Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I might point out that while the Vice President has proposed in the last couple of weeks because, one, we are in a political season and, two, the price of gasoline has escalated rather dramatically, if we look at the Vice President's writings on his policy, his policy actually is to increase the taxes. It is clear. I am not taking this out of context. His policy is you raise the price, you put more taxes on gasoline; and that is the only real policy I have seen. But let me shift gears for a moment. If the gentleman would not mind, I know I am taking the time of the gentleman, but I was wondering if the gentleman would not explain, when we talk to our colleagues here about the pipeline, if he would explain a little more about what the pipeline consists of, how that project was handled and how they addressed the environmental issues when they put in ANWAR. Talk a little bit about that just to acquaint our colleagues with what is going on in Alaska.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not mind, as the gentleman knows, our colleagues that were up here spent most of an hour speaking about what a traumatic situation this was and how terrible this was going to be; and I do not think it was held in its proper perspective. So I think if the gentleman, for example, would not mind going in a little more detail. He said, when the original plan was drafted or the bill was passed, there was an area that was set aside for exploration. My understanding is now, when we talk about the 19 million acres, the gentleman said there is 1.2 million, but we are only talking about 12,000 acres of 19 million. Is that correct?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have listened a good deal to the previous comments, and I was wondering if the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) could answer the question or go into a little more depth about the specific area in which this exploration has taken place. It sounded as if it was in the middle of a national park in the middle of a wildlife refuge. I thought maybe it would be interesting to hear from the gentleman just the dynamics of Alaska, how much of the land is owned by Alaska, and maybe compare the size of Alaska to Texas for example. And so, I think the comments of the gentleman are very appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to celebrate the life of a truly remarkable human being, Robert Croissant. Bob recently passed away after a battle with heart troubles. He lived every day to its fullest and truly enjoyed the gifts life had to offer. As family and friends mourn this immense loss, I would like to pay tribute to this great Coloradan. Bob was born in Kuner, Colorado, a small farming town on the eastern plains. The communities where he grew up were wholly dependent upon agriculture, and growing up he very quickly learned to appreciate the importance of this trade. After graduating from Greeley High School, he attended Colorado A&M, which is known today as Colorado State University. Attending college was not Bob's original plan in life, but after realizing the possibilities it held for his future in the agricultural profession, he was hooked. Eventually, he earned his degree in Agronomy. Bob's love and fascination for farming soon drew him back to eastern Colorado. Soon after graduating, the university's agricultural extension office was in need of an Assistant County Agent, and he took the position. After helping the farmers of Logan County in this position, he moved to Burlington, Colorado, where he was promoted to County Director. Bob's knowledge of agriculture was unparalleled in eastern Colorado and his aid to farmers was immeasurable. He was well known for meeting farmers at breakfast where he would examine the crops that were brought in on-sight. Bob's widespread efforts in the agricultural arena were slowed down significantly when a heart condition required him to stop his extensive travels. He and his wife then moved to Ft. Collins, where Bob continued to work at Colorado State University as a professor. Although he may not have been as agile as he once was, he still found a way to stay involved in the profession he loved. He could also be found at nearby 4-H events, where he passed along his expertise in agriculture to young people. Bob Croissant was a truly remarkable person and he will be greatly missed. He leaves behind a wonderful and loving family. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress I ask that we take this moment to honor a beloved and cherished Coloradan.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, good evening. It is time for another nightside chat. This evening I want to cover a couple of areas with my colleagues here. First of all, a couple comments about the Olympics, and then I would like to move on. I had a discussion last week and in fact over the weekend I talked with a good close friend of mine, his name is Al, and we discussed a little about the situation with Wen Ho Lee, who is the spy, or the fellow who was accused of spying, but the gentleman in New Mexico, and I kind of need to retract my words there, I will not exactly call him a ``gentleman'' from my point of view, you will see. I think the facts are going to be very interesting. Last week, as my friend Al and I discussed, I laid out what I thought was a very strong case that makes it very clear that this fellow in New Mexico, who has been accused of a crime, and, by the way, who is a convicted felon, in fact is not a hero. He is not a martyr. He is not somebody who has been victimized. He is not a victim of racial profiling. He is not a victim of the race card. I want to discuss that case in a little more depth, in fact in a great deal of depth tonight. So I am looking forward to that discussion. Disrespect Shown by American Olympic Athletes First of all, let us talk about the Olympics. That is an exciting event. All of us had an opportunity, I am sure, to watch the events, and we are very proud of our athletes and the sports people that we send over to participate in these events and the medals. I mean, of course, in the West we are absolutely thrilled about the wrestler out of Wyoming who beat that Russian wrestler. To me, that was probably the highlight of the Olympics. But let me say, first of all, I consider our athletes obviously very, very capable young people who I am proud to have represent the United States, in most cases. These athletes, in my opinion, while I would not call them heroes, you certainly would call them celebrities. They have spent a lot of hard years to represent the United States. But what I saw over the weekend dismayed me, and I want to be very specific about it, because it applies only to maybe four, maybe five at least, not the whole bunch. But, unfortunately, it kind of casts a shadow over all of our U.S. Olympic athletes, and that is those Olympic athletes representing the United States who thought it was kind of entertaining to show a lack of respect as they were receiving their medals and the Star Spangled Banner was played. Perhaps it would be good for my colleagues to continue to remind our constituents just exactly what that song, the Star Spangled Banner, our National anthem, what it means and where it came from and what it represents. Look, this is not some song by Metallica out there or some other group that is used for entertainment. This was a song that was written on sacrifice. This was a song written with the idea of patriotism. This was a song that was written in recognition of the many Americans who fought to preserve this country. They did not fight in Olympic games, they did not fight on a relay team to get the gold medal, they fought on a battlefield, and a lot of them gave their lives. I will tell you, to every veteran in this country, in fact, to every citizen in this country, those athletes, who in my opinion embarrassed the United States of America with their behavior, owe an apology to every citizen in this country, and they especially owe an apology to those veterans who really went out and fought the wars, who really have represented this country since its conception. Mr. Speaker, we all have an obligation, whether the moment is an exciting moment or whether the moment is at a funeral, or whether the moment is at the beginning of a basketball game or a football game, we have an obligation to citizens of this country to respect the history of the Star Spangled Banner. While we do not stand there and recite the history of the Star Spangled Banner, we as Americans have that song to kind of be a symbol to the world, and even as a reminder to ourselves, about what this great country is all about and to see that some of our outstanding young people in this country who have been given the privilege, and, by the way, it is not in reverse, it is not what the country could do, so- to-speak, for those athletes, it is what those athletes can do to represent our country, and they do not represent our country when they stand there and make the kind of mockery or the kind of little professional side show they thought was entertaining for the cameras. I hope those individuals out there who give sponsorships and commercial contracts keep in mind what these particular individuals did, how they embarrassed, in my opinion, the rest of the Olympic team, and how they embarrassed our country, and, most of all, how they embarrassed the heritage of this country there during our National anthem. We have every right to be proud. Boy, one does not have to go very far on our streets to find people who would tell you just how proud they are of this country, what kind of opportunity this country offered. I am sorry to say that we saw that on national TV. In fact, the entire world saw it on TV, and it did nothing at all, it did nothing at all, to exemplify the fine athletes that we had over there representing our country. I think it is very unfortunate that that is what occurred. The Wen Ho Lee Case: Who is the Victim? Let me completely shift gears. Over the last several weeks I have about had it with what I am reading in some of the national media on a public relations campaign put forward, in my opinion, by some defense attorneys on an individual named Wen Ho Lee. As you may recall, Wen Ho Lee was the fellow who was arrested and held by the FBI on 59 counts involving some of the highest, most sensitive secrets this Nation has ever held, that is the secrets on our thermo-nuclear weapons. I used to practice law, and I learned a long time ago, although I did not do criminal law, I was acquainted with criminal law. I used to be a police officer, and there are a couple of things I want to point out at the beginning of my comments about observations I made when I was a police officer and when I practiced law. Let me start, first of all, when I was a police officer. When I was an officer and I would arrive at the scene of an accident, a lot of people would have a lot of different stories. What I learned time and time and time again as a police officer is what you see when you first get there a lot of times is not really what you come up with after you have been there for a while. So what seems obvious to you when you pull up to the scene of an incident is oftentimes not as obvious as you thought it was. In other words, you may pull up to the scene of an accident and you may say, well, this is easy; that car crossed over that line and hit that car, so it is driver A's fault, because driver A hit B going the wrong way in the traffic. You may find out after further investigation that in fact driver B was in the wrong lane of traffic, spun out of control, had a collision, and the vehicles, by momentum, put themselves into the position that they were in. Point number one. Point number two that I think is important, that I learned in the practice of law, is that defense attorneys really have a few standards by which to defend their client. The easiest way to defend your client who has been accused of a crime is the facts. If the facts are on your side, obviously the easiest fact is your client did not do it. If your client did not do it, you focus your case on the basis of the facts; my client did not do it. If you do not have those facts on behalf of your client, then what you try and do is you try and attack the prosecution's witnesses. So you try and divert attention away from the fact that maybe your client did it, and you try and attack the credibility of the people who saw him do it or otherwise would testify to some type of circumstantial evidence that this individual is guilty of the crime alleged. If you cannot defend your client on the facts, and if you are not too successful attacking the credibility and the character of the prosecution, then you adopt what seems to be the most popular item of defense for the last 20 years, your client is a victim. Oh, my client, I know he went out and robbed a bank, but he was victimized; he had an abused childhood; or, you know, the police did not treat him right. Anything you can use as a defense attorney to make your client seem like a victim being picked on by society or being picked on by the FBI or being picked on by the cops or being picked on by his parents, or et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You get the idea. You know where I am going. Well, what we have seen in the last several weeks is a massive public relations effort on an individual named Wen Ho Lee, trying to play this individual as a victim; trying to divert attention away from what this individual did. Some of the facts or defenses they are using for Wen Ho Lee are almost laughable. One, well, he was just resume building. He wanted to build his resume, so he wanted to accumulate a library of the most sensitive thermo-nuclear secrets ever held in the history of the world. He just wanted to have a resume. He said, I have a library with that. Two, this was just a coincidence. It was really accidental. He did not intend to copy over 400,000 pages of the most sensitive thermo- nuclear material ever held by any person in the history of mankind. It was just an accident that he happened to get his hands on that and started transferring it around. One of the other defenses that in some cases have some merit and have some bearing is the race card. When you take a look the facts as I am going to present them to you, the other side of the story, you are going to find, I think, as I find, forget the race card. Throw that one out. This is not a race case. This case is based on hard, verifiable evidence. This case is based on the fact that the party is a convicted felon. This case is based on the fact that the secrets were found in his custody. So I want to present, and I think the first thing is at the beginning of my discussion that we ask the question, and this is what I ask you to think about this evening when I go through the facts of this case, this is kind of like one of those new detective shows on TV or some kind of criminal mystery. Let us try and solve the mystery. Let us look at the basic question: Who is the victim? That is what we want to determine tonight, because we have seen this massive effort, and, frankly, it is amazing to me, the national publications that have adopted the public relations effort of these defense attorneys to point Wen Ho Lee as the victim, instead of the United States of America and its citizens. That is the question we are going to ask tonight. Who is the victim? Is it Wen Ho Lee, or is it the United States of America? That is the question we want to look at this evening. By the way, if my colleagues see my quote marks, this is testimony taken from the hearing that was given over in the Senate side; however, it is important to keep in mind that this is not an ordinary criminal matter. However, it is important to keep in mind that this is not an ordinary criminal matter. It never was. This is a national security matter of paramount importance. This is a national security matter of paramount importance. At least seven and possibly 14 or more tapes containing vast amounts of our Nation's nuclear secrets remain unaccounted for. This is not rhetoric. It is simple frightening fact. Mr. Speaker, let us all go back, kind of place ourselves in the laboratory in New Mexico. Let us get kind of an outlay of what that laboratory does. This is one of the most highly classified top secret locations for the United States. We have two labs that have this kind of classification. This lab in New Mexico contains within its computers not only the research, but the elements to put together thermonuclear weapons. This lab contains the elements so that you could compose and construct a weapon, the only real weapon known to mankind that one military could use against the military of the United States of America and successfully engage it and successfully destroy it. In other words, I cannot overstress the sensitivity of the material that is contained within those laboratory walls down there in New Mexico, nor can I overstress the responsibility, the high respect of these individuals who are given the utmost trust by the citizens of the United States of America to work in that laboratory. These citizens, they know exactly what they are dealing with. These scientists, these experts, these professionals, and every one of them is a professional. They know it. Of all 250 million or 300 million people in the United States and of all the hundreds of millions of people in the world, they alone down there have their hands on what is considered the most destructive weapons in the history of mankind. They alone down there, while they are in that laboratory, many of them have access that is entrusted to no other citizens in the United States outside of a handful, like the President of the United States, certain Members of Congress, certain Members of the Senate and so on and so forth. In other words, what we are dealing with is our entire design plan of our thermonuclear weapons. This is not what you call a missile- light or a criminal-light matter. During my career, I am not sure in my career of Congress I have ever witnessed a crime that I think is more of a threat to the national security of the United States but also a threat to the entire world. I want to point to my colleagues I am not sure I have ever witnessed a more clever defense design to take an individual who the facts will reveal intentionally and very methodically transferred these nuclear secrets. It is amazing to me that that kind of individual can get the kind of spin by our national media to play this situation into pointing it out like he is the victim, like somehow he innocently transferred these; that, in fact, all he was trying to do was build up his resume. He thought it would be impressive to have a library of the world's most sensitive thermonuclear weapons. Let us go through some of the facts. Wen Ho Lee worked for the X Division at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The X Division, and that is important to remember, this is the top secret division, the X Division is responsible for the research, design and development of thermonuclear weapons; and it requires the highest level of security of any division at Los Alamos. This week I intend to go into even more depth in this case with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), who used to be, by the way, a U.S. Attorney. He is an expert I think in prosecution, and it will be interesting to have his comments in regards to the Los Alamos lab and what level we can consider this breach of security. The X Division scientists, and that is what Wen Ho Lee was, he is an X Division scientist. Now the scientist most familiar with the downloaded information would have testified that Wen Ho Lee took every, not some, not a little here, not a little there, every significant piece of information to which a nuclear designer would want access. It gets worse. Before Wen Ho Lee created these tapes, only two sites in the world held this complete design portfolio, the secure computer inside the highest security division at Los Alamos and the secure computer system inside the highest security division in another one of our national laboratories. Now, this is what one of the defenses they are using is that, look, accidents happen, poor Wen Ho Lee was in there working on his computer. He was a computer buff, kind of a computer geek; and as he is working it by accident he happens to transfer a couple hundred thousand pages, pretty soon 300,000, pretty soon 400,000 pages of thermonuclear weapons from a classified position to a nonclassified position, from a nonclassified position to the computer at his desk. I will walk through those steps, and we will see why it takes a methodical and well thought out process to complete what Wen Ho Lee did to do what he did. Let us go on. It is not a simple task for Wen Ho Lee to move files from the closed to the open system. The CFS tracking system reveals that Wen Ho Lee spent hours unsuccessfully trying to move the classified files into unclassified space; eventually, Wen Ho Lee worked his way around what was designed to be a cumbersome process. In other words, here is what is going on. The computer with the thermonuclear secrets accounts is here, and contained within that computer are documents which are an entire library on thermonuclear weapons; and when I say our entire library, it is the research. It is the construction. It is the impact, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In order for one to move a document from this top secret computer, you have to declassify it, because if the document is classified top secret, you cannot move it from that computer to a nonclassified computer. So the first step that you need to take is you need to take these documents that are classified top secret, and you need to declassify them to a declassified document. And what this is saying right here is that in order to do that, we wanted to make sure we had a fail-safe system. In a fail-safe system, we wanted to make the process very cumbersome. In other words, it took a lot of study; it took a lot of processes to get through it. It had several what you might call barriers built into the computer programming, so that you could not automatically or by accident hit a button and classify a document from classified to nonclassified or from secret to nonsecret. So when Wen Ho Lee went through this, it took him hours to figure out the system, how do I move it from classified to nonclassified. He studied it and eventually he mastered it. And that is what he did. He first moved it from the top secret computer, changed the classification of the documents; then moved the documents to his other computer at his desk, because they can move his unclassified documents and put them on to his personal computer and who knows where those secrets are today. Although, there are many suspicions of where those secrets are today. Let us go on. Wen Ho Lee worked to command the computer to declassify the files when he was well aware that the files contained some of the most sensitive information at Los Alamos, and this process over here just kind of tells us what was necessary. First, you had to have an input deck, file information. Now this information was a blueprint of the exact dimensions and the geometry of the Nation's nuclear weapons, including our most successful modern warheads. The data files included nuclear bomb testing protocol, nuclear weapons bomb test problems, information related to physical and radioactive properties. And the source codes included data used for determination by simulation the validity of nuclear weapon designs. So the information that Wen Ho Lee worked with on his computer, he knew, he knew how secret that information was. He knew exactly what keys that information provided for somebody who wanted to get their hands on it to build their own nuclear arsenal. Yet, he continued over a period of time, and I am going to show us some of the interesting facts about that period of time. He went over a period of time and continued to declassify top secret material for the sole purpose of transferring it out of that computer into his own computer and copying it into his own personal library, which now he has. We do not know where those documents are. Before we go further, let me point out that it has been very easy to criticize the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They were the lead investigator here. The Department of Justice, Janet Reno, as I said, in fact, in my discussions with Al this weekend, my constituent that I visited with, in my discussions, he reminded me of how critical I had been of the Federal Bureau of Investigation with Ruby Ridge. I think Ruby Ridge and the conduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation was a shame. I think it was shameful. They know it was shameful. I think it was unfortunate that some of