Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. I have come this evening, colleagues, first of all I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you. Of course, we are trying to wrap up the session. I have got several comments that I want to make this evening in regards to a great bill that passed today on the Sand Dunes of Colorado, making it a new national park. I want to comment a little about the Colorado canyons. I want to talk a little about the death tax and the marriage penalty. I have a full agenda. But I have to tell you before I start this, I cannot allow this last hour to go unrebutted. Colleagues, as you know, there were no Republicans involved in the last hour of discussion. It was all Democrats. And the four Democrats, whom I respect as individuals, but professionally, let us call it what it is. All four of these are supporting Al Gore for the presidency, and there is nobody to stand up for George W. Bush. The best way to criticize George W. Bush is to go out and frighten the senior citizens, throw out these scare tactics. I could not believe what I heard in the last few minutes; scare the senior citizens, tell them how terrible it is, George W. Bush, how terrible the Republican leadership is in the House of Representatives; tell them how nothing is ever going to get done. That is not how we accomplish things around here. I have urged my colleagues on the Democratic side over there, join with us. We had a panel, and my colleague knows this, we had a panel, a non- partisan panel, put together to save Medicare; nonpartisan, meaning we had Republicans and Democrats, and we had Republicans and Democrats who worked together. You know what? After a long, arduous journey, with lots of technical roadblocks to overcome, they came up with a good solid recommendation. And it was not the Republican leadership that rejected it in the House. The Senate leadership did not reject this. Who rejected it was the President. The President rejected the nonpartisan solution. So where are we with this? When we talk about health care, when we have a nonpartisan coalition, Democrats and Republicans, who have come together for a solution, and that solution is rejected at the last minute by the administration, what do we have to do? We have to start at square one, and that is what is happening. We have got to come up with a solution. We are not going to come up with a solution, and I say with due respect to my Democratic colleagues who spoke in the last hour, we are not going to accomplish it with scare tactics. Really, you may get some political advantage here in the next 2 weeks, but the fact is, in the long run, it does not serve anything to scare these people. My parents are seniors out there too, and I know most of my colleagues out here have colleagues who are seniors. We do not want to scare them. Let us figure out a solution for them. My rebuttal, these are my remarks, this is my rebuttal page. I want to go over a couple of these things they talked about. You know, they talked about a solution. I am not sure what solution they are talking about, but it seems to me that the solution that they talk about, which is not the solution that the bipartisan panel came up with, the solution they talked about is to increase the size of the government responsibility in your health care. One-size-fits-all. One- size-fits-all. In other words, you, citizen A, and you, citizen B, go to the same doctor, whether you like it or not, and here is how much you are going to get, regardless of what you think your needs are. By the way, the government, I heard one of my colleagues, with due respect, one of my Democratic colleagues who spoke in the last hour, he said there is no such animal as a government-run health care HMO. You know what? The largest health care system in the Nation is run by the United States Government. Medicare. Medicaid. Look at the Veterans system. And the worst run system in the United States is run by the United States Government, Medicare and Medicaid. And you are willing to stand up and say, increase the government's involvement in everybody's health care, have the government really run the program to provide health care for the people of America? That is exactly what Hillary Clinton attempted to do. That is exactly what she attempted to do 8 years ago. But now what you are trying to do is piecemeal. Look, be up front with the people that we represent. Tell them that on a piecemeal basis we are going to try and put a cloud on top of you called ``socialized health care.'' It means a lot bigger government. It means a system just like Medicare, that is run just as poorly as Medicare. To my Democratic colleagues who like throwing scare tactics out, go talk to your local medical provider. Ask him what it is like to do business with Medicare. Just ask him. Ask him what it is like to do business with Medicaid. Go out there. I know this is true in the rural parts of the country, because I represent a rural part. Go out and ask rural doctors and rural hospitals, hey, is it a good deal doing business with the government? How efficient is the government Medicare reimbursement system? Ask them about it. Ask them how efficient the Medicare coding system is in our health care system that the government runs. And the response? You know what the response is going to be. It is terrible. I have got doctors in my own district ready to stop taking Medicare patients. They are ready to stop taking them because it is such a hassle to deal with the government-run health care program. Now, it is fundamentally unfair for anybody to stand up here and say that any colleague, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, that any colleague does not care about the health care of our seniors. That is nothing but an abused and overused scare tactic. I am a Republican, obviously. I do not know one Democrat, I do not know one Democrat, even the Democrats that I have the most vigorous differences with, I do not know one Democrat who is opposed to some kind of health care, you know, wants to provide health care, wants to help our seniors or help all of our citizens. On the other hand, I do not know one Republican that is against helping our seniors, that is against trying to improve our health care system for all citizens. So, for some of my colleagues to stand up here and say the Republican leadership is against the senior citizens, George W. Bush's plan is against them, come on, be fair about this. Look, let us have a fair dispute. Let us have a fair debate on this floor. We can begin the debate by acknowledging that there are certain facts upon which we all agree. Everybody in these Chambers, everyone in these Chambers agrees that our health care system constantly needs to be revised. We have to look for ways to improve prenatal care. We have to look for ways to make sure every woman gets a mammogram. We have to make sure our seniors have the kind of care so that they can afford prescription services. We all agree with that. Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a Congressman or Congresswoman in my career, never seen one, that stood up and said that they are against mammograms and we should not offer them. I have never seen a Congressman or Congresswoman in my career that stood up and said that they are against senior citizens and that they want them to have high prescription care services. I have never seen a Congressman or Congresswoman, Republican or Democrat, in any of these cases that says that they are against better health care for the citizens of the United States. So to stand up here and have the audacity to say, well, the Republican leadership does not want health care for seniors, and George W. Bush does not care about seniors and there is no big government thing. Come on. That is not a fair shot. That is not a fair debate. Look, we can take shots. We can take the shots, but my colleagues have other people listening to them. They have seniors listening to them and they can be scared. These people can be scared. That is exactly the same type of tactics we are seeing being used on Social Security. George W. Bush comes up and says we cannot exist with the current status quo. Oh sure, my generation can make it. The generation ahead of me can make it on the current status quo with Social Security. But what about the young people of this country, who, by the way, their contributions are funding our generation? So we get these scare tactics thrown in. How are we ever going to have a government that can really come up with good solutions if we are going to have these scare tactics over and over again? It was amazing to me that in this last hour, unrebutted, that my four colleagues from the Democratic sides, unrebutted, time after time after time, threw out scare tactics about the Republican Party. They never said one decent thing, not one decent thing about the Republicans. Never. They implied, no, they made it very clear. They did not imply, they made it very clear that Republicans do not want prescription services; they do not want to help the senior citizens; they do not want this; they do not want that; they help fund these TV advertisements, as if the Democratic party is never doing anything like that at exactly the same point in time. Come on, we need a solution here, and to do it we have to work across the aisle. To do it we have to commit to each other, Republican to Democrat, Democrat to Republican that we will not begin the process with scare tactics. Darn right we can scare the senior citizens. And what my colleagues are trying to do is scare them to the ballot box instead of helping them to a solution. They are trying to scare them to the ballot box instead of helping them to a solution. That is wrong. Those seniors out there, every citizen in America, those young people out there, those people without insurance, those people who have to pay $700 a month for prescription services, they are not looking to be scared to the polling booth. They are not looking to be scared into their vote. They are asking us, they are begging us to help them with a solution. After listening to this last hour of unrebutted statements and scare tactics, I want to say, look, calm down, come back and go to work with us, just like we did with the bipartisan commission. Take a look at the Republicans and take a look at the Democrats that were on that bipartisan commission. This was not loaded with Republican leadership. This was not loaded with Democratic leadership. Neither party had a ringer in there. We had some very dedicated people who wanted to come up with a solution, who thought the best way to approach it was a committee with both parties involved in it, with people who were respected and knowledgeable on the subject. And that is exactly what occurred. Unfortunately, it was rejected at the last moment by President Clinton. We did not use scare tactics in there. We came up with a solution. And that is the way this should be done. Come back, come to work with us. That is what we are asking our colleagues to do. Now, let me move on for a few minutes. I want to talk about a good bipartisan effort that we had today, and it shows that bipartisanship can work. It shows that when we put aside the vigor of our party right before the election, we can work on something and we can come together and do something pretty darned fruitful. And that is what we did today. We created a new national park in this country. This national park is a diamond in the rough. It is a national park which will exist for thousands of generations to come. It is a national park that 200 years or 300 years from now people will look back upon our generation, just like we look back on the generation that created Yellowstone and Yosemite and places like that, and say that somebody was really thoughtful about this, somebody was smart enough to put this into a park and save it for future generations. Today, on a strong bipartisan vote, we created a new national park, America's newest national park, and it is located in the State of Colorado. I would like to spend a little time tonight first of all thanking my colleagues for their bipartisan support. There was opposition to this, and I will go through some of the points that the opposition made, but first of all I want to give my colleagues some dynamics of where this park is located. First, a little about the 3rd Congressional District of the State of Colorado. The 3rd Congressional District is here outlined in the blue, where my pointer is. To give my colleagues an idea, this is Colorado, that is Denver, Colorado, that is Colorado Springs, Colorado, and down here is Pueblo. This is a highway called I-25, which goes from Wyoming, up here, down to New Mexico. The 3rd Congressional District is a very interesting district in our country. First of all, almost all of my colleagues vacation in this district. We have the world premier ski resorts in this district. This district is the highest district in the Nation in elevation. I like to joke about the 3rd Congressional District, and in good humor say that once you go out of the district of the 3rd, it is downhill from there. It is because we live in the highest place in the Nation. Our ski resorts, Aspen, Telluride, Beaver Creek, Steamboat, Durango, Grand Junction, Breckenridge, and I could just go on and on with these premier ski resorts, the Alpines, the Rocky Mountains, the 14,000-foot peaks, the 56 mountains in Colorado, 54 of them in the 3rd Congressional District, over 14,000 feet. It is a spectacular area of the country. It is also an area which has huge amounts of Federal land ownership. Take a look, for example, at our borders, then go east of our borders to the Atlantic Ocean. There is very little Federal land ownership. But go from our border in Colorado and come throughout this district and go on to the Pacific Ocean and there are tremendous amounts of Federal land ownership. So for those of us in the West, geographically, there is a dramatic difference in the West versus the East. One, in rainfall. It does not rain in the West like it does in the East. And number two, the location of Federal lands. Most, by far the majority, the greatest majority of Federal lands are located in the West. They are not located in the East. So when we talk about Federal lands and what happens with Federal lands, there is very little pain felt in the East. The pain is all felt in the West. That is why we have heard people say ``the war on the West.'' A lot of times we in the West are concerned about people in the East dictating to us our life-style, which does not apply to them in the East because they do not have the Federal lands. So we have very fragile feelings because we are very dependent on a concept called multiple use. These lands of the Federal Government were created and originated with the idea of lands of many uses, many uses: environmental uses, park uses, transportation uses. For example, in my district almost every power line, every road, every cable TV, all our water, many of our rivers, they all have to come across on Federal land; or the water is stored on Federal land or it originates on Federal land. The key to our life-style, just the survival of our life-style out there are these Federal lands. We take a lot of pride in them, and I think that was demonstrated today with the creation of this national park. Now, the national park that I am going to talk about involves the Sand Dunes. We see here an arrow pointing where the Sand Dunes are. That is the Sand Dunes, the national park we have created. It is a big chunk. This district, for example, the 3rd Congressional District, geographically is larger than the State of Florida. It is larger than the State of Florida, just this congressional district that I am privileged to represent. Down here, tucked away, is something that is absolutely amazing. It is a unique situation of one. Nowhere else in the world do we find what I am about to show my colleagues, and that is what we today put into a national park. Let me point it out. We call them the Great Sand Dunes. We call them the Great Sand Dunes. Take a look at this. Maybe my colleagues would like to look at this picture here and say, well, they are sand dunes. Amazing, but somebody must have painted in all these Alpine rocky peaks behind it, these 14,000-foot peaks. Somebody must have painted that in, because nowhere in the world would there be massive sand dunes tucked in between 14,000-foot Alpine peaks. Well, there is somewhere in the world. It is located right here in the Sand Dunes at Alamosa, Colorado. There are a lot of dynamics to these sand dunes that the average person, in fact some of our opponents to this called it nothing. They said this was nothing but a pile of sand. Fortunately, 366 of my colleagues today were able to have a vision beyond the so-called pile of sand. They had