Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Mrs. Grace Marie Tripp-Holmes, longtime educator, who recently passed away. Before retiring in 1972, Mrs. Holmes taught a generation of children in Alamosa, Colorado. Mrs. Holmes taught high school in Manassa schools and later operated a private kindergarten in Alamosa, before the Alamosa School District offered its own kindergarten. Following her contributions there, she taught fourth grade at Alamosa's Central School. Mrs. Holmes was an asset to the children and families of Alamosa. Her role as an educator facilitated an environment where students were effectively taught the values necessary to succeed. But when we lose a woman such as Mrs. Holmes, being missed is certainly no precursor to being forgotten. And, everyone who knew her, will walk through life a little bit differently for it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Sam T. Gibson, former Director of the National Blood Bank for the Red Cross, who recently passed away. Dr. Gibson joined the Red Cross in 1949, following research at Harvard Medical School. He worked in the blood program of the Red Cross for 18 years and taught at George Washington University medical school and the Uniformed Services University. Dr. Gibson directed the national blood bank program of the American Red Cross and retired from a research post at the FDA in 1988. Prior to his work at the FDA, Dr. Gibson was a biological official at the National Institute of Health where he retired as director of science and technology in the Office of Health Affairs. Dr. Gibson was an asset to all of those he served who will be greatly missed by those who were under his care.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize H. Harper Kerr, former Puebloan, who passed away last Thursday. Originally the son of an Iowa country doctor, Dr. Kerr arrived in Pueblo in the mid-1950s and practiced medicine for more than 20 years, specializing in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. He served as chief of staff and chief of surgery at St. Mary-Corwin hospital. In addition, he served on the Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors of the Colorado Medical Society. In 1968, he was elected as the Pueblo County Coroner, where he served for a number of years. Upon Dr. Kerr's retirement from surgery, he moved to Kansas City where he was appointed Chief Medical Director of Social Security Disability for the four-state region of Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska. Following his work in Kansas City, Dr. Kerr moved to Shalimar, Florida, where he was on the original committee that formed the Elderhostel Senior Center for Lifelong Learning. In addition, he was active with the Coast Guard Auxiliary, functioned as a Flotilla Commander, served as medical advisor to the Air Commando Association and the McCoskrie Foundation. Dr. Kerr's contributions to this country extend back to World War II as physician and surgeon of the 605th Field Artillery Battalion in the 10th Mountain Division of the U.S. Army. Dr. Kerr was an asset to the people of Pueblo and his ability as a surgeon assured Puebloans were in good hands while under his supervision. We will miss his service and friendship greatly.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a woman who was dedicated to the community, the church and her family, Muriel Olbert. In doing so, I would like to honor this individual who, for so many years, exemplified the notion of public service and civic duty. Sadly, Muriel recently passed away. Muriel's many achievements and interests speak well of the hard working woman that she was. She was born in Mancos, Colorado, on January 2, 1908. Muriel graduated from Northwestern University with a degree in education after which she dedicated much of her time and energy to students and education, including Mrs. Trundell's Private School in Huning Castle. In addition to being a devoted member of the Saint Paul Lutheran Church for over 50 years, Muriel was a former member of the Order of the Eastern Star and a member of the Lew Wallace Chapter of the D.A.R. As is evident from her devotion to her faith and her family, Muriel will be greatly missed by all. She is survived by her daughter, her brother, her two grandchildren, and her three great-grandchildren. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to a fine and cherished woman. Her memory of love and dedication will live on forever.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor the courageous behavior of David Brewer. On August 15, David's daughter-- Maretta--fell through a plate glass window, lacerating her arm and putting her life in eminent peril. Fortunately for Maretta, her calm and even-headed father applied pressure to her arm, saving both her arm and life. While saving the life of his beautiful daughter is clearly enough reward in and of itself, Mr. Speaker, I thought that it was important that we all congratulate and thank David for his admirable behavior. Though none of us would ever wish to be thrust into a perilous situation like Maretta's and David's, if we were, we could only hope to act as calmly and bravely as David Brewer.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Wayne Allard, and Representatives Joel Hefley, Bob Schaffer, Diane DeGette, Mark Udall, and Thomas Tancredo, I would like to honor the life of a dear friend, loyal civic servant and one of Colorado's leading ladies, Jan Duckworth. Tragically, the world lost Jan earlier this week when her plane, bound for Cairo, Egypt, crashed just off the coast of Massachusetts. But even as we mourn her tragic and untimely passing, everyone who has had the privilege of knowing Jan can take comfort in the memory of her remarkable life. Since 1978, Jan worked diligently and with great distinction in the Colorado House of Representatives. In the beginning, she was responsible for the distribution of bills and their related documents to members and their staff in the Capitol. It was not long thereafter that Jan's good work was recognized by her superiors who, in turn, promoted her through the ranks of the House administrative staff. At the time of her death, Jan was serving as the House's Chief Assignable Clerk. In addition to attending to the important business of the Colorado House, Jan also took tremendous pride in training new staff on the legislative process and new member training and orientation. Of the many accolades bestowed upon Jan during her time in the Colorado House of Representatives, none could ever fully capture the breadth of her service to this esteemed body. For Jan's service extended far beyond the dictates of any job description: she worked the chamber, telling a joke to those weary of debate; disarming the embattled with her quick wit; adding an element of warmth and hospitality to a place that, at times, could be cool with confrontation. These are the memories of Jan that colleagues, friends, and family will cling to during this difficult time and throughout the rest of our lives. Although her professional accomplishments will long be remembered and admired, those who knew Jan well will remember her, above all else, as a friend. It is clear that the multitude of those who have come to know and love Jan will be worse off in her absence. However, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that, in spite of this profound loss, Jan's co-workers, family and friends can take solace in the knowledge that each is a better person for having known her. But even as we mourn her passing, those who knew and loved Jan should find peace in the rich legacy that she has left behind in her son, William Duckworth, her daughter, Mary Lynn Mimouna, and her granddaughter Wardalynn Mimouna. I know that these and other members of her family--including her sisters Mary Zow and Meredith Larson--will long carry the torch of honor, compassion, integrity and goodwill that defined Jan Duckworth's time on this earth.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening we have covered two topics so far. The first topic is the attempted request, well, not the attempted request but the actual request by an assassin, by a convicted murderer of two Federal Bureau of Investigation officers, Leonard Peltier, the convict is submitting to the President of the United States for clemency. I am in hopes with my colleagues that they join me in urging the President to deny that. The second issue that we have discussed tonight is the Brooklyn Art Museum and the fact that they use taxpayer dollars to fund an art exhibit of the Virgin Mary, a portrait of the Virgin Mary, with elephant dung or elephant crap thrown all over the face of the Virgin Mary. The third topic, however, is kind of we are changing engines here. I want to talk about, instead of the negative implications of a convicted assassin asking our President to let him walk from prison, get-out-of- jail-free card, instead of talking about the Brooklyn Art Museum and the prima donnas who want to use your taxpayer dollars to fund that kind of obscene art, I want to shift to an accomplishment of this country. Actually it is an accomplishment that should be celebrated, it was celebrated throughout the world, and a lot of credit of this accomplishment goes to the people throughout the world. When people look back to the accomplishments of this century, they are going to look at one accomplishment which will stand out for many, many centuries to come, and that is the fall of the Berlin Wall. Recently, I had the opportunity to watch the tape on Ronald Reagan. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of us to watch it. It is put out by the Public Broadcasting System, PBS, on the presidency of Ronald Reagan and it talked about Reagan's great leadership, and I will again disclose that I am a strong admirer of President Reagan, about the difficult transition period he went through in taking this country through a buildup in arms, a buildup in military defense, in order to accomplish a build-down; that how President Reagan, throughout his entire life had one goal, and that is to bring down the destructive society of Communism. It was interesting the pressure he went through, even within our own boundaries of this great country, about his concept of how to bring down that Berlin Wall. Now many of those critics, some of who sit on this floor, some of who sit in other chambers of political leadership throughout this country, who criticized President Reagan, we can now look back and see what a feat. Not just with President Reagan but what a feat President Reagan and what a role he played in bringing down that Berlin Wall. Now, why do I bring it up today? Because in one week, on November 9, on November 9, will be the tenth anniversary of bringing that wall down. Whenever I see pictures of that wall in the history books or I see it in some other type of periodical, I think of President Ronald Reagan standing there and saying, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear that wall down.'' What a fascinating time of history and how neat it is that we were able to bring that down. Look at what has happened since. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what has happened in Europe. Look at what happened to communism. Now, there are some tough times still ahead for the countries of Russia and so on. There is a lot of peace and justice that needs to be brought into the country of Russia. As my colleagues know, one of the big failures of the society today in Russia, in my opinion, is the failure of their justice system, the mob over there. But the fact is, despite all of these painful headaches and this long journey towards capitalism and freedom, it will arrive. It will come to the station. Some people think it is late. But it will arrive at the station due in a large part to the leadership of this country and large part due to the leadership throughout the free world 10 years ago. Now, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues have not had an opportunity, I would urge them to take a look at this week's Newsweek. I did. It has an article in there, excellent article written by Newsweek, about the Berlin Wall. I would like to go through. What it did is it picked up some of the conversations during those few critical days of the fall of the Berlin wall. It brings out some of the conversations as reflected by memos written at the time between the President of the United States, George Bush, and the German Chancellor Kohl. I will like to repeat some of those because I think they are pretty fascinating. This is a conversation that took place between West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President George Bush. October 23, 1989, just a little over 10 years ago, 9:02 in the morning. Tens of thousands of East Germans flee via Hungary. Others seek sanctuary in the West German embassy and the Prague. Demonstrators calling for freedom take to the streets of major German cities. Kohl phones Bush to describe the situation, and here is how the conversation took place. Kohl: The changes in east Germany are quite dramatic. None of us can give a prognosis. There is enormous unrest among the population. Things will become incalculable if there are no reforms. My interest is not to see so many flee Germany because the consequences there would be a disaster. I am also concerned about the media coverage that, crudely speaking, holds that Germans are now committed in their discussions about reunification and that they are less interested in the West. This is absolute nonsense. Without a strong NATO, none