Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask that we all pause for a moment to remember a man who we have lost, Louis Brach. 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. Mr. Brach was a former mayor, city councilman, as well as, an entrepreneur in Grand Junction. He was known as a wonderful businessman and had the gift of recognizing opportunity well ahead of others. As the owner of Brach's Market, he would go out of his way to tend to all of his customers. When he moved to Grand Junction at the age of 5, he knew that he was destined to make a difference. Louis Brach is someone who will be missed by many. His friends and family will miss the man that they all 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. Brach, being missed is certainly no precursor to being forgotten. And, everyone who ever knew him, will walk through life differently for it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I wish to take this moment to recognize the remarkable life and significant achievements of one of Pueblo's leading ladies. Though she is gone, she will live on in the hearts of all who knew her and be remembered for long years by many who didn't. LeVert Hoag, married to the late Pueblo chieftain publisher, Frank Hoag, Jr., died at the age of 87. She was known as a outgoing, enthusiastic, kind and warm person. Mrs. Hoag had a deep interest in the community, from the time she moved there in 1935. She was an integral part to Pueblo, helping out any where she could to make the Pueblo community a better place to live. She was the chairman of the first Service League Follies in 1937, member of the Pueblo Community College Foundation, sponsor of the Hoag Theater, member of the Pueblo Hall of Fame and was also active in the United Way, the Pueblo County Tuberculosis and Health Association and the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Mrs. Hoag also served on the board of the Pueblo Civic Symphony and was also an honorary chairman of the Pueblo Metropolitan Museum. LeVert Hoag is someone who will be missed by all of us. Those who knew of her will miss spending time with her. We, as a society, have lost someone who was rare to begin with. Mrs. Hoag made the ultimate sacrifice to help a total stranger. Hopefully we can all learn from the example that LeVert Hoag set. And, perhaps, we can all try to become a little bit more like her.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this moment to recognize the career of one of Garfield County's community leaders, and recipient of the Garfield County 1999 Employee of the Year award, Judy Blakeslee. In doing so, I would like to honor this individual who, for many years, has exhibited dedication and experience to the Sheriff's Department of Garfield County. As a Civil Deputy for the last 18 years, Judy handles restraining orders, evictions, garnishment of wages and custody orders in the county. Before becoming a Civil Deputy, Ms. Blakeslee spent her first year as Garfield County's Animal Control Officer. She took her role as a Civil Deputy to another level. She would go out of her way to aid displaced and needy families to the best of her ability. Judy Blakeslee has more than proven herself as a valuable asset to the Sheriff's Department of Garfield County, therefore, receiving this award. This achievement recognizes her compassion, professionalism and dedication to her County. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Judy Blakeslee on a truly exceptional career as a Garfield County employee. Ms. Blakeslee's dedicated service stands out and sets a standard for those who follow. In conclusion I would note that as a police officer and attorney-at- law I had the privilege to work with Judy. I felt fortunate to have her as a friend and as a coworker.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask to incorporate into the Record the written documents that I have here. If the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) does not have any further comments at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by saying this, we are good neighbors. In the West, we feel very strongly about the good neighbor attitude. But give us an opportunity to be good neighbors. Give us an opportunity to work with you and let you be aware of how important multiple use is, of what the differences between water in the East and water in the West is. We are here not in a confrontational mood. We are here in an attempt to build a coalition to let us continue to have the kind of life-styles that others enjoy, and that is a life-style that has come through hundreds of years of living here in the east, and in the west in the time we have out there. We want to be a good neighbor. We want the right to continue to use the land. We do not want anybody to abuse the land. Mr. Speaker, I conclude tonight's night-side chat by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from the State of Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his participation, and submitting for the Record, as I mentioned earlier, the research data done by the Center for the New West: Growth, Open Space and Wilderness Colorado Opinion Research Shows Support for Wilderness Declines as Public Learns More about Restrictions (By Philip M. Burgess and Kara Steele) Summary. An opinion survey of Colorado voters, conducted by Strategies West for Center for the New West, shows that public support for designation of additional wilderness areas is not unconditional and very much depends on the specific circumstances. Wilderness proposals that are the product of broad public input and that seek to balance preservation with multiple use of natural resources would seem to enjoy the strongest support. It is clear that using polling data that shows general support for wilderness areas to ``demonstrate'' support for any specific proposal is highly misleading and must not go unchallenged. Background. The federal government owns 47% of the land in the 11 ``public lands states''--all located in the Western U.S.* In four states, the federal government owns more than half the land--Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. In Colorado, more than one-third of the land is owned by the Federal government. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * The 11 public lands states, located in the lower 48, are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most of these federal land holdings in the West are managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service, making the BLM and the Forest service the de factor planning and zoning board for much of the rural West. Result: Issues that anywhere else in the nation would be state of local issues--like locating a road or bike path or building a water system or camping facilities--are federal issues in the West. Examples: BLM or Forest Service managers decide how many cows will graze, where they will graze and at what time of year--or where a pipeline or road must go. Over the past decade Center-sponsored studies and forums, Congressional hearings and media reports have documented increasing dissatisfaction with ``one-size fits-all'' federal policies that guide the management of federal lands and the highly-intrusive administrative practices of federal land managers. A major concern is that land use decisions by federal authorities can have a strong bearing on jobs and economic opportunity in the small towns and rural areas adjacent to federal lands. Increasingly, Westerners and, to be fair, some federal land managers, have called for major reforms in federal land management policies--and especially for policies and practices that would allow greater decentralization of decision-making within the federal system and more local participation and administrative flexibility in this system of federal control. The bottom line: Both Westerners and many outside the West are dissatisfied with the way the federal government managers its land holdings in the West--including national parks, wilderness and other federal lands--and the concern is highest among those most affected. These include tourists and other visitors to the West, farmers, ranchers and small business people who live and work in the rural West, and economic development professionals who struggle to make things work in the transition to America's New Economy. In addition, there is growing concern in Congress about how President Clinton uses executive power--and especially the willingness of this executive branch to usurp and Constitution authority of Congress (violating the separation of powers among co-equal branches of government) and the states (violating the principles of federalism). The concern came to a head in October when Western members of Congress initiated a resolution to block the Clinton administration from designating 570,000 acres near the Grand Canyon as a national monument and to restrict the administration's ability to lock up other land holdings without subjecting its proposals to legislative review. These are initial moves of an increasingly assertive Western Congressional delegation determined to restrict the power of the president to withdraw millions of acres of public land from multiple use without public participation or comment by bikers, climbers, builders of camp sites and explorers for oil and gas and other natural resources, These are among the most effected individuals and groups whose access to the land is often restricted or prohibited. These concerns, and the timing of these moves by Western members of Congress, reflect a backlash from President Clinton's 1996 election year designation of 1.7 million acres in Utah as the Escalante/Grand Staircase National Monument, a stealth decision without Congressional review and without broad consultation with state and local elected leaders or the public. By contrast, when the process of restricting public use of the land includes broad intergovernmental consultation and public participation, good things happen. Example: October's designation of the Black Canyon National Park in Western Colorado. This designation of America's newest national park was supported by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Rep. Scott McInnis and other members of Colorado's Congressional delegation and by most state and local elected leaders and the public in Colorado.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time from the gentleman from the State of Utah. Now let us go to the next step of our conversation tonight on our night-side chat with my colleagues about the issues of the West. Remember at the beginning of the comments, I say to my colleagues, that we talked about the fact of the massive differences between the western United States and the eastern United States. My colleagues will remember that I qualified my remarks. We are the United States of America. We are one country, a country I am very proud of, the superpower of the world. We have a lot to be proud of as Americans. In fact, today, I say to the gentleman from Utah, I had a number of young people who come back on their visits to the Nation's capital. I am so proud of that generation. It was interesting when I talked to these youngsters. We had Jessica, we had Amber, we had Ben, and we had Mary. Those particular students, one was from Aspen, one was from Steam Boat Springs, Colorado, one was from La Junta, Colorado, and I believe the other one was from Alamosa, Colorado. But the issues they talked about are issues of the West. We have grown up in the West, and we like our lifestyle in the west. And just as we are proud to be Americans with this country and the attributes of this country, we have a lot of things in the West that we are proud of, and we have a lot of things in the West that we share with everyone. We have a lot of monuments. The gentleman talked about Bryce Canyon. I was in the gentleman's fine State last week. My parents have a winter home out there in Saint George, Utah. It is a beautiful State. The gentleman has done a darned good job in Utah, the rest stops, the way they protected and preserved that land. The gentleman's State has done a good job. I am proud to say that the State of Colorado, my former colleagues in the State House, my colleagues who serve as County Commissioners, our Governor of the State of Colorado, Governor Bill Owens, these people have done a good job in Colorado of preserving our lands. We care about those lands. Those are our lands. That is where our heritage is. That is where our roots are. If Members have ever skied in Colorado, they have skied in the Third Congressional District. My congressional district has all of the ski areas in the State of Colorado. The next time Members go and ski in Colorado, and for many, they have skied in Colorado, the next time Members go, take a look to see if they see a sign of all of the terrible abuse that some of the more radical environmental organizations in this country like Earth First or Ancient Forests or some of these people, take a look and see if Members think those ski areas are that bad. While they are looking at those ski areas, take a look at how many children are on those ski areas, how many families, what kind of family entertainment. They are not out running the streets, out causing trouble, but they as a family unit are enjoying, under the