind of debate. So energy is an important thing in this country. Let me conclude my energy remarks with one final caution. We have seen in the last three or four weeks, although it may not be seen at the local pump, it should be seen at the local pump. If not, there should be questions asked. But the price of gasoline in this country has dropped dramatically in the last 3 to 4 weeks. We now have a position where demand has dropped in part to conservation and supply has increased, so price has dropped. I am a little concerned that as prices finally begin to drop at the pumps out there as they should, as heating and air conditioning bills begin to drop as they should, as our electrical generation facilities around this Nation become on line, and by the way, if every generation plant currently on the drawing board today is constructed we will have a new one line every day 5 days a week for the next 5 years so we will have adequate electricity, we are going to be put back into that comfort zone. We will not only not be facing an energy crisis, we will have energy comfort. As we go into that it would be a very serious mistake, probably for our generation, certainly for the next generation, to believe that, one, we do not need to conserve; that, two, we do not need to look at alternative energy for the future; and that, three, we do not have some kind of obligation to continue to meet this generation's needs by looking at our resources located within the boundaries of this country. Let me move on from that. Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion last night about public lands in the West, and I had some questions come up today which I thought would be worthy of clarification. As many of my colleagues know, this is one of my favorite charts. Why? Take a look at this. This chart shows the people of America that there are distinctions, there are differences between the eastern United States and the western United States. Let me just point out a couple of them. First of all, water. The State of Colorado, and my district is this color, the poster here to the left. My district is about 64,000 square miles. My district is larger than the entire State of Florida. This is the highest point in the United States right here. As a result, we have water and lots of snow. Our State provides water, just the Colorado River, which goes like this, that river alone provides drinking water for 25 million people. But that water comes from snow melt. Colorado, this State in the center of the United States, has no water. It is the only State in the lower 48, Colorado, that has no free flowing water that comes into its State for its use. The only State out of the lower 48. When one takes a look at water in the West, you have the western United States, a chunk about like this, that is over half of the United States, yet that area that I have just pointed out that I have the pointer on, while it consists of over half the land of the United States, it only has 14 percent of the water in the United States. We do not have much rainfall in the West. In the East, people sue each other to shove water, make sure that water is diverted over to their neighbor's property. In the West, out in the West, life is written in water. Water is like blood in the West. We are an arid region. I had not seen a heavy rain until I came East. Our rain in Colorado is cold and does not last a long time. Once in awhile we get some heavy storms, but generally we do not get much rain. We depend very heavily in the West on water storage because for about 6 to 8 weeks, we get all of the water we could possibly ask for generally, and that is in the spring runoff as the high snows begin to melt and come down. But the rest of the year we do not have that kind of water. Even that 6 weeks, it is not on a consistent basis. Some years we have more snow, and some years we have less snow. So in the West, we are dependent on water storage. In the West we have Hoover Dam with Lake Mead and we have the Glen Canyon Dam with Lake Powell that provides 80 percent of our water storage. Our water storage is necessary to get us from year to year. It is not nearly as critical in the East as it is in the West. In fact, primarily a lot of your water storage facilities in the East are flood control. You have got too much water. Our water storage facilities in the West are also flood control, but primarily utilized to store these waters. That is the difference between the East and the West. Let me tell you another difference between the East and the West, and that is public lands. Follow my pointer over here to the left. In the early days of our country, our population really was on the East Coast like this up in this area. And our Nation began to acquire through the Louisiana Purchase and the Missouri buys and things like that large chunks of land out here. In the East our political leaders decided as we grow this great Nation of ours, we have to figure out how to get ahold of this land and put people out on this land. You see back then, simply having a title, having a piece of paper that said you owned the land, it did not mean a hoot. What you needed to do if you wanted to own the land is you needed to possess it probably with a six shooter on your side. That is where the old saying came from, ``Possession is nine-tenths of the law.'' So they came up with a problem, how do we influence people to move to the West? West being just Kentucky, out here in the Virginias. How do we get them to move west? Somebody came up with the idea, ``Let's do what we