of these developments in the Warsaw Pact would have occurred. President Bush in response: I could not agree more. We are trying to react very cautiously and carefully to change in East Germany. We are getting criticism in the Congress from liberal Democrats that we ought to be doing more to foster change, but I am not going to go so fast as to be reckless. November 10, 1989, 3:29 in the afternoon. The previous night the world had watched transfixed as the East Germans stormed the wall. Kohl to President Bush: I have just arrived from Berlin. It is like witnessing an enormous fair. It has the atmosphere of a festival. The frontiers are absolutely open. At certain points, they are literally taking down the wall and building new check points. This is a dramatic thing, a historic hour. Without the United States, this day would not have been possible. Tell your people that. President Bush: First, let me say how great is our respect for the way West Germany has handled all of this. I want to see our people continue to avoid especially hot rhetoric that might, by mistake, cause a problem. Kohl to the President: Thank you. Give my best to Barbara. Tell her that I intend to send sausages for Christmas. November 17, 1989, 7:55 in the morning, Bush and Kohl discussed the Soviet reaction. They are concerned that Moscow, which still has 390,000 troops in East Germany may panic. Kohl: I had a long conversation with Gorbachev. Of course the Soviets are concerned. I told Gorbachev that if East German leader Egon Krenz does not carry out reforms, the system will fail. President Bush: It is important that the Germans see that they have the support and the sympathy of their allies. In spite of congressional posturing, the United States will stay calm and support reforms. The excitement in the United States runs the risk of forcing unforeseen action in the U.S.S.R. or East Germany. We will not be making statements about unification or setting any timetables. We will not exacerbate the problem by having the President of the United States posturing on the Berlin Wall. February 13, 1990, 1:49 in the afternoon. The East German regime has agreed to free elections in March and Kohl has just returned from a visit to Moscow. Both he and Bush are worried that Gorbachev will demand a neutral Germany as a price for unification. Kohl to the President: The situation continues to be dramatic. Between January 1 and today, 80,000 have come to the West from the East. That is why I suggested a monetary union and an economic community. We will have to urge the government that comes in after March 18 to go through with these. Let me say a few words about my talks in Moscow. Gorbachev was very relaxed. But the problems he faces are enormous, nationalities, the food supply situation, and I do not see a light at the end of the tunnel yet. We also discussed that the two German states should be working together with the four powers, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the U.S.S.R. I told Gorbachev again that neutralization of Germany is out of the question. Bush: Did he acquiesce or just listen? How did he react? Kohl: My impression is that this is a subject about which they want to negotiate but that we can win that point. March 20th, 1990, 8:31 in the morning. In the March elections, the East Germans overwhelmingly support reunification and democratic change by voting for a coalition of parties led by Kohl's Christian Democrats. Bush to Kohl: Helmut, you are a hell of a campaigner. Kohl: Thank you. The results are very important for the NATO question. Bush: Helmut, your firm stand on a united Germany remaining a full member of NATO is great. We need to continue holding firm. This is vitally important for European security and stability and for the United States. May 30, 1990, 7:34 in the morning. Gorbachev is due in Washington for his first visit since the fall of the wall. Bush and Kohl discuss that agenda. Bush to Kohl: I am getting ready for Gorbachev's big visit. Kohl: That is why I am calling. One thing that is very important for Gorbachev to understand is that, irrespective of the developments, we will stand side by side. And one sign of this cooperation are the links between us by the future membership of the united Germany and NATO without any limitations. You should make this clear to him, but in a friendly way. A second point, we can find a sensible economic arrangement with him. He needs help very much. He should also know that we had no intention of profiting from his weakness. Bush: I will assure him that we are side by side. We want him to come out feeling that he has had a good summit. July 17, 1990, 8:48 in the morning. Kohl briefs Bush on his most recent visit to Moscow. Kohl: George, first of all, Gorbachev is in excellent shape. He is aware of his special situation and of his responsibilities. And he is aware he has to act quickly to get through pluralism to change society and to get through the necessary legislation by the end of this year. ``I told him there would be no chance to receive western aid if he does not get these reforms through. We also discussed extensively his determination to pursue the modernization of his country. He said something I had never heard before. He told me his grandfather was tortured and imprisoned under Stalin. His wife said her grandfather was liquidated under Stalin. It is remarkable.'' One other interesting thing. We talked about German-U.S. relationships in our one-on-one. I told him that this relationship was of great importance, and I told him that if the Soviets tried to undermine it, this would affect German relationships with the USSR. His reply will be of interest to you. He said that they learned a lesson, that it was wrong to try to make the United States withdraw from Europe, and that they had not succeeded in this in the past. Finally, he impresses me as a man who knows himself well and who has a sense of self-irony. He has burned all his bridges behind him. He cannot go back and he must be successful. August 3, 1990, 9:56 in the morning, nearly a year after the Wall falls, East and West Germany are officially reunited. Bush: ``Helmut, I am in a meeting with members of our Congress and I am calling on this historic day to wish you well.'' Kohl: ``Things are going very, very well. I am in Berlin. There were one million people here last night at the very spot where the Wall used to stand and where President Reagan called on Mr. Gorbachev to open this gate. Words cannot describe the feeling. American presidents from Harry Truman all the way up to our friend George Bush made this possible.'' The Berlin Wall did not come down in a day. It did not come down in a season. What is interesting about these conversations that I just related to you is it is kind of symbolic of the effort that our country made to see that communism fell and that the non-free people of this world were able to enjoy freedom as we have enjoyed our entire life. But it was not without a price. President Reagan went on a massive military buildup. His concept to build up in order to build down turned out to be correct. But during this massive buildup, he received a lot of criticism. Frankly, the Russians were worried about President Reagan. I reviewed this tape from Public Broadcasting, and I hope my colleagues take time to take a look at it, it is fascinating. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, this time period sets aside those partisanship contests to take a look at the biggest threat to the world, and that was communism and how this president, President Reagan, really took us right to the brink and the Russians blinked and the Russians disarmed and the Russians allowed that Wall to be taken down. They pulled out of Hungary. They pulled out of Poland. And today in our history, most of the countries in this world enjoy the freedom that we enjoy as Americans. In 100 years from now, it is my prediction that every country in the world will have some form of capitalism, that the days of communism, even the days of socialism will be days long past. It gives us a lot to be proud of in America. Colleagues, I know that as United States congressmen we are privileged to be up here to represent what I think is the finest country in the history of the world. And the reason that we came out of this so well, the reason that we have stood strong for such a long time is that we understood America does not have to apologize for being free. America owes nobody in this world an apology for standing up for the abused people of this world. But the United States of America owes no apology to anybody in this world for strength that we maintain with our defense. Because we understand that if we do not have a strong defense, if we are not the toughest kid on the block, we are going to be in a lot of fights. I forget the source of the quote. I think it was back in the early days of the country, Jefferson, maybe Washington, who said, ``the best way to avoid a war is to be prepared for war.'' The best way to protect freedom is to be strong. Every generation will be tested. Freedom will always come with a price and a cost. But in the end, if we pay that cost, if we stand up strong, as this country has done in the past, if we have great leaders like Ronald Reagan and many of the other great leaders this country has had, we can look to the next generation and we can say to that next generation, you too will enjoy a lifetime in the greatest country in the history of the world. As you can tell from my remarks, I am proud to be an American. And so are every one of you. Next week I hope all of us take just a few minutes outside of our busy schedules and I hope we try and convince our constituents to take a few minutes out of their busy schedules and think of those days 10 years ago when that awful, terrible wall began to crumble. Think of those days when President Reagan stood up there, broad-shouldered, looking them right in the eye and said, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Open up this gate. Take a few moments next week on this tenth anniversary to think of the joy and the excitement and the happiness of those individuals in Germany who now were able to go across that border without being shot, without having to sneak through at night trying to get through the barbed wire. I can remember 15, 20 years ago, even longer than that, when I was young about reading the Reader's Digest. It seemed to me that twice a year the Reader's Digest would carry a story in there about somebody in East Germany who had that taste of freedom, who wanted to live in a free world, who wanted a Democratic society. They would risk and their family would risk everything they had to get across that Wall. I remember reading in a study of history when our American planes and our allies went into Germany and past the Wall to bring those in the Berlin airlift. What a great accomplishment that was. And now, less than 10 years ago, whoever imagined that that horrible Wall would crumble as quickly as it did? You know, it was not a very strong structure. It did not stand up for very long, too long, but not very long. And that credit goes to the American leadership and the leadership of our allies in this world. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by just recapping the three things that I discussed this evening. First of all, I beg my colleagues in here to carefully watch what is going on with this request for clemency by a convicted assassin of two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This man, Leonard Peltier, will be requesting through a political horse and pony show with the President clemency to let him walk as a free man. He has got a very sharp defense team. But do not let that shield all of us from the fact that in cold blood he killed two FBI agents. This man should never see the outside of a jail cell for as long as he lives. I hope many of my colleagues will join me in that effort in attempting to convince the President or help persuade the President to ignore that request. Second of all, let me point out that to you, Brooklyn Art Museum, you are wrong. You will not be able to continue to defy, I think, the taxpayers of this country by using taxpayer dollars to fund your art exhibit of the Virgin Mary with dung slapped all over her. I hope at some point you prima donnas who serve on the board of directors at that Brooklyn Art Museum, I hope really seriously you have a moment to look in the mirror when nobody else is around and you ask yourselves the question, is it right? Does what we did make me feel good? Have I completed my duty as a trustee of the Brooklyn art museum? Would I have done this to the great leader Martin Luther King? Would I have done this to a great leader in the Jewish community? Would I have done this to a great leader in the Buddhist community? Or should I just pick on Christianity and use taxpayer dollars to do it? The taste of art has gone too far when you use taxpayer dollars for that kind of effort. It is not a protected right in my opinion under the first amendment. Finally, the day of celebration next week as we are running around this floor, we ought to take a few minutes and just remember what a great day in our history it was to see that Berlin Wall fall, to see those people in East Germany taste freedom, many of them for the first time in their entire life, and to see through the great leadership of the United States of America, through the response of the citizens of the United States of America, through the strength of the military forces of the United States of America, we brought the taste of freedom to millions and millions of people, and we will as the United States of America preserve the taste of freedom for many centuries to come.