Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to address my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). Having been here for a while and listened to the remarks of the various people, I wish I would have had the privilege to meet the gentleman. That was fabulous. I thought your presentation was very, very good, and what a remarkable man. I just wanted to tell you. I thought it was terrific. Mr. Speaker, it is time for another nightside chat from the mountains of Colorado, so to speak. As you know, my district is the 3rd Congressional District in Colorado. There are a number of different areas that I would like to cover this evening. We have April 15th coming up, Tax Day. And I think there are a number of issues we need to talk about relative to the taxes in this country. Now, look, this is not going to be a horse and pony show. What is important here is to talk about substantive changes, changes that you can take to the bank that have occurred under the Republican leadership. Mr. Speaker, I can say that tonight it is not my intent to get into a partisan battle with my colleagues, but clearly when it comes to taxes, that is one of the distinguishing elements between the Democratic party and the Republican party. I would like to go through a few of those elements. Now, again as I said, it is not an attack, but it is a statement to clarify and to highlight what the differences between the parties are when it comes to many of these tax issues. By the way, I want to go through the tax issues, then I would like to cover a little on some of the education issues. Of course, we can mix all of that. If we have an opportunity this evening, I would like to talk with my colleagues about the jobs and the economy. These jobs, even though we have a very healthy economy today, we cannot ignore the fact that to survive tomorrow, to keep our jobs strong in this kind of an economy, we have to work on our education. We have to have the best education. This world that we are in is going to become very, very competitive in the years ahead. Fortunately, one of the finest tools you can get your hands on, the United States has it, and that is that next generation behind us. On a regular basis, I have many high school students through a program called Close-up and 4H programs, programs like that, excellent programs. I will tell you they come into my office, they visit with me, I give them an opportunity to ask questions. These kids are bright. If we can give them the educational opportunities that they need and that they deserve and that this country needs to preserve its status as the only superpower in the world, we are going to be in pretty good shape, but it is a challenge we have to take. I am going to talk a little bit about that. If we have time, I would like to talk a little about Microsoft, my feelings on the Microsoft judgment that came down. Religious Hypocrisy

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, the gentleman asked, and I think it is a legitimate question, why do we bring up this bill to kill it? It is kind of like a tiger in the cage. We have a tax tiger in the cage. This tiger is proposing to raise taxes. This tiger is proposing to raise the death tax. This tiger is proposing 80 new Federal programs. Why not lure it out of the cage? Once we have it out of the cage, we have all kinds of people who will help to take that down. The American people, they want social security earnings, that waiver that we put in as Republicans; they wanted the Republicans' reduction on capital gains, when we sell our personal property; but they do not want 82 new Federal programs. Republicans and Democrats across the country do not want 82 new Federal programs. So of course we want to lure the tiger out of the cage, get it out of its safe haven, out in open territory where we have a fair fight going on. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield. Mr. Speaker, I can assure all the Members on this side of the aisle, the Democrats on this side----

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just listened to this previous speaker. He talks about a silly game. Of course it does not mean much to him there is 82 new Federal programs coming in. Of course it does not mean much to him that the people of our country are going to have a tax increase. Why? He does not want the fine print of that Clinton-Gore budget discovered. It has been discovered. I would caution my friend up here, he talks about why do this bill? Why are you bringing this up today? Well, you know what, it is an old adage: every action brings a reaction. This is the reaction. And what is it a reaction to? It is a reaction to the Democrats going out there and not just raising user fees, but raising death taxes; not just raising taxes, but creating new Federal programs.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have control of the floor. Would the gentleman recognize the courtesies of the House?

Mr. McINNIS. I control the floor, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all the gentleman from New York talks about the quote out of Harlem called a pig in a pork or something like that. Let us come back to America and talk about a quote in the fine print. That is in the fine print I say to the gentleman from New York. Those tax increases, they are in the fine print. Those 85 new Federal programs are in the fine print. It is his administration that put it in the fine print. I would like to see him vote for that. Is that what he really supports? He really supports a tax increase for the people?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we have in front of us lays it on the table. It was interesting to hear some of the comments from the people immediately preceding this about sunshine and let us open it up. I think that is exactly what we ought to do with the budget of the President and the Vice President that they have sent over to us. That budget raises taxes. There is no question about it. It raises taxes. It is hidden in the fine print. What this resolution does is say, hey, let us put all the cards on the table. If the President and the Vice President are going to raise taxes on the American taxpayers, let us be forthright and let us lay it on the table and see exactly how many Democrats are going to vote for it. That is what this resolution does. It says, does their party really follow the administration wanting to raise taxes, like death taxes for example? And I can go through those in specific. We are going to give them the opportunity to vote on it. Because I think the American people, while our economy is still good, I do not think are very excited about their philosophy to raise taxes. And the administration, I think under the guise of a terrific booming economy, think it is time to squeeze into the pocketbook. I think it is time to see under openness, under sunshine makes great growing, or whatever that quote was in the last speech. Now is the opportunity for us to see where they stand on raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). I hope he addresses this issue in his comments.

Mr. McINNIS. I tell the gentleman, go ahead and stand up and vote for those 84 programs. Go ahead. But let us be frank with the American people. Let us not tuck it away in a stack of papers this high and stick a tax increase in there. Let us not go into this stack of papers and stick down there 84 new Federal programs and then under the guise of a great economy and under the guise of we are going to save Social Security for Americans, under the guise of all good words that sound hopeful, we are going to stick this tax increase in there. Forget the pig in the pork stuff. Let us talk about the fine print. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not have a point of order, he is out of order; and he continues to be out of order in defiance of the Speaker's demands.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am a little frustrated as well as the other side in listening to some of my colleagues. The gentleman, with his amendment, is simply trying to divert from the fact that taxpayers have rights in this country. I think the gentleman ought to focus his energy on helping the taxpayer out there. Instead, what we saw in committee over there and what we are seeing now, is that this gentleman is trying to focus attention away from the taxpayers of this country who are demanding some attention from the IRS, as far as the rights they should be entitled to, and he is trying to move it into the trial lawyers' circle. He is trying to move it into the circle of campaign reform. How interesting all of a sudden that this gentleman steps forward and starts talking about campaign reform. I urge the gentleman to step forward and start talking about taxpayer rights. I urge the gentleman to take a look at the taxpayers of this country and not to raise their taxes, but to give these taxpayers fair notice. Put them on an even playing field with the government. What is happening here is simply a diversion, and that is all there is to it. It is very easy to see what is occurring here, but it grabs lots of attention. Let us get on the floor and let us draw away as much as we can attention from the needs of the taxpayer and let us talk about this theoretical campaign reform. And by the way I would be very interested to see the gentleman's entire package and see what it does with the trial attorneys' association. I would be very interested to see the gentleman's package and what it does with the labor unions. I would be very interested to see the disclosures the gentleman himself has filed in regards to his campaign expenditures. That is not the issue we are here for today. The issue that we are dealing with here today are taxpayers' rights. My colleagues, the burden on the taxpayers is the heaviest it has been since World War II. There are a lot of working men and women out there who deserve to have rights when they deal with the government. There are a lot of new people in this new generation, I had a small class of them in my office the other day, young people who, for the first time, have taken summer jobs, and they are asking me what do these taxes go for. I urge the gentleman to withdraw his amendment. Do not put this amendment forward. Put the energy where it needs to be, and that is with the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 2000, Mr. Alphonse Stroobants received the Charles Sackett Heart Award from the American Heart Association, Centra Health and the Cardiology Associates of Central Virginia. The Coveted Charles Sackett award was named for Dr. Charles Sackett, whose drive and vision for cardiac services has made a long lasting impact on the Central Virginia Community. In his acceptance remarks Mr. Stroobants spoke of his former co- workers at the medical community, and of his many friends through the years. The son of a coal miner, Alphonse Stroobants was raised in war ravaged Belgium. He fled the Nazi occupation on bicycle into France when he was nine years old in the early 1940's with his parents. He immigrated to the United States in 1956 and took his first job as an apprentice for a tool and die maker in New York state. Responding to an ad in the newspaper, he moved to Lynchburg in 1959. He eventually purchased the company where he was working and grew Belgium Tool and Die into a successful business with annual sales in excess of twenty five-million dollars. He sold the company and retired in 1990. Mr. Stroobants gift to Centra Health has further assisted the development of cardiac services for Central Virginians and the Heart Center is named in his honor. Long known for his generosity and competitive spirit, he has remained a loyal friend to Virginia. His love for the community is genuine, and his service and philanthropy exemplary. Mr. Speaker I am honored to know and have as a friend Alphonse Stroobants.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask that we all pause a moment to remember a true American hero, Mr. William Crawford. Though he is gone, he will live on in the hearts of all who knew him and be remembered for long years by many who didn't. During World War II, William fought for our country while he served in the Army. Mr. Crawford's bravery as an Army private in World War II led to him becoming the first of Pueblo's four Medal of Honor recipients. Racing through heavy gunfire and detonating hand grenades on enemy gun sites, Mr. Crawford exemplified bravery. In 1945, he was captured by German troops and was presumed dead. As a result, his father received the Medal of Honor on his behalf. However, later that year, Mr. Crawford was rescued from the German troops. In 1947, he re- enlisted in the Army and served until 1967. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Crawford was a model American, embodying patriotism, strength, gentleness and service throughout his lifetime. William will be missed by all of us. Hopefully, we can learn from the example that William Crawford has set.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, Jack Roberts was a renowned artist, a knowledgeable historian, but more than all of this, he was a friend to many. Jack not only lived in the West, but he spent his career depicting the West on canvas for all generations to come. His art is coveted for its unique colorful flare of those ``ole cowboys'' all based on authentic Western men and women of the time. It is known that as a young cowboy Jack rode the ditch for months without seeing people. These times allowed him the solitude to accurately reflect, through art, on the life of the West. His paintings were significant and have a place in the history of the West. Jack spent over 50 years as an artist of the West. His paintings hang in many residences, businesses, museums and private collections. Jack studied at the University of Oklahoma, The Chicago Art Institute, The American Academy of Art in Chicago, and he spent two years with the great Harvey Dunn at the Grand Central School of Art in New York. Throughout his years Jack continued his study of the arts although he was already recognized as a scholar in the field. A point of note, from Jack's personal recovery he took many of the hands of alcoholics to help them through their path to recovery. His compassion, like his art, left strong impressions and a lasting thought in the mind. Jack leaves behind his son Gary, Gary's wife Monica and their son Wade. Additionally Jack had many friends and students of his art. I considered it a privilege to have known Jack as a friend and to have been fortunate enough to enjoy his art. We mourn the passing of this fine man from the West, but we keep in mind that he has just saddled up his horse, ridden ahead on the trail-- to set up the camp and put on the coffee. Jack, we will miss you, ``ole cowboy.''