the ability to realize the diamond we held in our hands was a lot more precious than the opponents realized it was. We had the vision to look into the future and say, my gosh, look at the ecosystem, look at the ecological system, the biological system, the environmental, the water resources, the wildlife resources. Look what is contained within this unique setting found nowhere else in the world. These mountains are not painted in. That is the exact setting. We see these sand dunes. Take a look at the sand dunes in one month. By the way, a human being would be about, well, we could not even see it. It would be at the end of a pinpoint. Probably not even that. A little teeny, teeny dot on these sand dunes, to give an idea of how massive these sand dunes are. If we took a big semi-truck, it would look about like this little thing out here right here. If we looked at these sand dunes a month from today, a month from today, they would be different. Someone might say, wait a minute, it does not look quite the way it looked a month ago, and it is not. These sand dunes are constantly changing. Nowhere else in the world do we have a stream, a mountain stream that runs in waves. It runs in waves and that is how it carries the sand. The stream dries up just about the same day every year, within the same period of time every year. The stream water all of a sudden disappears, and then what happens is the winds start to come in, and the winds at first are slow but they are dry. As my colleagues know, in the West it is a dry climate. We are not a humid area. It is a dry arid area. The winds come in slow at first. They dry the sand without blowing it. They dry the sand and prepare the sand to be moved from down here in the streambeds that come off these high Rocky Mountains as a result of the snow. It comes down these streambeds, and at the right time the sand is dried, and then the winds start to pick up more velocity. Then pretty soon the winds are heavier winds, and that is what begins to carry the sands. Then all of a sudden we see formations on these sand dunes, like you have never seen in your life. We could observe it on a daily basis if we had the kind of technical binoculars, or whatever type of thing would measure that. But on a monthly basis with the human eye we can begin to see those changes, and it is all a matter of sequence. It is all a matter of sequence. And the people of the San Luis Valley for generations have known how special this is. They know how unique it is, and they have come to the government of the United States and they have said help us preserve it as a national park. This is so beautiful, it is so basic to the heritage of our families, we want it to be basic to the heritage of all future generations. We want all future generations to enjoy what families like the Salazars enjoy down there in the San Luis Valley, or like the Kriers, or the Santis, or people like that down in that valley, the Entzes and families like that. They have come to us, and today we have responded on a bipartisan basis. Both Republicans and Democrats got together to give 366 votes in favor of this. There were only 34 people in this Chamber who voted no against naming this a national park. Only 34. I can tell my colleagues that they put up a heck of a fight. We met opposition to name this as a national park from the first day we proposed it. But the facts overcame the opposition. I have to say there was a lot of support to name this a national park. It did not start with my colleague Senator Allard in the Senate, who did a fine job carrying this and passed it out of the United States Senate without one ``no'' vote. It passed out of the U.S. Senate with no ``no'' votes. Unanimous. It did not start with myself, who decided to carry the bill in the House, and 9 years ago stood on one of those mounds with a gentleman named Bob Zimmerman and his family, and he said to me this should be a national park. Bob Zimmerman told me this should be preserved for all future generations; that we have to preserve the system that we have. It did not all start right there. It started from the generations and generations of families. What happened in the last year, in fact on of these sand dunes stood Senator Wayne Allard; Senator Ben Campbell; Ken Salizar, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado; myself; Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior. And during that little conversation we had on one of those sand dunes, of which we were just a tiny spec in this vast wonderful world of sand, we decided that we should respond to the community's wishes. And we began to respond. First of all, the State legislature in Colorado, the State House of Representatives, passed overwhelmingly supporting this designation as a national park. Then the State Senate did the same thing on their resolution, overwhelmingly. I can tell my colleagues, Gigi Dennis, a good friend of mine, she led the fight over there on the Senate side. And I can tell my colleagues that Lola Spradly on the House, she led over there. Russell George, Speaker of the House. I can name name after name. Matt Smith. A lot of different people got together in the State House and out of the House and the Senate they sent a message to the Government of Washington, D.C., make this a national park. We support your efforts. Help those communities preserve this for future generations. But it did not stop there. The Governor of the State of Colorado, Bill Owens, a well-respected, very powerful, powerful in a positive sense, the Governor of the State of Colorado and his wife, the First Lady of the State of Colorado, they gave this their strong endorsement. The Attorney General Ken Salizar, and Ken Salizar has generations of family down there, Ken Salizar went to bat. We had the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). We had the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). We had a number of different people who have come together as a team to create the new national park in Colorado. I hope all of you, just as you have experienced the ski areas in the Third Congressional District, most of you have skied in either Aspen or Vale or Telluride or Purgatory or Powder Horn or Steamboat or Breckenridge or any of these different areas, come enjoy this. Many of you in this room have enjoyed the Rocky Mountain National Park. Colorado will now offer to the people of the United States, to the people of the world, the State of Colorado will soon have four national parks in that pristine country that I talk to you about all within a 2\1/2\ hour drive or 3 hour drive. It is exciting. It is spectacular. I invite my colleagues to come down and see it. Let me talk just a little more about what else is contained here. We know that within this range there is an underground aquifer. We do not have the technical expertise to understand all of the fingers of that aquifer. In other words, we have a large pool of water underneath the ground, and we know it contains a huge quantity of water and we know that that water is fundamental, it is basic to the entire system that operates here. We know that that water is fundamental to the farmers and to the ranchers and to the communities and to the crops that they grow. But we also know one other thing. We know that if that water is sucked out of this aquifer underneath this, there is not a human being alive that can describe the consequences. Oh, we know they will be negative. We know that taking the water from underneath this and moving this out of a valley to help the growth of another region to move it out of this region and move it to another, we know that the result would be, at a minimum, like the Owens Valley in California where they dried up an entire region for the benefit of the growth of another region. But what we do not know are totally the consequences of draining that aquifer because we technically do not have the expertise today to figure out where all that water goes. And water is a sustainable resource. It is the only renewable resource known to man. It is the only resource that can be used and reused and reused and reused. It does not disappear. It recreates itself. And with water, one person's waste or excess water is another person's water. And so we have to be very careful about those water resources. We had a lot of people involved in water, a lot of water experts: Dave Robins; Ray Kogovsek, former Congressman; Kristine, who works with Ray; the Northern Water Conservancy District; Colorado River District. We had a number of different water experts that say this is a good national park, this should be named a national park. And that water, if ever they could get to the water, you need to leave that water in the valley or you stand the chance of collapsing something that is unique, as I said, known nowhere else in the world. This is exciting. It is kind of fun. You can get up there in the summertime actually and you are able to literally ski down there without skis on your feet. The wildlife is unbelievable. What we are hoping to do with this, by the way, and some of the opponents, as I said earlier, some of the opposition to this bill today said, well, this is nothing but a pile of sand. And I am quoting them. ``This is nothing but a pile of sand.'' Let me tell you, on this pile of sand, 34 people bought the argument that this is nothing but a pile of sand. But 366 of you realized, and it is like you had telescopic eyes, you realized that this is not just a pile of sand, that these mountains, these 14,000 peaks, these sand dunes represent a remarkable geographical finding. It is like hitting pay dirt. And it is something that ought to be preserved. And 366 of you today on both sides of the aisle said this should be a national park, this should be honored by all Americans for all future generations for its uniqueness. What we know about the park today, and I could go through a lot about what we do know, but what we do know about the park today is a fraction of what we will know about the park in just 10 years. It is a minute fraction of what we will know about the park in 20 years. And there is no comparison of what we know today as compared to what we will know about that park in 30 years. And every year the knowledge we get about this park will only further justify, will only further justify the fact that we had enough gumption to stand up here despite the opposition and with the assistance of the U.S. Senate and with the assistance of the State House of Representatives, the State Senate, the Governor, and the Attorney General, we had the gumption to stand up and preserve it for future generations. Now, I want my colleagues to know that I am a strong advocate of private property. There are no takings as a result of this national park. There are no in-holdings in this national park that are not aware of this. In fact, the major in-holdings are held by the Nature Conservancy District. We have elk herds. We have elk. We have falcons. We have eagles. You name it. We have a lot of wildlife in this area. We have a ranch called the Baca Ranch. The controlling owners of that ranch want to see this national park, and they want the Baca Ranch to be a part of it. Right now the Baca Ranch is inaccessible to the ordinary person, inaccessible because it is private property. These owners would like to see it a part of the park so that people regardless of their economic standing, regardless of where they come from, whether it is the United States or Mexico or Canada or South America, regardless, they are going to be able to go onto the Baca Ranch and enjoy the full diversity of the sand dunes. Take a look at just the watershed resources that we have on the great sand dunes. I will just hold this up temporarily long enough to read the paragraph. ``The dunes watershed consists of two unique mountain streams originating in the pristine Alpine tundra. These waterways flow through ancient forests of spruce and fir. Slipping quietly past culturally scarred ponderosa pine and colorful aspen groves, they cut along the base of the tallest sand dunes in North America. They flow through the vast grasslands. And they end in a closed desert basin, all within a span of a few miles. This area, combined with the tall dunes and the integral sand deposits, encompass an entire system containing abundant diversity and special scenery. These dramatic contrasts, snow-capped mountain peaks and green forests above towering dunes, constitute a unique American landscape with scenery and diversity comparable to other national parks in our country and stand out as one of the best in the entire world.'' That is what it is about. I want to congratulate the 365 Members, or 365 Members because obviously I voted for it, 365 of my colleagues that were able to see beyond this so-called pile of sand, that their vision allowed them foresight into the future and gave them vision into the future about future generations. We were just talking about health care. We talked about Social Security. I am going to talk for a few minutes here shortly about taxes. The fact is we need as leaders people who have the vision to look into the future. I think the greatest accomplishment I can have as a United States Congressman and I think the greatest accomplishment that my colleagues can have as United States Congressmen is that years down the road somebody will look back and say, you know, we are glad that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) or we are glad that so-and-so or we are glad that this person had the vision to see just how important it was that the Ray Blunts, that the different parties involved here had that kind of vision. Because it is so important, because it is so important in our leadership role that is we provide something for the future. And in the meantime, while we have provided it for the future, all of us get to enjoy it. All of us can go out there. We get to run in the sand. We can watch the wildlife. We can hunt. We can fish. We can travel around and see exactly what it is. And we do it without taking. There is no taking it. It has to be willing seller. There are no in- holdings that are getting taken advantage of. That is the beauty of this thing, and that is why 366 people stood up today despite intense opposition, which by the way only resulted in 34 votes, but despite intense opposition on a ratio greater than ten to one, the people of these Chambers stood up today and said, future America, all of the world deserves to have this as a national park. I can tell my colleagues I stand up here with a great deal of pride and honor, first of all to be a congressman from the State of Colorado, and, second of all, to represent the Third Congressional District of Colorado, and I stand up here with a great deal of honor to be the Congressman of the district that has America's newest national park, the Great Sand Dunes. And we are going to change it, no longer a national monument, the Great Sand Dunes National Park. In conclusion on the park, first of all, many of my colleagues have been to Colorado to the Third Congressional District. They have skied it. They have hiked our 14,000-foot peaks. You have rafted our rivers. As you know, we are famous for fly fishing, mountain biking, you name it, horseback riding, off-road vehicles on designated trails. We have got lots of things to draw you to this district. Now we have one more thing. For those of you, I want you to know that the communities of Alamosa, of Mount Vista, San Luis, Conejas, all of these different areas down there, the valley will welcome you with open hands. And study the history and the historical basis of the people and how they have lived on these lands all of these years. And you are going to walk away from this, you will walk away from these great sand dunes, you will walk away from there very, very inspired, not just by geographically and biologically and environmentally that you have seen, you are also going to walk away from there inspired to know that every United States Senator serving today by unanimous vote supported this and 366 Members of your Congress stood up and voted just today to create this new national park. I am proud of all of you for having done that. Let me move now to an entirely different subject very briefly. I should point out here the Colorado canyons. I pointed this out today. My posters are a little worn, colleagues. You will have to excuse that. But last night it was signed by the President. This is the State of Utah. This again is a big chunk of the western portion of my district. This is the Colorado River. Colorado is very unique when it comes to water. I thought I would spend a couple minutes and talk about water. Colorado is the only State in the Union where all our free-flowing water goes out of the State. We have no free-flowing water that comes into the State of Colorado for our