Scott McInnis

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 Olathe, Colorado. During this long and at times difficult process, Olathe'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 Olathe'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 Olathe 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.

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 Hotchkiss, Colorado. During this long and at times difficult process, Hotchkiss' 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 Hotchkiss' 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 Hotchkiss 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.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I honor a dedicated man and his career. In his thirty plus years of covering the Colorado Capitol for the Associated Press, Carl Hilliard proved himself to be a man of truth and integrity. During that time, I'm glad to say that I was fortunate to get to know him well. His colleagues knew him as a man who cared not about being in the limelight, but a man who took the time to get to know the story and the people behind it. Hilliard is a man of the West, a Renaissance man. His columns frequently recieved a lot of exposure throughout the country and rightfully so. They were wity, informative, and revealing. You could always count on Carl to be critical of the politicians at the Capitol, but at the same time compassionate and duteous. As the dean of the Capitol Press corps, he was effective in reporting Capitol news. That role earned him a very laudable honor, being named as one Denver's 100 most influential journalists and the respect of his fellow journalists. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I honor this man who will truly be missed by his colleagues and those that enjoyed reading his column. For so many years, he has been a role model for young journalists and a pilar form which all journalists drew inspiration. I wish him well in his much deserved retirement. I look forward to continuing my friendship with him in the future.

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 the Forest Service. During this long and at times difficult process, the Forest Service has 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 the Forest Service'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 the Forest Service 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.

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 Crawford, Colorado. During this long and at times difficult process, Crawford'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 Crawford'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 Crawford 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.

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 Gunnison, Colorado. During this long and at times difficult process, Gunnison'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. Without Gunnison'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 Gunnison 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.

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 Delta, Colorado. During this long and at times difficult process, Delta'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 Delta'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 Delta 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.

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 Montrose, Colorado. During this long and at times difficult process, Montrose'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 Montrose'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 Montrose 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.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask that we pause for a moment in honor of one of the finest people that I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. Charles Bloomfield was a dedicated family man, a hard working rancher and a model American. He gave selflessly to provide for his family and to help his community. Charles joined the United States Army during World War II and after he returned from fearless duty, he married Dorothy Parkes in 1946. Together they had two children, Anne and Edward. In 1949 Charles and his wife bought a beautiful ranch in Meeker, Colorado where Charles truly enjoyed working the land and raising cattle. He was a man of tradition, old fashioned in his ranching methods, which he maintained until just one week before his death. Charles Bloomfield, aside from working long days on his ranch, gave greatly of his time to many community organizations. In 1946 he was named Water Commissioner, a position that he held for ten years. In the mid-1960's he was County Commissioner and he served as the Republican Committee chairman for many years. Charles was also very involved in his church, the American Legion and Rio Blanco Lodge #80, AF&AM where he was Past Master and lodge secretary for more than 30 years. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I pay tribute to the life of Charles Bloomfield. I wish that everyone could have had the pleasure of knowing and learning from this man what I did. He was a great American and friend.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to shift gears and talk about the Federal public lands. The largest landowner in the United States is the Federal Government, and by far, by far, the largest owners of land are the Federal Government, the State government, the city government, the local districts, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We depend very heavily on the use of public lands. I thought I would begin tonight by showing some examples of some beautiful public lands. Now, I am a little biased in this regard. My State, the State I represent, is the State of Colorado and I have been very fortunate to represent the 3rd District of the State of Colorado. Many people have been to Aspen, many have heard of Glenwood Springs or Steamboat or Telluride, or Durango, Breckenridge, Summit County, Grand Junction. There are a number of different communities that some people have visited. They know about the Colorado Rockies. The Colorado Rockies are a gem. They are a diamond for the United States. We need to do what we can do to preserve those while at the same time, while at the same time, allowing people to live out there. We are going to cover a little of that. Let me, first of all, point out, this is in the district, I will use my red pointer here, we will see the red pointer on the sky above the mountains. This is the Maroon Bells, one of the most beautiful settings and I am sure many of my colleagues have been there. This is fall, obviously, which can be seen by the colors. Many, many thousands and thousands of visitors, whether handicapped, whether 19 years old and have great big legs, everybody gets to have access that can get here can go up there and see this beautiful, beautiful gem of our country, the Maroon Bells. I know the Maroon Bells. I was born about 40 miles away. My brother climbed the Maroon Bells when he was 14 years old right there on that peak where the red dot is. Unfortunately, during that climb, a rock came off the top. He was in outward bound school, and it killed his instructor. He was 14 or 15 years old. We have a lot of family history and there are a lot of people in this country that have a lot of history in these mountain ranges. I am from the mountains. So are many of us, but the mountains are something we believe in. We have a strong heritage with the mountains. We want to protect the mountains. Now, that is what this looks like today. See my red beeper, my little light there, the lake, that is how it looks today. Why does it look like that today? Is it because we allowed oil well drilling to go up on top of it? No. Is it because we put mines in there? No. Is it because we clear cut all the sides? No. Is it because we let them fish out the lake? No. Is it because we let them pollute the water? No. What is my point? My point is that for 200 years and before that with the Native Americans, we have taken care of this land. Washington, D.C. would like to convince us that this thing is full of oil rigs, that the timber, that the small families that make a living off timber, go up there and clear cut this land, that the fishermen fish out the streams, that the streams are polluted and that the only way to do this is move the West Wing of the White House to now have that command center for the western United States. They think it matches: West Wing, western United States. So they come up with a program, 40 million acres. Now, what does 40 million acres mean? Many people, if they own a home, they are on a lot size, maybe they have, I do not know, half an acre, a half an acre, where their home is located. Imagine 80 million times that half an acre that they own and that is what the President today has proposed to, in essence, take off limits. What I am saying here is, these are assets, these are museum pieces. These mountains are beautiful. We know this. We want to protect them, but we have to use common sense and in using common sense we cannot just do it for the elite people of this country. We have to consider the common man of this country, and I say that generically. We have to speak for the common person in this country. Do not forget about them. Not everybody can have a farm or a ranch in Aspen, Colorado. Not everybody can own a home in Aspen, Colorado. I certainly could not afford it and most of my colleagues on this floor could not afford it, but that should not keep us from being able to go up and enjoy it. It should not keep us from being able to go up and recreate on it, like skiing. I can say within eyesight of Maroon Bells, one can see several of the major ski areas in the world. Have they polluted the Maroon Bells? No. Have they caused clear cutting in the Maroon Bells? No. Do they provide jobs for Colorado? Yes, thousands of jobs. Do a lot of people get to enjoy the recreation of skiing in Aspen, Colorado? Yes, lots. We have to be careful about allowing an administration, who by the way rarely sets foot in Colorado and last year when they locked off a big chunk of the State of Utah, they announced it, the President announced it, in the State of Arizona. Come put your hands in the soil; come put your hands in the dirt, Mr. President. Come see what you are doing before you do it. Know a little something about it before you talk about it. I know about it. I was raised there. My family has been there for generations. Let me show my next display here. These are the Fourteeners. Look at this. All over Colorado, I will point out, there is the young Compadre Peak. This one is the mount of the Holy Cross right here where my finger is. I will put the red pointer so it can be tracked by the red pointer. Columbine Park, look at all of these. We have over 54 of them. Over 14,000 feet in Colorado form these beautiful mountain ranges. Do my colleagues see any clear-cutting that has gone on? No. Do my colleagues see any oil rigs? No. Do my colleagues see tents and cities and condominiums and town homes all over those 14,000 foot peaks? No. Why do my colleagues not see them? It is because we protect this land. But we protect it with common sense. We do not lock everybody out of there. One can ski on some of those mountains. One can cross country ski. In the summer, guess what? We have discovered something. It is a wonderful sport. It is a fabulous sport. Mountain biking. One gets to mountain bike a lot of this. Does it tear up those mountains? No. Are people who use those mountains responsible for the most part? Yes. For the ones who are not, let us go after them. If this is an asset, if they are going to abuse it, kick them off. But do not kick them off in general just because they are human beings. Do not put all of the four systems of the United States into a museum. The Federal lands, I will show my colleagues a couple other here real quick. This right here, this is a winter scene here in Colorado. Take a close look at that. Look at that snow. Do my colleagues see bulldozer tracks through that snow? No. My colleagues do not even see snow machine tracks through that snow. Why? Because we have designated trails. We manage those lands out there. Those lands are not just important to the United States. They are important to those of us who make a living off of those lands. My in- laws, for example, David and Sue Ann Smith, my colleagues ought to visit them. They live in Meeker, Colorado. You want to talk about salt of the earth people. You want to talk about environmentalists. Do my colleagues know why they are environmentalists? They have got their hand in the soil every day. Ask him what he thinks about that ranch. Ask him what he thinks about that ranch when people come up and offer him millions of dollars for that property. They do not want to sell it. They love that land. The Smith family is pretty representative of most of the ranching families. I mean, the President is about to go out and destroy the way of the West, the territory. Remember the judge from the Supreme Court, ``Go west, young man. Go west.'' Maybe it was Greeley, Horace Greeley said that. ``Go west, young man. Go west.'' Do not wipe it out. Do not make it an urban area. Do not restrict it for the President's museum at the White House. Work with us and help us protect this in a common sense approach, a common sense approach. This is Colorado. These are more peaks that I want my colleagues to see. Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. Those are protected. President Clinton does not need to skip in and protect them any more than they are protected right now. We are preserving them. We know how to take care of this land. What I am saying to my colleagues, in my district alone, and I say my district, the people's district that I am lucky enough and fortunate enough to represent, in that district alone, we have over 23 million acres of government-owned land, 23 million acres. We take darn good care of that land. We have a lot of uses of that land: recreational land, recreation, wilderness areas. We do have some timber. We have very little mining left anymore. We have a lot of different uses for that land. President Theodore Roosevelt, I want to quote him, because the President in the last couple of days wants to put out an image that he is the Theodore Roosevelt, the Teddy Roosevelt who rode in on the bucking Bronco to save the West. Let me tell my colleagues what Teddy Roosevelt said. I think it is very important here because he talks to the common man. President Teddy Roosevelt was known as a common man. He understood the ways of the east. He understood the ways of the West. I think before somebody lifts themselves to that standard, they ought to at least qualify for it. Let us talk about Teddy Roosevelt. ``Conservation. Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and the duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land. But I do not recognize the right to waste them or to rob by wasteful use the generations that come after us.'' That is the approach, the balanced approach. In essence, what he is saying is there is a right for people to use these lands. But there is no right, no right by the people that use these lands to destroy these lands for future generations. We have got really two extremes: One end of the spectrum over here, one end of the spectrum over here. This end of the spectrum says, ``hey, we ought to be able to go out there and mine it and clear-cut it and develop it all we want.'' Over here on this extreme, we have got organizations like Earth First. ``Lock them out. Put everything in wilderness. Take away the right of multiple use.'' I will talk about multiple use here in a minute. Take away those rights. But do my colleagues know what? Most people in America and certainly most of the people that live here feel that, in the middle ground there, we can do both. We can allow some ski areas. We can allow cross country skiers. We can allow mountain bikers. We can raft on those wonderful, beautiful rivers in Colorado. We can hike. Yeah, we can allow a power line to go across them to some of our communities that are circled by Federal lands. There are things we can do with Federal lands. We are going to restrict it. We are going to be balanced. On the other hand, they also say there are places, the same group that says one can ski and ride on mountain bikes and raft down the rivers, that same group, the middle group, as I call it, the real Westerners, as I call it, also believe, hey, there are some areas like the Maroon Bells that we just saw, like this area right here to my left, just like this area where my hands are. There are some areas we need to lock those away. Let us put those into wilderness. Those are appropriate wilderness. Or let us create a National Park, just like Senator Campbell and I did with the Black Canyon National Monument. We just converted it to a National Park. Or let us create a new monument, or let us make this a special-use area, or let us give this a species status, a certain endangered protected status. There is a reasonable ground in there. What the President has done is laid his chip. He has staked out his ground on this extreme. To me, that is as offensive as the people over here that stake out their claim that say we ought to be able to mine it at any cost. Let us go in and cut the timber. We do not need selected timber cuts. Let's go in and cut it. That is as extreme as the President is attempting to do over here for Earth First, and that is clear-cut those forests, abandon those forests, and put them into the museum. Let us talk about a concept that is very important, very important for the United States and for all of us to understand during my discussion this evening. That is the concept of multiple use. Now, many of us, many of my colleagues may have never heard of what multiple use means. Well, obviously, one puts use together with multiple. It means many uses, many different kinds of uses. Remember, just a couple of minutes ago in my comments, I talked about skiing, mountain biking, rafting, grazing, grazing one's cattle, timber, mining, lots of different uses, wilderness, environmental, fishing, things like that. Those are multiple uses. I think this map is an excellent illustration if my colleagues can follow my red dot on the map. Obviously this is a map of the United States. This is government lands. My colleagues can see where the blob of government lands are. They are not in the east. There are some in the Carolinas. There are some up here in the northern part and Illinois and the Great Lakes. But the big bulk of Federal lands are right here. Well, when the United States acquired these lands through different acquisition methods, the population was all along here in the east, and they decided they needed to move the population to the west. Follow the red dot out to the west. Well, when they got them out here to Ohio and Nebraska and Kansas and Texas, Oklahoma, and some of these States out here, those are pretty fertile States. The way to encourage people to go out west when we wanted to settle the frontier back in the last century was to give them land grants or let them go out and put a stake in the ground and claim that land, 120 acres or 160 acres. Let us go back to the map. In these areas, for example, in Kansas, in Nebraska, in the Dakotas, out here in the midwest farm country, one can support a family on 160 or 320 acres or some other type of government land grant. But what was happening, and Washington was aware of it, is there were not many people coming into the mountains. They were not going into this area. They