Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I now honor an extraordinary human being and great American, Captain John P. Sheelan of the Pueblo police force. Mr. Sheelan was described as one of the ``best-liked officers on the force'' who demonstrated both remarkable valor and compassion everyday. ``He was pretty well-liked community wide, he had that kind of personality. I don't know anyone who didn't like John,'' said by police Chief Ron Gravatt in a recent Pueblo Chieftain article. Sadly, John died in February in a motorcycle accident. As family, friends, and colleagues mourn this profound loss, I would like to honor this truly great American. Mr. Sheelan was an individual that served his country, state and nation well. John was never too far from the outdoors, something that he loved. He was an avid weightlifter, but his true passion was his motorcycle. Tragically, John's life was cut short while embarking on the activity that he loved. John was a long time Pueblo resident who was well known and widely admired. ``John loved kids. On the beat, he liked to stop and talk to the kids,'' recalls Captain John Barger about his close friend. John has served his community for over three decades. As a police officer, he was dedicated to protecting the people of Pueblo, and as a community member he was committed to the betterment of society. John held numerous positions at the department, where he spent about 15 years as a detective investigating many of the departments highest profile cases. John was a highly skilled member of his profession. Mr. Speaker and fellow colleagues, as you can see, this extraordinary human being truly deserves our timeless gratitude for his service. John P. Sheehan may be gone, but his legacy will long endure in the minds of those who were fortunate enough to know him. Colorado is a better place because of John Sheelan. The nation's thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Pamela, and his children, Lori, Kelli, Clay and Brock, and his colleagues at the Pueblo Police Department. Like these loved ones, the Pueblo community and the State of Colorado will miss John greatly.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I now honor an extraordinary human being and great American Frank R. Mascarenas. Mr. Mascarenas was loved and admired by many. He was an educator, an active force in the life of youth in his community, and first and foremost, a loving family man. Sadly, Frank died on January 25 surrounded by friends and family. As family, friends, and former students mount this loss, I would like to honor this great man. Mr. Mascarenas was an individual that served his country, state, and national well. For most of his life, Frank worked as an educator, Frank began his teaching career in 1959 in Cortez, CO, after having served his country for eight years in the U.S. Army. In addition to being an outstanding teacher throughout the course of his career, Frank was also dedicated to sports and to coaching. He began coaching in Cortez at the same time he began his teaching tenure. As an educator and a coach, he helped to improve the quality of life in his community. Frank grew up in Montrose, CO, where he was well known and widely admired. He was raised by his grandmother, Manuela Lovato, and Aunt, Cecilia Trujillo. He graduated from Montrose High School and then earned his bachelors of arts degree in education after attending Ft. Lewis College and Adam State Colleges. Frank married his life partner and beautiful wife Carolyn Leech in the summer of 1958. Frank and Carolyn have three children--a son Mark, and daughters Stacey and Kelli. After teaching and coaching in Cortez until 1981, he took his talents to Rangely where he again had a dramatic impact on the community's youth. In 1991, Frank joined the ranks of Palisade High School where he had a famed coaching tenure. While at Palisade, Frank was an integral part of a remarkable run that brought Palisade four consecutive state championships. This historic championship run was fitting punctuation for Frank's successful career as a coach and educator. Like those great Palisade football teams, Frank was a champion in the truest meaning of the word. More than just winning football games, though, Frank helped instill lifeshaping virtues in both his players and students alike. Mr. Speaker and fellow colleagues, as you can see, this extraordinary human being truly deserves our gratitude for his service to our community. Frank R. Mascarenas may be gone, but his legacy will long endure in the minds of those who were fortunate enough to know him. Colorado is a better place because of Frank Mascarenas. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Carolyn, and his children, Mark, Stacey, and Kelli, during this difficult time. Like these loved ones, western Colorado will miss Frank greatly.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate a remarkable gentleman, Thomas W. Ready, for his outstanding leadership and dedication to his country and the State of Colorado. Tom is a long time resident of Pueblo, Colorado, where his hard work and vision have taken the GOP to new heights in the community. What's more, Tom has had an outstanding career as a Dentist in the Pueblo area, a career that is now coming to a close. Tom's contributions to the citizens of Colorado are great in number and deserve the recognition of Congress. Tom is a wonderful model of the ideal citizen. Tom was born in Pueblo, Colorado in 1944, where he spent his formative years. Tom attended college at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, and later pursued his graduate work at the Washington University School of Dentistry in St. Louis, Missouri. After graduating with a degree in dentistry in 1970, Tom was drafted into the United States Army and assigned to the Army Dental Corp at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. While serving his country in the military, Tom had the opportunity to represent South Carolina at the 1972 Republican National Convention in Miami. Tom has not only had an exceptional career in the Armed Services, but he's also been highly active in his community. After obtaining the rank of Major, he returned to Colorado and set up a private dental practice in Pueblo. Later, he started a longhorn ranch just up the road from Pueblo in Beulah. In Colorado, Tom remained active in the Republican Party, where he became precinct chairman for the Republican Party in Beulah. Tom has continued to be a prominent force in the Republican Party ever since, working on numerous Republican campaigns and holding an array of positions. He's been the Chairman of the 3rd Congressional District several times, as well as Vice Chairman, Treasurer and a member of the State Executive Committee. He was elected Chairman of the Pueblo County GOP where he's served with great distinction the last 10 years. When Tom began as Chairman of Pueblo County, the party was troubled with debt and facing a countywide Democratic advantage of 3.5 to 1. Under Thomas' tutelage, the Party has brought its fiscal house in order and 3 of 5 Representatives in the area are currently Republican. The success of the GOP is in no small way attributable to Tom's hard work. In July of 2000, Governor Bill Owens appointed Tom to the Colorado State Parks Board. In addition, Tom currently serves as the campaign Treasurer for my friend U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. For all these reasons, and many more, Tom deserves the commendation of this body. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Tom for his dedication and service to his community over the years and congratulate him on an outstanding career. He has worked hard for our community and for our great state.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a remarkable citizen, Stanley L. Dodson, for his continued dedication to the people of Colorado. Stanley is being honored by Glenwood Chamber Resort as their 2001 Citizen of the Year. Stanley has had a long and distinguished career and it is obvious why he is receiving this honor. Stanley's contributions to the citizens of Colorado are great in number and deserve the recognition of Congress. Stanley is a great role model and an outstanding citizen. Stanley has not only had an exceptional career in the engineering field, but he's also been highly active in his community. Stanley started his career after graduating from the University of Colorado at Boulder with a degree in Civil Engineering and Business Administration in 1941. During his college years, Stanley became the formidable leader that has won him recognition today. Stanley has always had the gift of leadership, from his time as senior class high school president and valedictorian to president of the PI Kappa fraternity to holding numerous board positions. Most significantly, Stanley also served his country during World War II. In 1942, he was commissioned as an officer in the United States Naval Reserves, where he was able to further his education in engineering at numerous training schools. After serving his country with distinction, Stanley focused his energies and efforts on working for the Colorado State Highway Commission. Appointed by Governor Love in 1965, he later became Chairman of the Commission in 1973. During his career, he was a model of service, focusing his time and personal resources on the betterment of his state and community. Stanley is a pillar of the Glenwood Springs community. His accomplished career addressing the transportation issues of the State of Colorado over the past 55 years has earned him the honor Citizen of the Year. Beyond his important work in the transportation sector, Stanley is also being honored for his great work on various local causes. Stanley has won numerous awards acknowledging his commitment to the community. In 1991, the Alumni Association of the University of Colorado at Boulder gave Stanley the ``Alumni Recognition Award.'' In that same year, the Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association honored him with its first ``Lifetime Achievement Award''. For all these reasons, and many more, Stanley deserves the commendation of this body. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Stanley for his dedication and service to his community over the years and congratulate him on an outstanding career and on this distinguished honor. He has worked hard for our community and for our great state. He is clearly deserving of the honor of being named Citizen of the Year. Stanley, we are all very proud of you and grateful for your service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would spend a little time this evening in another nightside chat. There are three areas I would like to address my colleagues about. First of all, we have heard a lot of news in the last couple of weeks about the pardon that former President Clinton granted to an individual named Marc Rich, and I thought tonight I would take time to clarify that with my colleagues because it appears that this pardon will go down as the most egregious, most offending pardon in the history of this country. Never in our study of American history have we seen a pardon that so flagrantly violated the principles of our Constitution and against which the citizens of this country expected a President to follow before he issued a pardon. When I go through this, I think you will be appalled, be stunned by the amount of money that traded hands, by where that money went, for example to the Clinton library, about the coordination and the coincidence of that money going to the Clinton library and the money going to close Clinton friends, and all of a sudden what would be a usual pattern of oversight on a pardon by the Department of Justice and other agencies was avoided, and then one of the world's most sought- after fugitives all of a sudden, after bilking the American taxpayers, after trading with the enemy during a war, and then bilking the American taxpayers of hundreds of million of dollars when you consider the penalties, now can walk free on American soil. He will have more freedom as a result of this pardon from Clinton, more freedom than one of our constituents who walks into a Wal-Mart and steals a 50-cent candy bar. As every day goes by, we find out that there is more and more underneath the surface of the Marc Rich pardon. The second thing that I think is important to discuss this evening is the energy crisis in California. The State of California is very important to the economy of this Nation, but the State of California is going to have to stand up on its own two feet to help itself when it comes to this energy crisis. California is going to have to abandon the long-adopted concept in California ``not in my backyard, let somebody else build it and let me have the benefits.'' I think we will have an interesting discussion this evening about the energy crisis in the State of California. Finally, we will take a look at the economy. I had the opportunity and the privilege today to listen to the Secretary of the Treasury. Over on the Senate side, Alan Greenspan spoke. Look, we have a lot of concerns about our economy; and every citizen in this country, every constituent of ours needs to worry about the future of this economy. A very critical part of that economy is, number one, the Federal interest rate and how the Feds deal with it; number two, how the President deals with it; and number three, how the Congress deals with it. Alan Greenspan lowered the rate by 1 percent last month. The President has stepped forward and said here is a tax cut proposal, and this evening I want to go into some of the details about that tax cut proposal because I think that is one arm of our strategy to keep this economy from collapsing on us. It is not near collapse right now, but it is headed toward a significant slow down. We have to be able to throw some water on this small fire before it becomes a bonfire. If it is left without attention, I assure you that fire will only grow. I think that President Bush has extended a very well-thought-out plan that will work in a very efficient manner through the tax cut, which will first of all reduce the debt that this country has incurred over years and years of some, in great part, mismanagement, as my colleagues know. But first of all let us go to the pardon of Marc Rich. Let me quote from the ``Wall Street Journal.'' ``This story,'' speaking about Marc Rich, ``This story will go down as an extraordinary feat in the annals of Washington lobbying, illustrating in a dramatic fashion how money begets access, access begets influence, and influence begets results.'' Marc Rich and his partner, Mr. Green, were fugitives from American justice. Marc Rich was, I think, the sixth most sought-after fugitive in the world. Marc Rich bilked the American taxpayer, when you consider the penalties and interest, of hundreds of millions of dollars. It was Marc Rich when our American citizens were being held hostage in Iran, when we were trying to put a blockade around the country of Iran, when we were trying to go right to the heart of the economy of Iran to force them to release our hostages, i.e. stop the sale of oil with Iran, Marc Rich was trading with the enemy. A U.S. citizen who subsequently renounced his U.S. citizenship, Marc Rich was trading with Iran while Iran was holding American hostages; and this is the man that Clinton has given a pardon to. We are going to track about how that occurred. I think of some merit, I would like to read an article called ``The Clinton Indulgences'' from today's ``Washington Post,'' Tuesday, February 13. ``The more that is learned about some of the pardons former President Clinton granted on his final day of office, particularly the pardon of financier Marc Rich, the more it appears that they constituted a major abuse of power. We learned, for example, that the Rich pardon, if not facilitated, at least preceded by gifts of nearly a half a million dollars from Mr. Rich's former wife to the Clinton Presidential Foundation and Library Fund. Ms. Rich was also a major campaign contributor, not just to the President but to the President's wife in her Senatorial campaign. The Rich pardon has been thoroughly denounced by almost everyone, except of course the lawyers who were paid by Mr. Rich to lobby for it. Leaving the article for a minute, that would be Mr. Quinn. Right down here, Mr. Quinn. So let me go through this again. The Rich pardon has been thoroughly denounced by almost everyone except the lawyers who were paid by Mr. Rich to lobby for it and various others to whose organizations Mr. Rich made contributions over the years. The denunciation has been thoroughly bipartisan. Mr. Clinton's only public response has been to say that he spent a lot of time on that case, and he thinks there are very good reasons for it. Once the facts are out, the public will understand, he said. What are those facts, if not that money talked and that Mr. Clinton may have benefited? He would do well to find a way to say and to explain the other questionable pardons on his list. This a classic Clinton case. The facts suggest that he first abused then wrapped himself protectively in a Presidential prerogative. The