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a living legend, Sally Morrisey. On March 24, 2000, Mrs. Morrisey reached a milestone in her life, when she celebrated her 80th birthday. On this day people from all over the nation came to celebrate this event with her. Mrs. Morrisey is Durango Herald's longest running writer. She wrote a column dubbed ``Sally Says'' for 36 years. Locals swear by her columns, learning about travels, hospital stays, visiting relatives and the ongoing beat of new grandchildren. From an early age, she has demonstrated curiosity and an outgoing temperament, a combination that has served her well as a journalist. From 1982 to 1985, Sally joined the Peace Corps where she lived in Costa Rica and Guatemala. Sally and her late husband, John Morrisey, Jr., raised a beautiful family of four children, 12 grandchildren and 4 great grandchildren. Some of her other achievements involve: the Peace Beyond War Award from the U.S. Government, the Eye Mission Award, the Animas Grange Citizen of the Year, AAUW's Outstanding Woman of the Year, the Barbershoppers' Harmony Award. In addition, Sally is active in the Reading Club, Tuesday Literary Club, La Plata County Historical Society, Durango Arts Center, Friends of the Arts, the Sewing Club, and an honorary member of Beta Sigma Phi. On the wall of her apartment, Mrs. Morrisey has a quote by Helen Keller: ``So much has been given to me, I have no time to ponder over that which has been denied.'' Mrs. Morrisey lives her life according to this quote. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we all wish a happy birthday to this outstanding American, wife, mother, journalist and friend. Hopefully we can all learn from the wonderful example that Mrs. Morrisey has set and follow the life of dignity and integrity that she has led.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to a man who sat in this august body for 24 years, from 1948 to 1972. Mr. Speaker, he served with six Presidents during that time, and was Chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. It was during his tenure in the House that the focus cleared on land and water issues in this great country. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the late-Congressman Wayne N. Aspinall from the small peach and winery town of Palisade, Colorado. Not only did Wayne Aspinall serve with distinction here, but his career in public service spanned over 48 years, including six years on his Town's Board of Trustees and 16 years in the Colorado Legislature. His six years in the Colorado House of Representatives included service as House Speaker for two years. As a state Senator for ten years, he served as both Majority and Minority leader. He was also a sergeant in the Air Service of the Army Signal Corps during World War I. But let me talk further about Wayne Aspinall's time in the U.S. Congress. In 1956, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, he crafted the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, which authorized Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Curecanti projects, plus several smaller projects authorized for construction and others designated for study. Aspinall's legislation was signed into law by President Eisenhower on April 11, 1956. In 1959, Congressman Aspinall became Chairman of the U.S. House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, as I mentioned. The ensuing 14- years of his leadership were probably the most productive in history in terms of water projects and national parks authorized and built or developed, wilderness areas designated, redwoods protected, the states of Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, public land law review, and so much more. Mr. Speaker, this remarkable Congressman's accomplishments continued. In 1964, he paved the way to the Wilderness Act, which became law September 3 and designated 9.1 million acres of wilderness and set aside more for study. At the same time, the Land and Water Conservation Fund was established primarily for parks acquisition. Then, in 1968, he created the Colorado River Basin Development Act, signed into law by President Johnson on September 30, which balanced development in the basin. On October 2 of the same year, his bill was signed protecting 58,000 acres of California redwoods and the Land and Water Conservation Fund was further beefed-up. Finally, Mr. Speaker, he returned to his hometown of Palisade, Colorado in 1973 to live in a new home overlooking the Colorado River which his life's work had done so much to preserve as a valuable resource for the entire western United States. He died October 9, 1983. Now, the citizens in his hometown plan to honor his memory with a one and a half time life-size bronze sculpture by renowned North Carolina artist Thomas Jay Warren. The statue will be the central feature of a Memorial which will include the representation of a dam and river. Several adjacent Memory Walls will be inscribed with the major achievements of the man known affectionately even today in Colorado as ``Mr. Chairman.'' Members of the Aspinall Memorial Commission envision the Congressman Wayne N. Aspinall Memorial as an educational one, designed as much to teach students and others of the importance of sound water conservation, good government, and the history of water in the West as to record Mr. Chairman's stellar accomplishments. The $165,000 Memorial will sit in the southeast quadrant of what is now known as Palisade Park, on a bluff above the Colorado River about 50 yards from the home to which he had retired. Mr. Speaker, I commend the people of Palisade and of the entire State of Colorado for their effort to honor a man who served the great American West with such distinction. And I urge all of who can do so to support this project financially. Aspinall Memorial Commission Members Tilman N. Bishop, Retired State Senator and Educator. Greg Walcher, Executive Director Dept. of Natural Resources. Atty. Charles J. Traylor, former Aspinall Washington aide. Dean Smith, Mayor of Palisade. Rich Helm, Executive Director, Museum of Western Colorado. Robert Helmer, Fruit Grower, President of Palisade Chamber of Commerce. Robert C. Dougherty, Associate Publisher, Palisade Tribune. George Distefano, Fruit Grower, representing American Legion. Harry Talbott, President, Talbott Farms. Elvis Guin, Retired Engineer, representing Palisades Lions Club. Don Taylor, former Aspinall student, Retired Military. Mike McEvoy, President, Palisades National Bank. Mary White, sister of Mr. Aspinall.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize an exceptional woman, Colorado's First Lady, Frances Owens. On June 9th, she will receive the Edgar F. ``Daddy'' Allen Award, the highest honor presented by the Easter Seals. Frances is the recipient of this award because of her work on behalf of children and for supporting many programs that benefit the well-being of the state's youth. The award is named for the founder of The National Easter Seals Society, who was nicknamed ``Daddy'' by the children he helped. Mrs. Owens emulates the goals and objects of ``Daddy'' Allen. Mrs. Owens has volunteered her time to many charitable organizations. She sits as Honorary Chair for several organizations including, Habitat for Humanity's Women's Build, the Osteoporosis Foundation's America Walks for Strong Women, Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, Samaritan's Purse, ArtReach and the Colorado Historical Society. Mrs. Owens also served as Honorary Chair for the first Early Childhood Intervention Awareness Day and sits on the Board of the Children's Hospital Cardiac Care Center. Most importantly, Mrs. Owens enjoys spending time as a mother of three children. It is obvious why First Lady Frances Owens was chosen as the recipient of the Edgar F. ``Daddy'' Allen Award. I think we all owe her a debt of gratitude for her service to the state. Because of Mrs. Owens' dedication, it is clear that Colorado is a better place.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask that we all pause for a moment to remember a man who will live forever in the hearts of all who knew him and many who didn't. Chuck Lewis will be remembered as a wonderful entrepreneur and mentor. He had a great love of the outdoors and of skiing. His wife, Penelope, and children, C. Randall, Christina and Vonda, brought him endless joys. Chuck was a native of Colorado and attended the University of Denver. His fiscal wizardry led him to the ski industry where he was able to turn around the troubled Eldora Mountain Resort. Lewis was also a former chairman of the Colorado Wildlife Commission, founder of Cooper Mountain and model rancher. He is regarded by many as the best chairman of the Colorado Wildlife Commission, because he cared about nature and people. Chuck Lewis is remembered as a person who would cherish any moment he could squeeze out of his busy schedule to spend on a river with a fly rod in his hand. He had a wonderful touch for people. His family and friends will miss the man that they enjoyed spending time with. The rest of us will miss the man who exemplified the selflessness that so few truly possess. But, when we lose a man such as Mr. Lewis, being missed is certainly no precursor to being forgotten.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if I could move to another subject. I want to visit with my colleagues a little more, and I have read with some interest about the administration's policy on these high gasoline prices. I am not sure and, in fact, I would guess that the President and the administration and probably all of the cabinet officials, I would be surprised if they pump their own gas. Mr. Speaker, I have news for my colleagues out there. Somebody better take a look at that price at the gas pump. Now, I know our economy is in the best shape it has been in the history of the country, and we could go into that in some detail. So it gives cause to some people to say oh, well, it is just something we have to live with. But there are a lot of people out there who have jobs, who are just getting by, and that high gasoline price has a huge impact on them. The cost of oil does not just affect gasoline in one's vehicle, by the way, it affects everything we use, everything we use in this country: medicine, production, plastics, rubber, generation of heat, generation of energy, you name it, the list could go on and on and on. This high price of gasoline is something that the administration's policy, in my opinion, needs to be more focused upon. Now, it is not like they are ignoring it, but they are not standing up to the cartel. What do you mean the cartel? What is the cartel? Let us talk about what a cartel is first. I pulled it out of the dictionary. A cartel: a combination of independent, commercial or industrial enterprises, a combination of industrial or commercial enterprises designed to limit competition and fix prices. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, talked about a cartel, and the cartel, of course, as my colleagues know, is OPEC. So first of all, let us define what we are dealing with out there and then we will move on, because that helps us have a clear focus on the problem and then we can move on to what I think some of the solutions are. Let me point out that I think the administration understands, somewhat, the problem. I think they have discounted it because we have such a good economy, and I do not think the administration, the Democrat administration has moved to come up with any kind of solution. I will point out that the policy of the Secretary of Energy is to go over to OPEC and negotiate with them, and the Department expects the price to fall sometime in the future. It actually fell a little today. Well, that does not take a rocket scientist. I think OPEC is realizing, and they are right about at the point where the ball will bounce to bring it down just a little. These negotiations are not going to result in something coming down. The price of oil is probably going to go down anyway in the next couple of months, but not to the extent that it should. That cartel still operates. How do we deal with a cartel? That is what the administration ought to be looking at. That is the key here. How do we deal with a cartel like OPEC? Let us go back just for a moment, because I know it is somewhat boring, perhaps, but let us look at the books. Probably, in my opinion, one of the greatest philosophers and writers about capitalism in this country, or in the history of the world was Adam Smith. Adam Smith says a cartel, he did not use the word cartel, he called it a monopoly, ``A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their compensation, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above the natural rate.'' So we have a system in balance out there. The natural rate is what Adam Smith refers to. But the monopoly allows one to exceed the natural rate. ``The price of a monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be gotten. The natural price, or the price that is the result of the market, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion, but for any considerable time together. That is the one that is struck by competition. The one that is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which, it is supposed, they will consent to give. The other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time that the sellers can afford to take, but at the same time continue their business.'' That is an important last few words, continue their business. My colleagues may be able to pay this price of oil for some period of time, but can we continue our course of business? ``Such enhancements of the market price may last as long as the regulations of police which give occasion to them. ``Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management.'' Let me repeat that. ``Monopoly is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse to it for the sake of self defense.'' What does all that say? What it says is we have a system in balance out there and if we allow the cartel to proceed on the basis of which this cartel called OPEC is proceeding, these gas prices which are not their natural price, they are the highest price you can pull out, when you allow that cartel to exist without some type of repercussion, it upsets the apple cart, it upsets the market cart, and that is where it comes down. The interpretation is maybe not for those of you who are wealthy, but for those people in this society who are not wealthy, they are the ones that are stung first and they are the ones that are stung the hardest. I can tell my colleagues that many times in the chamber we deal perhaps with the wealthier class of society, but there is huge part out there that we cannot ignore. There are a lot of people out there that this gas price is hurting and it is stinging, and the administration has an obligation to stand up to this cartel. The administration's policy should be very clear on its action. The United States has allowed itself to become more and more dependent on foreign oil over the years. There are a number of different reasons. One, the United States has become much less friendly in exploration on its own continent. In fact, many other countries are saying, why should we allow the United States to come into our country to do exploration for oil and take our oil while they are reluctant to do exploration in their own country. That is one factor that has caused our dependence, more dependence on foreign oil. The other, in my opinion, is that the administration's policy is asleep at the gas pump, let us put it that way. They have been awakened recently, not suddenly; it is kind of like a bear that is in hibernation: Kind of a slow awareness that there is a gas price problem out there on the market. There is a gas price problem for the average working American, and it impacts their families and it