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I was moved by an article that I read about an individual by the name of Leonard Peltier. Mr. Peltier is currently in the penitentiary, Federal penitentiary, for the assassination of two FBI agents. He has been in prison for 25 years. I need to be fair to all of my colleagues here and give you some disclosures. First of all, I used to be a police officer. As a result of being a police officer, over the years and especially during the time of my tenure as a police officer, I developed a very close relationship with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Over the years, I have also developed a great deal of respect for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But I must also tell my colleagues that over these years I have also had an opportunity to carefully scrutinize the Federal Bureau of Investigation, because, you see, I think it is a very important agency for our country. But I think the integrity of the agency is also very, very important. In the past, I have been very critical of the Federal Bureau of Investigation when they messed up. I can give you an excellent example, Ruby Ridge. The agents involved at Ruby Ridge in my opinion should have been immediately terminated. What happened at Ruby Ridge I will not repeat this evening but I will tell you that the command officer from the Federal Bureau of Investigation was not terminated, in fact the command officer was put on a paid leave of absence for 1 or 2 years and retired and received in my opinion no punishment at all. I am also looking with a very careful eye at the Federal Bureau of Investigation's role at the Waco, Texas goof-up. That, too, is a very tragic situation in the history of our country, and I think unfortunately, there will be revealed within the report about the incident at Waco, Texas, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation misstated their role, understated their contribution, so to speak, or their involvement in the situation at Waco, Texas. So I am not necessarily in lockstep with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But I can tell you, when I look at all of the law enforcement agencies I have seen over the years, and as a former law enforcement officer, I have had the opportunity to be involved with many of them, at the very highest, when you look at the picture as an average, the Federal Bureau of Investigation comes out at the very top. And I think it is incumbent, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, of every one of us when we see an attack launched against the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is launched without justification, or when we see an action being taken against the Federal Bureau of Investigation without justification, we have a commitment to step forward and say something about it. As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, I saw an article the other day about this individual. This gentleman's name is Leonard Peltier. I saw today in fact an article in the USA Today. The article is Indians, FBI Face Off in Washington. First of all, I am not sure why the author of the USA Today article uses the word Indians in a broad or general descriptive form. In my particular district, which is the Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado, we have the Indian tribal lands, and I have yet to hear from any of the leaders of those Indian tribes, of which I work with very closely on projects such as the Animus LaPlata, the kind of appeal that may be suggested by all Indians as a result of this particular article. It is my opinion that the Native American involvement in this case is limited. And it is also my opinion that if you sit down with the average Native American in this country and you look at the facts of this case, that there will be very few Native Americans who would step forward and say that this particular convict is a political prisoner. I think this is a stage being set by the defense attorneys for this convict. Actually using the word convict is somewhat gentle. He is not a convict, he is a murderer, and he is a cold-blooded murderer. He killed two FBI agents in cold blood. Now, 25 years ago, as one defense attorney would suggest, is something that enough time has passed by that perhaps he has served his time for this violent and horrible crime. I will quote exactly from the USA Today. Peltier, that is the convict, the murderer that I am talking about, has been in prison as long as anyone responsible for similar crimes should be in, attorney Carl Nadler says. Can you believe this? Let me repeat what this defense attorney says. Peltier has been in prison as long as anyone responsible for similar crimes should be in prison. What he is suggesting is that 25 years is enough time for somebody to serve that goes out and in cold blood assassinates two officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Well, I stand here tonight, colleagues, in deep disagreement with this defense attorney. And I urge that all of my colleagues on the floor take time to review what is going on in the month of November in regard to this case. Now, why have I suggested the month of November? Well, apparently this murderer's defense team has put together a little political show and tell, and they call November the month of publicity or the month to get reprieve for this convicted murderer. What I mean by that, it is this month that they are submitting papers to the President of the United States requesting that clemency be granted to Leonard Peltier, a convicted murderer. A couple of days ago, I read an open letter. This open letter is a joint letter authored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association located in New Rochelle, New York and the Society of Former Special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation located in Quantico, Virginia. The above organizations, which are professional, nongovernmental associations, represent over 20,000 active duty and former FBI agents. I was so moved by this letter that I ask my colleagues to follow me closely this evening as I read verbatim that open letter to the American people. As many of you know, I do not often read from notes when I speak from this podium, but I am going to be very careful this evening that I read this letter verbatim, because I think it is important that every one of us in this room have a clear understanding of the facts of this case before Peltier's defense attorney arrives here in Washington, D.C., sets up this political show and tell, and tries to convince through propaganda that for some reason this convicted murderer deserves clemency from the President of the United States. We should not take this lightly. We had a very difficult situation about 1 month ago when clemency was given to the Puerto Rican terrorists. As I pointed out from this House floor, you can look right up in the roof of this fine room and you can see the bullet hole, or I could walk over here to this desk drawer and show you the bullet holes through that desk from the Puerto Rican terrorists who entered this floor many years ago firing weapons. Well, this case is somewhat similar, except in this case we know, we have the person who conducted two savage, cold blooded murders on these FBI agents. Let me begin the letter. June 26, 1975, was a hot, dusty Thursday on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in Southwestern South Dakota when two FBI agents arrived from their office in Rapid City. It was about noon when Special Agents Ronald A. Williams, age 27, and Jack R. Coler, age 28, pulled into the Jumping Bull compound area of the remote reservation seeking to arrest a young man in connection with the recent abduction and assault of two young ranchers. Observing their suspect Peltier's vehicle, the agents pursued it. Unknown to Special Agent Coler and Special Agent Williams, one of the three men in the vehicle was Leonard Peltier, a violent man with a violent past. He was a fugitive, wanted for attempted murder of an off duty Milwaukee police officer. Knowing that the two vehicles pursuing him were occupied by FBI agents and believing they were seeking to arrest him on that attempted murder case, Peltier and his associates abruptly stopped their vehicle and began firing rifles at the agents. Surprised by the sudden violence, outmanned, outgunned, and at an extreme tactical disadvantage, Coler and Williams were both wounded and defenseless within minutes. Coler sustained a severe wound, the force of the bullet nearly tearing his right arm off. Williams, wounded in the left shoulder and the right foot, removed his shirt during the hail of incoming rifle fire, and fashioned a tourniquet around the arm ofColer, who had by then fallen unconscious. Agents Coler and Williams were then at the mercy of Leonard Peltier and his associates. But there was to be no mercy for these fine young law enforcement officers. Not satisfied with the terrible injuries that they had inflicted, Peltier and the two other men walked down the hill towards the ambushed agents. Three shots were fired from Peltier's rifle. Williams, kneeling and apparently surrendering, was shot in the face directly through his out extended shielding handled. He died instantly. Coler, who was still unconscious, was shot twice in the head at close-range. He died instantly from those shots. The crime scene examination testified to the brutality of the ambush. Coler and Williams had little chance to defend themselves. They had fired only five shots. In contrast, over 125 bullet holes were found in into the car. Following the murder, Peltier fled the reservation. In November 1975 an Oregon state trooper stopped a recreational vehicle in which Peltier was hiding. Peltier fired at the trooper and escaped. Coler, the FBI agent who had been assassinated earlier on, his revolver which was stolen when he was murdered, was found in a paper bag under the front seat of the recreational vehicle. Peltier's thumb print was on that bag. When arrested later in Canada by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Peltier remarked that had he known the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers were there to arrest him, he would have blown them out of their shoes. These are not the comments of an innocent man and they portray the true character and the violent nature of Leonard Peltier. In April 1977 a jury convicted Peltier of the murders of those two FBI agents, Coler and Williams. A judge sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences. While incarcerated in the Lompoc, California, Federal prison, and, with outside assistance, Peltier shot his way out of jail using a smuggled rifle to make his escape. Several days later, after assaulting a rancher and stealing a pick up, Peltier was captured. He was tried and convicted of escape and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Peltier has since appealed his various convictions numerous times. Each time the Federal courts have upheld earlier legal decisions. The United States Supreme Court has twice denied Peltier review without comment. The record is clear: There were no new facts. There are no new facts. The old facts have not changed, and Peltier is guilty as charged. Several times on national television Peltier has admitted to firing at the two agents. In his most recent public interview, Peltier has even reluctantly conceded what he had previously denied, that he had in fact gone down to where the agents were executed. Still, he openly states that he feels no guilt, no remorse, nor even any regret for the murders. Leonard Peltier has lived a life of crime. He has earned and deserves a lifetime of incarceration. Leonard Peltier is a murderer without compassion or feeling towards his fellow man. In turn, he deserves no compassion. Mr. President, there is no justification for relieving Leonard Peltier from his punishment. Our judicial system has spoken in this case again, again, and again. Leonard Peltier is a vicious, violent and cowardly criminal that hides behind legitimate native American issues. Leonard Peltier was never a leader in the Native American community. He is simply a brute, thug and murderer with no respect, no regard for human life. Our citizens, on and off the reservations, must be protected from predators like Peltier. Mr. President, since Leonard Peltier could not fool the Federal courts, he is now trying to fool you, to fool the public. He is shading and hiding the facts and playing on sympathy. He and his advocates want to confuse the fact of his guilt with matters completely extraneous to that fact. Do not let him get away with it, Mr. President. Sympathy is appropriate only for dead heroes and surviving families. Do not let their sacrifice be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, that was somewhat of a lengthy letter, but as you can tell, it is a subject that should be dear to every one of our hearts in this room, to the heart of every American out there that believes in law and justice, to every law enforcement family out there that currently has someone in law enforcement or has had a member of their family in law enforcement. If we let, if we let this kind of violent assassin out of prison after serving only 24 years, it will in my opinion be a crippling blow to the message that we need to send to the law enforcement in this country. That message