public has a legitimate interest in determining the extent of the abuse. The question is how to conduct the necessary inquiry without, at the same time, weakening the prerogative if only by undercutting the public sense of its legitimacy. Mr. Clinton could solve the problem by being forthcoming, providing an explanation of the questionable pardon and a full list of contributors to his foundation; but he will not, or so far has not. The issue is whether the public trust was violated. Enough valid questions should have been raised about some of those pardons to warrant a full accounting. Mr. Clinton should volunteer it and not force the country to extract from him. So I ask my colleagues to follow with me a little this evening as we go through some of these points and they can make their own decision of how legitimate this looked; about what kind of prerogative was abused in the granting of the pardon for Marc Rich. And keep in mind, as I said earlier in my comments, that Marc Rich will walk a freer man in the United States than will one of our constituents who might steal a 50 cent candy bar from Kmart or Wal-Mart. Let us take a look at the pardon. Denise Rich. Who is Denise Rich? Denise Rich is a very, very wealthy individual in this country. She also happens to be the ex-wife of Marc Rich and, apparently, is on very, very good terms with her ex-husband. In addition, Denise Rich has refused to testify in front of a congressional committee, invoking the fifth amendment against self-incrimination. Denise Rich has given over $1 million in donations to the Democratic National Committee. I thought she gave $190,000 to the Clintons in gifts; but every day that goes by, this figure becomes more and more inaccurate. We now know, for example, that to the Clinton library this amount of money: $450,000 was given to the Clinton library by Denise Rich. We also know that Denise Rich said other friends who were solicited say Clinton fund-raisers pressed Denise Rich for a much greater amount, as much as $25 million for the library fund. A source familiar said that it is at this point $450,000, although a lawyer, Carol Elder Bruce, told committee staffers that Rich had contributed ``enormous'' amounts of money to the Arkansas foundation seeking to raise some $200 million to build the Clinton Presidential library. In addition to that, of course, on the gift registry, before the President's wife became a Senator, there was $7,800 in furniture she bought for one of their homes, $7,000 for furniture for another home, and the public saxophone to the President. Now, this goes back to that Wall Street statement, and let me read the Wall Street article again about this influence and money. Let me read the quote again. The story will go down as an extraordinary feat in the annals of Washington lobbying illustrating in a dramatic fashion how money begets access, access begets influence, and influence begets results. That is exactly what happens. Do my colleagues think, as Bill Clinton now says when he made the statement, that politics did not play a part in this? Oh, yes; right. I am sure that that is a very solid statement, considering the fact that a request was made to Denise Rich to donate $25 million to the Clinton library; that in fact she gave $450,000; that in fact she wrote a personal letter to the President asking the President to pardon Mr. Rich; that in fact Mr. Rich is one of the most sought-after fugitives in the history of this country and, until recently, until he got the pardon, but prior to President Clinton's acting, he was one of the most sought-after fugitives in the world. How interesting that this is one of those pardons, one of those suspicious pardons that goes around. Supposedly it is supposed to go to the Justice Department, to the Securities Exchange, and to the other parties involved for an assessment of whether or not that pardon should be granted. For example, Milken. Milken, by the way, refused a request to make a donation to the Clinton Presidential library; and as a result, well we do not know as a result, but he refused to do that and the consequences may have been that he did not get a pardon. We know for some odd reason in the last few hours that this pardon for Marc Rich did not go through the customary channels; that it was handled in a highly unusual fashion. In fact, we have e-mails from one lawyer to another that says keep it secret; it would not be to our benefit to find out what we are asking from the President. We also know that the lawyer representing Marc Rich is a close friend and confidant of then-President Clinton. We also know that the attorney received hundreds of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars from Marc Rich to help Marc Rich get this pardon. We also know this attorney represented the President on other matters of the President. So let us start to put the combination together and see what we have. We have Denise Rich, who is lobbying very hard for the pardon for Marc Rich. She gives well over $1 million. We may find out more than that, much more than that, to the Democratic National Committee. She donates $450,000 that we know of so far, and we suspect there is a lot more. She was asked for $25 million. She helps furnish two Clinton homes, and she provides other gifts for the Clintons. Then we combine that with one of the Clintons' close confidants, who previously represented Bill Clinton, who has been paid hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to represent Marc Rich. On top of that, we combine some of the organizations overseas that Marc Rich contributed to, charities and so on, who then sent letters, lobbying letters, to the President to grant this pardon for this fugitive, who as I have reminded my colleagues of before and I remind them again because it really leaves a bitter taste on my tongue, traded with the enemy. What does that all spell? Well, that all goes over to the Clintons. And look what happens. Here they go. In 65 counts they granted a pardon. Where is the fairness? It was interesting to hear the Democrats talk about this pardon. Every Democrat in these House Chambers that I have heard speak about it, every Democrat I have heard on national talk shows speak about it deplores what has occurred here. I am not saying every Democrat does, because I have not heard from all of my Democrat colleagues; but the ones I have heard from and the talk shows I have seen, they all deplore this. There is no way that this can be justified. What kind of message does this send out there; what kind of reputation? Why would the President do this and leave with this kind of reputation? I can tell my colleagues this, and I speak from the earnestness of my heart, the granting of this pardon, in my opinion, was a disgrace. There is no pardon like it to the best of our knowledge in the study of American history. We cannot find another pardon like this, that so clearly shows connections of money, monetary contributions being made to a Presidential library; the connections with close confidants of the President; that the pardon request bypasses the normal channels for reviews. And by the way, some of the best testimony I have heard on this came on this case from the former prosecutors, the U.S. attorneys who spoke the other day in front of the committee. One of the prosecuting attorneys, former U.S. Attorney, stated clearly that he voted twice for Bill Clinton as President. I wish my colleagues had heard that testimony. I felt that testimony was extraordinary. It was right on point. He broke down in significant detail, detail that is far and above any kind of explanation I could give this evening from the House floor. He broke down in significant detail and rebutted every possible point made by this attorney, Mr. Quinn, who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. This thing stinks. Now, that sounds like a strong word to use on the floor of the House of Representatives, but somebody needs to stand up on this floor, as I am doing right now and many of my colleagues have done in their own followings, and talk about just how wrong that is. This pardon should not have been granted. Let us move on to the next issue. There are two other issues I want to address this evening. One of them, of course, is the energy crisis that we have in the State of California. Now, a lot of us would like to say, California, if anybody had it coming, you had it coming. This is a State that has not allowed a power plant to be built in its State in the last 10 years. This is a State that today has 2 percent less capacity to produce power than they did 11 years ago. In other words, in 1990 they had 2 percent more capability to produce power than they do today in 2001. They had more capability to produce power in 1990 than they did in 2001. But what happened to the demand in power during that 10-year period of time? What happened with demand? Demand went up 11 percent. So demand goes up and capability to provide it goes down. We need to talk a little about that. Clearly, California provides to the United States about one-sixth of our economy. It is huge. I need to correct that statement. California, if it were a country, would be the sixth most powerful country in the world from an economic point of view. We cannot allow California to just go down the drain. We cannot ignore our neighbor to the west and just say that their problem ought to just be their problem and we are going to walk away from it. Unfortunately, the political leaders of the State of California have pulled every State in the Union into this mess. Unfortunately, many of our constituents out there, whether they live in the State of Colorado, New Mexico or wherever, they are going to get pulled into this as a ratepayer. In the State of Colorado, for example, Excel Energy, what used to be our public service company, has sold energy to the State of California, some of it under what I consider an illegitimate order by the previous administration forcing it to sell power to a customer, number one, under a Wartime Powers Act, which we are not engaged in that type of threat right now; but they were concerned, so they used the excuse that it may affect the bases in California. So they ordered our utility in Colorado, for example, to sell energy to the State of California with no assurance that the State of California could pay for that. This means that prices will go up for the ratepayers in Colorado to cover this loss to the State of California, while the ratepayers in the State of California enjoy a freeze on their rates put in by their political leaders. And that is not all. Take a look at some of the other things. The city of Denver. Now, I just have to say that part of this is gross negligence on behalf of the city of Denver. They invested $32 million, and the citizens of the city of Denver ought to be aware of this. The city management team invested $32 million after, not before, after they had received warning that these power companies in California may not be able to pay and in fact in all probability could not pay them back. So part of that is gross negligence on the part of the city of Denver. But this is to point out that this is not isolated to the ratepayers and the taxpayers in the State of California, this spreads across the Nation. How do we get there? How did California get there? Well, it is Economics 101. We have in our system of economics a capitalist type of system. We have what we call the private marketplace. And it is really fairly simple. We have the private marketplace. Now, on the private marketplace, we have a seller and a buyer. Now, I know that this sounds kind of fundamental. But as my colleagues walk through this with me, they will understand where I am going with this. Now, the buyer over here knows exactly what they are looking for. The seller is trying to meet this demand. The seller wants to sell to the buyer at a mutually-agreed price. That price is negotiated. Every one of us goes through those transactions. We started out selling a piece of bubble gum when we were young. That is what we call a bargain, an agreement, a consent, an acceptance. So we have got the seller and the buyer. Now, the seller tries to determine what it is he or she can provide to the buyer and at what cost. The buyer, of course, knows what they want. Well, then we have the next transaction, which is the closure of the agreement. Let us call it consumption. On the consumption part of it, the money that comes from the consumption, the buyer gets the service of the product and the seller gets some type of compensation, generally cash. Now, what does the seller do with the cash? This is very important. One, what the seller has to do with the cash is it has to make a profit. If the seller cannot make a profit, the seller will not be in business and the buyer will not get what they need. It is to the buyer's interest to have the seller in business as much as it is to the seller's interest to have the buyer in business or in the marketplace. So what happens is the seller has to have a profit. Now, what happens with the profit in the system balances out. The seller has a cost to the product. So they have got the product, in this case, electricity. They have got the cost. The seller did not get the product, the electricity, free of charge. The seller had to either buy the power or generate the power. So it has a cost involved. So, in order to pay for the power, the seller has to recover from the buyer at least that amount of money to cover cost. That is called ``break even.'' But if the seller wants to be able to continue to sell this power in the future, especially if the buyer demands more and more from the seller, then the seller has got to reinvest in its ability to produce what the buyer desires. And that is one of the important aspects of profit. The seller also has to have willing investors in the seller, which means that there has to be some type of enticement to bring people in the marketplace to invest in the capital structure of the seller. Well, this all begins to work well. And, by the way, and I heard this in California, nobody deserves to make a profit on selling basic power to the American people, that there should not be a product out there where there are excess profits being made. Well, what happens when excess profit comes into the marketplace? Do the bright political leaders have to go in and take over the marketplace? No. The marketplace self-corrects. Let us look at an example. Let us say we have a hamburger stand in our community and that hamburger stand sells a hamburger for 50 cents and the cost of the product is 5 cents. So the hamburger stand makes 45 cents. And then pretty soon the hamburger stand finds out there are a lot more customers that want those hamburgers, so they raise the price to a dollar, then pretty soon they raise the price to $2. Then pretty soon they cannot buy a hamburger except at this place for $5 and the cost for making a hamburger, everybody knows, is five cents. What is going to happen in the private marketplace? They are going to have competition. Somebody else is going to come in and say, wait a minute, Joe over there is selling his hamburgers for $5 apiece. He is taking advantage of the public. His profits are excessive. I can go in and sell a hamburger for $2 apiece and I still make a handsome product. I make enough money to reinvest into the capital that I have to make that hamburger, so I am going to go into competition. I am going to go into competition with Joe and I am going to force him to lower the price from $5 to $2; and if he does not, I am going to force him out of business. That is the private marketplace working. That is not what happened in California. What has happened in California, in my opinion, is their State- elected leaders, including State legislators and including the Governor of California, do not have enough gumption to stand up to the consumers in California and say a couple of things. Number one, look, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say anymore ``not in my backyard,'' but I want power to my house when I want electricity. It was interesting, I read a Wall Street Journal article the other day that talked about Cisco Systems, Cisco Corporation. Many of my colleagues are investors or have constituents who own shares of stock and know about how Cisco did not want to power a plant. Even though they are a large consumer of power, they did not want to power a plant and they objected to a power plant being built near their facility because it partially obstructed their view of the ocean. Do they know what? Face reality. We need power and all of us take advantage of power. Tonight, here in Washington, D.C., the outside temperature is probably in the low 40s, maybe under 40 degrees. But the temperature in these Chambers is probably 70 degrees. We have plenty of lights. We all know that. We need our power. But the citizens of California need to understand that the other States of this Union, while we are colleagues, we are neighbors, we are fellow States, we cannot carry their weight for them. They need to agree to build some power plants out there. They need to agree to some reasonable access for grids to transfer