impacts education and it impacts jobs and it impacts our economy. What do we do about OPEC? Well, let us talk about OPEC first of all. What are the countries of OPEC? I think we should take a look at that: Algeria, Libya, Indonesia, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Venezuela. But there are few of them I want to point out specifically. That is the cartel. Those are the countries. Remember one of the countries I mentioned, Kuwait. Remember how, just a few short years ago, it was American forces that got together and led international forces to take Iraq and force them out of their invasion of this country, Kuwait. We lost American soldiers. We lost young American soldiers, men and women, for this country Kuwait. This is how they show appreciation; they become a member of a cartel to stick it to the United States. Now, I am not saying they are not entitled to a fair price. The market determines a fair price. Everybody is entitled to a fair price if the product has demand and if you supply what the consumers want. But to go outside the model of the marketplace and put together a monopoly which, by the way, is illegal in our country under most circumstances, to put that together under the form of a cartel, that is where we are out of kilter here. Now, what do we do? What kind of relationship do we have with some of these countries? Well, some of these countries, we do not trade with them. Iran, although my colleague, I believe the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), noted that last week the Clinton administration's new policy is on caviar and some other products, the United States has now opened the market to Iran. So while this cartel is forcing gas prices to unprecedented highs in this country, the administration's policy is opening up more free trade with Iran. Let us talk a little about some of the exports. This is kind of a two-way street. In my opinion, the Democratic policy here is kind of close your eyes, it will go down here by its natural self. Let us pretend it is not happening. Stall for a few weeks. Then if we get in a real crisis right before the election, our policy ought to be stand forward and hammer it. But right now, let us just kind of hope it goes away on its own. Well, even if the price drops a little, even if this price goes down, this thing is not going to go away. We have got to use some leverage. Do not be mistaken. All of the leverage does not belong to OPEC. It does not belong to that cartel. The United States of America and other free countries in this world have some leverage in this situation. Number one, we ought to go back to our friends, like Kuwait and say, how many years ago was it that we came into your country and gave you your country back? It cost American lives. It cost Americans billions of dollars. But we did it, one, because it was the right thing to do; but, two, we think there should be some appreciation in the future, not to put together this cartel. So that is one point of leverage, we can go to Kuwait. But we can go to any number of countries. We can go to Algeria. We can go to Indonesia. We can go to Iraq. We can go to Nigeria. We can go to Saudi Arabia. We can go to the UAE and say, hey, do you know what, we do buy oil from you, but you buy products from us. You buy American products. Then we ought to take a look at what those American products are. Do my colleagues know a lot of the oil that comes out of the ground that OPEC takes out of the ground, they do it with American ingenuity. It is American ingenuity that takes a lot of that oil out of that ground over there in the OPEC nations. So they are using our product. Take, for example, the steel casing that they put into the well, the drill bits that they go down into the well, the engineering technology of how to make it all come together, a lot of that is American product. In my opinion, the administration has some leverage there. The Democratic administration needs to stand up and say, wait a minute, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You guys want to stick it to us on the price of oil. Maybe we ought to stand back up and renegotiate what the price of engineering services from America are. Maybe we ought to talk about the price of American products upon which you are dependent. Maybe we ought to do a little negotiation on products versus products. Oh, it is great to send over a Secretary and have a cup of coffee and talk to them and say, look, you are really offending us. Let us lower these prices. You have got to get tough. This is the business world out there. Do not discount this cartel. These are smart people. They figured out America is pretty easy to stick it to because they do not fight back. It is pretty easy to negotiate with this administration because they do not stand up and get tough on some of these issues. I am saying you have got to change that policy. I think we here in the House should encourage the Clinton administration to be more direct, more forthright, and more forceful, especially stress on the last, more forceful on the leverage that we have with these OPEC nations. Our consumers will be better for it. Now, I know that the President's policy came out in the last couple weeks and says, well, we need more energy conservation, and we need more solar energy, and we need more efficiency. That is all well and good. I mean, that is fine. I agree with some of those things. That is not going to happen tomorrow. That is not going to happen next week. We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to do that right now. Do my colleagues know what, the Government has really never come up with the solution. The people that have come up with the best solutions are the people that have the most to lose. Car efficiencies are not determined by the Government or invented by the Government. They are created by the car manufacturers who know that the consumers out there want more efficiency in their automobiles. But the point I am trying to make here is that this administration, with our support, ought to stand up to OPEC and say, hey, we are going to talk about these American products. Maybe we ought to put a special fee on American products, maybe 1,000 percent fee or something on those products until you begin to negotiate a little on your oil prices. As I said, these are smart people. The only way, in my opinion, you can negotiate with tough people is you send tough people in to negotiate with them. You cannot go in to a tough negotiator, show your hand, and frankly, act weak. They smell weakness. They can see it a mile away. They are like a good poker player. They can sense it a long time before you know they have sensed it. We do not have any reason to go in there with weakness. The United States of America is a strong country. It is a country that has a lot of leverage on this cartel. It is a country that ought to use it so we can bring those gasoline prices down at the pump so that we can get a barrel of oil down to a price that we are not going to impact everything from education to our economy. Now, we say education. Now that we get education in here, I just saw it the other day that some school has had to curtail their field trips because of the price of fuel to take their buses on these trips. They have had to cut back. That is the only place they thought they could cut back. It is having an impact, I say to the President. The administration ought to know this. Now, I know in Washington, D.C., there is a lot of black limousines and big fancy cars, and the price of gasoline may not be such a big deal with a lot of the people in the Government. But I am telling my colleagues, even here in Washington, D.C., there is a lot of people that go to work every day that do not drive in a black limousine; and there is a lot of people being impacted by these prices. I think the administration has an obligation to be tough, to get in there and wrestle with these people. Take a look at what we ship Kuwait, for example. Again, as a reminder, this is the country that we went to war for a few years back, 7 or 8 or 9 years ago. It is a country that we gave lives for. Here is what Kuwait buys from us: aircraft and associated equipment, civil engineering products, contractor products, pumps, air or other gas compressors, fans, motor vehicles, chemical products, analysis and measuring tools, instruments, heating and cooling equipment, pumps for liquids. Every category I just mentioned to my colleagues is necessary for the production of oil. Yet, the administration has not mentioned one of those products to the best of our knowledge in their negotiations with OPEC about this cartel that has been formed to stick it to the free world. So I hope that, although I am not sure, I would hope that some message gets through to the administration that we have got to be a little tougher on these prices, that these prices are having a huge impact, a huge impact on the consumer in America. Today, we just saw the interest rate go up another quarter of a percent. Well, this is just the beginning of our problems if we do not do something about that gasoline price and the cost of oil. This last weekend, Mr. Speaker, there was an interesting article in the Denver Post. We are moving to a new subject. I want to talk about guns here for a little while. Last week, I talked about guns. I talked about OPEC as well, because I have not seen anything positive happen in regards to OPEC. But let us talk about guns. It is a sensitive issue. It is an issue that everybody in the country is concerned about. It is an issue that responsible gun owners are concerned about. It is an issue that manufacturers of guns are concerned about. It is an issue that the Government talks about being concerned about. It is an issue that every one of us in these Chambers are concerned about. What is responsibility in gun ownership? What is government responsibility in regards to gun ownership? What is the manufacturer's responsibility in regards to gun ownership? Let us visit for a few minutes about that. Let me begin by saying that the Denver Post ran an article this last weekend. In the Federal Government, we have an agency whose focus is to look and to inspect on behalf of the Government people who sell guns, illegal weapons, and so on. It is called the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not an agency that has a good reputation, as my colleagues know, because of the disaster at Waco and a number of other issues. They do not exactly have the kind of reputation that the Federal Bureau of Investigation enjoys. But the ATF, that is the agency we are talking about, they have responsibilities. As I mentioned to my colleagues, when we talk about guns, we want to look at a number of different responsibilities: first, the gun owner; second, the gun manufacturer; third, the gun retailer; and, fourth, the Government. So the Government's primary agency here is the ATF. Those are the people that go out into the field. They go, for example, to a gun shop and see if the owner of the gun shop, the proprietor of the gun shop, is in compliance with the law. Well, the Denver Post is a major newspaper in the State of Colorado. We have two major papers statewide, the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post. The Denver Post ran, I guess, a full disclosure or full story on the ATF and what they have done in Colorado. I will tell my colleagues, when they are done reading that story, it is the prime example of bureaucrats that are not doing a darn thing in my opinion. That is a bureaucracy that we ought to take a very close look at. Look, I am not one of these fanatics that says, get rid of the ATF, or the Government does not have a role in responsible gun ownership. We do have a role in responsible gun ownership. But we ought to begin by cleaning our own house. My colleagues ought to read this story about the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the State of Colorado. Let me go through some of it for my colleagues. The title of the story, ``Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms called slow to act.'' ``Federal regulators let two Colorado gun stores stay in business long after investigators reported they had sold guns to criminals and were operated by men forbidden to possess the weapons.'' So the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, this bureaucrat agency that we have got, knew that the owners or the proprietors of these gun shops, one, should not be selling guns, had violated criminal statutes, and, yet, they continue to allow them to operate in their operation. Two examples. One of them happens to be in my district, by the way. Lakewood, Colorado, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms granted a new firearms license to one Lawrence Lockert after State investigators concluded he had repeatedly sold handguns to people disqualified on background checks, including the convicted felon found running his shop. Lockert kept the license, despite a 1998 restraining order prohibiting him from having weapons as well as bond conditions regarding that restraining order and a 1999 guilty plea to domestic violence charge. A further comment on that: The records show that the ATF was informed that Lockert sold handguns to people with criminal records nearly 4 years before the agency took action. So in this Lakewood case, they knew there was a problem. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which is a good solid agency in Colorado, informed Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms that the problem existed, Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms knew that the problem existed, and they sat on it for 4 years. For 4 years. How can we in Washington, how can those of us in elected office from our local States talk about responsibility of the gun owners when the government itself continues to drop the football on the very basic laws that are already in existence? How can we talk about rushing to the House floor to pass more and more gun laws when the current gun laws we have are being ignored by our own agencies? We need to clean house, and Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms is a place to start. Let me go further. In CBI, which I mentioned before is the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, they found 10 instances in Lakewood in 18 months in which customers had acquired handguns despite being denied criminal background checks. So, remember, we put in criminal background checks. I happen to agree with that. I do not have a problem with background checks. We put that in effect and, despite the fact that is in place, this dealer ignored it on 10 different occasions. Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms found out he ignored it on 10 different occasions and just turned the other way. Now, when they were asked for a response, they gave two excuses. One of the excuses was, well, we just kind of lost track of the case. Now, that sounds reassuring. That sounds pretty good to hear from the government. We have a problem out there. We have somebody who ought not to be selling guns, it is against the law, who violated the law on a number of occasions, and they just kind of lost track of the case. The second excuse here, and I should point out here that I used to be a police officer, and I know when there is a problem, when a mistake is made, the easiest thing to do, as a cop, is to blame it on lack of resources. It is kind of like education. We never hear about the fact we need higher standards. People say, well, we did not have enough money. And that is exactly what Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms said to the Denver Post. We had very limited resources. Well, that does not work this time. Does not work, Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. That agency has received increase after increase after increase in their budget, and they are still negligent out there with some pretty critical cases. Let me talk about the second case. Delta, Colorado, in my district. It is a great community. I hope some of my colleagues have an opportunity to visit. But let me talk about the situation with a gun dealer out there. In Delta, State and Federal agents discovered in 1996 that a man in prison three times on kidnapping and weapons charges was operating a store with a Federal license to sell guns. The ATF let the shop, licensed in the names of his wife and son, sell guns until its license expired more than a year later. Despite the fact there were clear grounds for charges, no charges were filed. I mean, come on. We need to go after these people. And we need an agency that can do it. Look, I represent the West, and we have a very independent nature out there. We are not sold that we need big government coming into our back yard there to help us. We are not sold that we need more and more regulations. We happen to believe there are a lot of laws on the books that if enforced could go a long ways towards solving the tragedies that we all acknowledge exist out there. But, dadgummit, every one of us have a right to look at these agencies and tell these bureaucrats to get off dead center. Today, I am sure that the director of the ATF had on his desk a copy of the article from the Denver Post yesterday morning when he got in, I would hope by 9 a.m. in the morning. When he got in and looked at that article, he should have been on the phone 2 hours later saying, all right, which agents were responsible for this? What kind of action have these agents taken? What is being done by the supervisor for the Colorado region to make sure it never happens again? What is being done to make sure it does not repeat itself? I mean this guy ought to be, or this gal, ought to be enraged. Whoever runs that agency ought to be enraged. My bet is not much has happened over there at the slow moving Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. Now, I am not talking about all of the agents. We have some good people that work for that agency out there. But we have to look at the historical basis. We look at performance. We look at standards. In my opinion, the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, on a number of occasions, whether we talk about Waco or any number of cases, but when we talk about Colorado, the ATF has failed us. They have failed the people of the State of Colorado and they have failed the people they work for, which are the people of the United States. We are not enforcing the laws that are on the books. Well, that moves me into the next subject, a subject that is dear to my heart. We will have a bill introduced tomorrow by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the prime sponsor. It is a good bill and it highlights a project that I talked about last week, but I think it is important enough to talk about it again. We are trying to do everything we can and all of us, colleagues, every one of us in this chamber, we need to help step up public awareness of this project. This project, Colorado Project Exile, now, obviously the bill the gentleman from Florida is introducing tomorrow is Project Exile from a national level, but I want to talk a little more about what we are doing in Colorado. We all know that the Columbine situation that occurred there. We know the sensitivities that are happening across this country. So Colorado is a good place to talk about. It is a State that prides itself on its independence. It is a State in which a lot of its citizens own weapons. It is a State that has belief in the second amendment of the Constitution, but it is also a State that has stepped forward and taken a very aggressive stance on its Project Exile. Colorado's Project Exile has received bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans. Our Democrat Attorney General Ken Salazar and his staff, very competent, they are in the lead on this. Tom Strickland, Democrat U.S. Attorney, he is the guy that put this project together in the State of Colorado. Our governor, who in my opinion is the finest governor in the history of the State of Colorado, Bill Owens, and his cabinet, they are behind us 100 percent and helping us with resources. Every sheriff's department, to the best of my knowledge, every police department, every newspaper in the State of Colorado, has endorsed this project. The beauty of this project is it does not require one more law. Not one more law. It is not saying, U.S. House of Representatives get together and put together some more gun legislation. It is not going to the State legislature of the State of Colorado and saying we do not have enough laws on guns. It is a focused effort to take a look at the laws we have and how can we enforce that to bring about responsibility. Now, I can say, and I should say, to do credit to Richmond, Virginia, that is where Project Exile got kind of its original start, to the best of my knowledge. What happened in that community is that in 1997, Richmond, Virginia, suffered the second highest per capita murder rate in the country. They implemented this project, what they called Project Exile. And why the words Project Exile? Obviously, project is self- explanatory. Exile is, hey, you do the crime, you do the time kind of philosophy; except here, you break the law, we exile you to prison. You are going to pay the price. There is going to be a consequence for breaking the law. And there ought to be a consequence. And the consequence in Richmond, Virginia, is going to be immediate. It is going to be severe and it will mean something. And in Richmond, Virginia, we are going to go out and do public awareness. And in Virginia we are going to go out and have the public help us with public awareness. Just like the crime marches program. We want the people to get the word out. The second amendment is an amendment worth standing up for. But if someone abuses the responsibility, if they are violating the law, they are going to pay a price for it because we do not want to tolerate it. It is kind of like good cop, bad cop. The best thing good cops could do, the best thing good cops could do, having been a former cop, is get rid of the bad cops. That is the best thing to do. It is the same thing here. The best those of us who believe in the second amendment could do is do something about the people who violate the law. And that is what Project Exile is about. In 1998, after they initiated this, their homicides dropped by a third. Almost immediately their homicides dropped by a third. Their project involved Federal, State and local authority, and so does ours in Colorado, and we will go through that in a little more detail here in a bit. Under Project Exile in Virginia, 390 defendants were prosecuted in Federal Court in a very short period of time. What we did in Colorado is we have adopted the same program, and this is a poster that I have here that is a duplicate of billboards that we have gone out with throughout the State of Colorado. And let me tell my colleagues that we have also had not just participation from Tom Strickland and Ken Salazar and Bill Owens and Russell George and Ray Powers, who is president of the Senate, president of the House respectively, we have also got help from the business community. We have got help from the citizens of Colorado. We have made this a partnership. We have got assistance from the Federal government. And the McCollum bill, which will be introduced tomorrow on Project Exile, will go a long ways in helping make the Federal Government a bigger partner. But we have taken the U.S. Attorney's Office, who has coordinated it with the State Attorney General's office, with the State governor, and then we have gone to the business community and said help us fund this advertising campaign; help us get out the message that in Colorado if you break the law, you pay the price, and help us pay the price. That is why I am so upset with the ATF. They have dropped the ball in Colorado and, darn it, they ought to get back there and do their job. They have an obligation to us to do their job. Well, what our exile law does, and, as I said, it does not require one more new law, no more new laws, it goes out and says, hey, first of all, we want to make sure every police officer in the State of Colorado knows what the Federal gun laws are. We are going on the assumption, and it is a good assumption to make, that every police officer in the State of Colorado already knows what their municipal laws are in regards to guns, they already know what their State laws are in regards to guns, but they probably do not, understandably, know quickly what the Federal gun laws are. So we are giving them each a laminated placard, just like this, and very briefly it states what the Federal gun laws are. So if they make a stop or they have a contact with a suspect who has a weapon, they can very quickly scan this card. And if they see a violation, they can do something with it. What we have decided to do under our Project Exile is, any time a suspect is arrested with a gun violation or some kind of criminal activity that involves a gun, we immediately coordinate our municipal laws that are already in existence, our local laws, county laws that are already in existence, and our State and Federal laws that are already in existence. We then send it over to what we call our gun squad. The gun squad is a squad made up of prosecutors in these different agencies, primarily led by the U.S. Attorney's Office, again Tom Strickland. And what they do is they quickly do an evaluation on these violations and say, hey, this fella violated a Federal law. We can be tougher under the Federal law than we can the State law, so let us prosecute this in the Federal courts. In other words, what we are doing is we are putting an awareness campaign out there that if a violation of the law in Colorado in regards to guns, is going to be met with the toughest law we have on the books, we are going after that violator with the toughest law we have on the books. Why? Because the people who are breaking the law, frankly, are putting a bad reputation on those who are following the law. And, remember, possession of the weapon is not the big problem, it is misuse of the weapon. A lot of times in these chambers what we focus on is possession of the weapon. It is a diversion. It is a red herring. What we need to focus on is the misuse. And that is what Project Exile does. Now, in our public awareness campaign we put, pack an illegal gun, pack your bags for prison. Report illegal guns, and we give a 1-800 number. One of the more successful programs we have had, as my colleagues know in their own neighborhoods, is crime watchers. You call up, we give 1-800 names to turn in people. We offer rewards. We do not have to know your name; Crime Stoppers, different programs, Project Thief, things like that. We think we can reach the same kind of success here. If we know somebody has a fully automatic weapon, it is obviously illegal. Call us on the 1-800 number, we will go after them. We have got response teams. We are going to respond to this, just like we respond to bank robbers. The alarm goes off, we respond. We hit it hard. We hit it fast. There was a day where bank robberies were out of control in this country. We put together a responsive effort; that is what we are attempting to do here too. We have got some bad characters out there who are abusing the responsibilities, who are breaking the law, abusing the responsibilities as a citizen; we want to make them pay the price. Project Exile in Colorado is working, and it is only a few months old. We have seen dramatic results. We have seen excellent cooperation between the different law enforcement agencies. It is working. We did not pass the new law in Colorado in regards to this. We have gone into the books, we dusted them off, and it is working. We are also advocating and going after, and kudos to the Denver Post in Colorado for looking at the Federal agencies that are responsible and have a responsibility in this partnership who are sitting on their duffs, and that is exactly what the ATF in Colorado has done. You can be assured that when I go to Colorado, the ATF is not going to be very happy with me. I do not care. Do your job. You have got an obligation. Back to Project Exile. Let me say a few concluding remarks. This is important. This will work. I know that there has been a lot of propaganda out there. There has been a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. You have got the handgun control outfits. You have got the NRA, all of these people. There has been a lot of discussion out there about guns. Most of the discussions that are taking place out there, especially in regards to more laws, and more laws are not going to have the kind of impact that we are led to believe they will have. Do not be misled. It feels good. A lot of the propositions that come before us on this House floor are feel-good propositions. They make you think that you are doing something to help address this gun violence problem we have in this country. There is not a Member in this Chamber that does not want to do something about this violence. We are sickened by it just like our constituents. We want to do something, but do not be misled on some of these feel-good bills. This is not a misleading deal. This is not feel- good. This is, where is the meat? There is the meat right there. Project Exile has the meat. Project Exile raises the stakes for the people that want to break the law. Project Exile incorporates a partnership, our citizens, our constituents, our businesses, to help us pay for those billboards, our law enforcement agencies, in coordination to go after these people. It will work, give it a chance. It worked in Richmond, Virginia. It is working in Colorado. It is going to work clear across this country as more and more communities adopt the Project Exile philosophy. Let me move to an entirely different subject, one I want to visit for a minute about the death tax. It is kind of interesting. I met a young person today. I guess this young person was about 15 years old. He talked to me about his family, his grandpa. Apparently, his grandfather is sick or has passed away; and he said, my family is getting hit real hard with this tax. Can you tell me a little about the tax? Well, I did not have an opportunity to visit with the young person, but I hope to later. Let me tell you what this country does. As you know, we have to have taxes. Obviously, we have to have taxes in this country. We need to fund our defense. We need to fund our transportation, et cetera, et cetera. But years and years ago, because some people in this country thought that other people in this country were too wealthy and that we really ought to transfer wealth instead of through work or instead of through the Adam Smith philosophy, we ought to transfer wealth by going to the wealthy people and saying we taxed you throughout your life; but upon death, we are going to go ahead and tax property that has already been taxed. That is a clever way to redistribute wealth. Let us just defy the age-old proven theory of Adam Smith and the open market. Let us just transfer, redistribute wealth by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, the old Robin Hood philosophy. That is kind of the beginnings of the death tax in this country. Is the death tax justified? No. It defies the logic of what our system is built upon. We all carry a fair share, but redistribution of wealth through taxation does not work. What does the death tax do? I will tell what kind of impact, and colleagues you know this. If you do not, go out there and look at any small business in this country, if they have been in business very long, if their business has grown very fast, or if the homes that your constituents reside in for very long, they can easily