really is fairly simple. That is that you work as a law enforcement officer to provide, as your duty, peace and justice in our system, and that when peace and justice are attacked in our system, our system has a price, it has a consequence, it has a punishment. It is the only way we can uphold the integrity of our system of law enforcement is to have a zero tolerance or a limited tolerance of any type of direct attack against our system of peace and justice. The assassination of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, no matter how many years ago, is a direct attack against the legal and justice process in this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join with me in attempting to be persuasive with the President of the United States and the American public in saying how important it is that this political charade being put on by the defense attorneys for this convicted assassin, that this kind of show be stopped, that this kind of show be denied their goal. Their goal, of course, is to let this convicted assassin walk the streets of America again. Do not let him hide under the shield of being a Native American. That is a disgrace to the Native Americans. Do not pull Native Americans down to the level of this convicted killer. Do not affiliate this convicted killer with the Native Americans in this country. That is an insult, in my opinion, if we do. Do not forget the facts of the case. Just so that I can remind the Members, let me go through the facts again in a little briefer form than the letter. Two FBI agents were assassinated. They attempted to pursue a vehicle which contained this suspect, at the time suspect, now a convicted killer, Leonard Peltier. They were wounded. They were disarmed by the wounds that they had. In other words, they could not fight back. They didn't have any weapons left to fight back with. They were not physically capable. One the FBI agents was unconscious. The other FBI agent was rendering first aid to the unconscious FBI agent. This convicted killer, who by the way was a fugitive from justice for the attempted assassination of an off-duty police officer in Milwaukee, walked up to these two FBI agents and executed them in cold blood. He was later stopped in a recreational vehicle. In that vehicle they found one of the deceased agent's pistols in a paper bag. That bag had evidence, Peltier's fingerprints on it. Peltier was captured in Canada. He was convicted of two counts of murder for these FBI agents. He escaped from the Federal prison. Do not let people tell us this guy is a nonviolent guy. He was in Federal prison and he shot his way out of Federal prison. Think of the last time since the John Dillinger days or Bonnie and Clyde and so on that somebody shot their way out of the Federal prison. That is who this individual is. Now today, now today he is in front of the American people, in front of the President of the United States, asking for mercy. Look, 25 years ago may seem like a long time to some, but it has been a real long time for the families of those young FBI agents that were assassinated in cold blood. In conclusion on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, let me ask for Members' support in standing up strong for the law enforcement community of the country, in standing up strong for the families and the agents and professionals of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in standing up strong for the concept of peace and justice within the boundaries of our country. Let us all have our voice heard, that in the United States of America, if you assassinate a police officer, or, just as soon, two Federal Bureau of Investigation officers, you will pay a price and we will stick with the punishment that we deal out. We are not a bunch of patsies. Do not come back to us and think you are going to get a free walk 25 years later after that kind of action. If we fail to do this, if we fail to do this, we are sending the wrong message out there and we are crippling justice and peace in our country. Mr. Speaker, I would like to do an update on a couple of other subjects this evening while I have the opportunity to visit with the Members. As Members will recall, about 2 or 3 weeks ago, maybe a month ago, there is a museum in New York City called the Brooklyn Art Museum. The Brooklyn Art Museum, it was discovered, with taxpayer dollars, with taxpayer dollars, was sponsoring an art exhibit that depicted, among other things, a portrait of the Virgin Mary, which is one of the holiest symbols of the Catholic religion throughout the world and of Christianity throughout the world, this art museum was allowing in this art exhibit, with taxpayer dollars, this portrait of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung, as they say, crap, as I say, thrown all over the portrait. Can Members imagine that? How long do Members think that type of art exhibit would have been tolerated or should have been tolerated in this country at taxpayer dollars if it was an exhibit of Martin Luther King, for example, or if it were an exhibit of an outstanding Jewish rabbi, for example, or if it were an exhibit of some other outstanding leader that meant so much to a religious organization anywhere in this world? They would not put up with that. But for some reason, there seems to be some justification out there by some people that an attack on Christianity should be separated from an attack, say, on Martin Luther King, or an attack on the image of a Jewish rabbi, and so on and so forth. What happened is that the mayor of New York City, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, I think had some guts. He stood up and he said, we are drawing the line. That has gone too far. There is a strong freedom of expression in this country. There is a First Amendment in this country, but there is a balance that we have in this country. Just the same as under the freedom of speech we do not allow individuals to go into a theater and yell ``fire, fire, fire,'' we do not allow that. That is not a violation of your First Amendment rights, but we do not allow you to go into a theater and do that. We draw a line. This thing is not carte blanche, this First Amendment, to do anything that you feel like doing, especially when you do it with taxpayer dollars. The mayor came under heavy criticism by the very elite that were dealing with the Brooklyn Art Museum, the board of directors, who I think were acting very pompous in somehow defending this disgraceful work of art, not a work of art that is just controversial, that brings up lots of discussion, but a work of art that hit at the very integrity of a large religious group throughout the world, that was the maximum type of insult that you could throw at that particular religion, and did it with American taxpayer dollars. Why do I keep bringing up the fact of American taxpayer dollars? Because therein lies the distinction as to whether or not this is an issue under the First Amendment of our Constitution. Under our Constitution, frankly, had the United States taxpayer dollars not been used to fund this portrait of the Virgin Mary of which dung was thrown all over it, had taxpayer dollars not been used, I am afraid to say that this would have been probably protected, or would have been protected under the First Amendment. We can tolerate that. It is horrible, and I cannot imagine, for example, why the First Lady, Hillary Clinton, stood up for this thing. She said, however, in her comments that while she would not go see it, but she certainly stood up for the right to go around and exhibit this with taxpayer dollars. I understand where some would say it is a First Amendment right if there is not taxpayer dollars being used, although I can tell the Members that the press in this country and the liberal left in this country would not have stood for 2 seconds if it were Martin Luther King or a Jewish rabbi or some other celebrated figure being treated in that fashion. But the key here is taxpayer dollars. The point here is very clear, and I think the citizens of this country, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to go out and ask our constituents, do the citizens of this country really think it is a justified and constitutionally protected right under the Constitution to fund this kind of art with taxpayer dollars or should this type of art be denied the access of taxpayer dollars and allowed to be funded in society with private dollars? Remember that my objection tonight, and the mayor of New York City's objection to this art, was not that the art should not be shown. Now, it is disgraceful. Do not get me wrong. I do not condone this kind of art, but there is a constitutionally protected right to show this art without taxpayer dollars. That argument has some legitimacy but that was not the debate that is being carried forward here. What the mayor said, what I said and, Mr. Speaker, what I think most of our constituents believe is that this kind of art, i.e., the Virgin Mary with dung splashed all over her, with taxpayer dollars, has gone over that line. You draw a line. You have gone over that line. Do not use taxpayer dollars. The Brooklyn Art Museum in New York, they could easily fund this through other monies. They just want to try and make an issue. What they want to do is open that door so that taxpayers in this country will have to pay out of their hard-earned dollars, will have to use those taxpayer dollars, to let the so-called art community, especially the elite of the Brooklyn Art Museum, fund anything they would like, no matter how offensive, no matter how derogatory it is. That is wrong. This art museum knows that it is wrong. Well, there has been a new step, a new report to update you on, and that is that a Federal court judge this week actually came out and said that the art museum has a right to use taxpayer dollars to exhibit this type of art, i.e. the Virgin Mary with dung thrown all over her in very obviously a disgraceful fashion intended to be as derogatory as possible, not only towards Christianity but towards one of the most important symbols of Christianity. I am telling you, Federal judge, you made a mistake. You are wrong. There is not a constitutionally protected provision that says you can use taxpayer dollars in this country to fund that kind of art. Why do you not use some common sense? Why do you have to offend the people of Christianity? Why do you do an all-out attack? You would not do it with Martin Luther King and the black community. You would not do it in the Jewish community with some rabbi of theirs. You would not do it with some other type of religious entity or important entity in this country with their leader. Why are you doing this? Why do you decide to use taxpayer dollars to offend every Christian in the world? It is wrong. You have got a temporary victory from this Federal judge but in the end I think the mayor of New York City, one, had a lot of guts to do what he did and, number two, I think he is going to prevail. I also think that the general opinion in this country is, look, that kind of art, as violent and as horrible and as disgraceful as it is, is protected but not with the use of taxpayer dollars. Our constituents, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, are in any way about to buy the argument that we ought to take the tax dollars out of their paycheck every week and put a percentage of that towards the funding of this kind of art. The Fall of the Berlin Wall

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the career of one of Colorado's most dedicated civic leaders, Ken Beck. In doing so, I would like to honor an individual who, for so many years, has exemplified the notion of public service and civic duty. Soon he will retire from the Bayfield School District Board of Education and it is clear that his leadership on the School Board will be greatly missed and difficult to replace. While on the board, Ken has had a solid focus on the basics of education: reading, writing, and arithmetic. He felt these were the fundamental aspects of education. The financial status of the school district also improved greatly as the result of his leadership. Also, he has seen to the well being of the faculty. No one has lost their job due to a reduction in force or mismanagement. Beyond his work on the school board, Ken has put in countless hours in an array of other community activities, including the Boy Scouts of America, Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the La Plata 4-H. While his personal accomplishments are many, none are more weighty than the remarkable legacy he has in his family. Together with his wife, Wendy, who is equally distinguished in her reputation, they have five children: Kali, Beau, Sara, Lacy, and Shay. These fine young people will undoubtedly carry on their father's tradition of hard work and dedication well into the future. Mr. Speaker, very few people serve as selflessly as did Ken Beck. His career embodied so many civic ideals. He is a model that each of us should emulate. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Ken Beck on behalf of the people of western Colorado and wish him well in his much deserved retirement.