that power from place to place. They need to agree that, in order to build power plants, they themselves, the ratepayers out there, are going to have to invest. Years ago somebody should have had enough guts to stand up to the political establishment in California and say to them, look, you cannot go into a so-called deregulation, in other words, enter the private marketplace, but go out to the consumer, the buyer, and go out to that buyer and say, no matter what the cost to the seller, no matter what it costs the seller, they are always going to get the same price. Here is the price cap, $55 dollars per megawatt hour. That is exactly what happened. California several years ago decided to ``deregulate'' their power production. And in order to deregulate, they decided to enter into the free marketplace; and in entering the free marketplace, they only made one mistake, and that mistake was they only partially entered the free marketplace. They did not want to upset their voters in the State of California. They did not want to be frank with their constituents and say, look, we are either in or out. If they are going to get into the marketplace, they have got to be willing to pay the marketplace so that the seller can reinvest to continue to generate, in this case, electricity. No, California did not do that. California went to the citizens of California and said, hey, we have got something that defies the private marketplace. We have got something that never in the history of capitalism, never in the history of a free economy has it worked. But we in California have figured it out. We do not have to build any more power plants in our State, or we can make it so tough or miserable on them that nobody will want to build a power plant in California. We will go ahead and let the sellers in some of these power companies in California walk away or have some time to make a profit, we will let them sell the power producers, the generation facilities to out-of- state providers, and to the buyer we are going to give the sweetest deal of all. To our consumers of electricity in California, we are going to freeze the price. In fact, not only are we going to freeze the price just as an act of goodwill, we are going to reduce the price 10 percent. That is exactly what the elected officials in California did. We will reduce the price 10 percent, buyer; and, guess what, use all of the power you want because in the future, the price that you are going to have to pay is frozen. Well, what happened to it? Well, it led to a shipwreck. I will tell my colleagues what happened. The seller agreed, those power companies in California agreed because they made a lot of money on this transaction. The buyer agreed because it was a sweet deal. The consumers in California were persuaded by the politicians that, in effect, at some point they were going to get something for nothing, that they could use all the power they wanted, they could waste power regardless of what they did, power would always be sold with a cap on it, they could not raise the power. Then they made a mistake. They brought in a third party, power generation. They sold the generation facility to out-of-state producers and they expected these power generators to always come back to the State of California and say, California, because you are such a nice pal, we are going to go ahead and sell you electricity for just a little tiny bit more than what it cost us to produce it, not for what the marketplace would bring us, but for a little over what it could cost us to produce it. Well, they did not want to play that game, these power generators. They were in the marketplace. In other words, what will the market bear? They charged what the market would bear. California, in the meantime, goes on this binge of not allowing power plants in its State. I would love to have the opportunity to debate the Governor of the State of California. Mr. Governor, I plead upon you to stand up to the ratepayers in the State of California and say, look, we got a problem here. We have got to bring more power plants on-line. And I think, by the way, the Governor is edging that way. But more important than that, you have got to be frank with your ratepayers. You have got to be straightforward and say to them, look, if we are going to have investment, we have got to have profit. Now, I think instead what the answer of many elected officials in the State of California is going to be, let the Government take over. Let us let the Government be the power supplier in California. Let us let the Government run this operation. Take a look. Without exception, take a look at any point in history. What happens when we allow the Government to enter into the private marketplace and run business? Government cannot do it. Look at what we do with the Federal Government, my colleagues. Take a look at how efficiently the Social Security system is run. Take a look at how efficiently Medicare is run. I mean, we have huge inefficiencies. Why? Why are the inefficiencies higher at the Government level than they are in the private marketplace? Because the Government does not have competition. In the private marketplace, efficiencies come as a result of the market because they have got competition. Remember the hamburger guy I was talking about? That guy or gal decided to come in and he or she cannot sell those hamburgers for $5 for very long because they have got competition that will come in and sell it for $2. I say to some of my colleagues from California, do not let your constituents buy off on the proposition that they are going to be able to get power at a capped price. Do not let them buy off on the proposition that they are not going to have to pay for an increase. Let me talk about what I think is the solution for the State of California and a big part of it. Number one, in California and across this country, we have got to conserve. And conservation really is pretty easy. My wife and I, for example, in our home in Colorado, we live high in the Rocky Mountains, in our home, except for the area that we are working in, the area we are working in we leave at 70 or 72 degrees. The rest of the house is at 55 degrees. In California, they have got to begin to conserve. They cannot conserve when they cap the price that the user is going to pay. Let me give my colleagues an example. Colleagues, if any one of you ever rented a place from a landlord and the landlord agreed to pay all of the utilities, and by the way, that does not happen very often except for the Government, what incentive would you have to shut off the air conditioning during the summer or reduce the heat during the winter if the landlord paid the bill regardless of the usage you had on the air-conditioning or the heat? There is no incentive to conserve. California has got to take this price cap off. California has got to say to the electrical users in its own State, and I know politically it is not popular to do, but it is going to take some courage and some guts to stand up to the consumers in California. And frankly I think a lot of consumers will agree with this, Look, we have got to put a price. The more you use or if you are going to waste it, there is going to be a price to pay. We cannot cap it at $55, especially when the marketplace out there is selling it at $1,000, and that is what happened at points during this energy crisis. So conservation is issue number one. All of us can conserve energy. I feel an obligation to conserve it in Colorado. And for gosh sakes in California you need to be led by your State political leaders to conserve. The second thing that you have got to do in California is you have got to build production facilities. You have to provide for generation. The days of looking to your neighbors to the east and saying, well, put the power plants in Oregon or put the hydropower plants over in Arizona or let Colorado put the power generation plants in their State. We do not want power generation plants because it has an impact on the environment. It does have an impact on the environment. You have got to balance that out. Having lights in here this evening, having 70 degrees on the House floor, it has an impact on the environment. We are using energy to provide this. But, California, you are going to have to carry a fair share of that. Or if you want to depend on out-of-State suppliers, then you are going to be subject to the price variations of the market. And if the market knows that you do not have the capability to provide your own power, the market will be very punishing to you. The market has its own checks and balances. You cannot defy through political movement the marketplace or the punishment of the marketplace for ignoring the basic concepts of supply and demand. It will not work. You have tried it and it has been a disaster. You have hit a brick wall in California. The elected officials in California need to stand up and understand the private marketplace, stand up and conserve and take that price cap off so that you have got some kind of incentive to build generation. And for gosh sakes, I urge the electrical users in California, do not buy into this dream that the government of the State of California can run an electrical system more efficiently than the private marketplace. Oh, temporarily it will be like that 10 percent discount you got when they first deregulated. They will make it sound as sweet as roses, sugar, and honey. But down the road, you will pay the price because the government cannot operate an electrical facility with efficiency. Let me move on very briefly about the next subject that I think is critical and we are going to hear a lot about and that is the tax plan from President Bush. I think it is very, very critical that we put in place a tax cut. I think our first priority, colleagues, has to be to reduce the debt. So the argument here on the Bush tax cut is not about reduction of the debt. I think most of my colleagues out here agree that we need to reduce the debt. The argument is the structure of how we go about it. Now, frankly some of the people opposed to this, i.e., the left wing of the Democratic Party, the more liberal element, and I say this with due respect, the liberal philosophy appears to be, keep the money in Washington. I will tell you any time you keep money within reach of these Chambers, it is in high danger of being spent or dedicated to a new spending program. Do not kid yourself. Money sitting in Washington, D.C. is like setting a piece of pie in front of somebody that has not eaten for a long time. It is going to get eaten up very quickly. It is going to be committed. If you want to reduce that debt, put that money back in the pockets of the people that made it. That is exactly what President Bush is focusing on. That theory is a theory that has been proved time and time and time again. Give the money not to the government to reinvest because, remember, the government does not create capital. The government transfers capital. Those men and women out there, working away, they are the ones that create capital. All the government does is reach into their pockets and transfer their hard-earned money to Washington, D.C. Frankly as you know as a result of this surplus, you have had a lot more money than we need transferred out of a worker's pocket to Washington, D.C. You have got a lot of people that did not have to earn that money that have great ideas on how to spend your money. They want it kept in Washington. This new program, this new program, more for this program. President Bush has it right. We have got an economy that faces a heck of a challenge. We have got an economy that threatens millions and millions of jobs. We have got an economy that just in the last month we have seen tens and tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. We have got to come up with a recovery plan. The recovery plan is not to keep that surplus in Washington, D.C. for more spending. That recovery plan is to get that money quickly back out to the people who earned it. Get that money back out to the people who made it. That is how you create capital. And when you create capital, you create more taxable transactions. And when you create more taxable transactions, you reduce the Federal debt. Today in the Committee on Ways and Means, I sat and listened to the Secretary of Treasury and heard a questioner imply that a tax cut was going to add to the national debt. A tax cut if appropriately put into place will reduce the national debt. Because you are putting money out and it creates capital out there in the free marketplace. I also heard out there today about how this is a rich man's tax cut. Let us take a look at some hard facts here very briefly. This is who pays Federal income taxes. By the way, as you can tell, this is my homemade chart, colleagues, so forgive me for it but I think you can get the basics of it. All taxpayers, of course, pay 100 percent. All taxpayers pay 100 percent of the taxes. The top 1 percent of the taxpayers in the country pay 34 percent of the taxes. The top 5 percent pay 53 percent of taxes. The top 10 percent of taxpayers in the country pay 65 percent of the taxes. Right down here, the top 50 percent, half of the taxpayers in this country, pay 95 percent of the taxes. The bottom 50 percent pay less than 4 percent of the taxes. I will go ahead and leave this up so you can take a look at it. The bottom half pays less than 4 percent of the taxes. So if you are going to have an impact, if you are going to put dollars back out there, number one, the principle of a tax cut should go to people who pay taxes. Bush's plan is not a welfare plan. President Bush's plan is to go to the people who pay taxes, every taxpayer out there, regardless of their wealth and reduce marginal rates, get those dollars out here where they are going to work. Get those dollars out into that community. Get it out there where it is going to be reinvested under President Bush's income tax cut. Under President Bush's income tax cut, there are several key issues. One in five tax-paying families with children will no longer pay any income tax at all. So out of every five families out there that are paying income taxes today, out of every five, they are paying taxes today, one of them after this program will no longer have to pay those taxes. By the way, all five of them will have their taxes reduced. A family of four who make $35,000 a year will pay no Federal income taxes under this plan. So if you have got constituents out there, colleagues, who have a family of four, mom and dad, boy and girl, and they are making $35,000 a year, under President Bush's plan they will no longer pay Federal income taxes. What do you think happens to that money, colleagues? They do not go take the money that they are no longer transferring to Washington, D.C. and bury it in the ground. They go out and use that money. They either put it into savings or they go put it as a down payment or they go buy a washer or a dryer. That money begins to circulate in the environment that creates capital, that also creates taxable transactions, that also helps reduce the Federal debt. Let me go on. A family of four making $50,000 a year, so if you have mom and dad and boy and girl, and they are making $50,000 a year, their taxes will be reduced by 50 percent. A 50 percent tax cut. A reduction of $1,600. And a family of four who makes $75,000 a year will receive a 25 percent tax cut. On top of that, there are some other important issues that are being reduced and addressed by President Bush's tax plan. Let me start with one that hits me right in the heart and hits a lot of American families out there. And that is the elimination of the death tax. Death should not be a taxable event in a country like the United States of America. Our forefathers never intended for a family to be taxed because of the tragedy of a death. What happened and where that tax was created was around the early 1900s as a tool to punish the Rockefellers and the Carnegies and so on and so forth, the Morgan Stanleys, those are the people they wanted to penalize, so it was put in purely as a penalty, as a punitive measure by the government, completely contrary to the philosophy of our government, that is, those who work hard should be able to save something for future generations. What the Bush plan does is over an 8-year period of time, it eliminates that death tax. It actually goes out and says, wait a minute, the government is going the wrong way. What President Bush says the government should be doing is encouraging family business to go from one generation to the next generation. President Bush says we should not have a government that discourages business and family farms and family ranches from going from one generation to the next generation. This should be a government that encourages it. This should be a government that goes out there and says death is not a taxable event. President Bush does not believe that death should be a taxable event. This deserves the support of everybody in here. Now, I hear some people say, well, all it does is support the wealthy. I am so sick of hearing that. You know something, if you go out there and you work hard and you save