Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize a man who has recently passed away. Mr. Dick Sprod died August 30th. He was born in Meeker, Colorado, in 1917 and lived there throughout most of his life. He graduated from the Meeker Public School system in 1935. He was drafted into the United States Army Air Corps six years later, in 1941, where he served for four years. He earned the rank of Master Sergeant as well as a bronze star during his time with the service. He married Angela Nassau in Grand Junction in 1946. Together they made their home on his family homestead and raised their family while ranching. They had three children and have since been blessed with six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. During his time as a rancher Mr. Sprod was an active member of the St. James' Episcopal Church, a member of the Meeker Snowmobile Club, the Rio Blanco Cattleman's Association, and also served for 21 years on the White River Electric Board. In addition to all of his responsibilities, Dick loved to travel and participated in the athletic pursuits of all of his children and grandchildren. Most recently, he was an avid supporter of his granddaughter's involvement in basketball at Mesa State College. Dick Sprod will be greatly missed by all who knew him. He was an important part of the ranching community and his community of Meeker as a whole. He will be remembered for many years to come

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a man who has contributed an incredible amount to his community of Alamosa, Colorado. Dr. Linden has recently been honored by an election to the position of Fellow of the American College of Physicians-- American Society of Internal Medicine. This is a great honor because it is given by one's peers. And, Dr. Linden is very deserving of this honor. Robert Allan Linden graduated from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles in 1969. He then went on to medical school right here at Georgetown University, School of Medicine. He completed his residency at UCLA-Harbor General Hospital in Torrance, California. From there he went on to a medical career that has certainly proven that this honor was earned, not bestowed, and well deserved. He began his medical career in Alamosa in 1977 when he first became associated with Valley-Wide Health Services. He has been an active member of the San Luis Valley Regional Medical Center in the area of general internal medicine. He is also the senior internist at the Community Health Center group practice. He serves as Utilization Review Director for Evergreen Nursing Home, Medical Director and Co-chair of Interdisciplinary Utilization Review Team for Hospice del Valle, and physician advisor for the Alamosa Ambulance District. Dr. Linden has also been an Aviation Medical Examiner for the last 16 years. He served as Chief-of-Staff at SLV Regional Medical Center for a one year tenure in 1995-1996. In addition, he had previously served as chairperson of the Hospital Executive Committee, trustee on the Board of Directors of the Hospital Governing Board, and a member of the Quality Assurance Committee and Strategic Planning. Currently he serves as a member of the Hospital Staff Emergency Department and ICU Committee. Some of the numerous honors he has received are: Hospice Appreciation Award in 1993 from the Interdisciplinary Utilization Review Team for Hospice del Velle; Outstanding Clinical Faculty Award for Medical Student Teaching at University of Colorado, School of Medicine, in 1989; and the Most Valuable Preceptor Award from the University of Colorado, School of Medicine, in 1997. When he has spare time, Dr. Kinden and his wife, Maureen Orr, enjoy the Colorado outdoors. He enjoys hiking, backpacking, organic gardening, and even plays in an eclectic rock group ``Lucky La Rue''. He is a man who has dedicated his career to helping others and his life to Colorado. He deserves to be commended.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in just a few moments we are going to be voting on the bill, S. 323, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999. For the benefit of my colleagues here on the floor, I thought I would show just a few pictures, photographs, of what we are about to make as a national park in the state of Colorado. Colorado has not had a national park in 84 years. If ever there were a property in Colorado deserving of this special privilege, it is the Black Canyon. A few moments here of a description of the Black Canyon, and at this time it would be appropriate to give credit to the Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, Tucson, Arizona. I think their description of the Black Canyon really best summarizes it for the short period of time that we have. ``Most people see the 20,000 acres of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument,'' soon to be a national park, ``not from the river but from the south or north rims. We tiptoe up to the overlooks and clutch the guardrails with white knuckles before peering over the brink. Violet-green swallows dive and chitter among the sheer cliffs, fearless acrobats apparently oblivious to the gaping abyss. Nearly 2,000 feet below, nearly 2,000 feet below, we see the Gunnison River, like a tiny green thread but with a clearly audible roar. The water is so clear trout might be spied in the pools far below. The impressive effect of the scene reduces us to inadequate adjectives: gorgeous, awesome, spectacular.'' Inevitably we start to wonder: What caused this great gorge here, and how do we allow all of the people of America to get the opportunity to see it? Geologist Wallace Hansen says the Black Canyon was made possible by an interplay of coincidences. All of the right ingredients happened to come together in this part of the world to make the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Start with a free-flowing river with lots of water and stir in a generous amount of sediment. It helps if the river is flowing down a very steep hill. Send the river through a raised block of some very hard rock. Spice sparingly with gully wash and frost action and simmer uncovered for a couple of million years. The Gunnison River was and still is the primary agent responsible for carving the Black Canyon. Other canyons may have greater steepness or depth but few combine both of these attributes as magnificently as the Black Canyon. A few breathtaking statistics will suffice. At the Narrows at the river level, the gorge is 40 feet wide and the walls are 1,700 feet high. Below East Portal, the canyon is 1,920 feet deep. Painted Wall, Colorado's highest cliff, soars up a staggering 2,250 vertical feet. The Black Canyon was named for the dark rock that makes up the walls, rocks that have been subjected to untold amounts of heat and pressure. Geologists call them basement rocks, for they are the foundation of the Earth's crust and often are deeply buried. This rock exposed in the canyon is much older than the canyon itself. Indeed, these basement rocks are among the oldest rocks on the Earth, exceeding 1.7 billion years of age. This legislation which we are about to vote on today has been a long time coming to the Western Slope of Colorado, and particularly the Colorado's third congressional district. It is a prime example of legislation which incorporates the input of local constituents and locally elected officials, as well as input from the Federal agencies involved; lots of team work. This is a well-developed and innovative approach to protecting unique natural resources for future generations in the most fiscally responsible manner possible. Earlier this year, I introduced House Resolution 1165, the Black Canyon National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999. I would like to extend my thanks to my fellow colleagues who joined me by cosponsoring this bill. I greatly appreciate their assistance and their support. I would also like to extend my thanks to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), who has worked with me in the last hours to ensure that this legislation was brought to the floor today for prompt consideration. Mike Strang, my predecessor from years ago, was the first one that introduced the bill on the Black Canyon and he, too, today is to be acknowledged. Across the Capitol, Senator Campbell who has spent endless hours on this and put a lot of energy and a lot of resources in to seeing that today we have reached this point where we can pass a bill on to the President for signature should also be congratulated and thanked. His effort is appreciated and will be appreciated for many generations to come. I also should at this point thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and, of course, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), for their work in the Committee on Resources in quickly getting this bill through the committee and on to the floor. This legislation does far more than simply create a new national park from what is now a national monument. This legislation establishes a cooperative approach to managing this natural resource and calls on all affected resource management agencies in the area to play key collaborative roles. I want to stress that the collective management approach this legislation creates does not in any way require, imply or contemplate an attempt by the Federal court to usurp water rights, State water law or intrude upon private property rights. The Secretary of the Interior will manage the entire area and will be able to utilize all fiscal and human resources in the administration and management of this natural resource in a unique money-saving manner. This legislation will also eliminate redundant operations and form a coordinated, efficient, and fiscally responsible management structure. Much work has been done to forge consensus on this issue, and I am pleased to bring forward this cooperative management plan for this beautiful example of our national and natural heritage. Mr. Speaker, enactment of this bill will not, will not, be the last step in protecting the Federal lands in Colorado. As this bill demonstrates, when an area is appropriate for wilderness designation and when all of these outstanding issues have been satisfactorily addressed, the Colorado delegation will respond with appropriate legislation. I would also note that other protection short of the absolute wilderness designation, such as a national park, may be appropriate in many cases, and I would encourage the Congress, Coloradans, the counties, local users and interests who would be impacted to consider this possibility when discussing how to best utilize public lands within Colorado. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss certain perceptions regarding the need to preserve and protect our Nation's lands. As is evident by the different forms of land management utilized in my bill, the fact that Federal lands are not designated as wilderness does not mean that the land is not protected. In this area, as a result of this legislation, we will designate a national park, enlarge a wilderness area, and establish a conservation area. One can see the range of tools available to the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Parks Service to help protect and preserve the integrity of our lands. Local control is a privilege that is already hard to come by and difficult to keep. Once an area is designated as wilderness, the option of local control is no longer available. It usurps that local control. The lands are then governed by a very strict Federal statute. For that reason, in my opinion, any wilderness proposal must carefully consider local interests before proposing broad wilderness designation. In my support for public land-use policy, I have sought to achieve a common sense balance between local control, multiple use, and protecting Colorado's and the United States' resources. I have and will continue to support wilderness, or other forms of intense management, in Colorado that is well considered and which enjoys local support, such as the Black Canyon of the Gunnison legislation. I will continue to work to achieve appropriate levels of protection for the pristine and beautiful areas within Colorado. Let me take just one moment to put this bill in its proper perspective. First introduced in the 1980s by Mike Strang, as I mentioned earlier, this bill will create a new national park in the State of Colorado for the first time since 1915, when Rocky Mountain National Park was named. It has been almost 85 years since the last new national park in Colorado. I am thrilled to be here today, to be carrying this legislation and to team up with Senator Campbell to take it through the United States Congress so that Colorado now has a new national park. It has been a long time, 85 years. The last time we had a park in our State was in 1915, when Ford was still producing Model T Fords. Closer to home, Pancho Villa led raids into New Mexico and Texas; and in Denver, one could buy a loaf of bread for 5.6 cents. That is how long ago it has been. Today is a big day for the State of Colorado. It is a victory for the United States Congress. It is a victory for the citizens of the United States. We have a fiscally sound management plan helping protect our resources that does not lock out humans but instead can make all of us very, very proud of what we have in the Black Canyon and is very amply reflected in these photos. We can see how long it has been since we have had that national park. Today this step we are going to take is a historic step. Mr. Speaker, I close my statement by thanking all of my fellow Members for their time, and I urge all of the Members of the House to vote yes in support of the passage of S. 323. I would finally point out, again, this is a cooperative effort, bipartisan. It was the local control that was key. This project did not start in the United States Congress. This project started in the town of Montrose, Colorado, a wonderful community in western Colorado. That is where this project started, locally. They sat down, they formed a consensus. They went to their State officials, and then they came to their Federal officials. It is a victory for all of us, and I am proud to be the representative, representing the State of Colorado, on the House floor carrying this bill.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, how dare this president go out to the common working Joe and common working Jane in this country and veto this tax bill, and then go out and spend $42 million, $42 million for his little trip to Africa? Mr. Speaker, the liberal Democrats are back to the same old tax and spend policies. For 40 years they had control of this House. For 40 years they ran up the national debt. Now all of a sudden here come the Democrats, the liberal Democrats. They like to act as if they are the guardian angels of debt reduction. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We had a marriage, a marriage penalty out there. It is their Tax Code. They put it in when they had control of this House. We, the Republicans, say it is unfair to penalize people because they are married. We think we should encourage marriage in this country. So what does the President do? What does the President and the liberal Democrats do? They veto, so now the people who are married can expect another marriage penalty for 1 more year of marriage. What about the death tax? It is important to the liberal Democrats that the day we visit the undertaker, we also visit the tax collector. If Members do not think it happens, take a look. Do they call these tax and spend policies something they can stand up here and be proud about? My gosh, look what they are doing to the American working person. Sure, they put out a lot of spin. Oh, we do not need a tax cut. But President Clinton should travel to Africa for $42 million, or to China for $40 million. But they do not need a tax cut, folks. The working slobs should just get back out and work and just keep sending money to Washington, D.C., because the liberal tax and spend Democrats want and think they ought to be working for them. It is finders, keepers. Take a look at what Members are doing out here. If we could put spending and make it a person, I guarantee that spending would be affiliated with the Democratic Party. It would be a Democrat. We on this side of the aisle, and frankly some conservative Democrats, happen to think that the working man is entitled to more than what they have given him today by vetoing the marriage penalty, by vetoing the death tax, and by justifying the trips of the President to spend $42 million to go to Africa, $40-some million to go to China. I do not know what he is going to spend in the next few months while he has his last year. He is going to spend that money every time and not even think of the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to take a look at marriage in this country, to encourage it, and to quit penalizing it. I am urging the Members, and I have heard some very politely say, let us work in a very bipartisan fashion. What more bipartisanship do they want than let us get together and get rid of the marriage penalty? What about the death tax? Let us say to our president, Mr. President, in a time that we are trying to give married people a break, we do not need to make $42 million trips to Africa. Mr. President, pitch in with something other than a veto. Then why do Members not stand up and admit who is really the party of principles as far as that debt reduction? It does not belong on that side of the aisle, it belongs on this side of the aisle.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to wrap up my comments on another issue dealing with Waco. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, some who maybe have just come into the Chamber do not know this but I have a law enforcement background. I will say, the first thing that can happen to law enforcement is a bad cop, a bad decision. I do not know any profession in our society, well, I know some. Medical doctors, ambulance drivers, firemen, but the police officer really fits up there in that very top category of a respected profession. People trust us. They trust police officers. That trust needs to be protected and it needs to be extended. Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a minute to talk about what concerns me on Waco, Texas. We all agree that in Waco, Texas, there was a whacko down there, there was a nut down there and he is primarily responsible for the deaths of a lot of people. He was a sick man, and he was so perverted in his mind he led many others to their deaths if he did not execute them himself. We have to put that aside and see what happened with our Justice Department and what happened at Waco, Texas. Did our own law enforcement agencies down at that particular situation, did they lie to us, the American people? Have they concealed something down in Waco, Texas? It appears they have. I can remember just 2 or 3 weeks ago when statements were being made by the Justice Department and others, there were no military operations going on at Waco, Texas. In this country, unless it is waived by the President of the United States, we have a ban of using military forces for domestic situations like this. The President has the right to waive it. For example, I think, if history serves my mind right, President Ford waived it to allow the military to help in rescue operations in a flood and so on. In Waco, Texas, I saw tanks being driven, others may have seen it, driven right into the side of the building. Who is driving those tanks? Nonmilitary people are driving those tanks? What are we doing? Ruby Ridge, one of the blackest eyes law enforcement has received in the history of this country. I resent what happened at Ruby Ridge because I like to think I was a good cop and I know there are a lot of good cops out there and Ruby Ridge put a black eye on law enforcement in this country. We had a sniper up there who the State of Idaho even felt it was necessary they file State charges against him and the U.S. Justice Department preempted it and had the charges erased. Guess where that sniper shows up again? That sniper is back in Waco, Texas. How did the law enforcement handle that? That is a question all of us ask. There is no question about whether or not the guy inside that building was a nut. He was a nut. The question is, how did you handle this? The response, it looks like, was a cover-up, a diversion and lies. That does not need to be done to the people you work for. In law enforcement, you work for the people. We are the good guys. You ought to be truthful with us. If you have got a bad cop, and I will say as a former cop if you are working with a bad cop you can stop it. You ought to stop it. You owe it to your career to stop it. You owe it to the very thoughts of law enforcement, to the ideals of law enforcement, to stop a bad cop. If you are out there and you are a cop or you are in the Justice Department or you are in the FBI and you know something that went on at Waco, Texas, and it has not been disclosed yet or it has been concealed, come forward now and let the American people know the whole story. I have no doubt that the American people would have supported what happened down there had the whole story been told in the first place. They do not think that you are God. They do not think that you are perfect. They understand that there were problems in a very difficult situation, but do not lie to them. That is what happened. We have an investigation by the Justice Department. Interesting, Justice Department investigating Justice Department. They call it an independent investigation. We have had a number of other independent investigations that have occurred in different areas. I hope it is truly independent, and I hope the Justice Department is willing to stand up and answer for what went on down there. I want to submit one other thing for the Record. Having the time, I want to read this editorial, Tuesday, September 7, Wall Street Journal: ``This being the age of Clinton, Louis Freeh is being set up as the fall guy for a cover-up of the disastrous Waco assault. Never mind that he did not take over the FBI until nearly 4 months after the assault and crucial decisions on how to investigate it. What matters is that he has been a politically independent thorn in the side of Mr. Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno. ``Miss Reno originally became a media darling by claiming to take responsibility for the 1993 raid that killed about 80 Branch Davidians. In fact, double felon Webster Hubbell was the contact between Justice and the White House; Miss Reno was not even in Justice's crisis- management bunker during much of the assault day; she was out giving a speech. ``Now, a civil lawsuit has uncovered evidence of Justice Department deception, so we read stories quoting unnamed Reno aides that she is `furious' that she was not told that at least two incendiary devices were used at Waco after all. Other stories question Mr. Freeh's handling of the matter. And in case anyone missed the buck-passing point, the Attorney General ostentatiously sent U.S. marshals to seize previously undisclosed audiotapes of the raid from FBI headquarters. ``President Clinton then added his spin, pointedly expressing confidence in Miss Reno on Saturday from Camp David while withholding it from Mr. Freeh. `I think that with regard to the director, there is going to be an independent investigation,' he said. ``Maybe they should put Mr. Freeh's mugshot up at the post office. ``We have seen this kind of treatment before in Bill Clinton's Washington. Billy Dale got himself fired when the Friends of Bill wanted to take over the White House Travel Office, and was even indicted by Miss Reno's Justice hounds, though a jury quickly acquitted him. ``Linda Tripp found her personnel records leaked from the Pentagon. And Jean Lewis, who recommended action in Whitewater, had her deleted personal computer files unerased and broadcast in Congress. ``Mr. Freeh has now joined the target list because he has been a rare dissenter from the Reno pattern of politicized Justice. Along with Justice investigator Charles LaBella, he broke with Miss Reno to urge an independent counsel in the campaign-finance scandal. ``Congress recently discovered that Justice politicos had refused an FBI request to wiretape suspected Los Alamos spy Wen Ho Lee. And he knows the FBI opposed Mr. Clinton's outrageous recent grant of clemency to 16 Puerto Rican nationalists linked to a terrorist group. ``This is not to say Mr. Freeh has been entirely successful in rooting out the FBI's self-protective culture. The agency's lack of candor regarding its role at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, was a serious black mark. It is entirely possible that agents also sought to cover up the truth about Waco. But anyone actually concerned about the merits of the matter should consult two articles we published last week by officially-designated outside investigators. ``It was Miss Reno, actually we are entitled to presume Mr. Hubbell, who decided on an internal investigation of the role of Justice and the FBI. By contrast, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen chartered an independent investigation of the role played by his department through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. See the August 30 article by sometimes special Prosecutor Henry Ruth who served on the ATF team. ``When Mr. Freeh arrived on the scene, was he supposed to overturn the Reno/Hubbell decision? ``At the first meeting of a panel of 10 experts appointed to make recommendations about future Wacos, Harvard psychiatrist Alan A. Stone wrote on August 31, `We discovered that Justice had no intention of telling us what actually happened during the first raid.' ``Mr. Stone adds, `because the Justice Department's published investigation was so inadequate, I sent a copy of my preliminary memorandum to the newly-appointed director of the FBI, Louis B. Freeh, hoping to break through the stonewall. Soon the crucial FBI actors were phoning me with some of the candid answers.' ``A House committee also sought to investigate, but Democrats, led by now Senator Chuck Schumer, practiced up for impeachment hearings by turning the procedure into a circus. As the hearings wound up, Representative John Conyers said Republicans tried to implicate everyone `but the butler.' Mr. Schumer complained of `Monday morning quarterbacking,' and intoned `if we did hearings on D-Day, we would end up court-martialing General Eisenhower.' ``As for Miss Reno, on Waco as on so much else, she has run the most politicized Justice Department since John Mitchell under Richard Nixon. She has sought to protect the White House at every turn, especially after meeting with the President on her reappointment at the outset of his second term. She has named special counsels for trivial cases against cabinet members but refused them on serious charges against the President and the vice president, despite the LaBella and Freeh recommendation. ``Indeed, she humilitated Mr. LaBella, sending her department a potent message about dissent from the Clinton political line. Now she is trying to do the same with Mr. Freeh. Meanwhile, she has flagrantly violated the Vacancy Act by leaving important positions filled with `acting heads.' ``The result is a demoralized Justice Department that cannot be trusted to enforce the rule of law.'' ``This problem will not be solved by an outside Waco investigator, assuming any serious person would even take the appointment from her. The only way Ms. Reno can begin restoring confidence in justice is to resign.'' That is a Wall Street Journal editorial dated Tuesday, September 7. My point here is this: it is time for us to weed out the bad cops. In our society, we want good cops. I used to be one of them. We respect them. But if we have a bad cop, we have to stand up; we have an obligation, we have a fiduciary duty to the American people, if we have a bad cop, get them out.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a document I have dated September 21, 1999, from the Wall Street Journal. [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 21, 1999] Revisiting Waco The siege at Waco in 1993 is the sort of complicated mess that can end up on the doorstep of any White House. But the Clinton White House seems to operate under some unique genetic map, which instinctively triggers legal corner- cutting and then coverups. Waco is starting to sound, feel and smell familiar. We all recall how Charles La Bella, Justice's investigator of the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign funding scandals, was isolated and ushered out of the department after he called for an independent counsel to take over his job. Precisely the same thing has happened to a Waco prosecutor. Bill Johnston, the assistant U.S. attorney in Texas, warned Attorney General Janet Reno that her own department might be involved in a coverup of the Waco disaster. Now we learn that the Justice Department then removed Mr. Johnston and his boss from the case on the pretext that there'd be an appearance of conflict of interest if they were called as witnesses. But it hasn't treated anyone else who is likely to become a witness this way. Obviously, the six-year delay in the release of key details of Justice's final assault on Waco is a matter of extreme sensitivity for Washington Democrats who must figure out every six weeks or so how to survive inside the Clinton orbit. While Ms. Reno made a grand show of sending U.S. marshals across the street to seize evidence from the FBI's building, it's now clear that Justice lawyers preparing its defense in a civil suit filed by the families of dead Branch Davidians had the crucial information all along. House Democrats meanwhile, led by Rep. Henry Waxman, claim that Republicans were informed back in 1995 of the pyrotechnic devices used at Waco, but in making that point they concede that Justice had the information too. Hill Democrats are clearly sensitive about any suggestion of their own complicity in a possible coverup. Who can forget Rep. (now Senator) Charles Schumer's highly successful attempts to sidetrack the House hearings on Waco with discussions of the National Rifle Association's contacts with Republicans and alleged child abuse by David Koresh? Mr. Schumer's smoke did more than anything else to obscure realities we're now facing. Webster Hubbell, the convicted felon from Little Rock, was Justice's point man with the White House on the Waco siege. He also is in a sensitive frame of mind. In his recent memoirs he obviously makes excuses for his role in approving the use of dangerous CS gas against the Branch Davidians. He even claims to have come up with a ``solution'' to the standoff hours before the final assault began, but was blocked from entering the FBI building until after the gas rounds were fired. Sure would be nice if former Senator John Danforth could establish the truth of this claim. What precisely is at issue here? It is clearly in the public interest to have a full and complete historical record, in part to defuse conspiracy theorists who already believe the government is out to get them. More