Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Our snow is good.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, that is exactly the point. We do not need to argue with the administration about whether or not there are missiles pointed at this country. We know. And what we have tried to convince the administration is that we should not go on the assumption that Russia is telling us the truth that they are no longer targeting the United States. We should not go on the assumption that China says, ``Don't worry. We are not interested in targeting the United States.'' In fact, we should go on the opposite assumption. The fact is that throughout the world, whether it is Russia or China or some terrorist organization, there will be at some point in the future of this country a threat or a missile launched against this country. We can today prepare for that. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the leading critics of the Clinton administration and what they have done to our defense and to our military. But I have determined that I am going to put my resources not as a critique of the Clinton administration necessarily, but to say to the Clinton administration, all right, the administration is finally acknowledging, as we have all discussed, thank you for finally acknowledging that we need to put money into this military. Real money into a real military. Thank you for acknowledging that we need real missile defense in this country. We should assume that the proliferation of nuclear weapons will continue. We should assume that we cannot unilaterally disarm. And we should assume that at some point in time somebody might try and take us on. There is a reason that they call our Trident submarines, for example, ``peacekeepers.'' Because if we are strong and we remain number one, we minimize the chances of us getting into an engagement. But we must, nonetheless, be prepared. Mr. Speaker, I think it was George Washington who said the best way to avoid a war is to always be prepared for war. Well, as we have said here, the best way to avoid an incoming missile is to always be prepared for an incoming missile. That is our best defense. That is all we are asking of the administration. Put money in so that the best way to protect the next generation from an incoming missile is to be prepared for an incoming missile.

Mr. McINNIS. And where the missile would discharge in the country of the person launching the missile. Then they would think twice about launching it if they knew, for example if China or Russia right now, where our big concern about Russia is an accidental launch, but if Russia decided to launch against the United States but they knew that we could destroy that missile at some point over Russia, so we may pick a point where it has the maximum impact on Russia. They would be reluctant to launch that missile if they knew on its course it was going over Moscow and we could use a laser beam and destroy it there and have nuclear impact there. There is some serious thought about that.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman pointed out that he just recently toured NORAD, NORAD is probably the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering facility in the world. The other sophisticated ones happen to be under the control of the United States or on American territory also. So we have the intelligence capability. But the intelligence does not do a lot of good once we figure there is an incoming missile, as the gentleman said. We can have all the intelligence in the world about where that missile is coming, but if we do not have a missile defense, what good is the intelligence?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to change the subject for a moment, although I do recognize and appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's comments on social security. The good news about our country is that people are living to a longer age. That is as a result of our good health in this country and the medicine and so on. But they have never adjusted anything in social security to account for that. The average couple on social security right now draws out $118,000 more than they have put into the system. On an actuarial basis, the system is broke. The Republicans have said for years that we have to fix it. I note that the President, in the State of the Union Address, said that he wanted to reserve a certain percentage. We have agreed to reserve that percentage. I am glad that the President has joined our long-term efforts in saying we can do it in a balanced budget way. But as the gentleman has said, I think very accurately, we have to make sure we keep the big spenders, keep their fingers out of the cookie jar. I would like to shift for a moment, because I know my colleagues would like to talk about it, and invite the gentleman from Michigan to join us as well. That is topic of the national defense. In Colorado, all three of us border an area called the NORAD Command Center. What they actually did in Colorado, they went into a mountain full of granite, they hollowed it out, our country did, and we put a command center inside that mountain in Colorado Springs, actually in the district of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Joel Hefley), who is considered around here as an expert in defense. This center, among other responsibilities, detects missile launches from around the country. As many of us know, and we have been very active in complaining about this, unfortunately, the need for a strong military has been somewhat diluted because we have been in fairly peaceful times. I can assure the Members, as my colleagues would agree, that that is a very dangerous attitude to get into. We are respected throughout the world and we are the superpower throughout the world in part because of the strong military that we have. There are a lot of people in this world who would like to take things that we have, and they