use. And in Colorado, within the boundaries of Colorado, in our district, the Third Congressional District, again it is outlined by this blue line, within this district right here, 80 percent of the water in Colorado comes from that district. Eighty percent of the population of Colorado resides outside that district. So you can see that because of the tremendous water resources that are in my congressional district, we have lots of trees, lots of understandings, and we have lots of discussions that are ongoing as to the best utilization of that water. One of those discussions that came again just like the Great Sand Dunes National Park, that started at a community level, was the Colorado Canyons. That bill was signed by the President last night. It was supported again on the bipartisan basis. And it protected the water rights of the Colorado River for Colorado people. Although I can tell you the water in the Colorado River, it is called the mother of rivers, it provides drinking water for 23 million people, including the country of Mexico. It is a huge water resource. We know how to protect it. But we want to protect our rights, too. This bill protected Colorado water rights for Colorado people. This bill created a national conservation area. It created a wilderness area up on the top. We got in our community everyone from our county commissioners to our city council to our environmental organizations to our ranchers, to just community citizens, to people who cared, we put all of this together. I as a facilitator and others as a facilitator were able to come up with this compromise and we call this the Colorado Canyons bill. I am very proud of that. Again, another accomplishment by the people of Colorado to protect the resources of Colorado for future generations, while at the same time allowing current generations to enjoy the utilization of the resources that we have in the fine State of Colorado. Let us shift gears completely and let us talk for a minute about taxes. I think it is very important. Because I have heard a lot of political rhetoric lately about tax cuts. There are some tax cuts that have taken place and there are a couple of tax cuts that ought to take place that I think when you sit down with the average American, one, they appreciate the fact that the taxes were cut or, two, they think these taxes should be eliminated. I can start out with the death tax. Do you think that our forefathers when they drafted the Constitution had in their wildest imagination that this government that they were creating, this new concept of democracy that they were putting together, would see death as a taxable event? That your death would result in a money-making revenue source for the government that they were creating? Can you imagine our forefathers thinking that as a revenue-raising, income-raising event for the Federal Government there should be a tax on your marriage? That when you get married that we should have a marriage tax? Both of those taxes, the death tax and the marriage tax, should be eliminated. How can you argue with that? Regardless of the impact on the budget. Look at the basic concept, the fundamental question. Should we tax the event of death? Is death a taxable event? By the way, when we tax it, are we not a nation that wants to encourage family farms and ranches and small businesses to go from one generation to the next generation? And furthermore ask the question, does the death tax not in fact discourage that going from one generation to the next generation? Is this a country that should be discouraging families from transferring their business from mom and dad to kids, from those kids to their kids, from those kids to their kids? What made America great and what makes us great today is our family, the family foundation, the family block. A death tax has no place in our society in my opinion. I do not care who it taxes. By the way, it does not just hit 2 percent of the population as some like to say. It hits everybody in the community. When that money is taken out of a local community and is sent to Washington, D.C. for redistribution, and it never goes back anywhere close to the percentage back to that community from whence it came, in the same proportion, not even close. And there is a difference out there on this tax and there is a difference in this presidential election. George W. Bush has made it a commitment, he will eliminate that tax. And by a bipartisan vote on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, although the President vetoed it, in fact the President not only vetoed the elimination of the death tax which both sides of this aisle supported, he and Vice President Gore proposed it actually increase this year by $9.5 billion. In their budget this year they actually had an increase of $9.5 billion in the death tax. That is a fundamental difference between the bipartisan, Republicans and Democrats, conservative Democrats, not the liberal Democrats but the conservative Democrats that supported that elimination, that is the difference between that team and the liberal Democrats' and Al Gore's proposal on the death tax. I am not trying to be partisan here, but let us call facts as they are. Let us call it as it is. Who is for the death tax and who is not? Who is going to stand up and be counted to get rid of this death tax? The same thing for the marriage penalty. That was vetoed by the President. By the way, there are Members, conservative Democrats and Republicans, who say get rid of this marriage tax. No, what you hear from the liberals is, ``Hey, let's tax the rich, let's transfer the wealth, let's move money from those who work, let's move money, let's transfer money, not create capital, transfer.'' It is all a question of transfer. The transfer agent is the United States Government. It is right here in Washington, D.C. Let me ask you this: If one of my colleagues just won the lotto tomorrow and you won $50 million, and you want to distribute it around the country, help people out, help people with health care, help people buy open space, help people with hardships, would you send that $50 million to Washington, D.C. for redistribution to be handed out on your behalf? Of course you would not. Do you think Ted Turner or the Kennedys or any of those people send their money to Washington D.C. for disbursement? No, they create their own foundations because they know through their own foundations they can with some efficiency, a great deal more efficiency, put that money to work. It is the same concept with taxes. Do you think those tax dollars are more efficient in your pocket or more efficient in the pocket of the United States Congress and the President of the United States? Clearly we ought to have some taxes. We have to fund the military. We have to fund highways. We have to fund social services. We have to fund Social Security. Medicare, Medicaid. We have obligations. The average taxpayer out there does not disagree with those obligations. What the average taxpayer disagrees with is the lack of efficiency. The government waste, the size and the increasing size of the government. This is a distinguishing issue in this upcoming presidential race. Take a look at which side really has the history and has a record. Forget all the talk they talk about. Just look at the record. Which side, the conservatives or the liberals, increase the size of government? Take a look at the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson and figure out, was it the liberals who got the government to increase, was it the liberals who put it into the deficit for 40 some years or was it the conservatives? I am not talking about right-wing conservatives, I am talking about moderate people who say, I understand I have to pay some taxes but I want some justification. Let me talk to you about a couple of the tax cuts. There is one very important tax cut to every one of you and every one of your constituents that we in the Republican Party with the help, by the way, of conservative Democrats passed and it benefits every one of your constituents that owns a home. Probably the largest tax break they have gotten in their life. We passed it off here and guess what happened? Nothing collapsed. Washington was able to survive. No program on social services collapsed. No child went hungry in a school. Our military did not miss any planes or jets as a result of this. All the dire circumstances of allowing the person who made the money to keep a little more of the money, none of these dire circumstances of not letting that money go to Washington occurred. I hear the same kind of scare tactics today. George W. Bush talks about a tax reduction, a cut in the taxes for everybody, not just this group, not just this group but everybody. George W. Bush said the other day, the target ought to be everybody, it should not be a little tiny target based on class warfare. It should be a target for everybody. I will show you a tax that we made a target for homeowners which is a broad target. It used to be when you sold your home, if you sold your home for a profit, for example, you bought a home for $100,000, you sold a home for $350,000, which means you made a profit of $250,000, you were taxed on a $250,000 profit. That was what you were taxed on, $250,000. On a couple if you bought a home for $200,000, you sold the home for $700,000, you had a profit of $500,000, you were taxed on $500,000. That is the old regime. That is the old let the government grow bigger. That is the old look for anything you can to make it a taxable event. Tax death, tax marriage, tax an individual's sale of their home. Most people in this country, the biggest investment of their lives will be their home. The proudest investment they will have in their lives outside of their children, but physical investment will be their home. Where most people will spend time in their lives will be their home. And the government has to tax it when you sell it? Come on. A couple of years ago, the Republican leadership, with almost complete support, I think complete support from the Republican Members of Congress, as well as support from conservative Members of the Democratic Party, and granted the liberal side of the party will never vote to reduce your taxes. I can assure you, take a look at the history. You can tell that the liberal aspect, the liberal politicians will always want to grow the size of your government. The liberal politicians will always want to take individual rights and form it as a pool, as a group. They sacrifice the individual right to the benefit of the group right. They will transfer wealth, they will transfer money from those who work and give it to those who do not. It is just a liberal concept. There is a fundamental difference. The same thing showed up on this tax cut, this tax reduction bill. These are the kind of reductions that George W. Bush talks about. These are the kind of tax reductions that we put into place. After our bill, and this says ``After Republicans,'' and I have got to tell you, we had a lot of Democratic support, conservative Democrats, not the liberal but the conservative Democrats who supported this. Now, look what happens. Our individual, let us say Jane Adams bought the house for $100,000, she sold it for $350,000, she made 250. She was taxed on 250. Under our bill Jane Adams buys the house, same conditions, for 100, sells it for 350, makes $250,000 and that is her tax right there. Zero. That is her tax. Zero. And this is now law. Even in the old days under the old regime, you only got one tax break in your entire life on the sale of your home and that is if you were older than 62 and you only got a tax break, I think up to $140,000. We did not just give that tax break to individuals. We said, in our country, most homes are owned by couples. Most homes are owned by couples. What are we going to do for couples? We said, hey, for couples, we double it. If you have got a couple, we are going to allow the first $250,000, the first $250,000 per person to be tax free. So if you live in a home, and most of us live in homes that today have appreciated. In other words, they are worth more today than they were when we bought them. That is called profit. I am not talking about equity. I am talking about profit. Most of us live in homes where if we sold the home, we could sell it for a profit. Under the old regime, money would have come out of your pocket and sent to Washington, D.C. simply because you sold your home. That is the only reason that money would be taken out of your pocket and sent to Washington, D.C., simply because you sold your home. We changed that. When we changed it, now when you sell that home for a profit up to $250,000 per person regardless of your age, renewable every 2 years, that money goes in your pocket for redistribution in your community instead of going out of your pocket to Washington, D.C. for redistribution in the bureaucracy that Washington uses it for. You should have heard the cries back then. Just like I hear today when George W. Bush talks about a modest tax reduction for everybody, you hear these scare tactics: ``Oh, my gosh, we're going to have the deficit tomorrow. School children won't get lunches. We're not going to get medical care. It's going to cost us.'' Look at what happened. It is the same thing when we reduced the capital gains tax, which again with the help of conservative Democrats, again no help from the liberal Democrats, but we did get help from the conservative Democrats and the Republicans, we reduced capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent. We had the same scare tactics out there. Oh, my gosh, the sky is falling. Reducing taxes on the American people? What a disaster. How could the Republicans and the conservative Democrats even possibly envision a tax reduction? It will destroy the country. Lowering capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent, boom, the economy went up. Just like that. More tax dollars came in. You lowered the taxes, you had more economic activity, you had more creation of capital and your economy shot up like a rocket and we have been enjoying that for 3 or 4 years now since the reduction of capital gains. Same thing on this. Did the sky fall in when people started to keep the money they made on the sale of their house? Did the sky fall in because the money individuals, regular working folks out there, because the money they had they made on the sale of their house did not come back to Washington, D.C., was not redistributed by Washington, D.C.? Did the sky fall in as a result of that? No, of course it did not. We now have more than any other time in history greater homeownership by a larger population than ever in the history of this country. Our economy has improved. It did not go down. The sky did not fall in. So when I hear these people out there talk about scare tactics because George W. Bush has the courage to stand up and say, look, it is easy to criticize. It is easy to envision that Washington, D.C., ought to be managing our money instead of us. We earned it. Washington did not earn it. We earned it. It is amazing that these scare tactics seem to be working out there. That somehow a tax cut, allowing the person who made the money to keep a larger percentage of that money to reduce the size of government, the sky is going to fall in. Not being presumptuous, but if George W. Bush is fortunate enough to be elected President, we are going to see a tax cut not for a targeted group of people, not for the low income or the high income, but for everybody. And we are going to see a tax reduction that benefits the economy. Just like when the Republicans took capital gains and dropped it from 28 percent to 20 percent; just like when the Republicans took this tax on the sale of a home and reduced it for the first $500,000 for a couple to zero. Let Americans keep that amount of money in their pocket and renew it every 2 years, we will see an economic resurgence. We are going to see a healthy economy because the fact is the more dollars we allow our citizens to keep, the dollars which they worked for, the stronger our economy will be. If we take a look, and by the way the Wall Street Journal has done splendid editorials on this, if we take a look at the three or four major tax reductions this last century in our government and take a look at what happened to the economy after that tax reduction, we will find that in every case, no exceptions, the economy improved. The economy was strengthened, and we actually had an economic boom which followed every one of those. Why? Because the person that makes the money has a deeper appreciation for the money and is wiser in the utilization of that money than is the bureaucracy of Washington, D.C., which does not have to work for the money. It is simply getting their money by transfer. Our constituents get