be facing the punitive action of the Federal Government coming in upon their death and imposing a tax on their estate. It is called the death tax. It is unfair. Now, remember it would be fair, I would guess, if you had some property out there where the fair share of tax had not been paid on it and you came in and said, you know, you have not paid your fair share of tax, so we are going to assess a tax. But that is not what happened in the death tax. In the death tax, you are being taxed, with the exception of some IRA accounts; but that is very limited. You are being taxed on property that you have already paid taxes on at least once, probably two or three times. It is devastating. In districts like mine, where we have lots of ranches; we have lots of small family operations. These families cannot go out and afford the life insurance. I had one fellow say to me, look, just tell these ranchers to go out and buy life insurance, so when they pass away they can still pass the property on to their family, because the life insurance pays for the taxes. I said wake up, you are going on the assumption that there is enough money made in ranching and farming and small business to pay the kind of premiums that are necessary to give the Government that kind of money. It does not happen. And what happens in Colorado? For example, take a ranch, take a family ranch, one of the things that we are proud of in Colorado, you are proud of in Pennsylvania, you are proud anywhere that you have got open space, is we have families who have generation after generation worked and tilled the land that they support themselves and their neighbors off of, and they take a lot of pride in that. Now, they face all kinds of obstacles in being a small rancher, a farmer, the market, number one, the commodity prices falling, the costs of doing business. Do you think on top of it we ought to give them the biggest obstacle of all, and that is their own government coming in and saying, upon your death, we are going to tax you again on this property? In Colorado, when you go into a small ranch and you do that, you know what then, instead of ranching being, perhaps, the use of the property that is desired, it then develops into highest and best use theory, which means you take that 3,000-acre ranch and divide it up into 35- acre partials and build homes all over it. It is the only way really in a lot of circumstances, if you do not have the wealth to afford life insurance, you can get out of this taxation. I want people to be aware that there is a distinct difference between the Democrats, the administration's policy on the estate tax, the death tax, and the Republicans. The Republicans have, and I am not trying to be partisan here, but this is a partisan issue. This death tax has become a partisan issue. The Republicans are saying that this is an unfair tax on its face. It is punitive on its face. The Democratic administration has come in and now this year in their budget, in the Clinton-Gore budget, they have proposed an increase in the estate tax, an increase, not help us get rid of it. I mean, the least they could do is help neutralize it or not raise it, but the Clinton-Gore administration has come in and said we are going to raise the estate tax. And for any of my colleagues that might shake their heads, cannot believe it, take a look at the budget proposal. It is in there, a $9.5 billion increase. The estate tax is fundamentally unfair, and we should do something about that. In conclusion, as you know, we covered a bunch of different topics this evening. If I were to say what was the most important, it is, one, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, get out there and do your job in Colorado. You have got the resources. Do not use it as an excuse. The people deserve more from your agency. Number two, Project Exile will work. Help us. Adopt it in your States; talk to your constituents about Project Exile. And, congratulations, by the way, to all of the partners in our Project Exile partnership in Colorado, whether it is Tom Strickland; Ken Salazar; my friend, Bill Owens; Ross George; Ray Powers; whoever it is out there, you are doing a good. We are going to make it work.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, once again we are here this evening for a little nightside chat. There are a number of different subjects I would like to cover this evening. I would like to start out by talking about the loss of a good friend that I had last week, just a short comment in that regard. We are going to move on and talk about the Congressional Medal of Honor. We lost one of our heroes. If you want a true definition of hero, take a look at the people that serve in our military forces. We lost one in Colorado. I will talk a little about him. Then I want to move on and talk about the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms people. We had a very interesting item in Colorado over the weekend about the enforcement, or lack of enforcement, by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms department in their inspections regarding firearms sales. As you know, across the country guns have become somewhat of a sensitive issue. Now, last week when I addressed you, we talked a little on Operation Exile. I know that my colleague, the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. McCollum), is going to introduce a bill tomorrow to assist our local States and our local communities on their Project Exile, so we will highlight a little of what he is attempting to do. We will talk about our public awareness campaign and talk about some of the responsibilities of gun ownership. Then, if we have some time this evening, I would like to touch again on the death tax. As many of you know, that is a very punitive tax in our system. It is a tax that has devastating impacts on small businesses, has devastating impacts on farms and ranches across the country; and, frankly, this is not a justified tax. It is a tax supported by the administration. In fact, the administration has proposed a $9.5 billion increase in the death tax this year. I am confident that we can stop that. But just so you no, there is a big difference of opinion on the policy of the Democratic administration to raise death taxes and our position on the Republican side that says death taxes are fundamentally unfair, they are unjustified, and they should be eliminated in this country. But we will get to all that in due time. Let us start first of all with just a comment about a friend of mine, a classmate of mine, a fellow named Richard. I will not go into his last name, but I want to tell Members, my friend committed suicide last week. I hope that in your walks of life, sometimes we get so busy that we forget that some people have some demons within them that they cannot control, that they are having a difficult time with life. What I try and do, and it just came back home this last week when I was at the service of this gentleman, and he really was, I think he had some demons he could not control; but it brought back the thought that, gosh, any time we see somebody in some despair, we should always urge them, before they take that step, that ultimate and in some regards very selfish step of suicide, urge them to call a suicide watch or get some assistance. I am confident that my friend, had my friend just had a few more minutes of being able to calm down and think out the situation, we would have avoided a tragedy; not so much just a tragedy to my friend, but a tragedy to his friends, to his family, to his wife, and to his children. His wife, Anna, is a splendid person. She now faces a tremendous challenge ahead with these children. The circumstances of this suicide were tragic. I think the circumstances of any suicide are tragic. And if there is a justification for mental health assistance in this country, it is that suicide tragedy that takes place across the entire spectrum, across the entire spectrum of age, every day in this country. So I just urge my colleagues again, we run at a fast pace around here, but if one has an opportunity to put one's hand on the shoulder of a friend, and I am sure all of my colleagues would do it, and I wish I would have had the opportunity to do it, it might just work; it might just prevent somebody from being in such despair that they ruin the most ultimate gift that God could give us.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about another sad event last week, although the gentleman lived a full life, and that is about a gentleman named William Crawford, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. My district is the Third Congressional District of Colorado, and just for those of my colleagues that need reminding, that includes most of the mountains of Colorado, all the resorts: Aspen, Colorado; Vail, Steamboat, Telluride; it has the industrial community of Pueblo, it has the San Luis Valley, it has Durango, down there in the Four Corners, the Anasazi ruins, the Colorado National Monuments, part of the Rocky Mountain National Monument, part of the Black Canyon National Monument. As my colleagues can see, any time I talk about my district, I get in kind of a promotional mood because it is such a wonderful district. But there is another reason that stands out besides the natural beauty of this district and the people of this district, and that is that Pueblo, Colorado is what we call the Home of Heroes. Mr. Speaker, this last week we had four living members from the community who received the Congressional Medal of Honor. This was not awarded, they deserved this, they worked for it. I do not have to go into what the Congressional Medal of Honor means, although in my opinion, any recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor is at the very highest of the echelon as far as a definition of what being an American is all about. Well, last week we lost one of our four; it was William Crawford. He passed away last Tuesday and actually they were holding a memorial service today at the United States Air Force Academy. I thought I would talk just a little about what Mr. Crawford did and how he earned the Congressional Medal of Honor. I guess the best way to do that is just take directly from the script which described his actions. But before I do that, let me say that one of the things that causes me some, I guess one would say discouragement, is when I read throughout the sports pages of our newspapers in this country, we read about heroes in sports. My opinion is there are celebrities in sports and there are a lot of talented celebrities in sports, but we really ought to be very cautious and very selfish about the use of the word ``heroes.'' The word ``heroes'' really should be placed not on sports figures, but figures like William Crawford, figures like the firemen or the policemen that lose their lives. I think we lose a police officer every 28 hours in this country. This year has been a bad year for our firemen as well. We have lost several firemen in the line of duty. But let us go back to Mr. Crawford. I am not over-using the word when I use the word ``hero.'' He was given this medal and this recognition for conspicuous gallantry at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action with the enemy in Italy on September 13, 1943. When Company I attacked an enemy-held position on hill 424, the 3rd Platoon, in which Private Crawford was a squad scout, attacked as base platoon for the company. After reaching the crest of the hill, the platoon was pinned down by intense enemy machine gun and small arms fire. Locating one of these guns, which was dug in on a terrace on his immediate front, Private Crawford, without orders and on his own initiative, moved over the hill directly into the line of fire and crawled to a point within a few yards of the gun emplacement and single-handedly stood up and destroyed the machine gun emplacement, killed three of the crew with a hand grenade and thus, enabled his platoon to continue its advance. So he climbs over the first hill, he is in the direct line of fire of a machine gun, he is able to crawl under the machine gun fire, he gets right up to the machine gun emplacement, he stands up, he eliminates three of the enemy and throws a hand grenade in and destroys the machine gun emplacement. But it does not stop there. They go to the next hill and after reaching the crest of that hill, once again they are pinned down by enemy fire, and once again Private Crawford decides unilaterally to do what he can do to save the platoon. He moves forward once again in the face of intense fire and here, instead of one machine gun emplacement we have two machine gun emplacements, but they are side-by-side. As Private Crawford crawls up, he goes first to the left and is able to engage in a hand grenade throw, throwing a hand grenade into the first emplacement, destroys that one and then stands, throws a second hand grenade and using machine gun fire of his own is able to kill the members or eliminate the second machine gun emplacement. But the machine gun was still able to be used, so he jumps into the emplacement, takes over the German machine gun and then turns it on the German troops who were then retreating and was able to provide cover for his platoon while they move into a safer location. That takes a lot of guts, and for that he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. His passing is something that we all see with sadness, but I can tell my colleagues that during his 81 years, he lived a good life. He was properly recognized by his country for being what an American is all about, and that is putting duty and honor ahead of self, and that is exactly what Private Crawford did.