did in 1776.'' What did they do in 1776? We all remember that date. What did they do in 1776? Believe it or not, the government decided, hey, let's give land to deserters, or people who will defect, soldiers who will defect from the British army. As a reward we'll give them land if they will be defectors. So let's deploy the same type of strategy, not for defectors but since land seemed to work pretty well then, let's give away land. Let's tell people that if they move to the West, we will give them 160 acres. We'll call it the Homestead Act. Here is kind of a demonstration of it. In 1862, this is later on, because for a while, we could not get the Homestead Act because the North and the South were constantly fighting because they did not want too much of a population in one area that might go slavery or might be opposed to slavery. But in 1862 the U.S. Congress passed the first of many homestead laws that opened settlement of the West. The law provided that anyone was entitled, either the head of a family, 21 years old or a veteran of 14 days of active service in the U.S. Armed Forces, and who was a citizen or had filed a declaration intending to become a citizen could acquire a tract of land in public domain not exceeding 160 acres. It included federally owned lands in all the States except the original 13, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas. The land was often desolate without trees, wood or adequate water. Many homesteaders' homes were made of sod bricks from their land. It was a tough life. How do you get people to go out there and live a tough life? You gave them land. Well, there happened to be a problem. As people began to come out here, they took up those offers of homesteading and they settled. This is where they settled. All of a sudden when they hit, including the eastern district of the Third Congressional District of Colorado, word got back to Washington, D.C., these people aren't settling here. They're either turning back and going back into the main part of the United States or they're trying to go up and around and come out here on the coast of California where you see this large white patch, but they are not settling in this area. That set off alarm bells in Washington. Remember what I said. In order for us to grow this Nation, we had to have people in possession. So this great Nation of ours that owned these large, hundreds of millions of acres out here but nobody was on them to defend them. Nobody was possessing them. So in Washington, the alarm bells went off. We have got to get people into these lands. Somebody said, well, 160 acres in eastern Colorado or Nebraska or Kansas or out here in Missouri, 160 acres is enough to support a family. They said, well, in the mountains, at those high elevations, in a lot of cases, 160 acres, it won't even feed a cow. What do we do? Somebody says, I'll tell you what we do. Let's give the people 3,000 acres. Let's give them several thousand acres, compared to the 160 acres where the ground is much more fertile and where you can support a family. Somebody else said, we can't do that politically. There's no way that we can give individuals thousands of acres each. Somebody else came up with an idea and they said, you know what we ought to do, just for formality, let's go ahead and keep the title to all this land in the Federal Government, let's just allow the people to use the land. That is where the concept of public lands came from, and that is where the concept of multiple use came from and that is where the sign that I grew up, when I would go into the forest or Federal lands and, by the way, in my district almost every community in my district is completely surrounded by public lands, when we went on those public lands, there was a large sign there, ``You are now entering the Roosevelt National Forest, a land of many uses.'' A land of many uses. That is just what I have here to the left of my chart. What has happened is of late, we have organizations like the National Sierra Club who would like to take down the water storage project at Lake Powell which consists of about 40 percent of our water storage in the West. We have groups like Earth First that are coming out and trying to educate people out here in the East that in the West all this land, the reason it was never put into private ownership was so that it could be conserved for all future generations and not to be used by the people in the West and really we ought to get rid of the concept of multiple use. What they do not tell you is there were some lands, like right up there, the great Yellowstone National Park, Teton National Park, fabulous areas. Everybody should go see those areas. Those were set aside specifically as national parks and so on. But this land out here was never intended to be a land with a no trespassing sign on it. It was thought to be a land that could support life, a land of which the people could have multiple uses, whether it was recreation, whether as we know today protection of the environment, whether it was farming or skiing or having a highway or having a power line or having your home or being able to go out and hunt or fish, just watch, be a wildlife watcher. That is a big difference between the East and the West. In the East they do not know what public land is in a lot of States. In the East not a lot of people understand the issues and the differences between water in the East and water in the West. In the East if you are going to build a power line or something like that, you go to your county planning