their money by work. They go out and create something and work and offer a product, they offer something of benefit. They create that capital. In Washington, we do not create capital. We get our money by transfer. We reach out to the people who work. We reach out to the people that create a profit, and we suck that money out of their pockets by transferring it to ours. As a result of that, since the government did not have to work for the money, the government tends to be much less efficient, much sloppier, could care less in many circumstances how the dollars are spent, and we could show example after example of government waste, than does the individual. The individual, that young man or young woman or that person, middle age or seniors that went out and spent their working day putting that money in their pocket, at 5 o'clock they get off shift and go home, they are very careful about how they spend their money. They watch their budgets. They try not to waste their money and they manage it. The taxpayer knows how to manage the money much better than we do in Washington, D.C. What happens? The consequence of what I am saying, what happens when we allow the taxpayer to keep a few more dollars in their pocket and the government reduce its size and take the dollars that are absolutely necessary but no more? What happens when we allow that taxpayer to manage more money? The money is managed in a much more efficient way. And when the money is managed in a much more efficient way, what happens is that the economy strengthens and it begins to grow. Mr. Speaker, what happens when the economy strengthens and begins to grow? There are more tax dollars that are originated that come to feed the government. It is a plus for the government. It is a plus for the taxpayer. It is a plus for our society. So when we hear these scare tactics, just like we heard the hour previous to mine, scare tactics about health care, when we hear these scare tactics about Bush's tax reductions or the Republicans, take a look at examples that have occurred. Take a look at the capital gains taxation. Take a look at this household tax, and we will find out that is exactly what it was. Just like the health care, nothing much more than scare tactics. Mr. Speaker, let me wrap up by saying to my 366 colleagues who voted for the creation of America's newest national park, let me say to those 366, their vision will come back generation after generation after generation. They can be proud that during their congressional career this should stand out as one of the highlights. Many generations into the future will look back and say: they did the right thing. They had the vision for future generations.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize a remarkable member of the medical community, Dr. Robin Beach. Her contributions to the citizens of Colorado are immeasurable and deserve the recognition of this body. I would at this time like to pay tribute to a truly inspirational and compassionate human being. Robin began her distinguished career in medicine with an education almost as impressive as her work in medicine. She received her undergraduate degree in Zoology from Duke University graduating with distinction. Robin then went on to receive her M.D. from Duke and her M.P.H. from the University of California at Berkeley. This impressive educational background easily prepared her to become the expert in Pediatrics she is today. Robin's illustrious career in pediatrics began at the University of Colorado Medical Center where she completed her residency. She then went on to work for the University Health Services in Boulder, Colorado where she served as Chief of Staff and Chief of the Medical Services. Her expert knowledge of medicine along with her natural ability to lead has propelled her into leadership roles for many different organizations within the medical community. She has served the Denver Health Authority in the capacities, of assistant director of Community Health Services, and Director of the Westside Medical Center, the Adolescent Ambulatory Services, and the Westside Teen Clinic. Robin's career has been one of great distinction and has been full of many immeasurable contributions to her community. But it is her recent academic appointment that may rank above all when it comes to her accomplishments. She is now able to utilize her advanced knowledge of pediatric medicine to educate future doctors. She is currently a professor of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. In addition to this great honor she has also received a number of awards for her work in the medical community, the Kathleen Ann Mullen Memorial Award and the Adele Dellenbaugh Hofmann Award both for her work with adolescent medicine. Robin is a truly remarkable human being and her contributions, not only to her community but also to the field of Pediatrics, are unparalleled. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress I would like to commend Dr. Beach on her many accomplishments and wish her the very best as she continues to educate Colorado's future doctors in the field of Pediatrics.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I will accept that from the gentleman. I will say the controlling owners. We do have a minority holder out there who thinks for pricing and negotiation purposes. The fact is that the controlling owners think it is a great proposal. The end holders think it is a great proposal; they support it. The people of the valley think it is a great proposal. The gentleman brought up three county commissioners in a very small county. I have gone to them. They were worried about their $68,000 loss of property tax. I replaced it with $80-some-thousand, and it has an inflationary type of clause in it. It is not exactly stuck with inflation, but it goes up, that we will increase that amount every year. We have done everything we can to appease those people, but what I think is the most important as I speak to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is this process that we are talking about. I agree with the gentleman on Steamtown. I agree with the gentleman on some of these other issues, but I think everybody with a couple of exceptions who has taken a look at this, the Sand Dunes say, gosh, this ought to be preserved for all future of America. We ought to expand on this and make it a national park. The fact that we have it on here on the House floor is exactly where it ought to be. The best point I think the gentleman has made this evening is, Mr. McInnis, just because it is in your congressional district does not mean we should vote for it; that is right. That is why 435 Members of the United States Congress should vote for it, not one person in one committee stop it from ever having a hearing. Mr. Speaker, just the same as we should not pass it just because of the fact it is in my district, we should also not allow it to have a committee hearing because of one person. We should bring it to the whole body, and that is exactly what we have done this evening. I encourage all of my 434 colleagues to vote yes on this and create a national park for the future of America. I am proud of it. People in Colorado are proud of it. We want to show it off, not just to America, but to the world. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting a letter from the State of Colorado raising an issue regarding control and management of hunting in the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve. I share the State of Colorado's concern, and as the House author of this bill and one involved in the negotiations that produced the final Senate version, I would read the current language in the light most favorable to Colorado's sovereignty and predominant role in hunting, fishing and trapping that states have in our federal/state system. Specifically, the term ``limited periods'' in section 7(c)(2) of the bill, referring to the time periods that hunting, fishing or trapping in the preserve may be prohibited, should be strictly construed to limit the time and nature of the closures or restrictions on hunting, fishing and trapping in the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve. Permanent closures or expansive closures would absolutely run counter to the intent of this legislation. Moreover, section 7(c)(3) of the legislation calls for consultation by the Park Service with the appropriate Colorado agency on any limited prohibitions of hunting, fishing and trapping. As an author of this legislation, this language should be read as expansively as possible to require real, meaningful consultation with the State of Colorado, including involvement in the decisions and crafting the scope and nature of any closures to allow for the maximum management of the bighorn sheep herds and other wildlife in the Great Sand Dunes Preserve. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO, October 4, 2000. Mr. Mike Hess, Cannon Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mike: Per our telephone conversation earlier today, it has come to our attention that some important language in the Great Sand Dunes National Park bill was not included. Specifically, the paragraph requiring the Secretary of the Interior to obtain approval of the Colorado Division of Wildlife before closing hunting opportunities, except for emergencies, was replaced with general consultation language. This current form causes problems for the State of Colorado. We are concerned about giving the Secretary carte blanche to control the way we manage game and non-game species on a new national park. As you know, the bighorn sheep is Colorado's state animal, and the Sangre de Christo Mountains are home to the State's largest bighorn sheep herds. The management of this herd has been one of the Division of Wildlife's biggest success stories over the years, and the possibility that our most important management tool could be taken away by the Secretary of the Interior is adverse to the best interests of the State and our wildlife. Furthermore, any ban on hunting in the expansion areas would also greatly reduce our ability to properly manage the elk herd in that game unit. This will increase our animal damage payments to citizens and reduce recreational opportunities. I hope this is helpful. Thanks for all your great work on this important bill. Sincerely, Greg Walcher, Executive Director.

Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, again to the colleague, talk about subversion of the process, subversion of the process occurs when you cannot even get a committee hearing. I will not embarrass the gentleman by asking him, but I would if I were in some kind of real knock-down- drag-out, ask the question, did not I in fact request that this go to the committee? Did not the gentleman in fact request that it not go to the committee? The fact is this has had Senate hearings. The fact is that the gentleman can stall this bill to its death. Today is the last opportunity this bill will have to pass. It is the last opportunity to create a national park in the Third Congressional District, in my opinion, for a long period of time. It has the unanimous support of the Governor's office, the Attorney General, near unanimous support of the State House, near unanimous support of the State Senate, unanimous support of the United States Senate. This bill will pass on its merits, and that is what we have asked it to do, go on its merits. I should also bring up the point, because I am a strong private properties advocate, and my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) brings up the point to the best of his knowledge the owners of the Baca Ranch that would be involved in this are not interested in selling the ranch; wrong. I have their correspondence. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: Hogan & Hartson, l.l.p., Washington, DC, October 24, 2000. Office of Congressman Scott McInnis, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Member of Congress: Farallon Capital Management owns a controlling interest in the Baca Ranch, located adjacent to Great Sand Dunes National Monument in southern Colorado. As controlling owners, we are fully supportive of establishment of Great Sand Dunes National Park and National Preserve as proposed in S. 2547 and of the government's interest in acquiring the Baca Ranch property as provided for in Section 8 of S. 2547. To that end, we completed an independent Appraisal Report on April 18, 2000, and we look forward to continuing our cooperation with completion of the National Park and National Preserve. In addition, we have been in close contact with the Administration which fully supports this legislation and we look forward to completing the transaction for Baca Ranch following enactment of S. 2547. Sincerely, Douglas P. Wheeler, Attorney for Farallon Capital Management. Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the correspondence, as controlling owners, as controlling owners, we are fully supportive of establishment of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and the government's interest in acquiring the ranch property.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out, so we have kind of a perspective of what we are talking about, this is a photo of the Great Sand Dunes, what we propose to make a national park in Colorado. I want to let everyone know that this is our opportunity to mark for all future generations of Americans a national park that is well deserved. This bill was carried out of the United States Senate with unanimous consent by Senator Wayne Allard. Senator Allard and myself have spent a lot of time in the local community and we have also had a lot of help, frankly, from our Democratic colleagues in Colorado and some of our Republican colleagues, not only here in Congress through the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) but also through the State House in Colorado, the State Senate in Colorado, which by strong majorities support naming a new national park in the State of Colorado. We also have the support of Governor Bill Owens, who strongly believes that a national park of the Sand Dunes is long time overdue in the State of Colorado. We have the Attorney General in the State of Colorado. We have community support. This proposal was built at the community level up. Neither Senator Allard nor myself walked into this community and said, hey, we would like to create a new national park down there. Obviously both Senator Allard and I and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been down to look at this national park, what we hope to be the national park, and are amazed by what we walk into. The fact is, it did not come from us. This started at the local community level, and over a period of years we have built up the momentum and we are now finally on the verge, finally on the verge of one final vote to create a national park in Colorado that will last forever, for all generations of America. That is why I urge support tonight. Let me say that the Great Sand Dunes, this makeup if we can see right behind it, that is not painted in on this picture, those over 14,000 foot peaks of the Alpine Meadows. It is the only place in the world, the only place in the world, where we can see desert sands piled up as great sand dunes mixed in amongst the Alpine 14,000 Rocky Mountain foot peaks. Take a look at everything from the ecosystems of the water and the sand and the wind, there is no other combination like this in the world. All America deserves the privilege of having this as a national park for preservation. I look forward and I am honored to be the one that is sponsoring this on the House side and I openly thank my colleague on the Senate side, of whom it means as much to him as it does to me, as it does to the people of Colorado, as it does to the people of America, that this become a national park. Now in the last few hours somebody has suggested that it is not in my congressional district. I want to point out that this is entirely, entirely in the Third Congressional District. This is my congressional district this national park proposal is in, and I know this. My family has multiple generations not very far from that park. I have been in that park numerous times. Now is our opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to stand up and be counted. Now is our opportunity for future generations of America to create a new national park in the State of Colorado. I ask for support.