wanted to settle this area of the West. The question came up, how do we encourage our pioneers to go to the west, to go beyond the Colorado Rockies or to get into the Rockies and into the mountains and go west? How do we encourage people to settle? Shall we give them 160 acres under land grant like we have to settle the midwest and up to Kansas and so on? Well, the answer came back pretty simple. One is dealing with different terrain. The mountains cannot support per acre what the Great Plains States can support per acre. So if we give 160 acres to somebody for agriculture, and that was the driving industry, obviously back then, the agriculture and mining, if we give it to them for agriculture, they are not going to be able to make it off 160 acres. In fact, they need thousands of acres to do what somebody can do on 160 acres of real fertile land or 220 acres of real fertile land. So they thought about it, and said, we cannot go out politically, and it may not even be right to go out, and give citizens several thousand acres of land simply through a land grant program. What can we do? How do we resolve this? Therein was the birth of multiple use. That is a concept. That concept was the government said, okay, and again follow my pen on the demonstration here, the way we can get people to go up into this territory of the United States, let us introduce this concept of multiple use, which simply means that the government retains the ownership of the land, we will call it public lands, but the people have a right to use the lands. Now, when I grew up, and when my father and mother grew up before me, and so on down back in the generations, there was a sign that hung out there. We still see it once in a while. But there was a sign that hung out there on public lands. For example, when one would go into the White River National Forest, one would see a sign that said ``Welcome to the White River National Forest.'' Underneath it hung a sign that said a land of many uses. That is what the sign said. Today there is a very concentrated attempt to take off the sign that says a ``land of many uses'', throw it in the trash, and put on a sign that says ``no trespassing.'' That is the defeat of the concept of multiple use. Now, maybe this would have worked. I doubt it, but maybe that ``no trespassing'' would have worked 150 years ago. But the government itself, this country itself encouraged its citizens, encouraged its people to become pioneers. Go out and settle the West. Be cowboys. Be farmers. Help this country. We need people in the West. So generation after generation after generation, including not only my family, but my wife's family and our children, has spent generations in those mountains. That is how we make a living. If one wants to put up one's ``no trespassing'' sign to those of us in the West, one will break us. We are not large in number. We are large in heart. We have got a lot of heart in our feeling about this. But one will break us. Keep putting up that ``no trespassing'' sign. Unfortunately, a lot of people that are encouraging that are these over here on this extreme that I spoke about earlier. My colleagues have to imagine, if they can pretend for a minute, that they are a ranch owner, that they own their own ranch. There are several things that they need to do to be a responsible ranch owner. Number one, they need to visit. They need to go out into their fields. They need to get their hand into the dirt. Number two, they need to understand nature. They need not to defy nature. They need to work with nature. Nature renews a lot of natural resources such as water, only if they treat it right. So they have to understand nature. The other thing that they have to do is manage different segments of that ranch. They may want to manage the strawberry patch on their ranch a little different than they manage their grazing area where they have got their cattle. Well, it is the same thing here. The United States has millions and millions of acres in public lands. Let me give my colleagues some of those statistics. Ninety-one percent, almost 92 percent of the land that the Federal Government owns, almost 92 percent of the land that the Federal Government owns is in the western United States. Thirty- seven percent, almost 37 percent of the land in the State of Colorado, primarily in the mountains, is owned by the Federal Government. The Forest Service, the BLM, and the National Park Service manage 95 percent of this land. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers system contains 10,900 miles of wild, scenic and recreational rivers. We have got a lot of land out there, and most of it is owned in the mountains by the Federal Government. How do we manage that land? What kind of management tools do we have? Let me talk to my colleagues about a few of them. In order to manage Federal land, we do not need to lock everything up, as some proposals like the President. He says take 40 million acres. Again, colleagues, picture what 40 million acres is. Imagine how many people make a livelihood off of 40 million acres, 40 million. We have lots of ways we can manage that land and protect it so it looks just like the beautiful Maroon Bells that I just got done showing my colleagues, or like the 54 Peaks over 14,000 feet that I just got down showing you, or the snowy scene in the Colorado Rockies that I just got done showing my colleagues. We have ways to manage that land, protect it for the future, but reach that balance that Teddy Roosevelt spoke about. Teddy Roosevelt said, ``you have a right to develop.'' That was the word back then. Of course, it is a sin to use that word today. But back then that is exactly the word that Teddy Roosevelt meant. Today we use the word ``use,'' you have the right for use. But you do not have the right for waste. You don't have the right for abuse, for destruction. And he is right. He is absolutely right. Well, how do you manage this to help protect it? We have national parks. We have national monuments. We have national preserves. We have national reserves. We have national lake shores. National seashores. National rivers. National wild and scenic rivers. I just told you eleven-some thousand miles. National scenic trails. National historic sites. National military parks. National battlefield parks. National battlefield site. National battlefields. National historic park. Reserve study areas. National memorials. National recreation areas. National parkway. Coordination areas. National forests. National scenic areas. National byways. National scenic research area. Conservation research programs. National research and experimental areas. National grasslands. National conservation areas. Special management areas. National forest primitive areas. National game refuges. National wildlife preserve areas. National wildlife refuges. National wildlife protection areas. We have lots of tools in our arsenal to manage these public lands. We should not just go to one tool. We should not put everything in a national park. We should not put everything in a national wilderness. Mr. President, before you put 40 million acres, 40 million acres, in essence locking people out of it, look at what the consequences are to the people who have preserved it all of these years. It is very, very important for us to understand a couple other ramifications, not just the soil, not just the land, but right here. With my cold tonight, I have been sipping on water to keep my voice because I feel it very important to talk to you. But that is water. In Colorado, let me give my colleagues a little quote from the poet Thomas Ferrell. It is in the Colorado State Capital. I saw it when I served in the State legislature. And the quote is, ``Here is a land,'' talking about Colorado, ``Here is a land where life is written in water.'' ``Here is a land where life is written in water.'' Colorado is a very unique State. In Colorado we must be overly protective of our water rights. Number one, it is something that a lot of other people want. Colorado provides water for probably 18 to 23 other States. Believe it or not, the country of Mexico has water rights in the State of Colorado for some of that water. Colorado is the only State in the Union, the only State in the Union, where all of our water goes out of the State. We have no free flowing water that comes into the State for our usage. In Colorado, we are an arid State, an arid State, meaning we do not get much rain. When you look at those beautiful mountains, you say, wow, it looks pretty rich to us. But we do not have the kind of thick vegetation that a lot of my colleagues do in the East in their district. In the East, their problem is getting rid of water. In the West, our problem is storing water. We have to store it because since we do not have much rain, the only real opportunity we have for mass volumes of water is for the spring runoff, assuming we get the winter snows. And that spring runoff only lasts for about 65 maybe at the most 90 days. So over the balance of time, we have got to have it, we have got to store it, or we do not get it. Now, what happens is that the water law in Colorado is unique, as well, and the same for a lot of the western water law. It is different than the East, as I mentioned earlier. It is entirely different. But there are some organizations out there who understand this, and those organizations really have two things in mind. One, stop any kind of use from the water and that is one way to drive people out of those mountains. And the second thing is, let us take the water for our own use. I do not know many organizations in the East who have the interests of the people of the State of Colorado or have the interests of the people in the West in mind when they look at our water rights. They look at our water rights like a great big piece of apple pie and they are hungry and they think it ought to be theirs, although they did not bake it or anything else. They think it ought to be theirs. So they put their arm around us and they talk to us friendly and they do all kinds of things, but their goal is to put that apple pie in their mouth and keep it out of our stomach. That is what their goal is. So what do we do. We have to be protective. And when the President comes out and does as he did today, set aside 40 million acres of public lands to essentially lock them up, when he does that, what are the implications to water in the West? Well, I can tell my colleagues right now that the National Sierra Club, that Earth First, and some of these kind of organizations, their goal is that every acre he locks up ought to have with it implied water rights. You ought to be able to reach outside that acre. Let us say this is an acre of land right here. This is an acre of land. They would like to have the Government step outside of this acre, up here or over here or over here, to control water rights. These are very, very valuable rights. And in essence, what the next argument will be is, hey, we realize that President Clinton back in 1999 set aside 40 million acres and certainly what he wanted to do is to also lock up the water necessary for all of those 40 million acres even though we may not be using the water for agriculture or anything. We have certain water rights, like we want the quality, et cetera, et cetera, and they start reaching outside that territory. It happened in Colorado. We have the Wilderness Act. When the Wilderness Act was enacted by this Congress by the United States House of Representatives and of course the Senate and the President, there was never any kind of discussion of water rights. In about 1985, Judge Cain out of the Federal District Court said, although there were no water rights for the Federal Government, although the Federal Government does not seem to have any automatic water rights, there must have been an implication for water rights so the Federal Government now has implied water rights for the wilderness areas. We have been fighting that battle for a long time. Same thing is going to happen here, my colleagues. Now, for you in the East, my colleagues, so what? We need the water. What do you mean ``so what''? That is our lifeblood. Remember my quote? ``Here is a land,'' speaking of Colorado, ``Here is a land where life is written in water.'' ``Here is a land where life is written in water.'' It is a huge difference to us. What are some of the other things that these 40 million acres can do, the other implications? We do not know. But it could be all of a sudden there are air rights for the Federal Government. All of a sudden the Federal Government could reach out to an adjacent town, say Silt Colorado or Grand Junction, Colorado, or Glenwood Springs, Colorado, which borders the White River National Forest, or Meeker, Colorado, which borders the White River National Forest on the north side, and they could say to those communities, you know something, you have too many cars in your community, you have too many people burning wood fireplaces. And those communities could say, we understand that. We try and do our own. No, no, no. Here is what the Federal Government out of Washington, D.C., is going to tell you communities in the West how you are going to run your communities. There are lots of implications to the action that the President has taken today. Now, what they will try and give you is an allusion that if we do not follow the President's lead, if we do not listen to the advice of Earth First, if we do not adopt point by point the national policies of the National Sierra Club, that these beautiful mountains that I showed you a picture of will be destroyed, that the water in the West will be polluted, that the trees will be clear-cutted. Well, let me tell you what happens if we follow their agenda. Write off mountain biking. Forget skiing. Forget river rafting. Forget the other recreational uses that we have out there, hunting, going throughout in a 4-wheel drive vehicle on marked trails, all of the different kind of things that you can recreate with in Colorado. In the long-run, those could very easily be diminished significantly, maybe never ended completely, because we have some private property. Although, every ski area, to the best of my knowledge, and I have almost all of them in the Third Congress District, in my district, almost every one of them is on public land. Those are the kind of implications that we are speaking about here. It sounds warm and fuzzy today. And it is very easy to appeal to the entire country by saying what I have done is to do as Teddy Roosevelt or, as I just heard somebody on TV say, it is the most significant thing we have done for the environment in centuries. Do you know what the most significant thing we have done for the environment in centuries? We have let the people that live in those mountains help manage those mountains. We let the people who really have their hands in the soil every day. Now, my hands are not in soil. But take a look at my father-in-law's hands or my mother-in-law or my parents or many, many people out there in Colorado. I could give you name after name after name. What we have done right is let those people who are on the ground there every day, every hour help us manage those lands. We did not kick them off. Now, once in a while we have had abuse and we get rid of them. And maybe we need to tighten the laws on that. I am up for that. And I am not for saying that we do not have additional areas out there where these kind of restrictions should be placed. But 40 million acres by simply throwing a fishnet over the western United States? That is what has happened. The President got a big fishnet and just threw it as far as he could and out it floated over the western United States. And wherever there is public lands, ha-ha, we will lock it up. I am not attempting here to be provocative, to try and be derogatory. What I am trying to do here is, one, make us all cognizant of what life in the western mountains is all about; number 2, the fact that we have beautiful, beautiful diamonds out there, meaning the mountains, and we all want to protect those; and three, I want to tell you, do not just write us off. We have too much to lose. We are fellow citizens and we live in a beautiful, large expansive area, but there are not a lot of us out there. So it may be pretty easy for many of my colleagues just simply to write us off. But I am asking you not to do that. Take a look at what it really means, what kind of impact you are going to have. You are going to hear in the next few days many statements about how bad mountain bikes are I guess. Probably more realistically, they will take some kind of thing that just on its face they will want to make it sound offensive. Logging, for example. You know, I have known a lot of small families, these are not the big logging companies, these are small families that are in the logging business. Why do you want to wipe them out? Manage them. Do not wipe them out. Help them. Do not destroy them. My gosh, Mr. President, I wish that you could go to dinner some night. Go to dinner tonight. What you should have done is made this announcement of this lock-up of this 40 million acres and then gone to dinner with a small family in Colorado somewhere that cuts timber and does it responsibly. How happy do you think they are tonight? It is going to destroy some people out there. But that will not happen. The people in Washington, D.C., especially down the street, are not going to take time to see what the impact is on people. As my good colleague the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) said earlier, this President committed to put people first, they are not going to go out and see where it puts people. Instead, it is much easier to be politically warm and fuzzy and say the West is being destroyed and we in the East must step into the West and defend it, defend it against itself. We have got to protect those people, those families and pioneers out there in the West, those ranchers, those river rafters, those hikers, those skiers, those residents that live out in the West. We have got to protect them from themselves. They are destroying themselves. That is what the image is here in Washington, D.C. That is exactly what the image is that this President is trying to portray to you people with this sign, with this signature of 40 million acres set aside. Mr. Speaker, in Colorado most of us that live out there, including myself, my family, my wife's family, we are not wealthy people. We are there because we have a job. I have been fortunate. I have a job representing those people. But all five of my brothers and sisters, all of my nieces and nephews, all of my cousins, there are probably 30 or 40 first cousins, they are all over Colorado. Why are we able to stay in Colorado? Because we have a job. We have a job. That may not sound like a lot. Up here we get paid. We have got an automatic job for 2 years. Back there some of these people depend on their jobs almost day to day. Let me give my colleagues an example of what kind of jobs we have in Colorado. On the White River National Forest, the White River National Forest has two predominant uses. Two-thirds of the forest, the predominant use in two-thirds of it is recreation. In one-third of the White River National Forest, the predominant use is wilderness. We have locked it up. I voted for that and it was appropriate to do that. But we intentionally left two-thirds open for recreation. Why? Number one, they do it in a responsible fashion. Two, it provides resources that are not available. You cannot put a ski mountain out in Ohio. They do not have a