the people who were involved with the FBI who did wrong ended up with promotions. I have had disagreements with Janet Reno, the Attorney General. Although I am an ex-police officer, I am not coming in here with a bias in favor of the FBI. I am not coming in here with a basis in favor of Janet Reno. I am coming in here, I believe, well studied in the facts; and I am telling my colleagues do not let them divert Wen Ho Lee's activity and his behavior by putting the blame on Louis Freeh, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Do not let them divert from the facts what Wen Ho Lee did by bringing Janet Reno into the equation and saying for some reason she misbehaved. The facts are clear in this case. I am going to present some more to you. Let us go on further. It is critical to understand it; and I think this is so important, so important, for us to pay attention to. It is so critical to understand that Wen Ho Lee's conduct was not inadvertent. It was not careless, and it was not innocent. Over a period of years, Lee used an elaborate scheme to move the equivalent of 400,000 pages of extremely sensitive nuclear weapons files from a secure part of the Los Alamos computer system to an unclassified, unsecure part of the system, which could be accessed from outside of Los Alamos, indeed, from anywhere in the world. In fact, at one point Lee attempted to access that from overseas. He could not quite get the connection down, so he contacted the computer help system, which had a tracer on it, and in asking for help on the computer, how do I do this, I am not being successful in transferring in this country, I believe he was over in Taiwan. In order to achieve his ends, Wen Ho Lee had to override default mechanisms that were designed to prevent any accidental or inadvertent movement of these files. His downloading process consumed approximately 40 hours of 70 different days. Do not let people tell you he did it by accident. There are default mechanisms built into this computer program. You have to go around it. You have to go under it. You have to go above it. You have to go sideways. There are a lot of computer safeguards placed in there, so somebody who is handling this sensitive material cannot inadvertently send it to a computer system where it can be accessed around the world. His behavior was not inadvertent. It was not careless, and it was not innocent. Let us go on. Nor was this all. Wen Ho Lee carefully and methodically removed classification markings from documents. He attempted repeatedly to enter secure areas of Los Alamos after his access had been revoked, including one attempt at 3:30 in the morning on Christmas Eve. Think about that, how many people would attempt to get into a top secret part of a lab at 3:30 in the morning on Christmas Eve; in the morning, a.m., 3:30 a.m. on Christmas Eve? Oh, what a coincidence, he just happened to stumble down to the top secret portion of the lab and try to gain access through a starewell. He deleted files in an attempt to cover his tracks before he was caught. As soon as he found out the FBI was on him, as soon as he failed a lie detector test, as soon as he figured out that the computer was tracking him, he began immediately to delete files. He tried to cover his tracks, not by an accidental push of the button, of the keyboard, but by an intentional, well-designed method to delete not only his current files, but delete any record of those files ever being made at all. Wen Ho Lee created his own secret, portable electronic library of this Nation's nuclear weapons secrets. So first he took them out of the top secret computer, moves them to a nonclassified computer, where he can then access them from his own computer. In fact, anyone in the world could access those secrets. He stood before a Federal court judge, admitted his wrongdoing, and pleaded guilty to a felony. Contrary to some reports, there is nothing minor or insignificant about that crime. The restricted data that Wen Ho Lee downloaded into 10 portable computer tapes included, and keep this in mind, it included the electronic blueprint of the exact dimensions and geometry of this Nation's nuclear weapons. These are just some of the steps that are required to access, for him to go in there. First of all, he has to log into a secure computer system by entering a password, and not only enter a password, you have to put a Z number in behind it. Then you have to access data in red partition, then type save, then you go CL-LU, classified level included unclassified. So look at the steps we already have so far. Then you have to access C machine and type commands to download partition from secure partition to open Rho machine. Then you have to access that machine. Then you have to log into a colleague's computer outside of the x division. Then you have to access the open directory and copy the files. My point in all of that is that there were numerous steps that Wen Ho Lee took to obtain from all of us, from all of the citizens of the United States, to obtain our highest secrets, in dereliction, not only dereliction of his duty, that is too light, but in my sense, a betrayal. I do not think I am using too strong a word. Anybody that would go in with those kinds of secrets, with those kinds of weapons, and would intentionally transfer the information of those weapons so that it can be accessed elsewhere, and we do not know where most of those tapes are, by the way, Mr. Lee has not cooperated, he has not told us where those are the tapes are, tell me that is not a betrayal in the highest form. I think it is. I think it is disgraceful. Let us go through this. Make no mistake about the scope of this offense and the danger that it presents to our Nation's security. Make no mistake about the scope of this offense and the danger it presents to our society. As an expert from Los Alamos testified in this case, the material that was downloaded and copied by Wen Ho Lee represented the complete nuclear weapons design capability of Los Alamos at that time, approximately 50 years of nuclear development. Mr. Speaker, for those who have been kind of coming in and out, following me a little here and there, this will bring Members entirely up to speed, this one paragraph. And make no mistake about it, the scope of this offense and the danger it presents to our Nation's security, as an expert from Los Alamos testified in this case, the material downloaded and copied by Wen Ho Lee represented the complete nuclear weapons design capability of Los Alamos at that time, approximately 50 years of nuclear development. They had an expert come in and testify, a Dr. Younger, and tell us exactly what he thought was the extent of the material that Wen Ho Lee transferred. Please, please, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to listen very carefully to this. ``These codes and their associated databases and the input file, combined with someone that knew how to use them, could, in my opinion, in the wrong hands, change the global strategic balance.'' In other words, if these get into the wrong hands, and we know they are out there now, we know that the secrecy has been broken by Wen Ho Lee, that in betrayal to his country he has copied those and moved those out into that world, and that if somebody gets those who knows what they are doing, it could change the global strategic balance. ``They enable the possessor to design the only objects,'' ``They enable the possessor to design the only objects that could result in the military defeat of America's conventional weapons;'' the only threat, for example, to our carrier battle groups. ``They represent the gravest possible security risk to the United States,'' what the President and most other presidents have described as the supreme national interest of the United States. Look at that sentence, Mr. Speaker. Just look at that. ``They represent the gravest possible security risk to the United States.'' They represent the gravest possible security risk to our country, to our constituents. In fact, if it is a security risk to the United States, it is a security risk to our friends throughout the world. One individual, one individual, has done this much damage. Yet, our national media, some of our media, portrays him as a picked-upon victim. Some of our national media decides to focus on the FBI or on Janet Reno and kind of shove it aside, just brush it aside, as if it is a minor traffic ticket, what Wen Ho Lee has done to this country? Where is the justice here? Now, some will say, okay, you made some pretty strong statements, Congressman. Really, what do you have to point out? Show us a little more detail. Let me give kind of a chronological chart. I think at the end of this chart Members will be very amazed, very interested in the innocence of Wen Ho Lee. A chronological events or a calendar of events between December 23, 1998, and February 10, 1999. Let us take a look at these. This is on December 23rd, 1998, on Wednesday. At 2:18, they completed the polygraph of Wen Ho Lee. At 5 o'clock, approximately 5 o'clock, Wen Ho Lee is advised that his access to the secure areas of the X division, remembering that the X division is the top secret area, and to both his secure and open X division computer accounts has been suspended. So about 5 o'clock they told Wen Ho Lee, ``Your privileges, your permission, your ability to go into any of these secret areas is hereby suspended.'' So there should be no question that Wen Ho Lee knew that he was attempting to get into areas he was not supposed to be into, that he was specifically prohibited from entering. At 9:36 that night, and by the way, way past his shift, Lee makes four attempts to enter the secure area of X division through a stairwell, up through stairwell number 2, and makes four attempts to get into the secure area. At 9:39, approximately 3 minutes later, he tries another access point through the south elevator and attempts to enter the secure area. On December 24, at 3:31 in the morning, he is back again, once again through the south stairwell number 2, which by the way, as you know, Christmas Eve, he attempts to enter the secure area of the X division. On January 4, on Monday at 9:42, Lee succeeds in having his open computer account reactivated, and deletes three computer files. On January 12, 1999, he deletes one computer file. On January 17, 1999, between 1 and 5, they interview Lee at his residence. The very next day Lee, in an attempt to cover his tracks, deletes 47 computer files. The following day Lee goes to the computer desk and asks for help, why he is not able to successfully delete these files to hide his tracks. At 10:46, he attempts to enter the secure area again, this time through stairwell number 3. On January 30 at 2:54, Los Alamos officials deactivate Lee's open computer account and secure area of X division after discovering that it has been improperly reactivated. So they deactivate it and oh, what a coincidence, here is Wen Ho Lee attempting on several times to go through, to go up through a stairwell or elevators to gain access to an area that he had been specifically and openly and he acknowledged having no right to go into. The next thing you know, they also say, we are also taking your computer access away. Somehow, just like he was able to move classified documents to nonclassified documents, somehow he is now able to reactivate his computer access to the top secret area, so they deactivate it. At 4:52, not long after they detected his computer has all of a sudden been reactivated, at 4:52 he attempts to enter the secure area, this time through a south door. On February 2 at 9:42 in the morning he attempts to enter the secure area of X division through the south door. A little after 1 o'clock he attempts again through the south door. About 2 o'clock he makes four attempts to enter the X division, again through the south door. On February 8, they contacted him and asked to meet with him to discuss conducting interview and a polygraphs. Shortly thereafter, he once again attempts to enter the secret division, this time through stairwell number 2. Between 4 and 6 they meet with him. They arrange to have the polygraph. Shortly after he arranges to have another polygraph with the FBI, he once again attempts through the south door to enter into the access of the X division. On February 9, Lee deletes approximately 93 computer files. The FBI interviews him at 1 o'clock that day and they obtain his permission to undergo a polygraph. At 9:03 that night he is back again at the lab and once again he is trying to access through the south door. On February 10, he undergoes the polygraph. Immediately after the polygraph, he deletes 310 computer files. Once again later that evening he attempts to enter the secure area of the X division through the south door. Mr. Speaker, these are hard facts. It is simple to figure out what is going on here. It would be an injustice to our citizens, it would be an injustice to the national security of our country, it would be an injustice to the global strategic balance of this world, to just look the other way and dismiss this as a minor altercation by a scientist who wants to build his resume. There is a lot to look at here. For gosh sakes, do not take for granted what this individual was attempting to do. Do not ignore the fact, despite the fact that there are many national publications that want to play this off as a race card, want to play it off as an innocent mistake, want to play it off as kind of an accidental scientist who kind of bumbles around, doesn't have a lot of common sense, and wanted to build his own library for his personal enjoyment, the fact is we have suffered a major loss in this country. We know who is responsible for this major loss. Every newspaper and every critic of the FBI and every critic of Janet Reno has an obligation to stand up. That is not to say they should not criticize our law enforcement agencies if they misbehave, but it is to say that in that criticism, do not let it overshadow or in such a way divert them away from what has occurred and the victims of what has occurred. Wen Ho Lee is not the victim in this case, it is us, the citizens of the United States. It is those thermonuclear secrets. Where are they today? Mr. Wen Ho Lee had many opportunities to cooperate with the FBI. He makes it sound like he was really cooperating. He did not cooperate. For months he would not say anything. He lied to the FBI until they showed him the evidence. Then he changed his stories. He and his defense attorneys did not know the kind of evidence that the FBI had. Now all of a sudden these tapes, he just lost them. He is not sure what happened to them. He is a convicted felon now, and part of the agreement is he has to disclose. But do we think we can trust him? Let me point out one other thing that I found of some interest. In some of the newspaper articles that I saw, I noted that they said Wen Ho Lee was taken like a prisoner of war in some Third World country and he was isolated, put in shackles. He was not allowed to see people. He was abused. Even the President of the United States, in a comment of his policy, questioned whether or not, is this guy a victim? Come on. Let us take a look at his imprisonment. I got this out. We would like to emphasize, we sought to be responsive to complaints brought to our attention by Wen Ho Lee's attorneys concerning the conditions of his confinement. I want to go ahead and get this out. This is not an issue. Let us just look at it and throw it out. For example, we arranged a Mandarin language speaking FBI agent to be present so Wen Ho Lee could speak to his family in that language. Similarly, we made special food arrangements for Wen Ho Lee. We arranged for exercise on weekends, and we built at significant government expense a special secure facility in the courthouse where he could consult with his lawyers and where, in fact, he spent up to 6 hours per day on over 90 days of his incarceration. In numerous respects, then, Wen Ho Lee was treated better than others who were held in an administrative segregation at this facility. This is Director Freeh. Let me be clear about some misconceptions. Wen Ho Lee was held in solitary while in the facility; but as I have noted, in fact, he spent a good part of over 90 days outside the facility with his lawyer. He was not shackled in his cell but only when he was transported or otherwise outside his cell, as were others in similar circumstances. So this picture they are trying to give us of some individual who was shackled and put in isolation, one, he was in isolation, but he had access to his family, he had access to his attorneys. Sure his outside communication was confined because he will not tell us where the tapes are. He will not tell us who he has communicated to. He will not tell us if he has given those thermonuclear secrets to the Chinese, for God's sakes. Well, of course we are going to treat him with some concern. But the only time he had shackles on is when, like any other prisoner, he was transferred from location to location. As the Director of the FBI noted, he even got special treatment. He had a special facility built for him. During the first 90 days of his incarceration, he spent 6 hours a day with his lawyers. And it goes on. To claim that a light was kept on in his cell, that is another claim. They said, well, he had a light over his cell that was never turned off. We would like to point out that this claim first surfaced, so far as we are aware, after the plea. To the best of our knowledge, no complaint was made to us through Wen Ho Lee's lawyers about the lighting condition in his cell. Significantly, we informed Wen Ho Lee's attorneys that we would respond to any reasonable request regarding the conditions of his confinement. So this light deal, about him being in a cell with just a single light he could not turn off, that did not even arise as a complaint until after he plea bargained, when the public relations effort began by the defense attorneys, when the public relations effort began by this, I guess, this individual's friends. Some of the coverage I have seen, it made me think, oh, my gosh, maybe we ought to put background music on, tie a yellow ribbon around that tree. You know, one feels sorry. He has done his time. He is coming home. Let me tell my colleagues something, this could not be the furthest from that. This man has transferred the most sensitive secrets in the history of this country. And for our national media, not all our national media, but for some of our national media to treat this as if he is the victim, as if our authority, as if our government is somehow overstepping its bounds to come down on an individual who has taken these types of secrets with the kind of evidence that we have, and obviously he has now acknowledged it, is in itself an injustice. So it comes back to the basic question. My colleagues heard the facts tonight, the facts as given by sworn testimony, by the Director of the FBI, by Janet Reno. The evidence is hard evidence. This is not circumstantial evidence. This is not evidence that is imagined. This is evidence that, in fact, Wen Ho Lee himself admitted to some of it when he plead guilty to this felony. Now, some people said, well, gosh, there were 59 charges. Why did they drop 58 of them? It is pretty simple why they dropped 58, because in order to pursue the 58 charges, they had to make further disclosure of national secrets. So it was the opinion of the FBI and of the Department of Justice and the other individuals involved that it was better to get him on one charge than have to disclose any more secrets, especially since we do not know to what extent Wen Ho Lee allowed other individuals to put their hands on the material that he had taken from our secret labs. So the question comes back, who is the victim? I hope that, after my discussion with my colleagues this evening, that on the answer to that question, this is not even considered as one of your multiple choices; that the only multiple choice you have, and you volunteer to take it, is that it was the United States of America who was the victim in this case, that it is the citizens of the United States of America who are the victims in this case, that it is the future generations of this country who have become the victim of one individual who absconded with American secrets, who, held in the highest level of trust by his fellow citizens in this country, betrayed his citizens, who went in and in a methodical process transferred, first of all, changed ``top secret'' classification to ``nonsecret'' classification, and then put it out to his own computer. This is an individual who was evasive, who did not tell the truth on occasion, who, through his attorneys, tried to mislead the FBI, who went out on his own and went into the computer and tried to cover his tracks, who on numerous occasions, as I went over, tried to get back into an area of the lab, the secure part of the lab where he knew he was denied, he was not allowed those privileges anymore. And you tell me who is the victim. It is clear to me, and it ought to be clear to my colleagues, and I am pretty sure it is going to be clear to their constituents that the victim here is us. So keep that in mind as my colleagues hear further information on Wen Ho lie. In conclusion of these remarks, let me say that later this week I hope I have the opportunity to sit down with Bob Barr. I have asked Bob Barr, and Bob and I had a lengthy discussion about this, about the policies and what a U.S. attorney looks at, what kind of evidence the government looks for, and why the government, I am going to be very interested in what Mr. Barr has to say, about why the government at times is not allowed to pursue charges because they would have to reveal secrets, and the pluses and the minuses and what kind of thought process goes into that. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a responsibility of ours when we go on this recess to go out to our constituents and be fully informed on this case. This case obviously has had devastating impacts so far, and it could be much, much more severe. We need to know what we are talking about. We need to have the facts at hand. So I think the subsequent discussions that I have with Mr. Barr on this floor will also be of some benefit to my colleagues as they go out and visit with their constituents as to what occurred and what did not occur with Wen Ho Lee at the Los Alamos labs.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with immense sadness that I take this moment to honor the remarkable life of Mike Chesnick. For two decades, Mike served the community of Grand Junction, Colorado with valor and distinction, retiring as Chief of Police in 1974. He was a role model for his community and an example of what a police officer can and should strive to be. As family, friends, and fellow officers remember this great American, I would like to take this time to honor this truly remarkable human being. Chief Chesnick began his distinguished career of service to America when he joined the 10th Mountain Division in 1946, where he served in Italy and Austria during WWII. After returning a proud veteran and serving his county well, he began his illustrious career in law enforcement. In 1954 he joined the Grand Junction Police Department as a patrolman. His remarkable intellect and outstanding leadership abilities rapidly shot him up the ranks of the department. In 1961, he was promoted to Sergeant and in 1966 he began his role as Chief. Chief Chesnick's leadership was well respected and inspired other officers under his leadership to serve with dedication, dignity and integrity. Beyond his widely regarded efforts as a police officer, Mike also worked with a number of other community based organizations, including the local Elk's Lodge where he was a lifetime member. Chief Chesnick served his community, State, and Nation admirably and he his service at home and abroad was an inspiration to us all. Mr. Speaker, as a former police officer, I ask that we take this time to honor an individual that has set the standard for excellence as a member of the law enforcement community. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress, I would like to thank Chief Chesnick for his immeasurable service to his community. His leadership and compassion went far beyond the line of duty and his memory will long live in the hearts of all that knew him. Mike Chesnick will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to honor the life of the Honorable James D. ``Mike'' McKevitt. Congressman McKevitt recently passed away after a sudden heart attack at the age of 71. His devotion to helping others was remarkable and he will be greatly missed. As family, friends, and colleagues mourn the loss of this remarkable statesman, I would like to pay honor to his service to this great nation. Congressman McKevitt spent his youth in Spokane, Washington, before deciding to attend the University of Idaho. When it came time for young Americans to serve their nation in battle, Congressman McKevitt did just that, serving admirably and with distinction in the Korean War with the United States Air Force. After graduating from the University of Denver with a Law Degree, Congressman McKevitt began his distinguished political career as Denver District Attorney in 1967. He went on to win reelection the following year and served two more years before running for Congress. In 1970 he was elected to represent the 1st Congressional District of Colorado in the United States House of Representatives. Although Congressman McKevitt only served one term in Congress, his career in public service was far from over. In 1973, he became Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, under President Nixon. He soon moved on to becoming Council to the Energy Policy Office in the White House. After serving his country in these important capacities, he moved on to the private sector where he became head of the Washington Office of the National Federation of Independent Business, where he worked for over a decade. While serving our country in many different ways, Congressman McKevitt experienced a number of successes. But his greatest accomplishment is one that he held very dear to his heart: the Korean War Memorial. Congressman McKevitt is credited with being one of the driving forces behind getting the legislation passed in order for the memorial to be constructed. His devotion to this project was so evident that it soon caught the attention of President Reagan, who acted quickly and appointed the Congressman to a position on the Advisory Board. Congressman McKevitt served his community, State and Country admirably. His dedication and devotion to serving his fellow citizens was truly remarkable. He was a truly great American and his many accomplishments will live on in the hearts of all who knew him. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress, I ask that we now pay tribute to this remarkable human being. He may be gone, but his spirit of service and sacrifice will live on for years to come.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize a woman who has exemplified extraordinary dedication to philanthropic work, my friend, Morley C. Ballantine who currently serves as editor and chairman of the Durango Herald. Recently, Morley was awarded the high honor of being named Colorado's ``Outstanding Philanthropist'' by the Governor's Commission on National Community Service and the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy, in recognition of her support for a whole array of charitable and humanitarian based institutions. Morley's robust efforts to make her community, state and nation a better place make her more than deserving of this distinction. Morley was chosen for the prestigious award out of over 100 nominations. Morley was nominated by four different individuals for this distinguished honor and was selected as the winner by a committee of 50. The reasons Morley was chosen are many. Over the years, Morley has not only consistently given of her financial resources, but she has also actively participated in a host of activities geared toward helping her community and fellow man. In 1987, she helped start the Women's Resource Center in Durango, and is also a founding member of the Colorado Women's Foundation. In addition, she served on the state commission on the Status of Women, local and state League of Women's Voters' boards, local arts and library boards, the state Anti- Discrimination Commission, the Colorado Land Use Commission and the state National Historic Preservation. This, friends and colleagues, is a truly remarkable legacy of service. It's a legacy that Morley should be proud of. Morley's dedication and devotion to philanthropic causes both great and small is truly worthy of our praise. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress, I would like to thank Morley for her incredible efforts to benefit her community, and congratulate her on the much deserved award. We are proud of Morley and grateful for her service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise to pay tribute to a true American hero, Dan Aguilar of Vail, Colorado. Dan has been awarded the Silver Plaque International Alpine Solidarity Award, given to individuals who have risked their lives to save others in dangerous mountain accidents. Dan is a well-known mountain rescuer who deserves both the admiration and praise of this body. Dan grew up in Dallas, Texas, where he resided for 18 years. After graduating from Crozier Tech High School, he served in the US Army in Vietnam for four years. Upon returning to the United States, he moved to Vail where he began his now renowned career in mountain rescue. Dan's love for the mountains has seen him travel the globe and conquer the most dangerous alpine trails in the world. What's more, his mountain climbing adventures have taken him to Mexico, Ecuador, Alaska and Argentina. But it is not his accomplishments as a climber or mountain biker that have earned him this prestigious award, but rather it is his courage as a mountain rescuer. In the early 1980's, Dan suffered the crushing loss of a dear friend that completely changed his view of climbing. For some time he was unable to even fathom climbing again, but this experience eventually drove him to the line of work that has made him a living legend. He has been a member of the Vail Mountain Rescue Group in the nearly two decades since. For Dan, saving the life of another seems to come naturally. In fact, this most recent award is not the first time he has received recognition for his devotion to helping others. Last year he was awarded the Mountain Rescue Association's Outstanding Individual Service Award. In all, it is estimated that Dan has been involved in around 500 different rescue missions, since his involvement with Mountain Rescue. His advanced rescue skills have also been utilized in rescues on Mt. Rainier in Washington, the Premiers in Russia, and the Aconcogua in South America. Dan's dedication and incredible compassion to help others have earned him a legendary reputation and the admiration of people around the world. According to Tim Cochrane, a fellow member of Mountain Rescue, in a recent article in The Vail Daily by Tamara Miller: ``Aguilar is the first volunteer rescuer in North America to win the award.'' Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress I congratulate Dan on this distinguished and well-deserved award. He is a great American who deserves our gratitude and praise. Dan, your community, State, and Nation are proud of you!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to honor a remarkable human being, George Manzanares. George was a recent recipient of the Daily Point of Light Award. This award is given to individuals and groups that ``make a positive and lasting difference in the lives of others''. The Daily Point of Light Foundation presents one award each day of the year and George is one of only four Coloradans to receive this prestigious and well deserved award. George is being honored with this award for his work with George's Independent Boxing Club, which he has run off and on for almost two decades. He founded the organization in Durango, his hometown, as a way to provide children with an alternative way to focus their extracurricular activities. The original club was shut down in 1981, but because of George's tremendous efforts, he was able to open another club in Ignacio, Colorado in 1994, where it now has 17 active members. George has always focused his energies in bettering his community. His work as the Executive Director of the Southern Ute Community Action Program is just one of the many organizations he has been a part of. Through George's hard work and determination he has helped the lives of hundreds of children by teaching them healthy lifestyle alternatives. George Manzanares' work, through his boxing club and other activities in the community, have ensured that Southern Colorado's youth will have an active and successful future. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress I would like to congratulate Mr. Manzanares on this outstanding accomplishment as well as thank him for his commitment to America's youth.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to honor the considerable achievements of Mark Pearson. Mark recently received recognition at Wilderness 2000, a conference on wilderness issues, honoring him for his dedicated work in the wilderness field. Mark began the work that he is now well known for when he attended the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he was an active member of the CU Wilderness Study Group. This group studied public lands issues in Colorado, examining particularly important areas and then forming copious data into field reports. The reports that were done under Mark's supervision were so thorough and so well done that they soon became a guide of sorts for wilderness enthusiasts. Upon graduating from CU, Mark went on to attend Colorado State University where he graduated with a masters degree in Public Land Management. His undergraduate and masters work enabled him to become the well-respected wilderness expert that he is today. Before working with the Colorado Wilderness Network, Mark worked with a number of different environmental groups. He has been an active member of the Colorado Environmental Coalition, the Sierra Club, as well as working for the Wilderness Land Trust. His expertise in Forestry and public land management soon landed him a job with Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell as a public lands staffer. His knowledge of and leadership on wilderness issues is now being utilized by San Juan Citizens Alliance, where he is currently employed. Mark has been a leading member of the wilderness community for over two decades. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress, I would like to congratulate Mark on his well-deserved award.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Of course, as the gentleman knows, the person that has enough guts to get out of the fox hole usually draws the fire but somebody has to get out of it and somebody has to lead the charge. I commend the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to continue, I have about 16 minutes left. I am just going to comment for a few minutes about a speech that I want to make next week in regards to Social Security. It is unfortunate. It is reality, I face it, and it is just natural. It is inherent with the system that we have, but we have a general election coming up here in about 5 weeks or 6 weeks, and unfortunately, a lot of the good ideas, ideas that require bipartisan support, bipartisan coalition building get drowned out by some of the impacts of an election and by the advertising. I want to tell my colleagues that several months ago, I had the opportunity to go down to Texas. I went to law school in Texas. I have a great fondness for that state, and I was able to sit down with their governor, George W. Bush, and we talked a little about Social Security. We talked about the threat to future generations. And next week, I intend to expound on what I think is a solution, a solution that has been drowned out in this election process, a solution that George W. Bush parallels, a commitment that he feels very importantly about, because of the fact he is running for President, because he has proposed it as a part of this program instead of a methodological analysis and thoughtful analysis of what he is saying, people say it is a risky scheme. We hear people that say stay with the status quo. Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell my colleagues that tonight we cannot stay with the status quo of Social Security. Social Security is in trouble. It is not in trouble today. It is not going to be in trouble for my generation, my generation and the generations ahead of me, they are okay. We are going to get our benefits. Mr. Speaker, where it is going to be in trouble is the generations we ought to be worrying about, the generation behind me, my children. And at some point in time, my children's children. And we have a fiduciary responsibility to make Social Security a system that is sound from a fiscal point of view. Today Social Security has more cash coming in than it has going out; that is called a cash basis. It has a positive cash flow. But if we take a look at the actuarial numbers, actuarial meaning that while the cash is coming in today, that cash is earmarked for future obligations. So we get the cash today, but we do not have to spend it for a while. It is coming in today, our younger generations are contributing. My son and my two daughters are contributing to this Social Security system, with the expectation that they will have some return on their money, but without really the knowledge of that on an actuarial basis. Social Security is going to be bankrupt; we have that obligation to go forward. It got there for several reasons, and I thought this evening I would just go over, with the time I have remaining, how Social Security got in trouble and why some of it frankly is good news. You know, when Social Security first came into place in 1935, we had 42 workers, 42 workers for every person that was retired. Forty-two workers here working and generating and putting cash into the Social Security system up here, which was distributing to one worker; 42 to 1 was the ratio. Today we have three workers over here contributing to the cash system up here distributing to one retired person here, so ratio is from 42 to 1 down to 3 to 1. And in the next 10 to 15 years it is going to be 2 to 1, and if we are not careful, in about 25 years, it is going to be 1 to 1. How does a system sustain itself? Well, first of all, the first thing if we look at a system and we are trying to figure out how do we address future obligations, the first thing we need to do is figure out is this system working today? Do we have a sound, economic, smooth- running machine in that Social Security system? If we do not, do we have to oil it? Do we have to replace some parts? What do we have to do? The facts are clear. The facts are clear. The Social Security machine is broken. Now, it is still not working, but it is not working at the kind of capacity that will be needed to supply what is necessary for those future generations. Now, there are some of the reasons Social Security got in trouble; one I just went over with you, the retirement ratio; the second one is good news for all of us. When Social Security was first put into place, women could expect to live to be an average of 65 years old and the man could expect to live to probably an age of 61. Today that is well into the 70s for both sexes. So we have had an extended life span, a lot in regards to improvement in our life-styles, like trying to get rid of smoking, a lot of it in regards to our health care system and the new products and the new medicines and the new machines, premature babies used to die in the past, today we can save them. There is lots of medical technology that has extended the life span, but, unfortunately, in the Social Security system, this machine that we have did not have a part in it that worked faster when people live longer. In fact, it worked at the same speed and enabled us to produce more, because we had more people living to a longer age to an older age. This part of the machine had to generate. It had to work faster. It is not working faster. In fact, it is working and producing at the same rate that it did 35 years ago, when people would live to 61 in the case of a male or 65 in the case of a female. Mr. Speaker, we have to do something about that. And the other thing is that the Social Security system, and this is politics, it happens everywhere in the world, it happened in the history of the world, political bodies have a difficult time saying no to consumers that want something for nothing. As time goes on, we have some good sound programs. By the way, when they want something for nothing, it is not that the program sounds bad, you know, the survivor's benefits or some of these other benefit programs that we have had, Social Security, SSI, things like this, they come to this body with a good sounding program and, in fact, sometimes they are great programs, but nobody really stood up and had the guts to say but can we afford it? I know I am going to be the most unpopular person up here. But slow it down, can we afford it? And over a period of time, we have indebted this country to further obligations through Social Security. Some of those additional liabilities that we picked up were justified. But if we are going to pick up an additional liability, we have to go to the other side of the ledger. Any of us that have basic accounting, and almost all of us have, we know any time we have a debit, we have a credit; any time we have a credit, we have to have a debit, except when it gets to the politics. The politics just continues to put on and put on one side of the ledger, and it continues to put obligations on one side of the ledger without figuring out on the other side of the ledger how we are going to pay for it. So we have got to figure out a program. When I had my discussions with George W. Bush, and why I am excited about that conversation and why I think it is imperative to bring it up, is because I think the merits of this program are being drowned out by the rhetoric that we have heard out there on the election trail. What is important about the program is, first of all, for our future generation, we have to have a program that is voluntary, not being in Social Security, we have to be in Social Security, but it is your choice. We want to offer people some choice. I happen to think, and most of us happen to think, the generations behind us, they are very capable, they are the brightest generations this world has ever known, my kids, that generation, they can make good decisions on personal choice. They ought to have some more choice on how their investment or a portion of their investment in Social Security, where they put it. It should be voluntary for them. And you know what? They should pick up some property rights with their Social Security investment. What I mean by that is, if they die, they ought to be able to pass on to their family the benefits that over their working career they had accumulated. This is the kind of program we need to have. Guess what? As you will find out from my comments next week, this is not a new program. It is not a new invention. We are not plowing new ground. In fact, there is a program that is almost as identical and we have test marketed it, we have. We have actually gone out and test marketed an alternative to Social Security, an addition to Social Security that gives people choice, that is voluntary, allows people to take a higher risk or lower risk, higher return or lower return. Do you know what happened in our test market survey? Eighty-five percent of the people that we put into the test market are in it. They like it. They voluntarily signed up and they are staying in the program. In fact, we are growing our numbers in this test market. Now, where is this, you say. Wait a minute, Scott, what are you talking about? Where is this test you are talking about? What kind of retirement system are you talking about as an alternative or as a way to improve Social Security? It is our retirement. It is our retirement, the U.S. Congress. It is the retirement of every Federal employee, 3 million people are in this test market. It is a program called the Thrift Savings Program. Every Federal Government employee on a voluntary basis can take a percentage of their salary every month and have it matched by the Federal Government to the extent of 5 percent, and they then exercise the choice of where they want that money to go, whether they want to put it into high risk stock market, which usually brings a higher return, or whether they want to put it into a lower risk bond market or they want to put it into a guaranteed no loss savings account. And you know what happens if they die, if a Federal employee dies? They get to pass it on to the next family member. So the answer is, wow, it is working. The participants in the program are satisfied with the program. The program allows benefits to continue beyond their death to their family. The program funds itself. You know what the returns are, take a look at the returns that Social Security has today. Here is the returns from my generation on Social Security, less than 1 percent, and what if we do not change this system, this system is going to produce a return of less than 1 percent. Your certificate of deposit was 0 risk, returns, almost a little over 5 percent, and your government bonds return 7 percent. Social Security takes your dollars and gives you less than a 1 percent return. And by the way, there is no guarantee of safety. So what I am saying here is, next week I intend to go into much more detail, but I think the American people deserve to know that their government employees have an alternative system. Now we still participate in Social Security. Do not believe that stuff you see on the Internet that we are exempt, we do not have to; we participate in Social Security, but we have this additional benefit, and it works. It is good. It provides a return. So next week, I am going to go into a little more detail on that and why I think that George W. Bush's approach is look, stand up. I think it is a bold approach, and any time you make a bold approach, you are going to get criticized because a lot of people are comfortable with the status quo, but the status quo ain't going to hunt, it is a dog that is not going to hunt. So we need to have change, and we need to have a plan that is going to work. So what we ask the American people and in this discussion I had with George W. Bush several months ago, when we go to the American people, look, they are relying on this, we have to give them a product that has been test marketed. We have the product that has been test marketed. We know it works. So why resist it. Well, right now the resistance comes in because of politics. We have an election. So they do not dare. One side does not dare say to the other side, well, that is a good program; that might work. We have got a good program here, and I look forward in the next week to go into much greater detail on this alternative that I think the Federal Government uses for its own. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. So I think that is exactly what we ought to take a look at. In conclusion, I look forward to seeing my colleagues next week on this. Let me say, going to the first part of my speech, please take the time to look at the other side of the story on this Wen Ho Lee guy out at Los Alamos. Do not think he is a victim. Do not think he is being picked upon. In my opinion, he has probably committed one of the most egregious transfers of thermonuclear material in the last 100 years. I do not have much sympathy for him, and I intend to pursue that side of the story. I have heard both sides, and I have made my decision. The victim here in that case is the United States of America; it is not Mr. Lee.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Not that this is jumping on media day, we have heard my previous comments about the fellow out of Los Alamos labs, it is interesting in our society today, we can go back to the Roman Empire where the Gladiators get all the attention, and a woman who is outstanding as this woman is, who has devoted her entire life to education, whose entire hope was not for her but for the next generation and the following generation, would probably capture maybe one column in a local newspaper, while the sports section, it is amazing to me, we can pull out a newspaper and take the middle 20 pages or 30 pages or 40 pages out on the sports section, and yet a little paragraph about someone who is as outstanding as your friend.