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) brought up a few points that should be addressed here. First of all, in regard to the inholdings, there are three inholdings within the national park. All three of those are held by the Nature Conservancy District, which is 100 percent behind this national park. In regard to the gentleman's discussions on process and we should never have a national park and have not had one in the best of the gentleman's memory that has happened in a process that did not go through the House committee, remember, this went through full hearings at the Senate committee. To the best of my knowledge, none of the gentleman's staff, none of the staff of any of the people the gentleman was talking about, even expressed an interest to go sit in on these hearings. But back to my point: 2 weeks ago there was a national park, which, by the way, I support, that was included in the Interior bill, and there were no objections raised on the floor. That is the mystery of this. I want the gentleman to know, I have gone to the committee. I have gone to my good colleague, and I say this with all due respect, because our dispute is a professional dispute, not a personal dispute, but I have gone to the gentleman and said, give me a hearing. I want this bill heard on its merits. Let it rise or fall on its own merits. But Colorado and the future of America, they deserve this national park. It is in my district, by the way. I know a little something about it. I was denied the hearing month after month after month. Not by the chairman, by the way, not by the chairman, but at the request of the chairman. I had no other choice but use the same rules that the gentleman who is opposed to this this evening, the rules he is using to kill this national park, the same rules I used to get to the House floor. The beauty of bringing it to the House floor is 435 Congressmen, 435 Congressmen make the decision whether this should be a national park. Not one Congressman. Not one Congressman kills this national park; 435 or 434 of my colleagues make the decision based on the merits whether we deserve another national park. There are a number of other issues we ought to talk about. When we talk about the water to the dunes, as the gentleman and I discussed, and I know this and I say this to the credit of the gentleman, this gentleman understands water. He has years of meritorious service in the State legislature of Colorado as well as the U.S. Congress on water issues. But the gentleman could agree with me; you drain the water out of the Sand Dunes and you destroy it. You destroy the most unique, or the only, the only geological, geographical, any type of archeological, I could go on and on, type of site in the world that exists. You cannot drain the water out of there. Draining the water out is like taking the blood out of a human body and then telling the body to continue to live. It does not happen. It is destroyed. That water is the human blood for the San Luis Valley. I urge my colleague to join me in regards to that. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this process is within the process of the House, or we would not be here today. We had suspensions. In fact the Sand Creek, by our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), yesterday, followed the exact same process. But I did not see anybody up there objecting to that.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today we will consider S. 503, a companion to my bill H.R. 898, the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act of 1999. This legislation will give permanent protection, in the form of wilderness, to the heart of the beautiful Spanish Peaks area in Colorado. The bill is supported by several of my colleagues from Colorado, including Mr. Schaffer, whose district includes the portion of the Spanish Peaks within Las Animas County. I am also pleased to be joined by Mr. Hefley, Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Mark Udall of Colorado. I greatly appreciate their assistance and support of this legislation. Also, across the Capitol, Senator Allard sponsored this legislation that we consider on the House floor today. I would like to extend my appreciation to the Senator for his active support of this worthwhile legislation. I would also like to thank Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Chenoweth-Hage for their work in the Committee on Resources to bring this bill to final passage and hopefully on to signature by the President. Finally, I would offer a note of appreciation and thanks to the former Members of Congress whose efforts made today's legislation possible. First, approximately twenty years ago, Senator William Armstrong of Colorado began this worthwhile process by proposing wilderness in Colorado, and in 1986 Senator Armstrong proposed protected status and management for the Spanish Peaks. His efforts set in place the foundation upon which today's bill is built. Second, I would like to thank the former Congressman from the Second District, Mr. Skaggs. Together, he and I introduced this legislation in the 104th Congress and again in the 105th Congress, which passed the House but due to time constraints did not pass the Senate. The efforts by both of these individual legislators helped make this bill possible. The mountains known as the Spanish Peaks are two volcanic peaks in Las Animas and Huerfano Counties. The eastern peak rises to 12,683 feet above sea level, while the summit of the western peak reaches 13,626 feet. The two served as landmarks for Native Americans as well as some of Colorado's other early settlers. With this history, it's not surprising that the Spanish Peaks portion of the San Isabel National Forest was included in 1977 on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. The Spanish Peaks area has outstanding scenic, geologic, and wilderness values, including a spectacular system of over 250 free standing dikes and ramps of volcanic materials radiating from the peaks. The lands covered by this bill are not only beautiful and part of a rich heritage, but also provide an excellent source of recreation. The State of Colorado has designated the Spanish Peaks as a natural area, and they are a popular destination for hikers seeking an opportunity to enjoy an unmatched vista of southeastern Colorado's mountains and plains. The Forest Service originally reviewed and recommended the Spanish Peaks area for possible wilderness designation in 1979. The process since then has involved several steps, and during that time, the Forest Service has been able to acquire most of the inholdings within Spanish Peaks area. So the way is now clear for Congress to finish the job and designate the Spanish Peaks area as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill before the House today would designate as wilderness about 18,000 acres of the San Isabel National Forest, including both of the Spanish Peaks as well as the slopes below and between them. This includes most of the lands originally recommended for wilderness by the Forest Service, but with boundary revisions that will exclude some private lands. I would like to note that Senator Allard and I have made significant efforts to address local concerns about the wilderness designation, including: (1) adjusting the boundary slightly to exclude certain lands that are likely to have the capacity for mineral production; and (2) excluding from the wilderness a road used by locals for access to the beauty of the Spanish Peaks. Senator Allard and I did not act to introduce this bill until a local consensus was achieved on this wilderness designation. The bill itself is very simple. It would just add the Spanish Peaks area to the list of areas designated as wilderness by the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993. As a result, all the provisions of that Act-- including the provisions related to water--would apply to the Spanish Peaks area just as they do to the other areas on that list. Like all the areas now on that list, the Spanish Peaks area covered by this bill is a headwaters area, which for all practical purposes eliminates the possibility of water conflicts. There are no water diversions within the area. Mr. Speaker, I close my statement by thanking all of my fellow members for your time and by urging all Members of the House to vote yes in support of passage of S. 503.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with immense sadness that I take this moment to celebrate the life of Colorado State Representative Gary McPherson. Gary tragically passed away at age 37. For the past six years, Gary served the State of Colorado with great distinction as a Member of the Colorado State House of Representatives. As family, friends, and colleagues mourn this sudden and terrible loss, I would like to pay tribute to this statesman and friend. Gary was born in Auburn, Washington, but attended school at Platte Valley Academy in Nebraska, graduating in 1981. He went on to Union College where his thirst for knowledge earned him a degree in business administration, as well as minors in history, psychology, social science and sociology. Gary then went on to earn his law degree at the University of Nebraska in 1988. After law school, Gary moved on to what would become a highly successful career. His time as a lawyer saw him practicing for a number of different law firms, including Hall & Evans, Elrod, Katz, Preco & Look P.C., Fortune & Lawritson P.C., and most recently Kissinger & Fellman P.C. In addition to his many accomplishments as a lawyer, Gary also served in the Colorado Legislature with great distinction. As a legislator, Representative McPherson fought hard on a range of issues important to Colorado's future. During his tenure in the legislature, Gary served as member of the Appropriations and Judicial committees as well as Chairman of the House Finance Committee. Before serving in the Colorado State Legislature, Representative McPherson was a member of numerous organizations promoting the health and vitality of his community and all of Colorado. He served as president and board member of Jackson Farms Homeowners Association, director of the Attorney/Physician Suspension Alternative Project, chairman of the ABA Prelaw Couseling Committee, board member and legislative liaison for the Colorado Bar Association Military Law Commission, and vice chairman and board member of Arapahoe County Park and Recreation District. Giving back to his community was a priority for Representative McPherson and his hard work and determination earned him a number of awards. His honors include Colorado Bar Association's Outstanding Young Lawyer, Aurora Public Schools Superintendent's Award, International Academy of Trial Lawyer's Award, and CACI Legislator of the Year 1995. Gary was an incredible human being, a loving and devoted father, husband, and friend. His compassion for others and commitment to his community will not soon be forgotten. Gary served his community, State, and Nation admirably. This statesman, family man, and friend will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to pay tribute to a remarkable public servant, the Honorable James T. Rizzuto. Jim is stepping down as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, a position he was appointed to in January of 1999. He has served the State of Colorado well and I would at this time like to honor his service. Jim began his career in public service by first serving as a First Lieutenant Infantry Commander from 1969 to 1971. His experience in the military as well as his educational background helped to prepare him for the leadership responsibilities he would later take on in public office. After graduating with a degree in economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Jim went on to the American Graduate School of International Management, where he received his MBA in economics and finance. In 1982, Jim ran and was elected to the Colorado State Senate where he served for 18 years. During his tenure in the State Senate, he served as a member of the Joint Budget Committee for 12 years. His work in the Colorado legislature earned him the LaJunta Community Service Award in 1994 and Colorado Business Journal also named him one of the top 10 effective legislators. Jim has served his community, State, and Nation admirably. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress, I would like to thank Jim for his outstanding commitment to public service and wish him the very best in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I take this moment to celebrate the life of Rick Sheets. Rick, a popular radio personality, recently passed away at age 45. For many years Rick has entertained the people of western Colorado, whether it be joking around during his radio spots or rooting for the Denver Broncos. As family, friends, and colleagues mourn this incredible loss, I would like to pay tribute to this remarkable human being. Rick was known to his listeners as Rick Lawrence. For over two decades he entertained listeners of the Grand Valley. He has worked in a number of different capacities for many different radio stations throughout western Colorado. He began with KEXO-AM then on to KSTR-AM and FM and most recently with Mustang Country 95.1 and KOOL 107.9. Throughout his tenure in radio, he was best known for his dedication to Broncos' football where he earned the nickname Doc Bronco. Rick's reputation on the air was exceptional but it was his work in the community that will be long remembered. He served as a Partners volunteer and used his on-air experience to work as a television auctioneer for over ten years. He was a well-known supporter of the March of Dimes, giving a number of on-air interviews and also worked with the Bronco Youth Foundation. Rick entertained and served the community of Grand Junction in immeasurable ways. His work with Colorado's youth will not soon be forgotten. Rick served his community well and his loving memory will live on in the hearts of all that had the pleasure of knowing him, both on the air and off. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I take this moment to honor the life of Cecil Walt. Cecil recently passed away at age 98. Cecil spent nearly half of his life serving the Grand Valley in a number of different capacities. As family and friends mourn this great loss, I would like to pay tribute to this remarkable human being. Cecil moved to the Grand Valley in 1944, settling in Grand Junction, Colorado. During his time on the western slope he owned and operated five different automotive stores, but was best known for his work for the community. It was not long after residing in Grand Junction that he decided to run for mayor and was elected. His work for the city will forever be enshrined along the Main Street Shopping Park, which he was instrumental in constructing. Cecil's work to improve the city of Grand Junction earned national attention in 1963 when Look Magazine named it an ``All-American City.'' Cecil was also very active in crusades to protect western slope water rights and to ensure that the Eisenhower Tunnel was built where it stands today, to ensure motorists safe passage from the western slope on into Denver. Former Colorado State Senator Tilman Bishop, in recent article by Zack Barnett in The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, had this to say about former Mayor Cecil Walt, ``He was a visionary, he was always putting things together for the future.'' Cecil worked very hard to ensure that the Grand Junction community was a better place for all to live. He served his community, State, and Nation admirably and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to honor a remarkable human being, Orlyn Bell. For over three decades Orlyn has fought hard to ensure that the water of western Colorado is being distributed correctly and fairly. Orlyn is retiring as the Division 5 water engineer, a position he has held in Glenwood Springs for just over 17 years. As Orlyn moves on to bigger and better things, I would like to take this opportunity to commend him on his service to the western slope of Colorado. Orlyn began his career in engineering as far back as 1965 where his summer job had him measuring the flow of a major flood of the South Platte River after it hit Denver. His work during this traumatic time earned him not only a citation from the Governor, but also sparked an interest that would soon become the focus of his professional career. In 1968 he graduated from the University of Denver, with a degree in civil engineering. After spending a few years working for the Washington Highway Department he moved back to Colorado where he began his legendary career in the state engineer's office. For almost two decades now, Orlyn has been one of seven engineers in charge of the seven different major river basins. The area in which he has represented is vast in size and the demand for water is much larger than the actual supply. This large area spans from the Continental Divide in central Colorado all the way through the Grand Valley on to the Utah border. The battle for water in Colorado is one that has sparked a great deal of controversy over the years, but Orlyn was able to manage these issues fairly and earn the respect of both eastern and western Colorado. Orlyn's contribution to the citizens and farmers of western Colorado is immeasurable. Orlyn you have served your community, State and Nation proudly and I wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize Bill Trampe on his recent award. Bill is one of two recipients of the Cranmer Award, presented by Colorado Open Lands. He was selected by the Board of Directors for his work with an organization he helped to co-found, which works to preserve family owned ranchlands throughout the Gunnison Basin. Bill co-founded the Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy in order to help maintain a tradition that has long inhabited Colorado. This organization is made up of ranchers and community leaders aiming to protect and preserve over 20,000 acres of ranchland that is family- owned in southern Colorado. Bill is a third generation rancher and this organization holds a place dear to his heart. Bill's dedication to preserving land for ranchers is quite evident in his past work with a number of different organizations. Bill is an advisor to the Colorado State University Mountain Meadows Research Station, a member of the Board of Directors of the Colorado River District and has served as member and President of the Board of Directors of the Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District for nearly two decades. While his civic duties were great in number, he also found time to manage his family ranch, Trampe Ranches. Bill has worked very hard to assist the ranchers and farmers of southern Colorado and ensure that their ranchland will be protected. Bill's dedication and hard work for his community has earned him the admiration of this body. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress I congratulate Bill on this prestigious and well-deserved award. Congratulations!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to congratulate Susan Lohr, on her recent award. Susan is one of two recipients of the Cranmer Award, sponsored by Colorado Open Lands. Susan is the co-founder of Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy, an organization that works to preserve family-owned ranchland in southern Colorado. Together with ranchers and community leaders the organization is attempting to preserve and protect over 20,000 acres of land. Susan is no stranger when it comes to conserving farm and ranchland. She is currently president of a private land conservation consulting firm, Lohr Associates. She also recently retired as Director of the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, where she worked for over a decade. Susan serves the Legacy in the capacity of Founding Director and Board Member Secretary/Treasurer. Susan has worked very hard to ensure that family ranchlands are protected throughout southern Colorado. This dedication has helped a great number of people preserve thousands of acres of land and for that she deserves the recognition of this body. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress I congratulate Susan on this prestigious and well-deserved award. Congratulations!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I take this moment to celebrate the life of Ruth Beasley of Gypsum, Colorado. Ruth spent nearly a third of her life giving back to the community in which she was raised and her contributions are immeasurable. As family and friends mourn her passing, I would like to pay tribute to this fine woman. Ruth was born and raised in Gypsum and spent her entire life in the Eagle Valley. Her fondest memories of her younger years include her first trip to Denver to compete in a spelling contest as well as competing on her high school debate team. Her studies were always very important to her and this earned her the honor of valedictorian at her high school graduation. It was not her achievements in her younger years that Ruth will be remembered for, rather it was her work for the communities of Gypsum and Eagle that will forever keep her name alive. For over three decades Ruth worked with the Eagle County Social Services helping citizens of her community overcome great challenges in their lives. She is also known for her dedication to the American Legion Auxiliary and her work with the Eagle County Historical Society Museum. Ruth Beasley was very committed to her community. Her dedication and compassion for her fellow human beings will not soon be forgotten and will live on in the hearts of all that knew her. She was a loving person and she touched the hearts of all that she came in contact with. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to commend Sheri Rochford on her outstanding commitment to education at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado. Sheri's contributions as Dean of Development have helped to foster the educational environment that Fort Lewis takes such great pride in. Her efforts deserve the praise of this body. Sheri was born in Denver, Colorado, but her family soon made Durango her home. She attended school in Southern Colorado, graduating from Durango High School and then moving on to Fort Lewis College where she graduated in 1977 with a degree in business and history. Her graduate work was done at Lesley College in Cambridge, Massachusetts. After completing a master's degree in counseling, Sheri went on to do her doctorate with Harvard by attending classes on weekends and during summers in Farmington, New Mexico. For the past five years, Sheri has been the Dean of Development at Fort Lewis College. After receiving her education, she joined the Fort Lewis College staff as a secretary for the sciences faculty. Her natural ability to lead and desire to succeed soon moved her up the ladder of advancement. Before becoming Dean, she served Fort Lewis College in the capacity of Director of Admissions. Along with her duties at Fort Lewis, Sheri is also quite active in the community of Durango. She has served as president of the Durango Foundation for Educational Excellence and has been a long time supporter and member of the La Plata County Historical Society and the Animas Museum. Sheri has worked diligently for the community of Durango and Fort Lewis College. Her contributions have been great in number. As she continues to serve as Dean of Development, I wish her the very best. Sheri is one of our own in western Colorado and she has made us all very proud.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I take this moment to recognize the extraordinary, Bill O'Dwyer of Grand Junction, Colorado. Bill recently passed away at the age of 74. While family, friends, and neighbors mourn this immense loss, I would like to pay tribute to a wonderful human being. Bill was a valued member of the Grand Junction community and he will be greatly missed. Bill served his country admirably during World War II, fighting with distinction in the Battle of Iwo Jima. After returning a proud veteran he began O'Dwyer Electric in Grand Junction. While building a successful business, Bill began to realize the importance of civic duty and he turned to local government. For a number of years Bill served in the Grand Junction City Council where his accomplishments were great in number. On the top of the list was his work to build the current terminal at Walker Field Airport. Bill's leadership abilities brought a number of wonderful things to the community of Grand Junction. When not serving the community in City Council, Bill could be found serving in a religious capacity, where he was Bishop for the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints. Whether in church or in a council meeting, Bill always exemplified the qualities of a great leader and caring and generous human being. Bill served his community, State, and Nation proudly. Though he is gone his memory will live on within all that knew him. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress, I would like to pay tribute to this great Coloradan.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate Theresa McCain of Gardner, Colorado on her recent award. Theresa has earned the coveted National Educator Award from the Milken Family Foundation. She is one of only four Colorado teachers to receive this high honor. Winners of the Milken Award are nominated by fellow teachers and winners are selected by a panel. They not only receive a cash prize but also a trip to Los Angeles where they participate in the Milken Foundation National Educational Conference. Theresa began her career in education after earning a psychology degree from the University of Wyoming and then a teaching certificate from Adams State College in Alamosa, Colorado. Shortly thereafter, Theresa began her distinguished career at Gardner. The Gardner school has 89 students, ranging from preschool through eighth grade, and teachers are often required to use many different teaching methods to manage students with wide ranging differences in age. It is educators like Theresa that have helped this school become the wonderful learning institution that it is today. Throughout her time in Gardner, Theresa has always considered the school to be a group of teachers working together and she had this to say about her individual award in a recent article by Margie Wood, in The Pueblo Chieftain: ``I feel honored to be here in this school. There are such wonderful teachers that I've learned from. I go to all these other teachers for help, so it's not my award--it's their award.'' Theresa has served her community, State, and Nation proudly. During her tenure in Gardner she has helped ensure that hundreds of Colorado's youth are receiving the best education possible. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress I congratulate Theresa on this distinguished and well deserved award. Congratulations!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with immense sadness that I take this moment to celebrate the life of Miles Kara of Grand Junction, Colorado. Miles recently passed away in his home at the age of 84. Miles lived a life full of love and happiness and his legacy will long endure. As family, friends, and colleagues mourn this immense loss, I would like to take this time to pay tribute to a truly compassionate and wonderful human being. Miles was born and raised on the western slope of Colorado, and would eventually raise his children there as well. Graduating from Fruitvale High School and Grand Junction Junior College, he went on to earn a Bachelor's Degree from the University of Colorado in 1937. Upon graduation, he taught at Appleton High School for a few years and then met his patriotic duty by serving his country in the United States Air Force during WWII. After returning a proud veteran, he enrolled in Westminster Law School, graduating with a law degree in 1948. His educational background easily prepared Miles for the many career choices he would make during his service to the people of the Grand Valley. After moving back to his childhood home, Miles practiced law for a number of years before working with a number of different organizations, all serving the Grand Junction community admirably. He began his service to his community as Mesa County Judge and moved on to work for US Bank as Senior Vice President and a Trust Officer. But Miles is best known for his work in education, where he served as President of the District 51 Board of Education and as Executive Director the Mesa State College Foundation. Miles worked hard to ensure that Grand Valley's youth were receiving the best education possible. His devotion to his community was not only demonstrated by his work in education but also as a dedicated 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Mason. For Miles helping others was second nature. In a recent article in The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel by Rachel Sauer, his daughter Nancy best summed up her father in her own words: ``you always love your family and take care of them first thing. And that people in trouble who need a hand should have one. If you could help someone you should help them. It's your responsibility as a human being.'' Miles lived his entire life devoted to his family but always made time for others. It didn't matter the time of day; he was always there to lend a helping hand. Miles showed his love for his family and his fellow humans in his every action. His commitment to public service has changed the lives of many. Miles was a loving and cherished member of our community and he will be greatly missed. Although he may be gone his memory will live on within the hearts of all that knew him. Clearly, America is better off for having known Miles Kara.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honor to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Jim Robb as he steps down as United States Magistrate for Western Colorado. Jim is a personal friend of mine whom I served with in the Colorado State House of Representatives. Jim has been the embodiment of service, success and sacrifice during his time as Magistrate and he clearly deserves the praise and recognition of this body. Selected as a Magistrate in 1990, Jim was one of six United States Magistrates for the State of Colorado. The only magistrate outside the City of Denver, his duties included hearing preliminary and detention cases and holding misdemeanor hearings for crimes on federal lands. He was also responsible for hearing pretrial conferences for civil cases that involved the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. During his time as Magistrate, Jim had the reputation of a fair and approachable judge. He would always take time to hear both sides of the story and had the ability to approach each case with an open mind. Perhaps his fairness is the product of his life as a ``true Renaissance man''. Jim embarked on a 12,000 mile road trip around the United States before he was to attend college. During this trip, he fell in love with the wonderful State of Colorado where he would eventually earn his bachelor's degree and law degree. Some of his other accomplishments include working for the FBI as a special agent, working as an administrative assistant for a United States Senator in Washington DC serving two terms in the Colorado State Legislature, and serving on the Colorado State Parks Board for 10 years. Jim's future plans include spending time with his family and continuing to practice law in the private sector. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I congratulate Jim for his career as a United States Magistrate and thank him for his dedication and commitment to public service. It is a real pleasure to honor people of Jim's character and integrity. His formidable efforts deserve the praise and admiration of us all. Good Luck, your honor.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to honor a very remarkable person, Mary Ann Andersen Lee. Mary Ann has been a part of the nursing community for over four decades and recently retired from San Luis Valley Regional Medical Center. Mary Ann's leadership and expertise in nursing have benefited the San Luis Valley in immeasurable ways. Her retirement will not last long, as she has already planned to move on and donate her superb nursing abilities to the American Red Cross Disaster Relief. Mary Ann began her illustrious nursing career with a group of friends that answered a want-ad in the American Journal of Nursing. After graduating from Bryan Memorial School of Nursing in Lincoln, Nebraska, they headed west to take a job in western Colorado. The rest, as they say, is history. The moment she joined the medical center, then called Alamosa Community Hospital, she demonstrated her outstanding leadership by becoming the supervisor of the emergency room. She led in this capacity for nearly fifteen years. She then moved on to become the director of nursing where she served for just over two decades. Her leadership has benefited not only the medical center, but the entire community as well. Mary Ann has led by example and become a role model of what it takes to succeed in the medical field. Throughout her tenure at San Luis Valley Regional Medical Center, she has helped literally thousands of citizens. Mr. Speaker, Mary Ann has earned respect and admiration of this body. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress I thank her for her incredible service to the San Luis Valley and wish her the best in her future endeavors. Good Luck!