lot of skiing in Kansas. They do not have much skiing in Mississippi or Missouri or Louisiana or Nevada. They have some in the Sierras, but not much. Colorado has got the natural resource for it. What does that do, that White River National Forest, just that forest? Thirty-five thousand jobs. My neighbors in a lot of cases have those jobs. That is how we are able to stay out in Colorado. We are not Johnny-come-lately. We did not just jump out to Colorado all of a sudden to live. Our families, many of our families have lived there for generations. My family and my wife's family have lived there for many, many generations, but we still welcome people to come out to Colorado. Sure we think it has grown too fast, we wish it were not growing so fast, but we do not think we have the right to shut the door because they did not shut the door on us back in the 1870s when my family came in or the 1880s when Lori's family came in, they did not shut the door on us. They said, Come on in, but we only ask you one thing when you come to Colorado or when you come to the Rockies or Utah, Wyoming or Montana: Be responsible, help us make this a good community to live in, help us retain the beauty of this State, help us follow what Teddy Roosevelt said and, that is, there is a right to use the land but there is not a right to destroy the land. We think we can use the land, the Federal public lands in Colorado or in the Rockies or in the West in a responsible fashion. I happen to think you can build a ski area and manage it in a responsible way. Many of you have skied in Colorado. Many of your constituents have skied in Colorado. You have been there. You have seen that a lot of those areas, they are managed okay. It has been a fun family vacation. It was a nice way to recreate. Then when you take a look at the areas that are cleared for the ski runs, they are just a pinpoint, a pinpoint in the forest. Many of you have had the opportunity to river raft in the State of Colorado, or Utah or Wyoming or Montana. It is a blast. If you have not done it, do it. It is a great time. And it is a great family activity. We have not destroyed the rivers. We have been doing what Teddy Roosevelt said to do: ``Use it but don't destroy it.'' Some of you may have never heard of Lake Powell but many of you probably have. Do you know what Lake Powell has done for families in this country, how many families are down there instead of having their kids running out to the mall or dad running down to work? They are down together on a little boat on Lake Powell. That lake does a lot. It recreates. ``Use it but don't destroy it.'' The Roosevelt theory. It is a lot different than the other theories that have come out. When we talk about this, when we talk about where we are going with the future, I have got to tell you, as long as I am in this elected office, I am going to stand as strongly as I can for Colorado and for water rights in the West. I am not just saying that. Because never in my entire career have I felt more of a challenge to the taking of Colorado water than I do today. And never in my career have I felt more of a challenge to those 35,000 jobs on the White River National Forest. Those are not indirect jobs, those are direct jobs. That is not 35,000. In fact, it is 35,000 families live off that forest. I have never felt a larger threat in my political career to those jobs than the vision coming out of Washington, D.C., the vision that we cannot manage it, the vision that they need to protect us, to protect us from ourselves. How many of you have ever mountain biked out in Colorado? That is a relatively new sport. But if you have, you have really gotten into some of that terrain and you have been able to access it, you did not have to hike for miles, you have been able to ride in there on your bike. Minimal damage to the environment. We managed it well, despite the fact that Washington thinks they need to protect us from ourselves. We followed the Roosevelt theory: ``Use it but don't abuse it.'' It is the same thing with any other type of activity you can imagine, whether it is kayaking, whether it is hiking, and so on. You get my message, my drift, what I am saying here. Now, what about some of the other issues? What about some of the other jobs? I do not think it is shameful to have a sporting goods store and sell sporting goods in Colorado. I do not think it is wrong for a small family to try and go out and harvest some timber. By the way, if you harvest timber with correct management, it is healthy for the forest, it is a renewable resource and, by the way, every one of you in this room tonight, every one of your constituents uses wood that is taken out of some forest somewhere at some time. Every chair in here. You look around. You know what I mean. Wood is everywhere. It is a renewable resource. But you have to follow the Roosevelt theory. The Roosevelt theory is: ``Use it but don't abuse it.'' It saddens me to think that here in Washington, D.C., frankly a lot of the national press is buying this hook, line and sinker, they are biting at it just like that, it troubles me that back here in the East, that even the administration in the West Wing, they do not go to the western United States, they make this decision in the West Wing. They have got some confusion there. It bothers me that they are using a deception upon the American people that this land out there, that we are not taking care of that land. It is public land. It is all of our land. I am telling you, we have been on it for a long time. We have lived on it for a long time. We have worked it for a long time. We have used it for a long time. And we have not abused it for a long time. Folks, do not be sold on this. Do not automatically assume that the West is being destroyed because of the fact that we have ski areas. Do not automatically assume that the West is being destroyed because we have mountain bikes. Do not automatically assume that the West is being destroyed because we allow people to river raft and hike and hunt. Do not automatically assume because it is not true. We do follow the Roosevelt theory: ``Use it but don't abuse it.'' I know that tonight my time is rapidly expiring, but I just want to reiterate a couple of things. Number one, do not forget that the pioneer spirit still exists for a lot of us. We are very proud of our heritage. We are Americans. But we also come from the West. I feel very respectful of the people of the East. But I am not an Easterner. I am a Westerner. I am not out here to destroy the life-style of the East, and I ask you people in the East, do not go out of your way to destroy our life-style in the West. We do not need the eastern United States, the bureaucracies in Washington, D.C. to protect us from ourselves. I think we, much, much better than some of my colleagues and some of the people in the East, understand that land much, much better than you ever will. We have got our hands in the soil. All of us can agree that a common- sense approach is what is reasonable. But that means that these people out here who want to clear-cut every forest, who want to put a ski area on every mountain, who want to build a house on every ridge, who want to put a highway wherever they want to, who want to build townhouses wherever they want, that means these people are going to have to be moved to the middle, and the people out here like Earth First and other hard-core groups out there who think they only have the title to the environment, who think they only have the knowledge to protect that land, who think only they have the historical background to manage that ranch for all of us, that group has also got to be brought to the middle. And here in the middle is not the leader of the United States today, the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. That is not who is here in the middle today. He is over here. What is in the middle today was what was in the middle at the turn of the century and many years ago, and, that is, Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt is who is in the middle. And remember, and I will conclude with Teddy Roosevelt's comments, and I will paraphrase him: ``You have the right to use it but you don't have the right to abuse it or destroy it.'' Teddy Roosevelt had it right. It should be Teddy Roosevelt's path that we follow. Do not be misguided down the path of President Clinton. Follow the path of Teddy Roosevelt: ``Use it and enjoy it, but don't abuse it and destroy it.''

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, while we are preparing up here to discuss my main topic this evening which will be the Federal public lands, the management tools, the history of multiple use in this country, Colorado water, Colorado recreation, and Colorado jobs, while we are preparing to set up for that, I want to mention a couple of comments on a subject that involves every state in the Union, and that is our budget. Back here, we are right in the midst of some very tentative negotiations, very fragile negotiations would be an appropriate way to discuss it. The Federal budget is important to every citizen in America. This Federal budget helps determine the future of our generation and the kind of debt and the kind of opportunities we give to the next generation and the next generation and the next generation. We have some very strong policy points that must be adopted or must be carried out, and those policy points are the Republicans' top priorities in regards to these budget negotiations. Number one, the defense of this country, this country must maintain a strong defense. We cannot be the second strongest kid on the block. Number two, education. We can have a strong military. We can have a good economy but if we do not have a strong educational system, and when I talk about a strong educational system history will show that the best educational system is not run from Washington, D.C. down, as the Democrats would have it done but it is run from the local school districts up, education is absolutely crucial. The third thing, for 40 years, while the other party was in control, they ran deficits year after year after year. It is very interesting to see them all of a sudden adopt fiduciary and fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers of this country. The plan and the budget we have to come up with, we will come up with, has to reduce that Federal debt. In fact, I remember all the criticism given by the other side, the Democrats, when we took the majority: Do not fill us full of baloney that they are going to get rid of the annual deficit; do not tell us how the cuts in the programs and cutting government waste, which is one of our big targets, is going to help get rid of the annual deficits. Well, today it is as if they were part of our team back then. They did not cooperate much. Some of them did but not all of them. Today they have forgotten all about that. We do not have annual deficits. In fact, last year we had a $1 billion surplus, after Social Security. We have heard a lot of discussions out there on Main Street about, well, maybe there is a surplus but it includes Social Security money. We have heard Republican after Republican and some conservative Democrats say, look, Social Security has to be preserved; we cannot count that in that surplus. Last year we really had a true surplus of $1 billion. Well, the key here and the key in our budget is to be able to go forward and take care of that Federal debt. We have the deficit taken care of. Now we have to shift from the annual deficit, which happens every year, did happen for 40-some years with the exception of a couple of years, I think in 1963 and 1964, now we have that taken care of, at least we are barely on top of it, and now we have to look at reducing the Federal debt. That is a high priority. What is the other priority in these budget negotiations? Medicare. I can say that colleagues on both sides of the aisle are concerned about that, but concern is one thing. Doing something about it is something else. Of course, the final thing, Social Security, I do not know anybody that is not concerned about Social Security. I know a lot of people, however, that are not confident in Social Security and Social Security being there when they need it or being there when their children or their children's children need it. Those are our priorities in this Republican budget. I can say when there is a so-called surplus, it is very easy to go out to the country, to go out to the communities and promise everybody that wants money that money. Those are the people that do not get it done. Those are the people that promise it. They are the ones that do not gather a lot of firewood for the fire at the campsite. It is very easy to do that, but the real tough decision is the party; the party that really has the tough decision is the party that has to try and balance this budget. We have committed to the American people we will do everything we can to avoid spending Social Security money and at the same time enhance the military, enhance education, reduce the debt, help Social Security and help Medicare. I think we are pretty darn close to doing it. That is the good news I have tonight, but let me say it is going to require some sacrifice. Now, we ask all to sacrifice. Now, I do not think cutting government waste is a real sacrifice, although some people make a living off government waste. I think it is something pretty easy to do, but there are a lot of programs out there that are good programs but maybe not urgent programs or necessary programs. We are asking the citizens of this country, team up with us. We can save Social Security. We can do something about Medicare. We can reduce the Federal deficit. We can do something for education. We can have a strong defense in this country, and we can do it in a fiscally responsible way, but it means we have to tighten our belt. It is always easy to pick between a good program and a bad program. That choice is pretty easy. Our choices today are between good and good programs. These are not easy choices, and in the way our legislative body is created the minority party does not have that responsibility so it is very easy for them to go out and promise to every American that certain products or programs or services will be delivered. It is our job on this side to put the money in the account. We write the checks. We do not complain, but we know that we have to ask for a tightening of the belt. Now one of the things we are talking about is an across-the-board, 1 percent maybe, 1 percent out of every dollar, reduction in some of these agencies to help us save Social Security, get money into Medicare, help education, help the military defense and reduce the Federal debt. That is all we are asking. Think about it on a person's own family budget, Mr. Speaker, at home at night. When someone's daughter or son comes home and says, dad and mom, if we can just save one penny on the dollar it can really help me with my future. That is exactly what we are doing here. We are looking at the generation of their son's, their daughter's age or their grandson's or their granddaughter's age, we are looking at them and they are asking us to save one penny on the dollar. Let us reduce our expenditures by one penny on the dollar. Guess what? We can do it without going into the Social Security money. We can put money into education, we can put money into defense, we can reduce the debt and we can help Social Security, obviously, and Medicare. Those are important issues for us to consider. I will keep everyone advised as these negotiations continue to go on. Federal Public Lands Should Remain Public

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Ron Bell, Bob Engle, Jeff Russell, and Shawn Smith who were all inducted into the Swire Coca-Cola Mesa State Maverick Hall of Honor last week. These individuals have shown just what can be achieved through hard work and dedication and are most worthy of this coveted distinction. It is with this that I would like to now honor each of these distinguished Mesa State alums. It is a rare feat to hold a National record for more than a year in any track and field event. Ron Bell held the National record for the javelin throw for forty years. His throw, back in 1959 measured 207 feet, 1\1/2\ inches. He did this not with a personal javelin that he had practiced with many times, but one that he borrowed from the opposing team. Bell, who is now sixty years old, has had many athletic achievements in his time ranging from the 1958 Mesa Junior basketball team which was the first to compete in the junior college national tournament to earn a spot on the Brigham Young basketball team. Bob Engle is a man who has given years of service to his country in the United States Army. His achievements, thereafter, are the stuff of legend. His two year stay at Mesa Junior college had numerous highlights. He was twice named to the Topps district All Star Team, was awarded a spot on the All-Junior College World Series team in 1969, and in 1970 he was an All-Region XVIII selection. After stays on the Baltimore Orioles and the Toronto Blue Jays, he worked his way up the scouting ladder to his current position in the Blue Jays office as senior advisor of baseball operations. Rarely do you hear of someone being a four-time All American in any sport. Jeff Russell was the only four-time All America athlete at Mesa State College in two sports. He placed fifth in the nation in wrestling in 1988 and third in the nation the following season. More recently Russell has received honors for his work as a police officer. In 1994 he was named American Legion Officer of the Year. Heralded as the ``best basketball player ever at Mesa State College,'' Shawn Smith led the first Mesa team to go to the NAIA national tournament. Among his many accolades, Smith was named to every all-state team in Colorado and honorable mention All-American. He also led the state in scoring his senior year. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, these athletes all warrant the highest of honors. I am proud to honor them now and say congratulations for their acceptance into the Swire Coca-Cola Maverick Hall of Honor.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I take a moment to recognize Greg Majors who has routinely gone above and beyond the usual duties to make his business and community a better place. He has recently been awarded the 1999 Sam Walton Business Leader Award, which honors local business people who best exemplify the principles of Wal Mart founder, Sam Walton. Greg Majors is a driven man who has many positive ideas for change and improvement. He is involved in many organizations which are both business and community oriented. For the past nineteen years he has been with Norwest Banks. The last eight he has spent in Montrose as manager of Business Banking. There he is revered among his employees as an honest and likeable man. In addition, Greg has served as director of MEDC for the past four years, two of which he served as president. He has also been the director of the Montrose Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees for the past three years. As if the aforementioned activities are not enough for one man, Greg also serves on the board of trustees of the Montrose United Methodist Church and for the past six years he has been an active member of the Rotary Club. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, Greg Majors is a valuable asset to the community of Montrose. So, it is with this that I say thank you to this man on behalf of the people of Western Colorado for his dedicated service and I wish him well in all his future endeavors.