concept of multiple use, these lands. We do not just have to go in the wintertime to see how important these lands are for family, for multiple use, for our economy out there. Go in the summertime. Go on the Mesa Verde, down in the Four Corners where we share our borders. Go up here to Dinosaur, the national monument there. Go to the Black Canyon National Monument, which is now a national park, thanks to my colleague, Senator Campbell, and the bill that I sponsored here in the House. Go down to the National Sand Dunes, which we hope to make a national park. Go to the Rocky Mountain National Park. Go to the Air Force Academy, the district of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), over in Colorado Springs. There are a lot of things in Colorado and Utah and in the West. We could go to Wyoming to Jackson Hole. Go to the museum up in Cody, Wyoming, probably the most fantastic museum representing the West in the entire West. Members can go to any area. There are lots of areas of the West that we have preserved. There are lots that we have protected. But remember what Teddy Roosevelt's concept was. Teddy Roosevelt never wanted to lock people off the land, but Teddy Roosevelt, on the other hand, did not want people to abuse the land. It is the same concept the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I agree with. We have a right to use that land, but nobody has a right to abuse that land. No one has a right to abuse that land, contrary to some of the more radical organizations that we see especially here in the east. These environmental groups, I have yet to meet one person, and I do not think there is a person in this Chamber, that will tell me they are out to destroy land. I do not have anybody that is against wilderness, wilderness as a concept, not under the definition of wilderness that we have seen labeled or put around our collar. People love the outdoors. I do not know anybody, actually, who is against the small ranches and small businesses throughout all of these areas. There are a lot of good people out there in those mountains. There are a lot of good people in the West. But for my colleagues here in the East, get a good understanding of what is fundamental to their lifestyle, what is fundamental to their survival before we pass regulations here in Washington, D.C., before they impose back here in the East. Look at the point, clear out here. And as we come out, it is like this, and it starts right there. At this distance, before Members do that, come out here and look at the issues. Come out here and see why water is so important to us. Next to our people in Colorado, and I am sure it is the same for my colleagues in the State of Utah, I cannot think of anything more important than the water. There are a lot of people that want this water out of Colorado because, as I said earlier, Colorado is the only State where all of our water goes out. We have to have multiple use on Federal land to preserve some of that water for the people of the State of Colorado, to preserve some of that water for people throughout the West. The Colorado River basin, as the gentleman from Utah mentioned, is absolutely critical for life in the West. Our whole purpose, Mr. Speaker, in talking this evening, it is not to lecture my colleagues, it is to tell them that things in the West are different geologically, the water situation is different, the lay of the land is different, and the ownership of the land is different. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues here in the East do not know what it is like to have massive ownership by the government. Most of the Members sitting in this Chamber, most of the Members from the East, outside of highways that are obviously owned by the government, maybe the local Post Office, they have never experienced massive ownership by the government of the lands that will completely surround one. They have never had to rely on access agreements with the government to drive into their town, to turn on their radio, to get electrical power into their community, to protect areas of the environment that they think are important. Yet here in the West, we are, unfortunately, very subject to the whims of the people in this little city called Washington, D.C. in the East. What the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I are asking tonight is that as we consider individually each of these issues in the West, look at it on a customized basis. We need to customize it. We need to figure out what the ramifications are. I will give an idea. It is very easy for people in the East to condemn grazing on land in the West. We have a particular area that is absolutely beautiful, and in fact, it is one of the areas under the monument. We have the Colorado National Monument, and we are trying to put it into a preservation area and work with the Secretary. We are trying our darnedest. But up there we have several ranches, four or five big ranches up on the Colorado Monument; it is beautiful, Grand Junction, Colorado. But these ranches, these are true working ranches like the King Ranch, like my friend Doug King and his ranch up there; the Gores, the Gore ranch, they are dependent on the grazing permits. The grazing permits are on Federal lands. Do Members know what happens if we follow the wishes of some of the more radical groups back here in Washington, D.C. and we eliminate those grazing rights? Do Members know what happens to those ranches? They cannot operate as a ranch anymore. So what is the logical thing for them to do? The logical thing for them to do is take these beautiful, wide open spaces and to break them into 35-acre ranchettes. What does that result in? That results in bumper to bumper traffic up to the top of the Colorado National Monument. Instead of being able to look, and in my district, throughout my district we can look for a long, long ways and never see another person. But we have been discovering, we have a lot of growth. I do not think that is necessarily good. In some regards, slow, steady growth is good, but the kind of growth we have had, we have had a sudden surge. We have a lot of people who would like to get their hands on the ranches and divide them. We have a lot of people who would like to make a profit off of them. Some of the Members here who are supporting doing away with grazing in the West on Federal lands, they should take a look at the unintended consequence. The unintended consequence is we are going to take that land and divide it into ranchettes. Is that really what the Members want to do? Is that what they think is going to help protect those open spaces? By the way, let us go back to ranching. Ranching families like David and Sue Ann Smith from Meeker, Colorado, they have been on that ranch since the 1870s or the 1880s. They love that land. They do not make much money on that ranch, but they have raised generation after generation after generation. Before we take action back here that wipes out those generations of hard work, of having their hands in the soil, before we do that, consider what the consequences are. Understand again, and I continually come back to water, because water is absolutely critical, the fact that we have to store water. We have lots of organizations here that say we should not have any more water storage projects in the country. They do not understand the West. If they do understand the West, they are trying to mislead us here in the East that in the West we do not need water storage projects. Again, as I said earlier, take a look at our ski areas. Some groups have said, burn them down. Take a look at what happened in Vail, Colorado, last year, arson. Some people actually stand proud and say, Veil, Colorado, that ski area, they had it coming. They should have burnt them down. Come on, Mr. Speaker, that is not how we operate in this country. Take a look, I think we have done a very professional job. I want to note that Colorado was the first State with minimum stream flow. In our State, those of us who have lived there very long and many people who have just moved there, they appreciate the fact that open space, parks, and protection of our environment are as critical to us as the water. But along and in the same bracket and in the same category, the concept of multiple use and the concept of having local input, and the concept of taking into consideration local needs is important, too. Go back to my original comments. Remember back here, take a look at some of these States. Do Members think the Federal government has anything to do with land control in some of these States like that? Take a look at the State of Kansas, the State of Nebraska. Members can see on the map here, do they think the government has much to do with those States? No. So it is very easy for people back in some of these States that do not have a lot of Federal Government land to dictate out here to the States that do have Federal Government land what they ought to be doing, because it does not bother them. If the people from a State like Ohio or a State like Kansas or some other State dictate what is going on, it does not impact them. From New York State, it does not impact them if they go out to the West and eliminate grazing, or tell us we cannot have multiple use, because they do not feel the impact. We feel the impact. We live the impact. We have to survive the impact. Just think how much control is exercised in this area by a city far, far away on the eastern coast. As the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) knows, we in the West are very, very proud of what we have. It is American soil. We are citizens of the United States. But we also, all of us, have been raised with consideration of our fellow citizens. I urge my colleagues in here, those of you who live east of the Colorado border, for example, who really have not given much thought to the consequences of your actions here on Federal lands, slow it down a little, and give it some consideration. Mr. Speaker, in consideration of the time and the fact that I have taken the majority of it, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and I appreciate very much his participation this evening. But I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to have these kinds of nightside chats. I guess it is one of our responsibilities to try and come to our colleagues here and talk to them about these issues and try and bring the awareness level up so that multiple use is not looked upon as the devil of the west, it is looked upon as the survival of the west.

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that I have been given this evening. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) who is a longtime friend of mine and I intend to spend the next little while with Members talking about issues that are important to the West. As many Members know, my district is the Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado. That district geographically is larger than the State of Florida. I adjoin the fine State of Utah. As Members know, many of the issues that we share in Utah are very similar to the issues in the State of Colorado. In fact, as we look at the map that I have here to my left, many issues of the West, whether we are talking about Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, we have many similar issues in the West. Tonight, to begin our remarks, I thought I would talk a little about what the concept of multiple use really means. What is multiple use? Why is it critical to the West? What is the history of multiple use? We really need to turn our clocks back in time and look at the beginning of this country, when most of the populations, again referring to the map to my left, were on the East Coast. Back then, possession really was nine-tenths of the law. In other words, you really had to go out and occupy the land. You could not just have a deed. We kind of take that for granted today. If we have a deed for property, we go down and register it at the county courthouse and we do not have to worry about going out and standing on the land in order to continue possession or sometimes even able to initiate possession. In the frontier days, you had to do that. What our forefathers, the problem they ran into is people really did not want to leave the East. Our new country had just made some purchases. We got land like through the Louisiana Purchase, and we needed to get people out there. Just the fact that we bought the land from other countries as a young country did not mean we really were going to be able to hold on to the land. What we had to do is move people onto the land. We had to give people incentive to move from the East to go to the West. And so to give that kind of incentive to our citizens of this young country, our government decided to offer incentives to them. The incentive that they thought would be the most attractive is to say to the young frontiers people, if you go west and we all remember the saying, ``Go west, young man, go west,'' if you go west, you can secure a piece of property; and if you work that land for a long enough period of time, you get to own the land. It is yours. All you have to do is possess it. Just go to it, work it and possess it for a period of time and we will give you 160 acres or we will give you 320 