precisely, at issue in Senator Danforth's independent probe of Waco is whether and how law enforcement overreacted. The Branch Davidians were a particularly deranged sect, and four Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents were killed in the initial raid that started the seven-week siege. But we will probably never conclusively learn who or what started the fire that killed dozens of Mr. Koresh's followers that day. In any event, law enforcement did learn an important lesson from Waco. No similar incident has occurred during the administration of FBI Director Louis Freeh. In 1996, for instance, a group of con artists in Montana named the Freemen were safely lured out of their armed standoff with the Feds through the use of more patient tactics. But the unfinished business of Waco persists in the public mind: Was there a coverup? Is there something beyond the death of two dozen children to explain the extreme sensitivity of the FBI, the Justice Department and congress on the issue? It is certainly interesting that one of Mr. Danforth's primary missions is to explore the implications of the 1878 ``Posse Comitatus'' law. It forbids use of the U.S. military in domestic law enforcement actions. The Texas Rangers seem to have uncovered evidence that members of the Army's elite Delta Force anti-terrorist unit were at Waco. The law provides for a Presidential wavier in case of emergencies: President Reagan signed a waiver, for example, to use Army units to quell prison riots. The White House claims no one ever asked President Clinton to sign a waiver for Waco. So Mr. Danforth has to determine, was Delta Force at Waco, and if so, on whose authority? Obviously it didn't move there on its own, and breaches of the military chain of command are a serious national issue. Mr. Danforth will need a thorough investigation and candid report to still the drums of conspiracy. A sequel to an Emmy- award winning independent film on Waco, for example, will soon question the denial that the White House counsel's office ever considered a Posse Comitatus waiver. Indeed, Mr. Danforth may find himself plowing some of the same ground covered by Kenneth Starr. Lisa Foster, widow of the late White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, told the FBI that her husband was deeply troubled by Waco and blamed himself for the death of the children there. A Waco file was inventoried in the contents of his office. Mr. Danforth says he is reluctant to question President Clinton about the issue of a Presidential waiver from Posse Comitatus. That is understandable, given the fate of the last prosecutor to ask probing questions of the President. Yet considering the sorry credibility of the White House, the Justice Department and the FBI, he has a responsibility to make sure the record is straight and complete. Otherwise, we'll all be adding Waco as one more item in the high pile of Clinton contradictions from which we're all supposed to ``move on.'' Waco, Will We Ever Know the Truth?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for the last hour listening to the previous speakers and their comments about prescription drugs. I need to tell my colleagues, they brought up some very valid points. I think that the prescription drugs in this country are priced too high, and I think there are a lot of families in this country who suffer because they cannot afford those prescription drugs. But let me say to all of my colleagues who have also joined the previous speakers and listening to them in the last hour, do not let people promise you a rose garden. How can one possibly get the Federal Government involved in anything and then honestly look at the American people and say it is not going to have any cost. There is a tremendous cost every time the government gets involved. Now, what happens back here in Washington, D.C., as many of my colleagues know, programs often start on the promise that the cost will be a low cost. Take a look at almost any program my colleagues want to. The space program, it is a great program, but look at how the costs have just ballooned out of sight. Look at all the different social programs, the welfare programs. Look at Social Security. Social Security started out with good intent. It was going to cost this much, and pretty soon it was this much, and pretty soon this much, and pretty soon this much. So the only thing that I would add to the previous speakers' conversations is, let us look at the economics. We all agree there is a prescription problem out there. In fact, I would take issue with the one gentlemen I believe from Texas who made points that perhaps it was partisan warfare on this. I do not think so. I think, on both sides of the aisle, Members recognize there is a problem out there with the cost of affording prescription drugs. But I think on the Republican side of the aisle, there is a realization that somebody has got to pay for it. Nothing is free. We have heard that saying since we were little, tiny kids. One does not get something for nothing. That is what my mom always used to tell me. I always used to say, ``Mom, here is a great bargain; or, daddy, I can get this for free.'' My dad and mom would always say to me, ``You do not get something for nothing. Somewhere somebody has got to pay.'' It is just like our social programs. Every time one gives a dollar to somebody who is not working one has got to take that dollar from somebody who is working. So as we go together as a team to take a look at what we can do for the people of this country in lowering those prescription costs, getting the FDA to approve these drugs instead of sitting on a bureaucracy, almost a bureaucratic strike before they approve these drugs, as we begin to approach these challenges, let us not forget what the consequential costs will be to the future. Are we creating a new Federal program that will very soon balloon out of sight? We have a history. The United States Congress has a long history of starting out program after program after program with good intent after good intent after good intent, and they never, ever, ever come anywhere close in their estimations of cost at the beginning of the program versus what the actual costs are once the program gets on its feet. Never anywhere close. I mean, it is just not close. So, again, this is not the intent of my speech tonight, but I want to say, because I thought their comments were well made, and I think some of the problems my colleagues spoke about in the last hour, they hit the nail right on the head; but let us not promise the American people a rose garden. Let us be realistic about this. Let us talk about the economics of it. Let us talk about who is going to pay the bill. We need to consider that. Clemency For FALN

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to visit with my colleagues this evening about a couple of things. Many of the people in my district already know that I used to be a police officer. But for my colleagues that are not familiar with it, I used to be a police officer. I have got some experience in the field of law enforcement. I know that the best way to stop crime is to have consequences for one's crime. If one commits a wrong, one has to pay a price. There is a price to pay if one decides to take behavior that is not normal or behavior that creates bad things in our society. We all know we have to have a price. As a police officer, I saw that every day. Well, tonight I want to talk about a couple things that just smack right in the face of trying to bring civility and trying to cut down the crime rate in our society. We all know that for many, many, many years in this country, we have suffered unfairly at the hands of terrorism. It has happened right here in these House Chambers, right here where my colleagues are sitting. Take a look right up there. Look up there on the roof. Do my colleagues know what is up there on the roof of the U.S. House of Representatives Chambers? There is a bullet hole right up there. My colleagues can see it right here. I will show my colleagues something else. Look, I am not tearing up the desks in here, but I want to show my colleagues something. This is drawer. Do my colleagues know what is right there. It is a bullet hole. That is a bullet hole. A bullet shot in the House chambers. Theoretically, this should be one of the safest places in the country. This is the people's House. That is a bullet hole. Now, how did that bullet hole get there? Puerto Rican terrorists in March 1954. Puerto Rican terrorists. They were there, right there in the galleries, and they opened fire. They wounded at least five congressmen. They wounded a number of other people. But more than that, they broke that cloak of security that we thought we had in the people's House in Washington, D.C. We have to have consequences for those Puerto Rican terrorists that did that. We have to have consequences for the next generation that followed in that terrorism group. Well, what happened in the last couple of weeks? Our President, President of the United States, granted clemency for a number of Puerto Rican terrorists. What do I mean by clemency? It is kind of a fancy word. He let them go. He absolved them of their sins. It is kind of like going to confession except they did not really have to confess. All they had to say is, take me on my word. I am a person that should be trusted. I will not do it again. They were let free. There will be a price to pay for letting terrorists walk free. Tonight let us talk a little bit about that organization. What is that organization? We are going to call it the FALN, F-A-L-N. What does it stand for? It is the acronym for Armed Services of National Liberation. That is the only time I am going to say that tonight because I am going to use the initials. FALN. The easiest way we remember it as we go through our comments is that it is a Puerto Rican separatist group. Now, they really came to light here in 1954 here, as I said. I showed my colleagues the bullet hole right here. I showed them the bullet hole in the roof of the U.S. Capitol of the House Chambers. Well they struck again. They struck again January 24, 1975 by attacking another icon of American history: New York City. As a result of their terrorist act, the 1975 bombing of the tavern in New York City where General George Washington bid farewell to his troops in 1738, and left four dead as a result of this, they quickly became the most feared domestic terrorist group in the United States. The most feared group in the United States. This is the same group that, in the last week, the President of this country let them go. He gave them clemency. He said, ``Okay, you have been absolved. You are free to go.'' I have got a lot of comments about that, a lot of comments from the law enforcement community. My colleagues know how politicians sometimes say, look, I like to listen. I listen before I make my decisions. So, logically, if I have something dealing, for example, with prescription drugs, we talk to seniors who are having problems with prescription drugs. We talk to the pharmaceutical companies who are having troubles getting approval by the FDA. We talk to the FDA. We talk to the different parties. How many law enforcement agencies were ever visited by the administration before they let these terrorists walk? Do my colleagues know what the answer is? Zero. I am going to give my colleagues some statistics here in just a few minutes, statistics I think will stun them as to how this decision was made and why this decision was made. Clearly, a decision of that kind of significance is not made without some reason, without some kind of purpose. There is something behind the decision of that kind of significance. We are going to explore that here in just a few minutes. But let us talk a little bit more about the FALN. By the way, I give credit to the USA Today. They did an excellent article. Last week, on Tuesday, September 21, if my colleagues have a copy of the USA Today, take a look at it. Excellent article on this very issue. In their heyday, the FALN members bombed public and commercial buildings, bombed public and commercial buildings. Do my colleagues know the fear that went through this country just a couple of years ago with McVeigh in Oklahoma City or the Unibomber? Gosh, I hope not 20 years from now that some other president steps up there and says, ``We ought to pardon this fellow that bombed Oklahoma City, or we ought to pardon the Unibomber out here. You know, 20 years is a long time to serve for a bombing.'' There were people killed for these bombings. There was fear put in the hearts of everybody in this country, just like all of us now have fear about truck bombs. My colleagues know what it was like when a moving van drove up by one's house 1 or 2 weeks after Oklahoma City. It instilled fear in us. It is a fear that we should not have to live with in this country. The only way, the only way that we will move from that fear is to have consequences for the actions that drive that fear. Let me go back. They robbed banks. This is the FALN, this is the organization of which the administration released, absolved, gave clemency to last week. This group, in their heyday, they bombed; they robbed banks; they held up armored cars and stole dynamite from a mining company in Colorado. That is my home State. They took weapons from the National Guard Armory in Wisconsin. Let me quote Wayman Mullins. He is the author of a source book. Here is his book. Mr. Mullins' book, a source book, the sources, he has done a lot of research, a source book on domestic and international terrorism. He says this organization, of which these, many of these members were released last week, they were dangerous, dedicated, and committed. Dangerous, dedicated and committed. As a former cop, let me say that that is a very lethal combination. A very lethal combination. The FALN was a group that got involved in a lot of things. I think we should have some examples. I am standing up here talking about bombings and armed car robberies and talking about other acts of terrorism in major cities, New York City, which put fear in the hearts of people throughout the country. Let me give my colleagues some specific examples so they will know exactly what these people who were released from prison last week because the President let them go, we all should have an idea of what they did, of what they were involved in. Among the FALN actions: October 26, 1974, five bombings. Five bombings in downtown New York City. More than $1 million in damage. That was in 1974. December 11, 1974, New York police were called to an upper East Side building to collect a dead body. The building was booby trapped. A police officer was injured and lost an eye. January 24, again the FALN, January 24, 1975, Fraunces Tavern bombed, four killed, 54 injured, more than $300,000 in damage. June 15, 1975, two bombs detonated in the Chicago Loop area. February 1977, Merchandise Mart in Chicago bombed, millions in damages. August 3, 1977, Mobile Oil employment office in New York bombed. One killed, several injured. November, 1979, two Chicago military recruiting offices and an armory bombed. March, 1980, FALN members seized at the Carter-Mondale campaign office in Chicago and the George Bush campaign office in Chicago destroying property and spray painting separatist slogans on all the walls. December 31, 1982, four bombs detonated in New York outside police and Federal buildings. Does this sound like a replay of Oklahoma City? Maybe Oklahoma City was modeled after some of what these people had done. Let me repeat that. Four bombs detonated in New