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor not one individual but a team who has dedicated their time, effort, and care into making the smallest VA hospital in the Country, the best. The employees of the Grand Junction VA hospital have changed health care in this country as we know it. Their unparalleled care for the patient has won them the Department of Veterans Affairs highest honor. The Robert W. Carey Quality Award trophy is given to one facility each year to recognize organizational effectiveness and performance through quality management. It was the first time that the hospital submitted the entry form which was fifty pages long and took five months to process. The employees of the Grand Junction VA hospital patiently waited to hear back while a Department of Veteran Affairs panel reviewed applications. Soon after a panel visit to the hospital and a final ranking decision by a panel of outside judges, they were chosen for the award. The basis for their winning the award are numerous and well founded. Among them, their work in the revolutionary, primary-care approach to health care that began in 1988. They call it a ``virtual circle of care'' in which patients see the same physician, nurse, clerk, and social worker each time they visit the hospital. This allows for more personalized care which pays off on a large scale. Health care providers become familiar with the patients they see, therefore providing outstanding, personalized service to them. Also recognized was their work on the Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic, which brings veterans to Crested Butte every weekend. In addition to these accolades, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few final highlights. The administration's attention to the needs of the employee is another facet that makes this hospital so exceptional. They are constantly looking for ways to improve, including their anonymous e-mail system that allows employees to voice any concerns they might have or suggest any improvements they see necessary. Their volunteer program has also grown tremendously. People are getting involved to make a difference and they have. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I honor this institution, on behalf of the people of Western Colorado, for their accomplishments in the health care of our nation's veterans and say thank you for their care and hard work.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a man whose dedication to his faith and community is unparalleled. Bishop Charles Buswell served selflessly as a priest for 60 years and this year marks 40 years since he was ordained bishop. Bishop Buswell was born in Kingfisher, Oklahoma in July 1939. There, he served in a variety of positions in the diocese and also founded a parish, Christ the King. In September 1959, he was ordained Bishop of Pueblo. It was at this point in time he was elected to the Second Vatican Council in Rome, which he called the most significant event of his lifetime. There, during his service from 1962 to 1965, he was one of 2,500 Catholic bishops who discussed possible liturgical changes with Pope John XXIII. For Bishop Buswell it was an exciting time in which he felt he could truly make a difference. He is now one of only thirty living American bishops who attended the Council. Bishop Buswell took on tough issues of the time. He led the way on issues such as antiwar, racism, just wages, and women's causes both in and out of the Church. Today, long after his 1979 resignation, he is regarded as a prominent clerical figure in the peace movement. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to a man who had a truly remarkable career of giving his time to help others. I would also like to recognize the 40th anniversary of his consecration as a bishop. The people of Colorado and every corner of the United States owe a debt of gratitude to this man who has fought so hard to make a difference.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take this moment to recognize a man who has proven himself as one of the most successful mountaineers of our time. This man, who is now 63, is still competing and winning. He is a dedicated individual whose hard work deserves to be honored. Richard Mize has always had a love for skiing. At Western State College in Gunnison, Colorado he took advantage of every opportunity to go skiing. It paid off when he was awarded the 1956 Don Johnson Memorial trophy, which is given to the outstanding American skier in the NCAA cross country championships. He also became a two time, All- American cross country skier. Since college, Richard has gone on to accomplish feats that are equally, if not more, impressive. He competed in the World Biathlon Championship in 1958 and 1959. Also, in 1960 he earned a spot on the U.S. Olympic Biathlon Team, where he placed 21st in the inaugural year of the event in the Olympics. Since 1983, Richard Mize has competed on the Masters Circuit and, in every year since 1988 he has earned at least one first place finish in the U.S. Masters Division. In 1988, at the World and U.S. Championships in Lake Placid, New York he won the World Championship in the 20K freestyle and 10K classic races. As you can see, this man is a fierce competitor--his accolades however, do not stop there. Richard has won his age group seven times in the last nine years at the Tour of Anchorage 50K Freestyle competition. Mr. Speaker, there are few people in our time that have accomplished so many amazing feats. Richard has done this and he has continued to do this well into his later years. So it is with this that I say congratulations to this man on his induction into the Mountaineer Sports Hall of Fame.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to address really three subjects. The first two subjects will be quite brief. One, satellite TV. Many of my colleagues, who like me represent rural districts in this country, have a deep concern about the reception and the need for local access on satellite TV. The second issue that I intend to address this evening is the Brooklyn Art Museum in New York City. I have gotten a number of phone calls into my office from people who appear somewhat confused on my position in regard to that. I want to make sure this evening that position is clarified. Then I intend to move on to the third subject, which will consume most of my time this evening as I address my colleagues, and that is the anti-ballistic missile treaty. My comments will be highlighted by the term, and Members have heard it before, the race against time. What is the anti-ballistic missile treaty and what is the impact that the anti-ballistic missile treaty has on us all as average citizens? What is the threat to this country of continuing to try to comply with the terms of the anti-ballistic missile treaty? I will go into a definition of what the anti-ballistic missile treaty is, about our national defense against missiles, and I think we will have at least some detail for a somewhat educated exchange this evening on the pros and the cons of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Mr. Speaker, let me begin with satellite reception across the country. As I mentioned, my district is the Third Congressional District in the State of Colorado. My district is unique in geographic terms in that this district has the highest elevation of any district in the United States. We have over 54 mountains above 14,000 feet. TV reception in the Third District of the State of Colorado is as important to the people of the Third Congressional District of Colorado as it is to the people in New York City, or as it is to the people in Kansas, or as it is to the people in Los Angeles, or up in Seattle. TV has become a very important part of our lives. Now, I am not this evening trying to get into the pros and cons of watching television, but I am getting into the ability to have local access through satellite. Many of my constituents, and many of my colleagues' constituents, if they live in rural areas especially in this country, or even if they live in an urban area but have some challenges because of geography or buildings or things like that, are looking to satellite for their TV reception. And I think it is important that these satellite receivers, the users, have an opportunity to have local access, which they have been denied for a period of time. We have a bill right now that passed out of the House overwhelmingly, passed out of the Senate overwhelmingly, and we have the two bills now in what is known as a conference committee. My good friend, the Senator from the State of Utah, is the chairman of that conference committee, and I am assured that that conference committee is working very hard to come out with some type of compromise so that those constituents of ours who are using satellites will have an opportunity in the not-too- distant future to have the right to local access. I am confident that we can conclude this in such a manner that it will not be damaging to the other competitors out there but will allow satellite to be at least at the same level as cable TV. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me move to the second subject, the subject that some of my colleagues who have been on the floor when I have spoken before know I feel very strongly about. I will precede my comments by telling my colleagues that at times in the past I have supported government involvement in certain art projects. I think art is fundamentally important in our country. I think there are a lot of things about art that help our society become more civilized and so on. But that said, I, like all Americans, have limitations. And those limitations, of course, were tested, intentionally tested, recently by the Brooklyn Art Museum in New York City. Let me explain what is happening at that museum. That museum, which is funded in part, in large part, by taxpayer dollars, by taxpayer dollars, decided to put on a show, an art show, an exhibit, that displayed, amongst other things, the Virgin Mary, which is a very significant symbol of the christian religion, but to exhibit a portrait of the Virgin Mary with, for lack of a better word, although they say dung in my country they understand it as crap, with crap thrown on the portrait. It is disgusting. The artist knows it is disgusting, the Brooklyn Art Museum knows it is disgusting, and the directors of the Brooklyn Art Museum know it is disgusting. But they have decided to defy what I think is common sense, and they have decided to stand up and say it is their right, trying to paint it under the constitutional right of freedom of speech, it is their right to use taxpayer dollars, taxpayer dollars, it is their right to use those dollars to pay for this exhibit. I disagree with that. Now, let me say at the very outset, so that I am perfectly clear, this is not, this is not an argument about the first amendment of the Constitution, freedom of speech. No one that I have heard, no one that I know has said that this exhibit, as sick as it is, should be prohibited from being shown somewhere in the country by any individual. We believe very strongly in this country about the freedom of speech and about that first amendment in our constitution. That is not the issue here. They have tried to paint the issue as a first amendment issue. It is not a first amendment issue. The issue here is very clear. Number one, should taxpayer dollars be used to pay for this exhibit? Now, some people say, well, how do we decide what is offensive? How do we decide when taxpayer dollars should be used or should not be used? The decision, to me, is pretty easy, and I am sure the decision to a number of my colleagues is pretty easy. It is called a gut feeling. I wonder how many of my colleagues out there would take a look at the portrait of the Virgin Mary with dung, or crap, thrown all over it and their gut would not tell them that something is wrong; that this is not right; that this should not be happening. Now, to me, that decision would be no more difficult than looking at a portrait of Martin Luther King with crap thrown all over it. That is not right. It should not be exhibited with taxpayer dollars. And whoever would do that is sick, in my opinion. It is not a display of art. But there is that right of freedom of speech. I can tell my colleagues what has happened in the Brooklyn Art Museum is they have decided to put that exhibit up and they have decided to test it and use taxpayer dollars. Well, what have they done and why is a congressman from the State of Colorado and the mountains of Colorado worried about an art exhibit in New York City? Well, number one, I am a Catholic and I am personally offended by what has occurred here. But that is not the primary issue. The primary issue is that I am a supporter of the arts. But I think by these prima donnas in New York City at the Brooklyn Art Museum deciding to display this portrait of the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it that these prima donnas have damaged the art community throughout the United States, including in the Third Congressional District in the State of Colorado. I am sure my colleagues can understand how hard it is sometimes to go to our constituents and to defend the fact that we have voted for government funding of some type of art project, no matter how worthwhile it is. These prima donnas at the Brooklyn Art Museum, do they take that into consideration? Do they take into consideration that they are offending the christian communities out there? I can tell my colleagues right now that the Brooklyn Art Museum and those prima donnas would no more think about putting a Nazi symbol in the museum and pay for it with taxpayer dollars, they would not think of doing it with a Martin Luther King portrait, they would not do it with an AIDS quilt, those beautiful quilts that are made in memory of the people that have suffered that horrible tragedy, and then have crap thrown on that blanket. They would not think about it. In fact, they would probably join in a protest to take down the building or destroy the building. But when it comes to Christianity, they think it is okay. And then, beyond that, look what these prima donna directors at this museum, and the director of the museum, are doing to the art community. Do they need to harm the programs that we now have in place where we have legitimate worthwhile art projects that are paid for in part with taxpayer dollars? Do they need to put those in threat of extinction? Do they need to do that? They do not need to do that. They have a lot of money there at the Brooklyn Art Museum. They can pick up a phone and call one of their benefactors, they have a lot of wealthy benefactors at that museum, and they can ask for them to pay for the exhibit. They do not need to use taxpayer dollars. The only reason that they are using taxpayer dollars is because at that museum they want to put their thumb in the face of the American citizen. Now, I have gotten some calls in the office, as many of my colleagues do when we talk about a controversial subject. I have gotten some threats about my future in politics because of my philosophy that we should not be using taxpayer dollars here. But those people that call me with those threats, those people that think they are justified in displaying art like the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over her, at taxpayers' expense, those people that call me on the phone, in my opinion, colleagues, have a very difficult time. In reality, when they are by themselves, they have a very difficult time when they get up in the morning looking at that mirror and saying to themselves that what they did today and what they are going to do tomorrow is justified; that it makes a lot of sense to go ahead and use taxpayer dollars to fund this kind of garbage. Now, some people have called my office saying, ``How dare you call any kind of art garbage. How dare you act so offended by this piece of art. This is an artist's right of expression.'' Of course, they do not answer the question, they usually hang up on me, when I ask them about some of these other examples I have cited earlier. But I am telling my colleagues that there are limitations. First of all, I think the average person, just their gut reaction is deep offense, deep offense at a portrait of the Virgin Mary or a portrait of a Jewish leader or a Buddhist leader that would have crap thrown on it. There is an inherent standard of character with the American citizen that says there is not a place for that. Do not put that in our society, especially with taxpayer dollars. So, my colleagues, those of your constituents who disagree with me, let me make it very clear. I think they are a minority. I think that the average American out there wants character standards in this country and says there is no place for this type of art. Let me now move on to the subject of which I intend to spend most of my time and which is entirely separated from either the satellite issue that I just spoke about or the fight we are having over the Brooklyn Art Museum. By the way, let me include one other thing. Mayor Giuliani in New York City has come under criticism because he yanked the taxpayer dollars. Well, I will tell you something, Mayor, you are doing the right thing. The second thing I should point out is some of my colleagues, I heard it well, what the Republicans are trying to do is exercise censorship on the art community. What a bunch of bogus baloney. What do you mean exercise censorship? Those are taxpayer dollars, Democrats. And for you to come out in the press and say the Republicans are trying to exercise censorship is ridiculous and you know it is ridiculous. Do not evade the issue. Do not try to push it off under the first amendment. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. It has to do entirely with, number one, should you be doing that in a public institution, but number 2, should you be allowed to use taxpayer dollars for those kind of expressions. Mr. Speaker, let us move on to my other subject, the race against time. Many of us in this country assume that if this country were to come under attack by missiles of another country that we would have a defense. I live in the State of Colorado. Just outside of my district and the district of my good colleague the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) who represents the community of Colorado Springs, the County of El Paso, there is a mountain called Cheyenne Mountain. That mountain has been bored out. In fact, a small community is now within that mountain that is called the NORAD Defense System inside Cheyenne Mountain. Within seconds, and I do not know the exact details because it is classified or the details I do know are classified, but, generally, within a very short period of time, if any country in the world launches a missile, NORAD in Colorado Springs, through its detection devices, can pick up, one, that a launch has occurred; two, the direction of the missile; three, the speed of the missile; and a lot of other things; and, of course, they can pick up the target of the missile. Well, we have known this for a long time. NORAD is one of our proud accomplishments at providing a defense for the United States of America against our enemies. In the past we really only had one country capable of delivering that type of missile attack against the United States. It was Russia. But what a lot of people mistakenly assume is that once we detect within a very short period of time that a missile has been launched against the United States of America, then we somehow can defend against that missile. Well, the bad news that I bring my colleagues this evening is that we have no defense. We have the technology. We are even gaining more technical capability to defend this country against a missile attack. But we do not have a defense system in place to stop those missiles. I want to say at the beginning of these comments that a lot of the information that I have gathered over the years on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has been gathered from some of the experts at the Wall Street Journal. I want to commend to my colleagues, I hope you have an opportunity to read any of the articles that the Wall Street Journal has on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But let us go over a few facts about our military defense. One, as I just told you, we can detect a launch, we can determine when that missile is coming, where it is coming from, and where it is going to hit. But then all we can do is call up the target and say, you have got an incoming ICBM and we will say a prayer for you because there is not much else we can do for you. That is wrong. Henry Kissinger once said, ``It is morally irresponsible not to provide for the people of your country a missile defense system.'' ``It is morally irresponsible not to provide the people of your country a missile defense system.'' I was at the World Forum about 3 years ago in Vail, Colorado, and there Margaret Thatcher said exactly the same thing. These people are people of intellect. They are people who have had many experiences through their lives and they realize the importance of having a defense system in place. Let me go through a few facts for my colleagues. The Cox report. Remember what the Cox report was about? The Cox report was a bipartisan, not a Democrat, not a Republican, a combination of Republican and Democrat congressmen, and I say that generically, who investigated the Chinese espionage. It is said, and from what I have read and the briefings I have gotten I believe it to be true, that the Chinese espionage was the worst and most devastating espionage we have had in American history. The Cox report reveals that Communist China has moved almost overnight from a 1950s nuclear capability to the most modern technology in the American nuclear arsenal. In the opinion of many of the experts, as I just said, this could be the most damaging failure in American intelligence history. Fact number 2: The ABM Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, is over 27 years old. It has not been amended. It is a treaty that exists only between two countries, between Russia and the United States. Remember earlier in my comments I mentioned that at the time this treaty was put together and in the early days of the missiles, the only country really capable of delivering a significant and severe blow to the United States was Russia. This is a very important fact and one we have got to remember: Today over two dozen countries have the capability to deliver a missile into the United States. Many of these countries are in the process of building even more sophisticated delivery systems. We know, for example, what the North Koreans are doing. The answer, by the way, of the administration to the North Koreans is, buy them off, get them to promise that they will abandon their nuclear program and we will give them more aid. We give them a lot of aid right now, I think 500,000 barrels of oil a year and money that the North Koreans promised us they will not put into the military, they will put into food for their citizens. What kind of fools are we? These people do not have our interests in mind. They do not care about the United States of America. They do not care about our future. Now, that is not to say we need to go to war with them. I am not advocating that at all. My position is, however, if somebody picks a fight with us, we ought to be in shape to handle it, because at some point in the future it is going to happen. Do my colleagues not think that we have an obligation to the generation behind us, if not our own generation, to be ready when that day comes? It is a race against time. We need a missile defense system. We need a defense system that, as stated by the Heritage Foundation, is a defense based on land, sea, and space. Here it goes, space. Remember when Ronald Reagan was President and he got ridiculed, frankly, he got an awful lot of ridicule from the Democrats, he got a lot of ridicule for his proposed missile defense system in space? Well, you know, the day is coming when we are going to look back at Ronald Reagan and say he knew what he was talking about on that missile defense system. In fact, we must put into place a missile defense system based on land, based on sea, and yes, based on space. Having a missile defense system in space gives us many, many more options. In other words, instead of waiting for the incoming missile to come into our country where we try and intercept it with a one-shot opportunity, we can then, through satellite detection and so on, hit the missile in several different stages as it arcs over to our country. We can actually hit it on the launching pad. There are lot of options out there and we should not eliminate any of them and we should not allow our hands to be tied by this Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty. I am going to explain a little more on the Treaty and what the Treaty means. But the world has changed a great deal since the ABM Treaty was first ratified, over 27 years ago. The U.S. faces a lot of new challenges and there are a lot of different types of threats that are coming at us today. Take a look at China and take a look at what China has gotten into their espionage and take a look at the capabilities. The Chinese are very bright people and they know and they want a future, not only a future as a giant in economics, they want to be the leading country in the world in military. As many of you know, and some of you may hate to admit it, but the fact is you cannot be the second strongest kid on block. You cannot do it, especially if you have something else that the strongest kid on the block wants. You have got to be the strongest. That is not to suggest that you got to be a bully and you got to go out and pick fights. But it is to say that if you are not the strongest, you are going to be in a lot of fights. It is interesting. Let me tell you, I have been very blessed over the years with many high school students coming into my office, very bright. That generation has got a lot of things going for it. There are a lot more things going right for this generation than going wrong. But once in a while when these classes come in and I have an opportunity to speak with some of these fine young people, someone brings up the question, why do we spend so much money on military defense? Why do we worry about a missile defense system in this country? I say to them, if you were a black belt in karate and everybody in your class knew that you were a black belt in karate and everybody in that class knew that if they decided to take your lunch or pick on your friend or pick on you that you would exercise the knowledge you have as a result of your black belt in karate and you break their nose or break their neck, how many fights do you think you would be in? How many people do you think would pick a fight? Not very many. I forget who I should attribute this saying to, but there is a quote and it should be attributed, but I cannot remember who it was, but the quote goes something like this: The best way to stay out of a war is to always be prepared for a war. That is the best way to stay out of it. Well, let us talk about another fact, the Rumsfield report. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and his team of defense experts, now remember, this is bipartisan, this is not a Republican deal, not a Democrat deal, it is a bipartisan team, the Rumsfield report, and we have real experts on that. We do not have some congressmen. We are real experts on missile defense that are on this panel. Here are their conclusions, and they are important conclusions to remember. Lock them in because it impacts our generation and every generation to go forward. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and his team of defense experts issued a report to the United States Congress in the summer of 1988 that said ballistic missiles from rogue nations could strike American cities with little or no warning. Ballistic missiles from rogue nations could strike American cities with little or no warning; that North Korea has been said to be building missiles with a 6,200 mile range that could reach Arizona or even Wisconsin; that Iran is working on missiles with the capability to hit Pennsylvania or Montana or Minnesota; that there is a fear that Russian missiles may be bought by one of these nations or a terrorist like Bin Laden, that when dealing with terrorists arms control negotiations do not work. Well, let us talk about the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I am going to read this. And let me again attribute a lot of this information right here to the Wall Street Journal. I think they are very accurate in their description. And my colleagues, I would ask that you be patient but listen to the words as I read through. ``Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty meant to hold the populations of the United States and Soviet Union hostage to nuclear attack.'' Now, what do they mean by that? What the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty does. The essence of it, very simplified, is that Russia and the United States agreed over 27 years ago, look, one way to deter war is to not have the ability to defend against it. In other words, one way to make sure you never pick on anybody is to be sure that you never get a black belt in karate. So they come up with the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which in essence says that Russia cannot build a defense against incoming missile attack and the United States cannot build a defense against an incoming missile attack. The theory of this is that the United States would never then go to war with Russia because we have no way to defend ourselves and, vice versa, Russia would never go to war with the United States because Russia has no way to defend itself. The language of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty expressly forbids the development of a national missile defense, allowing each side to deploy just 100 land-based anti-missile intercepters, capable of shielding only a small region. The United States observed the treaty and still does. Yet, from the onset there were troubling signs that the Soviets were not. Now a new book provides disquieting evidence that the treaty has proved to be a gigantic sham and an enormous deterrent to the security of the United States of America. In the book, the ABM Treaty Charade, a Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion, William T. Lee, a retired officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency sets down a devastating twofold case against the treaty. First, it increased the risk of nuclear war during the Cold War. Second, there is conclusive proof of violations on a massive scale, both by the Soviet Union and post-Communist Russia. Champions of the treaty argue that it reassured the Soviets, dampened the armed race and brought stability to the United States-Soviet Union relations. In reality, by leaving itself defenseless against missiles, the United States had encouraged Moscow to prepare to win a nuclear war. Soviet annual defense expenditure climbed steady to about 30 percent of gross domestic product in 1988, from about 15 percent in 1968. So 15 percent in 1968 to 30 percent in 1988. In 1981 through 1984, although it was not widely understood at the time, the Soviet Union had nearly launched a full scale attack against the United States and its NATO allies. Had America deployed a missile defense around 1970, which by the way it could have done with technology at that time, the Soviets would probably have found the quest for nuclear supremacy prohibitive from the start and would have never, ever considered or come as close as they did to launching a nuclear attack against our Nation. To make matters worse, in utter contempt of the treaty the Soviets conceived, tested, deployed and refined a missile defense. Not only did the USSR, unlike the United States, deploy the one missile defense permitted by the treaty, leaving Moscow with 100 intercepters, sanctioned by the law, but Moscow also littered about the Soviet territory with another 10,000 to 12,000 intercepters and 18 battle management radars. So, in other words, we signed the treaty with Russia and contained within that treaty, and we will go over a few parts of that treaty here in a minute, contained within the treaty was a clause that said each side could have 100 intercept defense missiles. The United States had 100 intercept defense missiles. The Russians had 12,100 under the mask of secrecy, and under the mask of compliance of the anti-ballistic Missile treaty they did not build just 100 intercepters they built 12,100 intercepters. We are such fools sometimes in this country. We owe it to ourselves to become alert about this issue. Together, the Moscow defense and the vast homeland defense formed an interlocking system, nearly all of it not allowed by the treaty. How could the U.S. intelligence system overlook such an astounding violation? To answer this question is to comprehend another awful part of the treaty legacy. Those in this country who promoted the treaty succeeded in elevating it to theology and they prevailed upon virtually everyone in authority to accept no evidence that spoke to the existence of Soviet missile defense. We just intentionally, these arms control fanatics intentionally put a shield in front of their eyes and said, do not tell me about any Soviet missile defenses. I do not hear it. I do not want to see it. I do not want to talk about it. It is not happening. In the meantime, 12,000 Russian intercepter missiles are put out there, and we comply with this treaty and we build 100. Washington knew about the 10,000 to 12,000 intercepters; in 1967 and 1968 had concluded that the intercepters that were not part of the Moscow system were anti-aircraft systems and that each of the radars was for early warning of a missile attack. No violations. In 1991, however, a U.S. team visited one of the radars and found that the passing of data was not only for early warning but also for battle management. Violation. This discovery, combined with earlier evidence which had been dismissed by the Central Intelligence Agency, leads to the clear conclusion that the 12,000 interceptors were dual use, lethal against ballistic missiles as well as aircraft. Several former top Soviet officials have confirmed the dual use in memoirs published this decade, but Washington has continued to ignore this massive violation of the treaty. Today with the Cold War over, the ABM treaty is as dangerous as ever to the United States. Long gone, and this is so important, this is so important, long gone are the days where the only threat to the United States in the form of a capacity of a missile was from Russia. How foolish to forsake missile defense in the face of rising missile powers such as China, such as Iran, such as India, such as Iraq, such as North Korea, such as Pakistan. Remember, the treaty is not between the United States and Iran. It is not between the United States and North Korea. It is between the United States and Russia and prevents the United States from defending itself against any other country, not just Russia but against North Korea, against Iran. So we cannot build a missile defense system because we are locked in under this treaty. It is foolish. It is crazy. Let us talk for a minute about what we have, what the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty is and some of the articles that are important. I have to my left here, Mr. Speaker, a display board and I will go over a couple of things. Article number one, my red dot is there, this is the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. These are parts of it taken out. By the way, the treaty is not complicated. I would be happy to provide any of my colleagues a copy of it. It is three or four pages long. This is not a study in complexity. It is fairly simply written. It is easy to understand, and it is devastating in its contents. Each party undertakes to limit Anti-Ballistic Missile systems and to adopt other measures in accordance with provisions of the treaty. Each party, again speaking only of the United States and of Russia, but it is applicable as to the defense against any other country, against the United States of America, each party agrees not to deploy Anti- Ballistic Missile defense systems for the defense of its territory. Each party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems for defense of the territory of its country, and not to provide a base for such defense and not to deploy ABM systems for defense of an individual region except as provided in article three of the treaty. Right there, that paragraph right there, we are saying 27 years ago we will not provide any kind of missile defense system in this country. Well, I cannot figure out the logic of it 27 years ago. I cannot figure out the logic of it 15 years ago and today I sure as heck cannot figure out the logic of this treaty, especially when we have numerous other countries that are developing this ballistic missile capability, over two dozen of them. Let us skip here just for a minute. Each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based or mobile-land based. This treaty, in my opinion, is a complete lock-out of any opportunity of the citizens of the United States of America to defend themselves. Each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM launchers for launching more than one ABM intercepter missile at a time from each launcher, not to modify deployed launchers, et cetera, et cetera. You can see as this goes on, to enhance the assurance of effectiveness on the ABM systems and their components, each party undertakes not to give missiles, launchers or radars, other than ABM intercepter missiles, ABM launchers or ABM radars capabilities to counter strategic basic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory and not to test them in an ABM mode. To assure the viability and effectiveness of this treaty, each party undertakes not to transfer to other states and not to deploy outside of its national territory ABM systems of the components limited by this treaty. What I have brought out of the treaty here is the language that is fairly simple, easy to understand and the concept is clear. The concept is that the United States of America, based on the word of Russia, would not build a defensive missile system for itself. Know what? In America, we like to keep our word. We kept our word. In America, the United States did not deploy a missile defense system. We are here today, 1999, just a few short weeks away from the turn of the century, facing over two dozen countries with sophisticated missiles and the opportunity to increase the technology and the sophistication of their missiles, and we still continue to put a blindfold in front of our eyes. As Henry Kissinger said, it is immoral, it is immoral, not to provide a defense system for our citizens. Well, now some people say, all right, Scott, you have convinced us, this treaty is not a good idea. It prevents the United States from defending its own territory. But are we locked into it? Well, the treaty is perpetual, meaning that it goes on as long as the parties agree, but the treaty also has language that allows us to abrogate the treaty, to get out of the treaty, legitimately. It is in the contract. Again, language from the contract, article 15 of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, ABM, this treaty shall be of unlimited duration. I spoke about that a moment ago. Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interest. Let us talk for a minute about extraordinary events. What are some extraordinary events? Well, there are several out there that we can look at. First of all, the other party that we made the agreement with, the Soviet Union, is no longer in existence. Now we have independent countries over there. So one party of the agreement is not even in existence as it was at the time we signed the agreement over 27 years ago. Number two, the countries that have the missile capability 27 years ago, 20 years ago, even 15 years ago, the only country that was capable of bringing and delivering those missiles to Minnesota or to Montana or to New York or Los Angeles was Russia. So extraordinary event, now we have over two dozen countries that are building or are capable of delivering those missiles into the inside of the United States of America. That is a pretty extraordinary event, and that is exactly what that term is intended to mean in that treaty. We ought to get out of this treaty. We ought to abrogate the treaty. It shall give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months prior to withdrawal from this treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests. Supreme interests; think of the wording, supreme interests. Above all else, what should the United States of America be concerned about, above all else when it comes to this military? It is the defense of our people. We are not warmongers. Our country has lost many, many of our citizens and lives to protect other countries, some of them in recent years, and we know that in the future we will have another fight. But what are our supreme interests? It is an inherent supreme interest to protect yourself. Even individually, we have the concept of self- defense. That is what this is. It is self-defense for an entire nation, for the territory of the United States. That is a supreme interest and that is why we should, in this country, abrogate this treaty under the terms of the agreement and build a missile defense system for the United States. Now what are some people thinking about this? You are not going to believe it, you are not going to believe it. There are still, of course, supporters out there for this treaty, including the President. Colleagues, we have an opportunity in another year and a half to have new leadership down there, and regardless of which party it comes from, although obviously I have some preference in that regards, whichever party it comes from, that new President, our new President, should seriously consider the terms of this and how it has handcuffed the United States in its own self-defense. But I want you to know there are other people on the other side of this issue. What are their thoughts? They want to go a step further. They actually do not think that the anti ballistic missile treaty is enough. They think we ought to do something called, and get ahold of this, and any of my colleagues out there that have constituents with any type of military conscience, get ahold of this: They call it de-alerting, de-alerting, D-E-hyphen-A-L-E-R-T-I-N-G, de-alerting. Let me describe what de-alerting is. You are not going to believe it. Now, having lulled the country to sleep on defenses against missiles, the same group of old-time arms controllers have come up with another idea called de-alerting which would take our nuclear forces off alert status. The aim would be to increase the amount of time necessary to launch a nuclear weapon from minutes to hours to even days. De-alerting, a word so awkward only arms control bureaucrats could have thought of it, could take a number of forms, and suggestions being put forward are somewhat concerning. They include removing the integrated circuit boards from the ballistic missiles that we have and storing them hundreds of miles away. What? As my colleagues know, what you do is you take the computer brains of the missiles we have, and you take them, and you store them several hundred miles away so that if, all of a sudden, we come under attack by another country and we decide to retaliate, we have got to go get the parts several hundred miles away, bring them to the missile and install them. Makes a lot of sense; does it not? Taking the warheads off the missiles or possibly the Minutemen ICBMs, welding shut, and get ahold of this, welding shut the missile hatches on some submarines and doubling the number of orders a hard-to-communicate-with submarine would have to receive before it can launch a missile. Any one of these measures is the nuclear equivalent of giving a beat cop an unloaded gun and requiring he radio back to headquarters for bullets when he wants to use them. That is a pretty good example. I want to credit the Wall Street Journal for that example. What they are saying is what the new arms control people are aiming for is the essence of giving a police officer out on the street in a dangerous situation an unloaded gun and that if he wanted the bullets for his gun, he would have to call headquarters and request headquarters to get them out of the lockbox. He can run back, get the bullets and then come back to the scene. That is what they are asking us to do with our military defense. We have got to change the direction that some of these people are going, and I think the majority of people in the United States believe, one, very strongly that we should not initiate a war unnecessarily; two, that our country has a fundamental obligation to its citizens, a fiduciary obligation to its citizens, and not only a fiduciary and fundamental obligation to its citizens, but a fiduciary and fundamental obligation to the future generations to provide a defense, a missile defense, for this country. That is where we have to go with this. That is where we need to take it, and that is the direction we need to go. And can we do it with the anti ballistic missile treaty? We cannot do it. We need to get rid of it. It is not serving our best interests. It does not help us. It does us as much good on the floor as it does in action. I mean it is not helping. It hurts us. We should be entitled to defend ourselves with defensive missiles. Let me wrap up just very briefly about the conclusion that I think we should all look at. Number One, remember the facts, that there are over two dozen countries currently with the capability or building the capability to deliver missiles into the heart of the United States of America. Number Two, that when this treaty was drafted, it was 27, over 27 years ago, and it was drafted between two countries, Russia and the United States. It was applicable. Even though the United States now faces multiple threats, this treaty prevents the United States not only from defending itself from the country of Russia, but defending itself from any of the other threats like they may have from North Korea, or Iran, or Iraq, or Pakistan, or India, et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, we could go through two dozen of those kinds of countries. Number Three, we have the sophistication today to build an effective missile defensive system. We have the money today, and it should be a high priority. We have the money today to develop even better technology. Now is the technology complicated? It is very complicated. Imagine a bullet coming several thousand miles per hour, and you have got to take it down with another bullet going several thousand miles per hour. Now many of you may recall over the last couple of weeks we had a successful test where the bullet hit the bullet. It is a preliminary test, but the technology there is promising. The next fact that I think is important is do not automatically, colleagues, do not automatically dismiss a space defense system. Now in the days of Reagan when the Democrats ridiculed him, it was amazing, it was amazing in my opinion the shortsightedness that was allowed to continue with that ridicule. But today those days are passed. I am willing to go past that. But today we need to sit down as a team. We need to sit down and develop the kind of technology, not to start a war, not to pick on somebody, but to defend the supreme interests, and I use that as a quote out of the anti ballistic missile treaty, supreme interests, to defend the supreme interests of the United States of America. It is a race against time. I have said several times during my comments this evening I have quoted Henry Kissinger. It is immoral, it is immoral not to provide the citizens of your country with a defensive missile system. To my colleagues, when you leave the chambers tonight, you may not remember the facts. I hope you remember a little about this treaty and how and what it does to us. But more than anything else, I hope you remember those four or five words: A race against time.

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, Carolyn ``Cookie'' Been. In doing so, I would like to honor this individual who, for so many years, exemplified the notion of public service and civic duty. Carolyn's many entrepreneurial achievements speak well of the hard working woman that she was. Those achievements are highlighted by her contributions to the Naturita community. There, she served as a town board member from 1991-1992, when she was elected to the position of Mayor. For six years she served diligently and accomplished numerous feats. Among those feats, she secured $500,000 for the renovation of the town park and community center, and rebuilt the town's water and sewer treatment facilities. Numerous other achievements by Carolyn, too many to mention, had a profound positive effect on the community of Naturita. Carolyn received several awards for her contributions. She was named Woman of the Year in 1993 by the San Miguel Business and Professional Women, and Citizen of the Year in 1998 by the Nucla- Naturita Chamber of Commerce. Carolyn Been considered her finest achievement to be her children, who have proven themselves very successful in Colorado and other states. Also, she is survived by seven wonderful grandchildren who will undoubtedly carry on her good will. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I recognize and say thank you to a fine citizen of Colorado and the United States. Her memory of love and dedication will live on forever.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. The second point I wish to address this evening, Mr. Speaker, is the art exhibit in New York City, the Brooklyn Art Museum. I made some comments about that last week. I am amazed how over the weekend the media has been very successful in tying the exhibit, and I will tell my colleagues exactly what it is, a portrait of the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it, to be quite blunt with you. They have made this controversy in New York City as if it is a controversy between the freedom of speech under the Constitutional amendment and people who were offended by the art. That is not the controversy at all. The controversy in New York City in that museum is that the taxpayers of the United States of America are being asked to pay for this art exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. Now, do my colleagues think it is appropriate for someone who is a taxpayer, who is a hard-working American, who is a Catholic to go out and take their taxpayer money to pay for a portrait to be exhibited of the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it? Of course it is not. It is as offensive to the Catholics as it is displaying a Nazi symbol by taxpayer dollars would be to the Jewish community, or as it would be of putting a portrait of Martin Luther King with crap thrown all over it to the black community. It is out of place. It is unjustified. And it is totally, totally inappropriate for the use of taxpayers' dollars for that kind of art. Now, that is not an issue of the first amendment. Nobody has said that they cannot display that type of art, although, frankly, I think they are somewhat sick in the mind when they do. But no one has said that they are banned from displaying that type of art. Instead, what we have said is they should not use taxpayers' dollars to fund that kind of art. This museum, with a great deal of pride, had their first showing this weekend; and today they announced with great excitement, and I hope it makes my liberal Democrats happy, they announced with great excitement how successful that show is. Well, in their hearts, they know it is wrong. They know it is wrong to do what they have done with taxpayer dollars. And in the end, we will win. We will keep the rights under the First Amendment and we will disallow taxpayer dollars from being used for that kind of art exhibit in New York City. I hope my colleagues reconsider, but I know that their egos probably will not. So I hope that all my colleagues and their constituents remember that they do not have to and they should not be forced to pay with taxpayer dollars an art exhibit such as the one displaying the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it. Our country is greater than that, and our country stands for a lot more than that.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, my district is a rural district in the State of Colorado, the Third Congressional District of Colorado. That congressional district actually is geographically larger than the State of Florida. I can tell my colleagues, it is very important out there in the rural areas of Colorado, as it is through most of the rural areas in the United States, that we have TV reception. We have become very dependent of late upon satellite reception. As many of my colleagues know, for the last 11 or so years, local access has been banned through satellite. Well, we are about to change that. We passed a bill out of the House. The Senate has passed a bill. I have good news tonight for those of my colleagues who have constituents who use satellite service for local access. Things are about to change. The conference committee I think is making good progress. I hope that, in the next 3 to 4 weeks, the satellite users, including many of my constituents in the State of Colorado, will once again have an opportunity for local access. Exhibit at Brooklyn Museum of Art

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to talk about a number of different subjects. I was not going to talk about education until I heard some of the previous comments, and I think it is important to clarify some of those comments that were made and talk about the direction that the Republican party is going in regards to education. Those remarks will be somewhat brief. I then want to cover the topic that we have seen with the Brooklyn Museum in New York City. I am going to move from that subject to a subject that I think will be very uplifting to all of my colleagues, and that is the Third Congressional District of Colorado. We are going to talk about natural resources, as we can see with this picture I have behind me. That is what that district looks like. We are going to get into much more detail about that, cover the water issues, cover the Federal land management issues, and so on. So I think it is going to be a very interesting hour. I look forward to the participation of my colleagues. But let me begin, first of all, by talking about the preceding comments. First of all, it is important that our friends and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle from North Carolina understand that everybody across this country, 49 States across this country, are going to pitch in for that one State that got hit as devastating as North Carolina. North Carolina, you are not alone. You are in the United States; and in the United States of America, we are a team and we stick together and we help the other States when the other States are in need of help. I would expect the other States to help me in Colorado if we had some sort of a disaster. That is why we are the United States of America. So the preceding speaker who spoke on North Carolina, bless her. I understand the tragedies that she is going through. I do not live there, but we are willing to help make it right. Everybody in this chamber is willing to help make it right for North Carolina. But let me talk just for a moment about the kind of disaster aid. And when we do this, we must be careful. We still have a fiduciary responsibility to the people who have elected us to make sure that that money gets to the people that need it. We have a fiduciary responsibility to minimize, if not eliminate, Government waste. So if we ask for accountability on these disaster funds, do not come back at us and say, my gosh, you do not care about the poor people who have suffered these tragedies. You know, that often happens in government business. The minute you question a program for accountability, for efficiency, to see whether or not you have got waste, to see whether or not those dollars are going to the people that need the dollars or the people for whom the dollars were intended, the minute you question it, all of a sudden you are cold and heartless and you do not care about these people that are in these tragic situations. We have an obligation to make sure that money goes where it is needed and where it is going to do the most good. So do not be upset or offended if we ask some pretty tough questions about how these dollars are being spent. Which leads me into education. It is amazing to me that the Democrats can stand up here on this House floor and say that they are the only ones for education and that this side is anti-education. How many people, think of it, how many people have you ever run into that will tell you they are against education? You do not run into people that are against education. Education is a critical mass for the success of this country. It is absolutely essentially for the future of this country. It is what gave many of us in this country a base from which to operate because we learned something because the generations ahead of us taught us and made sure we had good schools. We on the Republican side and the Democrat side feel an obligation to make sure that education is the best. Well, let me tell my colleagues, there are some things we need to do in the classroom. And some people disagree with that. But on the Republican side, we feel we have to put discipline back in the classroom. And if you do not believe me, take a look at what the disciplinary problems were 20 years ago and take a look at what they are today and take a look at the difference in discipline allowed to the school teacher who has a very difficult job, take a look at the discipline he or she is allowed to exercise in her classroom compared to the discipline that he or she was allowed 20 years ago. I can tell you, when I was in the 7th grade, I got in a fight on the school ground. It meant an automatic swat on the butt with a board. I remember that to this day. Now, I cannot tell you I did not get in any more fights, but I sure did not get in any more fights on school grounds. Because we had some discipline in the classroom. The Republicans feel that is an important issue, and we do not think that you are anti-education if