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is time for another night-side chat. I look forward to visiting with my colleagues in the next few minutes. There are a number of topics I would like to cover this evening, but first and foremost I have just listened to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and his points on caviar from Iran. The gentleman's comments were excellent, and they were right on point. It is amazing how the administration, in my opinion, is dealing with the oil situation that we have got, the high gasoline prices that all of our constituents pay out there, yet this week they are going to lift the restraints and allow Iran, which is a member of OPEC, to go ahead and trade these products in our country. When we consider even further what the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) has said in regards to the terrorist acts and the problems that we have had with the country of Iran, it makes it even more astonishing that the administration would lift those trade restraints and allow Iran to come in here and trade as if they are our neighbors in our neighborhood. It does not make sense. I had to put my two bits in on that because I think it is important and because I want to talk a little this evening about gasoline prices. It has hit all of us across this country. I also want to talk about my case of the week. As many of my colleagues know, I used to be a police officer; and I like to highlight some of the more absurd cases I read about in our national press. This week's case comes out of the State of Colorado, my home State. I want to talk a little about law enforcement and our drug enforcement in the State of Colorado. We have a lot of good hard- working law enforcement officers in Colorado. And then, finally, colleagues, I wanted to talk about probably the most important topic of this evening: guns. Guns. A little controversy later on in the discussion, so I hope my colleagues will stay around because I want to talk about guns and what kind of situation we have got with guns. I want to talk about gun squads. I want to talk about guns, and I think at the conclusion of those remarks, my colleagues will walk out of this Chamber supporting what we are doing in the State of Colorado in regards to guns. Let us start at the top. Let us start talking about gasoline prices. We all know what is happening at the pump. And, by the way, I have heard a few news commentators say, gosh, we have nothing to complain about, look at the gas prices in Europe. Well, let me just say that we should not compare the gas prices in Europe with the gas price in the United States because the gas price in Europe is not comprised of extra cost of production; it is taxes. It is extra taxes in Europe. I do not think we in this country ought to sit idly buy and say we ought to raise our price of gasoline, just like the Europeans do, which means we are going to put a substantial tax increase on our gas prices. I think our country has every reason to object to the high prices of gasoline as we now see it. Our entire economy is dependent upon fuel and oil. Now, sure, we would like to lessen that dependence in the future. In fact, during the oil crisis in the 1970s we had a very aggressive drive to reduce our dependence on oil; but in fact we increased our dependence on oil, to the extent that we are much more dependent today on foreign oil than we were after the crisis in the 1970s, when we said we were going to be less dependent. A number of different factors played into that. Now, it is very easy to condemn oil. I deal with a number of people that are anti-oil. They think it is all big corporations, or they think this country has deserves what it gets in regards to oil. Well, if we really take a look at how fundamental it is, in fact there is not in this great room of ours, nothing, whether it is the furniture, whether it is the vehicles we use to get here, the electricity that lights the facility or powers this microphone or works TV cameras, all of this is very dependent upon this fuel. If we did not have this fuel, if the price gets out of hand, we will have an economic crisis. And when we have an economic crisis, that means we cannot do a lot of things that we think are good in our society, things like helping other countries, things like helping our own people, things like providing a strong military defense, things like providing health care, Medicare, Social Security. All of that is very dependent on a healthy economy. And when we look at our economy, the foundation of our economy, we have several pillars. One is good people. We have good people in this country. We have efficiency. We have economies of scale in this country. We have expertise. We have education. But amongst those pillars is oil, and we have to have decently priced oil. It is essential for us. Now, I want to point out that I have a disagreement with the Vice President's policy, as I take it, on oil. The Vice President's policy has been stated in a book that he wrote in 1992. Raise the taxes. My disagreement with the Vice President's policy and the administration's policy is that they should not be raising taxes on fuel. We are trying to get the gasoline price down, not take the gasoline price up. We cannot just continue to layer tax after tax after tax on the American people. I should point out again my disagreement with the Vice President. That was the tie-breaking vote in 1994, when the gasoline taxes were raised 4.3 cents per gallon. That may not sound like a lot, until we think about one of these poor working people that has to go to work every day who are pulling into a gas pump. They did not see a raise at work, and they are not seeing any more efficiencies. All they are seeing is they have to reach down deeper and deeper into their pocket and pull out more and more money at the gas pump. Then there are people in Washington, D.C. that think it is a good idea to have policies that say we ought to raise taxes more on gasoline. Those policies and the policies of that administration are wrong. We should not be doing that. We have to worry about this economy. Now, what can we do? We can all complain about gasoline prices and OPEC, and I can tell my colleagues that I have had experience with gasoline prices in Colorado. My district is the 3rd District of the State of Colorado. It is all the Rocky Mountains; almost all of the mountains in Colorado, and we have experienced high gasoline prices out there. Nothing like we are seeing today, but we have experienced those kind of prices. But today's price is being driven by a cartel. We do not allow cartels in this country. It is a monopoly. We do not allow that. We have antitrust legislation in this country, so we do not have cartels that stick it to the people. Now, some people say, well, it is the market. Let the market work. Well, let the market, if the market works in a true market form. I am a firm believer in Adam Smith. I am a strong believer in the philosophy of Adam Smith and capitalism and the market. But it is an unfair advantage in the market if we let a cartel go in. The cartel is not a concept of the market, and that is what is happening to your gasoline prices. People say why is the price going up? Well, part of it is the policy of the administration, in my opinion, that I have stated my disagreement with. But the strongest push upward, the more immediate push upward that we have seen in the last few weeks is as a direct result of this cartel called OPEC. Okay, well let us talk about the battle we are involved in. We have OPEC over here. It is a cartel. And as my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), said, Iran is a member of OPEC. We have a number of different countries, Algeria, Nigeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. These countries all belong to this good old boy club. Now, surely some of us have heard, especially being in politics in an election year, we have to get rid of the good old boy club. There is not a better more definite example of the good old boy club than the cartel and OPEC. They are putting a noose around us and keep tightening the noose. Well, does this country deserve to have a noose put around us? Let us take a look at some of the OPEC members. Kuwait, for example. Maybe we should dial up Kuwait on the telephone: Hey, Kuwait, how long is your memory? Was it not America that gave you your country back about 9 years ago? Was it not America that lost 50 or so soldiers giving you back your country? Was it not America that rebuilt your country? And this is how you express gratitude; you go into this cartel and say stick it to the Americans? By the way, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, and all these other countries of OPEC, whose expertise do you think you are using for the mechanical aspects of taking that oil out of the ground, of transporting that oil, of marketing that oil? We have had a good friendship over the years with many of those OPEC countries. It would be a shame if that friendship is allowed to be diluted by greed, which is the only bottom line when dealing with a cartel. Greed is the only bottom line that a cartel results in. It is the only result one gets with a cartel. It brings greed. And there are a lot of victims sacrificed as a result of greed. What is my proposal? I think the President, and I have heard the comments of the administration, and I refer to the administration's policy, I am not referring to the President or Vice President personally, as my colleagues know, but the President and the Vice President's policies of saying we should not tamper with it, it is the market, let the market deal with this, is wrong. A cartel is not part of the market. And if the administration is going to consider it part of the market, then let us play by market rules, which means let us get in there and tussle a little. Let us get in that market and say, all right, if OPEC wants to charge us 20 some bucks or 25 bucks a barrel for oil, we are going to start taxing American products that go over to make it possible for them to produce that oil. Now, starting tomorrow, if they want drill bits out of the United States to drill down, maybe we ought to charge them an extra premium to help us offset the fuel costs we are being dealt with. They want to transport? If they are using any kind of American expertise or American personnel, maybe we ought to have a special little assessment, we will not call it a tax, an assessment to make it a little softer approach, lets call it an assessment. We are going to put an assessment on OPEC. Two people can play this game. If OPEC wants to come in with a cartel to the free world and you want to put a stranglehold on us, it goes two ways. They are not totally independent of the United States. In fact, I say to OPEC and any number of those countries, not only was Kuwait dependent on the United States to free their country and give it back to them, all of those countries over there, without exception, all of them are dependent upon American expertise for their own economies. Maybe we ought to play a little tit for tat, as they say. That is what they do in the market; they get competition out there. Let us compete. Let us not just say, well, the competition has put together this cartel so we will just let things kind of wander as they might, as we hear from the Vice President's administration. Let us get out there and let us get in the ring with them. Let us take a look at foreign aid. Last year four countries, Algeria, Nigeria, Indonesia, and Venezuela, $165 million in aid, $165 million in aid to those four OPEC countries, foreign aid from the United States. When our budget comes up this year, maybe we ought to take a look at the OPEC countries that we have in our budget that we are giving money to to help with their problems under our foreign aid program; and maybe we ought to remember what they are doing to us, to the American citizens, to the hard working people that have to get to work every day, turn on their lights, feed a family, maybe we ought to remember what they are doing to us when we do our foreign aid bill this year. I think it is important. I think these gasoline prices will have a negative impact on our economy. It is nothing to laugh at. It is not something, as the administration says, well, we will just kind of let it go, you know, let the market take place. If we had a true market form the way that Adam Smith talked about a true market, we would not have a cartel out there, competition would be allowed to thrive, and we would not have this kind of situation occurring. The administration has got to recognize they do not have an Adam Smith type of playing field out there, they have got a cartel. And that is what is jacking up the price to the American people. The American people deserve an aggressive behavior out of its Nation's capital before our economy begins to crumble as a result of these oil prices. And we have got the leverage to do it. It is not like we are totally disarmed in this battle. We have got lots of leverage. That foreign aid is just one small part of it. American expertise is a big part of it. What we do for those countries is a big part of the leverage we have. We ought to put it all on the table. They laid out their cards. They got together and decided which cards were best to play poker with. And so, instead of playing poker with each one of them, they all got together and put their cards and are coming up with the best hand. Well, they do not have all the leverage. We have got some leverage. I urge my colleagues, let us get aggressive. Let us not sit back and take it. Let us get aggressive on this. We have got leverage, and let us use it. Case of the Week I am going to change horses here for a minute. I want to talk about my crazy case of the week. First a little of my background. As I said before, I used to be a police officer. And you cannot ever get that out of your blood. By the way, I want to say to my colleagues, of course, I am from Colorado. I was a police officer in Colorado. I have got a number of good colleagues out there who still are on the force. And just a message to all law enforcement across the country, my constituents' colleagues, they have got our full support. We love good cops. We do not like bad cops, but we love good cops. And they deserve the kind of credibility that they have. In most communities, I guess I should take that back, in every community, overall there is strong respect and admiration for our police officers. Let me tell my colleagues about a case that I read about in the Denver Post. I will cite the article. Denver Post, March 11. That was last Saturday. This case involves a defendant who is accused of murder. This defendant went out and allegedly, and everything I say this evening is allegedly, although the evidence, in my opinion, proves it up, but the decision has not yet been made, so it is all allegedly, let us take that into consideration, this defendant allegedly goes out with one of his buddies and decides that they want to go ahead and rape a woman. And, of course, if you rape them, you better murder her, too. So they go out and hit a jogger with their car. They hit a jogger with the car. The jogger falls, gets cut up and things. And this defendant jumps out and says how apologetic he is that he hit her with his car and he offers to take her to the hospital. Good Samaritan, I am sorry I hit with you with my car. Let me take you to the hospital. The smartest thing that woman ever did was say, no, I will get my own help. I do not need your help. I am not going to let you take me to the hospital. So that victim did not work out. So then they go on down and they find another victim, a 23-year-old young woman. They take her. They rape her. They beat her. They abuse her. They torture her. Then they murder her. Well, let me tell my colleagues what the defense is saying. Now, I have got to tell my colleagues, in fair disclosure, I did used to be a cop. I am biased toward the prosecution side. I used to be an attorney. I practiced law. I could not practice defense law. I mean, I know that they are entitled to a defense, but, as an attorney, I chose not to do defense law because I just could not find myself defending somebody whom the facts made very clear were guilty. But that is an aside. An attorney has an obligation to defend its client. I just could not do that kind of work. But I do disclose to all of my colleagues, I have a bent towards the prosecution. But these are facts out of the newspaper. This is not the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) coming up with an idea. These are facts out of the newspaper. So they go and rape this person. The defense puts on their case. And guess what the defense says? Oh, the defendant, this guy that did this, he thought he was the victim. He thought in his mind, and this is true, this is what the psychiatrist testifies to, that in his mind he thought he was being raped. In his mind, he thought she, the true victim, the murder victim, he thought she was causing infidelity in his marriage and he just did not really know what he was doing when he killed her because he thought he was the victim and he was trying to push her away from raping him and from causing an extramarital affair in his marriage. It is incredible. Dr. Riyana Rogers, a forensic psychiatrist who currently works as a professor at the University of California in San Francisco, let me tell my colleagues something, I hope I get the opportunity some day to meet her or that my colleagues get an opportunity to ask her about this defense. Come on, folks. Can you really think that a mental illness will allow a defendant, who earlier in the day, by the way, earlier in the day very methodically tried to get a woman in his car. He hit her with his car. By the way, I should also add this fact: A year earlier they had a witness testify that he dreamed or had a fantasy of going out and grabbing a woman and raping her. He said he wanted to rape a girl and kill her and make her boyfriend watch, according to videotaped testimony. And yet, this psychiatrist