York outside police and Federal buildings. And, remember, this is the same group that called in a report of a dead body and booby trapped the building so that these police officers, and we all know cops, we all have some in our families, some that are our friends, to walk in this building and hopefully be hurt. That is exactly what the intent was of the FALN. Now, they had a leader, their leader was Morales, William Morales. Morales escaped from a hospital in New York and fled to Mexico. Guess what he did in Mexico. Well, he killed a cop. Shot a police officer. Guess what Mr. Morales is now doing. Mr. Morales went to Cuba. What is he doing? He just heard the news. The news has gone to Cuba that the President of the United States has issued a pardon to the terrorists of the FALN. So what has Mr. Morales now done? He has applied for a pardon. He has now asked for clemency from the President of the United States. If anyone were to have asked me a few weeks ago what the chances were of any of these people being granted clemency, I would have said none, zero, zip. That is not going to happen. Now, I do not know. Maybe this guy in Cuba is going to get to walk away from killing the cop, from leading this organization. It is disturbing. It is really disturbing. Let us talk about a few of the people that have just walked. Edwin Cortes, born 1955, sentenced in October 1985, 14 years ago, 35 years for conspiracy, including the bombing of military training centers. Released by order of the administration. Elizam Escobar, born 1948, sentenced in February 1981, 18 years ago, to 60 years for firearms violations. Released by order of the administration. Ricardo Jimenez, born 1956, sentenced in February 1981 to 90 years, to 90 years. He served 19. Ordered released under the clemency by the President last week. Robert Maldonado-Rivera, born 1936, sentenced in June 1989 to 5 years for his role in the 1983 heist of $7.1 million. Released in 1994. But the clemency that he got forgave his $100,000 dollar fine. They not only let these people out of jail, but if they owed a fine, which they had not paid for the damage they had done, the millions in bombings and the money they had stolen from armored cars and so on, they do not even have to pay the money back any more. Take a regular citizen in our country who owes money to a bank in default. I wonder if they get to walk away from that? No, they do not get to walk away from it. But if an individual happens to be a terrorist with the FALN, then they can get this clemency. Let us go on, and I will pick a couple more here. Juan Segarra- Palmer, born 1950, sentenced in October 1985, 14 years ago, 55 years in prison and a $500,000 fine for conspiracy, for bank robbery, for interstate transportation of stolen money in connection with the 1983 armored car heist. He will serve 5 more years, and he gets out of the medium-security prison. Norman Ramirez-Talavera, born 1957, sentenced in June 1989 for 5 years for a 1983 armored car heist. He was released in 1994, but the clemency just worked out forgave a $50,000 fine. Well, we will not go through all of them. Let me pick one or two others. Luis Rosa, born 1960, sentenced in February 1981 to 75 years for conspiracy and firearms violations. Carmen Valentin, born 1946, sentenced in February 1981 to 90 years for conspiracy and firearms violations. So I think we all get an idea of what we are dealing with. We have a good idea of what these people are. They are not our neighbor next door. They are not regular Joe or regular Jane down the street. These are bad people and they did bad things and they hurt a lot of people. I do not know if any of my colleagues have been watching TV in the last couple of weeks, but maybe they have seen the widow or some of the surviving family members of those people bombed in New York City. It reminded me of Oklahoma City. And I cannot for the life of me understand how a president can pardon those people. We should make them pay the price. What kind of message are we sending out there? What kind of message do we send to our young people? What kind of message do we send to the rest of the world? Now, some of my colleagues may ask why I am bringing up all these points; that it seems so one-sided; that there must be some logical thinking behind this. The President must have had a profound reason why he would take such a dramatic step to release these hardened criminals well before they were supposed to be released. There must be some reasoning to it. Well, I think before we go to what I think the reasoning is, we ought to talk a little more about these convicts. One of the things that the President quickly said after he found out he had created a firestorm in this country, after he found out some people were going to say we want accountability, Mr. President. It is true that the President has the right to grant clemency. That is under the constitution. We are not contesting this right. But the President owes it to the American people to explain to the American people why he is letting these Puerto Rican terrorists go. Well, the answer came back, because they have held up their hand and promised that they will not commit any more violence; that they have renounced violence as a part of their life. It is amazing. I used to be a cop. It is amazing how many convicts and how many people we arrest that all of a sudden will find a new life; all of a sudden they would promise me, look, I am not going to do it any more. I have changed my ways. I have changed my life. Really, to determine whether that person is sincere or not we have to do some research. It is like anything else. What are the facts? What is the research? We have to look into the person's background. Well, it has happened on a couple of these people. They tape recorded these convicts' conversations in jail. And what was interesting was that these convicts knew, they knew their conversations were being taped, so this was not anything secret. They were not secretly disclosing their thoughts about violence. They knew they were being tape recorded and they could have cared less. They wanted people to know. And I will give an example. Jailhouse statements of some of the FALN members. In October 1995, for example, Luis Rosa, Alicia Rodriguez, and Carlos Torres told the Chicago Tribune they have nothing to be sorry for and they have no intention of ever renouncing an armed revolution. Another FALN member granted clemency, Ricardo Jimenez, told the judge in his case, ``We are going to fight. We are going to fight. Revolutionary justice will take care of you and everybody else.'' Now, does that sound like the average case that a president should let out of jail? Well, what does the FBI think about all of this? What are their thoughts? Well, first of all, guess what has happened? We in the United States Congress think, as I stated earlier, that the people deserve an explanation of why the President and the administration took this action. We do not doubt that the President has the authority, as I mentioned earlier, under the Constitution to do this, but he owes an explanation to the American people. But guess what. The White House all of a sudden grabs a paper and says executive privilege. It is executive privilege. Executive privilege used to be used by the presidents when we had a secret we were afraid our foreign enemies would find out about, like a military secret, or a secret military mission or something with the Central Intelligence Agency that the President, to protect those secrets, would say executive privilege. What secret is to be protected here of a national threat? None. But there may be some political intent that ought to be protected. But that is what the President has done. They have said executive privilege. They do not want there to be testimony to these Federal agencies. The President does not want them to go to the United States Congress, who are elected by the people of this country, and to testify about this. Well, the FBI was able to speak, a top FBI official, and I am quoting from the Associated Press of September 22, that is today, this is hot off the wire, this happened yesterday on the Hill, so let me read a couple of things, ``Federal Bureau of Investigation. A top FBI official told Congress he regards,'' he regards, and, remember, he is at the very top echelon of the FBI, ``he regards Puerto Rican militants, freed in a grant of clemency by President Clinton as terrorists who continue to represent a threat to the United States of America.'' Here is the agency that we charge with law enforcement, the agency that we charge with the priority investigation of terrorist acts. And what do they say to the President? Well, what they say I wish they could have had the opportunity to say before he released them. I wish the President would have called them and asked them, but he did not. They say, one of the top officials says, they continue to represent a threat to the United States of America. The article goes on: ``Gallagher,'' that is the gentleman's name, FBI, ``Gallagher's testimony marked the first time that Federal law enforcement officials have testified on the issue. Also on hand were officials from the Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons. They were barred.'' They were stopped. ``They were barred from answering questions about clemency because of the White House executive privilege.'' Do I think they should be out on the street? I think these are criminals and that they are terrorists and that they represent a threat to the United States, says Gallagher, the top FBI officer. Let me repeat that. ``Do I think they should be out on the street?'' That is the question. ``I think these are criminals, and they are terrorists, and that they represent a threat to the United States.'' How much clearer can that information be? As my colleagues know, we have to rely, and we have had some problems. We will talk about Waco and some other issues. We have had some problems with our law enforcement agencies, but we have got a lot of good cops out there, and we ought to rely on them, and it is not just the FBI that said do not do it, there are a lot of law enforcement agencies out there that said: Mr. President, do not do this. These people remain a threat to our society. They remain a direct threat to the United States of America. Listen to us. That is what happened. Signed the paper. Let me go further: The FBI was one of several law enforcement organizations opposed to the clemency. Asked about the continuing threat of the FALN and its sister group in Puerto Rico, Gallagher ticked off a handful of more recent bombings in Chicago and Puerto Rico believed to have been conducted by these very organizations. Clinton's offer of clemency has come under fire from some who have accused him of making it to boost First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's popularity amongst New York's 1.3 million Puerto Ricans. Mrs. Clinton is considering a bid for the Senate from New York in 2000. Oh, finally, finally we are beginning to look at maybe there is some kind of reason, some kind of profound thought behind such a ludicrous decision to let these terrorists back out on the street. You know what I think the average Puerto Rican in New York, and I am not Puerto Rican, I am not from New York, but you know what I think the average hard-working Puerto Rican in New York thinks about this? They probably agree. Now I may get some calls tonight from some angry people who do not agree with me. I expect that; that is part of my job. But I think there are a lot of American citizens out there, regardless of whether they are Puerto Rican, whether they are Irish or Scottish or African American or Hispanic, and there are a lot of ordinary Americans out there that do not think this is right. They think, if you are a criminal, if you are a terrorist, you ought to be in jail, and once we get you in jail, you ought to stay in jail. At least serve out the sentences that our justice system gave to you. That is what I think the average American out there thinks regardless of their ethnic background. We are Americans. We all want a country with low crime. We do not want to have fear every time a truck pulls up that there is a bomb in the back of it. We want to be able to go into a Federal building, we like to go into the House of Representatives, without seeing a bullet hole in the roof, without seeing a bullet in the drawer. We all think a lot alike. Do not dare try and separate us based on ethnic background. Do not dare try and say because we are Hispanic American or Puerto Rican American or Irish American or African American, but for some reason just because of ethnic background we think these terrorists ought to walk. That drive by the administration is wrong; you are going down the wrong path. Let me talk a little more about why and quote the Wall Street Journal, Friday, August 13, same subject to understand. Remember earlier in the speech I talked about statistics? You know, do not just take Scott McInnis' word for it. Let us take a look at what the statistics say about how many, you know, about the clemency, how many times, for example, a logical question, how many times has the President during his tenure been asked to grant clemency for prisoners? And once we know how many times he has been asked, how many times of that, how many of those, did he actually grant? You know, we measure. A lot of times we measure a good Governor, you know, on how many pardons they give. I mean you measure people. We have to have a tool of measurement. Well, we have been kind of blessed in this case. We have got the tools of measurement. We have a darn good measurement out there. To understand how rare it is, this is the Wall Street Journal, how rare it is for a President to commute a sentence or offer remission of a fine as Mr. Clinton did for 16 Puerto Rican terrorists this week, consider the numbers supplied by the office of the pardoned attorney. From the time he took office in January 1993 until April 2 of this year, the most recent report from the pardon office, Mr. Clinton received the request for 3,042 petitions. He received 3,042 petitions for clemency. Until Wednesday out of that 3,042 he granted three, three of those out of 3,042 in the 7 years or so that he has been in office. Now the Wall Street Journal, and I quote again from the Wall Street Journal, September 8, 1999, and get a hold of this: This almost makes me my gut wrench. Listen to this: The Puerto Ricans had not even submitted a clemency request, did not even submit a request, and they got to be No. 4 out of 3,042. Now what fell out of the blue sky for this President all of a sudden to be interested in 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who had committed bombing crimes? I remember very well the language in the speech that the President made in Oklahoma City. It was a very compassionate speech. It was a good speech. He cared. Every American cared about the tragedy that occurred in Oklahoma City. And I remember the President talking to us in his State of the Union addresses about terrorism and the need to stop it: We must not tolerate terrorism coming from that President. What happened? What fell out of the sky? Well, I tell you what it points to. It points to a United States Senate race in the State of New York. He has a lot of interest in that race up there. I read to you earlier, Associated Press, Hillary Clinton 1.3 or 1.4 Puerto Ricans in New York State. What is going on here? Are politics so driven in this country? Is the winning of elective office so demanding in this country and so important in this country that we are willing to