acres, and it is through what we all know as the Homestead Act. Well, that worked fine for many of the States out here where you had rich soils, you did not have the severe kind of weather, where on 160 acres a family, a frontier family, could raise some cows, they could farm that land and feed a family. What happened over a period of time is that as the people begin to get into the deep West, like the Rocky Mountains of Colorado or into the Rocky Mountains in Wyoming or down into New Mexico, the leaders in Washington, D.C. discovered these people were not really staying there; that you could not even feed a cow off of 160 acres in many of these areas in the deep West. So the people were not staying there, and they were concerned about what do we do on possession. We have to give people incentive to stay in these areas. First of all, let me say what they decided not to do. They said we cannot possibly give them an equivalent amount of acreage, in other words the same amount of acreage in the mountains that would give you the same kind of living that you would have in, for example, the State of Nebraska or Ohio. Out there you can do it on 160 acres, and the equivalent in these mountains would be about 3,000 acres. They said politically we cannot give away 3,000 acres to these frontiers people, and somebody came up with an idea. We do not have to give away the land. In fact, unlike the East, unlike the East, where we give the land away and where we have a large amount of private ownership, let us as the Federal Government go ahead and keep ownership of the land in the West. The government will continue to own the land but we will allow the people to use the land. We will have multiple use. We will allow the people to farm on the land. We will allow the people to raise cattle on the land. We will allow the people to extract natural resources on the land. This was many, many years ago. Throughout time, the uses of multiple use have evolved dramatically. In fact, in my district, almost every road in my district goes across government lands. Every drop of water in my district, if it is not out of a well, either comes across, is stored upon or originates on Federal lands; all of our power lines, all of our radio towers, all of our cellular telephone towers. We are totally dependent on the West on this concept of multiple use. What does this map to my left show? I think it is very important. This map that I have tonight, for all here in the chambers, is to demonstrate very clearly where the Federal Government owns land. It is very important to take a look, as we go from the north, the Canadian border, follow my pen, we go down through here, we go right through Colorado, we go right through New Mexico, we come right down here to Texas, go around and we hit Mexico down there. Look at the amount of Federal land on this side. Very little. In fact, we have some in the Appalachians here; we have some down in the Everglades. We have some areas up here. New York has some but a lot of that is owned by the counties, not by the Federal Government. Compare this, which could be identified with pencil points on this map, with what has happened in the West. This is the amount of government ownership of land in the West. Let me give an example of what happens as a consequence of that. First, let me give a statistic. Outside of Alaska, which is 99 percent owned by the government, that is Alaska right there, now that is half the size of its actual proportion for this map, that is 99 percent but if you exclude Alaska, 88 percent of the Federal land in the lower 48 States, 88 percent of the land owned by the Federal Government lies in these 11 western States. What does that mean for practical, every day living, for the ordinary people out there? Well, in the East, when you have planning and zoning, which is very important, your local communities, your city councils or your local governmental entities, they decide planning and zoning. If someone wants to build a bike path, if someone wants to have a water project, if they want to do some kind of construction, if they want to do a road, the people in the East, their local municipalities have control of planning and zoning. You would be deeply offended, you would have strong objections if the Federal Government came into your community in Connecticut or came into your community in Tennessee or Ohio and said, hey, we want to take over planning and zoning of your local community, you would say, bug out. Well, planning and zoning is a local matter, it is a local issue. If it is not the city council that does your planning and zoning, it may be your local county or it is a combination of the two, but it is not the Federal Government. The Federal Government does not do the planning and zoning out here in the East. Guess what happens in the West. In the West, just by the fact, just under de facto that the West has such massive amounts of Federal land, they in effect do our planning and zoning. We have so much Federal land in my district alone, 22 million acres; 22 million acres of Federal land in my district alone. When you want to build a road, when you want to deal with water, you have to deal with the Federal planning and zoning commission, which is the government in Washington, D.C. One of our problems at the very beginning, at the very beginning, is that in the East it rains a little differently than it rains in the West. In fact, in the fine State of Colorado, we are the only State in the Union where all of our water runs out of the State. We have no water that comes into Colorado for our use. It all runs out of the State, the only State in the Union. We are very dependent on our water resources that are on those Federal lands. We are entirely dependent on the concept of multiple use. Well, the problem with having planning and zoning at a Federal level is that in Washington, D.C. they seem to think one shoe fits all, one size fits all. So they start applying policies that may work okay for the Appalachians or may work okay for the State parks or Federal parks in New York State, they start putting those applications on the massive Federal land holdings in the West. There is not a lot of recognition to my colleagues here in the East, with due respect, there is not a lot of recognition on their part of our difficulties that we have in the West. So when we have people out of the administration or the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. starting to make decisions based on their life experience in the East, when they start making decisions that have impact on the West they need to realize what kind of impact it has and what kind of unintended consequences there are. For example, in the East your problem back here is getting rid of water. In the West, in the West, our problem is storing water, is keeping the water. In this region right here of which Colorado has the highest elevation, my district, in fact, the Third District of Colorado has the highest elevation of any district in the nation. We do not have much rain. We get some rain but we are an arid state. The West is an arid area, a lot different than the East. We depend very heavily on our snowfall and then we have to depend on a period of time we get about 60 to 110 days of runoff, the spring runoff. It is going to start here in about another month, maybe another 6 weeks, we have the spring runoff for about 60 to 110 days. After that 110th day, if we do not have the capability to store the water we have real problems. During that 60 days to 110 days, if we do not have the capability to control flooding we have real problems. Take a look at what some people in the East have done. The bureaucracy, for example, of the national Sierra Club, now the national Sierra Club has done some reasonable things but one of the things, their number one goal, as dictated by the bureaucracy, their bureaucracy in the East because they have very little understanding of our water issues in the West, their number one goal is to go out here and to drain Lake Powell. That lake, which is a huge storage facility for water in the West, for power, for flood control, and frankly for a lot of recreation, a lot of family activities on that lake, in fact on that lake, to give you an idea of the size, there is more shoreline on Lake Powell than there is on the entire Pacific West Coast. What is the response for the planning and zoning commission of one of the more active environmental groups in the East? Their number one goal, take down the dam and drain Lake Powell. Well, this extends into these issues of people in the East dictating the planning and zoning by the fact that the government has these large land holdings in the West. These policies have ramifications. They have ramifications on our national parks. They have ramifications on our national monuments. They have ramifications on our business community, meaning the small ranchers and the small businesses. They have ramifications not only on our water storage but our water accessibility, the ability to transport water. Every highway we have, it has consequences there. It has consequences on the environment. There are a lot of things that I urge my colleagues here today, if they live east of this red border that I have just shown here, I am urging to take some time and study why the issues in the West are different. In the West, when the frontier people went out there, remember what happened. The government made a deal with them: We are going to keep ownership of the land. In the East we gave the fellow citizens the land. We arranged for private property, which every family in America dreams of owning their own piece of property and in the East we followed that. We followed that dictation, but in the West we gave you a little guarantee. We will let you use the land but because we cannot give away that massive amount of land we are going to keep ownership. That is what they said in Washington, D.C. So as we progress through a number of different issues dealing with the West, I urge my colleagues, please sit down, take a look at the history; understand that in the West it does not rain like it does in the East. Understand that in the West that concept of multiple use is a way of life. In the West, life is written in water, not in blood. These are very important. Now as we continue through our special orders this evening, I would like to turn the podium over to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), who will take us to the next step. This gave us a little basic history. We now have an idea of where the Federal land ownership is in this country. We have an idea of the concept of multiple use and what it means. We have an idea that in the West water is something we have to store to use. In the East, of course, we have always known this but it is something for a large part that has to be gotten rid of. I think it is a good way to kind of transition into the next area of what we want to talk about tonight in the West, and for that I would turn it over to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). We both have generations of family in our respective States. We have deep, deep roots. Beyond that, both the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and myself are very, very dedicated and very loyal to our States. We care about the citizens we represent and we care about the heritage of the West. The West to us is paramount. Oh, we are Americans, do not get that wrong, but it is paramount that we be able to represent the West out here in the East.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a woman who has worked hard to educate women in Bent County about preventing cancer. Dr. Perlita Narvaez works with women in her county to encourage regular checkups and comforts patients with her gentle bedside manner. Perlita was honored by the local chapter of the Colorado Women's Cancer Control Initiative for her services to help encourage preventative measures in women's health. Perlita has been performing cancer screenings for area women for nearly two years by working directly with the Cancer Control Initiative. The Initiative encourages low-income women to call for an appointment and even offers for a volunteer to go with the woman if she wishes. This Initiative and Perlita have worked diligently to help reduce the number of women who suffer from breast and cervical cancer. Perlita has been practicing medicine for 12 years. She has made working with women and children her specialty. Her efforts have been applauded by both patients and the Cancer Control Initiative. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to offer this tribute of thanks to Dr. Perlita Narvaez. Colorado is grateful for her service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce has named the recipient of the 1999 Lifetime Achievement Award, Bill Petty. Bill is a respected business leader who has had a substantial positive impact on the overall quality of life in Grand Junction, Colorado. He has focused time, energy and resources by serving on business organizations such as the Chamber Board, Downtown Development Authority Board and most recently the Western Colorado Business Development Corporation. Bill has also served on the St. Mary's Foundation Board and the St. Mary's Hospital Board since 1996. Bill became President of Norwest Banks, Grand Junction in 1992. He has also had a commitment to the arts by serving on the Western Colorado Center for the Arts Board, the Avalon Board of Directors and the Colorado Pubic Radio. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to offer this tribute to a valued member of the Grand Junction community and a close personal friend, Bill Petty. He is committed to making his community a better place to live.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the congregation and clergy, both past and present, of the Clifton Christian Church as they celebrate their 90th Anniversary. The Clifton Christian Church was chartered in 1910 by a group of people that were determined. This determination has led the congregation over 90 years of service to the Clifton and Grand Junction communities. The Church has built three buildings during the course of growing and changing. The first building was dedicated in 1921. The congregation raised $34,000 to pay the remaining balance for contruction. In 1982, this building was entered into the National Register of Historic Places. By 1919, only nine years after the first building was dedicated, the congregation was too large for the present facility. Construction for the second church began in the summer of 1920 and by January 1921. The present building was put into use in February of 1977. The congregation has steadily grown and flourished. With that growth has come more opportunities to serve the community, supporting active community projects such as: Missions, WWIT (Widows & Widowers In Touch), Adventure Club, Teen Discipleship Groups, Salt-n-Light Elementary Youth Worship, Never Too Old, Genesis Christian School, and the Food & Clothing Ministry have given the church an outstanding reputation in Clifton. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer this tribute in honor of the 90th Anniversary of the Clifton Christian Church, the ``Church By the Side of the Road''. Their contributions to the spiritual health and well-being of our community deserve our highest gratitude and praise.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell you of a man that served our country with unselfish bravery. A combat pilot that did more than just fly planes, Fred Dyer was a man of tremendous service and dedication. Sadly Fred recently passed away. Fred was valued by his fellow pilots as a man that would never turn his back or leave in the middle of the storm. He often times put his own life in danger to ensure that the lives of others were safe. In one of many accounts recorded in Tom Brokaw's book, ``The Greatest Generation,'' a fellow pilot, George Wells, tells of how many bombing records were made by their unit, but one of the most notable was when he and Fred established the record for the highest number of bomber missions flown by a United States pilot in World War II. They flew 102 missions before returning home for rest. In 1943, Fred recieved the distinguished Service Cross for action in Sicily where he refused to leave a plane that had caught on fire until everyone on board was safely out. All the crew members donned parachutes and jumped; Fred waited until they were all out then jumped himself. Unfortunately, he landed in the midst of a tank battle, but he was quickly rescued by British soldiers. Acts of bravery like these are why Fred was credited with medals such as the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Air Medal with 15 clusters. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I offer this tribute to honor Fred Dyer. He put the lives of others before his own and displayed unparalleled loyalty and bravery. Fred will be missed by all those who knew him.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a woman that has dedicated her life to educating children. Mrs. Melissa Trezise has been a true pioneer in education. To preserve the history of education in rural Colorado in the early twentieth century, she has written her memoirs about what it was to be a teacher in rural Colorado in the 1930's. Melissa knew from the time she was in elementary school she wanted to be a teacher. She wanted to help children learn how to read and write, but more importantly, she wanted to teach them about science, history and even art. Melissa taught math, science, geography, U.S. history, health, Colorado history, and agriculture. Students always looked forward to Friday's, not only because of the weekend, but also for their art classes. Melissa's first school, Catamount School, was located centrally in the region. This meant that everyone has to travel to the school. There was no well near the school, so pupils and teacher had to bring their own water. Melissa recalls that this was not always convenient and they all tried not to get too dirty. Recess is usually a student's favorite part of the school day. In this case, the teacher enjoyed recess just as much as the student. Melissa was the pitcher during the baseball games and she loved to jump rope with the students. Many people said they couldn't tell the difference between teacher and student when they were on the playground. Melissa moved to different schools and taught a great many children, but she will always remain a favorite in the eyes of many former students. Melissa's career encompassed everything from one-room schoolhouses to the current Eagle Valley Elementary School. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I offer this tribute in honor of a legend in education, Melissa Trezise. She is a woman that deserves our highest respect and praise.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the Grand Junction High School Science Bowl Team on winning the state competition for the sciences. The team from Grand Junction High School won first place in the state competition for the Colorado Science Bowl in Golden, Colorado. As a result of this victory, the team will travel to Washington, DC to compete at the national level in the United States Department of Energy's National Science Bowl. The students on this team have demonstrated remarkable talent and knowledge in the areas of physics, chemistry, astronomy, earth science and mathematics. The students are to be commended for their dedication to learning the finer points of these fields. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to offer this tribute to all the members of the team and their faculty sponsor. Congratulations, Tony Arcieri, Brianna Blume, Ariane Chepko, John Frazer, Michelle Hays, and sponsor, Jim Rexroad. They have made us all very proud!

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a woman who has meant so much to the community of Eagle, Colorado. Laurene Knupp has lived in Eagle for all but a few of her 82 years. She attended elementary school and high school in Eagle, a small town of 200 citizens at the time. Laurene has witnessed many changes in her hometown. Growth can be a good thing, but Laurene misses the days of knowing everyone in town. After high school Laurene attended Junior College in Grand Junction, then Teacher's College in Greeley, Colorado (now University of Northern Colorado) where she majored in elementary education. She earned enough credits to teach for one year. She continued to teach and go to summer school for years. She confesses that it took 18 years to earn her degree. Laurene was teaching in Oak Creek in 1941 when the United States entered World War II. She decided to take the place of the Deputy County Clerk in Eagle when the clerk was drafted. During that time she met and married Donald Knupp. She put work and teaching aside for nine years to start a family. When she returned to teaching, she taught for 25 more years. She retired in 1981. Even though Laurene is retired, she is still very involved in her community. She maintains a keen interest in school and community affairs. She serves on the building committee for the Methodist Church, secretary/treasurer for the board of directors for Eagle Valley Medical Center and on the Retired Teachers Association. She has lunch regularly at the Eagle Senior Center and enjoys playing bridge with her friends. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to offer this tribute in honor of a staple in the Eagle community. Laurene Knupp is a great woman who has given endlessly to her community.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado's Nursery Person of the Year, Dennis Hill. Dennis won the award from the Excellence In Landscape Design Competition. Dennis has worked for twenty years in the industry. He was first an independent landscape contractor and presently a retail nursery. Owner of the nursery Bookcliff Gardens, Dennis admits that a love of gardening is only part of the job. He also thrives on being involved with people. He says that he gardens for two reasons: for the shade and for the beauty and peace. In addition to the individual award that Dennis received, his business also received the Merit Award in Landscape Construction in the Single Family Residential category. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I offer this tribute in honor of Dennis Hill and Bookcliff Gardens. He has brought dedication and professionalism to his profession.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening during the next hour I would like to have a night-side chat with my colleagues in regards to a number of different issues. The first issue that I would like to start out with is the death tax or the estate tax. Then I would like to move on and cover a few points on the marriage penalty tax, move from there to an issue that I think has become fundamentally important to the defense of this country, and that is the missile defense. In fact, tonight I intend to spend a good deal of time discussing the missile defense of the United States of America. Then if we have an opportunity, I would like to move on to the Social Security earnings limitation repeal. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has stepped forward. And I think tomorrow we will see a very close to a unanimous vote to lift the earnings cap for those people between 65 and 70 years old who are being unfairly penalized by the tax law. So I do publicly want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and I would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson). Both of those gentlemen have worked very hard. I also want to congratulate the Democrats who have finally come on board with the Republican bill to help us get rid of this unfair taxation. Then if we have a little time after that, I would like to talk about the Internet, a taxation on the Internet. So there are a number of issues tonight on our night-side chat that we can discuss. But let us first start with the death tax. What is the death tax, number one? Number two, what property does this tax tax that has not already been taxed? In this country, there is a tax called the estate tax. If one's accumulation of property during one's lifetime, property, by the way, of which one already has paid taxes upon at least once, if that property accumulates over a certain amount of money, the Government comes in after one's death and mandates upon one's surviving members, one's family, that an additional tax be levied on this property that has already been taxed. It is probably in our Tax Code the most unfair, punitive tax that we have got. There is no basis of justification to go and tax somebody upon their death, their estate upon their death, on property that throughout their entire lifetime they have paid taxes after taxes after taxes. It is as if the Government just did not get enough. Now, one would ask, why is something like that in our Tax Code? Why is it not easy just to take it out? Well, I can tell you. The Clinton administration, and, frankly, most of the Democrats in the House, have opposed taking or getting rid of the estate tax. They say it is a tax for the rich. Well, what I invite those people to do is come out, for example, to the State of Colorado or go to any State in the Union and take a look at small businesses that are now being impacted by the death tax. Take a look at what happens to families from the personal level when the Government comes into their life after having taxed their property throughout their life and says we have got to take one more hit at the deceased. We need to go in and assess a tax simply based on the reason that they died. This tax has devastating impacts. I will give my colleagues an example. I have a good friend of mine who is now deceased. But this friend, we will call him Mr. Joe, Mr. Joe years and years ago started out as a bookkeeper in a local construction company. He worked very, very hard in that construction company. After a while, he got an opportunity through years of hard work to buy some stock in the construction company. He was not a wealthy man. But he and his family, his wife, they scraped together a few pennies here, a few pennies there. They watched their expenses, and they invested in stock. Well, 5 or 6 years ago, in some of his investments, he sold some of those investments, and he was hit with a tax called capital gains. Now, most of the citizens of this country will be assessed a capital gains taxation. If one's mutual funds, if one bought property, if one owns stock outside of mutual funds, it is a