comes to the common people of America and says, look, I am sorry that the victim got raped. I am sorry that the woman got raped. I am sorry that the woman was abused. I am sorry that the woman was tortured. I am sorry that the woman was killed. But, you know, in this case the real victim was this guy. I know he is the one that killed her. Yeah, he killed her. But he is the victim. He thought he was getting raped. He thought she was disrobing him. He thought he was being tortured. He thought it was his marriage that would suffer as a result of this situation. So he called upon himself to justify it. Well, I am telling my colleagues, it makes me sick. Now, the jury is still out on this. I hope the jury does not buy it. If the jury buys it, I can tell my colleagues this will be one of the saddest chapters in American defense law in the history of this country. I said ``defense,'' not prosecution, ``defense.'' Because it does a disfavor to your industry to their profession, and I used to be an attorney, it does a disfavor to their profession if somebody is going to get off the hook by claiming that, in fact, they were the victim of the rape, they were the victim and blame it on the sweet child of 23 who never saw another day. That is the case of the week. Law Enforcement Next, I want to visit for a minute about law enforcement. I want to thank especially the Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. Senator Campbell and I worked very intensely, as maybe my colleagues know, on the appropriations bill. We put appropriations in starting about 3 years ago. We have got it in every year since. Senator Campbell, on the Senate side, has done a tremendous job for this, I on the House side. And it is the Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. We have Garfield, Eagle, Rio Blanco Counties are participating on a tri-county team, along with the communities in there. For example, my good friend Terry Wilson, the chief of police of the Glenwood Springs Police Department, I used to be on that department, I worked with the gentleman, he is doing a great job. And I want my colleagues to know here, this is a good program. What we have done is we have focused in on high drug trafficking corridors. We have given local money. We have not come in and said, we know better. The Federal Government has not sent in a bunch of agents and said, we know how to tell local law enforcement to do their job. What we have done is made available expertise and put money into those communities so that those communities can go out onto their highways, into their counties, into their cities on these corridors and intercede that drug trafficking. And it has been a great success. I want to acknowledge that success this evening. America Wants Solution to Gun Problem Now I want to talk about guns. We have seen a lot of tragedy in this country. We have seen a lot of debate. Unfortunately, a lot of it is being motivated by politics. But we have seen a lot of debates on guns in this country. And there has been opportunities for exaggerations on both sides of this debate on guns. There is a problem out there. Now, a lot of people will go with the satisfaction of just having the debate itself so they think they can score political points. But the core of America, the core of America, wants a solution to this problem. They want us to work out something that makes sense that will work. I think there are a number of people across this country that have come up with an answer that does work. I think it is being completely ignored, most specifically by the national media. I must say that in Colorado, the local media has done strong justification to the program that I am going to talk about. Let me give a little brief history of the program that I want to visit about, but first of all let us talk a little more, very briefly, about this gun issue. My position has always been, as a Congressman and as a State representative for years before that, that it is the misuse of the weapon that we must focus on. Putting all your attention on possession of the weapon it is a distraction. It is not the possession of the weapon that creates the problem. It is the misuse of that weapon that creates the bigger problem, in my opinion. How do you deal with misuse? Now, this sounds simple. It is so simple, you are going to say, right, get on to the next point; but the fact is when you have misuse you have to go after it. You cannot have misuse of a weapon, misuse of a gun, and ignore it, because the misuse will only grow unproportionately. You have to go after the misuse. That is a simple rule, rule number one, go after the misuse. Number two, what do you do about the misuse? How do you go after it? Well, I am going to go through a project that I think is very effective in going after it, but there are other things. This project incorporates all of them. One, be quick, swift. If you see misuse, if you see misbehavior, move quickly to stop it. You must intercede quickly. Delay of time works against you. You must intercede quickly. You must intercede with significant force. I don't mean you call in the Army. I am just saying that you have to be able to reach out there and grab that misuse and stop it. So, one, you have to go after it; two, you have to do it quickly; and, three, you have to have significant ability to stop it, to enforce it. It is very much like touching a hot burner. That is an experience that all of us have had at some point in our early years. The elements of touching a hot burner are contained within this project that I am going to go through with you, but I think it is the answer. Instead of talking about, well, we should have this and we should have more laws on the books here and more laws on the books there, let me say politically it sounds great, but it is a distraction. It is going after possession. Let us go after misuse and let us compare it to a burner, a hot burner. A hot burner is very, very dangerous. A gun misused is very, very dangerous. A car driven at a high speed or misused is very, very dangerous. You must have consequences if you are going to stop that misuse. Well, take a look at a hot burner. First of all, there is a warning. Now, the first time you touch it, you probably did not know the difference when you were very, very small, between a red hot burner and a burner that was just black, it was not red in its color. So you walk up to a burner and it is red. Well, after the first time that signal alone will send little signals to your brain, trouble ahead, trouble ahead, there is a hot burner; do not touch that burner. The first time that signal did not go up because it was not implanted. The impression was not made on your mind what a red burner meant. We are going to place impressions on minds with this project. We are going to take care of that. We want people to see the red burner. The second thing you did when you did not recognize that the red burner was a signal that there is danger is you approached it; and as you approached it, you began to feel heat. The heat was of little consequence because you did not really know what it meant. You knew it meant heat as a small child. So you kept going to the burner and you touched it. What happened when you touched that burner? There were immediate impressions made on your mind. Ouch, ouch, it hurt. The response was immediate, the consequence was immediate, and the impression on your mind lasted you for the rest of your life: do not ever touch a red hot burner. Today I want to talk a little about Project Exile. That is the red hot burner. We want people out there to know, Mr. Speaker, that it is red hot; and if you touch it, it is going to burn and the consequences are going to be severe because we want to create an impression in your mind that the misuse or the illegal use of weapons or guns in this country will not be tolerated; zero tolerance. It does not require new laws, by the way, no new laws, no new gun laws, none of this stuff. Put all the political argument aside. By the way, this project is supported non-partisanly. I will talk later about my friend Ken Salazar in the State of Colorado, the attorney general; a little later about Tom Strickland and all of the attorneys general who work for him who have done a tremendous job, the same thing with the Colorado State attorney generals there, attorneys there who have done a good job. We have a lot of Republicans in there. Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, is involved in this, our governor, of course, in the State of Colorado, Bill Owens, a tremendous leader for the State of Colorado. He is involved in it. It is bipartisan. Let me begin by starting with a little brief history on where it started. It actually started in the East, in Virginia. Now, you are talking to Scott McInnis. It takes me a lot to credit something beginning in the East. I am strong on the West, but this one started in the East. It started in Richmond, Virginia. What happened in 1997 is Richmond suffered from the second highest per-capita murder rate in the country, second highest rate in the country. So they decided to put together a project they called Project Exile; and in 1998, as a result of this project, the city's homicides were cut by 33 percent, the lowest they had had since 1987, all as a result of Project Exile. Project Exile, what is it? What does it mean? It is a Federal, State, and local effort. It is not just a Federal effort. The Feds are not coming into your State, into your community, into your county telling you what to do. They are working a partnership. This is a partnership. The Feds, they are a partnership with the State; and they are a partnership with the local government. The effort in Colorado, as it was in Virginia, was led by the United States Attorney General's office. Those are the ones who prosecute, from a Federal level, gun crimes. Where do we come up with the name ``exile''? What we wanted, and I say ``we,'' I wanted a part of it, I just think it is a wonderful program and that is why I am promoting it; but the reason the word ``exile'' came is if you violate a gun law, if you misuse that weapon, and violate that gun law, you are going to be exiled to prison, exiled to prison. Thus, the name Project Exile; Colorado Project Exile. In this particular case in the history, it started in Virginia, but this is what many of our billboards in Colorado are going to look like, just exactly like this, pack an illegal gun, i.e., misuse, misuse, abuse of the law, touch the burner, pack your bags for prison; and then report illegal guns, we give a 1-800 number. It have been so successful this Project Exile in Virginia that it has been implemented in Boston, it has been implemented in New Orleans, in Rochester, in Birmingham, in Baltimore and many other cities across the country, and now we in Colorado have adopted this and I urge my colleagues on the House floor, take a look at it for their own State. Look, there is a lot of rhetoric going on out there about these guns, and there have been some tragedies. There have always been tragedies with guns, misuse of guns; but put all the rhetoric aside. I have seen some rhetoric over the weekend, and most of it seems to focus on possession. We have the laws in place. We have a lot of gun laws in this country, and a lot of those laws are good laws. They make sense. For example, you cannot have an automatic machine gun. It makes sense. We have a lot of laws that make sense. You cannot misuse a gun, you cannot use a gun in a robbery, in this and that. It makes sense. Let us use them. Let us let people know that we mean business when we talk about gun laws. Well, Colorado Project Exile had a press conference last week. The NRA was there. I know some of you every time you mention the NRA your hair bristles. Other people stand up and clap. That was one side that was there. The U.S. Attorney's Office was there. The Colorado attorney general, who is a Democrat, Ken Salazar; and I applaud my colleague who does a darn good job in Colorado, he was there. Mark, my colleague here on the House floor, Mark was there; Tom Strickland, U.S. attorney, State of Colorado, he was there and his staff was there. By the way, a lot of Ken's staff was there. Of course, the governor led off on this thing. Bill Owens has done a tremendous job for us. The sheriff's department was there. Police departments were there. The Colorado state patrol was there. Lee White, an individual in Colorado who has put a lot of effort in helping us raise money, they have gone out and raised money to take this campaign to the people; go out to the people and tell them, the burner is hot. It is red hot. If you touch it, you will be exiled into pain. In this particular case you are going to be exiled into prison. Well, the project has multiple aspects to it; but the goal of the project is this, this is our goal in Project Exile: raise the stakes. You break a gun law in Colorado, we are raising the stakes. The citizens of Colorado are going to raise the stakes at the poker table. No longer are we just going to talk about issues like possession. We are going to raise the stakes, and we are going to look at the laws we have. We are going to make it very painful for you to violate gun laws in the State of Colorado. We want to make that burner hot. We want to make it red hot. We want it very clear that if you violate Federal or State gun laws you will go to prison. One of the ways that we are going to do it is we are getting a message out there. We really have three components to it. Remember at the beginning of my comments, Mr. Speaker, I talked about the gun squads. Gun squads, you said? What is he doing on the House floor talking about gun squads? Sounds like some kind of gun fanatic out there. No. We have a new gun squad, just like the vice squad. Vice squad goes after things, the drug squad goes after things, the traffic squad goes after things. Well, now the gun squad. Remember everything I am telling you about was supported by everybody from the NRA clear over to the State patrol, the city police, Democrats, Republicans. We are going to have a gun squad, and they are going to be looking for people violating those gun laws. If you are packing an illegal gun, if you are breaking a law like that, you are going to pay the consequences, so be ready. It is fair game; you are fair game. We have to let those constituents out there who think they are going to get away with violating those laws, who think we are going to ignore the fact that we have lots of laws on the books, we are going to let them know we mean business. That burner will be hot. So our gun squad will consist of a cooperative effort from our partnership with the Federal, the State and the local, to go out and coordinate our gun laws. For example, I will give you an example, every police officer in the State of Colorado will be given this placard. Now, this placard has the gun laws. You are saying, Scott, why do you give this placard on gun laws to the State Patrol, for example, or to the Grand Junction Police Department or people like that? Why do you give them this placard? This is not State gun law. This is a quick summary of Federal gun laws. Every police officer will have this; and they will be able to, when they make a stop or when they come into a situation, they will be able to very quickly figure out if there is a gun law, Federal gun law, violation that has taken place. Remember, they already know their city ordinances, city laws. They know the State laws, but really they do not have right at their hand, right in their palm, the Federal gun laws. Now they will have it, and they will be able to immediately know if we have a situation that the gun squad ought to look at. Our effort is to coordinate the gun laws at the local level, the gun laws at the State level, and the gun laws at the Federal level so that we can come up with the maximum temperature on