you say let us give the teachers the tools they need to have discipline in the classroom. I urge the Democrats to join with us. Frankly, some of the conservative Democrats do. There is nothing wrong with telling our young people, you must behave, there are certain behavioral standards that you have to live up to; and if you do not live up to these standards, there are consequences, there is punishment, because our primary purpose is to educate you to the highest degree possible. A second point we should make about some of the previous comments early in this last hour. You know, you do not make schools better by just necessarily throwing more money at all. What happens around here the minute you question a budget for education, the minute you stand up and question are we wasting the money, is the money producing results, is the money accounted for, is the money getting down to the classroom and not being spent in the administration, is it really going to the classroom, the minute you ask those questions, and primarily those questions are asked by Republicans, the Democrats primarily rush right up and put a label on you ``anti-education.'' You know what, we can make a better educational system in this country if we demand accountability, if we see where those dollars are going and make sure they are being spent efficiently, if we allow those dollars to get into the classroom. That is how we are going to make a difference in education. I think it is very important that we also recognize that there are alternatives to public education. Now, I am not against public education. I have three children. My youngest child, Andrea, is a senior in high school. My son Dax is a junior at Colorado State University. And my daughter Tessa is a junior at Bryant College in Providence, Rhode Island. My point is this: All three of Lori's, my wife, and my children, all three of those children went to public schools. Now, they had the option to go to private school, but we were very confident in our local public schools and in the schools that they went to throughout their schooling career. But the point is we should not take away from the people who want to home-school. I want to say to my Democrat colleagues who were criticizing the Republicans, it was your side of the aisle just a few short years ago that went out and said, if you are a home-schooler, you should have to be licensed in every subject you teach. In other words, a father or a mother who wants to stay home and home-school their children would have to be licensed or certified in math or science or physical education. Whatever they taught that child, they had to be certified. What did that mean? It meant the elimination of home-schooling. That is exactly what it meant. I am saying to my colleagues on the Democratic side, come work with us in a bipartisan fashion. Do not just think that public education is the only way to go. Obviously, it is the most significant mode of education in this country. And, obviously, we need to make it as good as we can. And, obviously, it is going to cost us a lot of dollars. On the other hand, I think I can use the word ``obviously'' in most cases, home-schooling is doing a darn good job. Look at the test results. Obviously, asking for accountability of these dollars that are being spent in the classroom should be done. I do not know one Democrat or one Republican who does not look for accountability or efficiency or ask for a balance in their own checkbook. We all have a fiduciary duty to the citizens, whether they vote or not, of this country to be prudent in our fiscal decisions, to be prudent in how we spend the taxpayer dollars, to be prudent that when we spend those dollars we get the biggest bang for our dollars, to be prudent that when we spend those dollars that these kids are getting an education off those dollars. There is no question on either side of the aisle, no question that education right now is the highest priority in this country. And rightfully it should be. But do not discount a commitment by a Republican education because they stand up and say, hey, track for me or trace for me where these dollars are going. We want the biggest bang. Let me move on to another subject and tell my colleagues where I am extremely disappointed, extremely disappointed, in a particular aspect of the arts community in this country. I want you to know at the very onset here, I am a supporter of the arts. I think arts are very important in our community. Now, I know some people, some of my good friends, disagree with me, but I think it is very important and I think there are certain arts programs that the Government has an obligation to be involved in. But if you want to know what gives a black eye to the arts, it is when you use taxpayer dollars to offend the public in such a way you know it is not just an offense, it is a horrible offense to them. What am I talking about? Let us lay out the facts right here of the New York City Brooklyn Museum, a museum which has benefactors of great wealth. This museum gets government dollars from the City of New York and, as I understand it, government dollars from the Federal Government. What do they choose to do with a portion of those dollars? They are opening tomorrow a show which has a portrait of the Virgin Mary with dung, and where I come from, in the mountain country, we call it crap, thrown right on the face of the portrait of the Virgin Mary. And they call that art. Well, let me say this to you: What they are trying to do right now, the prima donnas on that board of directors of that Brooklyn Museum, what they are trying to say to the American people or frame this argument as is an issue of First Amendment rights, the freedom of speech. In this country, we believe very firmly in the right for freedom of speech and in the First Amendment of our Constitution. We believe very strongly in that amendment. What are they trying to say? They are saying, that, well, our opportunity to use taxpayer dollars to pay for a display, a portrait of the Virgin Mary, to throw crap on it, that is our right to express First Amendment rights. Let me say, this is not to be framed as a first amendment argument. It is not a first amendment argument. Those of us who are opposed, and obviously I am deeply opposed to what they are doing, but those of us who are opposed to this are saying, Look, you have a right to display that kind of art, but you do not have a right, we have to draw a limitation somewhere, you do not have a right to do it with taxpayer dollars. Nobody is taking away your right of freedom of expression under the first amendment. You can go downtown and show that, you can carry a picture of it in your wallet, you can carry it on the subway, you can carry it on horseback out in the mountains if you want to show people. Nobody is denying that you have the right to do that. But you do not have the right to take taxpayer dollars to display a portrait of the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it. I wonder what the reaction would be of these liberal prima donnas if somebody put up a portrait of Martin Luther King and threw crap on it. They would do something. Of course it would be horribly offensive. Would they be standing up today saying, well, it is the first amendment, we in the Brooklyn museum ought to display something like that? I wonder what these prima donnas would say if with public dollars, taxpayer dollars, we got a Nazi swastika and put it in a park for public display? I wonder what these prima donnas would say if somebody got an AIDS quilt, those beautiful quilts made in memory of the people who have died as a result of AIDS, I wonder what they would think if they hung an AIDS quilt and somebody threw crap on it? It is wrong. You know it is wrong. You should not be using taxpayer dollars for this display. So what do they do? It is not in them. It is not in them to stand up to the American public and say, you know, we were wrong. We made a mistake. This portrait of the Virgin Mary with crap splashed all over it should not be displayed with taxpayer dollars. But they do not do it. They are not going to do it. So what happens? We as publicly elected officials and specifically a publicly elected mayor in the city of New York, Mayor Guiliani, steps forward and says, you are not going to use taxpayer dollars for that kind of display. That is off-limits. You went across the line. He did not say you could not display it anywhere. He did not put a ban on the portrait. He just said with taxpayer dollars in this tax-paying institution, you are not going to display the portrait of the Virgin Mary with crap splashed all over it. So what happens? Well, the liberal community, the prima donnas, they decide this is where we are going to draw a line in the sand. Today it is a Catholic symbol. Tomorrow they will go after a Jewish symbol. Where do we draw the limit with taxpayer dollars? When do we say enough is enough? You have got to use some common sense. Today I was on a radio talk program. It was pretty interesting. I had the commentator say to me, ``Scott, how can you tell what's offensive or not?'' I said, ``What do you mean how can I tell what's offensive? Common sense ought to tell you.'' You think a Nazi swastika in a public park is offensive? The most reasonable man concept, and I say that generically obviously, your common sense, your gut reaction, your gut tells you, that is offensive. We should not have taxpayer dollars doing that. That is not a violation of the Constitution. It is not a violation of the Constitution at all. We say to TV broadcasters, you cannot show certain things on TV. That is not a violation of the first amendment. It is taxpayer dollars. My point that I am making here is that it is important for all of us to understand that it is really pretty easy to decide what is obscene art and what is not. What the Brooklyn museum could have done and should have done is to call one of their private benefactors, many of whom are very wealthy, and ask them to put up the private dollars to display this somewhere, fund it with private dollars. By the way, anybody that funds this kind of display is sick in my opinion and do not get me wrong. I do not think this is acceptable in any form of the word. But constitutionally it is permitted. But not with taxpayer dollars. This Brooklyn museum should have gone to those benefactors and said, put up private dollars, not the taxpayer dollars, private dollars and display it with private dollars. What happens? All of a sudden the politics get involved. Hillary Clinton, First Lady, steps in, she is running for the United States Senate. Well, she says, this museum ought to be entitled to do this. She has taken the side of the museum. There is a pretty clear difference right there between what the mayor of New York City is saying, no taxpayer dollars, and this display is deeply offensive, and what the Senate candidate over there is saying. It is common sense. Can you imagine our forefathers, the generations of the people who fought in wars for us, or the Catholics in this country, and, as I said, it may be the Buddhists next, it may be the Jews next, it may be some other group next, can you imagine our fathers and mothers, our grandmothers and grandfathers, the Founding Fathers of this country, what they would have done if they saw that today, under the guise of the Constitution, we were paying with taxpayer dollars to display a portrait of the Virgin Mary with crap splashed on it? Of course you know what your gut reaction tells you that those people would say. They would not believe it. They would be stunned. They could not believe that this great country did not have the restraint with taxpayer dollars to say, Enough is enough. We have certain standards in this country and one of those standards is we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to put a Nazi swastika in a park, we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to destroy or insult the Virgin Mary, which is a huge Christian symbol, by throwing crap all over it, we are not going to display a portrait of Martin Luther King and throw crap all over it, we are not going to display an AIDS quilt and throw crap over it. We have standards in this country. And it is not asking too much to say out there, ``Don't do it.'' How does it affect the Third District of the State of Colorado out where I live, out where I represent? Because of the attitude of these prima donnas on the board of directors of the Brooklyn museum in New York City, it puts a black eye on the arts clear across this country. Do you know how many of my constituents are going to say to me, ``Scott, if we're putting an art display in Colorado somewhere, is it going to be this kind of display? Is it going to be taxpayer dollars?'' I am begging these people on the board of directors of the Brooklyn museum, look what you are doing to the art industry across this country, in the little communities of Colorado or the little communities of Utah or up in Washington State or down in Nevada or in North Dakota or in Wyoming, or Kansas or Texas. Do you think this story is isolated in New York City? Of course it is not isolated in New York City. It is all over the country. And here we have so-called patrons of the arts standing up and saying we are justified under the Constitution to display a portrait of the Virgin Mary with taxpayer dollars and have crap thrown on it. It is wrong. You are hurting everybody in the art business, in the art profession. I know I am going to get a bunch of angry phone calls this evening, people opposed. I went to law school. I have got experience with this. The Constitution does not protect the right for you to use taxpayer dollars and have that kind of display. I hope for the sake of everybody, because it is really a losing deal. You may get a lot more people to your show, Brooklyn museum, and maybe you are doing this for the money, but in the long run it is the arts that suffer. It is the very community that you profess to protect. It is the very community that you profess to stand up for. It is the very community that probably in your heart you feel very deeply about. It is that community, the art community, that you are helping destroy through this kind of action in New York City with your display of the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it. You ought to grow up, and you ought to get one of your private benefactors and pay for it with private dollars. It is a disgrace. More than anything else, you in your heart know it is a disgrace. You in your heart know, and mark my word for it, the next time either this evening before you go to bed or tomorrow when you wake up and you look in that mirror, you look in that mirror and say, it is art, to do this to a portrait of the Virgin Mary with the taxpayers' dollars. Let us move on to another subject. Obviously after the last couple of comments, I want to lighten it a little. I want to talk about the natural resources, kind of the layout of the United States. In order to do that, I need to give a little description of where I live and the district that I represent. I am very proud of my district. I think every Member in here, both Democrat and Republican, obviously are proud of their districts. My family has lived in this district, they were pioneers in the mid to late 1800s, and through all the generations we have been there. I will tell you a little story. When I went to law school, my wife and I wanted our oldest daughter born in Colorado. I went to law school in Texas. We felt so strongly about our heritage in Colorado, she stayed behind to deliver our baby, so that she was born in Colorado. So we feel strongly about that. I will give you an idea of the Third Congressional District of Colorado. It is geographically larger than the State of Florida. Looking to my left, here is this portrait. That is what most of my district looks like. It is beautiful, mountainous terrain and these mountains you see up here, we have in Colorado over 56 mountains above 14,000 feet. I would guess that this peak right here, with the red dot on it, is probably above 14,000 feet. What is interesting is a lot of these mountains have snow year round. In fact, I am sure many of you saw, and of course we are big Bronco fans, but I am sure many of you saw last week that in Denver, it snowed in Denver. Very interesting geographical locations and lots of beauty obviously up in these mountains. You can see these trees right here, we call those Aspen trees, they are in my opinion some of the most beautiful trees, certainly in my district and probably in the entire world. Now, a lot of this land that we have, by the way, let me show you the blue sky. I am going to do a little promotion here about Colorado. That blue sky right there in Colorado, we have over 300 days a year of sunshine, 300 days a year of sunshine in the State of Colorado. My district takes up a little more than half of the State of Colorado. But one of the things you have got to remember about the West is water. That is a pretty boring subject, water. It is real boring unless all of a sudden it is not coming out of your faucet, or it is not there to flush the toilet or they do not have it to serve you in the restaurant. Water is a critical resource obviously. By the way, it is the only resource that regenerates itself. It is the only natural resource, I guess the better way would be to say that it has got automatic renewal, it automatically renews itself. Here are some interesting statistics. Ninety-seven percent of the water in this country is saltwater. Of the remaining 3 percent of water in this country, 75 percent of that is tied up in the ice caps. Actually only .05 percent of that water is in our lakes and our river for drinking and consumption by humans. When you break that out, 73 percent, and I know I am throwing a lot of statistics out to you but just kind of picture it as we go along. Picture the United States, a map, imagine the United States, a map in front of you. Imagine a line going down between Kansas and Missouri. Seventy-three percent of the water in this country is east of that line. About 13 percent, actually 12.7 percent, around there, about 13 percent, we will round off, 13 percent on our imaginary map right here is up in the Pacific Northwest. And 14 percent is located, almost 15 percent, is located in what we call the mountainous west. That is 14 States. Those 14 states have one- half of the continental nation's land mass. Half of the land mass in this country, in the continental States is located in 14 States, and those 14 States have 14 percent of the water. Water is a critical resource. In the East, one of the problems in the East is getting rid of water. Remember, 73 percent of the water lies east of the Kansas-Missouri line, so your problem out in the East, if you live in the East, in a lot of aspects is how you drain off the water, how do you get rid of the water. Our problem in the West is how do we save the water. Of those 14 States that I talked about, Colorado is at the top of those 14 States. Colorado has been called the mother of rivers. Colorado has four major rivers which originate out of those mountains and they originate, of course, as the result of the snowfall. So all of that snow that you see throughout those mountain ranges, and this of course is a small fraction, the red dot on the picture, that snow is what provides the water for those four rivers. That is why Colorado has the title, The Mother of Rivers. It has got the Colorado River, the Rio Grande River, the Platte River, and the Arkansas River. As I mentioned earlier, in the