gain upon property that one has made, and they give a capital tax on it. So that is what they did when Mr. Joe sold his property. He was hit with a capital gains taxation at that time, which was around the rate of 28 percent. So take out a pencil, figure out that Mr. Joe, who had worked throughout his entire life, had accumulated property, sold a portion of that property, and on the profit on that property, 28 percent taxation. Unfortunately, my friend Mr. Joe became terminally ill within a month or so after the sale of this property. Even more unfortunate was that he passed away 2 or 3 months after that. The Government then came in to that family and said we realize that your father in this case has paid on time as a responsible citizen of this country taxes on the property that now belongs to the estate. But we are here for a second dip in the pot. The Government has come back, and we think it is necessary to tax the estate of the deceased person. What did they do to that estate? Exactly what they did to that estate, they hit it with taxes which, when you add it to the capital gains tax, gives it an effective tax rate of about 72 percent. Seventy-two percent on that estate is what was paid in taxation. Now, let me tell you where the hardship comes in. Number one, 72 percent, imagine, you kind of figure out in your own mind what property you have in your home, what property you and your family has in your home that you own. Then try to determine 72 percent of it that you would like to cut out of it to give to the Government, even though you already paid taxes on it. What happened to the estate is, of course they did not have the cash to pay for the 72 percent. They had to sell assets. They had to go out and sell more of the property to pay the 72 percent tax rate that was imposed upon them. What happens? What happens to the death tax money? Where does it go? I will tell you exactly where it goes. It goes to the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. That money is transferred from your communities. In this particular case, it was transferred out of a small community in Colorado in my district, the mountains of Colorado; and it was sent, transferred to Washington D.C. to be distributed amongst the bureaucrats and the agencies in Washington, D.C. Where would that money have gone had it not been transferred to Washington, D.C. through that death tax? That is a legitimate question. Where would it have gone? Do you know where it would have gone and where it did go? Prior to the tax, prior to the Federal Government stepping into that community, prior to the Federal Government stepping into that estate and taking that money, that money stayed in the community of that small town in the mountains of Colorado. That was the money that helped fund the local church. That was the money that helped fund the jobs for many, many people in that community. That was the money that bought property and made rental units available in that community. Now what has happened to that money? It is no longer in that community. It has gone on to Washington, D.C. Because Washington, D.C. is here in the East, they seem to think they know better. They seem to think they need to take one more punch at you, one more punch on the estate tax. Now we have heard a lot of rhetoric lately. In fact we have even heard some of the rhetoric from the Democrats. Let me make a note here. I compliment the Democrats tomorrow for coming over and assisting us in passing and getting rid of the earnings limitation on Social Security. I wished they would have joined us earlier, but they are joining us, and they should deserve credit for that. I am not attempting to be partisan here, but I want to make a clear distinction on what is happening on this death tax; and that is, we are not getting help to eliminate this death tax from the Democratic leadership or from the Democratic administration. In fact, let me tell my colleagues exactly what has happened in the last couple of weeks. I sit on the Committee on Ways and Means; and on this committee, we do all the taxation. We deal with all the taxation issues. It is probably the most powerful committee in the House of Representatives. In looking at that, we get the President's budget. We just got the President's budget a couple of weeks ago. Do my colleagues know what the Democrats have done with the death tax? I was in hopes that the Democrats, while I did not really expect them, their leadership to move the party to get rid of the death tax, which is the most unfair tax we have in the system. That was too good to be true to expect them to join us, the Republicans, in our effort to eliminate the tax. I expected them probably to stay neutral. We hear a little rhetoric about how it is unfair, but they really would not change. I was very surprised. More than surprised, I was extremely disappointed that the President in his budget, the Democrats through the President in that budget, not only did not stay neutral on the death tax, they are actually increasing the death tax. That is right. For any of you people out there that own a small farm or a ranch or a business or a home in an area where you have seen vast depreciation, hold on to your britches because the Clinton budget increases your taxes by almost $10 billion, a $10 billion increase in the death tax in this country. Come on. How much more can one beat out of a person? Let us be fair to the citizens of this country. I know the bureaucracy in Washington is hungry. I know it is constantly looking for some more money to eat up, some more money to take out of our local communities and transfer out of our States to Washington, D.C. But a $10 billion increase in the death tax, it is unfair. It is not right. You are being unfair to the American people. You do not need that additional taxation. You do not need to go out there and seek 10 billion more dollars off the grieving families and off the estates of these families. Let us be fair. Let us support things like eliminating that death tax. It is unfair. I can give my colleagues example after example after example. In fact, my colleagues here on the House floor can think of it in their own mind, think about their own communities. Ask the question: Is Scott McInnis in his night-side chat correct? Where is that money? Is the money in my community really going to Washington, D.C. because one of our citizens died and happened to leave an estate that the Government decided it should tax? Of course he is right. Of course that is where the money goes. We need to have the American people be fully aware of the facts. The facts are these: Republicans will continue their fight to eliminate the death tax in this country. But the Democratic administration that we have right now will continue its efforts to increase the death tax. For some of my colleagues on the Democratic side, if they do not believe me, look it up in the budget. It is right there: $10 billion. $10 billion. Tonight is a good night to talk about some of these taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, as we go back to our districts, as most of us do every weekend, I certainly do every weekend, there is tax relief out there that I as a Republican am proud that the Republican Party put into place. Most American citizens do not realize that probably the largest tax break they have gotten in years just happened a couple of years ago thanks to the efforts of the Republicans. And, frankly, we had some conservative Democrats who came across the aisle and supported us on it as well. That is the tax on the sale of a principal residence, on a home. Under the old law, if a person bought a home for, say, $10, and then that home was sold for $15 and there was a $5 profit, that person had to pay taxes on that $5 capital gain. That word capital gain comes back. There was an assessed tax on that capital gain unless an individual was, one, over 55 years of age; two, the amount of the gain did not exceed $150,000; and, three, an individual only got one exemption. Once a lifetime. Everybody out there who is a homeowner should listen up because it is important. We have seen appreciation of real property values, of homes. We have seen appreciation in this country, and we have great news, thanks to the Republican efforts on this side. And I keep coming back to this because I am proud of it and I like boasting about it. I do not mind saying it is the Republicans that did this because we did. Now, a person owning a home that sells that home for a profit, and that is the principal residence that they have lived in for the last 3 of 5 years, they get to take that amount of money, up to $250,000 per person, $500,000 per couple, and it is exempted from any taxes. It is exempt. That person gets to take that money and put it into their pocket. Now, under the old law, the taxes could be deferred by buying a house of equal or greater value. That is not a requirement under the law we passed here a couple of years ago. We simply said that when an individual makes the profit, up to $250,000 per person, they can put it in their pocket. And by the way, there is no age limitation. And by the way, we allow that individual to renew this effort. This can be done every couple of years. A person can go and get this tax break. This is significant. And every homeowner in this country should know about it because at some point or another they will have a big smile on their face because they are going to be able to put a lot of cash, if their property has appreciated, right into their pocket without sending that money to the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. I want to talk about one other tax issue that I think is important and that is unfair. Marriage couples. I represent the Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado. That is the mountains. Essentially the mountains in the State of Colorado. Out there I have almost 70,000 people, in fact, 69,766 people, who live in the Third Congressional District of Colorado that have an additional penalty on their taxes simply because they are married. Simply because they are married. I could not believe it. This bill that we passed, that we put together on the Republican side, said, hey, Democrats, Republicans, unaffiliated, whatever, let us stand up and get rid of the marriage tax penalty in our Tax Code. We are a country whose foundation is family. We encourage family. We want our young people to have families. We want them to be married. We want to go back to the cycle of family's right; family's number one. We say that, but on the other hand our Tax Code taxes them, taxes them for being married. Well, the Republicans in this House, with some Democrats, 40 or so Democrats, passed a bill a couple of weeks ago to eliminate the marriage penalty. Now, I think the President is probably going to veto it. I cannot imagine that he would, but he is probably going to do it. And I was frankly really surprised that some of the Democrats would vote against this. Come on, how do they go back to their districts and look somebody in the eye and say, ``You're getting married? Congratulations. Time to take a little more money out of your pocket and transfer it to the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.'' It is an unfair tax. We ought to do something about it. We ought to eliminate it. And to the Democrats that voted no, they will probably have another chance this session to vote on that bill again when it comes back out of conference, and I hope they support us. I hope they stand up and vote and I hope they have the courage to say, look, it is an unfair tax. Politics aside, election year aside, let us be fair to the taxpayers. Let us let married couples not be penalized for being married. Let us let families who have had a death in their family not get an additional death tax. We can do something. We showed that we could do something on the capital gains when a home is sold and it has not brought the government to its knees. That money has not been buried in the ground somewhere. It is recirculated in the communities. We have helped the homeowner, now we can help the married couple and now we can help the families of the deceased by revisiting these tax codes and by eliminating these unfair penalties on these people. Now, let me cap off, before I get into something that I think is extremely serious, extremely serious, by once again to publicly commend my fine colleague, the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Shaw), and my fine upstanding colleague, the gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), on their efforts today in the Committee on Ways and Means, which passed unanimously, unanimously, the Democrats joined us, in eliminating the earnings cap for those on Social Security between the ages of 65 and 70. Over 70 that cap was lifted, but between 65 and 70 citizens were actually penalized if they had worked all their lives and decided they wanted to continue to work between the ages of 65 and 70. They were penalized under the Social Security System. Today, that bill passed out of the Committee on Ways and Means under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Texas. Tomorrow we will have it on the House floor, and I would expect that tomorrow we will have a strong vote. It is not assured. I was