will take it by force, if they ever have that opportunity. We can never afford to be second in the strength of our military. In order to maintain or actually regain, at this point in time, the strength in our military, we have to do several things. One, the quarters that these military people sleep in and the pay that they have is very low. I last week toured a number of military barracks, and I will tell the Members, it looks like poverty housing in a large city. It is disgraceful. We owe these young men and women that are serving in our military more than that. We need to make a commitment to put money in to bring those barracks up to at least decent living standards. The second thing, of course, and the Republicans have taken the initiative on this, that is a pay increase for our people who serve in the military. So we have to worry about personnel. We have to get our personnel built back up again. We have got to give them benefits that will encourage our personnel to stay in the military for a career. We have to get the excitement back in the personnel that we put in there about the defense of this country. We have very dedicated, very hardworking people that serve us today in the military, but we are testing their patience when we ask them to live in the kind of facilities they are in, and when we pay them the kind of pay we are giving to them. The second issue that I touched on at the beginning of my remarks is the NORAD Command Center, and frankly, what we call missile defense. For years the Democrats, and I will make this very clear, for years the Democratic administration and the Democrats in most part have opposed the Republicans' urging that we install a missile defense system in this country. President Ronald Reagan was ridiculed, ridiculed, by the liberal media and by the liberals in the United States Congress and around parts of this country when he said, this country needs a missile defense system. The most logical way to have a missile defense system is a space-oriented system. All of a sudden, in the last year, the Democratic Party and the administration has turned a new leaf. They have now stepped forward and said, we are willing to have a missile defense system. It is amazing in this country how few of us out there know that this country has no missile defense system. When I speak with my average constituent, I say, tell me, do you think the United States, if we detect a missile launch, which we detect in the NORAD facility in Colorado Springs, and by the way, our detection can tell us the size of the missile, the speed of the missile, the destination of the missile, time of firing, et cetera, et cetera. When I tell my constituents that then the only other thing we can do is call up on the phone to the destination and say, you have an incoming missile, say a prayer, that is all we can do for you, they are stunned. Because a lot of my constituents know that we provide missile defense for the country of Israel. We provide missile defense for some of our allies' ships, because under the antiballistic missile treaty we can do that, but we do not provide it for ourselves. Is that the finest example of ludicrous behavior we have ever seen? It is important that we put in place in this country, not just talk about it, although talking about it is an important first step. I am glad that the Democrats have joined us to talk about it. They have come over to the Republican position that the defense of this country is necessary, that we need to put missile defense in. But we have to get beyond talking. What about a land-based system? In my opinion, the only realistic missile defense that we can put in in this country is going to have to be space-oriented. Why? A land-based system, with the technology that we have today, cannot pick up a threatening missile at the launchpad of another country. It can only pick it up once that missile is within a certain range. Maybe 100, 200 miles is when the radar picks it up and actually fires a missile against it, probably within 100 miles of the target over the land. So if our missile here from a land-based system goes up and connects with the enemy missile, and by the way, they told me when I went and looked at our land-based system that the odds of these two missiles coming together at the same time are about the same as throwing a basketball out of Cincinnati, Ohio, and making it through the hoop in Washington, D.C. You get about one chance on a land-based system, and if you happen to hit the incoming missile, you blow it up over the United States. If, for example, we had an incoming missile into Kansas City, they might connect with the missile somewhere over Colorado and we would have this nuclear explosion. What makes sense on a defensive missile system is a space-oriented system that can pick up and either destroy the missile before it leaves the launchpad, or has any number of windows as the missile is coming over to our country to hit that missile. And our odds of being able to come in on the directional altitude of that missile with a laser are a lot higher than the hopeful or lucky shot from a land-based system. So, I know that I and my colleagues, we have had many discussions on it. Our constituents are concerned about it in Colorado where the detection takes place. But it is a subject that all of us have to put to the forefront so that we can offer the next generation, those young people that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) went and visited, we want to assure not only the ability to free slaves, but assure that the next generation has the best possible defense out there for these rogue nations that are willing to use a missile or a nuclear weapon against the United States of America. The best way to do it, and finally recognized by that side of the aisle, is for us to sit down, not just talk about it, put money where our mouth is, and build that system as soon as we can. I am sure my colleagues may want to comment on it.