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I take this moment to celebrate the life of former Grand Junction Police Chief Gary Konzak. Gary recently passed away after complications resulting from heart surgery. Chief Konzak served the Grand Valley admirably and his leadership and commitment to public safety will be greatly missed. As family, friends, and fellow police officers say good-bye to Gary, I would like to take this time to honor this remarkable human being. Chief Konzak began his career in law enforcement in 1968 as a cadet in LaGrange, Illinois. Gary's outstanding leadership abilities and drive to succeed propelled him to the rank of Chief in 1987. After serving as Chief for half a decade in LeGrange, he moved to Carol Stream, Illinois, where he again served as Chief of Police. He remained in Carol Stream until 1997, when he redirected his impressive law enforcement abilities toward serving the Grand Junction community. During Chief Konzak's two and one-half years as Chief of Police, he made an impressive impact upon the law enforcement community in Grand Junction, as well as on the area as a whole. Lt. Stan Hilkey of the Mesa County Sheriff's Department, in a recent article by Zack Barnett of The Daily Sentinel, credited Chief Konzak with helping improve the healthy relationship between the Grand Junction Police Department and the Mesa County Sheriff's Department. His success in fostering this relationship was instrumental in forming the Grand Valley Joint Drug Task Force. Chief Konzak has also been credited with working to improve traffic and drug enforcement, as well as the visibility of police officers within the city of Grand Junction. Chief Konzak served his community, State and Nation admirably. It is men like Chief Gary Konzak that ensure that the communities of this great nation are safe for all citizens, and for that I thank him. Mr. Speaker, as a former police officer, I ask that we take this moment to honor this great American and friend of Grand Junction. He was a dedicated public servant who will truly be missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to commend the Honorable Frank Hodsoll on his outstanding service to his community. Frank is stepping down as Ouray County Commissioner after three years of service. Frank is extremely active in his community and his leadership as Commissioner will be greatly missed. As family, friends and the Ouray community thank Frank for his service, I too would like to pay tribute to this distinguished American. Leadership and public service come naturally to Frank. Over the past several years, he has served both his community and State well in a number of different organizations. He is currently serving as Vice Chair of the National Association of Counties (NACo) Telecommunications & Technology Steering Committee, Chair of the NACo Rural Action Caucus Telecommunications Committee, and has served as Director of both the Colorado River Water Conservation District and the Center of Arts and Culture in Washington, DC. Beyond his efforts in Ouray, Frank has had a long and illustrious career in government, both at the local and national levels. Before working to improve the community of Ouray County, he worked with a number of the nation's most prominent governmental institutions, like the Departments of State and Commerce. Frank also served as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, Deputy Assistant to President Reagan and Deputy to White House Chief of Staff James Baker. Frank, you have served your community, State and Nation admirably. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress, I thank you for your generous and valued service to the Ouray community and to these United States. Best of luck in all of your future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I take this moment to congratulate Stephen Petersburg of Rangely, Colorado, on receiving the National Resource Management Award from the National Park Service. I would like to take this moment to thank Stephen for his diligent work to ensure that Dinosaur National Monument's resources are managed efficiently and effectively. At the same time, I would like to congratulate him on this distinguished award. Stephen's educational background laid the groundwork for what would become a truly accomplished career with the National Park Service, that has spanned almost three decades. Stephen received his undergraduate degree in Forestry and a graduate degree in Wildlife Biology from Iowa State University. This education prepared him for his career in the National Park Service, which began in 1971 as a Park Ranger at Wind Cave National Park. After working for a little over two years at Wind Cave, Stephen shifted his professional talents to Dinosaur National Monument, where he began his illustrious tenure in 1973. Stephen is considered a leader in fire management and training and is nationally known for his expertise. This past summer he worked with great care to protect our nation's forests, working on fire-fighting efforts in Colorado, New Mexico and on the Clear Creek Fire in Idaho. Beyond his work at Dinosaur National Monument, Stephen's desire to help his community is clearly a personal priority. Stephen is an active member of the Kiwanis and serves on the Board of Directors of the Rangely District Hospital. He is also a Deacon in his local church. Stephen, you have earned the admiration of your friends, peers, neighbors and Nation. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the US Congress, I congratulate you on this prestigious and well-deserved award. Congratulations!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, again another nightside chat. I have two very important subjects that I want to address with my colleagues this evening. The first subject is going to be Wen Ho Lee. That is a name that is familiar to all of you. He is the gentleman, and I can tell you that I stretch the words when I utilize the word ``gentleman,'' you will follow me a little later on, out of New Mexico who was arrested by the FBI at Los Alamos lab. I intend this evening to tell the other side of the story of Wen Ho Lee. The second thing, of course, is a complete shift of agenda. I want to talk about Social Security and the obligations all of us have to the future generations on saving Social Security, on doing something about Social Security that is going to make a difference for these generations, on doing something about Social Security so that Social Security is there for these future generations, on doing something about Social Security so that those young people, the generations behind those of us who are midlife in our working careers, so that those people have some kind of voluntary choice, some kind of voice in how their investments are made, so that they can get a return better than the 1 percent return that most of us on Social Security will experience under today's program. But first of all let me begin with Wen Ho Lee. The last few days have been amazing to me in the press. In fact, the last month. I used to be a police officer. My district is in Colorado. I used to be a police officer out in Colorado. So I do have kind of a law enforcement slant. But through my years of law enforcement and also through my years in the practice of law, especially the areas where I did family law, I found out something pretty interesting in my early career. It is kind of like if you have a small child that comes up to you, you have two kids, two small children that have gotten in a fight with each other. The one child comes up to you and explains their side of the fight. They tell you what in their mind is the truth. Then the other child comes up to you and tells you their side of the story which is exactly contrary to the side of the story that you just heard but in their eyes that is the concept of the truth. In other words, the truth usually is out there and there are almost always, and I learned this time after time, when I would arrive at the scene of an accident or at the scene of a fight or at the scene of a domestic dispute, I always found that when I first got there, most of the time you better listen to the other side of the story because most of the time the facts are not as they appear upon first arrival. That is exactly what has happened here. In the last few days or the last month, I have almost been sickened by reading some of the national media that makes Wen Ho Lee, this gentleman right here, sound as if he is a martyr, makes him sound as if he is a hero. And these news media reports and some of the people, one of the things they like to jump up and they play the race card. Forget it. It is not going to work in this one. They play sympathy. ``Well, he was picked upon. The poor guy was abused.'' Forget it. You better listen to the second side, the other side of the story. How easy it is to trash the FBI and trash the Attorney General. I can tell you I am no fan of the Attorney General, but in this case the Attorney General is right. In this case the Federal Bureau of Investigation is right. I stood on this floor in front of you as one of the harshest critics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a former police officer when they goofed up at Ruby Ridge which in my opinion was one of the darkest black eyes that the FBI has given to law enforcement in law enforcement's entire career in this country. So I think I approach this from a fairly impartial view. I criticize the FBI when I think they should be criticized. I am not a fan of the Attorney General, Janet Reno, but on the other hand when they are right, we ought to stand up here and talk about it. What we are doing is letting the media get away with what I think is one of the most atrocious incidents in recent history. At the beginning of my remarks, I told you how I wanted to address today Social Security and future generations. If you want to talk about something that is going to have an impact on future generations, wait till you hear my story today about what this gentleman's contribution is to future generations. The question is here, who is the victim? That is the newest concept. I used to practice law as I mentioned. There are a couple of ways that you defend a client who is guilty, who you know is guilty. First of all you try and point out that the client, really the defendant, the person that you are defending did not intend to commit the crime. And if that does not work, then what you do is you attack the witnesses. You try and show that the prosecution witnesses are biased or somehow they are crooks themselves or they are not worthy of their testimony. And then the third approach you do in trying to defend somebody is make your client look like the victim. My client is the victim here, not the person that got raped or murdered or shot or burglarized. My client is the victim. Look at how abused they were in their childhood, look at all of the things they did out in our society and this is what caused him to commit that kind of crime. That is exactly what has happened in the last few days or in the last month. This guy is being victimized. This is the victim. Wait till you hear my story. I am going to bring you out the other side of the facts on this. My question, my comment is here, who is really the victim? Is it Wen Ho Lee? Or is it us, the United States? Is it us, the citizens, our future generations? I advance to you this evening that the victims in this particular case are not the defendant, the victims in this case is the United States of America and all future generations of the United States of America. Let us start with some facts. First of all, as many of you know, Wen Ho Lee was a scientist who had access to the most secret nuclear information and material we have in this Nation. He had one of the most trusted positions that we divvy out, so to speak, in our government. He had access to the basics and the fundamental scientific knowledge and the construction knowledge and the practical knowledge of the most devastating weapons known in the history of mankind. We do not just willy-nilly give out that kind of access. Why? That is self- explanatory. We all know in this Chamber what will happen if that information gets into the wrong hands. We know, too, that if that information gets into the wrong hands, that is one weapon, just one weapon is all it takes, but you can make numerous weapons. But that weapon alone is a weapon that could destroy the United States of America. It is the only weapon in existence we know of today, nuclear capabilities, maybe some biological but primarily nuclear capabilities are about the only weapon today that could destroy the destiny of the United States of America. I cannot emphasize on my colleagues enough the importance of the secrecy of this information that we have in the Los Alamos lab. And this gentleman, this guy right here, Wen Ho Lee, he was entrusted by the American people to keep those documents secret. And now some of the very people who, in my opinion, he has betrayed, and I use that word with some caution, I do not typically stand on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and talk about betrayal by a citizen but I am telling you today, that is what has happened. Let us go into some facts, the other side of the story. As Paul Harvey would say, now it is time for the rest of the story. These quotes, by the way, are a direct testimony, given under oath, in front of the United States Senate by the Director of the FBI and by the Attorney General. Let us go over some facts about this scientist, Wen Ho Lee. It is critical to understand that Wen Ho Lee's conduct was not inadvertent. It was not careless. And it was not innocent. Over a period of years, Lee used an elaborate scheme to move the equivalent of 400,000 pages of extremely sensitive nuclear weapon files from a secure part of the Los Alamos computer system to an unclassified, unsecure part of the system which could be accessed from outside of Los Alamos, indeed from anywhere in the world. Another additional fact here. At one point in time, this scientist, while he was overseas in Taiwan, tried to access this equipment. We have it on the computer. We traced it through on the computer. What are we talking about here? What this fellow did is that kind of information is highly classified obviously and on the computers there are indications that give you the different levels of classification. The classification for this material is highly top secret or whatever classification they use, they call it the X information, so it was classified as X information. Wen Ho Lee used a very methodical method to move the classification as top secret or as an X file, to remove that from the designation and replace it with a nonclassified designation. So, in other words, he made top secret material look like it was not top secret, that it was regular material. Then he moved it onto his computer and then he accessed it and made copies of that kind of thing. To move a document from highly classified or top secret to nonclassified, it does not happen by a bump of an elbow or you push the wrong button on the keyboard. It takes several coordinated, sophisticated steps. We know that Wen Ho Lee, in fact, for a long period of time failed in his attempts. He had to work his way through, which he did by experimentation until he mastered how to take top secret classification heading, take it off the document and put a nonclassified documentation on there so then you could move the documents without suspicion. And 400,000 pages. That is the equivalent of what he transferred out of top secret; 400,000 pages of the most sensitive secret nuclear weapon material that this government possesses. Yet some people are out there trying to make this guy look like some kind of martyr or that he has been picked upon by our government or that somehow it is abusive for us to go and accuse him of being a spy or make these kind of accusations. By the way, he is a felon. There is no mistake about it. He is not an accused felon. He is a felon. Keep that in mind. In order to achieve his ends, Wen Ho Lee had to override the default mechanism. He had to override them, an intentional movement that required several steps that were designed to prevent any accidental or inadvertent movement of those files. His downloading process consumed nearly 40 hours over a period of 70 different days. So do not let anyone tell you when they arrive upon the scene of an accident that this transfer of material was inadvertent, or that it was an oversight, or that this scientist did it by pushing the wrong button. These systems are built for fail-safe, so that that kind of thing does not accidentally happen. Let us go on. Nor was this all. Wen Ho Lee carefully and methodically removed classification markings from documents. He attempted repeatedly to enter secure areas of the Los Alamos labs after his access had been revoked, including one attempt at 3:30 in the morning on Christmas Eve. Now, imagine, every one of you in here, what were you doing at 3:30 in the morning on Christmas Eve? Were you trying to use a stairwell to get up to an office here in the Capitol? Those are what we call burglar hours. The only people up trying to gain access at that time in the morning, generally you have to be a little bit suspicious about what is going on. And on Christmas Eve, most people are home with their families on Christmas Eve. It would be highly unusual to see somebody trying to enter into an area of which their access had been revoked, of which they were denied access to, highly unusual to see them all of a sudden at 3:30 in the morning going up a stairwell trying to gain access to a top secret area. Let us continue. He deleted files in an attempt to cover his tracks before he was caught. I am going to go over that in a little more detail too. I have a chart here. We are going to go to this chart, and I will show you what happens when this fellow fails a lie detector test. I will tell you what happens when the FBI presents him with evidence. Primarily what you are going to see is once he figures out they are on top of him, then he tries to get back in there and coverup his tracks by erasing files. Let us go on. Wen Ho Lee created his own portable secret library of this Nation's nuclear weapons secrets. My gosh, do you see what I have just said? Look at this. A citizen creates his own library, his own personal library, of the Nation's most sensitive nuclear weapons secrets. Now, does that sound like an innocent bystander to you, somebody is out on Saturday afternoon putting together a butterfly collection? This is serious stuff. Let us go on. He stood before a Federal Court judge and admitted his wrongdoing and pleaded guilty to a felony. Contrary to some reports, there is nothing minor or insignificant about that crime. It amazes me that the media and some of the people that I have talked to think that, well, he just pleaded guilty to something totally insignificant, that this poor guy is being picked upon. The restricted data that Wen Ho Lee downloaded into 10 portable computer tapes included, listen to this, included the electronic blueprints of the exact dimensions and geometry of this Nation's nuclear weapons. Does that sound like a guy that has been picked on to you? That does not sound that way to me. There are always two sides to a story. Let us go on with this side of the story. Here are the steps that are required to download and create tapes. So any of you out there that think, well, this was innocently done, or, you know, it was a distraction, or, you know, he just wanted to experiment, keep in mind 400,000 pages, that is what the equivalent is. Let us talk about the steps to move this over, partition it from classified to nonclassified, download and create tapes. First of all you have to log into a secure computer system by entering a password and a Z number. You then need to access data in red, which means secure, partition, then hit save, and then CLU equal U, classification level equals unclassified. Then you need to access the C machine and type commands. There are numerous commands that you have to type in to down partition from a secure partition to an open, unsecure machine. You then access that machine to save the data into a green unsecured directory. Then you have to log on to a colleague's computer outside of the X division. Remember, X division is top secret. That is the highest secrets of the Nation. You have to then access outside the X division and insert a tape into the tape drive. Then you access the open directory and copy files on to the portable tape. In other words, the purpose of that chart right there simply is to tell you, hey, this guy knew what he was doing. This was not some country bumpkin in there playing games on a computer. He knew exactly what he was doing. Not only did he know what he was doing before he was caught, he built his own library. By the way, you will find out later in my discussion a good portion of this library is missing. It is gone. Now, the guy who lied to us, the guy who tried to evade the truth and who tried to cover his tracks, now tells us, ``There is nothing to worry about, I erased them. They are erased. You don't have to be concerned about this.'' This gives you an idea of what intentionally was required for him to complete his mission. Let us continue. Wen Ho Lee worked for the X division, which I explained earlier as the top secret division at Los Alamos Laboratory. The X division is responsible for the research, design and development of thermo-nuclear weapons and requires the highest level of security at any division at Los Alamos. X division scientists most familiar with the downloaded information, so we went to other scientists and said you are familiar with this information that has been downloaded by Wen Ho Lee. Let us talk about it. These scientists would have testified that Wen Ho Lee took every significant, every, he did not miss anything, every significant piece of information to which a nuclear designer would want access, every key piece of information. He did not just pull up one little piece of information that looked cute and thought this would be kind of fun to experiment with. Every piece of information that was necessary for research, design and development of thermo-nuclear weapons, he changed classification and he downloaded it into his own personal library. And not only did he download into his own personal library, he tried to access the official computers from overseas, and he took copies of his library, and now he claims he has lost it or the files were deleted, he went ahead and erased them because he did not want people to get access. Before Wen Ho Lee created these tapes, and this is so important, this is so important, before Wen Ho Lee created these tapes, only two sites in the world held this complete design portfolio. Only two sites in the entire world had that information; the secure computer inside the highest security division at Los Alamos and the secure computer system inside the highest security division of another one of our national laboratories. We only had that information in two places in this country. Now, somewhere, we have got three locations, thanks to Wen Ho Lee, who some people out there are calling a martyr. Some people are saying he has been victimized by an overzealous FBI or an overzealous Attorney General. You are going to get to make the decision. The first poster I put up had a question mark on it, because I wanted my colleagues at the end of my comments today, you decide, is he the victim, or is the United States of America the victim? Let us go on. It was not a simple task for Wen Ho Lee to move files from the closed to the open system. The CFS tracking system reveals that Wen Ho Lee spent hours unsuccessfully trying to move classified files into unclassified space, meaning he could not quite get it down. So he worked on it. You know, practice makes perfect. He practiced on it, and he practiced on it. He would get a step, and over time he got these steps down so he could figure out to a very calculating move how to move material that has been labeled classified to material that is now labeled unclassified. Wen Ho Lee eventually worked his way around what was designed to be a cumbersome process. By design it is complicated, so this kind of thing is very tough to do. Wen Ho Lee had to command the computer to declassify the files, when he was well aware that the files contained some of the most sensitive classified information at Los Alamos. Nuclear weapons restricted data downloaded by Wen Ho Lee into portable tapes. Let us go through it again very quickly. These weapons restricted data downloads, input deck, input file information, so this is some of the material that he downloaded. This is material that this scientist downloaded, switched from classified to nonclassified. The electronic blueprint of the exact dimensions and geometry of this nation's thermo-nuclear weapons, including our most sophisticated modern weapons or warheads; data files including, these are some of the files that he took, nuclear bomb testing protocol, libraries reflecting the data collected from actual tests of nuclear weapons. Next, data concerning nuclear weapons bomb test problems, yield calculations and other nuclear weapon design and detonation information. Next, information relating to the physical and radioactive properties of materials used to construct nuclear weapons. Source codes that he downloaded. Data used for determining by simulation the validity of nuclear weapon designs and for comparing bomb test results with predicted results. Let us move on. There is more to the story to come. This