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the career of one of Colorado's leading ladies, and distinguished member of the Bayfield School District Board of Education, Katherine L. Phelps. In doing so, I would like to honor this individual who, for many years, has exhibited dedication and experience in the education system of Bayfield, Colorado. Throughout the course of her distinguished career, Katherine's dedication to our children has been unparalleled. She has consistently worked with the board, the district, and the community to make the Bayfield schools the best they could be. Aside from her involvement in the school district, she also takes on an active role in the community. She is a member of the School Accountability Committee, the 4-H club, the booster club, and numerous sports programs. Together with her husband, Arvin, she has five children: Sharla, Rick, Trent, Dion, and Wendy. She also has seven grandchildren and one on the way. Undoubtedly, these fine young people will carry the torch of dedication and leadership that their mother embraces so diligently. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Katherine Phelps for her exceptional service on the Bayfield School District Board of Education. Because of Mrs. Phelps' dedicated service, it is clear that Colorado is a better place. For many years to come, her legacy of hard work and dedication will be remembered. I wish her all the best in her well deserved retirement and in all future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask that we all pause for a moment to remember a man who will live forever in the hearts of all that knew him and many that didn't. Tom McCulloch was a man who stood out to those around him. Friends remember him as a man who enjoyed the soil and the outdoors. But, most of all, he enjoyed his family and friends. His two sons, Kevin and Lance, and daughter Barbara brought him endless joy. He was known as a good and upright man. His history in the Durango, Colorado area dates all the way back to the 1890's when his family homesteaded the ranch that is known today as one of the most beautiful in the country. Working the land was his passion; a friend of his, Arthur Isgar, said it was his pride and joy. When he was not working on his ranch he was at his medical practice in Durango. Friends contend that no one knew medicine better than Tom. Tragically, when Dr. McCulloch was on his way to Egypt for a sightseeing trip, his plane EgyptAir flight 990 crashed just off the coast of Massachusetts. Tom McCulloch 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. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say goodbye to a great American. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask that we all pause for a moment to remember a man who will live forever in the hearts of all that knew him and many that didn't. John Voelker was a man who stood out to those around him. Friends remember him as a man who gave selflessly to the community. But, most of all, he enjoyed his family and friends. His wife, Louise, and two sons brought him endless joy. He was known as a good and upright man. People enjoyed working with him. He had many new ideas, he was willing to work hard and was regarded as a first class person in everything he did. Mr. Voelker was a civic leader. He presented new and innovative ideas for ways to make the community a better place. Recently, he had taken on a pet project which would have connected low- income residents to LEAP, a state program which helps them pay for utilities. Charity was his passion. For thirty or so years he has been involved in everything from the local civic boards to environmental groups which fought for preservation and deregulation. Tragically, when John Voelker was on his way to Egypt for a sightseeing trip, his plane EgyptAir flight 990 crashed just off the coast of Massachusetts. John Voelker 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 selfless dignity that so few truly possess. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that we say goodbye to a great American. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell you of a man who epitomizes the values and traditions that this country was built upon. Francis Whitaker was known nationally for his accomplishments as a blacksmith and locally for his contributions to the community. Though he is gone, he will live in the hearts of all who knew him and be remembered for many years by those who have heard his amazing story. The life accomplishments of Francis Whitaker are many. He was named a National Heritage Fellow by the National Endowment of the Arts, the nation's highest traditional arts award. In 1995, he received the Governors Award for Excellence in the Arts as a Master Folk Artist. In 1989, Colorado Rocky Mountain School dedicated the Blacksmithing School with its six forges and library to Francis Whitaker. The former Governor of Colorado, Roy Romer, nominated him for the 1998 National Living Treasure Award, for which he was one three finalists. He has published three books on blacksmithing and has appeared on television several times. Although his professional accomplishments will long be remembered and admired, most who knew him well will remember Francis Whitaker, above all else, as a friend. It is clear that the multitude of those who have come to know Francis as a friend will be worse off in his absence. However, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that, in spite of this profound loss, the students, family and friends of Francis Whitaker can take solace in the knowledge that each is a better person for having known him.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee has announced that in November 1999, it is the Freedom Month for Leonard Peltier. I used to be a former police officer and I take this personally. This committee intends to deliver to the President of the United States a petition asking him to grant clemency to Leonard Peltier. Leonard Peltier is currently serving consecutive life sentences in a Federal penitentiary for the ruthless murder of two FBI agents. To commute the sentence of Peltier and allow him to be released would be a tragic injustice. The Members of the FBI Agents Association and the Society for Former Special Agents of the FBI want the President and all Americans to be aware of all reasons why clemency should not be granted to Peltier. June 26, 1975, was a hot dusty Thursday on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in southwestern South Dakota when two young FBI agents arrived from their office in Rapid City. It was about noon when the agents pulled into the Jumping Bull compound area of the remote reservation seeking to arrest a young man in connection with a recent abduction and assault of two young ranchers. Observing Peltier's vehicle, the two agents pursued it. Unknown to the FBI agents, one of the three men in the vehicle was Leonard Peltier, a violent man with a violent past. He was a fugitive, wanted for attempted murder of an off duty Milwaukee police officer. Knowing these cars pursuing him were FBI cars, Peltier and his two associates abruptly stopped their vehicle and began firing their rifles at the agents. Surprised by the sudden violence, outmanned and outgunned and at an extreme tactical disadvantage, the agents were wounded and defenseless within minutes. One of the agents suffered a severe wound, having his arm blown off. The other agent was hit in the left shoulder and the right foot. Both agents were clearly at the mercy of Peltier and their associates. Not satisfied with the terrible injuries that they had just inflicted, Peltier and the other two men walked down the hill toward the ambushed and wounded agents. Three shots were fired from Peltier's rifle. One of the agents was still conscious, kneeling and apparently surrendering, was shot in the face directly through his outstretched hand. He was shot right through his hand. He was trying to surrender. He died instantly. The unconscious FBI agent who was lying there with severe injuries was shot twice in the head at close range. He also died instantly. Following the murders, Peltier fled the reservation. In November 1975 an Oregon state trooper stopped a recreational vehicle in which Peltier was hiding. Peltier fired at the trooper and escaped. But found within that recreational vehicle was one of the weapons from the FBI agent with Peltier's fingerprints on the bag which contained the weapon. When later arrested in Canada by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Peltier remarked that had he known those were mounted police officers and they were there to arrest them, he would have immediately blown them out of their shoes. These are not the comments of an innocent man, and they portray a very violent man who, without mercy, assassinated two FBI agents. Peltier in 1977 was finally brought to justice and he was found guilty on both counts of the murder of these FBI agents. He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. While incarcerated in a Federal prison, a rifle was smuggled in to Peltier. He shot his way out of prison and several days later, after assaulting a ranger and stealing his truck, he was finally recaptured. He was tried and convicted of escape. Peltier has since appealed his various convictions on numerous occasions. Every time he appeals his conviction, the courts turn him down. The United States Supreme Court has had his case twice. They have turned it down twice without comment. The record is clear: There are no new facts. These are only old facts, and they have not changed. This man is guilty of murder in cold blood of two FBI agents and he should not be released from jail, Mr. President. Peltier openly states he feels no guilt, remorse or even regret for the murders. Peltier has lived a life of crime. He has earned and deserves a lifetime of incarceration. Peltier is a murderer without compassion or feeling for his fellow man and in turn he deserves no compassion. Mr. President, there is no justification for relieving Peltier from his punishment. Our judicial system has spoken in this case again and again and again and again. Leonard Peltier is a vicious, violent and cowardly criminal who hides behind legitimate Native American issues. Leonard Peltier was never a leader in the Native American community. He is simply a thug and a murderer with no respect for human life. Our citizens on and off the reservation must be protected from murderers like Peltier. Mr. President, since Leonard Peltier could not fool the Federal courts, he is now trying to fool you and the public. Do not let it happen. Turn down that request for clemency.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take this time to honor a woman who has given her time in order to make the community of Maybell, Colorado a better place. For 24 years, Katie Buffham has worked tirelessly as the librarian of the Maybell Public Library. Katie's story begins in Sterling, CO where she was born, in 1916. Not long after that her family loaded up their Model T, a wagon and saddle horse and headed off for Three Springs, CO. Several years later she and her husband decided to raise their family in Maybell, CO. It was there that this story of a woman's dedication to the community takes shape. In 1975, the Maybell Public Library was moved from the inside of a bank to a trailer where, shortly after, it was scheduled for closure. Katie Buffham, upon hearing this, took on the amazing responsibility of keeping the library up and running. She did exactly that and more. Just 1 month after she took it over there were 72 people visits to the library. For nearly 22 years she worked tirelessly, all the while earning nothing. Her days were spent going from the farm to the library and back taking advantage of every hour. Today the library is a modular school house which was brought in from another city. It has modern conveniences and a few employees. They have become interactive with other cities and technologically efficient. For years Katie Buffham has had the dream of making her community a better place. Thankfully, she fulfilled this dream. The area would have suffered greatly without this institution. So, it is with this Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Katie Buffham for her dedication and hard work. She is a great American and I wish her all the best in her well deserved retirement.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, every so often I hear a story of a constituent that touches me and makes me proud to be a Representative of the people. Recently, I heard one such story: the story of Pam Woolsey. Pam works at Kathryn Senor Elementary School in Glenwood Springs, CO in the cafeteria. She is known for her good food, especially her chicken noodle soup. But it is the lessons that she instills in the kids that is really impressive. As a poet, Pam is very accomplished. She has authored dozens of poems and short stories. Recently, she entered an international poetry contest and ended up traveling to Washington, DC where she was a nominee for the 1999 Poet of Year. Only a month ago she was honored at the Capitol by the International Society of Poets. For her work she received several plaques, ribbons, and medals as one of 100 semi- finalists in a field of 1,000 entries from around the world. The accolades did not stop there. One of her poems was professionally recorded and published in a book of international poetry. The more I inquired into this woman's amazing story, the more I hear of her taking the time to inspire children to accomplish more and live their dreams. That hard work and dedication will take you where ever you want to go. She is touching the lives of so many children and making a difference in her community. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to this woman on behalf of the people of western Colorado for her dedication to the future of our children. She realized that one person can make a difference and she has. I wish her all the best in attaining the dream of publishing her collection of poems and continued success and happiness in life.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Utah joining me. One of the great people of our country that the gentleman talked about was President Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt. I will write it again on my little chart over here what his philosophy was in regards to the Federal lands. Now, remember, Theodore Roosevelt hunted in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. If you have been to Glenwood Springs, Colorado, it is a wonderful community, it is my home, it is where my parents still live, and we have family there. We have a hotel called the Hotel Colorado. It used to be called the Western White House because that is where Theodore Roosevelt used to hunt. Theodore Roosevelt came out and he used the Federal lands, but he had a philosophy about the lands, and his philosophy really is best summarized with a very few short words. What President Roosevelt said, and if my colleagues will look at my chart, in regards to these Federal lands, first look at the left, again look at the quantity of Federal lands in the western United States. And what President Roosevelt said was, going to my white chart here, ``Use it, enjoy it, but don't abuse it and don't destroy it.'' Why do my colleagues think that those lands look as good as they do? Because, in my opinion, those of us who live out there, and a lot of us live out there, my family has been there for generations, and my wife's family has been there for generations, and we hope our families can stay there for generations more, but one of the reasons we are there is because it is so beautiful. But we have a right to make a living out there, and we think that we have been able to maintain a balance that is preserved, a lot of the beauty that you see. For a lot of people, especially here in the East, who have never had the good fortune to travel to the West into the mountains, into the Rocky Mountain range, hear horror stories from some of the more radical environmental groups and their image of what is going on out there is a ski area every 2 miles, cabins being built every 50 feet, coal mines, forests being clear-cut, highways everywhere. People would be amazed if they came to the third district of Colorado, my district, that they could fly, not drive but fly, for hours without seeing another human. People going into those mountains know that we know how to take care of those mountains. You can go into those mountains and walk 50 miles in those mountains and not see one piece of trash. You cannot walk a block from this capital here and not pick up a bagful of trash. We know how to take care of those lands. It is a very precious resource for all of us, for all of the people of the United States. But we have to approach our guardianship of these lands in a very balanced fashion. I have a couple of examples that I would like to go over with my colleagues. One is the right way to approach this balance and the other is the wrong way to approach this balance. Let me start with the right way, the positive way, to approach it. We just did it. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, my respected colleague from the State of Colorado, the United States Senator, and I attended an event last weekend, the dedication of the Black Canyon National Park. National park. It was a national monument. Senator Campbell's bill out of the Senate, my bill out of the House, we made it a national monument. It was a great day. In fact, when I went jogging that morning, at 4 in the morning in the Colorado mountains, we had a full moon. And as I ran, looking at that moon, a person cannot help but feel proud, number one, to be an American, but also how lucky we are to live out there. And we feel a deep commitment to preserve the area that we are in, but also to allow humans to enjoy it. At that dedication ceremony, by the way, I made the comment that the beauty of the preservation of the Black Canyon National Park was that we were able to work in a very cooperative fashion with the local people, with the State people and the Federal people. And what we preserved is not just the national park itself, but we preserved the right for people to go up to the national park and enjoy it. That is very important. Very important. Now, how did the Black Canyon National Park, from a monument, come about? It was not driven by Washington, D.C. In fact, it was not driven by an elected or a political official at all. It was driven by the local community. At the local level, people got together, in Montrose, in Gunnison, Colorado, in Delta, Colorado, in Ouray, and they got support from the media, like the Daily Sentinel in Grand Junction, Colorado, the Montrose Daily Press, my good friend George R. Bannock, other people like that in the press, helped support this concept of let us work our conflict out at the local level. So we did not jam it down from Washington, D.C. this thing came from the ground up. And what is the Black Canyon National Park; what is the beauty of this park? It preserves multiple use. It has many uses of the park. Now, I am sure that there are many national environmental groups, probably Earth First, for example, that would have one use for that park and that would be an anti-human use. Get the people off it. Get the recreation off it. If you are not an able-bodied hiker, which, in general, is younger than I am, you are not going to come up here. That is the radical viewpoint over here. The radical viewpoint on this side of the spectrum there are the people that say, well, we ought to be able to go up there and timber wherever we want to timber, hunt wherever we want to hunt, mountain bike wherever we want to mountain bike, graze wherever. No. No. The local people sat down and said somewhere in between a position like the National Earth First and just complete freedom to do whatever you want, which of course leads to abuse and destruction in those forests, somewhere in between we have a way to resolve this conflict. And what they did was they resolved it. They resolved it. They preserved multiple use. They preserved certain areas in that park as wilderness. In the new national park designations we have wilderness designation. They preserved the right for people to go down the river in a raft. They preserved the right for some grazing on the national park. They preserved the right for a paved road. We have a paved road right up to the visitor's center where an individual can stand on the edge of cliffs that drop 2,000 feet. Two thousand feet. And when the sun is at the right angle, and you have a pair of binoculars, the water is so clean you can see fish. If you have the binoculars, you can see the fish in the stream. We preserved the right for people to go up and enjoy that and we did it at the local level. And the local people then brought it to the State people, who then brought it to the United States Congress. And thanks to people like the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and my good colleagues Mr. Allard and Mr. Campbell on the other side in the Senate we were able to move that from a national monument to a national park. That is the right way to do things. We did not have people in the East bashing it on us in the West. We had people in the East cooperating with us. The people in the East said to the people in the West, you have lived on that land, you care about that land, you know about that land, so maybe we ought to listen to you about that land. Instead of coming up with Washington knows better. That is the right way to do things. Come up with that balance. Preserve those water rights. And by the way, in the Black Canyon, that project would have been dead in the water, no pun intended, dead in the water if they would have gone after those Colorado water rights. Our water rights in the West, it has been written in our State capital in Denver, life in the West is water. That is what it is about. Water is life in the West. But the local groups got together and they said, here is how we can preserve those water rights. Now, let me tell my colleagues there is a huge threat to the West on water rights. For example, as my dear colleague knows, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), down at Lake Powell, and many of my colleagues, I am sure, have enjoyed Lake Powell, It is one of the most wonderful lakes in the world. It is wonderful for recreation; wonderful for families. If you want to see a good family activity, or taking kids off the street or taking the kids from somewhere and bringing them down to this lake, they get on these house boats and it provides recreation and family time. It also provides a huge amount of power. It helps us prevent the flooding, and provides us huge quantities of water storage. But the National Sierra Club, their number one goal is take out the dam, destroy the dam and get rid of Lake Powell. That organization is out of Washington, D.C. That is what they want to do. We did not buy that with the national park in Black Canyon. We did not buy the philosophy of Earth First. In other words, getting rid of multiple use. We bought the philosophy in Washington, D.C. of the people in Gunnison, in Montrose, in Ouray, and Delta, out there in Colorado, the people who had their hands in the soil every day. My father-in-law, David Smith is a rancher, and his family has been on the same ranch since 1882, 1883, somewhere in there, and he told me one time that an environmentalist is somebody who has had their hands in the dirt, who understands the earth. Well, that is the right way to do things, to let the people at the local level help us all come together in a common fashion to help preserve multiple use, where we have protection for the environment through wilderness or special areas; where we have national parks and national monuments; but where we preserve the right to go biking on a mountain bike, where we preserve the right to canoe on the river or ride a river raft, which is a thrill. Anybody that has been on it with their family, their kids will remember it. They probably have pictures of them hanging on a raft in their bedrooms. Where we preserve the right to ski. If you do not ski in the mountains, it is pretty tough to ski anywhere else. We have not figured out how to make that sport work without the mountains. We need to preserve those rights, and the rights of ranchers, like my father-in-law, and my father who is in the business of supporting the ranchers, the right for them to be able to operate their farms and ranches in those mountains. Now let me talk about the wrong way, and then I want to turn it over to my colleague. The wrong way. I want my colleague, when he takes back the podium here in a couple of minutes, I hope he talks to you about the wrong way and what happened in Utah with the Staircase over there in Utah. But let me talk about what is about to happen in the State of Colorado. Anasazi Ruins. The Anasazi is down in the Four Corners. The Four Corners is the only place in the United States where four States come together. I will point it out with my light here on my map. The Four Corners is right here. You have four States that come together in one spot. Really kind of exciting. They have got a little spot, by the way human access, you can walk up to it and you can literally be standing in four States at once. Every young person that has done that has remembered it. Well, there is a lot of land around this. We preserve, of course, the monument. We have a national park down there in the Four Corners. But over in this area right here, the Secretary of the Interior, who spends most of his time in Washington, D.C., who consults very little, in my opinion, with those of us in the West, made recent trips down there. And he said, I want to take this land and put it under some kind of executive order, I want to put this land aside and put it as a monument. This is hundreds of thousands of acres. So now you have a perception what we are talking about. Think of the acreage that you own with your home. Colleagues, your house is probably on a half an acre. If you are very lucky, it is on an acre. But more likely, you are on a quarter of an acre or less. Well, the Secretary of Interior has talked about coming down into this Four Corners area and taking hundreds of thousands of acres for a monument. Do you know what kind of response he got at the local level? Wait a minute, Mr. Secretary. Listen to us. What about the water rights, Mr. Secretary? What about the access? What about the needs? We do have to have power lines that come through there. What about our ability to go up and hunt or camp or fish? What about our ability for our cattle to graze? What about the local opinion on how best to protect our environment, how to keep our waters clean as our water is today? What about that, Mr. Secretary? Do you know what the answer is from Washington? They show up and they pretend like they are listening. But as far as they are concerned, the decision has been made. Now, that is a pretty strong statement. Where does the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) come to the conclusion that Bruce Babbitt in Washington, D.C., who has come down to the Four Corners maybe twice or three times, probably no more than that, in his lifetime, who wants to take several hundred thousand acres of land and put it in a monument, how does he know that Bruce Babbitt is going to go about doing this regardless