a few bucks, all of a sudden, some of my colleagues in here call you rich and for some reason despite the fact you worked for it, despite the fact you did something that brought that to you, you do not deserve it or somebody else who did not work quite as hard, who did not come up with a better mousetrap should have it from you. This tax plan is what we need for a recovery in our economy. I will tell you what else President Bush does in this tax plan. And finally, finally, we have got somebody that will talk about the death tax and say death is not a taxable event. And finally we have got a President who incorporates within his tax cut plan an elimination, or a significant downsizing of the marriage penalty. Do you think that our forefathers ever imagined that this government would go to the point in time where it would tax a family for a marriage? Do you think that they thought that this government would go so far as to say, ``We'll tax you when you marry, and we'll tax you when you die"? That is where the government is. Finally, we have got a President who is standing up to this and saying, look, every taxpayer deserves a tax cut. Death is not a taxable event. Marriage is not a taxable event. We have also got a President who has proposed a tax cut that is not aimed at business. This is not aimed at big business. This is aimed at individual taxpayers, regardless, every taxpayer in America, every taxpayer in America will benefit from this tax cut because it cuts the marginal rates. President Bush in his tax cut, he does not go out and pick a special, heavily lobbied organization or group or business to get the tax cut at the expense of every other taxpayer. He does not do that. President Bush goes out there and puts together a plan that benefits every taxpayer. That is what is beautiful about this tax plan. This country needs a significant tax cut. The danger of a tax cut is if you do not do enough, then it will not help reduce the national debt. It will not work. It will not help give a jump-start to that economy. By the way, the tax cut alone will not jump-start the economy. It takes a combination of strategies. One of the strategies is you have got to have the Fed lower the interest rate and that strategy has been put into place. And I believe that Greenspan will lower those rates again within the very near future. Strategy number one, arm number one. Arm number two, strategy number two, put a tax cut into place that has some significance. It has got to be large enough to have some kind of impact on the economy. That is what has to happen. You put those two strategies in there and you have got one other one you have got to think about, and that is our responsibility on this House floor. You have got to control Federal spending. You have got to control spending. If you control spending, you reduce taxes and you lower the interest rate; that is the kind of formula that makes a very, very potent medicine to fight this slowdown that we are now facing. So I am asking all of my colleagues, look, put partisan politics aside. Stand with the President. President Bush needs our support. President Bush has been willing to take the lead on this. We ought to stand up in unison; and we ought to help the President, because if we do not, this economy could continue to spiral in a downward fashion. We have time to save the economy, we have time to correct this downturn, but if we do not work with the kind of strategy that I think is now being deployed, one, by Greenspan, two, by the President, and, three, by us to control Federal spending, then, frankly, we are going to get what we ask for. So, in conclusion this evening, let me recap the three topics. Number one, the Mark Rich pardon. If you look at your history books, it will go down in history as one of the most disgraceful pardons in the history of this country, the most disgraceful pardon in the history of this country. Take a look at it. Watch it with interest. Number two, the energy crisis in California. California, you are going to have to build generation in your own backyard. You are going to have to conserve. You are going to have to lift your price cap. And, for gosh sakes, Californians, do not let the government run your electrical distribution facility and entire electrical enterprise. It may sound sweet today; but for a short-term benefit, you will have a very, very long-term cost. Number three, I urge my colleagues and the citizens and their constituents, urge your constituents to take a careful look at what the President has proposed. It does eliminate the death tax, it does reduce the marriage penalty, it does put tax dollars back to every taxpayer in this country, individual taxpayers in this country; and that is exactly the kind of formula we need, if we can deliver our part, and that is to control Federal spending.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate a remarkable woman, Yvonne McCoy, for her outstanding courage and devotion to helping her fellow man. Yvonne is a newly ordained minister with the Colorado Community Church. Rev. McCoy's selfless service has helped countless inner-city children turn their lives around. Her continued devotion to the underprivileged children of Colorado has earned her the high honor of being named Outstanding Colorado Woman. Yvonne's contributions to the citizens of Colorado are great in number and deserve the recognition of this body. Yvonne is a wonderful model for women of all ages. Yvonne has been pivotal in getting troubled youth off the streets by directing a music program that brought many kids out of harm's way. In addition to helping youth get on the right track, she has tirelessly worked to help women who are looking to improve their own lot in life. Yvonne goes directly to areas of need and counsels women on how they can best improve their course in life. Based on her own life experiences, Yvonne knows first hand the travels of those whom she counsels. Because of these experiences, Yvonne can ably guide others toward a better and brighter future. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what she has done for so many. Yvonne not only serves the needs of those less fortunate in America, but she has also lent her compassion to the impoverished in foreign places. Yvonne recently returned from a mission to the Dominican Republic, where she worked with an orphanage. She has plans to continue her service there in the future. Yvonne is an inspiration for us all and for all these reasons she is deserving of the honor of Outstanding Colorado Woman. What's more, she clearly deserves the commendation and praise of this body. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Yvonne for her dedication and service to her community over the years and congratulate her on this high honor. Yvonne, your friends, family, state and nation are proud of you and grateful for your gracious service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I now honor an extraordinary human being and great American, State Trooper Jason Manspeaker. Mr. Manspeaker was described as a ``teddy bear'' of a man, who demonstrated both remarkable valor and compassion everyday. Sadly, Jason died last week while in the line of duty. As family, friends, and colleagues mourn this profound loss, I would like to honor this truly great American. Mr. Manspeaker was an individual that served his county, state and nation well. For most of his life, Jason aspired to be a Colorado State Patrolman, a goal he would ultimately realize. As a State Trooper, countless individuals have been affected by Jason's selfless actions, each of whom are better off because of his service. Tragically, Jason's life was cut short while engaged in that service. On January 23, 2001, Jason was in pursuit of a van that was believed to contain two of the Texas Seven fugitives the day after the other five were captured in nearby Colorado Springs. After passing eastbound through the Eisenhower Tunnel on relatively dry pavement, his Jeep Cherokee squad car hit the steep and icy off-ramp and failed to negotiate the turn, skidding into a snow covered trailer in a dirt pull out. Manspeaker's friend and colleague, Trooper Jeff Matthews, witnessed the crash in his rear view mirror and worked relentlessly, but ultimately unsuccessfully, to revive Manspeaker. ``This is somebody who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the public,'' said his supervisor, Captain Doyle Eicher, in a recent Denver Post story. ``He was just that kind of guy.'' ``It is really tough for us, I knew him personally, and he was an outstanding trooper, liked by everyone,'' said close friend Sgt. Brett Mattson in the Post's story. Jason grew up in Montrose, Colorado where he was well-known and widely admired. ``He would go out of his way to help people, we are all very proud of him for being a highway patrolman, that is what he wanted to do,'' said Betty Hokit, secretary at Montrose High School where Jason attended. Jason began his service to the community at a very young age. As a teenager, he volunteered with the Explorer Scout Program for the Montrose Police Department. Even while attending Mesa State College--where he played football--he could often be found riding along with State Troopers based in Grand Junction. ``He just absolutely loved the work,'' said Captain Eicher in the story. ``He was just so enthusiastic about the job. He made my job a joy because it is easy to supervise and work with people like that.'' Jason was a highly skilled member of his profession. So much so that he was named the officer in charge of ensuring that other officers fulfilled their firearms qualifications. This is just one of the many examples of Jason's skill as a law enforcement officer, skills which Jason used to serve the State of Colorado every day. Mr. Speaker and fellow colleagues, as you can see, this extraordinary human being truly deserves our timeless gratitude for his service and supreme sacrifice while in the line of duty. Jason Manspeaker may be gone, but his legacy will long endure in the minds of those who were fortunate enough to know him. Colorado is assuredly a better place because of Jason Manspeaker. The nation's thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Stephanie, and his parents, Ray and Donna, and his colleagues at the Colorado State Patrol. Like these loved ones, the Montrose community and the State of Colorado will miss Jason greatly.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate a remarkable woman, Donna Garnett, for her remarkable devotion to her community. Over the last twenty-five years, Donna has lived in Colorado and has worked to improve the quality of life for its children. Through her volunteer work, Donna has helped hundreds of children in our state. Her continued devotion to the underprivileged children of Colorado has earned her the honor of being named Outstanding Colorado Woman. Donna's contributions to the citizens of Colorado are great in number and deserve the recognition of this body. Donna is an extraordinary citizen. She has not only devoted her life to helping underprivileged children in Colorado, but she has also been a wonderful mother of three--Austin, 22, and twins, Max and Alexis, who just turned six. In addition to being an advocate for underprivileged children, Donna has also had an outstanding professional career. Over the past twenty-five years, Donna has had a parade of professional accomplishments: she has been a faculty member at University of Colorado-Denver, and a Professor of child development at Colorado State University, as well as Director of the Early Childhood Center at Metropolitan State College, Director of the Auraria Child Care Center. Moreover, she's been a contributing columnist at the Rocky Mountain News, and a Policy Director at the Office of the Governor. As a volunteer, Donna has worked with numerous groups that work toward the betterment of children and families in Colorado. The following are just a few of her service oriented endeavors: Donna created the Work and Family Consortium to assist employers in accommodating work and family issues in the work place; she has been a consultant for the State of Colorado, working to help parents and teachers with troubled children; she has lent her grant writing expertise to many non profit organizations; and, finally, she helped establish the Urban Farm at Stapleton which helps inner-city children who live in at-risk neighborhoods in Denver. Donna is an inspiration for us all and for all these reason she is deserving of the honor of Outstanding Colorado Woman. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Donna for her dedication and service to her community over the years and congratulate her on this recognition. She has worked hard for her community and state and for that we are all grateful.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate a remarkable woman, Betty Fitzpatrick, for her remarkable devotion to her community. Betty is being honored on January 31, 2001, by the National Association of School Nurses as the Nurse Administrator of the Year. Over the last eleven years, Betty has served as the Director of Health Services for Jefferson County Schools in Golden, Colorado. Betty oversees 136 schools in the Jefferson County area, where she has spent her life as an advocate for Colorado's youth. The depth of Betty's contributions goes much deeper than nursing. Her portfolio is witness to the difference she has made in the life of others: she has been the president and treasurer of her state nursing association, a prolific author, an advocate for legislation, grant writer, and a national presenter. Betty's contributions to the citizens of Colorado are great in number of deserve the recognition of this body. Betty is an extraordinary citizen. While her skills as a nurse have been tested daily throughout her accomplished career, on one day--a day our country will never forget--she was put to the test and taken to the limits. On April 20, 1999, an incomprehensible tragedy took place on the grounds of one of Betty's schools--Columbine High School. She was notified of the tragedy within minutes of its occurrence, and with hesitation she enacted an emergency plan and led the charge to assist the war-torn school. Betty is a tribute to nurses everywhere. Colleagues describe Betty as a quite nurse who handles herself with grace. Her enthusiasm to her work and her compassion is deserving of far more than this Congressional tribute. Ultimately, the highest compliment that she can ever receive is the trust and love of her patients and the community. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what she has earned. Betty is an inspiration for us all and for all these reasons she is deserving of this honor. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Betty for her dedication and service to her community over the years. She has worked hard for her community and state, giving mightily of herself to her neighbors. For that, Betty, we are all profoundly grateful.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I now honor the life of a great man and friend of Colorado, Tom Stubbs. Tragically, Tom passed away earlier this month. As family and friends remember Tom, I would like to take this brief moment to pay tribute to a man whose life touched many. Clearly, he is deserving of the recognition, praise and remembrance of this body. Anyone who had the privilege of knowing Tom can attest to the irrepressible zeal for life that he constantly exuded. As a recent story in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel described it, ``Tom displayed a passion and relentless dedication for life's adventures.'' An apt description for a man who lived his life to the fullest each and every day. An avid outdoor enthusiast, Tom was an accomplished artist who made his living selling paintings of natural landscapes, predominantly from southwestern Colorado and Arizona. If you appreciate artistic scenes from the American West, Tom's works are truly a site to behold. One such work was selected as a finalist in the ``Arts for the Parks'' exhibition. The piece was on display around the country in 1992. In addition to selling his own works, Tom taught Figure Drawing and Advanced and Pastel Drawing on and off at Mesa State College for about a decade. A Flint, Michigan native who lived in Grand Junction for the better part of 30 years, Tom expressed his love for the outdoors in many ways other than painting. According to the Daily Sentinel, Tom was a ``local legend in mountain running circles,'' who was also a world class climber. He was also a talented bicycle racer, skier, swimmer, and surfer. Socially, Tom was part of a close-knit group of friends who spent a great deal of their personal time experiencing the natural marvels of Colorado and beyond. Tom had unique insight into what a wonderful place the American West is. Although Tom's life came to an end all too suddenly, his memory will long endure. Survived by his parents, Nancy and Bill, his brothers, Mike, Tim and Matthew, his sisters, Kathy Ziola, Karen Stubbs and Laura Stubbs, and countless friends, including my friend Christopher Tomlinson, Tom's life will not soon be forgotten by those fortunate enough to have known him. And what a memorable life it was. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Grand Junction community has lost a wonderful friend. Though he's gone, Tom Stubbs will always hold a special place in all of our hearts.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate a remarkable gentleman, John B. Humphries, for his outstanding 30-year career with the Federal Protective Service. John is completing his career as assistant director for the Federal Protective Service, where he was responsible for directing all FPS activities within the Rocky Mountain Region. John's contributions to the citizens of Colorado are great in number and deserve the recognition of Congress. John is an extraordinary model of the ideal citizen. John has not only had an exceptional career at the federal protection service, but he's also been highly active in his community. John started his career at FPS in 1972 in Cheyenne, Wyoming. He was transferred around the country until he landed in Denver in 1972. After arriving in Denver, he held an array of positions from Line officer to his present position Director. During his career, he was a model of self-less service, focusing his energies and time on the betterment of his community. As a member of the Telephone Pioneers, he also assisted in providing various activities throughout Colorado for the hearing and vision impaired. he worked on events such as the Easter Egg Hunt for the visually impaired and wiring of seats at the Barnum and Bailey Circus for the visually impaired. He also took part in the Law Enforcement Torch Run for the Special Olympics, both as a runner during the torch run or as a volunteer at the events. Moreover, he coached numerous sports from baseball to football and bowling for underprivileged children. John has also worked on Wilderness on Wheels providing a boardwalk up Kenosha Pass for wheelchair access and allowing for all to enjoy the wonders of wilderness. For all these reasons, and many more, John deserves the commendation of this Body. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to John for his dedication and service to his community over the years and congratulate him on an outstanding career. He has worked hard for our community and for our great state.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize an outstanding citizen and a remarkable leader, my friend Jim Nicholson, the now former head of the Republican National Committee. Jim is being honored on January 26, 2001 in Denver, Colorado for his accomplished service as Chairman of the Republican National Committee. During his tenure, Jim took the GOP to new heights. On his watch, the Republican Party took control of the White House while maintaining majorities in both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. For his service to the party and the American people, I would now like to pay tribute to a great American and friend. When Chairman Nicholson began as RNC chairman, the committee was $10 million in debt. But under Chairman Nicholson's able leadership, that debt was abolished. When Jim left the RNC, it was $15 million in the black. Along with balancing the RNC's book, Chairman Nicholson also boldly led the RNC into the Internet age, incorporating technological advances in the day-to-day affairs of the organization. The RNC collected 975,000 e-mail addresses from Republican activists during Jim's tenure, up from just 17,000 at the start of 2000. Much of the electoral success that the GOP experienced under Jim's tutelage was due to the massive get out the vote effort created at Jim's initiative. He triggered the largest communications action in RNC history during the 2000 election cycle, in which the Party mailed over 100 million pieces of direct mail and made 60 million phone calls. This coordinated effort to get out the GOP's message was a major, if leading, cause of the Party's success in November 2000. More importantly, the RNC also made meaningful strides under Jim's supervision in reaching out to minority communities. Due in large measure to Jim's efforts in this critical area, President Bush earned the highest percentage of Hispanic votes of any Republican Presidential candidate in history. Jim's success in this regard leaves a solid foundation for the Party to build on in the coming weeks, months and years. This is a legacy that Jim can, and should take great pride in! As has been well documented, Jim's yeoman's work as Chairman of the Republican Party was the continuation of a life-long commitment to serving his country. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Jim fought bravely and with great distinction during the Vietnam War, earning numerous awards and commendations. Throughout his life, Jim has devoted himself to the cause of his country. In doing so, he has distinguished himself mightily. As Jim leaves the GOP Chairmanship and moves on to new pursuits, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank him for his remarkable work. In my opinion, Jim will long be remembered as one of the most skilled, most effective and most accomplished leaders in the storied history of the GOP. For this service, we are all grateful.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. The gentlewoman, of course, in her previous comments stated one side, and here we are for rebuttal. Mr. Speaker, look at facts of the case. Look at the officers that were killed in the line of duty. In fact, I remember the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) speaking with seriousness of heart and sincerity last year when a law enforcement officer in the State of Texas lost his life. On this floor, I think we ought to, all of us at least, have an obligation to address facts. It is very easy to come down here and give one side obviously because we are not in a debate format. It is a presentation of one side, but at least both sides ought to present what the facts are. Second of all, I need to clarify the statement by the preceding speaker. Her statement is that President Bush's executive order, and I quote, eliminates international family planning. That executive order does not eliminate international family planning. What does the executive order do? What that executive order does is it simply makes it clear that the American taxpayer should not pay for abortions in foreign countries. Now I know a lot of people, obviously, on the pro-life side. I know a lot of people on the so-called pro-choice side, who happen to be pro- choice but maybe anti-abortion, but I know a lot of people who believe in a woman's right to choose but they do not go so far as to say take money from taxpayers, from working Americans, and send it to foreign countries to pay for abortion. I know a lot of people, myself included, that believe that international family planning, excluding abortion, is important, but this rule does not say no more international family planning, and I think that the accuracy of these statements, we need to take some time so that the statements that we make that are portrayed are factual in basis. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak this evening really about two things that I feel very strongly about. One is the death tax. I have taken the House floor many times before to speak about the unfairness and the inequities that are worked upon hard-working American people by the death tax. In my opinion, death should not be a taxable event. In my opinion, the death tax in this country is the most unfair, unjustified tax that we have. One cannot, in my opinion, legitimize that type of tax, taxing a person's death, in a society like ours. So I want to spend some time in the latter part of my discussion this evening about the death tax, but first of all I want to speak about an event that I consider shameful, and all American people ought to have their eyes open as to what has gone on here in Washington, D.C. in the last two weeks. We know that when Clinton left office, Air Force One, they stripped the China, whatever, out of Air Force One. There were pranks played at the White House. There were lots of gifts made to furnish homes and so on and so forth. That is minutia. In my opinion, those issues are minutia when held in comparison to the issue of which I wish to discuss this evening, and that is the pardon of a fellow named Marc Rich. Marc Rich, and I will repeat his name several times during my discussion this evening on the floor, Marc Rich was one of the most sought-after fugitives in the world. Marc Rich has lived in Switzerland or overseas for about 17 years, since he became a fugitive from the United States of America, for betraying, in my opinion, betraying this country, and that is one of the charges that was brought against him; living a life of luxury. This fugitive, Marc Rich, is a billionaire, and I intend this evening to step through the process that shows us in America even though someone is not in America and they are a fugitive overseas, if they are a billionaire they stand a very good chance of getting special treatment, to be absolved of any allegations that were made against them in regards to white collar crime. Fundamentally, what happened for this pardon is unfair. It has never, to the best of my study of history, and I have asked for some assistance on it, happened before with a previous President who granted pardons; never to this level, never to this extent, and never under these kind of circumstances. But Clinton did it. Marc Rich today, who defrauded the American taxpayers, and those are the allegations, who defrauded the American taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars, and if we add penalties, we are in the hundreds of millions of dollars; and during a time that this country had American soldiers and American citizens held hostage by the Iranians, Marc Rich, despite the law of this land, was out selling oil to our enemy. Do we think somebody like that is deserving of a Presidential pardon? Take a look at this week's Time Magazine. Very interesting: ``What's That Smell?'' Time Magazine, this week. So do not just take it from Scott McInnis discussing with my colleagues this evening about this pardon. This pardon was wrong. Clinton knew it was wrong; we all know it was wrong, Time Magazine knew it was wrong. Take a look at that article, ``What's That Smell?'' Now, just for our interest here, obviously, the former President Clinton, the United States Senator, Hillary Clinton, and the ex-wife of Marc Rich, and I am going to go into some detail about this woman, her lobbying efforts, her contributions to the Democratic Party, and how that all played in a pardon being granted to one of the most sought- after fugitives in American history; but let me quote a little from Time Magazine. They have an extensive article. They are talking about the pardons, and let me quote directly. ``Tucked in among the names was that of Marc Rich, 65, one of the world's most wanted white collar fugitives. Marc Rich and Mr. Green were charged with an illegal oil pricing scheme that amounts to what might be the largest,'' might be the largest, ``tax swindle in U.S. history, to the tune of almost $50 million, not to mention trading with Iran during the hostage crisis.'' I skip down a little. ``Marc Rich,'' I add that in, ``has spent the last 17 years in Switzerland, living in splendid exile outside Zurich, protected by an coterie of private security guards and running a $30 billion business. Marc Rich's ex-wife, New York City socialite, Denise Rich, just happens,'' and I am quoting, ``just happens to be a major Clinton donor and fund-raiser who has raked in millions of dollars for the Democratic Party during the last 8 years. Rich's lawyer in the pardoned case, Jack Quinn, was once Clinton's general counsel. Quinn personally lobbied Clinton and various dignitaries, including, sources tell Time, Israel Prime Minister Barak and King Juan Carlos of Spain, who contacted Clinton on Mr. Rich's behalf.'' I will continue, but by the way, let me hold that up. This is the second page. This is a photo of Marc Rich, of his second wife and the yachts behind him in Switzerland. To continue, ``By Thanksgiving 2000, Quinn,'' this is the attorney; now, this attorney was general counsel for Bill Clinton, a close friend of Bill Clinton's, and he has been retained by Mr. Rich to obtain this pardon for him. Mr. Quinn, by the way, makes hundreds of thousands of dollars. He is paid, and he admits to this, he is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. ``By Thanksgiving of 2000, Quinn had started a new game. During a meeting at the Justice Department on November 21, he notified Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder of his plan to file a pardon petition with the White House. He asked Holder if he wanted a copy. Holder, who assumed that the White House would forward the petition to the Justice Department's pardon attorney for review, as was customary.'' In other words, these pardons have always gone to the Justice Department for review, for input by the Justice Department. Well, on December 11, Quinn delivered the massive document, about the size of a phone book, but for reasons unknown and reasons that have not been explained, the White House decided not to send this petition down to the Justice Department. So remember our steps here. First of all, Marc Rich, the billionaire and his partner who, by the way, one of the two at some point tried to denounce their citizenship in this country, and they sold oil to the Iranians during the Iranian hostage crisis. The ex-wife of Mr. Rich begins to make heavy contributions to the Democratic Party. Mr. Rich hires Mr. Clinton's former attorney and a good friend of Mr. Clinton to begin the legal work and the lobbying effort on his part and, lo and behold, what a coincidence, the petition papers, I say to my colleagues, that generally and customarily go down to the Justice Department, did not make it this time. Quinn, again the attorney, went straight to the top, sending a letter to Bill Clinton that read, ``I believe in this cause with all of my heart.'' The pardoned case, this case of Mr. Rich, was strengthened by an extraordinary lobbying effort. For starters, there was Denise Rich, again, the ex-wife, the grammy-nominated song writer and the Democrat diva who throws some of the most happening fund-raisers in New York City and Aspen, Colorado, my district, frequented by the likes of Marcia Stewart and Michael Jackson. Let us go through it on kind of a stick chart on how I think these events took place. The pardon. Let us start right here, with Denise Rich. Now, remember that the party that we are talking about is Marc Rich. He is in business with another gentleman who also got a pardon from the President. Now, in the history of pardons, pardons which have been customary in the past by previous Presidents is that a pardon is issued to someone who has committed an offense, has been found guilty of the crime or of the offense, and in the President's assessment of the facts, and the President has great latitude in making this decision, the President, in the assessment of the facts, feels that the debt has been paid to society. Mr. Rich has lived out the debt to society for the last 17 years living in luxury in Switzerland. Mr. Rich is a fugitive. To the best of my knowledge, in studying the history of pardons, and I will grant that it is not the most extensive study undertaken on pardons, but I think it is a pretty thorough study that we have undertaken, we cannot find where a fugitive, one of the most sought-after fugitives in the history of this country, who may have undertaken one of the largest tax swindles in the history of this country, that a fugitive is granted a pardon by the President. Why do not the pardon petition papers make it down to the Justice Department? Why not, as was customary, hand those petition papers over to the Justice Department? It creates a very confusing and blurry picture, and when we have a confusing and blurry picture, we need to step back and try to start putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I think I can put some of those pieces of the puzzle together for my colleagues tonight. Again, let us start with the ex-wife, Denise Rich. Denise Rich has given $1 million in donations to the Democratic National Committee. Now, I am one of those people that believe that one should give contributions to one's political party. I am not against contributions. But let us look at the coincidence of the timing. Let us look at the amount of money. How many people in America do we know that within a very short period of time have given $1 million to a political party without expecting something in return? Now, let me tell my colleagues, she has become very active since making those contributions in the party. In fact, I understand that Andrew Cuomo, who has just announced for governor of the State of New York, was going to have his announcement in her home. But because of some of what has come out in the last 24 hours or so, that announcement location has changed. Let us go on. Mr. Speaker, $190,000, Denise Rich, the ex-wife, $190,000 in gifts to the Clintons, $7,800 in furniture to the Clintons for their home