is a quote. Of everything I say this evening to you, this is probably the most important. ``And make no mistake about the scope of this offense and the danger it presents to our Nation's security.'' As an expert from Los Alamos testified in this case, ``The material downloaded and copied by Wen Ho Lee represented the complete nuclear weapons design capability at Los Alamos at that time, approximately 50 years, approximately 50 years of nuclear development.'' Fifty years, the most sophisticated data we have and 50 years of accumulated data. We had an expert to come in, his name was Dr. Yunger, listen very carefully. I will read it very slowly, because each word has its own meaning in a very substantive way. ``These codes,'' the codes that he downloaded, ``these codes and their associated databases and the input file, combined with someone that knew how to use them, could, in my opinion, in the wrong hands, change, ``change, the global strategic balance.'' Change the entire global strategic balance. That information that this so-called picked-upon scientist, that this scientist that people are trying to point out as a victim, the information he moved out of our top secret laboratories could change the global strategic balance. This is serious stuff. You talk about the next generation and future generations? Tell me how much you want to thank this guy for what he has done for our future generations in this country. They enabled the possessor to design the only objects, and let me repeat this, they enable the possessor to design the only objects that could result in the military defeat of America's conventional forces. They enable the possessor, whoever has this material, can now design the only weapon known that could completely destroy the American conventional forces. Let us go on. The only threat, for example, to our carrier battle groups. They represent the gravest possible security risk to the United States, what the President and most other Presidents have described as the supreme national interests of the United States. The gravest security risk to the United States of America, and we have newspapers in this country saying, well, this guy was picked upon. Let us move on, because we got more of the story. Let us talk, for example, about what chronological events concerning this individual occurred. Let us, for example, take a few days, significant events between December 23, 1998, and February 10, 1999. On December 23, two days before Christmas, 1998, at 2:18 in the afternoon, the Department of Energy polygraph of Lee is completed. They gave him a polygraph that day. They completed that polygraph. At five o'clock, he was advised by his superiors that his access to the secure areas of the X division, in other words, the top secret compartments at Los Alamos, his access was yanked to both his secure and open X division computer accounts. They suspended it. They said you cannot go in the X area any more. Your computer files, you are not to access them any more. Pretty plain English. Very understandable. Your rights to go in there are suspended. Do not go in there. At 9:36 that evening, mind you, he worked all day, at 9:36 he reappears at the lab. He makes four attempts, four attempts, to enter the laboratory, the secure area of X division, through stairwell number two. Apparently they have caught him on camera. At 9:39, three minutes later, he again attempts to enter the secure area of X division, but this time trying the south elevator. So he tries four attempts one direction, cannot master it there, so he comes up and now tries it through a different approach. The next day, December 24, this is Christmas Eve, at 3:30 in the morning on Christmas Eve, 3:30 in the morning on Christmas Eve, he again shows up at the laboratory. He again attempts to enter a secure area of the X division through the south stairwell, number two. December 24th through January 3rd, Thursday through Sunday of that week, Thursday through Sunday of that week, Los Alamos is closed for the holidays. So the entire laboratory is closed down for the holidays. Remember, Christmas Eve morning, 3 o'clock in the morning, here he is trying to gain access to an area from which he was specifically instructed he was suspended. He was not allowed to enter that area. So during these few days that the lab is closed for the holidays, look what Dr. Lee does. On January 4, 1999, Monday, he succeeds in having his open computer account reactivated and deletes three computer files. On January 12, he deletes another computer file. January 17, the FBI conducts an interview of Lee at his residence. On January 20, from 11:00 to 12:00, he attempts to delete 47 computer files after the FBI interview. He immediately goes and deletes 47 computer files. On January 21, he asks the computer Help Desk why files he is deleting are not going away. On many computers, on those computers down there, they have kind of a Help Desk where they can log into and ask for directions how to work the computer. Any who are computer literate know what I am talking about. It is a service there to help them work their way through it. So he asks the computer help desk, he is trying to delete these files, why they are not deleting. At 10:46, he attempts to enter the secure area of the X Division through Stairwell 3. On January 30, at 2:54 in the morning, almost 3 o'clock in the morning, Los Alamos officials deactivate Lee's open computer account in the security area of X Division after discovering that it has been improperly reactivated. At 4:52 in the afternoon, Lee attempts once again to enter the secure area of the X Division through the south door. On February 2, Lee attempts to enter a secured area of the X Division through the south door, 9:42 in the morning. In the afternoon, he attempts to enter the secure area of the X Division through the south door. At 1:46 that afternoon, he makes four more attempts to enter the secure area of the X Division through the south door. On February 8, the FBI contacts Lee and asks him to meet with them to discuss conducting an interview and another polygraph. Right after that, Lee attempts to enter a secure area of the X Division once again. At 4 o'clock, the FBI meets with Lee and arranges for an interview and a polygraph over the next 2 days. 6:30 that evening, he attempts to enter the secure area of the X Division once again. On February 9 from 11:30 to 12:00 Lee deletes approximately 93 computer files. At 1 o'clock, FBI interviews Lee and obtains his agreement to undergo another polygraph. At 5:03, Lee attempts to enter the secure area of the X Division once again. February 10, Lee undergoes the polygraph from 9:00 to 4:00. Right after he is done with the polygraph, he immediately goes over and deletes 310 computer files. He then at 5 o'clock attempts once again to get to the X Division through the south door. Does this sound like somebody who inadvertently or just kind of a country bumpkin walks into the highest most sensitive secrets of this Nation and moves them from classified Top Secret to unclassified then copies them on to his own computer? He lies to the FBI, by the way; and as soon as he is done being interviewed with the FBI, he goes up and starts deleting computer files. This guy has some history to him. And it is history that he ought not to be proud of. By the way, when he was first arrested, we should point out that through his lawyers he denied any knowledge. He denied that he copied any of these files. It was only later when the evidence was laid down in front of him that his lawyers thought it was best, probably, to advise him maybe that he ought to tell the truth. Let us just very quickly summarize. One other thing I guess I should bring up, because I read this in the media. Oh, my gosh, this guy was put in isolation. He was shackled. He did not get to see other people. That is on its face patently false. They built a special facility for him. They built a special facility for him so he could spend time privately with his lawyers. In the 90 days or so that he was in prison there, 6 hours a day he spent in that special facility with his lawyers. The only time that he was shackled was when he was transferred from one facility to the other, the same as any other prisoner. If anything, this guy got better treatment than any other prisoner that we had down there. My colleagues should not let these lawyers, or do not let some of these fans of this Wen Ho Lee, or do not let his daughter who understandably has a love for her folks, just like I do, do not let them buffalo them. This Wen Ho Lee is not an innocent guy. He is a convicted felon. Some people say, well, the FBI filed 59 cases against him or 59 charges against him. Why did the FBI drop 58 of the 59 charges against him? Well, it is pretty simple. We had a Federal judge and the Federal judge said, Okay, we are going to allow you to go ahead with these 59 charges against him. But in order to do it, we are going to have to require you to release some of your secrets. We are going to make this public information. So the FBI did not drop these charges because they could not prove them. The U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno, did not instruct the FBI to drop these charges because they could not prove them. The reason they dropped those charges is because they did not want to release further U.S. secrets on thermonuclear weapons. It is interesting what happens in an election year. As soon as the newspapers start editorializing about old poor Wen Ho Lee and how he has been victimized, and it sounds just like a defense attorney, guess who jumps in? The President of the United States, he makes a comment. He said he is discouraged by this prosecution. That is his policy. He cannot understand this. What happens this quickly, we can lose control of this quickly. The fact is Wen Ho Lee still has or has the knowledge of where the many, many secrets of the United States of America on our thermonuclear weapons are, and we have every right to go after this guy. He has jeopardized every living citizen in America. In fact he has jeopardized the entire world by accessing and taking out of that laboratory some of the highest level secrets every known to mankind. He has, in my opinion, put at risk every future generation of every country in this world. And yet he refuses to cooperate up until the time, and we hope we get a little cooperation now, using as his front these defense attorneys. Then they go out and put together this massive public relations effort. To me it is almost like having a cheer leading conference on the day of impeachment. They have a pep rally when this guy gets out of prison when the judge orders that he be released, and then the people cannot wait to stomp on the FBI or criticize Attorney General Janet Reno. Why did they prosecute this poor guy? Why are they picking on Wen Ho Lee? He is an innocent guy. He has been victimized. Maybe by accident he copied some files. It was inadvertent. He did not know what he was doing. Of course some of the other groups are playing the race card, saying the only reason he was arrested is because of his ethnic background, whatever that background was. We ought to take a look at what has happened to this Nation. Take a look at what our losses are. By the way, we cannot really calculate what our losses are because we do not know who has that material. We do know this: we do know that some of the countries in this world have information that was provided for them from the laboratories out of the United States. We know this: we know that somehow there has been a leak somewhere down in that laboratory. Mr. Speaker, I am saying to all of my colleagues tonight, I know that my speech has been somewhat impassioned; but I cannot imagine that any one of us who has a fiduciary duty to the people of this country that we would simply nod and turn our face the other way. Or that we would stand here and criticize the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Not that they are above criticism, as I said earlier. That Ruby Ridge was a disaster. Waco, Texas, was a disaster. The FBI deserves plenty of criticism. But on this case, we too will be contributing, in my opinion, to this huge massive misjustice to all future generations of this world by turning eyes the other way and thinking that this Wen Ho Lee was some innocent guy that we decided to victimize or pick on him to find a spy for the FBI Chronicles. Let me wrap this portion of my comments up by saying, I cannot think of anything in my entire political career, I cannot think of anything in my adult life that I consider of more serious consequence from a national security interest point of view than the compromise of these thermonuclear secrets. These secrets were compromised by one individual. We know who he is. We have got the facts. We have just heard the other side of the story. Now, what I would say is all my colleagues should go home tonight, have discussions with their families and let me know tomorrow who is the victim. Is the victim Wen Ho Lee, or is the victim the United States of America? Mr. Speaker, I really should have made this chart a little different. I should have put United States of America, the rest of the world, and all future generations. Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I would like to yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich).

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to extend special recognition to two individuals in Colorado, Bruce and Paula Ward, who have given deep devotion to the Continental Divide Trail; and without their efforts, we would not be able to see progress like we have seen. With that said, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). I also want to thank Tod and Allen for their efforts in regard to this. And last, but not least, I also want to thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo). Mr. Speaker, I think that the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Utah, has adequately explained the bill in its fullness and within all four corners.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to honor a truly remarkable group of individuals who risk their lives to protect the health and safety of their community. The individuals I speak of make-up the Animas Fire Protection District, a volunteer program that has worked to ensure safety in Southern Colorado for nearly three decades. It is the dedication and hard work from the members of the District that I would like to congratulate as they celebrate their 30th Anniversary. Unlike many fire protection programs, this one is primarily volunteer. It began in 1970 under the name Durango Fire with $12,000 and under two dozens volunteers. In the time since, it has grown to encompass a $1.6 million budget, using over 100 volunteers in 12 different fire stations. During the last three decades, through long hours and many perilous situations, the Animas District has maintained an efficient and effective program that guarantees rapid response and much needed protection from the harm of a fire. Whether it is fighting structure fires within town or battling the blazes at nearby Mesa Verde National Park, the volunteers of Animas Protection District have ensured that there community is as safe as possible from one of Mother Nature's most dangerous elements. Volunteers and Staff of the Animas Fire Protection District, you have served your community, State and Nation bravely and admirably, and for that your neighbors are grateful. On behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress, I thank you for you commitment to the safety and well being of the members the La Plata County and its surrounding communities. You make us all very proud!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I now take this moment to recognize the wonderful city of Pueblo, Colorado, a city I am proud to represent in the U.S. House of Representatives. Pueblo recently received national attention when it was named one of the Most Livable Communities in the United States by Partners for Livable Communities, a non-profit organization committed to improving America's collective quality of life. Pueblo has a storied past, a vibrant present, and promising future, all of which make it most deserving of this high honor. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I now pay tribute to Pueblo, Colorado, one of America's most livable cities. The beautiful city of Pueblo is located south of Denver in the shadows of Colorado's Sangre de Cristo Mountains. In 1886, four distinct towns were incorporated into one, forming what is now the magnificent community of Pueblo. In the century since, the community has played a major role in shaping Colorado's character, be it socially, culturally, or economically. Early on, Pueblo was home to smelting plants that helped refine ore extracted from surrounding mines. These plants fueled in large part the community's economic activity. Moreover, Pueblo also played a key part in the early national race to establish railroads across Colorado's Rocky Mountains. Thanks in large measure to these and other industrial activities, Pueblo rapidly became a booming economic hub. Pueblo's industrial muscle flourished in the many decades after its inception, until the 1980's when an economic downturn crippled the city's once burgeoning steel industry. Undeterred by tough times, community leaders from all walks of life closed ranks, fighting together to restore Pueblo's civic strength and economic vibrancy. Ultimately, this broad based local effort spurred a remarkable economic resurgence that continues even today. Pueblo's vitality is displayed each year when the city hosts the Colorado State Fair, highlighting the diversity and strength of Colorado's heritage. Nothing better symbolizes that resurgence than the Historic Arkansas Restoration project, a local effort to draw business activity along the refurbished banks of the Arkansas River which cuts through the heart of Pueblo. On October 6, 2000, the landmark Riverwalk Project will be dedicated. When it is, it will be a symbolic statement of Pueblo's economic and cultural re-awakening that continues to thrive in this new century. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the U.S. Congress, I would like to congratulate this wonderful community on being recognized as one of the most livable communities in the country. Pueblo has a special place in my heart and it is more than deserving of this distinguished recognition.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am back for another nightside chat. I can tell you that it snowed in Colorado, it will not be long before we have our ski areas ready for all of you and I hope you get out there and enjoy the finest snow in the country out in Colorado. That was a little promotional spot here before I begin. This evening, getting back to serious business, there are three areas that I really want to discuss with my colleagues: First is the move by the President and the Vice President, their policy of releasing fuel or barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I will talk for just a few minutes about that. Then I would like to move on from there and talk about taxes. In the last few weeks with the Presidential election coming up, with the general election coming up for Congress and the Senate, we have heard a lot about tax cuts and tax policies and surpluses. So I want to go into that a little and I want to distinguish the difference between the two parties. My remarks tonight are not intended to be personal at all. But the fact is we do have a system which by design from day one has primarily two parties and it is one of the checks and balances. There are general differences. It is not applicable, by the way, to each member of each party but generally there are differences between the Democratic philosophy and the Republican philosophy. Tonight I hope to distinguish between the two of them, especially when it comes to surplus, when it comes to taxes, when it comes to accountability to the taxpayer out there, when it comes to accountability for the services that we are required to render to the people that we are fortunate enough to serve back here in the United States Congress. And then I would like to spend a few minutes talking about Social Security. If a Presidential candidate, and I know George W. Bush has, but if any candidate running for office this year wants to focus on one thing for the young people or two things for the young people, let us say, and for the women of this country and frankly for the middle class of this economy, talk about Social Security. What are we going to do? My generation and the generation ahead of me is okay. Our benefits will be there. But we owe it to the generation behind us to make sure that Social Security is a liquid fund, is a fund that can sustain the kind of liabilities that we have placed upon it for the generation behind me and the generation behind that generation and the generation behind that generation. That is our obligation. It is a point we ought to discuss this evening. I intend to talk a little about Social Security and some of the things and a plan that I think will work, a plan that has worked for all the Federal employees that work for the government today. The government has its own plan, and many of my colleagues out there, their constituents do not realize that one of the proposals put out there, in fact frankly the proposal put out by George W. Bush is a policy that is already followed by every government employee. We, as government employees, already have this type of policy, an opportunity to choose. So we are going to talk about personal choice. We are going to talk about Social Security. And we are going to talk about the surplus. We will talk about tax cuts and, of course, we want to talk about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. First of all, I think a logical question, we have heard that a lot in the last couple of days, most of us have a pretty good understanding of what the petroleum reserve is, but for a little history, Mr. Speaker. As Members know, it was created in 1975, and the intention of it was to see if we could find a location, which we did, to store about 1 billion barrels of oil for an emergency reserve. Now, emergency is a very delicate word. Emergency in my opinion means an overnight crisis, for example, if the Middle East or OPEC cut our oil off. I am not sure that you could classify as an emergency a price increase the likes of which we have seen in the last few weeks. Now it is a hardship, but does it go to the level, and that is the fundamental question we need to ask, does it go to the level that we should draw down on what in essence is 59 days? That is all we have of supply in this petroleum reserve. We have 59 days of supply in there. Is the situation we are in right now, of which I am very unhappy about, I think frankly the oil companies have overplayed their hand. I think OPEC has overplayed their hand. But I caution all of us to think very carefully before we condone the actions and the policies of the Vice President and the President in going into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and pulling out a significant portion of that reserve which, by the way, is not a significant portion of the consumption needs of this country. In fact, in any 30-day period, what you are doing is pulling out about a 36-hour supply out of 30 days. Back to our history a little. The reserve is managed by the Department of Energy. I am a little disappointed by the way the Department of Energy has managed our energy policy. I am not sure that we have an energy policy that exists. We have the Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson this year, and I would like to quote what Bill Richardson said. He said, ``We were caught napping. It's obvious the Federal Government was not prepared for the recent jump in oil prices. We got complacent.'' Look, Department of Energy, you have an obligation not to be complacent. That is what your Department is in place for. That is what Congress has charged this Department with. You have got to be on the ball. We have got to monitor that. Our country is economically dependent in a very significant way, we are economically dependent upon the energy policies and when oil goes up like it has gone up, we have not yet begun to feel it but we are going to begin to feel it. But we have over here a reserve and we have got to be very careful about that reserve, when we use it, and under what kind of conditions we should use it. We of course leave that discretion to the President of the United States. I can tell my colleagues that right now, as I mentioned, our current days of inventory are 59 days. We have 571 million barrels of oil. The most we can draw down, this is just for your own information so you have an idea of how large this reserve is, we can draw