of what the local opinion is? I will tell you what happened to me and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) last week. I had a constituent of mine come in, and she had been down to a big luncheon for the Heritage, protection of Heritage buildings and historical areas. It was here in Washington about a week ago. Bruce Babbitt was the guest speaker. This is exactly what Bruce Babbitt said. And I will summarize. This is exactly what went on. He said, and this is as reported to me, he said, down in the Four Corners of Colorado there is some beautiful land that we ought to put in a monument. Now, the local people do not buy into this. And the State delegation of elected officials, they do not agree with me. And the Congressional delegation does not agree with me that we should do this. But I, Bruce Babbitt, I am going to do it. I am going to do it irrespective of what the local people say. The Federal Government, the people in the East, Washington, D.C., comes into our State and says, regardless of local input, I am going to do it. Do you know what that lady said to me? It is interesting. She said to me, I was sitting in there wondering, wow, is this the country of which Constitution I studied in high school? Is this what the Constitution says? Are you guys really representatives of the people or are you little dictators out there that are just going to decide we will take this land, we will take that land. You know, it does not affect us. If they go down there, frankly, Mr. Speaker, most of our colleagues in this room will not even blink an eye. If they take 200,000 acres in the Four Corners of Colorado, they will not even blink an eye. They probably will not know what happened. But what about those families? Oh, there are not a lot of them. In the East you have these big cities. And we have some in the West, but not like you do in the population in the East. It does not affect a lot of people. But do you know what? Those people deserve to have the opportunity to live and dream and enjoy the heritage they have in those mountains and in those special places in the West as much as you do here in the East. And even if it is just a thousand families, even if it is 100 families, even if it is just 50 families, do the people in the East have a right to come out and dictate the policies of the West without at least local input? Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) coming down here. I hope that we are able to continue to kind of have a series of discussions into the future. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), my good friend, former Speaker of the House of the State of Utah, and I will spend the next hour talking with you about issues that we think are vitally important to the United States, but we think in a large part are being ignored by many parts of the United States. What we are going to talk to you about this evening is the West, the western States, the Rocky Mountains, Federal land, land-use policies, wilderness areas, water, land of many uses, Teddy Roosevelt. There are a number of different subjects, Mr. Speaker, that I would wish that you would think about as we talk because it is very important to the people of the West in this country. Frankly, it is very important to the people of the entire United States. Let me begin with a little history about the Western United States. As you know from the history of our country, when the pioneers and the settlements in this country took place, most of it was on the eastern coast. Of course, I am stepping aside from the Native Americans. The Native Americans were throughout the country. This is the history as the United States as a country began to become formed. On the eastern coast of the United States, the philosophy was to acquire more land. Our forefathers had a vision of a great country, and I think today that they would stand here, frankly, and take a look at this country and say you have created a good country. You have a country that is strong in its people. You have a country that is strong in its land. You have a country that has a vision. You have a country that has character. But that is what they wanted to build, and, in doing that, they wanted to enlarge the country. They did not want just 13 states, they did not want 14 states, they wanted to enlarge the country. So they began to acquire land, through for example the Louisiana Purchase and some of the others, through treaties and so on. Then they began to urge people to become pioneers. You remember the old saying, ``Go west, young man; go west.'' Well, as people and the pioneers began to go out west, they found wonderful, wonderful lands, the Kansas farmlands, the Missouri lands, the Missouri River and the Mississippi River. They got out there and they found on a very small portion of land you could have a very healthy agricultural response. In other words, it did not take a lot of land to support families, and we had a lot of families going out for the purpose of agriculture. Now, when we read the history books, we see a lot about mineral exploitation, about the gold, going to the mountains for the gold and going for silver, but the long lasting impact for the West was from the pioneers in agriculture. Well, the difficulty that the administrations back in the East found out was that in the West there were not a lot of people going to the mountains, to the Colorado Rockies, to the Utah mountains, to the Montana and Wyoming mountains. So what they did is they sat down and said we need to figure out how do we get new settlers to go into these mountains? How do we get new settlers to go out into the West? Well, what happened is the government decided to figure this out and go out there, and they sent some explorers out there, and you know the early days of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and somewhere along the line somebody discovered, you know something, when you get to the mountains, or you get to the lands of Utah and the lands of Colorado and Wyoming, of course, those were not states at the time, but when you get out to those lands, it is very difficult to produce an agricultural product on a small piece of property. In fact, what you need are thousands of acres. Well, the policy of the government was to give incentive and to get people invigorated about going to the West. You let them homestead. They could go out and stake their ground. What do I mean by staking their ground? In the old days they could go out and literally place stakes in the ground up to certain amounts, say 160 acres or 320 acres, and they could homestead that ground. If they plotted that ground, plowed that ground and took care of that ground for a certain period of time, they got the land. The land was theirs to keep. Well, when they got to the mountains and they got the reports about the difficulty of having agriculture in the mountains and in the West, they came back to the government and they said, Mr. President, Mr. Administration, Mr. Congress, you cannot do it on 160 acres in the mountains. You cannot do it on 320 acres. We do not know how we are going to encourage people to go into those mountains unless you, the administration and Congress, want to give them thousands of acres. Well, they thought about that, and, of course, the response was politically we cannot just give away thousands of acres of land to individuals. With the system we would have to set up, we would very quickly encompass large portions of land with few owners. What else can we do? Therein came the concept of what we call multiple use. What they decided to do, colleagues, is instead of giving the land away through homestead and so on, what they figured out was, well, what we will do on the government lands is we will allow people to have many uses. We will retain ownership, speaking of the government. We will retain ownership of the lands, but we will allow our pioneers and our citizens to go out into these lands and use the lands. That is the concept of multiple use. Well, you can see then as a result in the Western United States the government primarily owns the land. They are the big landowners in the Western United States, as a result of this multiple use policy. In the East, that is not the picture at all. In fact, in the East the majority of the land is under private ownership. In the Western United States we face unique problems, unique as compared to the land in the Eastern United States, and it is important for our colleagues, for my colleagues and Mr. Hansen's and my colleagues from the East, to understand the differences in land ownership and why we are so reliant in the West on government lands. To my left here is a map of the United States. The map, as you can see, follow my red bead on the map, government lands. All of the colors that you see on the map are owned by the Federal government. You have got some big spots up here, you see down here in the Shenandoah Valley, in the Everglades down there in Florida. But take a look at all of this open land. That is private ownership. That is owned by the citizens of this country individually. As you can see, as you come down through Montana and Wyoming and Colorado and New Mexico, look at those blocks of land. That land is all Federal or government lands, state land in some cases, but primarily Federal land. Take a look at the state of Alaska, which I have the bead on down there in the left-hand corner of my demonstration here. Look at Alaska. I am not sure of the exact percentage, but I think it is 98 or 99 percent of the state of Alaska is owned by the government. Well, that works okay under the concept of multiple use. But what we see happening is a lot of special interest groups in the East have decided it is time to take this land in the West that is owned by the government and, for their own reasons, to push their own advocacy of their special interest groups, they have decided in essence it is time to kick people off of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acres. When I grew up in Colorado, and I am from Colorado, my district is in Colorado, the 3rd Congressional District of Colorado, when I grew up, we grew up under a sign, a theory called ``land of many uses.'' So, in other words, when you would go into the Forest Service, you would come up to a sign and it would say, watch, it would say ``Welcome to''--I did not put the ``Welcome to'' on the top, ``Welcome to the Rocky Mountain National Park.'' Then underneath hangs a separate sign that says ``A land of many uses.'' Well, what is happening today, in my opinion, and this opinion is shared by many people in the West, is an all-out assault to take away this, and replace that, ``A land of many uses,'' with a sign that simply says ``No trespassing.'' Now, there are a lot of issues that I want to talk to you about in a little more detail, but I think at the beginning of my comments and my colleague's comments it is important for all of us in here to realize that in the West, the majority of land is owned by the government. We have a different style of life in the West. Now, we are all Americans. We all believe in the flag and motherhood and apple pie. That is not the issue here. I am talking about the geographic difficulties that we deal with in the West, and there are a lot of distinguishing issues. For example, water. In the East, again, back to my first chart, follow my red dot, in the East back here your problem back here with water is getting rid of it. Our problem here in the West where I show you this, our problem is being able to store the water, to be able to preserve the water. In Colorado, for example, which is my state, and, by the way, my district is where this red bead is, it is the 3rd Congressional District of Colorado, geographically it is larger than the state of Florida, and in that district in our particular state 80 percent of the water is in the mountains, and 80 percent of the population is out here. Well, it is the same difficulty that we have over here. In Colorado, for example, we are the only state in the union where all of our free- flowing water goes out of the state. We do not have water that comes into our State. We have the headwaters for four major rivers, the Platte, the Arkansas, the Rio Grande and the Colorado. My good colleague over here in Utah, take a look at the Federal lands. Water preservation. We need the Federal lands to help us store our water. We need the Federal lands to help us protect our environment. We need the Federal lands to enjoy recreation, like mountain biking, and I love mountain biking. I have enjoyed it for years. I have been on the Colorado River ever since I was a high school student, river rafting. Many of you colleagues who come and visit in the West, many have vacation homes in the West. You love river rafting. You like the hiking. Many of my colleagues like the hunting. It is hunting season. All of these are a necessary part of the concept of multiple use. And if we allow the concept of multiple use to begin to crumble, I will tell you what will happen. You will lose the river rafting, you will lose the ski resorts, and in my district those ski resorts provide 35,000 jobs off the White River National Forest, just off that forest alone. By the way, one-third of our forest out there is wilderness area, one-third of it. We protect that for the environment. We want that protected for the environment. I voted on that bill. But two-thirds of it is predominantly recreation, all of these different things. If we begin to let this concept of multiple use collapse, you will see over a period of time