West we have got to have the capability to store our water. You see, we do not have heavy rains like in Washington, D.C. I never experienced the kind of rains that you have back here. I mean when it rains here, it rains and rains and rains. Now we get evening rains in the mountains a lot, but we do not have a lot of quantity of rain. So what happens, because of that we are called an arid State. We do not get a lot of water, we do not accumulate a lot of rain. I think in Colorado our average water is 16 inches a year. So where we focus on the water is the snow in the mountains. Now how do we get the snow on the mountains converted into the water, and how do we get ahold of it? Well, it is a natural process, you all know it. It happens in the spring; it is called spring run off. Melts the snow down for a period of time. Now we have problems with spring run off. If it gets too warm too early in the spring, then the water runs off before we are able to use it for agricultural purposes because we are not quite ready yet. If we do not get the snow accumulation, then we have a drought year. If it stays too cold, then the rain, although the water comes down, it can be too late especially in regards to agriculture. So we are very dependent upon the weather out there, but once this run off contains, that run off goes for about, oh, 60 to 90 days; 60 to 90 days in the spring is when we get the run off from those mountains. So for 60 to 90 days we literally have all of the water we could possibly want. But after that 90 days, what do we have to do with that water? We have to store the water. Now I know that some of my colleagues get kind of a charge out of criticizing dams and water storage in the west. I want many of my friends in the east to understand we are different than you are back here as far as water conditions are concerned. In the east you have got to get rid of it. In the west we have got to preserve it. If we did not have dams, and by the way the first dam was not in the Roosevelt era, it was clear back in about 1000 AD in Mesa Verde. It is when the cliff dwellers out in Mesa Verde, which is near Cortez, near the four corners, and the four corners are where four States come together in one spot; it is where the cliff dwellers were; again, a thousand AD. The thought is by the historical studies that the reason the cliff dwellers disappeared from the Mesa Verde dwellings is because they had a drought and their dam did not store enough water. That is how serious water is in the west and that is why we have to have dams. So, before you buy onto some of these people who condemn dams or water storage, understand in the west just how critical it is, and in Colorado we have an interesting situation. In Colorado one half of the State, the western half, the part I represent, the Third Congressional District, produces 80 percent of the water, but 80 percent of the population lives on the other side of the State. So you can even see that even at the State level within our own State boundaries water is a very, very important subject, and there are a lot of things we can talk about, but I think some statistics on water and how important water in our life is important for us to look at. An acre foot of water. A lot of times you hear people talk about an acre foot of water. An acre foot of water is about 326,000 gallons of water, to be exact 325,900 gallons of water. Traditionally it has been considered enough water for a family of four people, a family of four people for 1 year. One acre foot of water is enough for a family of four for 1 year. But now that we have brought in some very helpful conservation efforts, we have expanded that. Now I think in today's language one acre foot of water, or 325,000 gallons of water, is enough really to extend a family of four for 2 years. Conservation has paid off, but we have to use conservation in the right fashion. Now just talk for a minute about how much water is needed; for example, for a cow. A steer drinks 4.2 gallons of water a day. If you are going to have milk, the jersey cow that produces the milk needs 12 gallons of water a day. For a holstein producing a lot of milk it is 23 gallons of water a day. An acre of corn, one acre of corn, gives off 4000 gallons of water per day just in evaporation. So an acre of corn, 4000 gallons of water evaporate off that acre a day. To grow one bushel of wheat you need 11,000 gallons of water. One bushel of wheat; can you imagine, one bushel of wheat, 11,000 gallons of water. You need 135,000 gallons of water to grow one ton of alfalfa. Thank goodness that resource is an automatic renewal. These are numbers you probably never heard of before. They are numbers that surprise me, and I spent half my professional career in water. About 1,400 gallons of water are used to produce a meal of a quarter- pound hamburger, an order of fries and a soft drink. So when you go to the store and you get a quarter pounder and order fries and a soft drink, to grow that, to get everything ready for it, took 1,400 gallons of water. About 48,000 gallons of water, 48,000 gallons of water are necessary to produce the typical American thanksgiving dinner for 8 people. So those of you who are going to have thanksgiving dinner at your house and you have got 8 people, keep in mind that about 48,000 gallons of water were necessary to produce everything at that dinner table. About 1800 gallons of water are needed to produce the cotton in one pair of jeans, 1,800 gallons of water for one pair of jeans. Four hundred gallons just to produce the cotton in a shirt; 400 gallons for your shirt. Takes 39,000 gallons of water to produce the average domestic automobile including tires. Listen to that: 39,000 gallons of water to produce the average domestic automobile. So you can see that water plays obviously a very important part in our lives, and I know that recently there has been a lot of criticism about water and about our water management in the west, and a lot of this criticism comes from special interest groups frankly in the east. So I want to say to the average person out there: Before you join on with some of these people that criticize us, understand our differences. Now one thing we all have in common when it comes to water is we all use, for example, an acre foot of water every year for a family of four whether you live in New York City or whether you live in Denver. So we have a lot of things in common with the water, with the use of water. But the retention of water is different in those western States than it is in the east. Now a couple of other things that I thought that I would point out about water that are important: One of the fun things to think about of course are the physical characteristics that I told you about the State of Colorado, and as I mentioned, in the State of Colorado about half of our State has most of the water, 80 percent of the water, and the other half of the State has 80 percent of the population. It requires a lot of cooperation between those two geographical areas of the State of Colorado, but we have been able to do it for many, many years, and we intend to continue to be able to do that. What I hope to do is come back again. I have given a lot of statistics this evening on water, and I am going to come back to this House floor to talk to my colleagues to address this water, but I am going to do it in a series of speeches because you can take in too much in one evening, or I can put out too much. I guess you can take all you can handle, but I can put out too much in one evening about water. I just want you to leave this evening thinking about water is a automatically renewable resource. There is a difference in water retention in the east versus the west. Most of the water lies in the east, 73 percent of the water lies east of the Kansas-Missouri line. Only 14 percent of the water lies in half the land mass of the United States; those are the western States. Ninety-seven percent of the water is salt water. Only 3 percent is the kind clear water, and of that 3 percent, 75 percent of that 3 percent, so 75 percent of the 3 percent is tied up in the ice polar caps. So you can see for all the water we have in the world, only a small small fraction of that water is actually good for consumption. Let me move very quickly, and then I intend to turn over the remainder of my time to a colleague of mine who would like to make some comments on another subject. I want to talk to you about something that happened very exciting this last week here on the House floor. Now we have all heard several discussions in the last few days about all kinds of subjects, but one of the things that happened on a bipartisan basis out of this House of Representatives is for the first time in 85 years we have a new national park in the State of Colorado. It is called the Black Canyon National Park. We passed it out of the House. Senator Ben Campbell was the sponsor in the Senate, I was the sponsor in the House. We passed it out. I fully expect the President to sign it, and I think within the next month the Black Canyon National, what I am calling now National Park was a national monument in Gunnison, Colorado, will be a thing of reality. It is spectacular, it is incredible, and I hope that you have an opportunity to go to Montrose, Colorado, and visit the Black Canyon National Park. This is a picture right here. Notice my red dot. These are sheer walls, and the Black Canyon, by the way, it is the color of these walls which have very black rock on them; that is where the Black Canyon got its name. Clear at the very top here, right up there where the red dot is in the right hand corner of that picture, those are trees up there. So a human being would actually be about a fourth the size of that red dot. Look at the sheerness of this cliff. Those cliffs, and that gorge and that canyon, as we go down through here, are as high as 2,000 feet, 2,000 feet. These are some of the oldest rocks known to mankind, and what is neat about this project is a lot of people came together to make it happen. This was not a mandate by the Federal Congress, it was not an outside-of-the-area group that came in and said you do not know how to take care of this country, we are going to come in here and make this a national park. It was local people who cared about their local community who felt the responsibility to their local people, to the State people and to the people of the United States to do something to allow people to really see and understand the magnitude and the magnificence of the Black Canyon in the State of Colorado. Now I want to thank publicly here the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey),the majority leader who helped us get it on the floor. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the House Committee on Resources. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) who was the House subcommittee chairman on national parks, and Tod Hull. He is a legislative staff on the public lands. I like to also thank Cindy Bowen; she is a county commissioner out in Montrose, Colorado; Sheridan Steele. Sheridan is the Superintendent of the Black Canyon, and they are very proud out there about what has happened. I want to thank Siobhan McGill, Floor Assistant, Office of the Majority Leader; Ken Gale who is the interim director of the Montrose Economic Development, and Ken has been back here numerous times. This is a pet project for Ken. Ken, congratulations; you got a lot to be proud of. I want to thank Steve Aquafresca, the former State representative out of the State of Colorado representing that area. I want to thank Wayne Keith, and I want to thank the currently-elected officials that represent that area, Kaye Alexander, Jim Dyer and many of the other elected local officials and so on, the communities of Crawford, Paonia, Montrose, Olathe, Cedar Ridge, Hotchkiss, Delta; the counties, Club 20. There are a lot of people, the staff members of the BLM, Dave Roberts, the Forest Service. They all pitched in to help us show off to all of you the spectacular beauty of the Black Canyon National Park. Now amongst all of those walls right there, and here you can see the river up close. Now let me tell my colleagues, our water, water sports in Colorado on the hottest day of the summer will still make your teeth chitter, but there is a lot of excitement in seeing this kind of water, pure water. It is said to be so pure; look at the second picture here; that you can stand up on some of these cliffs, obviously not at 2,000 feet, but you can stand up on some of these cliffs and actually spot trout in the clear water in the pools down below. This is also the home for habitat of bears, bobcats, all kinds of animal species. It is beautiful, and you should take that opportunity to come out and see Colorado. One more quick picture before it falls. Look at the walls here again. Two thousand feet, you can see the walls here. There is a tree right there where the red dot is, straight down. Let me wrap up my remarks by telling you, of course, all throughout our country the fall is a beautiful season, the colors, the smell, the blue sky. But if you have an opportunity, come out and enjoy our State. Finally, as my final remarks, let me reemphasize my remarks at the beginning of my discussion with you this evening, and that is to our friends, our family, to people we do not know in the state of North Carolina: The other 49 states of this country will not abandoned you. The other 49 states of this country will be there to help you through the tragedy that you recently suffered. I know that it may seem remote at this time, that kind of help, but there are prayers from all across the country coming your direction. There are resources, including monetary resources and everything from generators to lanterns to batteries to fresh water, resources from all across this country, coming to help you out. Again, North Carolina, you will not be forgotten.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Gary Lieber. He is a man who has given a lifetime of government service. After 23 years with the post office he has decided to retire and in his words, ``Do what he wants to do when he wants to do it.'' Many years ago, when Gary began his service at the Glenwood Springs, Colorado Post Office, one rural carrier and three city carriers delivered all the mail to the community. In his years of service, he has seen the city grow to three rural routes and seven city carriers. Gary Lieber worked every position in the post office, from overnight sorter, to supervisor, to examination specialist at the front counter. In working those many jobs, he has encountered many people and been a wonderful influence on all of them. One of those people, his daughter Kelly, decided five years ago to follow her father's footsteps and join the post office. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Gary Lieber, for years of dedicated service to our government. For many years to come Gary's legacy of hard work and dedication will be remembered.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many Members have been keeping track of what is going on in New York City, but I think the repercussions of what is going on in New York City really sweep across the entire country, especially when it pertains to two different groups, one, the taxpayers, and, two, the art community. Let me start at the beginning of my comments to let you know that I have supported the art community. I have in the past voted for the NEA to support their art with taxpayer dollars. I have, however, on a number of occasions cautioned the arts community, do not go spending this money on careless or offensive art. If you have careless or offensive art, what you need to do to fund that is to go out and raise the money privately or have the individuals do it on their own in a display somewhere else. That is not a violation of the Constitution or a violation of freedom of speech, to go to an individual who is an artist and say, look, your piece of work is too offensive. We are not going to pay for it with taxpayer dollars. That is not to say that you are banned in the United States from displaying your art. You do have freedom of speech; you may display your art. It is just that the taxpayers are not going to pay for it. So what happens in New York City? Do you think the art community, especially some of the prima donnas in the art community, listen to that kind of advice? Of course they do not. They decide to draw the line in the sand. Do you know what kind of line they are drawing? They say, look, we have a picture, a portrait of the Virgin Mary, and it has elephant dung, in my country it is known as crap, elephant crap, thrown on the portrait of the Virgin Mary. That is where they decide they should draw the line. They want that to be continued to be funded by taxpayer dollars. Mayor Giuliani comes out and says this is offensive. Of course it is offensive. I wonder what the black community would do if Martin Luther King's portrait was there and had crap thrown on it. I wonder what those of us who are concerned about AIDS in this country would do if they put an AIDS blanket on there and threw crap on it. Of course it is offensive. Those communities would not tolerate it. They would probably take down the building. But I guess it is okay for the arts community in New York City, or at least the leadership of the prima donnas, to say it is all right to offend the Catholic religion and to offend Christians throughout the country. Let me tell you, the Jewish community could be next. For all I know, this museum might put on the swastika and say it is beautiful art and should be paid for by the taxpayer dollars. I am urging the art community, Mayor Giuliani is right in this case, and you know he is right. Those are taxpayer dollars. Do not offend the taxpayer, do not offend religions across this world, by allowing the Virgin Mary display in your museum at taxpayer expense. You have plenty of patrons, plenty of rich patrons that support the arts community. Go to your patrons and say look, will you fund this offensive display? By the way, I would be surprised if you have many that do. But will you fund this display of the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it? Will you fund it somewhere else, so we do not have to go to the taxpayer? It is amazing to me. Even the New York Times ran an editorial today, and they say what a courageous stand this art museum is taking by standing up and saying we have the right at taxpayers' expense to display a portrait of the Virgin Mary with crap thrown on it. I wonder where the New York Times would be if that was an AIDS blanket. I wonder where the New York Times would be if that was a portrait of Martin Luther King or a symbol of the Jewish religion. It is amazing to me that the art community defies common sense every opportunity they seem to have. I am telling you in New York City and my colleagues that represent New York City, let me tell you, you are hurting the arts community across the United States. One other point I want to make, if you do think in New York City that this art and that what you have done here does not extend across the country, I am getting calls in my district, the 3rd Congressional District of Colorado. That is the mountains. It is a long ways away from New York City. But I have got constituents, rightfully so, very, very upset about the fact that you in New York City in that arts community, the prima donnas, are funding with taxpayer dollars that picture, that portrait of the Virgin Mary with dung thrown on it, and stand up and have the gall to defend it.