put at risk American lives by releasing these 16 terrorists? Somebody ought to answer that question. And you know somebody has answered that question. I want to read you their answer. Before I read you this answer, let me read one other thing that I think is important for us to consider out of the Wall Street Journal, Friday, August 13: Mrs. Clinton of course hopes one day to take her place in the parade alongside New York's other pols which we would say explains in a nutshell why her husband has just granted clemency to these 16 Puerto Rican terrorists against the advice of the Justice Department, the FBI and the U.S. Attorneys Office that prosecuted the terrorists back in the early 1980's. All of these law enforcement agencies were consulted several years about the wisdom of releasing these 16 people. All advised against it. Well, let me wrap it up with a letter. I am going to read the letter verbatim. It is a couple pages long. I know that it requires some patience for you to listen to this. I mean I have been speaking for a while here. But it is important because I think it really addresses from the heart somebody who has experience in the atrocities that these terrorists have committed, somebody who understands that terrorism must have consequences, that the people that commit, that misbehave in our society, must be punished, and there must be punishment that means something. You cannot just slap them on the hand after they rob the bank and serve a few years and let them go, especially considering there were only 3,042 requests and only three got granted. Well, let us read that letter. Who is it from? It is from the New York City Police Commissioner, Howard Safir, and as I said, I am reading the letter verbatim. With last Friday's release of 11 of the 14 FALN terrorists President Clinton has committed an ill-advised and egregious error. He has broken the fundamental rule in addressing terrorism. He has broken the fundamental rule in addressing terrorism. Never negotiate deals with terrorists. Never negotiate deals with terrorists. Now obviously, Mr. Speaker, when I repeat a sentence, that is mine, it is not repeated in the letter. Mr. Clinton has sent the message that the lives of American citizens and of the heroic police officers who defend them are disposable. As the Police Commissioner of New York City, I represent 40,200 officers and take the responsibility for the safety of 7.4 million residents. I have become all too familiar with the violence that has been perpetrated by the members of the Puerto Rican separatist group known as the FALN and the manner in which my city and my officers have suffered at the their hands. During a 9-year reign of terror the FALN was responsible for at least 150 bombings that killed six people and injured more than 70. The brunt of their viciousness, the brunt of their viciousness, was aimed at the people of New York City who endured more than 70 attacks and accounted for four of the deaths and 57 of the injuries. What others have termed a war of liberation, New Yorkers know that to be a war against the innocent. The targets of this organization included restaurants at lunch time, hotels, banks, and department stores. While the passage of time may have faded the memory of some, I cannot share that perspective. I have seen the devastating consequences of these destructive acts. I have spoken with several victims of the attacks and their families, people like Joseph Connor whose father, Frank T. Connor, was killed in the bombing in the Fraunces Tavern. I know too well the permanent scars that are carried, the permanent scars that are carried by Detectives Rocco Pascarella, Richard Pastorella, and Anthony Semft. During a wave of terror that saw the FALN detonate four separate explosive devices across the city in the course of a single hour, these men suffered horrific injuries. Defending New York City from these terrorists cost these heroes, cost these heroes their hands and legs and left them permanently blinded and painfully maimed. No one can commute the life sentences, no one can commute the life sentences that the FALN imposed upon its victims. Some argue that the felons to whom Mr. Clinton offered clemency are not personally responsible for their organization's violence. I cannot agree. The crimes for which these men and women were convicted included robbery, the plotting of bombs and the possession of dangerous weapons. One of the petitioners possessed a loaded firearm and more than 10 pounds of dynamite. In a January, 1998 letter Ronnie L. Edelman, a deputy bureau chief from the Department of Justice, acknowledged that several of the petitioners offered clemency were arrested in 1980 for their involvement in 28 bombings, and in a recent letter to this newspaper former assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Devaney recounted her experiences with the petitioners. A former federal prosecutor in Chicago who spent years bringing criminal cases against the FALN terrorists, Ms. Devaney describes capturing several of the petitioners in a van loaded with weapons and videotaping several others making bombs that they planed to use at military installations. I must question the unusual progression of events that surround this clemency offer. ``Mr. Clinton's offer to the FALN members represents only his fourth clemency grant out of more than 3,000 applications filed since 1993. It was extended before any of the 16 agreed to renounce violence. The President made his offer over the objections of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. attorneys in Illinois and Connecticut, the States where the 16 were convicted. ``In my 26 years as a Justice Department official, I never heard of a clemency report being delivered to the President over the strenuous objections of these agencies.'' Let me repeat that. ``In my 26 years as a Justice Department official, I never heard of a clemency report being delivered to the President over the strenuous objections of these agencies. The White House has tried to defend the President's decision, in part, as a response to the urgings of church leaders. In particular, the White House has invoked the name of Cardinal John O'Connor as a staunch supporter for the petitioners' release. This is all the more perplexing given that in letters and through his top aides the cardinal has said he never backed clemency for these terrorists. ``Mr. Clinton erred grievously in failing to follow the recommendations of his own Federal agencies, the House of Representatives, the 17,500 members of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the 295,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police and countless others who voiced their outrage at this decision. The United States must make clear that it will never again make deals with terrorists.'' That was a letter read verbatim from the New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir. The question that needs to be answered, of which the White House has claimed executive privilege, is why these terrorists, why three out of 3,042 petitions being granted and now we go to the fourth, and why New York State? Mr. President, if it does not have anything to do with that U.S. Senate race in New York State, you ought to waive your executive privilege, although I do not think it exists under these particular circumstances but regardless of that argument you ought to waive it and you ought to answer the American people. You ought to go to the American people. You do not hesitate one minute to have a press conference when you are touring foreign countries. Whenever you have something to say, you go right to the microphone. You are a good speaker. You are not afraid to address the American people. Certainly you have addressed them on a number of controversial issues. You ought to address them on this one. You ought to explain, because what we see on paper, what we saw walk out of that prison cell, what we now see on the streets of America, what we fear in the hearts of every American, is terrorism that exists today, and you have not answered it and you ought to answer it. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a time check.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make additional remarks regarding the bill H.R. 898, the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act of 1999, which I had the pleasure of introducing and sponsoring in Congress this year. This legislation will give permanent protection, in the form of wilderness, to the heart of the beautiful Spanish Peaks area in Colorado. The bill is cosponsored by several of my colleagues from Colorado, including Mr. Schaffer, whose district includes the portion of the Spanish Peaks within Las Animas County. I am also pleased to be joined by Mr. Hefley, Mr. Tancredo, and Mr. Mark Udall of Colorado. I greatly appreciate their assistance and support. Also, across the Capitol, Senator Allard has introduced an identical companion bill. I would like to extend my appreciation to the Senator for his active support of this worthwhile legislation. I would also like to thank Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairwoman Chenoweth for their work in the Committee on Resources to get this bill through committee quickly and onto the floor. Finally, I would offer a note of appreciation and thanks to the former Members of Congress whose efforts made today's legislation possible. First, approximately 20 years ago, Senator William Armstrong of Colorado began this worthwhile process by proposing wilderness in Colorado, and in 1986, Senator Armstrong proposed protected status and management for the Spanish Peaks. His efforts set in place the foundation upon which today's bill is built. Second, I would like to thank the former Congressman from the Second District of Colorado, Mr. Skaggs. Together, he and I introduced this legislation in the 105th Congress, which passed the House but due to time constraints did not pass the Senate. The efforts by both of these individual legislators helped make this bill possible. The mountains known as the Spanish Peaks are two volcanic peaks in Las Animas and Huerfano Counties. The eastern peak rises to 12,683 feet above sea level, while the summit of the western peak reaches 13,626 feet. The two served as landmarks for native Americans as well as some of Colorado's other early settlers. With this history, it's not surprising that the Spanish Peaks portion of the San Isabel National Forest was included in 1977 on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. The Spanish Peaks area has outstanding scenic, geologic, and wilderness values, including a spectacular system of over 250 free-standing dikes and ramps of volcanic materials radiating from the peaks. The lands covered by this bill are not only beautiful and part of a rich heritage, but also provide an excellent source of recreation. The State of Colorado has designated the Spanish Peaks as a natural area, and they are a popular destination for hikers seeking an opportunity to enjoy an unmatched vista of southeastern Colorado's mountains and plains. The Forest Service originally reviewed and recommended the Spanish Peaks area for possible wilderness designation in 1979. The process since then has involved several steps, and during that time, the Forest Service has been able to acquire most of the inholdings within Spanish Peaks area. So the way is now clear for Congress to finish the job and designate the Spanish Peaks area as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill before the House would designate as wilderness about 18,000 acres of the San Isabel National Forest, including both of the Spanish Peaks as well as the slopes below and between them. This includes most of the lands originally recommended for wilderness by the Forest Service, but with boundary revisions that will exclude some private lands. I would like to note that Senator Allard and I have made significant efforts to address local concerns about the wilderness designation, including: (1) adjusting the boundary slightly to exclude certain lands that are likely to have the capacity for mineral production; and (2) excluding from the wilderness a road used by locals for access to the beauty of the Spanish Peaks. Senator Allard and I did not act to introduce this bill until a local consensus was achieved on the wilderness designation. The bill itself is very simple. It would just add the Spanish Peaks area to the list of areas designated as wilderness by the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993. As a result, all the provisions of that act-- including the provisions related to water--would apply to the Spanish Peaks area just as they do to the other areas on that list. Like all the areas now on that list, the Spanish Peaks area covered by this bill is a headwaters area, which for all practical purposes eliminates the possibility of water conflicts. There are no water diversions within the area. Mr. Speaker, I close my statement by thanking all of my fellow members for your time and by urging all Members of the House to support of passage of H.R. 989.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pause a moment to recognize a man who has contributed a great deal to the community of Colorado. The man is Harry Mosgrove. Harry has been president and CEO of Copper Mountain Ski Resort since 1987. In the 12 years since he took this office Copper Mountain has enjoyed great success. The 1995-96 ski season was their best ever. They have also begun many programs, such as ``West Fest'', and building projects that have already enhanced the services Copper Mountain offers its guests. Perhaps his most significant contribution was to help Copper Mountain smoothly join with Intrawest, its new parent company. Now, after 18 successful years with Copper Mountain, Mr. Mosgrove has announced his retirement. He is getting ready to be a grandfather and is going to take the time for a well-deserved rest. The important thing about Mr. Mosgrove, however, is that he didn't start at the top. In 1981 he came on to the team as manager of real estate. From there he moved to the positions of executive vice president and chief operating officer. He has also served as chairman of Colorado Ski Country USA. He will continue to be an active member of the executive committee and the board of directors as well. Harry Mosgrove has been called a ``guiding light'' and has also been said to be ``a man of great integrity and vision.'' Business and our communities as a whole could use more people with Harry Mosgrove's attributes. For all of these reasons, I am offering my congratulations to Harry Mosgrove on his retirement but, more than that, I am thanking him for all he has done throughout his years of service. I know that he will be missed at Copper Mountain and I wish him well.