in New York; $7,000 in furniture for their home in Georgetown, and many of us saw the picture on national TV where Ms. Rich gave a brand-new saxophone in person to Clinton. Now let us come down here. This is puzzle piece number one. The puzzle now is starting to take shape. Let us look down here. Jack Quinn, he is the attorney who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Marc Rich, the fugitive, pays the attorney hundreds of thousands of dollars to undertake the cause for him. Now, it just happens to be that that attorney was the former general counsel for Clinton. So former White House counsel and personal confidant to the President, he undertakes the case. The current attorney for Marc Rich and Mr. Green, the other defendant in this case, which has been paid at least $300,000, he begins his efforts and as a part of these efforts, he contacts people overseas, he writes the President a letter that says he believes in this cause with his whole heart. A lot of things can make us believe in things when one gets hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby it. So what happens? This begins to funnel to the Clintons. Now the puzzle begins to make sense. But we have a little difficulty here. The Justice Department is probably going to urge the President not to grant the pardon. The Justice Department is going to bring to the President's attention how, number one, this is a fugitive. Number two, if this case was as weak as Mr. Quinn alleges it is, why did he flee the country? Why the fugitive status? Number three, Mr. Rich has not exactly paid back society for his alleged wrongdoings. In fact, he has lived a life of extreme luxury in Switzerland for all of these years, never renounced the tax swindle, although I guess at one point in time, somebody he hired offered $100 million for this thing to go away. So what happens? The Clintons get it. The Clintons receive fund- raising support from Denise Rich, and 3 days after the report, going back to the Lewinsky affair was released, Denise Rich hosted a $3 million fund-raiser where President Clinton said it means so much now, more than ever, and we will never forget it, and then what happens? Here we come out. This is when the puzzle comes together. Marc Rich and Green received a Presidential pardon from a 65-count racketeering indictment, including the crimes of tax evasion, oil profiteering and unlawfully trading with Iran or the enemy during the oil crisis. Let me quote from some of the people that have looked at that, independent of me. Now some of my colleagues are going to say, look, he is a Republican so he is going to take one last shot at Clinton. I told my colleagues at the beginning of my conversation, I thought it was minutia to deal with what has been taken out of Air Force One, the tricks that were played down at the White House as they left the facility, the phone lines that were cut, the gifts and things, although there is some question of the President furnishing these homes with the gifts, and there is a connection of the gifts with this case. However, what I am really focusing on is, whether one is Republican or Democrat, we ought to be saying wait a minute, why this pardon? How can we justify it? Let me quote from a few sources. From the Wall Street Journal, ``This story will go down as an extraordinary feat in the annals of Washington lobbying, illustrating in a dramatic fashion how money begets access, access begets influence, and influence begets results.'' The Wall Street Journal had a superior piece about this very case in yesterday's paper. Any of my colleagues that want to look at the facts should take a look at how unusual, how rare is what has happened. In fact, to my knowledge, I have never found an incident of it in the past of this country, for a fugitive being granted a pardon like this. Take a look at that Wall Street Journal article. I think it is very important, and I think it is incumbent upon a President, that when they take a look at issuing a pardon, they truly have to see, has that person paid society? Was the person wronged? Is it for the good of the country? What does the Justice Department think about this case? That is how a President ought to be influenced, in my opinion, in regards to a pardon. Those are the facts that should be considered by a President. What should not be considered by a President in granting a pardon is a million dollars in donations to the Democratic National Committee, $190,000 in gifts to the Clintons, $7,800 in furniture to the Clintons, $7,000 for the home in Georgetown. One of their close friends, also their attorney, who has been retained by them in making hundreds of thousands of dollars to represent them, it is not right. Mr. Speaker, that is why you have an article like Time Magazine that comes out, and the title on the article, ``What's That Smell?'' That is what they are talking about. They are talking about this pardon; that is what justified this article in Time Magazine. Furthermore, at the beginning of Time Magazine, there is a cartoon. Here is the cartoon, it shows Marc Rich, an image of Marc Rich with lots of money in his hand, and it says beg your pardon, billionaire-fugitive Marc Rich, escapes jail on 51 charges of fraud, racketeering, and more after Bill Clinton pardons him as one of his final acts in office. Rich paid his debt to society by living lavishly in Europe for 17 years. In all of my years in Washington, D.C., I have dealt with people who are discouraged, regular ordinary citizens in this country, and, you know, constantly, you find yourself on defense saying, look, we have a good government in Washington D.C., and things, for the most part, are done right, and then something like this comes along. And as Time says, something stinks. How can any of us in this room, how can any of us go back to our districts and justify the Marc Rich pardon. How can any of us look at an ordinary citizen who is not a billionaire, who is not a friend of Clinton, who is not paying the attorney hundreds of thousands of dollars, how can we explain to the ordinary citizen what their treatment would be? Let me conclude by saying this in regards to this portion of my comments. If any one of your constituents, colleagues, any one of your constituents, went to the local WalMart store or the local hardware store, let us just say the local WalMart store, and they stole a bag of M&Ms and they got caught, their punishment would be worse than Marc Rich, who is one of the most sought after fugitives in the world, a tax-evasion swindle alleged to be in the hundreds of millions who has been living in luxury, and he walks away from this, scot-free. It is not right. Death Tax Let me move on to my next subject, the death tax. This issue, the death tax, is very, very important. It is a tax imposed by our taxing system in this country upon one event, your death. Let me say in our current Tax Code, there are two taxes that I think fly contrary to what this country is about. One of them is the marriage tax, where they consider being married, should be taxed. In my opinion, this country should encourage marriage, not take actions to discourage marriage. This is a country which prides itself on being built upon the family foundation, so we should not tax marriage. The other one is, this country taxing the event of death. This is a country that, in my opinion, and in the opinion, I think, of most Americans, should be in the business of encouraging one generation to pass the family farm or to pass a small business or to pass some type of wealth on to the next generation. This is a country where all of us dream, all of us, and colleagues, I am not sure there is one exception in this room, where all of us dream of being able to do something for our children, hopefully during your lifetime, being able to acquire, maybe not a lot, but something that we can pass on to our children to make life a little easier for them or to pass on a family heritage, like the family ranch or the family farm or the family business. This tax prevents this. This tax has done more harm to American families than any tax I can think of. This tax, the death tax, this is a tax on property that has already been taxed. This is not property that has somehow evaded taxes. This is not property that has not been carrying its fair share of taxation throughout the life of the asset. In fact, the taxes many times have been paid two or three times. What is interesting about the death tax is you hear the liberal, and I say that, because I want you to know, it is not the Democratic, it is the liberal. There are a lot of conservative Democrats who agree with me that we should eliminate the death tax. The first bill I introduced this year is elimination of the death tax in the Committee on Ways and Means in the House. I think it is almost unified, especially on the Republican side, and with some of the conservative Democrats, to eliminate or to significantly restructure that so-called death tax. Let us talk for a moment about just exactly the arguments on the other side. Let us assume what the other side is going to say about somehow justifying a death tax. First of all, many of my colleagues who have voted for the death tax or voted against the abolishment of the death tax, and several of those individuals are worth in excess of a million dollars, you can bet your bottom dollar that elected people who vote to support the death tax who have a net worth of more than a million or $2 million probably have already secured the services of legal counsel to make sure that they do not pay the death tax, to make sure that their property does not end around the tax and can go on to the next generation, because they can afford the attorneys to do that. They do not mind having a double standard, one standard for their family, i.e., setting up trusts and end-runs around the death tax, and one standard for the average working American family that might be subject to this that they have to pay the tax. Make no mistake about it, this tax is very punitive. The next argument you will hear from the liberals who support this kind of taxation. And, by the way, the history of this taxation, it came in to penalize the Robert Barrons. They were going after the Carnegies and the Hertz and the people like that. Go penalize them. How dare somebody in our society go make a lot of money. Maybe they had some jurisdiction to go around these Robert Barrons around the turn of the century, so they put in this tax. You will hear some liberals say what is the big beef? What are they complaining about? It only hits 2 percent of the American people. Let me tell you. Let us go through exactly what the death tax does. If you have a small community, take a small community, anywhere America, and this is your community. This argument that it only affects 2 percent of the people is fallacious on its face. Oh, sure, the family that ends up paying the tax directly out of their pocket might be the top 2 percent income earners. Although, I am not sure that is accurate, the top 2 percent asset holders in this country, but the reality of it is look what it does to a community. Let us say, for example, we have family A, and family A is subject to the death tax. People would have you believe that the only family affected in this community is family A. Well, you know what happens to the money when they impose a death tax on an estate. It does not stay in your community out in Colorado or out in Utah or Texas or Minnesota. That money comes out. And in the case of Colorado, it comes out of Colorado and makes a sharp turn east. And where does it go? It goes to Washington, D.C. That is exactly what happens. It sucks that money out of the community, takes a 90-degree turn and heads straight for Washington, D.C. Then Washington, D.C., the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. takes those family-earned assets, and a lot of times those assets were built over the lifetime, over the lifetime of the descendant, takes those assets and redistributes them to the Federal Government. It is a scheme of redistribution. It creates no capital, but it punishes a lot of people. I have some letters that I wanted to read. These are letters that I have gotten in my office that I think reflect the hardships on hard- working American people that are imposed by this tax which has no justification in our tax system, other than being used as a tool of punishment. Remember that the death tax initially came in as a tool of punishment against the wealthy. Let me read this letter. This actually was a letter to the editor. My family has ranched in northern Colorado for 125 years. My sons are the sixth generation to work this land. We want to continue, but the Internal Revenue Service is forcing almost all ranchers and many farmers out of business. The problem is estate taxes. The demand for our land is very high and 35-acre ranchettes are selling in this area as high as $4,500 per acre. We have 20,000 acres. We want to keep an open space, but the U.S. Government is making it impossible, because we will have to pay 55 percent of their valuation when my parents pass on. Ranchers are barely scraping by these days anyway. If we were willing to develop home sites, we could stop the mining. But since we want to save the ranch, we are in trouble. The family has been able to scrape up the estate taxes as each generation dies up to now. So in other words, what the letter is saying, every time we have had that death, we have been able to pool some tight resources to pay that tax. But the time is up. I am afraid we are done for. This time, our only option is to give the ranch to a nonprofit organization and they all want it, but they will not guarantee they will not develop it. My father is 90 years old, so time is short. We are only one of two or three ranchers left around here. Most ranches have been subdivided. One of the last to go was a family that had been here as long as our family. When the old folks died, the kids borrowed money to pay the taxes. Soon they had to start selling cattle to pay the interest. When they ran out of cattle, their 18,000- acre ranch was foreclosed on and is now being developed. The family now lives in a trailer near town and the father works as a highway flagman. If you want to stop sprawl, you better ask U.S. Government to get off the backs of family ranches and farms. Now, what do they mean by the last comment that this gentleman wrote. If you want to stop sprawl? In my district in Colorado, my district's the Third Congressional District of Colorado. It is a district geographically larger than the State of Florida. It is a district whose property values have skyrocketed. It is a district whose beauty, and I know I am prejudiced or biased because I represent this district, but it is a district that is probably among the top three or four in the Nation for beauty, but it is also a district that in the past has a strong agricultural base. Many, many families, including my own in-laws, who have been on the same family ranch since the 1870s or 1880s, my family who were farmers who came to Boulder, Colorado in the days of the old Chicago fire, that is why they were sent to Colorado after having come to Ellis Island. The history of that district is agricultural. There are a lot of family farms and ranches. And what happens is if you come in with a death tax, because the valuation of the land has got up. Mind you, this is not money sitting at the bank account at the Smith ranch or the Volbrac ranch, or the Straubaugh ranch. It is not money sitting in the bank account. This is money that is on paper. It is called paper money. The property has gone up in value, because property around it has gone up in value. If you have an unexpected death or even an expected death, what happens is, and a lot of times the only thing you can do with the farmer ranch is subdivide it, you have to break it up. A lot of us in Colorado, a lot of us in every State in this country, we cherish open space. We become to value open space like we have never had in our past, because we understand how much more limited it is becoming. And now what is happening once again, instead of encouraging a family farm to go from one generation to the next generation, we, in fact, are penalizing that family and turning it on ourselves by forcing this beautiful open space to be subdivided, so the mere simplification of the tax of this estate tax can be paid. Some people like to oversimplify the situation and say, oh, come on, give me a break, go get life insurance. There are very few ranchers in America, very few ranchers in America who make enough money to go out, for example, and insure a 90-year-old father against the estate taxes. Or even insure a 45-year-old father or a 45-year-old mother against the impact of the estate taxes. That insurance costs a lot of money, and in agriculture there is some exceptions, but in agriculture, you do not make that kind of money. Let us go on. I am writing to bring your attention to an issue of the utmost importance to me, my family, my employees and my business, elimination of the death tax. I urge you to support and pass the death tax this year. Family-owned businesses need relief from the death