surprised on the marriage penalty and doing away with that. I thought everybody would vote for that, but some of our colleagues on the Democratic side voted against it. But tomorrow I hope my colleagues on the Democratic side will join us and get rid of that earnings cap. I hope they will join us, put aside the election year, put aside the partisanship and join us and let us get rid of it. Let us make the Tax Code fair for everybody. So a recap real carefully on these tax issues. Number one, we need to eliminate the death tax. It is unfair, it is unjustified, it is punitive, meaning it is a penalty. It is a penalty on the taxpayers of this country to be taxed on property they have already paid taxes on simply because they die. Number two, we need to recognize that the Congress under the Republican leadership passed successfully for every homeowner in this country an opportunity for them to take the profit from their home and put it right into their pocket. Number three, we need to eliminate the marriage penalty. It is unfair, fundamentally unfair, for us, as the government of this country, for the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., to penalize a couple because they are married. It should be the policy of this Congress and every other Congress to follow that we encourage marriage in this country; that we tell people to go out and focus on that family and not worry about being penalized by the government. And, finally, let me wrap this portion of the comments up by saying that I hope tomorrow we have uniform support on this House floor to eliminate the earnings cap on Social Security. And any of my colleagues out there who have constituents out there between the ages of 65 and 70, they know exactly what we are talking about. Tomorrow's debate should be short, it should be to the point, because the issue is right. Let us move on. I want to visit this evening in some depth here for the next half-hour or so about missile defense. And I think really the best way to get into this, and I do not like reading a script when I speak on my night-side chats, but I think it is probably an appropriate entry or a lead or a path to follow when we talk about the missile defense of this country. First, let me precede the reading of these articles with a very strong statement. Every other country in the world, every nation in the world understands this message: The United States of America has the fundamental right, the fiduciary responsibility, and the obligation to defend its citizens. And we will defend our citizens. And as a part of that defense, they should not dare criticize this country for putting together a missile defense system to take down an incoming missile into this country. Not offensive, defensive. We have an obligation. My colleagues on this floor, each and every one of us, share that responsibility to be sure that our generation, the next generation, and the generations to follow have the weapons and the tools to defend themselves from aggressors of freedom and against freedom. It is our fundamental obligation as Congressmen of the United States of America. Let me begin. An article in the Dallas Morning News, that is where I pulled it down from, written by William Safire. Think about this, because this article is really pertinent tonight. As my colleagues know, we have several primaries going on across the country as I now speak. We have three of them, Washington, North Dakota, and Virginia. We know that in the next few months we are going to pick the next President of the United States. So this article kind of plays into that. For a moment I want my colleagues here to imagine that they are going to be the President of the United States. Just try to put in our minds that we are going to be the President of the United States. Let us start the article. ``Imagine that you are the next United States President and this crisis arises: The starving army of North Korea launches an attack on South Korea imperilling other 30,000 troops. You threaten a massive air assault. Pyongyang counter threatens to put a nuclear missile into the State of Hawaii. You say that that would cause you to strike back and destroy North Korea. Its undeterred leaders dare you to make the trade. You decide. ``Or this crisis: Saddam Hussein invades Saudi Arabia. You warn of a Desert Storm II. He says he has a weapon of mass destruction on a ship near the United States and is ready to sacrifice Baghdad if you are ready to lose New York City. You decide. ``Or this: China, not now a rogue State, goes into an internal convulsion and an irrational warlord attacks Taiwan.'' Now, let me leave the article for a minute. Did my colleagues read the paper today? In the last 48 hours, China has threatened the United States of America with a missile attack if in fact we go to the defense of Taiwan. So when this article was written it was just an ``imagine yourself in that place.'' But, in fact, in the last 48 hours, China has made that threat to the United States. So it is fairly realistic. Let us go back to the article. ``Or this: China goes into the internal convulsion and an irrational warlord attacks Taiwan. You threaten to intervene. Within 10 minutes you threaten to intervene. But all of a sudden you discover that China has missiles targeted on several major United States cities. You have a decision to make. Before you make the decision on North Korea, on Saddam Hussein, on China, remember this; that in 1998 the Central Intelligence Agency told your predecessor that it was highly unlikely that any rogue state, except possibly North Korea, would have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting any of the contiguous 48 States within 10 to 12 years.'' That is some exception. Apparently, our strategic assessors are untroubled at the prospect of losing Pearl Harbor again. So we are talking about the 48 States that have no missile defense in place, no missile defense in place. The CIA assured your predecessor you would have 5 years' warning about the other nations' weapons development before you would have to deploy a missile defense system, but the CIA's record of prediction is poor. President George Bush was assured that Saddam would have no nuclear capability for the next 10 years. When we went in after we invaded Kuwait, we discovered it to be less than a year away. And India, despite our extensive satellite and surveillance, surprised us with its recent nuclear explosion. Six months ago, the Congress decided to get a second opinion about how vulnerable the United States is. Donald Rumsfeld, a former Secretary of Defense, was named to lead the bipartisan commission to assess the ballistic threat to the United States. Its nine members are former high government officials, military officers, and scientists of unassailable credibility. Clearly, forever a national secret, these men with command experience had the advantage denied to CIA analysts. The unclassified summary of this T&B's 300-page report was released recently. This report just came out and it was a shocker. The direct threat to America, it concluded, by a ballistic missile attack is broader, more mature, and evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the intelligence community. Not only Iran and other terrorist states capable of producing a nuclear-tipped missile within 5 years of ordering it up, they are capable of skipping the test and fine-tuning what we have depended on as our cushion to get our defenses up. That means the Commission concluded that the warning time the United States would have to develop and deploy a missile defense is near zero. That means, I will repeat, that the time the United States of America will have to develop and deploy a missile defense system is not 5 years, not 10 years, it is close to 0. Let us set aside our preoccupation with executive privileges and hospital lawsuits long enough to consider the consequences of the judgment of this report. The United States no longer has the luxury of several years to put up a missile defense. We no longer have the luxury of several years to put a missile defense system up. If we do not decide now to deploy a rudimentary shield, we run the risk of Iran or North Korea or Libya building or buying the weapon that will enable it to get them to drop it upon the United States of America. The Commission was charged only with assessing the new threat and not about what we should do to meet the danger. Nine serious men concluded unanimously that our intelligence agencies, on which we spend $27 billion a year, have misled us. Smiling, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency responded that we need to keep challenging our assumptions. Wrong. We need to defend ourselves from the likely prospect of a surprise nuclear blackmail. A first step is egregious, the naval theater defense, but that requires the President to redefine a 1972 treaty with the Soviets, the anti-ballistic missile treaty that he thinks requires us to remain forever naked to all our potential enemies. The crisis is not likely to occur as Bill Clinton's sands run out. His successor would be the one to pay, the new President will be the one to pay, in the coin of diplomatic paralysis caused by unconscionable lack of preparedness for this President's failure to heed the warning time in 1998. Let me move on to another article and just summarize a couple parts of it. This article was written by the Columbus Dispatch. The headline was, ``No Shield: The U.S. is Subject to the Threat of Missiles.'' A chilling paradox of U.S. defense strategies suggests that a Columbus sailor on a Navy ship in the Pacific would be safer from a North Korean missile attack than his parents who work in downtown. It talks in this article about the Rumsfeld assessment. But I like the conclusion of it. This is the conclusion of that article: One thing is sure, while the United States debates the cost of an anti-missile defense, rogue nations are sparing no expense to make the missiles threat a reality. Finally, let me go to the Wall Street Journal and then I will leave the articles. Tuesday, February 15, just about a couple weeks ago, under the editorial called the November Missile Defense. Let me just read a couple of paragraphs from that article. ``An influential member of the Russian Duma said this month that a compromise on the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty was possible and would probably include steep cuts in the limits on strategic warheads and an end to the ban on MIRVs, missiles that can hit more than one target. ``It's absurd enough that the administration is asking Russia's permission for the United States to build a defense against terrorists or rogue states,'' a system for its citizens, asking Russia's permission to do this, but, on top of that, for the United States to build a defense and to pay for it by agreeing with Russia to cut our nuclear arsenal. What that paragraph said and what it refers to is there is a treaty called the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Back in the 1970s, the thought for nuclear deterrent was that if the two countries, the two superpowers, which were Russia and the United States, and that is all that that treaty involved and it did not imagine a North Korea or Libya or Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons, this treaty, when it was drafted in 1972 or so, said, hey, the best way to stop a nuclear attack is for the two superpowers, Russia and the United States, to agree not to build a defense against each other, so that Russia would have the incentive not to fire missiles upon the United States because they could not defend themselves and the United States had the incentive not to fire missiles on Russia because the United States could not defend itself. I think it was absurd. The fact is it was signed. It has been in effect. But times have changed. Times have changed dramatically. Number one, Russia is no longer the superpower that it was. Number two, China now has the capability to deliver nuclear missiles into many of the cities of the contiguous 48 States in the United States. We now know that several countries, including India and Pakistan, have nuclear weapons. We know that these weapons can fall into the hands of the wrong people. And yet we continue in this country to have some of our leaders who resist our country's efforts and, frankly, the Republican's efforts, to put into place a missile defense system. How many of you have ever heard of NORAD or Colorado Springs, Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs? I will give you an example of what could happen today. In Colorado Springs, Colorado, we have NORAD, the defense command system, inside our granite mountain called Cheyenne Mountain; and within that mountain, through our intelligence services, we can detect almost anywhere in the world, well, we can detect anywhere in the world a missile launch. Within a few seconds, we can advise the military leaders and the President of the United States that, one, a missile has been launched; two, the speed of the missile; three, the direction of the missile; four, the most likely target of the missile; and five, the most likely time of arrival of the missile. We can detect all of that anywhere in the world. The United States knows it. But then what can they tell