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask that we all pause for a moment to remember a man we have lost. Though he is gone, he will live on in the hearts of all who knew him and be remembered for long years by many who didn't. Hobert Franklin was, for the most part, a regular guy. He enjoyed toying with cars, riding his motorcycle, and spending time with those who were important to him. He probably wouldn't have ever thought of himself as a hero, but, he was. Hobert Franklin was a man who acted on his instincts. Last Friday night, September 3, he was at the grocery store purchasing a money order with his wife. He looked out the window and saw a man trying to drag his wife into the parking lot. His instincts told him to walk outside to try to help. Without saying a word, he stepped between the two people. His thoughts were on protecting the woman, not his own personal safety. Unfortunately, the man pulled a gun and shot Mr. Franklin. He died in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. When remembered by friends and family the thing that comes up over and over again is the way he was always willing to help anyone who needed him. Just minutes before the shooting he ran into a friend to whom he promised help with a truck that was acting up. His nephew said that whenever anyone needed help Hobert would just drop anything he was doing. He was a good man who gave selflessly of himself. Hobert Franklin is someone who will be missed by all of us. Those who knew him will miss spending time with him. But, even those of us who never knew him personally feel a sense of loss. We, as a society, have lost someone who was rare to begin with. Mr. Franklin made the ultimate sacrifice to help a total stranger. Hopefully we can all learn from the example that Hobert Franklin set. And, perhaps we can all try to become a little bit more like him.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask that we all pause for a moment to remember a man who will live forever in the hearts of all that knew him and many that didn't. David Wayne Gilcrease was a man who stood out to those around him. Friends remember him as a man who enjoyed fishing, rodeos, and dancing. But, most of all, he enjoyed his family and friends. His two sons, Spincer and Tyler, and his daughter, Kliftina, brought him endless joys. He was known as a good, upright man. He was also known as a person who had a tendency to stand up for what he felt was right, or against what he felt was wrong. On Friday night, September 3, that tendency cost him his life. David was in a grocery store when he heard gun shots outside. He could have stayed inside and ignored them, or gone on about his own business, but he didn't. With no thought for his own personal safety, he rushed forward to see if anyone needed his help. In doing this, he met a man holding a gun head on. Mr. Gilcrease weighed only 90 pounds, but he tackled this man and was shot in cold blood. He gave his life for someone he never met before. David Wayne Gilcrease is someone who will be missed by many. His friends and family will miss the man that they all enjoyed spending time with. The rest of us will miss the man who exemplified the selflessness that so few truly possess. But, when we lose a man such as Mr. Gilcrease, being missed is certainly no precursor to being forgotten. And, everyone who ever knew him, or knew of him, will walk through life a bit differently for it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from American Samoa, the answer is yes.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman's inquiry, the answer to that is yes.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this is a very exciting day for me and for the people of the State of Colorado that the designation of the Spanish Peaks as a wilderness area is about to pass the House of Representatives. This bill has bipartisan support. This bill does something that we should have done a couple of years ago. At the very beginning of my comments, I think it is appropriate to give credit to my former colleague, our former colleague, David Skaggs, who retired from Congress 2 years ago, I think. The gentleman put a lot of effort into the Spanish Peaks wilderness. I was privileged to work with David Skaggs for a period of several years on this legislation, and today I hope he is watching so he gets to see this pass. I have got a lot of personal interest in the Spanish Peaks of Colorado. First a little description of the Spanish Peaks. There are two peaks, the east and west peak. These peaks were often used as guidance for the pioneers who settled in Colorado. When we see them against the Colorado horizon, they stand out against that beautiful blue sky. It really is an asset to the people of this country to have the Spanish Peaks. Now to take that movement to put the Spanish Peaks into a wilderness area is a designation that is well served. Let me point out an issue that I think is very important. Number one, it is important for all who are watching today and my colleagues on the floor to understand that there are lots of different ways to manage public lands. Wilderness is not the only way to manage public lands. We have lots of tools out there. For example, we have national parks, we have national forests, we have special areas. There are lots of different ways to manage public lands. The most restrictive and, therefore, the one we should utilize with the most caution is the wilderness designation. How should we go about naming an area or designating an area as ``wilderness''? The first thing that I think fundamentally to the principle of wilderness is that we have got to have local input. We do not have an outside interest come in and dictate to the local people what they ought to do in that local community. We had a lot of local input. This bill did not start with an outside interest. This bill did not start with some organization outside of the area. This bill started with the local people. I know a lot of those local people. My great grandparents homesteaded down in that area in La Veta, Colorado, in the 1880s. I know those people down there, and they got together several years ago and they said, the Spanish Peaks at the very top where, by the way, Mr. Speaker, it does not affect water rights, which are absolutely crucial in the State of Colorado, the local people got together and said these are beautiful peaks. Let us manage a small part of the peaks, about 18,000 acres, as wilderness; and let us do it at the very top where it does not impact water rights, where it limits impact on private property. I am a strong advocate of private property rights in this country. When this idea first came up, there was some conflict, there was some controversy. So did we look outside of the State of Colorado or even outside that area for advice or dictate on how we ought to resolve that controversy or that conflict? No. We sat down together; we sat down and we talked. We have had a lot of able leadership through that community to come to a resolution that we are now seeing today about ready to pass the United States House of Representatives. This bill will mark the Spanish Peaks as a wilderness for many, many, many centuries to come. And long after we are all gone, people will look back and say, the United States Congress, with these conditions and this particular area, made the right decision for wilderness. A moment to comment about my colleague Wayne Allard. Senator Wayne Allard is also carrying this. He has put a lot of time into this effort. We have got a good team working. We have also had good support from the Colorado delegation. I would be remiss if I did not mention the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), our senior Member from Colorado Springs; if I did not mention the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), if I did not mention the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). I should also mention the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) who has spent a good deal of time since he has been elected to Congress to work specifically with me on making sure that the agreements that we have in place are being kept. He has been supportive. I know that that came up a little quicker today than we imagined, so he is not in our presence. He certainly would be here today, but he does support it. And his concerns I think are well protected. But back to what I think is something all of us can be proud of, and that is, if my colleagues have the opportunity to go to Colorado, my district, the third congressional district is the highest district in the country in elevation and so on. It has got 56 mountains over 14,000 feet, and one of those Spanish Peaks goes over that 14,000. If my colleagues have an opportunity to go to Colorado, take a look at the Spanish Peaks. Understand the history of those mountains and what it means to the people of this country, what it means to the people of Huerfano County, what it means to the people of every county in the State of Colorado. Today, a great moment for the State of Colorado. It is a great moment for this country. I am proud to be the sponsor of the Spanish Peaks Wilderness area.

Mr. McINNIS. The answer to that is yes.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman repeat the question.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I too share the comments of the gentleman. We did not try to sneak minimum wage or the Republican tax cut in this bill. This bill was kept clean through the process. It is purely bipartisan, and we can all be very proud when the vote names the Spanish Peaks of Colorado as a wilderness.

Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, to my good colleagues on the other side, I would like to make a couple more comments. I do not have any other speakers. My colleague, although he has yielded back his time, if he would like me to yield time, I would be happy to. Again, now that I know I have got a couple more minutes, let me be a little more exhaustive in my remarks about, number one, David Skaggs. David came to me several years ago. As my colleagues know, David is a Democrat. I am a Republican. David and I have known each other for a long period of time. We worked together in the Colorado House of Representatives. At the time, I was the majority leader and he was the minority leader. It was kind of fun to come back here in Congress and to be able to work on something that we completely agreed on and we had our hearts in. I wish David were here today, but I know that David will be at the dedication that we have of the Spanish Peaks down in southern Colorado when we dedicate that portion of the wilderness. I also want to emphasize and talk for just a couple more minutes about wilderness and what is important about it. There is a philosophy out there or a thought out there that the only way to protect federal lands is to put them in wilderness. As I mentioned, earlier in my remarks, wilderness is the most restrictive and most inflexible management tool we have in our arsenal of tools to manage federal lands. Once we put an area into wilderness, it is in essence locked into that designation forever. Now, it is true that Congress can overturn a wilderness designation, but for that politically to occur it would be next to impossible. So before we designate wilderness, I think we, one, need to take our time and make sure that it meets all of the conditions for wilderness designation; number two, that we try to think into the future and try to come up with what might be the unintended consequences in putting that into wilderness instead of, say, a special area or some type of reserve or a conservation area or national park and so on. Because the measure is so dramatic, we should manage a wilderness designation just like the former Congressman David Skaggs and myself and the Colorado delegation and my good colleague on the other side of the aisle have done, and that is we sat down and we met with the local community, we took the local input; we let most of the controversy be resolved at the local level; we put together legislation in a very open type of manner. We did not push this as a public relations type of campaign, going out and getting billboards for wilderness and things like that. This has a lot of substance to it. It has got a lot of study and a lot of energy into it. This is the way we ought to name wilderness bills that go through this Congress. So once again, I thank my colleagues from the Colorado delegation. I thank my good colleague from the other side of the aisle. But more than anything else, I thank the people of America for allowing us to take care of the Spanish Peaks with this designation at the very top. Every one of my colleagues, this vote they make today will be a vote that generations from now will look back and say, my grandpa and my grandma or my great grandpa or my great grandma voted yes for this.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. And reclaiming my time once again, that $1 that the gentleman held up, we hear from the Democratic leadership, through the propaganda going across this country, that that dollar is going to be used to reduce the Federal debt. What the gentleman said, and he is absolutely correct, if we leave that $1 here in Washington, DC, it will not go for reducing the national debt; it will go for new programs and for new spending. When we leave money around here, the new spending is a temptation. I am sure the gentleman knows this, at least as it applies to me, when I have people come into my office asking for new spending, these usually are not bad programs. They usually sound great. But the question is, can we afford them? So the temptation to spend those dollars will fall on Republicans and Democrats back here. It is a strong temptation. We have a lot of our constituents out there who, if that dollar stays here, they say the dollar is going to stay in Washington, let us spend it for this program or let us spend it for that program. We all know that if we leave that dollar here it will grow the size of the Government. What the Republicans are pushing for, and we are having a tough time getting our message across because it is very easy to spend it in 15 seconds, what the gentleman from the Dakotas and myself are trying to explain in 30 minutes, but the fact is if we leave that dollar in your pocket, in your community, it would work much better. The only way that theory would not work is if when keeping that dollar in your community, in your pocket, you went out and buried it in the ground, literally put it in the ground other than it is either going to a bank, which will loan it back out to the community, it is going to be spent for goods and services, which circulate in the community. Do my colleagues know what they should do? Sometimes some of these companies have to pay taxes. They should pay their employees in $2 bills, we still have a $2 bill out there, pay in $2 bills and see how often and how many places those $2 bills show up in your community and how many weeks those $2 bills are showing up in stores and all kinds of different places in your community versus coming back here to Washington. I hope the gentleman stays. I want to point out a couple of other things on taxes we have just gotten from the Tax Foundation, and the Tax Foundation has a lot of credibility back here. It is a nonpartisan organization. We have just received in 1999 what Americans per capita will spend on things such as food, clothing, and shelter. I want to show my colleagues some very stunning numbers. I will write them here very quickly for you. On food in 1999, $2,693. That is what the average per capita expenditure in the United States will be for food. For clothes, that will be $1,404. So for food per capita, we are going to spend $2,693. For clothes, we are going to spend $1,404. And for shelter, we will spend $5,833. Now, if we add that up, assuming my math is right, that is $9,930 per capita. So food is $2,693. Clothes are $1,404. And shelter is $5,833. That is what you spend for those priority items in your family. Guess what you will pay for taxes? $10,298. In other words, the per capita expenditure per family in this country you will pay more for taxes than you do for your food, your clothes, and your shelter combined. Again, let me repeat that. We will all pay more in taxes than we will pay for our food, our clothes, and our shelter. Now, we will also, another interesting thing, when