down about 4 million barrels of oil a day, and it takes about, oh, 15 or 20 days for that oil from when we draw it down, assuming we have refinery capacity which we do not have today, our refineries are at capacity for a number of different reasons, but assuming we have capacity we can move that oil and get it into those refineries in about a 15-day period of time. So what has happened in the last few days? First of all, there was some rumor that the President might, as kind of an October surprise, as a policy for the upcoming Presidential election to assist the Vice President, that the President might order that a depletion be forthwith out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In regards to that, last week the Wall Street Journal quoted the Secretary of Treasury who is appointed by the President, who had strong disagreement with the President and Vice President's policy to draw oil off this under the classification of emergency, and let me quote. The Wall Street Journal wrote: Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers advised President Clinton in a harshly worded memo that an administration proposal to drive down energy prices by opening the government's emergency oil reserve quote would be a major and substantial policy mistake. Mr. Summers' two-page memo argued that policy. He wrote that using the reserve would have at best a modest effect on prices and would have downsides that would outweigh the limited benefits. Let me go on further. Another expert, one that Republicans and Democrats, in other words, both sides of the aisle, an individual that both sides of the aisle respect, his opinion on the President's policy to draw down on that: ``I think it would be a mistake to try and move the market prices with a small addition from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,'' Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan told a U.S. committee this year. We are dealing with an overall market which is huge compared to our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He said that adding from the reserve, quote, would not have a significant impact. Where the impact is that I am concerned about is what the President is doing. We have the strategic oil reserve over here and, as I said, we have a 59-day supply and it is to be used for an emergency. That is our 911 call right there. We have over here a market, to give my colleagues an idea, a market on a monthly basis just for our country which looks about like this. So what you are doing by drawing down out of this is you are drawing in enough for a 36-hour dent in this market. Thirty-six hours. Proportionately that is not too far off from what the President has ordered. In the meantime, what you are doing is you are drawing down a significant portion of this emergency reserve here. The difficulty with that is at some point, especially when we see the volatility that is now taking place with the oil markets, it is a point in time I think that you should increase, not decrease your emergency reserves. Now, surely when you put this kind of fuel in for that 36- hour period of time, which is what it will supply for our country, when you put it into the market and I believe in the last 24 hours gasoline, not the gasoline but the Texas crude price has dropped a little in the last 24 hours, you are going to have some short-term benefit. But, Mr. Speaker, the short-term benefit has a long-term expense associated with it. I think it is very clear, and it has been editorialized throughout the country, including this morning in the Wall Street Journal, but I think it is very clear that the policy of the Vice President and the timing consequently of the President to draw down on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is in fact not an emergency but is a political convenience. It is a political tool. It is being used in a political manner. That policy is incorrect, the policy of those reserves. All of us on this floor realize that politics is an everyday part of our life and when we are a month or 5 or 6 weeks out from an election, we are going to see more politics. But there are some areas that you have got to keep politics out of, no matter how tempting it is, no matter how close to the election it is, the best interests of the Nation demand that you not use that, certain items, that you do not use these items or twist your policies for political expediency. Instead, what you think of first are the best interests of the country. And I am concerned that the policy of drawing down this reserve to make a very small dent for a short-term benefit and, by the way, the benefit would mostly be realized between now and election day, and right after the election we are going to be in the same problem we were in before but we are going to have less reserve. It is not a good policy. I think the President and the Vice President should stop trying or make no further attempts to draw down unless this country truly faces an emergency. Ever since this was created in 1977, excuse me, in 1975, when we created this reserve, we have only drawn down on it three times. Two of the drawdowns, two of the drawdowns, one was for the Persian Gulf War. That was truly an emergency. I do not think any of my colleagues here argue the fact that the Persian Gulf, when we went to war, that justified a drawdown on our emergency reserves. The other two times that we drew down on that reserve were practice drawdowns to see how quickly we could get it out, to make sure we had the logistics between the point of drawing out of the oil reserve and getting it into the refineries, that we had that system down pat. We did twice. We had two trial runs. So, during the entire 25, almost 26 year history of this emergency reserve, never has it been drawn down for political purposes, never has it been drawn down because the price of gasoline got higher. It has only been drawn down really, in reality, when you take outside the practices, it has only been drawn down when we went to war. But now the President and the Vice President decide, 4 weeks again now from the election, or 5 weeks out from the election, that it is time to draw it down. My point tonight, colleagues, whether you are Democrat or Republican, is this ought to be hands off. This should not be, whether or not we draw down from the Emergency Petroleum Reserve, should not be determined by whether or not the general election is 6 weeks away. Our Department of Energy Secretary, frankly, needs to get to work and shape that Department up down there so they do not fall asleep at the wheel, which is fundamentally what he admitted they had done in the last couple of months. Now, do we have an answer? Sure you have an answer. Any time you have high prices, there is that point of diminishing returns. OPEC knows about it. OPEC does not want the prices to get too high. Why do they not want the prices too high? Well, if the prices get too high and the Government does not try and manipulate the prices, speaking of our government, then what happens is American ingenuity kicks in. One, you begin to see more conservation. I think that is a good, reasonable policy. And, two, you begin to get a reexamination of what we have done in our own country as far as exploration, what are we doing with resources in our own country. Those are two good policies to follow. I mean, I think of myself the other day, to give you an example, I was driving off from the gas pump, I just paid the price for gasoline, and I said, what can we do for conservation? Is there something we can do immediately to help conserve the product that we are using? You know what I did? I looked up in the left-hand side of the windshield of my car, and I see in my car that they recommend I change the oil for the vehicle that I was driving every 3,000 miles, and my recollection was that the driver's manual for that automobile recommended an oil change every 5,000 or 6,000 miles. So I got in the glove compartment, I looked at my owner's manual, and, sure enough, the people who built the car, the people who engineered the car and the people who guarantee the car say, look, for ultimate performance, all you need to do is change your oil every 5,000 or 6,000 miles. It did not say every 3,000; but obviously it says 5,000 or 6,000, which means not every 3,000. If we found ourselves in a crunch, the American people could immediately conserve on consumption of oil products by actually having the oil changes on their automobiles when the manufacturer of the automobile recommends you do it. I mean, that was just one idea. But I think putting in government manipulation right before an election, oh, it may have some political benefits for the President; but the fact is that in the long term, folks, it is going to be a very expensive way. It is not the proper method to approach the kind of fuel or oil difficulties that we are now facing. Save this for a true emergency. Wait until you have a real emergency before you go out and start drawing down on the petroleum reserves. Taxes Mr. Speaker, let me talk for a few moments now, kind of switch subjects, because I have heard a lot of discussions about taxes and surpluses. Tonight, while I was sitting in my office, I was thinking, you know, there really are some basic differences. Again, not to get personal, but I think it is important; and I think it is important when we talk to the young people of our country that we explain that there are some differences, fundamental differences, between Democratic leadership and Republican leadership. Now, not all Democrats vote always with the Democrats all the time. Not all Republicans always vote Republican with the Republican leadership all the time. As we know, a lot of votes back here are determined by geographical locations. For example, those of us in the West may have a difference of opinion than those in the East, regardless of whether they are Republicans or Democrats. But clearly when it comes to government spending, there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I know as of late the Democrats have been criticizing tax reductions and tax cuts. I think we have to start with the basic philosophy of what is a surplus. I just looked it up, by the way. I just looked up over here in the dictionary ``surplus,'' which sits behind me, and the definition is clear. A surplus is you have more than you need. The Government is not in the business to make money. The United States Government was never intended by our forefathers when they drafted the Constitution, when they had this thought, this dream, of uniting these States, of putting these 13 States together and expanding into the continent, they never dreamed of putting the United States Government in business. What they wanted the Government to do was to have their role restricted to that which individuals could not do. That is what their concept of government was about. What has happened recently, and I hear it more and more from the Democratic side, from your policies of your leadership, is somehow this surplus belongs to us; us, Congress here in Washington, D.C. ``The taxpayers have not paid too much.'' Well, if you do not think that the taxpayers have paid too much, quit using the word ``surplus,'' because surplus means it is extra. You know, we are here to produce and to provide that which individuals cannot do as individuals, but we are not here to accumulate large amounts of money. Now, the difficulty is that you cannot leave a surplus in Washington, D.C. very long, because, it is very simple, it gets spent. That is what happens to it. If you leave this surplus here in Washington, D.C., pretty soon you are going to have new programs and new programs and new programs. So the Republican Party and our leadership has made it very clear that we have two priorities: number one, the priority is to fund the Government so that it runs efficiently and that we provide the fundamental services to the American people that individuals could not provide on their own. For example, we have tremendous responsibilities in education, and we stand up to those responsibilities. We have tremendous responsibilities to defense for this country, to the military, to our transportation. But once we meet those responsibilities, and once we meet the responsibilities of spending those dollars in a responsible manner, then we have two other responsibilities: one, the next responsibility is that after, and, frankly, again not getting personal, but for 40 years the Democrats controlled the Congress, and take a look at what happened to so-called surpluses then. They were smoked. They were gone the minute they got here. We had deficits for 40 years. So the next thing we do is, what about our overall debt? Our leadership, the Republican leadership, feels that we have an obligation to reduce that overall debt, and that we should take a portion of this surplus and reduce that debt. But the other fact that we have to consider is who is the customer? Who are the people that we represent? Whose money is coming in here? It is not our money. It is money sent to us with the idea that we will act in a fiduciary manner and spend that money in such a way that, one, we provide for government services; and, two, if we find out that the people we represent have overpaid, then in fact we should refund that. Now, there are some other things we have to take into mind. Every once in a while when we are out there raising money, i.e., the Federal Government is out there on the taxpayer, and they ask the taxpayer, they say to the taxpayer, look, we need to fund the military, we need to fund education, we have highways. Here is our government budget; and in order to meet the budget, we need to have you pay out of your work, and, remember, the people paying are not the people that are not working. The people that pay taxes to the Government are hard-working men and women. They are the people that go to work for 8 hours every day. You are asking them to take a part of their labor every day, a part of their labor every day; in fact, you are asking them to work full time from January 1, to, I think, around the first of May. You are asking them to work full time. That is what amount of time an individual has to work in this country just to pay off their taxes for that year. So you are asking them to fund this. Once in a while when we do this, we find out that we have taxes that are unfair, taxes that just fundamentally are not sound. I thought I would point out a couple of those, because the Republicans this year, without much help, now, we did have, I will grant to you, we did have some help from some Democrats, but some of those Democrats who helped us switched back, unfortunately, in my opinion, because of the fact they were put under pressure by the President to uphold his policies, so they would not override the vetoes. But let us talk about a couple of those taxes. I think the best way to do it is to talk about the middle class, because that is who we are really talking about here. What happened is we discovered some taxes, that whether we have a surplus or not, we fundamentally disagree with the concept of these taxes. I will give you a good example. The marriage penalty. That is a tax that Congress somehow in its history decided that marriage should be a taxable event. The Republican leadership this year, with the help of some Democrats, said to the President, and, by the way, obviously with the help of the United States Senate, said to the President, look, marriage should not be a taxable event. It is unfair to the middle class. It is unfair to anybody for the Federal Government, in an attempt to raise money for its operations, to go to people and say, simply because of the fact that you are married, we are going to impose a tax on you. So what we did is we voted to eliminate the marriage tax. But the Democrats, through their leadership and through the President, put it back on the board. In their opinion, marriage is a taxable event; and the President's veto, he vetoed our process to eliminate the marriage tax, and the President put it back on the middle class of America, primarily, by the way. The middle class pays, in my opinion, the biggest portion of taxes in this country. The middle class represents, quantity-wise, the largest number of workers. That is what you are doing. When the President and the Democratic policy, my colleagues here, when you put that marriage tax back on after we passed the bill to eliminate it, that is who you are taxing. And you are taxing our young people. With our young people, we are trying to encourage marriage. We are trying to tell the young people, and boy, it is promising, we have some wonderful, wonderful people in the generation behind us, all of us know that. But is this the way to encourage that generation? There is another tax we took a look at and said fundamentally, is it fair to tax death, the simple fact that somebody dies? Is that a fair tax? Is that a taxable event? Is that an event that our forefathers ever imagined in the Constitution would be the basis of this price, that we go to our taxpayers and say we want you to pay this price to be a citizen in this country? Is death a taxable event, that the middle class pay? And do not kid yourself, it affects every class in society. The Democrats like to say, well, it is only the rich. They like to play this class warfare. It is not class warfare. You take money, regardless of how many people are in the community, take a community with 5,000 people who have a person that has to pay the estate taxes, say a contractor or anybody, a contractor that owns a dump truck, a bulldozer and a couple of pickups, they are subject to the death tax. You go to those people, and you take it out of the community and you transfer that money right here to these Chambers in Washington, D.C. You are transferring money from local communities out in the United States out beyond the Potomac, and you are transferring it here. So it affects every class. So the fundamental question of fairness, that is an obligation we have, regardless of whether we have a surplus or not. Now, it so happens we do have a surplus. But regardless of whether we have a surplus or not, should we tax the event of death? We said no. The Republicans said no, and, by the way, some Democrats joined us. They also said we should not tax death. We sent that bill to the President. The President vetoed it. He put it back on. The President said death is a taxable event. And by the way, I sit on the Committee on Ways and Means. I know what the President's budget is. The President's proposal this year was not only do not eliminate the death tax; he has actually proposed in his budget to increase the death tax by $9.5 billion. So the Democratic policy and the President's policy, and again not getting personal here, but, look, there is a difference and the American people, we need to talk about these differences. They want to keep the death tax in place. Not all of them, but most of the Democratic leadership. They want to add $9.5 billion according to the President's new policy on taxes. We think that has gone too far. Now, there are some taxes that we have been able to persuade, that the Republican leadership has come forward with and has been able to put into the Tax Code. It is surprising how many of our constituents out there do not know that this Congress, the Republican Congress, passed a tax reduction that probably is the most significant tax break that any individual out there who owns a home has probably had in their career. What am I talking about? Very briefly, let us take a look. What I want my colleagues to do is if any of my colleagues in here have constituents who own homes, at every town meeting they go to they should ask their constituents how many of them own homes. My guess is, and it is an exciting thing, most of the people in the audience will own homes. What is great about this country is our homeownership. When I was younger, one expected to own their first home when they were approaching 30. Now this new generation is able to buy homes at a much earlier age. And it is an American dream. What we found happening, what we talked about our Republican leadership and our philosophy was, look, it is unfair to tax these young, especially younger families who own a home and they sell their home. We hit them with a huge capital gains tax. What the old law was, the law that we wanted to change, it said quite simply, look, if an American sells a house for a net profit, they make a net profit and we will take an example here. Here is an individual. Let us say an individual bought a home for $100,000. They sold the home for $350,000; and they had a profit of $250,000. Under the old law, they were taxed, they had income of $250,000. We thought what we want to do, one of the things kind of like marriage, we encourage our younger generation to get married. We want our younger generation also to enjoy the economic benefits of homeownership. So what we decided to do, and it was the Republican leadership that did it, frankly, and I do not mind. Look, I know I am standing up here saying Republican and Democrat a lot, but we need to talk about this bill and who stood up when it was time to stand up. I was surprised in the last couple of weeks. I thought the death tax was pretty nonpartisan. We had a lot of Democrats that joined our leadership in trying to do away with it. But a lot of them walked. We had a lot of Democrats who joined, many joined to get rid of the marriage tax. But they walked. So I think it is important for us to have discussions, because there are differences. What the Republicans felt, we made a proposal. If an individual buys the home, same example, $100,000. Same example, $350,000. $250,000 profit, under our bill, they will be taxed zero. And this passed. This passed. And for couples the news is even better. For couples it in essence doubles. If you own a home in the United States and you sell that home for a net profit. Not your equity in the home. You may buy a home for $100,000. You pay down $50,000 of it. You only own $50,000. That balance is equity. I am talking about net profit. Say a young couple buys a house and sells the house for a profit. What our bill does, and it was signed into law so it is now the law, they get to take that profit. They get to put that money into their pocket. No taxes up to $250,000 per person or $500,000 per couple. That is significant. That makes a big difference. That is tax policy that I think makes good sense. In the last few days I have heard people, especially with the politics going around, people saying, well, tax cuts are bad. All the Republicans want are tax cuts. I think that what we want is a fairness in the Tax Code. I would bet anything that we would have a hard time finding a young couple, go pick a 21-year-old male or female college student or a 21-year-old male or female that is working in a blue collar job and ask them do you think it is fundamentally wrong for one party wanting to advocate for changes in the Tax Code that would bring more fairness to the Tax Code? That would be an incentive to couples your age or single mothers to have the opportunity to buy a home? Of course they would agree with that. Mr. Speaker, that is what the Republican leadership is talking about. George W. Bush and his campaign in the last month or 6 weeks has been talking about these tax reductions. He is not talking about going out and picking out the wealthiest people of the country. He is across the board. Read any analysis out there. Why? Because of the fairness of the Tax Code. When we are fairer to income producers, our income producers produce more income. That is just a fundamental law. Let us talk about some other taxes that we have had. Capital gains, for example. It used to be the old Democratic argument was that capital gains is only for the rich. For many years I think the Democrats were probably right on that, because there were periods of time in our country where the only people who ever worried about paying capital gains taxation were the wealthy. Now, I am not one who believes in class warfare, and I say that to my colleagues. I think over the long run, class warfare is not what the American system is about. That is not what has made the American system great. But the fact is we did at one point in time decades ago, decades ago have one segment of our society that only benefited from capital gains. But what has happened in the last 10 or 15 years, we have lots more people investing in land. We have a lot of people in the lower-income brackets who own their homes. We have a lot of people whose employer or on their own or through their employer have gone into 401(k) plans, or they are invested in mutual funds. Now all of the sudden a much broader population faces capital gains taxation, and yet we cannot get the Democratic leadership, it was very difficult to get them to come to our side to reduce that taxation. The reduction of that taxation was not just a reduction in taxation to the wealthy, it came across the board. And, finally, they admitted it. But now the rhetoric that I have heard the last couple of weeks, because the elections are coming up, is that any consideration of a Tax Code revision or a tax cut such as marriage tax, get rid of it, or the death tax, get rid of it, or capital gains or elimination of the taxes on the profit of the sale of your home. Some of my colleagues on the left, the liberal aspect, act as if we are going to ruin the budget, act as if that is what led to the deficit. Remember, in my opinion, I think a fair Tax Code is a conservative approach. I think a fair Tax Code is a moderate approach. But I do not think a fair Tax Code is a liberal approach. I think the liberal approach is bringing the money any way you can, that money belongs in Washington, D.C., it ought to be spent in Washington, D.C., as a collective benefit for the country or for people to take the individual responsibilities, move those individual responsibilities to Washington, D.C., and fund it as a collective issue. Mr. Speaker, I disagree fundamentally with that policy, and so do a lot of American people. But I think we have kind of disclosures in truth when we go out and speak to our constituents. I think we have an obligation when we go out there and say, look, ``tax cuts'' is a very broad term. Let us talk specifically what we mean when we talk about tax cuts. We are talking about things like the capital gains tax issue. We are talking about things like elimination of the death tax. We are talking about things like the marriage penalty. We are talking about the fact why do we go to our young people, of whom we have an obligation to act in a responsible manner for their future, why do we go to them and penalize them for being married when in fact we encourage them to be married? Those are policies that I think are fair game because they are fair on their face. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues, as they go out there during this election process, that they take the time to talk to some, and by the way not just the young people. The policies for the taxes of the young, but take a look as well at what we, the Republican leadership, did, the moderate approach did for our seniors. We not only talked about the death tax issue, we not only talked about the marriage penalty, we not only reduced the capital gains taxation under Republican leadership, we not only eliminated the taxation up to $250,000 when we sell our home out here in America. But we also went to the seniors and said we have discovered another thing that is unfair with our Tax Code. We are finding out just because of the fact you are between the years 65 and 69, we are going to penalize you on your Social Security if you hold a job outside of your home. Where is the fairness of that? For years it was like pulling teeth from the liberal contingents. From the liberals it was like pulling their teeth to get them to admit that that was unfair to seniors. Finally, this year, frankly because of some good editorials written across this country, the liberal segment of our politics back here conceded and gave in on that and we passed that into law. I commend the moderates on this floor, and I commend the conservatives on this floor that were able to see that earnings limitation on Social Security trashed. And I also want to say, even though we did not get it passed because the President vetoed it, and by the way it is the Vice President's policy as well, I still commend my colleagues for stepping forward and standing up to the fact that death is not a taxable event and that should have been thrown out the window, that marriage is not a taxable event and that should have been thrown out the window. Mr. Speaker, we need to have fairness and we can talk about income tax bracketing as well. But the fact is we have an obligation, a fiduciary obligation to the taxpayers and to the citizens of this country to have a Tax Code that is fair. Let me move on to another area, one of my favorite areas: Social Security. First of all, I want to tell about what the Government does for its employees. And I am one of those employees. I hear a lot, of course, out there on the campaign trail or when I am out there in my town meetings. I go back to my district every weekend. My district is larger that the State of Florida. I put about 50,000 miles a year in my district in the car. I listen to people. I stop at the coffee stop. A lot of people do not realize that government employees have almost essentially the same type of retirement plan, in addition to Social Security, we also have Social Security. Congress, for example, I saw somebody e-mail me the other day that they got something off the Internet that Congressmen do not have to pay Social Security. Of course we pay Social Security. But we have got about 2 or 3 million government employees on a system that is very similar to the system that George W. Bush has proposed. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed. I am amazed of the number of my colleagues who are trashing George W. Bush's proposal on Social Security when, in fact, on the other hand, we live within a policy or a program here provided for all government employees that is almost identical to what he is proposing. What is it? It is called ``personal choice.'' Let me explain very briefly how the government program works. The government program works this way. Every government employee has an amount of money taken out of their pay to provide for their retirement. It is an amount of money that they have no choice of how it is spent or where it is invested. On the other hand, while they have no voice or input as to what happens with that, they also get a guaranteed retirement after they put in a certain amount of years and turn a certain age; and after they vest, they get a certain guaranteed retirement. They have a safety net there. It is not a lot, but it is there and it is funded by the amount of money that they have drawn out of their check. We as government employees, all 3 million of us, have drawn out of our check. But there is a second program in addition to Social Security, and that program is called the Thrift Savings Program. What that allows government employees to do, such as myself, I am allowed, as are 3 million other Federal employees, we are allowed to by personal choice take an amount money up to 10 percent of our pay, and we are allowed to invest that in the Thrift Savings Program, and the Federal Government will match it up to the first 5 percent. They will match the first 5 percent, although we are entitled to put in 10 percent, and we get a choice. You can put it in a risky fund like the stock market, although the higher the risk the higher the return. We can put it in a safer fund, or we can put it in a guaranteed savings fund which has low return but almost zero risk. We have that right to make that choice, but it is only with 10 percent of our income, so we never overstep or never get in over our heads, so to speak, on the amount of money that we put in, and we personally get to choose how to invest it. Do you know how many people in the Federal Government participate in that program? A very, very high percentage. Mr. Speaker, I would bet that every one of my colleagues sitting here on the floor participates in that program. Participates in choice. Why can we not do that for Social Security? If it is good for us, why is it not good for the rest of America? If it is good for us, our system, the Thrift Savings Plan works, why is not George W. Bush's plan good for the rest of America? I know that some people have said this kind of policy is a risky policy. Risky? We have tried it and we tested it, and the government employees like it. They get involved in it. They get personal choice; that is the avenue that all of us should approach in trying to figure out how to rehabilitate the Social Security system. Now, as you know, our Social Security system, there are some factors that put it into trouble. I mean we know that in 1935, for every worker that was retired, every person that was retired in 1935, when Social Security came in, we had 42 workers, 42 workers over here, providing for that 1 person that is retired. Today, for every person that is retired, we only have 3 workers providing for them, because we have so many people retired. Back then in 1935, the average person lived to about, I do not know, it was probably 61, I think, for men and 65, somewhere in that range, today it is pushing the 80s. People are living longer. That is good news, but it also puts more of a burden on Social Security. And as a result of that, while Social Security is cash-rich, in other words, on a cash flow basis, the money coming in today, our Social Security is in the black. The fact is, on an actuarial basis, the basis of which we look into the future and say can Social Security make it, on that basis, Social Security's bankrupt. So what do we do? First of all, if we are going to make changes in Social Security, we have to do what George W. Bush has proposed and what a number of us support very strongly; that is, one, we have to guarantee that the people like, for example, my age and the generation ahead of me are not going to lose their benefits. They are not. There is nobody on Social Security today or nobody from age 40 or above say, for example, that is going to have their benefits threatened. The Social Security benefits will be there, and do not let the liberals use the fear tactics of telling you that we cannot be bold in Social Security, that we should not try something new, that we ought to stay with the same old thing, even though it is not working in the long run. We have to have some kind of assurance to the workers presently in the later stages of their career that your benefits are okay. I am telling you, the generation, the X generation, or the younger generation, whatever you want to call them, these people are bright people. They are energetic people. They want choice more than ever in the history of this country. This generation following us wants independence, and they are bright enough to handle it. They have experience in business. They want to have choice. They want to be able to choose. They want to choose more than ever, whether they live in the country or here, they want to choose whether their kids go to public school or private school. I think George W. Bush has hit the button right on the top of it, this generation, this young generation wants to make some choice in Social Security. We have a plan that is tried, true and tried, so to speak, right here. We are part of it. What is the opposition to going to the Social Security and putting that into effect, the same kind of plan that every one on the floor of the House of Representatives and almost three million other Federal employees enjoy. It works. I think we ought to try it. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues the biggest mistake we can make here and biggest misservice we can do to our constituents here is to sit idle. Look, this is election time, in the next 4 weeks, 5 weeks, or 6 weeks, we are going to have a lot of political rhetoric, but the minute that goes by, in 6 weeks, I think we have an obligation to step up to the plate and do it; get it done; get this train back on course. Now, I think there is always going to be a disagreement between what I would call moderate and conservative on economics and the liberal philosophy. The liberal philosophy, in my opinion, has a huge safety net that takes care of everybody and does it on a collective basis. Now, I am not sure how they pay for it, but they feel that the responsibility of the individual is the obligation of the government, but the moderate and the conservatives feel that the responsibility of the individual is exactly that, the responsibility of the individual with the assistance from the government, where the individual cannot provide. I think doing something with Social Security fits in the latter category. It is allowing individuals to have some choice. It does not give them complete choice because we do not want a person who loses all of their money to still look to us and put the blame on us, the government; what we want an individual to do is to have some choice. It is at that point where I think people are economically savvy enough to make some of these choices. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people, a lot of workers, no matter what kind of job they have decided to participate in mutual funds. They are making more choices on their personal finances. They are becoming more and more knowledgeable about it. They are becoming more and more confident about it. We have a good economy. What is interesting, too, is when we have those down days on the stock market, these people do not hit the panic button. It is not like the great panic in the early last century. These people are more patient with it. So why can we not be? I mean we work for them. We work for the people. Why do we not step forward and let them have more choice in the Social Security plan that they want to participate in? I mean it is a big part of their future, and they ought to play as active a role in that as they can possibly do it. Frankly, I think the plan that the Republicans and some Democrats and George W. Bush has put forward is worth looking at. I am amazed in these last few weeks how it has been trashed and trashed and trashed, when, in fact, as I said earlier in my comments, 3 million government employees are on that type of plan right now, and it works for us. It will work for our constituents. Let me wrap up and conclude my remarks this evening. First of all, I think it is a mistake. And I think it has driven the policy, as underlying as its foundation, to take oil from our strategic petroleum reserve, that reserve should be restricted to true emergencies. The fact that our gasoline prices have gone up is discouraging. Who is not angry about that? Who does not think that there is not some gouging going on out there? Sure, it is discouraging, but is that really, truly the type of emergency that we would envision, or is that driven by political policy? My position is the policy of the President is not that policy that was intended when we created the strategic petroleum reserve. Second of all, tax; when they talk out there on the political trail and they talk about tax reductions, make a question, is it fair? Should it be there in the first place? Third of all, give us some choice in Social Security. We need a new, bold plan that protects current beneficiaries of Social Security, guarantees certain benefits for future generations of Social Security, but also let these beneficiaries participate and help choose and help direct the investments they make with that program.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). Boehlert Lauds Court Decision on Oneida Indian Land Claim

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I will move on to a new subject now and that is on water. I want to talk this evening about water. Water is a fun subject to talk about. Really, it is kind of boring. In Colorado, we are a State that has critical reliance on water, but I thought before we begin the discussion in earnest about the State of Colorado, I thought I would go through some fun facts that impact all of our colleagues out here, all of our constituents; some neat things, interesting things to learn about water. As I begin this, most people do not think much about water unless it does not come out of the taps, or they do not think much about the quality of water unless their water is dirty. There are some major issues that evolve around the natural resource of water. Water is the only resource we have that naturally renews itself. It does not expire upon its use. So I thought we would go over some interesting things that I have found about water. It would be kind of fun for us this evening to take a lighter moment and talk about some of these things. First of all, I have titled this little chart, which obviously you can tell I have slapped this thing together, but there are some interesting things. Who was the American explorer who compared the western plains to the sandy deserts of Africa? Zebulon Pike, Pikes Peak of Colorado. Another interesting fact, and this pertains mostly to Colorado, but the largest reservoir in the State of Colorado is the reservoir called the Blue Mesa Reservoir. Next, what percent of water treated by the public water systems is used for drinking and cooking? In other words, all of the water that is treated nationwide by your public treatment system, how much of that is used for drinking and cooking? Less than a percent. That is an interesting fact. I thought it was more than that. In fact, I thought most of the water that was processed by your treatment facility plant was used for drinking and cooking, but less than 1 percent of it actually is. What river in Colorado used to be called the Grande River? That is the Colorado River, and we are going to go in later on a little more depth about the Colorado River. It is called the Mother of All Rivers. Kentucky blue grass, an interesting point here, uses 18 gallons of water per square foot for each year. Tall fescue and wheat grasses use 10 and 7 gallons of water per square foot each year, respectively. Riparian habitat makes up less than 3 percent of the land in Colorado but is used by over 90 percent of the wildlife in the State, which points out how important riparian habitat is; and our technological advances have shown us over the last 20 or 30 years why these riparian areas are so important for our wildlife. Eighty-seven percent of the water leaving Colorado flows out of the Colorado River Basin towards the Pacific Ocean. The remaining 13 percent of water that leaves Colorado flows out of the Missouri, the Arkansas, and the Rio Grande River Basins towards the Atlantic Ocean. So 87 percent of water in the State of Colorado, and for a lot of you that are not from Colorado you will see why there are many references to Colorado, not just because I am from there but Colorado is really a critical State in the western States when we talk about the issue of water. As I just said, 87 percent of the water that goes into Colorado flows towards the Pacific Ocean and 13 percent of that water flows towards the Atlantic Ocean. I might also add that Colorado is the only State in the Union where all of the free-flowing water goes out of the State. There is no water in the Continental United States, in any State in the Continental United States, like Colorado, that flows into Colorado. Colorado does not have any. It is an exception of one. Producing a typical lunch hamburger, french fries and soft drink, this is hard to believe, uses 1,500 gallons of water; a typical drink, french fries and a hamburger. By the time you are able to grow the resources, produce the resources that are necessary to come up with your final product, you have gone through 1,500 gallons of water. It includes the water needed to raise the potatoes, the grain for the bun and the grain needed to feed the cattle and the production of the soda. Let me move over here. The natural rotation of the earth, now this is one of the most amazing water facts that I have seen and for 18 years I have studied water, the natural rotation of the earth has been altered slightly by the ten trillion, ten trillion tons of water stored in reservoirs over the last 40 years, according to NASA. So of the 10 trillion tons of water that is stored, it has actually altered slightly the rotation of the earth. The Platte River, whose name means flat, was named by French trappers and explorers. The Native Americans in the region called it the Nibraskier, a similar word for flat. The hottest spring water in the State of Colorado, 82 degrees Celsius, 180 degrees Farenheit is found in Horse Tents Hot Springs in Chaffee County. The largest hot spring in Colorado is the big spring in Glenwood Springs with a maximum discharge greater than 2,200 gallons per minute. I am from Glenwood Springs, Colorado, and I hope that many of you have already been through Glenwood Springs. It is a small town, a beautiful town, located about 40 miles north of Aspen, Colorado. If you have driven to Aspen, especially in the winter, you had to go through Glenwood Springs, and as you go over the bridge, if you go through there again, take a look and you will see that huge hot springs. In May 1935, 10 miles south of Kiowa, 24 inches of rain fell in 6 hours. Note that the average for Colorado in a year, in a year in Colorado, the average precipitation we get is 16.5 inches, and here in Kiowa County, they actually got 24 inches in 6 hours. Grand Lake is 265 feet deep, the deepest natural lake in Colorado. From 1820 to 1846, the boundary of the United States with Mexico was the Arkansas River. That was the actual boundary between the United States and Mexico, the Arkansas River. Wolford Reservoir, which is one of our newer reservoirs, located 7 miles north of Kremmling, Colorado, opened to the public over Memorial Day weekend, the 5.5 mile long reservoir covers about 1,400 acres and has a capacity of 26,000 acre feet and costs about $42 million to build. Now, in our discussion this evening about water, we will be talking about acre feet, so it is a good time to define exactly what I mean by acre feet. An acre foot of water means that the amount of water over a 1-year period of time that would cover 1 acre 1 foot deep. Now, that is what an acre foot of water is. Eighty-nine percent of Colorado's naturally occurring lakes are found at altitudes above 9,000 feet. Now, let us talk a little bit about Colorado and why this altitude is different or important. Colorado is the highest State in the Union. In fact, the district that I represent, the Third Congressional District of Colorado, which, geographically, is larger than the State of Florida, is the highest congressional district in the Nation. In Colorado, we depend very heavily on the precipitation that occurs on those high points at that high elevation. That is what creates 80 some percent, and we will look at that statistic a little later on, but 80 some percent of the water as a result of the snowfall at that high precipitation. So as we point out here, 89 percent, almost 90 percent of our natural lakes are found at altitudes of 9,000 feet or higher. The average humidity that we have in Colorado is about 38 percent; technically, 37.9 percent. There are more than 9,000 miles of streams and 2000 lakes and reservoirs open to fishing in the State of Colorado. A dry wash, we often hear the term dry wash. What that really means, they are stream flows that occur only for a short period of time after the snow melt or after a rain storm, something like this. That is what they call a dry wash, or gulch, et cetera. Let me shift over here. The South Platte waters is used in the following ways. This is interesting. The South Platte, which is a major river in the State of Colorado, 10 percent for city and industrial use, 65 percent for irrigation, and 3 percent of the water for reservoir evaporation. Twenty-two percent of the water leaves that State. Now, let us talk for a moment, leave this and talk just for a moment about water in general. Mr. Speaker, 97 percent, 97 percent of the water in the world is salt water, and of that 97 percent, 75 percent of the balance, so we have 97 percent of the water in the world is salt water, so we have 3 percent of that left, and 75 percent of that 3 percent is water that is tied up in the polar ice caps. So we can see that less than half of a percent is fresh water in this world that we would find in lakes and streams. Mr. Speaker, 73 percent of that stream flow in the United States is claimed by States east of a line drawn north to south along the Kansas-Missouri border. So 73 percent of the stream flow in this Nation is in the eastern United States. And, most of our rainfall occurs in the East, not in the West. In fact, in many States in the East, their problem is getting rid of water. Our problem in the West is the ability to retain the water. Mr. Speaker, 12.7 percent of the water is claimed by the Pacific Northwest, which means that only 14 percent, about, 14.2 percent to be technical, so approximately 14 percent of the water, of the total stream flow of fresh water is shared by 14 States and these 14 States geographically consume more than one-half of the Nation in land area. Of those 14 States, Colorado sits at the apex. Again, back to the high elevation of the State of Colorado. In Colorado, our high altitude semi-arid climate, we have 85 million acre feet, of the 100 acre feet we get approximately a year of moisture that falls in the State as precipitation. So we have about 100 million acre