the President? When the President says, what do I do, the answer from the military is, there is nothing we can do, Mr. President, because we do not have a missile defense system in this country. The CIA reported this month, again from the Wall Street Journal article, that the threat of a missile attack is higher than ever as more and more terrorists and rogue states have the ability to build or buy long-range ballistic missiles. We ought to think about that. We ought to think about the threat to this country. Now, some people would say to you, well, we do not have the technology to defend ourselves. We do have the technology. We have come a long ways. And we had a shot, we did a test about a month ago, and the test failed. But we have discovered where the fallacies are. We have the technology available. Now remember what we are trying to do. We are trying to intercept a missile. It is like hitting a bullet with a bullet, and they are going at a combined speed of several thousand miles an hour, and you have got to bring the two of them together. But we will have the technology in a very short period of time. So we need to determine what kind of missile defense system will work for this country. Now, my opinion is, although Ronald Reagan got lots of criticism and so on, I think the best missile defense system this country can deploy over a period of time is a space-generated defense. Why? Now listen. Just listen. If we have a land-based missile defense system versus a ship-based system, where you can move the system around, if we have a land-based system, you have to destroy that missile, you cannot destroy it on the launching pad. Let us say, for example, China launches a missile, as they have threatened to do in the last 24 hours. Let us say they launch a missile. We then have to wait for that missile. We track it as it comes across the ocean; and as it gets close to the United States, we have to start taking shots to try to bring that missile down. If we hit the missile down, it explodes over the top of us. They may have a missile headed for Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs and we detonate it over the city of Los Angeles. You could have nuclear fallout. There is a danger to that. And if you miss it and you continue to miss it, it is going to hit its target. Now a space-based system, number one, is mobile. Number two, it could move over the top of China. We could then move it over Iraq. We could move it over North Korea. We have the opportunity to move the defensive system around. The thing I like the best about it is, with the advancing technology, we could destroy the missile on its launching pad so the missile blows up in China or over China or over the ocean as it arcs over instead of over the lands of the United States. The facts are very simple in what we face today. Number one, we are subject to a missile attack from our countries. Do not let other people joke to you about it. I just came back from Europe. I am a member of the parliamentary arm of NATO, and the NATO delegation just came back. I was amazed that our colleagues in NATO who are afraid of Russia who stand there and criticize the United States of America for saying we have an obligation to build a missile defense system. Well, let me tell you, Europe, you better get off dead center; and you better put in place a missile defense system because you are going to be subject to the same kind of threats that the United States is; and instead of criticizing the United States, you ought to step forward and say we are going to do what the United States is doing; we are going to defend our countries. And frankly, I think your citizens will feel you have an obligation to defend them from a missile attack. Second of all, at these NATO meetings, I am surprised how many people think we ought to curry the favor of Russia. Russia does not have the best interest of the United States of America at hand. We should not let Russia drive the decision as to whether or not we will in this country deploy a missile defense system to protect the citizens of the United States. We are not one to pick a fight with Russia. In fact, we ought to tell Russia to step aside. We are not looking for a fight, but what we are saying to Russia is do not attack the United States. We are also saying to every terrorist organization out there, at least from the ballistic missile point of view, that, if you attack the United States with a ballistic missile, we will have the capability to shoot it down. You want to know what a deterrent is? The deterrent is, if you take a shot at America, it will not work. So why take the shot? If have you got a weapon and you want to shoot your neighbor or take down your neighbor, but you cannot pierce the defense system that your neighbor has, how good is the weapon that you have? That is what we need to do. We have an obligation to defend this country. So, again, let us come back to it. In this country, we should have no shame for being the strongest military power in the world. We should feel no shame in this country for saying that we might need to build a missile defense system to protect the people of the United States of America. And, frankly, to our friends in Europe and to the free countries throughout the world, I have no objection whatsoever for the United States to share our technology with you so that you can defend your own countries. Join us in the battle. Join us in the effort. Nothing is better for this world than peace. But peace does not come free. We have to take steps, preventative steps to preserve the peace. In doing that, the United States should proceed full speed ahead with a missile defense system. Do not buy into the argument that the technology will never be here. The technology is very close. In fact, as many of my colleagues know, two or three of the tests have been successful. The last test about a month ago was not successful but we think we know why. We think in this country that for a relatively inexpensive price, we can defend the citizens of this country from a missile attack. We ought to do it. We have that obligation. When you talk to most citizens in the United States and you say, hey, if Russia fires an incoming missile, what do we do about it, most of our citizens think we already have a missile defense system. We do not. We need to step forward and do something to protect the borders of this country. Let me move on and talk again, I mentioned that I have just completed a NATO trip over in the European continent. I also had the opportunity on this trip to go down to the Aviano Air Base in Italy and also to visit our intelligence and our naval base in Rota, Spain. I have got to take a minute to the American people and tell them about our armed services. I could not be more proud of the military of the United States of America. We can enjoy the freedoms we have today because we have got a lot of young men and women out there standing in harm's way, and the taxpayers of this country and the citizens of this country really truly have stepped forward and given these young people the apparatus and the kind of backing that they need to go and stand in that harm's way. When I was at the Aviano Air Base in Italy, I was so proud of our military men and women. Those people that man those aircraft, that maintain those aircraft, that handle our community relations, that do our maintenance work, all of that team down there is exactly that. It is a team, an Air Force that works with an Army, that works with a Navy, that works with a Marine Corps. When we went on to Rota, Spain and studied the intelligence, and by the way, the motto of that, ``In God we trust, all others we monitor,'' I am very proud of them. Our Navy sailors out there, our intelligence- gathering operation down there, the soldiers and the sailors, the people we have in these military bases throughout the world, you have got a lot to be proud of. Without question, the United States of America is by far the most powerful military operation in the history of the world. We are going to have some people who bash us for being strong, who criticize us for having a strong military, who say, you are trying to act like Rambo. Let me give Members an example that I gave to a classroom the other day. I went to a local high school in my district and I was talking about military and the importance for the preservation of freedom, that the best way to maintain peace is to be strong and that you have got to be number one. I had one of the students question me, so I will use this example. There was a lady in there, I asked the young lady, I said, if you were a black belt in karate and everybody in your class knew that you were a black belt in karate and they knew that if they decided to take your lunch or if they decided to fight you, that you would break their neck, how many fights do you think you would be in under those circumstances? The answer is pretty easy. Probably none, because you are in shape, you are strong, and they know that if they dare come after you, there will be severe consequences to pay. Thanks to the hundreds of thousands of dedicated men and women, and thanks to the hundreds of millions of American citizens who think the United States should be militarily strong, I think our military, relatively speaking, is in good shape. And I think we have got a lot to be proud of. I know that all of my colleagues in this room have constituents, many of whom may be serving in these bases, these overseas bases, and I know that many of them on both sides of the aisle join me in patting them on the back and saying thanks for what you do for our country. You are out there on the front lines and we are going to support you, and we need to support these people, and one way we can support them is to let them know that despite the efforts of some countries that want to see the demise, see the destruction of the United States of America, we will prevail. Freedom will always come out on top. But freedom can never survive if you do not have freedom with strength. Freedom with strength. That is what our young men and women who serve in the military, all men and women who serve in our military throughout the world are doing for this country. You are doing a task of which I could not thank you enough for. I wanted to let you all know how proud I am of you. Let me talk just for a couple of minutes, move on in my subject here of what I would like to talk to you about in our next night-side chat, and that is, let us talk about the Internet. I want to tell you a little more about my experience with the Internet and what we are seeing in this what I would say the second industrial revolution of the world. It is absolutely incredible, and most all of us on this House floor have experienced it. I want to spend the better part of an hour in the next few nights talking about this new second industrial revolution. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks this evening by simply doing just a summary of what we discussed. Let us go in reverse order. First of all, the missile defense system. It is imperative that the United States of America prepare itself for a missile defense system. We must deploy, in the near future, a missile defense system to protect the citizens of the United States of America, and we should be prepared to share that technology with our friends around the world so that they do not face the threat of terrorists or rogue nations firing a missile into the United States. If you do not think this is serious, take a look at the headline in the Washington Times this morning which discusses in detail the threat from China to launch a missile attack against the United States, a threat made in the last 48 hours. We talked before the missile defense about taxes. I have urged my Democrat colleagues to come across the aisle in a nonpartisan fashion tomorrow and support the Republican bill to do away with the cap on Social Security earnings. I urge those Democrat colleagues of mine who voted against the marriage tax penalty, in other words, to go ahead and keep the marriage tax penalty, to drop your opposition, come across the aisle and join us in support of that bill, the Republican bill to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is unfair. It is not right for us under our tax code from the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. to tax people simply because they are married. Help us get rid of that. We can do it this year. Let us do it this year. We talked about the death tax. It is the most punitive, unfair tax in our system. There is no justification for the government to go to the estate of the deceased and take property over which the taxes have already been paid in several instances over and over again and taxing that property simply because there has been a death. It is ruining family farms, it is ruining ranches and small business in this country. It is transferring money from our small communities in all of our respective States, it is transferring that money to the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. Let us be a bureaucrat's worst nightmare. Let us cut out some of these taxes, the death tax. Let us get rid of the marriage penalty tax. It is not right. Let us get rid of that cap on Social Security earnings. It is time for us to reform some of these unfair elements of the tax code of this country. We can afford to do it. We have a surplus. Let us be fair to the taxpayers of this country. Let us be fair to every citizen in this country. Do not penalize them for being married. Do not penalize their estate because they died. Be fair to them on the Social Security earnings cap. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the evening with my colleagues and I look forward to further discussions.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize one of Architectural Digest's top one hundred interior designers and architects for the year of 2000. The AD 100 is an international guide profiling outstanding and talented designers and architects from around the world. Architectural Digest publishes this list one every five years. The gifted designer being honored is Mr. Tom Allardyce. Mr. Allardyce and his partner, Illya Hendrix, founded their design firm in Los Angeles in 1980. For the past twenty years, they have specialized in residential estates. Their innovative designs for architectural structures, their customized interior surfaces, and their choice of exquisite antique furnishings have earned them numerous awards and published features of their projects both in national and international magazines. Their most recent endeavor has been the creation of their own live of furniture and accessories. Their firm employs a full-time support staff to provide quality craftsmanship for each project. The firm's international clientele is varied and includes notable names from the entertainment and business industries. They take pride in their ability to incorporate into the design the preferences and individual style of each of their clients. This enables the client to make an easy transition when their home is completed. Mr. Hendrix and Mr. Allardyce travel frequently to Europe with their clients in search of the unusual and fine furnishings and objects to create and complement the classic and timeless style that is their trademark. It is with this outstanding achievement, Mr. Speaker, that I offer this tribute in honor of Tom and his contribution to the international community of architecture and interior design.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize one of Architectural Digest's top one hundred interior designers and architects for the year of 2000. The AD 100 is an international guide profiling outstanding and talented designers and architects from around the world. Architectural Digest publishes this list once every five years. The gifted designer being honored is Mr. Illya Hendrix. Mr. Hendrix and his partner, Tom Allardyce, founded their design firm in Los Angeles in 1980. For the past twenty years, they have specialized in residential estates. Their innovative designs for architectural structures, their customized interior surfaces, and their choice of exquisite antique furnishings have earned them numerous awards and published features of their projects both in national and international magazines. Their most recent endeavor has been the creation of their own line of furniture and accessories. Their firm employs a full-time support staff to provide quality craftsmanship for each project. The firm's international clientele is varied and includes notable names from the entertainment and business industries. They take pride in their ability to incorporate into the design the preferences and individual style of each of their clients. This enables the client to make an easy transition when their home is completed. Mr. Hendrix and Mr. Allardyce travel frequently to Europe with their clients in search of the unusual and fine furnishings and objects to create and complement the classic and timeless style that is their trademark. It is with this outstanding achievement, Mr. Speaker, that I offer this tribute in honor of Illya and his contribution to the international community of architecture and interior design.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the 60th Anniversary of the Gunnison County Public Library. The library assembles, preserves and administers collections of books and related educational and recreational materials to promote the communication of ideas and enrichment of personal lives. It serves as a center of reliable information, supports the Gunnison community and encourages education and recreation through the use of literature, music, media and other forms of art. The library began as an idea in 1939. The American Association of University Women, AAUW, placed 2,000 volumes of books in the basement of Webster Hall. The community contributed books, magazines, money and manpower to support the organization. Now the Gunnison County Public Library consists of two buildings, reading programs and many other opportunities for community involvement. When space began to run out for the existing library, efforts to fund raise took priority. Between grants and contributions from the Community, the new library opened in 1974. In 1982, a donation was made to the library to add a music room and a story telling room. The library was formally dedicated and named after Ann Zugelder, the library's main supporter. Throughout the past sixty years, the Ann Zugelder Public Library has undergone many changes. AAUW continues its support of the library, as it has from the beginning. The library has also expanded to include a branch in Crested Butte. This branch of the Gunnison County Public Library was originally housed on the second floor of the Crested Butte Elementary School. The library is now located in the Old Rock Schoolhouse, a building that was renovated after many years of vacancy. Public and private funds were raised to make the renovations possible. In 1993, former Colorado Governor Roy Romer dedicated the Old Rock Community Library. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to offer this tribute in honor of the 60th Anniversary of the Gunnison County Public Library. It has served its community well.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the 1999 Grand Junction Citizen of the Year, my friend, Jamie Hamilton. A man that knows no end when it comes to serving his community, Jamie was awarded the Citizen of the Year award by the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce. He has donated his time and talents to a list of over twenty-five community and state organizations. This past year alone Jamie served on the Grand Junction Park and Recreation Board, Community Hospital Board, Sober Grad Committee, Lions Club, Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, JUCO and the Board of Trustees for the State Colleges of Colorado. Jamie and his wife, Debbie, share a dedication to the community that does not stop with boards and committees. After volunteering all of his time to these organizations, Jamie still finds time to coach little league baseball and baseball clinics for area youths. He leads by example, never asking an employee to do something that he would not do himself. This outstanding leadership and dedication is a leading factor in the success of Home Loan Insurance where Jamie is the CEO and President. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to offer this tribute to a great community leader and a good personal friend, Jamie Hamilton, in honor of receiving the 1999 Grand Junction Citizen of the Year Award. The Grand Junction community owes him a debt of gratitude for his leadership and selfless service.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the Colorado National Guard Noncommissioned Officer of the Year, Sandy Hanson. Sandy was nominated for the award by the officers on the local and state level boards consisting of high-ranking officers. Sandy has been on the Army Reserves and now the Colorado National Guard for thirteen years. She presently holds the rank of E-5, Sergeant, and is a member of the Montrose-based Unit C of the 109th Area Support Medical Battalion of the Charlie Company. Every year soldiers are chosen to go before the ``boards'' to be tested verbally on every subject related to the military from history to marksmanship. Sandy's precision and excellent knowledge have won her the distinction of being the best noncommissioned officer in the entire State of Colorado. Sandy was the only one that was surprised when she received the award. Everyone around her knows that she is very focused and disciplined when it comes to organizing her busy lifestyle. In addition to being in the Colorado National Guard, which takes her away from her family one weekend a month and two full weeks every summer, she has two children, a full-time job and she still finds time to study for the boards on the national level. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I offer this tribute to Sandy Hanson and congratulate her on a job well done. She has served her country well.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Rotary Club of Snowmass Village Business/Professional Person of the Year. Dan Kloster is a businessman who knows how important it is to give back to the community. The Person of the Year award is given each year to the person who best exemplifies the principles of the club. Candidates for the award are nominated by either Rotarians or by a member of the community. This is the first time the award has been presented to an active member of the club. Dan is a charter member of the Snowmass Club and has served as the club's president in the past. Rotary clubs across the world have dedicated their mission to serving their local community as well as those areas of the world that are in need of humanitarian efforts. The club from Snowmass has been committed to serving the international community. Dan has served on the International Committee which focuses on projects like going to Africa to immunize young people against polio. In addition to deeds, Rotary members like Dan try to implement the philosophy of the four-way test. This test is to be applied to everything in the life of a member. The test is comprised of four questions: Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build good will and better friendships? Will it benefit all concerned? Dan tries to be an example when it comes to the four-way test not only in the business world, but in his personal life. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I offer this tribute in honor to Dan Kloster. His efforts to make his community, country and world a better place deserve our thanks and praise.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today and tell you a story about a man who has gone to great lengths to help another. In the face of a storm, Tom Proud is definitely someone to have around. Tom, a Pueblo County Sheriff's Deputy, was on his way to Denver when he saw a car slide on ice and land in the ditch. He claims that he did nothing more than the average citizen when he pulled over to offer assistance. Tom saw that a woman was stranded with children and went out of his way to make sure that they were safe and back on their way. Miles from any town, Tom drove to a tire station to have the flat tire repaired and then drove back to the car to put in on the car. Tom was so dedicated to making certain Mrs. Martinez, the woman who was stranded, and the children were safe that he put his own plans on hold. Mrs. Martinez was so overwhelmed with gratitude that a simple thank you was not enough. She wrote a letter to a Pueblo County Commissioner telling the story of selfless valor displayed by the off-duty peace officer. She told the Commissioner that without Tom's help, they would not have been able to be in Denver before one of their family members went into surgery. Mrs. Martinez counts all of Pueblo lucky to have Tom among its citizens. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I offer tribute to Tom Proud. He has gone above and beyond the call of duty and deserves our thanks and praise.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to share memories of a man that knew no limits when it came to what he wanted out of life. Sadly, Harold Bauduit passed away on January 25, 2000. He was 69 years old. Harold accomplished many things during his life; he was no stranger to hard work and extra effort. He did so well on military tests that he was told to join the United States Naval Academy. Harold was only the fifth African-American to graduate from the United States Naval Academy. But after graduation, Harold decided he liked the air more than water and he joined the Air Force. During the Vietnam War, Harold was part of the air command based in Thailand flying B-66 aircraft to monitor enemy radar. When his career in the military ended, Harold turned to education. He earned master's degrees in economics and business, and a law degree. He taught black studies classes at Fort Range Community College and the University of Colorado. He felt very strongly about education and felt that everyone deserved the opportunity to learn. Harold loved to debate and was always on top of current events. He read the Wall Street Journal every day and kept his TV turned to CNN constantly. He never wanted to be behind on anything. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, I offer this tribute in Harold Bauduit's honor. He truly was an exceptional man who lived life fearlessly.