you look at these numbers put out by the tax group, on Federal taxes alone, we will spend more than any other major budget item. I want to put some examples out here. For housing, we will spend the $5,833; for health care, $3,829; for food, $2,693; for transportation, $2,568; for recreation, $1,922; for clothing, $1,404. For Federal taxes alone, just for Federal taxes, here is what we spend for Federal taxes: $7,000. So think about your budget, think about what you are spending in your family budget. These are roughly the figures that you will come up with: Housing $5,833. You spend more in taxes than you do in housing for your family. Health care for your family, you will spend about $3,829. This is per capita. You will spend a little over twice that for taxes, not quite twice, $7,026. For food to feed the family, per capita, $2,693 compared to what you are going to have to pay in taxes, $7,026. For recreation, $1,922 compared to the $7,000 you are going to pay in taxes. For clothing, $1,404 to clothe your family per capita, and you are going to spend over $7,000 in taxes. My point is this: There has been a lot of rhetoric lately about if we do not provide some kind of tax relief for the American people then we hear from the Democratic party leadership that the Federal debt will only increase and they all of a sudden, the Democrat leadership, after 40 years of running deficits in this country, now, some of my colleagues do not like to hear partisanship and I am not trying to be partisan, but the fact is the Republicans did not run this House for 40 years, they have run it for 5 years; and we have had surpluses on almost all of those years. We have had welfare reform. We had the tax cut I spoke about earlier. But the reality, what people do not want you to hear is that, guess what, when we reduce your taxes, when we allow you to keep those dollars in your pockets, guess what happens? The economy improves. Take a look at any major tax relief or tax reduction in this century or in the century before it but since income tax came in this century, take a look at any one of them. Immediately after a tax reduction, the economy improved. When those dollars, again, unless you bury your dollars in the ground and you never see them again or you hide them and do not circulate them in your community, then in any other circumstance that will, one, keep down the size of government and, two, bring up the health of the economy. Now, we have got a pretty good economy. Not everybody. My good friend from the Dakotas talks about the agriculture and the suffering, and they are suffering out in the farm belt. But there are a lot of people who are enjoying the healthiest, many of them, they will ever experience in their entire life. So they do not worry so much about taxes. Well, you pay a little tax here, you pay a little tax here. Let me tell you what is happening while some of you are asleep. The governments, whether it is a local government, whether it is a local district, whether it is a State government, or whether it is the Federal Government, is sneaking into your house while you are asleep and those taxes are going up. Most of the increase that you have seen in your taxes, the total tax package, has occurred since 1981. Most of that increase, 45 percent, 45 percent of the taxes that you pay are as a result of tax increases since 1981. All we are saying here is let us not fall asleep while the tax man sneaks in behind us. Now, are taxes necessary? Of course they are necessary. We have certain responsibilities that belong to the Federal Government, a strong military. I think we have a fundamental obligation for good education in this country. We do have some health care obligations. We have transportation obligations for the interstate highways, interstate commerce. We have a justice system that has to be maintained. So there are some fundamental obligations that the Federal Government must maintain. There are certainly obligations that the State government must maintain. We agree with those. Our local districts, our school districts have a very heavy burden in providing what we want and that is quality education. Those dollars have to go in. But it does not mean we should overpay and it does not mean when we pay our tax we should not ask our elected officials, am I paying too much? Am I getting a fair shake for my dollar? Am I getting efficient use out of that dollar? Is that dollar more productive in Washington, D.C., or is it more productive in my home State of Santa Clara, California, or Salt Lake City, Utah, or Kansas City, Kansas, or Carbondale, Colorado? Is this where those dollars are most efficient? So, my colleagues, I am just trying to say to my colleagues here as this rhetoric goes on about the tax cut and how it is going to add to the Federal debt, take a look at the details. Read the fine print. When you read the fine print, you are going to find out, frankly, really there are two choices. One, continue to grow the Government or, two, give back a portion of the surplus, not all of the surplus, but give back a portion of the surplus to the people who earned it. Tax dollars are taxed to spend. That is the only reason we get taxed. It is the only reason our constituents out there get taxed. The only reason you are being taxed is so that some governmental body can spend that money. And as we said earlier, some of those expenses are justified. Some of them are necessary. But if you tend to allow accountability to become lax or the old saying that ``when the cat is away, the mice will play,'' if you do not keep the cat in the barn, the mice pretty soon get out of control. What we are saying here is let us exercise prudent financial management and let us tell our clients, the constituents, the taxpayers, you overpaid for this product. You deserve a little of it back. We still want to give you a fine product. You deserve it from the Government. But at this point you have overpaid a little, not a lot. The tax decrease we are talking about does not do a lot but it still keeps a few of those dollars in your pocket. I have had a recent opportunity about 3 years ago, and this is exciting regardless of what party you are in regardless of your bent toward partisan politics, I have got something that I hope all of my colleagues take a very careful look at. It has been a tremendously successful program in my district, and I would like to explain it to my colleagues. It is called the S.E.E.D.S. program. I actually started that program in the Third Congressional District of Colorado with the help of a lot of people Susan Smith, the City of Pueblo, County of Pueblo, several school districts, Pueblo Community College, Roger Gomez, a number of different people. We all got together; and we found out that under the Federal regulations, you can ask Federal agencies for their excess computer equipment. In other words, we have, for example, the Department of Energy who has been very cooperative with us. They have excess computer equipment. Some of this equipment is almost brand new. Now, this is not state-of-the-art computer equipment. But most schools in our country do not have state-of-the-art computer equipment. In fact, in my district there were a number of schools that did not have really any computer equipment. So what we did on our drive to cut down Government waste is we went to these different agencies and we said we would like you to ship those computers to a warehouse, which, by the way, was donated to our cause in Pueblo, Colorado, send them to our warehouse. We got students from Pueblo Community College to come in and help us put part A of the computer with part B, so on and so forth. We got citizens to help us haul away the trash. We got citizens to help come down and do the mechanical work. We got citizens to volunteer and come down and help us match up the computers with schools that needed these computers. And before you know it, our program was off and running. What were the results of our program? In our program in Colorado now, we are up to 200 sets of computers a week that we give to local schools, not just public schools, private schools, home schoolers, senior citizens. It is an exciting project. It provides a need for education which we think is very important. Nobody disagrees that education is not important. And it takes away budget waste, Government waste, wasteful spending, which I think most of us would agree is not necessary. We take that waste, and we convert it to a good, positive use. It is called the S.E.E.D.S. program. I am here this evening to tell my constituents, to tell my colleagues here on the House floor this is a program you should adopt, you should take a look at. I would like to cover another area tonight. There has been some recent press, publicity, about a stand I have taken in regards to our military academies. Let me precede my comments on the academies with the statement about the military. We need in this country the strongest military second to none in the world. Do not let people kid you. It would be a very terrible mistake for us to allow our military to fall into shambles and to become the second toughest kid on the block. You cannot be the second toughest kid on the block. You cannot be the third toughest kid on the block. You have got to be the toughest kid on the block. It does not mean you go pick fights, but it does mean you will be in less fights because people will not want to fight you. It also means that you can go out and help those people that are less fortunate because of your strength. I believe in a strong military, and all of us should believe in a strong military. For too many years, the military has not received the kind of priority that is necessary, although the military for too many years has been called to different missions all over the world. I think right now we are stationed in 164 different locations. So I have great respect for the military, but I also believe that the military has accountability. I want to talk for a couple of minutes about our service academies. It is a great honor to be selected to go to the United States service academies, West Point, the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy, the U.S. Coast Guard. The students that go there are not the cream of the crop. I repeat that. They are not the cream of the crop. They are the cream of the cream of the crop. We take our very best students, and when we focus in on the students that we want to send to those military academies, I think there are a lot of things we need to look at and list in order of priority. Leadership skills, obviously intelligence capabilities, and maybe somewhere on the list, further down on the list, there are sports abilities or their celebrity status on sports. Here is what is happening. This is my point that I disagreed very strongly with on some of the academies. When someone enters, say, the Air Force Academy, you make a commitment to the United States of America. You sign a deal with them. It is fully disclosed. There is nothing hidden about it. You tell the United States, in this case Air Force Academy, I will serve so many years in exchange for those 4 years of college education that the American people are giving me as a privilege, and it is a privilege. We pick great young men and women to be in the service, but you sign this commitment and just to be sure you fully understand that commitment, after 2 years of being in, say the U.S. Air Force Academy, we say to the students, look, you can walk away, no strings attached or we want you to make sure that you make an informed decision that if you continue at the Air Force Academy and complete your 4 years' education, you will have a commitment of service, you will have an obligation, you will have a duty. These students, by the way, live under an ethical code or a military code or an academy code that says, service to the Nation over self. Well, what I have discovered is happening is, if you are in a very special class of people at the Air Force Academy, for example, you get treated differently than the other cadets. What am I talking about? If everyone was listening to me earlier this evening, I talked about heroes. We had two heroes in Grand Junction, Colorado. They lost their lives. I like sports. I enjoy the Broncos. I am a fan of the Broncos, but even my favorite sports person, to me, is a celebrity, not a hero. But what happens at the academies, if you are a celebrity sports person, for example, an outstanding football player who has an opportunity to be drafted by the pros, you are going to get special treatment or some of them have received special treatment by the Air Force Academy, for example, that lets them walk away from their service commitment. Now, they have to serve some time in the reserves, but they are not treated like every other cadet out there. Now, some people say, well, it is good publicity for us. It is necessary that we allow these academy graduates to walk away or be waivered, that is the keyword, that is the buzz word, be waivered from their duty and their service so that we get publicity in the pro football circuit. My comment to that was, well, if we need publicity, why do we not just go ahead and let United Airlines, for example, or any airline, I fly United a lot, let any airline go to the Air Force Academy and say we would like your top pilots, go ahead and waive their service, we will pay them money, even though these athletes are not having to pay their $120,000 which is the payback financially to the Government, we will go ahead, we like your top pilots. Do you think the Air Force Academy would release those pilots? Not on your life. If Dow Chemical Corporation or some other chemical company, and I like Dow Chemical, if they went to the Air Force Academy and said we would like your top chemists, give us your top chemist students, do you think they would waiver those students out of there? Not on your life. Let me read from an editorial, Rocky Mountain News. A Perk for Military Athletes. ``Roger Staubach graduated from the Naval Academy, served his obligatory 4 years on active duty, and still enjoyed an 11- year career with the Dallas Cowboys that put him in the pro football Hall of Fame. ``Times have changed. Beau Morgan, the Air Force Academy's star quarterback from the class of 1997, was let out of what is now a 5-year commitment after only 2 years so he could try out with the Dallas Cowboys this summer. ``It is part of a trend that apparently began in 1989 when the Naval Academy graduate David Robinson was released after just 2 years' active duty, enabling him to play with the NBA's San Antonio Spurs. Now an angry U.S. Representative Scott McInnis, Republican of Colorado, is threatening to introduce legislation that would put an end to this practice. `When these kids go to the academy, we try and teach them that you put your Nation above yourself, but that is not what is occurring here.' ``There are a number of other examples. Steve Russ, a line backer with the Denver Broncos, was released from his military commitment in 1997, 2 years after his Air Force Academy graduation. Air Force Academy grad Dan Palmer also got an early out to try out with the Chicago Bears as an offensive lineman. ``For 2 years, McInnis has been trying to use the Freedom of Information Act to get a complete list of those who received waivers from service academies for athletic purposes, but he is having a hard time of it.'' ``It is easy to understand why the military schools might be tempted to fudge the rules in order to entice more athletes. For decades they played at the top levels of intercollegiate athletics, but that is no