feet. Here is an interesting statistic. Of that 100 million acre feet, approximately 85 million acre feet of that goes away in evaporation or goes away in what we would call transpiration through where the plants take the moisture from the soil and it essentially evaporates through the leaves of the plants. Let us go back here for some other interesting statistics that I think will help give us a good idea of just how critical water is and how critical it is going to be in our future. Mr. Speaker, 48 million people in the United States receive their drinking water from private or household wells. In Colorado, water must be diverted for a purpose and for beneficial use. The reason I put this in there is that Colorado water law is very unique. Our water law in the West is significantly different than the water law in the East. In the West, water actually is a private property right. One can actually own the water separate from the land. In some States in this Union, the water and the land go together. But in Colorado, they can be separated. In Colorado, it is necessary, and in the West in general, it is necessary for us to divert water. Basically, in Colorado, we have as much water as we could possibly need during what is called the spring runoff, which lasts from about 60 to 90 days. But once that spring runoff is finished, the States in the West have to rely very heavily upon water storage. If we do not have the water stored, we do not have the ability to use it for the balance of the year that we do not have spring runoff. That is why water storage is so critical in the West. What is interesting is that a lot of what we would call, I guess, politicians in the East criticize water storage in the West. It is because they are talking about two entirely different systems. It is almost as if we have two entirely different countries based on water differences. In the East, the water comes much heavier and it is treated, even legally is treated differently than the water needs and the water facts of the West, which is very important to remember as we go on here. In the United States, approximately 500,000 tons of pollutants pour into our lakes and rivers each day. That is why all of us continue towards this effort of clean water and clean lakes. Now, we cannot be so extreme as to say, look, we cannot flush our toilets because there is a pollutant in the toilet. What we have to do is figure out where that balance is with the use of water, without getting too extreme on one side or the other side. It is interesting here that if you spill four quarts of oil, a can, four quarts of oil in a sewer system, by the time it is done, you will have about an eight-acre oil spread, eight acres, as a result of four quarts of oil. Those are the kinds of things that we have to be very sensitive with about. That is why we have to be careful about the pollutants that are in our water sources and our water supplies. This is interesting. The maximum 24-hour snowfall in the United States is 75 inches which occurred in the mountains of Colorado in 1921. Can we imagine, 75 inches of water in a 24-hour period of time. Here are some other interesting facts. We will jump down here. Well, right here. Evidence indicates that an ancient irrigation system was found at Mesa Verde and may have been in use by 1000 AD or even earlier. It is interesting, the Anasazi down in the Mesa Verde National Park, down in the four corners of Colorado, and by the way, if you have not been down to the Mesa Verde National Park, you have to go. Take a look at the Anasazi Ruins, they were fabulous. These people that lived in the cliffs, they were called the Cliff People, and that is where we find the first indication of the use of a dam in the United States, and it was by the Anasazi people who would go down by the stream below the cliffs, and the water, as I said, Colorado is an arid State, averages 16\1/2\ inches of rain or precipitation in a year. So they would go down and store their water. That is the first indication we found of the use of a dam. In Colorado, for a dam, we actually have a ditch, the San Luis People's Ditch, which has been in operation since its construction in 1852. That is the oldest irrigation system that we have that is still in continuous operation in Colorado. Fresh, uncompacted snow, and this is important to remember about the snowfall that comes down. In Colorado, we have an arid climate. As I said earlier, our humidity averages about 37 percent. But did we know that those snow flakes, when you are out there skiing in Colorado or just walking in the snow, those snow flakes that you see, 90 to 95 percent of that snowflake is trapped air. Mr. Speaker, 90 to 95 percent of that snowflake that we see at least in Colorado is 90 to 95 percent trapped air and I think that percentage is probably very similar in Washington, D.C., or up in Connecticut, or New Jersey when it snows. Denver, Colorado has an average snowfall of about 60 inches per year, and the snowiest season occurred in 1908 where they had 118 inches. Avalanches killed 914 people in the United States between 1990 and 1995. On an average year, on an average year, most of the avalanche deaths actually occur in my congressional district out there in Colorado, because the Third Congressional District of Colorado basically has all of the mountains of Colorado. There are some that are outside of it, but for the most part, the mountains in Colorado are in the Third Congressional District, and avalanche is a huge danger that we have to deal with. But I can tell my colleagues this in a little promotion here which I do not think it is against the rules; I hope my colleagues ski, we have the best skiing snow in the United States. Try some of our resorts, Aspen, Vail, Steamboat, Beaver Creek, Powder Horn, Purgatory. Let us go back to water. Water usage, this is one of the most interesting charts that I have come across in regards to water. Follow through with me when we talk about water usage. Americans are fortunate. We can turn on the faucet and get at the clean, fresh water that we need. Many of us take water for granted. Have we ever wondered how much water you use each day? Here is an idea. For the average person out there, I say to my colleagues, this will give us an idea of what the average person in America uses, the basic needs for water each day. Direct uses of water, again, this is daily, drinking and cooking, the average person uses about two gallons of water a day to drink and cook with. Flushing the toilet, between five and seven gallons per day, or excuse me, per flush, I am sorry, per flush. Washing machine, 20 gallons per load. The dishwasher, 25 gallons per load. Taking a shower, seven to nine gallons of water per minute while you are in that shower. Now, growing foods takes most of the water. In this country, a lot of people, if you ask what consumes most water, one, they will not think of evaporation and maybe it is a misleading question, because evaporation really zaps up our biggest amount of water, but right behind it, the number one use of water in this Nation is the growing of food. It is in agriculture. Every day in the super market we take for granted how much water is necessary to grow that food. Well, here is a good example of what is necessary. If we have one loaf of bread, by the time we grow the grain and so on and so forth to produce that one loaf of bread, we have used 150 gallons of water, 150 gallons of water. To give us an idea, I am sure many of my colleagues drink bottled water like I do. I stop at the convenience store. I am trying to get away from a pop and buy a bottle of water. Multiply, think of what you have in that container, see how many of those containers it takes to make a gallon and then multiply that times 150, and that is how much of the water you are holding in your hands is going to be required for one loaf of bread. Mr. Speaker, one egg, one egg is 120 gallons of water; 120 gallons of water is necessary to produce 1 egg. A quart of milk, one quart of milk requires 223 gallons of water. These are numbers we cannot even imagine. If you would have given me this chart, given me just to you the right-hand side of the chart, colleagues, and ask me to fill in the gallons, I would not have even come close to these numbers. One pound of tomatoes, 125 gallons of water for a pound of tomatoes; 1 pound of oranges, 47 gallons; 1 pound of potatoes, 23 gallons of water. As we go down here, it takes more than 1,000 gallons of water to produce three balanced meals a day for one person. So for every person, every one of my colleagues, if we have three balanced meals in a day, it has taken over 1,000 gallons of water to produce that food for us. What happens to 50 glasses of water? If we had 50 glasses of water, very interesting, now, remember that evaporation is considered a portion in this, but what happens to our 50 glasses of water, if we had 50 glasses of water lined up, 44 glasses, as demonstrated right here, 44 of these glasses would be used for agriculture, for growing the food products that we eat; three glasses would be used by industry; two glasses would be used by the cities; and a half a glass would be used in the country. I think this chart demonstrates just how critical water is. Now, obviously, we all know most of our body is made up of water, so we do not have to educate people about the importance of water. But it is interesting to just see how water interplays with everything that we do in any given day and how the circumstances of water are a lot different in the West than they are in the East. Let us go back to Colorado. As I mentioned to my colleagues earlier, Colorado is the only State in the continental United States where all of our water flows out. We have no free-flowing water that comes into Colorado for our use. That is a very important issue here. So I thought I would point out particularly, colleagues, why in Colorado water is our lifeblood. It was written by Thomas Hornsby, the poet, and it is inscribed in our State capital that out in the West life is written in water. Life is written in water. Here is an idea of what flows out of the State of Colorado. It gives us the average annual outflow of major rivers through 1985. So while the statistic is through 1985, it still holds pretty accurate today. Our total that we show here is about 8 million acre feet. The total of all rivers in Colorado is about 10.5 million acre feet. We have up here, out of the South Platte, about 400,000 acre feet of water that flow out every year. We have the Republican River, about 14,000 acre feet. Over here we have the Arkansas River, which is 133,000 acre feet. Down here on the Rio Grande we have 313,000 acre feet. Over here on the Animas River we have about 663,000 acre feet. Up here on the Yampa River we have 1,500,000 acre feet. And here on the Colorado River, the river that I mentioned earlier in my remarks known as the mother of rivers, the Colorado River, earlier named by the Indians as the Red River and then later changed to the Grand River and then later Colorado, Colorado is the Spanish name for red, is 4,540,000 acre feet; 4,540,000 acre feet out of just the Colorado River. What is interesting here are our different river basins, and I will go through those very briefly with my colleagues. We have a good map here in color that gives a pretty clear demonstration of what we call the four major river basins. We have four major basins that drain most of Colorado. All of these river basins in this State are at the apex of those 14 States which consume over half the Nation. Lots of statistics here but, needless to say, Colorado is the critical piece of the puzzle for western water. When we take a look at that, we have four major river basins. We have the South Platte, also known as the Missouri River Basin; we have the Colorado River Basin here in the purple; here in kind of the bland green we have the Rio Grande River Basin; and over here in the lighter green we have the Arkansas River Basin. I thought I would talk about each of these river basins. First of all, the Missouri, which is up here in the red, and that is up in what I would call the northeastern part of the State of Colorado. Its primary river in the Missouri Basin or the South Platte River Basin is the South Platte River. Now, the South Platte River drains the most populous section of the State and serves the area with the greatest concentration of irrigated agricultural lands. So the greatest concentration of irrigated agricultural lands in Colorado is up in this section of the State. The main stem of the river flows north, then east, and meets the North Platte in southwestern Nebraska. The South Platte River, which starts here, follow my pointer here, that is the South Platte River, up into Nebraska, is 450 miles long, with 360 miles of that in the Colorado River. Rivers east of the divide. Now, remember that we have what we call a Continental Divide which runs from Mexico to Canada. And through Colorado it basically goes, following my pointer, basically goes like this. And on the east side, rivers east of the continental divide eventually will flow to the Atlantic Ocean from Colorado. Rivers here on the west side of the Continental Divide eventually flow to the Pacific Ocean and to the Gulf of Mexico. All the way from here to the Gulf of Mexico or to the Pacific Ocean. The Arkansas River Basin, again down here in this lighter green, begins in the central mountains near Leadville, Colorado. It flows south and east through the southern part of Colorado towards the Kansas border. The Arkansas River, this river right here which I am following here with my pointer, that river is 1,450 miles long, and 315 miles of that river are in the State of Colorado. We move over here to the Rio Grande River. Again, back to my pointer here, that is the Rio Grande in this kind of bland green here. The Rio Grande drainage basin is located in south central Colorado and it is comparatively small, with less than 10 percent of the State's land area. The Rio Grande River is 1,887 miles long, with 180 miles in Colorado. And now, let us talk for a moment about the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River Basin, of course, is this area that is located right here in the purple. That is the Colorado River. We can see how many rivers and tributaries come into the Colorado. There is the Gunnison, the Roaring Fork, and in that river basin we also have the Yampa River, the White River, and the Animas River, and we could continually go down, but the Colorado River, the Colorado River system, drains over one-third of the State's area. Twenty-five million people use water out of this basin for drinking water. Twenty-five million people depend on Colorado, specifically the Colorado River Basin, which is a good portion of western Colorado, 25 million people depend on their drinking water from this area of Colorado. Less than 20 percent of the Colorado River basin lies inside Colorado. So the length of the Colorado River Basin, less than 20 percent of that Colorado River is in that basin. But 75 percent of the water, 75 percent, goes into this basin comes from the State of Colorado. It provides clean hydropower. We have 2 million acres of agriculture in the Colorado River Basin, and the Colorado River is 1,440 miles long, with just 225 miles of it in Colorado. Although, as I said, Colorado, in that 225 miles, puts 75 percent of the water into that river. Now, the Colorado River Basin, our native flow, basically is close to 11 million acre feet a year. There are a lot of statistics here, but let me say to my colleagues that what we have become very dependent upon, if we flip this over very briefly, or if we pretended for a moment that this was the United States of America and we divided the country in half and we were to call this the western United States and we would call that the eastern United States, the critical factor to remember about water is that geographically there are two entirely different systems. Water in the East has many, many different dynamics than water in the West. That is why when I talk with my colleagues, when I talk with them about water issues in the West, it is so important for my colleagues to remember that the water issues my colleagues face here in the East are different. There are different dynamics, there are different geographical constraints, there are even different uses and storage of the water. Storage in the West is absolutely critical. If these States in the western United States did not have the water storage, for example, like Lake Powell, we would be in a real hurt. We could not exist on these lands, one, if we did not divert water from the streams; and, two, if we were not able to store the water. I just pulled out Lake Powell. I do not know, I wonder how many of my colleagues have ever been to Lake Powell. It is spectacular. In fact, Lake Powell is so large that it has more shoreline than the entire Pacific West Coast. More shoreline in Lake Powell than the entire Pacific West Coast. It is one of the primary family recreation spots in the western United States. There are not many families in the western United States that do not know about Lake Powell, but there are a lot of families in the eastern United States that are not aware of the importance of Lake Powell, not just for recreation, family recreation, but to the whole western water system, for water storage, for clean hydropower. The dam will hold about 27 million acre feet. The surface area is about 252 square miles; about 161,000 acres. This dam is so critical for our power. It provides power for millions of people. And needless to say, in the last couple of years we have seen a serious effort by the national Sierra Club to take down Lake Powell; to drain Lake Powell. And this is an example that points out the naivete, in my opinion, and I say that with due respect, but the naivete of an organization out of Washington, D.C. which comes out to the West to dictate what is in our best interest with western water. There are a lot of physical characteristics, some of which I have mentioned about Colorado, that are important to remember when we talk about western water. First of all, the fact that all of the water in our State runs out of the State; the fact that we have an arid State. We do not get lots of moisture year-round. Out here in the East, in an average year, there is pretty steady moisture. In the West, the primary moisture we get is in winter, and most of that moisture is in the Colorado mountains, the high Colorado Rockies. As I mentioned to my colleagues earlier, for the Colorado River, for example, 75 percent of that River Basin comes off that snow melt that we get in the high Colorado Rockies. I mentioned earlier as well the different rivers that we have. That is why Colorado, and again we have the four major river basins, and why when we talk about water in the West, when we talk about water in this Nation, Colorado always surfaces. It is kind of a centerpoint. Now, when this country was first formed, the Federal Government said, just because all the water in the West falls in one State does not mean that one State should own all of that water. We have to have interstate compacts. Let us create agreements between the States so that the States have a way for reasonable use of the water but they share the water as a country instead of keeping all the water as a State. And those interstate compacts, as most of my colleagues on the floor know, are critical for the use of this water. So, for example, we do not go to war, and I can tell my colleagues that there have been plenty of so-called water wars, not the kind of wars where there are lots of deaths, although there have been deaths, but we had water wars in the past, and the interstate compacts have primarily brought peace to the region by fairly dividing up, or at least what was considered fair at the time, those water resources. There are a lot of interesting facts about these Federal river compacts. For example, the Colorado River Compact, believe it or not, the country of Mexico is entitled to parts of the Colorado River. In fact, the country of Mexico is entitled to a million and a half acre feet of the surplus water, a million and a half acre feet of the Colorado River. How did that come about? A very interesting story. In World War II, the United States and Mexico were afraid, that is right, that the Japanese were going to invade Mexico; and Mexico came to the United States and said, would you enter our country and help protect us against the Japanese? And the United States also had a concern. We did not want the Japanese on our border coming through Mexico. So we agreed to enter the country and defend Mexico. But Mexico understood our superior bargaining power, so they said, now look, if you are going to defend our country of Mexico, you really ought to give us some water for it. So the United States agreed to give about a million and a half acre feet of water every year to Mexico. Now there is even a dispute where that water comes from. We have under the Colorado River Compact upper States and lower States, and even the dispute is how does that get split. It is supposed to be split evenly, 7.5 million acre feet with the lower States and 7.5 million acre feet with the upper States. But the lower States at times have argued, wait a minute, it comes out of surplus water and since there is no surplus water in the lower States, it all ought to come out of the upper States. As you can see, the water arguments are intense throughout this Nation. But tonight the purpose of my comments on speaking on water, and as I summarize, my purpose here is that I hope my colleagues in the East understand that in States in the West like Colorado and Wyoming and Montana and California and Arizona and Utah and New Mexico, that these States are unique water States, States with unique water problems. Colorado, as I said, is right at the apex. We have got the Continental Divide where the water on the east side of the divide flows to the Atlantic Ocean and on the west side of the Divide it flows to the Pacific Ocean. We have 25 million people that depend on the Colorado River Basin for drinking water. These are issues that should not be downplayed. You know, on the East you do not feel the pain that we have in the West with our water. But I am asking that you understand the pain and I am asking that, before you agree with legislation and before you sign on the dotted line, for example to take down reservoirs like Lake Powell, that you have a clear understanding of the circumstances that are created when you alter the water system in the West. In Colorado, we feel that water is for Colorado people; but we understand in Colorado that we have an obligation under the compacts to share that water. At the same time, we think there is a responsibility from neighboring States and from our fellow citizens in the eastern part of the country to understand what the unique needs are of the people of the State of Colorado. Why multiple use and the protection of that water, whether we keep it there for minimum stream flow or whether we use it for agriculture uses that it has been well thought out over hundreds of years, 150 some years in Colorado, it has matured as we go through time. It has matured, the uses of this water. And it should not be easily dismissed by political movement coming out of some of my colleagues on this floor. So, in summary, I know tonight primarily the discussion has been on water. To many of you perhaps it has been somewhat boring because water is not your primary focus in Congress. But I can tell you from those of us in the West, those of us in the Rocky Mountains, water is probably the number one issue when we talk about what can we do for future generations. So I appreciate your understanding this evening. And, in conclusion, let me tell you some phrases that we take credit for coming out of the waters in the West. The phrase ``sold down the river.'' We do not want to be sold down the river in the West by those of us in the East. And we do not intend to sell you down the river in the East, either. We want a good cohesive partnership when it comes to water issues. ``Swallowed hook, line, and sinker.'' There are people that want you out there to swallow hook, line, and sinker that Lake Powell should be drained. ``Doesn't hold water.'' They want you to think storage does not hold water or there is a better way to do it. ``Not worth a tinker's damn.'' We think water in the West is an issue that is worth a tinker's damn. And finally, ``fish in troubled water.'' We in the western United States will be a fish in troubled water if we do not have interests and understanding by our colleagues and our citizens in the East. It is the United States and it does require understanding between these two graphically different areas of the country as to our water issues.