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it makes me very proud to honor a remarkable human being, Luther Posey. Through hard work and determination, Luther recently helped the Glenwood Springs Police Department earn the Silver Buckle Award. This award is presented by the Colorado Department of Transportation for a department's ``outstanding contribution to the safety belt program''. Luther's contribution has been credited with being a fundamental part of the department receiving this high award. For the past few years, Luther has been the primary individual in charge of gathering safety belt data in the Glenwood Springs area. His data is compiled every few months and then is used to enforce compliance with the state safety belt law. In a recent article by Heather McGregor in the Glenwood Independent, the following was said: ``Police Chief Terry Wilson made it clear that without Posey's help the award wouldn't have been possible: `he does the sitting and counting of people using or not using belts.' '' Luther has worked very hard to collect data that has helped ensure that the seat belt laws are enforced and has in turn made the community of Glenwood Springs a safer place for all. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress, I would like to thank Luther for his efforts that helped the Glenwood Springs Police Department earn this prestigious award. Luther, it makes me proud to know that individuals such as yourself are taking it upon themselves to ensure that our communities are safe and secure. Congratulations and thank you for your service!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. I thank the gentleman for taking time this evening. I thought it was very appropriate for the gentleman to come over here because it seemed to be one-sided, the story we just heard. I also would like to thank the gentleman with my colleagues here for the considerations and the courtesies that he has extended to the State of Colorado over the years. We appreciate his service and his courtesies. Mr. Speaker, I interrupted my comments because I felt it was very important that we listen to the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman who has represented the State of Alaska for a number of years. Alaska is a wonderful, wonderful State. Most of Alaska, I think in the high 90s, maybe 96 percent of Alaska is owned by the Federal Government. I wish I had time this evening to talk to my colleagues about what happens and the differences between States that are primarily owned by government and States that are primarily owned by private individuals. Many of my colleagues here on the floor come from States where their primary ownership in their State are private individuals. Many of us come from States where the primary ownership in our States is the Federal Government. In Colorado, for example, my district is the Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado. My district geographically is larger than the State of Florida. And on the eastern line of my district, which, very simplified, runs from Wyoming down I- 25 to New Mexico, it exempts out the cities as you go down, but from that eastern border to the Atlantic Ocean, that land, there is very little Federal Government ownership of lands. Out here in the East, you have the Appalachias, you have the Everglades down there and then in a lot of States you have the local courthouse, you may have a park here and there; but the reality of it is if we took a map, for example, of the United States and we looked, obviously I am not an artist, but if we took a look at my eastern border, here is Colorado, the point I am making is from this point right here to the Atlantic Ocean, Federal ownership or government ownership of land is represented about like this, with the Appalachias here, the Everglades, the park up here in the Northeast. If you were to look from my border, this district, the Third Congressional District, and go to the Pacific Ocean, you are going to find out that government ownership of land looks like this. Obviously that is a rough drawing, but that is pretty significant. There are a lot of differences between living in areas where the ownership of the land is by individuals and living out here where our zoning and planning commissions are dictated by decisions out of Washington, D.C. For example, my colleagues that live out here in the East, those that represent States with very little Federal ownership, when they decide they want to build a new bridge or when they decide that they want to go and have a new building or some kind of adjustment in their county or some type of development, they go to their local county planning and zoning commission. Out here in these Federal lands, anything like that, they have got to go to their planning board which is in Washington, D.C. So there are a lot of significant issues that we ask for our colleagues in the East to have an understanding of what goes on out primarily in the West. Or have an understanding of what goes on in the State of Alaska. For example, in my district, we are totally dependent, totally, not partially, totally dependent on multiple use of public lands, for water. Every highway that we have in my district comes across Federal lands. The water, when I go back to water, it is either stored upon, originates or comes across Federal lands. All of our power lines, all of our cellular telephone towers, all of this is on Federal lands. In my particular district of which we have the premier ski areas in the world, Aspen or Vail or Telluride or Powder Horn or Purgatory, I could go on and on and on, these areas are dependent, very dependent, our tourism dollars are very dependent on these lands. We are very, very, I guess you would say over a period of time we have become encompassed by the concept of multiple use. I want to talk just for a moment about that concept of multiple use. What happened in the early days when our country was a young country, we basically had this as our country. Our forefathers, the leaders of our country, wanted to settle the land that we had purchased. In those days, possession, that is where the saying, by the way, possession is nine-tenths of the law, possession meant everything. In the early days of our country, if you did not possess the land, somebody else could come in and they did not care whether you had a deed or a document that said you own it, they came in, they sat there with a gun and said, ``I own that property.'' Once our country made purchases like through the Louisiana Purchase and things like that, what happened was, taking this out for a moment, they were trying to figure out how to get people to leave the relative comforts of the East and of the settled communities in the East, how do we get them out into the new frontier. How do we encourage people to go out there and set up a home or set up towns, because as a country we need to possess the lands like the Louisiana Purchase, or we are going to lose them to some other country. So what they decided to do was let us give land. Everybody in this country, it is an American's dream to own a little piece of land, to own your own little house. It is the American dream. So they used this incentive, go West, young man, go West. To do that, they said, let us have a homestead. You go out into Kansas, you go out into Missouri, you go out there, you find 160 acres or you find 320 acres, you farm it for enough years and you get to keep it. It is your land. That worked pretty well. What we saw were fairly dramatic movements of population into these areas. But when they got to the West where it is very arid, we do not have the kind of water, it does not rain in the West like it does in the East, when they got out West, the crowd started going around. Nobody was sticking around in here. Why? Because they discovered in Kansas, for example, or Missouri or even eastern Colorado or down here in some of these States, in the Midwest States, Pennsylvania and so on, they were discovering that with 160 acres, you can support a family. You have enough acreage there to grow a farm. But they also discovered that when you got to the mountains, for example, or to the more arid acres, sometimes 160 acres would not even feed one cow. So the settlers were not staying there. At the Nation's capital, they said, what do we do about this? How do we get settlers out here before we lose this land? How do we get them to move in there? Somebody came up with the idea, it takes 160 areas of good fertile ground in Missouri for a family. That is the equivalent in the mountains of Colorado, it might take 2,000 acres. So let us give them 2,000 acres. They thought about it, the policymakers back then, and they said, ``Wait a minute, we can't give that away. That is too much for one person.'' Then the idea was born, well, let us go ahead and have the government retain the ownership. In other words, the government will continue to own this land out here, but let us let the people use the land. That is where the concept of multiple use came from. When the gentleman, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, stands up and talks about Alaska and talks about your oil, that is why Alaska is primarily owned by the government, because of the fact of the differences between States in the West and States in the East. And so I think it was important. I acknowledge the gentleman and appreciate him coming to speak with us. I want to address another point. I had the opportunity to come down and listen to some of my respected colleagues prior to my having the opportunity to visit with you. It sounded like it was the George W. Bush bash hour. What can we bash George W. Bush about? That seems to be a favorite thing by some of my colleagues here lately. What policy can we find of George W. Bush? Let's just bash him. Somebody ought to stand up here and say a few things that George W. Bush is doing right and a few ideas that I think will work for this country on a bipartisan basis, that both sides of the aisle ought to acknowledge. Let us take an example. Let us talk about Social Security, for example. Social Security, we ought to look a little at the history. We know that we had the Depression in 1929. In 1935, the President decided and this country, and this Congress on this floor, decided that we should have a national insurance policy, a social insurance. That is where Social Security came about. But there are a few factors to remember about Social Security when it was first conceived. Number one, for every person that was retired in 1935, we had 42 workers out there working. Forty-two workers for every person retired. What has happened over a period of time is the number of people that are working has gone down in proportion to the number of people that are retired. Today, instead of being 42 to one, today it is three to one. It is three to one. That has created a problem for Social Security. Number two, and this is good news for all of us, colleagues. This is good news. The modern medicine that we have developed and the vaccines and the ability to fight things like chicken pox and polio and things that were horrible diseases of the past and with godspeed we can find a cure for cancer in the future but these diseases have in a large part been conquered. The average person in the United States in 1935 could expect to live, a male 62 years old, a female 65. Today, that is almost in the 80s. We have had a dramatic increase in the life span for our citizens in this country. Unfortunately, no adjustment has ever been made in Social Security, number one, because of the number of active workers that have been reduced and, two, because of the extended life span of these individuals. So what is happening is today we have a Social Security fund which on a cash basis, means cash in the bank, is in the plus column. But when we look on an actuarial basis, and what do I mean by that word? I mean when we look into the future and say, okay, here is the money we have, here are our future obligations, do we have enough money to cover all of these future obligations? That is what is called actuarial thinking. On an actuarial basis, Social Security is bankrupt. And who is the individual that is running for President that has stood up and I think in a bipartisan approach come up with a plan? Now, it is a bold plan. Gore and the President, they have called it a risky plan. You have got to take some risk. You have got a plan that is in trouble. Not in trouble for my generation. I am 47. Not in trouble for my parents. My parents are going to be guaranteed, any of the colleagues, any of your seniors, their money is not going to be interrupted. Really from about 45 on up, their money is going to be there. But the young people of this country, the people that George W. Bush has talked about, the people in their 30s, the young workers that are starting out in their 20s, those are the people that are going to face the dramatic problem on Social Security if we do not take a bold move. You can call it risky as Al Gore has called it, but the fact is you have got to do something. That is what leadership is about. If you do not want to lead, stand aside. We are not going to leave you behind. But you are not a leader. Somebody has to get out there with a bold plan. I can tell you that the plan that George W. Bush has proposed is not exactly in my opinion something that is novel. You say, what do you mean novel? Well, I think that George W. Bush and his Social Security plan, they looked around and said, gosh, how do we test market my proposal? How do we test market something for the younger generation that will save Social Security? You know what? They found it. It has been test marketed. It has been out there and used. You know what? It is working. The logical question that one would ask is, well, where is this test market? Where are the results? Who is using the same type of basic plan that George W. Bush is proposing for all of America? Where is your test market on that? You know, when corporations or businesses or people want to try a product, they go out and test it first. So you prove to us, McInnis, where is this test market? You know where it is? It is right here on the House floor. Us. You know what? We are treated differently than other Americans. Every Federal employee is treated differently than other Americans. How? We have our own separate retirement plan. Now, we are participants in Social Security, and we do pay into Social Security, but, as you know, we have another plan. Every Federal employee, 3 million of us in this country, have been test marketed, and that plan is called the Thrift Savings Plan. What is the Thrift Savings Plan? Number one, it is voluntary. You are not required to participate in it; exactly what George W. Bush is saying with the partial investment of Social Security dollars. Number two, it gives you choice; exactly what George W. Bush is talking about when he talks about his Social Security plan. Number three, it guarantees you a payment, regardless of the choice that you make; exactly what we have in our Thrift Savings Plan and exactly what George Bush has proposed in his plan. How does the Thrift Savings Plan work? As you know, we get our check, and there is an automatic deduction taken out of our check for Social Security. There is also an automatic deduction taken out for our retirement. So, as a Federal employee, and remember, this applies to all Federal employees, not just to the Congress, but to about three million Federal employees, so they take out a small amount, or an amount, out of your check for your retirement. You have no choice on that. You get no choice as to where it is invested. You do not get a choice as to whether it goes into the stock market or whether it goes into bonds. You have no choice on it. On the other hand, the trade-off is you are guaranteed a payment when you retire. But, then, after that is said and done, you get to take up to 10 percent of your pay and you can invest it through the Thrift Savings Plan, and the Federal Government will match the first 5 percent. So you get to take 10 percent, they match the first 5 percent, and you get choice. You are not required to do it, by the way. And what kind of choices do we have? Our choices are, one, you can go into savings accounts, which are guaranteed by the government, just like if you went to a local bank, FDIC approved. You get that. But the return is low. The lower the risk, the lower the return; the higher the risk, the higher the return. The very low risk option, zero risk, almost, and you get a low return. Or you can go into something like the bond or the stock market. You have that choice. What is wrong with George W. Bush's proposal to give choice to the American people? What is wrong with our generation, the older generation, looking to the younger generation, like my children? My children are grown now. What is wrong with my generation saying to this generation, hey, you ought to have a little choice. We ought to give you a choice on some of your investment dollars. George W. Bush has not gone out and said take all the Social Security dollars and let this young generation decide if they want to put it all in the stock market. Of course, that would be reckless conduct. That would be careless. There is not a