the elimination of mining. Now, that, of course, to a lot of people sounds good. But take a look at how many products in our society depend on mining. That is the first thing that will go. In my district it is pretty well gone. We have some mines up near Meeker, Colorado, near Paonia, Colorado. For the most part, mineral exploration is gone out of there. The next thing they go after is grazing for our cattle ranchers and farmers. In the East you have farming, it is important for you. We do too in the West, but we have to do it on government lands, and we take care of those government lands. Frankly, we in the West are pretty proud of the job we have done. You see over here a lot of times about pictures of abuse. Those are being put forward by special interest groups that want to destroy this concept of multiple use. But after ranching and farming, they are going to go after the ski areas. No more expansion of ski areas. Restrict the ski areas. Downsize the ski areas. Then what is next? Then you have got your mountain biking and you have got your river rafting. Then you have got your ability to store or transfer across Federal lands the water that we need. It goes on and on and on. So I am thrilled tonight to have the opportunity to work with my colleague the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). I am going to turn the podium over to Mr. Hansen so we can carry out for you this evening a little further explanation of why we need your help, not your resistance, we need your help, your help in going out there to preserve this concept of multiple use, so that we in the West can protect our water, so that we in the West can enjoy our recreation, so that we in the West can have the kind of environment that you all dream of, that you come out and vacation in. That is our goal tonight, is to communicate with you the differences, geographically, the differences with our water, the differences in the descriptions of wilderness and so on, so you are not snookered, quite frankly, by some of the national special interest groups that want to convince you that the West is being trashed by the people of the West, and that the only thing that is going to save the West is for the special interest groups of the East to go in and tell the people of the West what is best for them. So, with that, let me thank my colleague Mr. Hansen for joining me today. I appreciate very much this, and I would yield to the gentleman from the State of Utah. (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and honor that I rise today to tell you of a man who's life was filled with family values, civic duty, kindness and love. He lived every moment of his life as though it were his last. Carl Dincler loved to have the spotlight. He also loved sharing that light with everyone so that they might feel the inspiration and zest for life that he had so much of. Throughout the 86 accomplished years of his life, he touched so many people, whether it was in one of his business ventures or in one of his many community activities. Ultimately, these people knew they were in the presence of a great human being when in Carl's company. With his equally accomplished wife Jeanette, Carl started a fabric store which became known for the stage curtains they made. If the curtains were not hung perfectly each time, Carl would get out the ladder and start over. He took pride in everything that he did, including his long time commitment to the community. Carl served as president of the Pueblo Board of Water Works and also former president of the Downtown Association and Lion's Club. Aside from his many achievements in the business world, he has left a proud legacy in his family. He is survived by his wife Jeanette who is also known for her active role in the community. Together they had a daughter, Sharon, who has a Ph.D. in continuing education from the University of Denver and today edits doctoral theses. One granddaughter and a great-great-granddaughter also survive. These wonderful people will undoubtedly carry on the legacy of Carl's accomplished life. Mr. Speaker, for the people of western Colorado and from the bottom of my heart, I say thank you to this man for realizing that one man can make a difference. His dedication to his family, his faith and his community will long be remembered and admired. He was an outstanding American and will be missed greatly.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to honor a group of committed and accomplished students who were recently honored for their achievements in the 1999 National Merit Scholarship Competition. These students embody everything that is good with our youth today and are exceedingly worthy of our highest regards and praise. From a field of over 1 million students that entered the Merit Program last year, Meg Patton, Matthew Thomas, Megan McGill, and Jeff Ward finished in the top 1% of entrants. For their remarkable scholastic achievement, each were recently recognized as National Merit Program semi-finalists. These incredibly talented students are now competing for one of 7,400 National Merit Scholarships awarded to the finest students in the country. Whether or not these students ultimately win the Merit Scholarship, each are among the finest in the nation and should take great pride in receiving this weighty accolade. In addition, Juli Carillo, Erin Lindsey, Anthony Arcieri, Ksenya Gurshtein, Naomi Habbegger, Rachel Wilkenson, and Jerimiah Goodson were awarded letters of commendation for finishing in the top 5% of students who entered the competition. Like the semi-finalists, these students are to be commended for the lofty level of academic success they have achieved. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say congratulations to these outstanding students on receiving an honor that they clearly deserve. Because of committed and talented young men and women like these, I know that America's future will be as bright as its remarkable past.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker. It is with great honor and profound sadness that I now rise to pay tribute to the life of Pueblo, Colorado's great civic matriarch, Mary Farley. After living a remarkably accomplished life that spanned 94 years, sadly, Mrs. Farley passed away earlier this month. But even as we mourn her passing, everyone who knew Mary should take comfort in the truly incredible life she led. Since the 1930's, few can claim a place in the Pueblo community as lofty as Mary. Her accomplishments and contributions, Mr. Speaker, were many. During WWII, she co-chaired Pueblo's war bond drive and also served as secretary for the Community welfare council. In the 1960's, she and her husband--the equally distinguished late Dr. John Farley-- founded the Farley Foundation which quickly became a leading philanthropic force in the community, state, and nation. In recognition of her tireless civic endeavors touting noble causes like historical, environmental, and cultural preservation, Mary was inducted into the Pueblo Hall of Fame in 1994. While her personal accomplishments are many, none are more weighty than the remarkable legacy she has left in her family. Mary's son, Tom Farley, now a leading attorney in the Pueblo area, has been a powerful voice in Colorado's political circles, serving as a state legislator and political activist. Kathy Farley, Mary's daughter, has followed her mother's lead as a community activist, serving as the Director of the Southern Colorado Community Foundation after a two term stint as a powerful advocate on the Pueblo County Commission. Ultimately, while John and Mary can be proud of all the many things they accomplished together, none could surpass what they have left in their children. It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that the ultimate measure of a person's life is the extent to which they made the world a better place. If, indeed, this is the measure of worth in life, Mary's friends, family, and the Pueblo community can all attest to the success of the life she led. Indeed, both the Pueblo community and the great State of Colorado will benefit for many generations from Mary Farley's tireless drive to make her world a better place for us all. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you and good-bye to this great American who will long serve as an inspiration to us all. We will all miss her greatly.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to tell you of a truly remarkable young man. He has seen hardships in his life that no one should ever have to endure. In 1994, he was in a terrible automobile accident that left him paralyzed and took the life of his dear friend Delano Garcia. Despite all this, Seth Ritchey has risen above his grave personal adversity to win his division at the U.S. Wheelchair Open Tennis Championships. Although Seth picked up wheelchair tennis just a year and a half ago, already he has excelled beyond anyone's expectations. Three months after his first tennis clinic in Grand Junction, Colorado, he was playing in his first tournament. Although he met some adversity in that tournament, he came right back, showing his true spirit in the next tournament held in Florida. There he was matched up against the best competition on the Eastern Seaboard, but still managed to win his division. Last summer at the Doris Denker Wheelchair Tournament he again ran into some tough competition. This did not slow him down. He traveled to San Diego, California to compete against players from all over the world in the U.S. Wheelchair Open Tennis Championships earlier this month. There he played in two matches a day that each lasted for up to three hours against players that had twenty years of experience on him. He won his division and became national champion. Rarely do I hear a story like Seth Ritchie's. He is a truly remarkable young man who gives me inspiration to achieve more. I hope that more people can hear his story and gain from it what I have. So, it is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say congratulations to Seth Ritchie for all of his accomplishments. He is a true hero and an inspiration to us all.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, every so often I hear a wonderful story of someone giving of their time and money to contribute to their community. I rise here today to tell you of a man who has done just that. Carl Williams has donated the eighth largest carillon and its shining gold tower to the new Daniel Ritchie Center for Sports and Wellness at the University of Denver. To reach the new bell tower you have to climb up a twisting 100-step staircase. Once in the tower you realize just how magnificent this feat really is. There is a long keyboard with two rows of levers that operate the sixty-five bell carillon. Crafted in the Netherlands, the bells of the Williams Carillon can be heard up to a mile away. They fill the air with beautiful melodies and classic music. Mr. Speaker, it is with this that I say thank you to Carl Williams for his donation that has added so much to the atmosphere and tradition of the University of Denver. His legacy of giving is apppreciated and deserving of recognition.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with an overwhelming sense of pride that I now rise to pay tribute to a truly historic event in the proud and distinguished history of the great State of Colorado: the establishment of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. As the House sponsor of legislation that redesignated the Black Canyon as a national park, it gives me great joy to describe for this esteemed body's record the beauty of this truly majestic place. In addition, I would like to offer my gratitude to a community of individuals instrumental in the long process that ultimately yielded the establishment of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has visited the Black Canyon can attest to its awe-inspiring natural beauty. Named for the dark rock that makes up its sheer walls, the Black Canyon is largely composed of what geologists call basement rocks, the oldest rocks on the earth estimated at 1.7 billion years old. With its narrow openings, sheer walls, and scenic gorges that plunge 2000 feet into the clear blue majesty of the Gunnison River, the Black Canyon is a natural crown jewel second to none in its magnificent splendor. Though other canyons may have greater depth or descend on a steeper course, few combine these attributes as breathtakingly as does the Black Canyon. If ever there was a place worthy of the prestigious status that only national park status can afford, Mr. Speaker, it is the Black Canyon. But as you know, national parks don't just happen. In this case, it took nearly 15 years, several Congressional Representatives and Senators, innumerable locally elected officials, and a virtual sea of committed citizens in western Colorado. Included in this group are the good people of Paonia, Colorado. During this long and at times difficult process, Paonia's civic leaders have given tirelessly and beyond measure in the hopes of making the Black Canyon a national park. Again and again these great Americans rose to the challenge, doing everything in their power to fulfill this dream. Without Paonia's leadership and perseverance, none of what we have accomplished would have ever been possible. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I give my thanks to the people of Paonia who played a leading role in making the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park a wonderful reality for Colorado, America, and the world to enjoy.