tax now. We are celebrating 66 years of business. My grandfather, Vic Edwards, started with a fruit and vegetable stand in 1943 at our current location in Colorado. The business grew into a grocery store, a lawn and a garden center. My father is now 80 years old and is in poor health. No business can remain competitive in a tax regime that imposes rates as high as 55 percent upon the death of the owner. Our tax laws should encourage rather than discourage the perpetuation of these businesses. While being a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, I am sure you already know the urgency for the death tax repeal. Family- owned businesses and their employees will continue to suffer until this unfair, unproductive, uneconomic tax is abolished. My wife and I are active and look forward to working with you and your staff to enact common-sense legislation to preserve and promote our Nation's family-owned enterprises. Now, take a look at what it involves to get you subject to the estate or the death tax bracket. If you are a contractor, for example, let us say in Vail, Colorado, let us say that you own your pickup free and clear, you own a dump truck free and clear, and a bulldozer free and clear, and let us say you have a single-car garage to store things in, or maybe do some mechanical work on those four pieces of machinery, you are subject to the death tax in this country. If you live in areas like the Third Congressional District in these communities where you have seen quick valuations and rapidly escalating valuations on these properties like in California or Colorado, take a look, you better look at your assets because as long as that death tax is in place, you could subject your family to an economic punishment the likes of which they have never experienced before. Your plans, colleagues, and the plans of your constituents of working their entire life paying their taxes, being hard-working citizens, being law-abiding citizens and trying to accumulate something for their lifetime to pass on to the next generation, and in the case of ranches and businesses in the hope that that generation passes it to the next generation, these dreams can be trashed upon your death. These dreams can be demolished. And for what purpose? Is there any purpose that any of my colleagues today, any purpose other than punishment that you can think of as justification for the death tax in this Nation? Of course there is not. Let me talk about another example which happened about a year and a half ago. This comes right out of our newspaper, Grand Junction, Colorado, the Daily Sentinel, Brookhart's Building Centers, a small, family-owned lumber company. They had to sell it in order to avoid paying the death tax. The owner said it was one of the hardest decisions that his father and his family have made in their 52 years of doing business. So for 52 years, they have been in western Colorado doing business as a small lumber company. This by the way is not Home Depot, it is not some massive operation, it was a small lumber building center for 52 years. But the current Federal death taxes as they now exist forced this gentleman and his family to sell the business in hopes of being able to redistribute some of the wealth within their family and within their own community before the death took place. I quote: ``In order to protect our family and our current employees from a forced liquidation upon the death of himself and his wife, Betty, the best thing now is to sell the company.'' This family cared about, and this is a valid point to observe, this family did not just care about their own family and the generation behind them, they cared about the employees of the lumber company. They said, if this death were to occur, we would have to liquidate the business, which means these employees lose their jobs. Let us go back to community A. Remember what I said in community A. I will draw a little bigger circle. This is community A. I will give my colleagues a true example of which I am aware of out in Colorado. Businessman A comes into town. Many, many years ago, maybe 50, 60 years ago, he comes into this small community in western Colorado. He becomes a janitor at a construction company. Because of his hard work, his dedicated efforts, over a period of several years, he has an opportunity to buy into the company. After a while, he is able to become the primary owner of the company. After many years, he owns the whole company. What happens, it becomes a very successful construction company in that area, in that community. They are the primary employer in the community. They are the primary holder of real estate in that community. They are the primary contributor to the charities in that community. They are the primary contributor to the local church that they went to in that community. What happened? I knew the person personally. My friend got cancer. My friend had sold the construction company about 2 months before he found out that he had cancer. So he got hit with what is called a capital gains taxation. Then he got the cancer. He died. They hit him with 55 percent, 55 percent of what he had spent his entire life, his entire life working for. Fifty-five percent. Now, when you combine it with the capital gains taxation that our government imposed upon A's estate, the effective rate was around 72 cents on the dollar, 72 percent taxation rate because he died. Seventy- two percent, 72 cents on the dollar. Now, I asked the family, I said, You mean you only walked away with 28 cents out of every dollar that your father spent his entire life working on property that you had already paid the taxes on? You only walked away with 28 cents on the dollar? No, no, no. You have got it wrong. You have got it wrong, Scott. We did not get 28 cents on the dollar. In order to pay the 72 cents on the dollar, we had to go to a fire sale. We had to sell our property for less than what it was worth because we had to sell it quickly to meet the estate taxes we had to pay. So we figured we walked away with about 18 cents on the dollar, maybe 15 cents on the dollar. That is pathetic. That is unbelievable. What happened in the community? Remember, I said they were the largest employer? Forget that. Remember the money that stayed in the community? Citizen A, he did not bank his money in Washington, D.C. He did not employ people in Washington, D.C. He did not help the church in Washington, D.C. He did not send his money to charities in Washington, D.C. He used them in that community. His bank deposits were in his little community in western Colorado. His employees were in that community in western Colorado. His charitable contributions were in that community. His landholdings were in that community. His investments were in that community. But what happened after the death tax took place? All of that was put into one big bundle, one big bundle. Out of the State it went and on to Washington, D.C. where the bureaucracy back here figures they have a better idea of how to redistribute that money. Did it have any impact on that community? Let us say one does not sympathize with my friend A, the wealthier individual who owned this construction company. Let us say one has no sympathy for him. But look beyond him. What did it do to that community? Can one justify sitting here in Washington, D.C., imposing a tax, in effect which is on that entire community, just because a person has worked hard all his life and paid those taxes? This is not the first time this property was taxed. I will tell my colleagues what happens a lot of times or could happen, does happen. Let us say this is mom and dad B, and they own the ranch. Let us say that A and B are in an accident and all of a sudden the ranch has to pay estate taxes. So now the ranch becomes a little smaller because one has got to trim a part of it off to pay the taxes. One can sell the cattle; but after a while, one has got to get to the land. Well, the good Lord forbid, that the family that is left, let us say they have a daughter C, the good Lord forbid that C would die prematurely. Because if C died, even if C died within a few months of A and B, guess what happens? Uncle Sam is back again and takes another chunk out of that until, finally, the chunk is so small that they do not tax it anymore. Where is the fairness of this? I can tell my colleagues with a great deal of pleasure, we have got a President now, President Bush, who has committed as one of his top agenda items in this tax cut that he is going to send to the Hill, one of his top priorities is to do something about that death tax. We are going after the marriage tax, too. But, in my opinion, it is about time we had someone with enough gumption to stand up to that liberal segment of our society that believes in punitive and believes in punishment instead of fairness, somebody who is standing up, as President Bush is doing, and saying, wait, instead of deciding whether we should punish somebody because they have worked hard or they have built up a ranch or a farm or a business, why do we not kind of figure out what we are looking for. Number one, are we looking for punishment? No, we are not looking for punishment, or we should not be. Now, sure, there are some of my colleagues in here that like class warfare that want to do everything they can to beat down the rich because it is good political rhetoric. But the fact is we are not looking for punishment. Are we looking for redistribution of wealth through Washington, D.C.? Well, we should not be. That is not fair. Look what it does to the community in my previous example. Well, are we looking for some kind of justification that a death tax is a legitimate reason for a government to tax a family? Nobody, nobody in their right mind can stand up and argue the legitimacy of a death tax. So what is it that allows this to continue to stand? Well, what allowed it to continue to stand has now left office. Now, granted, there are a few House Members and a few of my colleagues that will still support the continuation of a death tax. But count my words, Mr. Speaker, any one of my colleagues that votes for this death tax, to keep a death tax in place, that believes that death is a taxable event in our society, any one of them who on their financial disclosure sheet shows that the have a net worth of, say, more than $2 million, as an example, I will bet them to the person in here that they have arranged for their legal counsel to build up trust funds and to figure an end to run around it. I will bet that has happened. So I am urging all of my colleagues, come on. It is time for us to join the President and stand up and say enough is enough on this death tax. No longer can we justify a death tax on our society. In fact, as his previous letter said, let me repeat it here: Our tax laws should encourage rather than discourage the perpetuation of that business. Finally, let me conclude my remarks on the death tax with a very moving letter about a ranch that was established in 1888. This article actually, in part, came from the Aspen Times. I live close to Aspen. I live in a town called Glenwood Springs. I can tell my colleagues today Aspen, as one well knows from my previous comments, some people party up there, but it used to be a mining community. When I grew up there, we were farmers, agriculture. It was a strong base. We grew strawberries, potatoes, et cetera, et cetera. Some of those family farms and ranches are still left, and some of them still left are run by the families that started them. In this case, this ranch was established, again, in 1888. ``There are a lot of tales to be told about the conversion of former ranches into luxury homes and golf courses throughout the valley. ``Sometimes it was a simple financial decision, a choice to take advantage of soaring development values in the face of plummeting cattle prices. But for other families, the passing of a parent meant the passing of a way of life.'' The passing of a parent meant the passing of a way of life. ``We've been around a long time,'' said Maurin Ranch's current proprietor, Dwight. The family ``roots are dug deep along Capitol Creek Road in Old Snowmass and, for nearly a century, heritage and hard work were enough to sustain those that lived on that 1,300-acre stretch of land. But all that changed in 1976.'' But all of that changed. Until Dwight's father's death, each generation presided over a working cattle ranch that was both the lifeblood and the livelihood of the clan. The father's later years were lean times, but the fate was not at risk until the Internal Revenue Service came around to collect upon the father's death. The tax bill came to $750,000. And what it took to pay the bill was this: Half of the ranch, the ability of the cattle to migrate in the winter months, and 10 years till the last installment was paid. What those taxes took was also something very vital: The ability of the family to support themselves by working the land that had so long been theirs. This land had been theirs for over 100 years. They no longer had the ability to work that land because they had to reduce the size of the land to pay the estate tax. Now the son works full time as a mechanic for the Roaring Fork School District and then helps at the ranch when he gets home at night. He does not mind the long hours he has to put in. What does get under his skin is the memory of how the Internal Revenue Service, overseeing the father's taxes, either did not recognize the devastation that was about to occur or did not care. It was just, ``Pay us or we will seize everything. If anything is left over, you can keep it or, if you can't make ends meet on what's left, you will have to figure out something else.'' They are trying not to sell what remains, which is about 640 acres, but the father wonders if his daughters would be willing to go through what he has just endured with the death of his father and mother. With only half the land to graze and falling beef prices, the ranch itself is only making enough to cover its operating costs and annual property taxes. It is the wife's day job at the school district and the husband's job as a mechanic that pays the doctor bills, the car insurance, the grocery bills and everything else. There is always hope that things will change before his daughters need to make any decisions about what is left on the ranch. And, frankly, colleagues, that is up to us. Here is a family right here. I heard some liberal writer say there is no ranch in America that has been lost. How sadly mistaken that individual was. We have an example right here. We can do something about saving this family's generation and their way of life. It is not just the loss of the family, the ripple spreads much wider in our area. Once this land is sold to developers, the land is gone forever. We here have the power. This session, this congressional session, with a new president, President Bush, who wants to significantly eliminate it or restructure it, we have an opportunity to do something about it, and I hope we do not squelch that opportunity. There are a lot of American families who really think that working a lifetime for the next generation is a worthwhile cause. And we, the government, the government of the people and by the people, should not be the government that destroys the people's dreams for their next generation. Every one of us in this room has an obligation to stand up and step forward and do our duty, and that is to protect the dreams of the American working people so that they know the generation behind them has just a little start on their life.