that burner so that the person who continues to misbehave in our society and causes us a lot of grief, I mean talk about the challenge to the second amendment; I am a strong supporter of the second amendment. You talk about a challenge to the second amendment, it is these people out there that are breaking the laws that make other people in our society think that it is the second amendment that is the cause. The cause is that our coordination has not taken place. We are not making that burner hot enough. We are not making it hot enough for those people that violate the laws. Well, secondly, of course, the second thing goes along on the enforcement. I have told you this, those officers will have this. We are doing lots of educational seminars in Colorado. We have citizens in Colorado, not just cops, not just lawmakers, and I have many, many good colleagues in the State house and State Senate in Colorado that support this. We are getting common people out there to go out and raise money to help us make the public, and, in this particular case, the law enforcement agencies, aware that, number one, we are behind you. You men and women out there have got a tough job on the street. You need to know that we are going to stand behind you, and we are going to stand behind you on this one. We are there. We are there with you. Two, we are going to make information accessible to you. Three, once you go through this effort, we are going to follow through with the prosecution side of it. We are going to go after this. The third element we need to talk about is public awareness. This is not just a fancy poster to bring on to the House floor. This is a duplicate copy of what our billboards and what our advertising program is going to be like in the State of Colorado. Now, I say ``ours.'' It is ours. It is the people of the State of Colorado. In fact, it is the people of the United States of America focusing in Colorado, or in Baltimore, or in West Virginia. It is your taxpayer dollars in the U.S. Attorney's Office. But in Colorado our project is going to read Colorado, Project Exile. Remember what exile means. You violate the law, you do the crime, you do the time, except this time we are going to do something. We are really doing it. Pack an illegal gun, pack your bags for prison, and a 1-800 number. I will talk about that later. Mr. Speaker, when I was in the state legislature in the 1980s we decided we were going to get tough on guns. We decided we were going to get tough on crime. We decided we were going to get tough on judges who we did not think were doing an adequate enough job of being tough on these people. We toughened up in Colorado. We built prisons and we sent people to prisons and our crime rate dropped like a rock in water. Why? Because they knew there were consequences. They knew the punishment would be there and they knew it would be fairly immediate and it worked in Colorado. Now, look, I have heard the age-old argument, well, look, Scott McInnis in Colorado has the wrong idea. Build more schools and less prisons. Mr. Speaker, that is comparing apples to oranges. Who does not want to build more schools? Who does not support stronger education? But the finest education system in the world in a society that has it, and I happen to think the United States, when you look at the overall picture of education, I think we have one of the finest systems in the world, still has got people that are going to misbehave. The Catholic priesthood is one of the finest callings man could go to, in my opinion. I am a Catholic. But if you are Jewish, maybe a Rabbi, or whatever. It is one of the finest callings you can go to, but you have bad people. No matter how well you educate a Catholic priest, no matter how well you educate a Rabbi, or no matter how well you educate your general population, you are going to have some bad apples out there, and some of these apples are animals, just like the fellow I mentioned before, who declares he is the victim because he raped a woman, murdered her and tortured her. She was not the victim; he was the victim. That guy ought to be in prison. I do not care what kind of school you build in Colorado, you are not going to do much with this guy. Face the fact that a certain percentage of your population you are going to have to deal, you are going to have to consequences. So that is what we are doing. We are saying you are going to go to prison. We are not going to go out and rehabilitate you, we are not going to go out and doodle around and slap you on the hand and tell you we are going to look the other way, although in the past I can tell you very few gun laws in the State of Colorado in my opinion were enforced. We looked the other way. Too much hassle. ``It's okay. Old Joe here has got to use this weapon in a robbery or something, let's get him on a robbery.'' Well, things have changed. Now, tragedy, of course, has created this change. Not just tragedy at Columbine, we all know about that, but tragedy in the other cases too, and it is time for the whole Nation, every one of my colleagues sitting on this floor, to change, not change, because I know you are supportive, I do not know anybody that is not, let us use the laws we have got. Let us go after them. Let us talk about the 1-800 number. ``Report illegal guns, 1-800-283- guns.'' Where did that come from? Remember the program, maybe you have seen it in your neighborhood, I have got it in my neighborhood, neighborhood watch, the neighborhood watch program? Or crime watchers, where you call in. You do not have to give your name, and we put rewards out there? We went out in law enforcement, I used to be a cop, we went out there and recognized, you know, we do not know it all. We cannot do it all. We have got to form a partnership. We need to form a partnership with our citizens. We need to reach out to our citizens and ask them to help us. That is where crime watchers came, that is where neighborhood watch came about, and that is exactly what is going to happen with Colorado Project Exile. We are asking for your help. We are going to give you a 1-800 number. If you know somebody that is carrying an illegal weapon, you know somebody that used a weapon in a crime, you know somebody that has a fully automatic weapon that is illegal, call us, 1-800. No expense. No cost. You are helping yourself, you are helping your society. Call us. We mean business. You call us. Let us prove to you we are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior in society. We have got some good solid laws on the books. I want to remind everybody, the National Rifle Association supports this. This is not something that has got a polarization going on out there. There is a lot of polarization today. I just saw it over the weekend. The President's policies are this, somebody else's policies are this, the Vice President is demanding apologies. Forget all of that rhetoric. Let us talk about right here. This is it. This is a policy that works. It is nonpartisan. It reaches out and brings lots of partners into our partnership, and our partnership is a strong partnership, as witnessed by the number of people that were at that press conference last week in Colorado announcing the kickoff. Now, has it made a difference? You bet it has. Remember, the press conference was last week, the statewide effort. Tom Strickland, the U.S. Attorney in the State of Colorado, actually initiated this in October of last year. Let me tell you, first of all, has it been accepted by the public in Colorado? I have talked to you about how all the leaders have come together in a non-polarized partnership and formed a team. But have the people who we work for, have they accepted it? The answer in Colorado is yes. The media has accepted it. Denver Post, Denver Rocky Mountain News, Colorado Springs Gazette, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Boulder Daily Camera, I could go on and on. This has strong support in Colorado. In 1998, let me give you a few examples, these are some statistics. Primary charge, weapons used to facilitate drug trafficking. In 1998, eight people were charged. In 1999, 36 were charged. Project Exile was only in effect for 3 months. Another startling statistic. A felon in possession of a gun, in 1998, 17 people, in Colorado, we have 3 million people, we got a lot of felons. Colorado is a great State, do not get me every wrong, but every State has felons out there, too many felons, and we know those felons, we know more than 17 felons had guns in their possession. Well, now we are going to know a lot more, because we are getting participation from the community and from the law enforcement agencies and from the prosecutors and from the Federal Government with its assistance. Now we know we are going to find out a lot more about these felons. That number jumped by 30 percent, by 30 percent, and we were only in effect for 3 months. We have a number of others. But let me just give you an idea. Here are some crimes in Colorado that recently charges have been filed under Operation Project Exile. In my opinion and in the expert opinion of the U.S. Attorney's Office and other people who really are in the field hands-on, these charges would not have been filed in Colorado, would not have been filed in Colorado, had it not been for our team effort on Colorado Project Exile. What are they? I will give you an example. Delivery of a firearm to a common carrier without notice. Illegal exportation of guns via commercial airliners to Honduras. They were exporting illegal weapons to Honduras. Had this project not been in effect starting in October of last year, our guess is charges would never have been filed under this law. Possession of two sawed-off shotguns. We know sawed-off shotguns are illegal. It has been a long time since there were charges filed. Project Exile, we are filing charges. We filed them. Possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, possessed an Uzi and a sawed-off shotgun and had domestic violence convictions and attempted third degree assault charges. All of those were wrapped up under Colorado Project Exile. Our belief is that most of those charges would not have been filed, had we not decided to take an aggressive, very aggressive, stance on the existing gun laws. Drug user, addict in possession of a firearm, marijuana and methamphetamines, while possessing explosive devices and possession of unregistered firearms, destructive devices. In the past we think that it was too complicated or the coordination was not right or the team was not in place. We think in this particular case those charges would have been overlooked. Not under Colorado Project Exile. Possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Possessed a 9 millimeter semiautomatic assault weapon and had a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. Another case, look the other way. Not intentionally look the other way, but the sophistication, the teamwork was not there, the commitment to aggressively go after the laws that already exist was not there. It is all there now. I stress to you, one of our biggest partners are our constituents. This is not isolated to the police department or to the U.S. Attorney's Office or to Ken Salazar at the State Attorney General Office or our Governor. This is statewide. Possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. Federal firearm license, selling to a non-resident of Colorado, failure on the background check and selling to a convicted felon. So you can see, I have got page after page after page of violations we think will now be aggressively pursued against the people who decide that their misbehavior is something that society is going to have to tolerate. Their theory is, ``Hey, I do what I want to do. If I want to carry around a sawed-off shotgun or misuse a weapon, society is going to have to adapt to my behavior.'' Well, we have got news for you. You are going to adapt to society's behavior. Let me say in conclusion, this Project Exile is not an attack on the Second Amendment. I am a strong believer in that. In fact, I think it helps us support the Second Amendment. This Project Exile is not ignorance of the problems we have out there of the tragedy. In fact, I think it is going to do a lot more to avert tragedies and to get our hands on these tragedies that are taking place than any of the rhetoric going on right now in the Nation by the highest levels of our administration. This is going to get things done. This is not talk. Talk is cheap. This is going to get things done. It has got support of the major law enforcement agencies in Colorado, from your local police department to the Attorney General, to the U.S. Attorney General's office. It has got the Governor. It has got Democrats and Republicans in the State house and the State senate supporting it. In fact, maybe the best way to summarize, I have not found anybody who objects to it. I have not found anybody who says to ignore the laws, the laws in existence on the books now. In fact, my friends who support the Second Amendment, one of their basic points is let us see what happens when we enforce the laws we currently have on the books. Let us see what happens when we make the consequences of touching a burner immediate and painful. Their bet, my bet, everyone involved in this, the bet is you will not touch that burner again, and society will be better for it. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all colleagues, in their respective districts, in their respective States, go out there, talk to their Attorney General. If you are Republicans, talk to the Democrats. If you are Democrat, talk to the Republican leaders in your State. Form a team like we did in Colorado and put in your own Project Exile. My bet, and I think it is a safe bet, and I am a betting man and I like safe bets, my bet is that after 1 year you will find out that your Project Exile has accomplished more than all of the rhetoric combined for all of the States. But the rhetoric aside, put the action in place. You pack an illegal gun; you pack your bags for prison.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the accomplishments of one of Colorado's bright youth, and participant in the JASON Project in Houston, TX, Rachel Owen. In doing so, I would like to honor this teenager for her academic accomplishments. As a student in middle school, Rachel became very active in the Science Outreach Center in Carbondale, CO. She then became an Argonaut in the JASON Project and from there, was chosen to attend a program at NASA in Houston. She is the first student from the Roaring Fork Valley to participate in this program. Rachel is active in the Kids Teaching Kids program through the Science Outreach Center. She is also an exemplary student, receiving A's throughout her academic career. Her peers and teachers recognized her great accomplishments and held a pep rally in her honor. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Rachel Owen on a truly exceptional accomplishment at the age of 14. If we had more citizens like her, I am certain that we would live in a very harmonious place.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the accomplishments of an outstanding student organization, the Fruita Monument High School Speech and Debate Team. In doing so I would like to honor the following individuals on the team for their superb contributions to the speech and debate team: Juli Carrillo, Ginger Jacobson, Jenna Birkhold, and Eric Slater. The stellar performance by the team is a direct indication to why they qualified for the national competition, to be held in Portland, OR. Their love of argumentation and debating issues helped them become victorious. They have proven to be an asset to their school and community. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say congratulations to the Fruita Monument's Speech and Debate team on a truly exceptional accomplishment.