longer true. A military career is just not as attractive to top athletes as it once was. Frustrated academy graduates who are now generals and admirals want to do what they can to slow or reverse the trend. The military tries to justify the current policy by saying that their star athletes serve effectively as academy recruiters upon their early release, but we suspect the kids they mainly recruit are other outstanding athletes who will also expect early releases. ``Those who get releases, after signing pro contracts, do not have to repay the $120,000 cost of their education and they do not have to go back to active duty even if they are later cut by their teams. Their only obligation is to spend 6 years in the Reserves. ``If pro athletes serve as effective recruiters, says McInnis, why not let United Airlines recruit the top pilots from the Air Force Academy, so long as they say on the airplane, `You are being flown by an Air Force Academy graduate.' ``McInnis dismisses the suggestion that early releases might be all right if the graduate or his employer simply repays the Government the cost of his or her education. The economics of professional athletes are such that $120,000 is merely, quote, what professional teams spend on refreshments at weekend resorts, unquote. ``The point, says McInnis, is that academy athletes deserve no privileges that other graduates cannot get. `It is just wrong,' he says, of the early-release policy. `It makes me mad.' ``Considering the athletes the major state universities recruit, how little some of them study and how few of them ultimately graduate, the service academies should not be ashamed that their cadets can no longer compete at that level. If they have to play smaller schools, it is no disgrace. ``But the early-out policy for their athletes is a disgrace, and should be stopped.'' Folks, my point is very clear. We are proud of these academies. The Air Force Academy and West Point and the Coast Guard and the Naval Academy have served this country very well. Our great military leaders, some of our presidents, many of our great leaders in this country have come from those academies. Why? Because when you go to an academy, it is a pretty special place. It has the highest of standards, and it has the highest of ethical codes. I think we are diluting that. I think we are diluting the reputation of all the preceding graduates of these academies for the entire history of those academies by taking a special class of athletes and treating them differently, by letting them out of their obligations early. Again, remember, we do not do it for any other class of Air Force or Naval or West Point or Coast Guard Academy graduate. It is wrong. We should stand up and say to the American people, you can expect more from our academies. I want to mention a couple of other things in conclusion this evening. First of all, as I said earlier, I come from the third district of Colorado. This is a very special season coming up in Colorado so I am going to do a little promotion. I hope all of my colleagues have an opportunity to go out and see our colors in the Aspen trees. The district I represent is the highest district in the United States. They have a lot of beautiful communities, a lot of great ski resorts, Aspen, Sonoma, Steamboat, Telluride. I will get in trouble because I do not name them all, but virtually every ski resort in Colorado is in that district. So if my colleagues get an opportunity, we invite them to come out to Colorado. Come and visit us. Come and see what beauty we have out there. But I also want to point out something else. When my colleagues head out of this city, take a look at how important it is that we allow the average working Joe and the average working Jane in this country to be promised and to expect fair treatment by their Government when it comes to taxes. Every Government leader out there should understand that they have a fiduciary duty, an obligation, to try and deliver the most efficient services the Government can at the least amount of cost, and every Government official out there has an obligation to you, the working Joe and the working Jane, the people that provide these dollars, there is an obligation on behalf of every elected or every Government employee or every Government official to make sure that you are not being overcharged. There is an obligation by every one of us in these chambers to look at that taxpayer and we ought to say thank you to them. We ought to say thank you to the working people of this country, because if it were not for the 8 or 12 or 14 hours they work every day 5 or 6 or 7 days a week, that money to provide for the programs that we run out of these chambers would not be here. We owe them a big thank you, and we also owe them the duty to make sure that when we spend those dollars we spend them effectively, that we are fair to the taxpayer. Our system needs taxes. It has to operate with taxes, but our system has a fundamental requirement of fairness and openness to the people that send that money to Washington. And when we have an opportunity to send that money and put it back in the pocketbooks of those hard working Americans that provide those dollars, we should take it.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I want to add to the gentleman's comments. That dollar that the administration says ought to stay in Washington, D.C. does one simple thing, it grows the size of the Government. There has never been a time in the history of politics, because of the human demands upon the politicians, that a pool of money can be left sitting in the Capital of a State or in Washington, D.C. and think that the politicians are going to keep their hands off that and use that for some future reduction of the federal debt. It is not going to happen. I think what else is important to my colleague, as he mentioned, is that there are some myths out there that need to be debunked. The Republicans said, look, we can take care of Social Security, we can take care of Medicare, and we need to do something with education, we need to do something with the military, we have to increase our spending with regard to the military, and we need to reduce the federal debt. We think that we can do all five of those things and still take that dollar, which is a small part of the $4 that the gentleman had there, take that dollar and give it back to the taxpayers. Now, our proposal to do that alarmed the administration. The President decided he could not let the Republicans get credit for giving back the people their money that came from them. He had to come up with a proposal. And he did come up with a proposal. And when it was scored by the Congressional Budget Office, it actually resulted in a tax increase. If we want to look at a bill that really reduces the debt, look at the history of the two parties and which party is carrying the bill that is really going to reduce that debt. We had 40 years of Democratic control in the United States Congress. Forty years the Democrats were in control. In that period of time I think they had one 2-year period where they had a balance. What is the history of this? The Republicans' bill, and I am not trying to be partisan here, but we need to draw the lines where the lines have been drawn in these chambers, the Republican bill does more to reduce the federal debt than any other bill out there, period. Now, take a look historically. We have had the Democrats in control and ran deficits for 38 out of the 40 years. The Republicans took control just 5 years ago, and since then they brought up the balanced budget amendment. It was a Republican bill. Welfare reform; it was a Republican bill. Now, how many of the Democrats, even the most liberal Democrats in this country, are complaining about the tax cut we gave 2 years ago? As the gentleman from the Dakotas knows, 2 years ago we went out to homeowners, homeowners regardless of their income, all they had to do was own a home, in the gentleman's district or in my district or in Mississippi or Massachusetts or in Florida or in Texas. We went out to the homeowners in this country, and we used the same argument and we got the same kind of disagreement from the Democrat leadership. Not all Democrats, because there are a lot of conservative Democrats who understand where this money comes from. But the Democrat leadership and the administration fought us on this homeowner deal. What did we do with the homeowners? We went to every homeowner in this country and told them that from this point on when they sell their home, and if they sell their home for a profit, not net equity but actually net profit, they get to take that, up to $250,000 per person, $500,000 per couple, they get to take that money, tax free, regardless of their age, and put it in their pockets. So those Americans out there who have heard some of this bunk about Republicans and their tax plans, they should not forget that when they sell that home that they live in right now, thanks to the Republican leadership, they are going to get, with some rare exceptions, for instance, if an individual is very, very wealthy and they sell it for more than $500,000 profit, otherwise anybody that sells it for a dollar profit up to $500,000 profit per couple puts that money in their pocket. And it is money they will spend in their community. They will donate some to the church, they will go out and buy a new car, maybe buy another house. That money recirculates in the communities, not back here in the Washington, DC community. So I appreciate and invite the gentleman to continue participating if he wishes, but I think the gentleman's example is right on point. I am glad he showed that dollar bill, because that dollar bill is right now in Washington, DC. What the gentleman has proposed and our colleagues have proposed is taking that dollar bill and putting it back in the local community. Because we think a dollar bill in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, or in the Dakotas, up there somewhere in the Dakotas, or in Miami, Florida, or in Los Angeles or in Seattle, Washington, or Salt Lake City, we think putting that dollar back into the local community is going to have a much more efficient use, be much more productive, be much more helpful for capital, much more helpful for the communities and the nonprofits and the schools than taking that dollar and keeping it right here in these House Chambers and sending it out to the Federal agencies. That is what the gentleman is saying and the gentleman is right, and I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of different topics that I would like to cover this evening. I think probably one of them that is at the heart of a lot of debate that has been taking place here regards taxes. The gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) is here to comment on that. I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, my district is in the State of Colorado. I represent the Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado, which is essentially the mountains of Colorado. My home is Grand Junction, Colorado. Over the weekend, my home in Grand Junction Colorado got a very, very special gift, a gift of heroes. Over the weekend, we had two of our citizens who lost their lives in an unfortunate failed attempt to save another person's life. These two individuals, Hobert Franklin, Jr. and David Gilcrease, both were individuals of normal working people. Nothing really set them out from the crowd until that moment of the call for courage. At that moment, both of these individuals stepped forward at the expense of their lives to try and save this other life. The incident was a very violent incident. It was a domestic dispute. It took place in a grocery store in Grand Junction, in fact, the grocery store that my wife shops in, a grocery store that a lot of my neighbors shop in. A man went in and grabbed a woman by her hair, dragged her out of the store, he had a gun in his hand, took her into the parking lot. When Hobert Franklin saw that happening, he ran out of the store to go to her aid. Now, what we need to keep in mind with both of these individuals is that they had a very clear choice to make. There were lots of directions they could run. There were lots of directions that they could go away from the assailant. But Hobert decided not to do that. Hobert ran at the assailant to help the victim, and the assailant shot him dead. David in the meantime saw what happened to Hobert. So he then knew that this guy was going to kill somebody. He just did kill somebody, in fact. He had an opportunity as well to go a different direction. Nobody could criticize the people that went different directions. This was a very terrifying incident. But at that special moment, David decided that he had to intercede and stop this event from occurring. He ran towards the fellow, the assailant. The assailant raised the weapon at him. David puts his hands up. The assailant put his hand down. David backed off. He went back around the van. I have got tell my colleagues about David. Do my colleagues know how much David weighed? David weighed 90 pounds. Ninety pounds. Think about it. Ninety pounds. He came back around the van, and he tackled the assailant. Now, he is a tough guy, David, but he was not that tough. He was not that strong to take the assailant and knock him out of commission, so to speak. So the assailant knocked David off his back, and he turned around, and he killed David in cold blood. Now, what is special about these two people is that David who was a father, by the way, of two young boys, terrific young children, and his wife Kim, his last words from David, as witnessed by the people who were trying to save his life was, ``Yes, Jesus is my savior.'' He was a small man, but as they said at his service yesterday, he was a giant when it comes to heart and to will. This small-framed man, and I am quoting from Bob Carter who read a poem in David's memory, ``This small-framed man was the biggest man my heart has been blessed with knowing.'' David was a wonderful guy. He blessed Grand Junction with his gift of heroism this last weekend. Hobert, they talk about he is 50 years old. They said his half a century of life really boiled down to one defining moment; that is what his nephew told people at the service on Wednesday. ``No matter what he did, he will be remembered most for what he did in the last few moments of his life,'' Travis Coley told the gathering at the service. Coley is in the seminary or just graduated from the seminary. Hobert was his uncle, and this is the first funeral service that Pastor Coley was to give. Franklin had two sons, John and T.J. I got to meet both John and T.J. My colleagues would be very proud of these young men. They are very proud of their father because they knew, at that last defining moment, their father made a decision, a decision to try and save somebody else's life even though it probably meant imminent death for him. Franklin is also survived by his wife Judy, his father and his brother and his sister. Franklin, too, blessed Grand Junction with that gift of heroism. So as we go about in our every day lives, I just ask, because throughout our country we have a lot of good people out there, we have a lot of people of strong character, we have a lot of people that are the core of what makes this country great, and these are two of those individuals, and tonight in front of all of my colleagues and in front of all of the people of the United States of America, this country pays its due respect. Issues Facing America

Mr. McINNIS

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