board. Here in the West, our planning board is right back here in Washington, D.C. So you can see why the people of the West get a little sensitive when people in the East start dictating the terms of which the people in the West must live under. And so my purpose here tonight, after my discussion last night, was not an attack on the East obviously, but to help my dear colleagues from the East, so that you can talk to your constituents and say, you know, life in the West really is different. I mean, they are Americans, we are one country, but we need to take into consideration public lands and private lands. We need to take into consideration the different water issues of the West, compared with the water issues of the East. We need to take into consideration the fact that in the West, they deal with much different geographic differences, or elevations even, than we do in the East. And as you begin to look at those things, as you begin to hear our side of the story in the West, a lot of you begin to say, wow, I did not realize that. I did not know that. Gosh, that map that you showed us this evening really does show something that we ought to think about, something we ought to consider when we make legislation off this fine floor of the House of Representatives. So my purpose again to reiterate tonight is simply to demonstrate that there are differences that we must consider as we have legislation dealing with everything from water to public lands. Mr. Speaker, let me very quickly end my remarks as I started my remarks, and, that is, I wish to honor this evening four firefighters who lost their lives yesterday in service to their country. Those firefighters were Tom L. Craven, 30 years old, of Ellensburg; Karen L. Fitzpatrick, 18 years old, of Yakima; Devin A. Weaver, Devin was 21 years old, of Yakima; and Jessica L. Johnson, who was 19 years old, of Yakima. If some of you colleagues have just come in towards the end of my remarks, let me tell you that 2 days ago, these four young people were called to service to fight a fire, a fire that started at five acres and within minutes moved to 2,500 acres. From five to 2,500. These firefighters and some of the others that managed to survive on that fire experienced the horror every firefighter has, the bad dream that every firefighter has, and that is called a blowout. These four people fit the classification of the definition of the word hero as we see it in our dictionary, as we feel it in our mind, as we think about it in our emotions. In my concluding remarks tonight, I would ask that this body and every citizen in America, all your constituents, extend their sympathies and their prayers to the families of these firefighters who lost their young loved ones, and also, it also gives us a little time for consideration. The next time you see a fireman, whether it is a volunteer fireman, professional fireman, a police officer, an EMT or just the local volunteer from the community that helps us take on the battle of fires which we face every summer, pat them on the back, tell them thanks, tell them we care about them. But tonight, colleagues, before you go to sleep, if you say prayers, and I do, if you say prayers, say just a little prayer for those firefighters who gave their lives in the last 24 hours as the duty of their Nation called. They answered that call. They fulfilled their duty and they are now part of history. I ask for your consideration and your prayers.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to recognize a courageous man for his dedicated years of service to the United States during some of the most horrific times of World War II. I am proud to honor Mr. Fritz Brennecke--a devoted veteran--for his enduring flights over war-stricken Europe as he aided in the effort to ensure Allied victory during the war. As Mr. Brennecke was harnessed in his waist gunner position aboard a B-24, he fought valiantly against German fighter planes that were attempting to hinder the bombing runs. The waist gunner position, appropriately named for its location behind the wings of the B-24 at the waist of the airship, was capable of defending the aircraft by firing out either side of the fighting bomber. Amidst flak bombs and insistent attacks, it was not unusual for a mission to return to base with only three or four planes out of the original group with nearly seven planes. Throughout his noble service to the United States, Fritz participated in missions attacking Grottaglie, Italy, Ploesti and other German strongholds. In 1945, the bombing runs subsided and offered the distinguished war veteran an opportunity to return home. Upon returning to Colorado, Fritz completed his formal education at the University of Denver and eventually retired to Montrose after establishing a career in livestock and produce. Mr. Speaker, while Fritze Brennecke considers the real heroes of World War II to be those who were never able to return home, his recognition with two Presidential Citations and an Air Medal with five oak clusters testify to his selfless service to America and to his 50 combat flights. These are distinctions one earns for going above and beyond the call of duty. I am proud to honor Fritz with this Congressional Tribute as he is truly an American hero who exemplifies the spirit of patriotism. He is one individual who added to the collective effort to perpetuate peace and reconciliation following World War II. I commend his notable service and his efforts on the behalf of this country and wish him all of the best in the years to come.