financial mind in the world that would tell you that would be a smart thing to do. What George W. Bush said is give them up to 2 percent. Let us try it out. It works for American government employees, why can it not work for the young generation; the women in this country that are young and just getting into the workplace; the young men and the families. If we do not do something, do you know what the return is? If we stick with the status proposed, which seems to be what is proposed by the Al Gore policy? Here is what your return is: 0.09 percent. That is a rotten return. That is what you get to expect, assuming that we can keep it afloat. So a young couple today, let us say a young lady named Joyce and a young man named John, and John and Joyce go out into the workplace, and their Social Security, if we do not change this thing, number one, it probably on an actuarial basis will not be there for them; and, if it is, if the stock market continues to boom, and we know, in case you have not read in the last few weeks, it has leveled off, but if it continued to boom, which it will not do forever, then that is about what kind of return you can expect. How can we do this? Come on. It is an obligation, it is a fiduciary duty on every one of us in this room, to stand up for this next generation behind us and the generation behind them and the generation behind them. If we are going to have a Social Security program, let us give them a Social Security plan that works for the American people. Let us not make American Federal Government employees an exclusive set, where they have a little different arrangement than the very people who put us here. The people that pay our checks are the taxpayers. We ought to take that into consideration. We should not treat the taxpayers of this country, who are not Federal employees, different than we treat Federal employees. Why not change Social Security? I see positive things. Instead of standing up here in a very partisan way and bashing George W. Bush, why do we not stand up here and talk about what I think are the good policies and the good recommendations that he has made? If he becomes the President, I think you are going to see a very positive change for Social Security. Those policies will work because they have been test marketed. It is not new. It did not just fall out of the sky. These policies work, they have been tested, and they have been tested on 3 million people. And, do you know what? The participation rates are in the high 80 or 90 percent of Federal employees that want to get into this program. Because why? Because it works. That is why they want to get into this program. Mr. Speaker, let me change subjects, because I heard some other Bush bashing going on, and I think once again somebody has to come tell the other side of the story. Paul Harvey, who by the way, I had the privilege of meeting Paul Harvey a couple of weeks ago in Pueblo, Colorado, where we honored about 100 Medal of Honor recipients, and Paul Harvey was kind enough to come out there at his expense to speak to us. But Paul Harvey has a famous saying, you have all heard it, ``and now for the rest of the story.'' That is exactly why I am over here this afternoon talking to you. You heard one side of the story, Bush bashing; Bush bashing on Social Security, Bush bashing on taxes. Bush bashing. Look, do you know what? There are a lot of good things in there. Why not look for some of the good, colleagues, instead of trying to spin it out of control because of the political necessities of an election coming up here in 4 or 5 weeks? Let us talk about taxes, and let us talk about what the Republicans, frankly, with a lot of help from conservative Democrats, have done with their tax policy. Number one, the Republicans, again with help from conservative Democrats, who came across the aisle, we sent to the President of this country a death tax elimination. Now, whether or not you think you are covered by the death tax, I think it is a fundamental question. It is the same thing, by the way, with the marriage tax elimination. The Republicans, with help from some conservative Democrats, sent to the President of the United States a marriage tax elimination, to eliminate the tax, because of the fact you are married, and to eliminate the tax because of your death. On both occasions, the President vetoed both of them. Now, let us talk about it. The basic fundamental question you need to ask about the death tax and the fundamental question you need to ask about the marriage tax is should death or marriage, should those be taxable events in our society? You know what? The majority of us stood up and said no. Unfortunately, the administration disagreed. They think that marriage should be a taxable event. They think that death is a taxable event. Not only do they think death is a taxable event, I sit on the Committee on Ways and Means. I know about finance and taxes. The President's budget, the President and Vice President, the Clinton-Gore budget this year not only did not even consider elimination of the death tax, they actually proposed an increase of $9.5 billion, a $9.5 billion increase in the death tax. You should not increase it, you should not keep it. The death tax does not collect a lot of money. Let me tell you, when you hear, and I have heard this over and over again, when you hear, well, this only benefits the upper 2 percent of a community, wake up. It does not just affect 2 percent of the community. Let me give an example. Colorado, you take a small town in Colorado. I have a small community in Colorado where somebody who, by the way, lived the American dream, started out with nothing, worked all his life. His entire dream in life was to be successful so he could pass it on to the next generation and spread it in the community. He had a construction company. By the way, to be eligible for the death tax on a construction company, if you own free and clear, if you own much more than a bulldozer, a dump truck and a backhoe, then all of a sudden you are facing the death tax. That is right, a bulldozer, backhoe and dump truck, and you are facing the death tax. This individual passed away. From what you would hear from the people who think that the death tax is a fair tax, that it is fair to tax somebody on property they have accumulated that they have already paid taxes on, simply by the fact that they died, what you need to look at is what the impact is on a community. What happened, when he died they took 70-some percent; 55 percent of it for the death tax, 22 percent on capital gains, or 28 percent, excuse me, on capital gains. And they took 70-some percent of that estate and moved it out of this small town in Colorado and they moved that money to Washington, D.C. to be redistributed by a bureaucracy. You know what? The money in a community ought to stay in a community. I do not believe you ought to be able to tax death as a taxable event, but it sure would be a lot more liveable if you went to that small community and said, look, just in spite, you had somebody who was successful, so we are going to tax them on their death, but you get to keep the money in the community. Remember, the death tax, where it came from. The death tax came as kind of a get-even tool with the Carnegies and the Fords and the Rockefellers. That is where that thing came from, from people who wanted to declare class warfare, who said, look, this is a great country, and we say if you invent the better mouse trap, you get to reap the reward, as long as you do not reap too many rewards, because then we are going to come after you. That is exactly what happened in the twenties and so on. This is a tax that should never have been created. It is a tax that hurts our communities. It is a tax that hurts our environment. This is a country that ought to pride itself in encouraging its citizens, encouraging its families, to pass a business from one generation to the next generation. What builds the strength of a country is family. That is what builds our strength. And for a government to go out and discourage and actually penalize the transfer of a business or the family farm or the family hardware store from one generation to the next generation is fundamentally flawed. It is flawed with the concept of what we have as government. Now, maybe in a communist country or in a socialist country, where everybody is not paid on what they are worth, they are paid on what they need, so no matter what they do, it is not what they do for society, it is what they need. So you equalize all those payments. That is what the concept of a death tax or a marriage tax comes from, especially a death tax. That is not what we want in this country. That is not what ought to be happening to our communities. By the way, you heard me right when I tell you the death tax hurts our environment. You say wait a minute, how does the death tax hurt our environment? You know how it hurts it? In my district, in Colorado, a beautiful district, I live in the highest place in the Nation, the highest elevation in the Nation. If you have been skiing in the mountains in Colorado, if you have been in the mountains in Colorado, the essence is you are in my district. The people discover the beauty of this. What happened is we have family farms and ranches out there, and what is happening is people are coming in and the families are having to sell these. They want to farm, they want to ranch, they want to have that piece of land, but they have to sell it. You know where that land goes? It does not continue as a ranching operation. It does not continue as a farming operation. It continues as a few hundred more condominiums, or a few hundred more townhouses, or a brand new shopping center. That is what is happening to that land out there, and a lot of it is due directly to this death tax. So do not stand here and bash George W. Bush because he wants to eliminate the death tax. Do not stand here and bash George W. Bush because he says marriage should not be a taxable event. What you ought to do is, as some of the Democrats have done, join the Republicans in our fight to get rid of the death tax. Join the Republicans, as some conservative Democrats have done, and get rid of the marriage tax. Instead, what happened, unfortunately, we saw the majority of Democrats go with the President and support the President's veto of getting rid of the marriage tax and support the President on this death tax. I am saying to my colleagues, work with us in a bipartisan method. We can do something for Social Security for this next generation. We can do something about that death tax. We can do something about that marriage penalty. Let me tell my colleagues, in a bipartisan direction, when we have worked together in the past, the Democrats helped us pass probably the largest tax break that we have had in 20 years or 30 years; although the people do not realize what we have done. The Republicans, about 3 years ago, 2 years ago went out and said the Americans dream is about owning their own home. So we think in most families, the ownership of the home is the largest asset they have; that is usually the largest asset in a family. What we said, the Republican bill that we got passed, with some help from some conservative Democrats, on a bipartisan working effort, the bill we passed says that if you now own a home and you sell that home for a profit, I am not talking about equity, I am talking about net income, you sell it for a profit, your first $250,000 per person, remember most homes are owned by couples, so it is the first $500,000 per couple, but the first $250,000 per person goes into your pocket tax free. You get to do that every 2 years. That is an incentive for people to go out and own homes, and that was supported on a bipartisan effort. We had conservative Democrats who helped the Republicans pass that, and that gave the American people a tax break they deserved. For some reason, there has been a misconception down here on this floor. We seem to think that the American taxpayers ought to pay and pay and pay, and somehow people, some of my colleagues spin it out as if we dare talk about it, hey, maybe they put in too much. George W. Bush says take half of our surplus right away and put it to reduction of the debt; that should be our priority. Reduce that debt, but you still have a little that you ought to put into some programs like education and healthcare, and you still have a small fraction of that you ought to give back to the taxpayer, pat them on the back and say thanks for what you have done. Thanks to the productive nature of the American people, the American taxpayer, this government is sitting pretty well. This surplus was not created by the wonderful creative thoughts of your government. It was created by our constituents, the hard workers, the 8:00 to 5:00 people or the 8:00 to 8:00 people out there who produce and create capital. Government does not create capital. Government transfers capital. Government takes it from the workers' pockets, transfers it to Washington, D.C., and then hands it out as if they worked for it. That is not what the government is about. What I am saying is do not be ashamed to talk about a tax cut. They ought to be reasonable tax cuts. Is it unreasonable to cut out the tax of death? Is it unreasonable to cut out the tax of marriage? I was so excited last night in that debate. I wanted to be in that debate, not as a candidate but just to get up there and say, wait a minute, Mr. Vice President, what is wrong with the policy of cutting out a death tax? What is wrong with the policy of eliminating the marriage tax? What is wrong with the homeowners tax break that we gave 2 years ago? You did not try and spin it out of control then. I am telling my colleagues from a bipartisan point of view, we owe respect to the taxpayer; and there is no reason to back off and be ashamed, because we talk about maybe we ought to thank the taxpayer and say we got enough to operate the government. The more the taxpayer provides for the government, the sloppier the government becomes. Sometimes it is a good idea to tighten down on the budgets. That forces efficiencies. That is why I have taken this podium today, instead of bashing Bush all the time, which I heard minute after minute after minute earlier this afternoon, why do we not stand up and say, hey, here are some policies that we can work on in a bipartisan basis; here are some positive things that he has proposed. There are very few of my colleagues out here who could look me right in the eye and arguably tell me that our plan, our Thrift Savings Plan, should not apply to the American people and should only apply to Federal Government employees. There are very few of you, I think, that could really look me in the eye and honestly tell me, Look, Scott, we ought to have a death tax. How many of my colleagues really support a death tax? How many of my colleagues really think people ought to be penalized in tax due to the fact that they are married? How many of my colleagues really think that this government ought to engage in discouraging families from passing their hardware store or their farm or ranch from one generation to the next generation? Not a lot of my colleagues, but my colleagues ought to be identified to the American people so they know exactly where we stand. The taxpayer does deserve some courtesy. We obviously need to reduce the death debt. We have to take care of programs like education and health care which are fundamental for the survival of the greatness of this country; but the best way that we do it is we look at it in a positive sense, and I encourage my colleagues to do just exactly that.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, what concerns me about the discussions that we have been having on the Alaskan oil is that the emotions get in the way, I think, of looking at the facts. One, the fact of what are the requirements of the United States? What is the dependency of the United States? What happens if the United States becomes dependent, as we have seen, on foreign countries? What happens to our economy? What happens to everything from medicine and so on? On the other hand, we need to not let our emotions become so charged with the price of oil that we ignore environmental safeguards. And so, my reason in talking with the gentleman is for his explanations of the safeguards. And I think he has done a good job that, with the environment, we have spent $50 million on the caribou for example. Well, that one was not justified because the caribou do not use it. There are a lot of environmental expenses that are taken into consideration and a lot of sensitivities that, rightfully so, are observed. This is not a sign-off to some company to go up and drill where they want. This is probably the most scrutinized project in the United States I would guess.