Mr. McINNIS. I will not.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as has become customary, I have to spend the first 5 minutes rebutting some of the previous statements that were made here on the House floor. First of all, let me say to my colleague that spoke preceding my comments here, that as a former police officer I take issue with some of the statements that were made in regards to Judge White's decisions. If one will take a close look at that case, it will be revealed that three police officers were killed by the defendant in that particular case, and I think that spending a little time on the facts would be helpful for those of us who are interested in looking at the specifics.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I take this moment to recognize the accomplished life and admirable career of Betty Ann Dittemore. Betty, a former Colorado State representative, recently passed on at age 81. While her friends and family mourn her passing, I would like to take this opportunity to honor a truly amazing lawmaker-- a woman who encompassed profound strength in all realms of life. After campaigning using her initials (B.A.D.) as a slogan, Betty was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives in 1968, becoming the first woman from Arapahoe County to be elected to the state legislature. While serving in office from 1968 to 1978, Betty engaged in one of Colorado's fiercest battles: passing Colorado's first comprehensive planning law, a feat that would not have been possible without her wit and tenacity. Throughout her time in office, she successfully climbed in leadership positions serving as minority whip and later as majority leader. She was instrumental in creating the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, an authority that has become eminently successful in assisting the state's poor and elderly in finding reasonably priced homes. In 1980, she became an Arapahoe County Commissioner, where she was able to bring the same experience and expertise to the Board of County Commissioners that she brought to the legislature. Mr. Speaker, there are few people in Colorado's proud history who have served as zealously and wholeheartedly as Betty. Her career was a model that every official in elected office, including myself, should seek to emulate. I know I speak for the state of Colorado when I say she will be greatly missed. However, the mark that she left will not be soon forgotten.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I wish to take this moment to recognize the remarkable life and significant achievements of a life-long New Castle resident and sheep rancher, Richard C. Jolley. Sadly, Dick lost his battle with cancer on November 19, 2000. While his family, friends and community remember the truly exceptional life of Dick, I, too, would like to pay tribute to this remarkable man and close personal friend. Dick was a beloved native of New Castle, where his contributions to the community were many. A dedicated leader of his community, he was elected as a Garfield County Commissioner in 1976, serving during the oil shale boom in Western Colorado. His pragmatism assisted him in finding tough but fair solutions during negotiations with the oil companies, all the while working to see local interests were protected. He also tackled problems in the district attorney's office and worked through a proposal to build a local ski area. His term in elected office was marked by his honest, trustworthy nature and his ability to boil things down to the bottom line. His life was one of distinction both professionally and in the realm of public service. After serving as a county commissioner, Dick was a leading force in founding the Regional Bank of Rifle, which was recently acquired by Wells Fargo. Dick had a keen business sense that was on full display during his time at the Regional Bank of Rifle. Known for his sharp wit, a hallmark of Dick's personality was his ability to transfix an audience with his stories. Sporting a grin from ear to ear, he narrated knee-slapping tales that are nothing short of legendary. Although his professional accomplishments will long be remembered and admired, most who knew him well will remember Dick Jolley, above all else, as a loving husband for 48 years, a devoted father of two sons and a proud grandfather of four grandchildren. At the end of his life, his grandchildren brought him endless joy. Mr. Speaker, with Dick's passing, western Colorado has lost a great man and friend. However, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that, in spite of this profound loss, the family and friends of Dick Jolley can take solace in the knowledge that each is a better person for having known him. I know that I am. It is with this that I pay tribute to the life of a man who exemplified the extraordinary characteristics of strength, dignity and sincerity. We will all miss him greatly.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize an outstanding citizen, Tom Camerlo of Florence, CO. Tom has recently been named an inductee into the Colorado Agricultural Hall of Fame. It has been Tom's devoted leadership to the dairy farming community that has helped him to earn this distinguished honor. At this time I would like to pay tribute to Tom for his many personal accomplishments and numerous contributions to his community and profession. Tom attended Florence High School before enrolling at Colorado State University where he began a course of study that would prepare him for what has become a truly impressive career. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in General Agriculture and has used this knowledge to help benefit dairy farmers all over the country. Along with his education at Colorado State University, Tom also used his leadership as a Captain in the U.S. Army to benefit his community and State. Tom has used his natural ability to lead along with his knowledge of agriculture to help further such organizations as the Mountain Empire Dairymen's Association, the United Dairy Industry Association, and the Dairy Promotion Federation Association, all in which he served in the capacity of president. Tom is also a current board and executive committee member of the National Milk Producers Federation and serves as president of the National Milk Producer's Federation, a position he has held for over a decade. Tom's remarkable dedication to the farming industry has also earned him a number of different awards. The awards include Livestock Leader's Award from Colorado State University, the National Cooperative Statesmanship Award from the American Institute of Cooperation and he has been named Colorado Livestock Producer of the Year. Among his greatest accomplishments have been being appointed to the Colorado Agricultural Development Committee and the Presidential Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. Tom, for the past six years, has been an active member of the Board of Directors for First National Bank of Florence, serving as Chairman for four years. He has also been an active member of School Board RE-2J for almost a decade and has served as president for four years. In addition to these impressive roles in his community he is also part of the Florence Elks Lodge, Lions Club, VFW, Chamber of Commerce and St. Benedict's Catholic Church. Tom has worked very hard to help the farming community and his many accomplishments are widely admired in the dairy farming industry. He has earned the respect of this body and on behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress I would like to congratulate Tom on this distinguished honor. I wish him the very best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to praise an outstanding educator in Colorado, Lennard Eckhardt. For over two decades Lennard has served the Re-2 School District in Rifle, Colorado as both an Assistant Superintendent and as Superintendent. Recently Lennard, along with his colleague Larry McBride, announced they are retiring at the end of the school year. This will bring an end to a remarkable leadership team that has benefited the school district in immeasurable ways. As Lennard makes plans for his retirement I would like to honor his service as an educator and administrator. Lennard was born in Cheyenne, Wyoming and attended school in Dix, Nebraska. After graduating from Dix High School, Lennard attended Colorado State College, now the University of Northern Colorado, in Greeley. After graduating with a degree in Physical Education and a minor in Social Studies, Lennard began his career in education. He first began teaching and coaching track in Fleming and Holyoke, Colorado before deciding to leave education and pursue private ventures in San Diego, California. His time in California was cut short by a phone call from an old friend with a job opportunity. In 1977 Lennard was offered the position as principal of Riverside School in New Castle, Colorado. After serving as principal for two years he applied and was hired on as Assistant Superintendent. While serving in this capacity Lennard's natural ability to lead soon made him the prime candidate for the position of Superintendent and in 1987 he went on to become the head administrator of Re-2 School District. For over twenty years Lennard, with Larry at his side, has fought hard to ensure that the young people of Rifle and its surrounding areas are receiving the highest quality education available. Over his tenure as adminstrator he has overcome great adversities ranging from the oil shale boom and bust of the early eighties to approving the first charter school in the district. Lennard has served his community admirably and on behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress I would like to thank Lennard for his immense contributions to education and I wish him the very best in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with immense sadness that I rise to pay tribute to Jane Quimby of Grand Junction, Colorado. Jane recently passed away after battling a brain tumor. This remarkable community leader served the Grand Valley in immeasurable ways and at this moment I would like to honor her amazing life and outstanding service. Jane served her community in a number of different capacities, but it is her involvement with the Grand Junction City Council that is most renowned. In 1973, Jane became the first female elected to the City Council. During a tenure in city government that lasted nearly a decade, Jane also went on to become the first female Mayor of Grand Junction. While her work in city government was quite extensive and impressive, she also served her community by serving on a number of different organizations. She was a founding member of the Western Colorado Community Foundation and the Grand Junction/Mesa County Riverfront Commission. She served as a board member of the Mesa County Economic Development Council and as President of the Colorado Municipal League. Jane also served for nearly two decades as part of the Oversight Board for the Colorado Energy Impact Assistance Fund. Jane worked very hard to ensure that Grand Junction and its surrounding communities were a better place for all to live and her work will not soon be forgotten. On behalf of the State of Colorado and US Congress I would like to honor my friend Jane Quimby for helping to make the Grand Valley the outstanding community it is today. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize an outstanding educator and administrator, Larry McBride of Rifle, Colorado. For the past twenty years Larry has served the Re-2 School District in the capacity of Associate Superintendent. Larry and his colleague Lennard Eckhardt are both retiring at the end of the school year. His contributions to the students and faculty of Re-2 School District are immeasurable and I would like to pay tribute to his service. Larry was born in Tulsa, Oklahoma, attending high school at South High School in Denver. He enrolled at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado and graduated with a degree in Social Sciences. Larry's plans of attending medical school were cut short as the country called its young men and women to service. After serving his country admirably in the US Navy, including one tour of duty in Vietnam, Larry returned a proud veteran and began his career in education. He began his legacy of education as a high school government teacher in East Grand School District in Granby, Colorado. Larry's superb leadership skills were soon put to work, as he became the Director of Student Services. During his decade long tenure in Granby, he went on to serve as Elementary Principal, Assistant High School Principal and as Assistant Superintendent, before beginning his role as an administrator in Rifle. In 1979 Larry was hired as the Principal of Esma Lewis Elementary, working for only two years before becoming Associate Superintendent, a capacity in which he has served since 1981. Larry has worked tirelessly to ensure that highest quality education is available for the students of Re-2 School District and his contributions are great in number. Larry has served his community in immeasurable ways and deserves the recognition and admiration of this body. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress I thank him for his contributions to America's youth and wish him the very best in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to congratulate Linda Romer Todd of Grand Junction, Colorado, on her recent award. Linda has been named Realtor of the Year by the Mesa County Association of Realtors. This award is well deserved and I would like to honor Linda's service to the community of Grand Junction by paying her tribute. Linda is currently a Broker/Owner for Associated Brokers & Consultants, Inc., as well as a member of the Mesa County Association of Realtors. While a member for over two decades, she has used her natural ability to lead by donating her time as the Chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee and as the Director of the Association. Her work within the realty profession only begins at the local level and it is her membership at the state level that is most impressive. As a member of the Colorado Association of Realtors she has again shown her desire to help others by serving in a number of different capacities. She currently serves on a number of committees including the Legislative, Mobilization, and Grassroots Committees where she serves as Co-Chair. She also is currently serving as Director of the Association and recently received the Political Service Award for the year 2000. Linda's work within her profession is quite impressive but it is her work to benefit her community that truly demonstrates her compassion to help others. As a member of the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, specifically with the Government Affairs Committee and their Leadership Program, Linda has realized the true importance of helping one's community. She is currently an active and dedicated volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. As a member of this distinguished organization she is currently serving as President of the Mesa County division and Director of Habitat for Humanity of Colorado. Linda's contributions to Mesa County and the State of Colorado are significant. It makes me proud to know that such outstanding individuals reside within the 3rd Congressional District. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress I would like to congratulate her on her recent award and wish her the very best as she continues to work to better her community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize a remarkable group of individuals responsible for expanding the Community Health Clinic in Dove Creek, Colorado. These talented individuals have, through determination and dedication, brought the citizens of Dolores County and surrounding communities a medical center that can accommodate the areas medical needs. This unique medical facility is a federally qualified rural health clinic that serves the citizens of southern Colorado, living in Dolores County, parts of Montezuma and San Miguel Counties, as well as San Juan County in Utah. In the past year these individuals have been monumental in acquiring the much-needed funds that allowed the clinic to expand its size in order to better serve its patients. The new addition to the clinic will now allow it to house the Dolores County Health Nurse's office, Emergency Medical Services and the Coroner's office. The addition that is now being added will expand the clinic in immeasurable ways including added expansions of pharmaceutical, laboratory, radiology and emergency facilities. Without such incredible compassion and commitment to their community these individuals may not have made this clinic into the impressive medical facility it is today. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to honor Dianne Smith, Executive Director; Betty Sernadeni, Health Board President; Martin Neubert, Physician's Assistant and Dan Fernandez, a Colorado State University Extension Agent. They have benefited their community in immeasurable ways and have ensured that the citizens of southern Colorado are able to receive the best medical treatment around and for that I commend their efforts and thank them for their commitment to the citizens of our great state of Colorado.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize a remarkable citizen of Grand Junction, Colorado, Bob Beverly. Bob has for over three decades worked tirelessly, promoting the sport of skiing on the western slope of Colorado. Recently Bob was inducted into the Colorado Ski Museum Hall of Fame and I would like to honor his contributions to the State of Colorado. Bob is a native of the Colorado ski country growing up in Steamboat, Colorado. After moving to Grand Junction in the 1950's he actively worked to help promote skiing in western Colorado. He was an instrumental player in founding the Grand Mesa and Mesa Creek ski areas, two areas that are unfortunately no longer in existence. Despite the difficulties with these two resorts he continued to promote skiing in the capacity of constructing volunteer ski patrols, in order to ensure the safety of Colorado's skiing community. Bob's greatest contribution to the Grand Valley came when he founded the highly popular and successful Powderhorn ski area. He not only worked tirelessly to raise money to fund this enormous undertaking, but also helped to clear the area's first ski runs. Bob's contributions to the Grand Valley and the Colorado ski community are immeasurable and he is well deserving of this distinguished honor. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress I congratulate Bob on his induction into the Colorado Ski Hall of Fame and wish him the very best in his future endeavors.