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to give permanent protection as wilderness to the heart of the 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. Today, across the Capitol, Senator Allard is introducing an identical companion bill. I would like to extend my appreciation to the Senator for his active support of this worthwhile legislation. 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, 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 whose Native American name is Wayatoya. 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 not only for Native Americans but also for some of Colorado's other early settlers and for travelers along the trail between Bent's Old Fort on the Arkansas River and Taos, New Mexico. 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 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 reviewed the Spanish Peaks area for possible wilderness designation as part of its second roadless area review and evaluation--known as RARE II--and in 1979 recommended designation as wilderness of 19,570 acres. Concerns about private land inholdings in the area prompted Congress, in the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980, to instead provide for its continued management as a wilderness study area. A decade later, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 included provisions for long-term management of all the other wilderness study areas in our State's national forests, but meanwhile questions about the land-ownership pattern in the Spanish Peaks area had prompted the Forest Service to change its mind about designating it as wilderness. That, in turn, led to inclusion in the 1993 wilderness bill of a requirement for its continued management of that area as a wilderness study area for 3 years--until August 13, 1996. The 1993 bill also required the Forest Service to report to Congress concerning the extent of non-Federal holdings in the likelihood of acquisition of those holdings by the United States with the owner's consent. The required report was submitted in 1995. It indicated that within the wilderness study area, there were about 825 acres where the United States owned neither the surface nor the mineral rights, and about 440 acres more where the United States owned the surface but not the minerals. Since then, through voluntary sales, the United States has acquired most of the inholdings. Today only 166 acres of inholdings remain, and the Forest Service is in the process of or making efforts to acquire 134 of those acres. So the way is now clear for Congress to finish the job of protecting this outstanding area by designating it as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill I am introducing today 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 revision 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 that locals use for access to the beauty of the Spanish Peaks. The lands covered by this bill are not only striking for their beauty and value but also for recreation. They fully merit the protection that will come from their designation as wilderness. 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 the 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, enactment of this Spanish Peaks bill 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 the 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 may be appropriate in certain cases, and I would encourage 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 will continue to work to achieve appropriate levels of protection for the pristine and beautiful areas within Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I close by urging the Congress to act without delay to pass this important measure for the Spanish Peaks area of Colorado.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I wish to take this moment to recognize the remarkable life and significant achievements of one of Colorado's leading journalists for the past thirty years, Dick Day. Tragically, Dick died in an automobile accident on December 8, 1998. While family, friends and colleagues remember the truly exceptional life of Dick, I, too, would like to pay tribute to this remarkable man and friend. As the managing editor of the Montrose Daily Press for 31 years, Dick's work ethic was the stuff of legend. According to his colleagues, Dick never missed a day of work in his thirty plus years as managing editor. Often, Dick could be found reading reports off the press wire as early as 4:00 in the morning. Dick's unwavering dedication to the Daily Press has been described by those who worked under his leadership as ``legendary'' and ``inspirational.'' Such accolades seem befitting a man who was widely recognized to be one of Colorado's most accomplished journalists. As a native of Grand Junction and graduate of Grand Junction High School in 1958, Dick returned to the Grand Valley after leaving the Montrose Daily Press to become the special sections editor of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. In this capacity, Dick served with the same distinction and dedication that he had so readily demonstrated in his time with the Daily Press. And as was the case with his time at the Daily Press, the quality of Dick's work brought widespread acclaim both to himself and the Daily Sentinel. Although his professional accomplishments will long be remembered and admired, most who knew him well will remember Dick Day, above all else, as a friend. It is clear that the multitude of those who have come to know Dick as a friend, including myself, will be worse off in his absence. However, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that, in spite of this profound loss, the family and friends of Dick Day can take solace in the knowledge that each is a better person for having known him.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with heavy-heart that I now take this moment to recognize the remarkable life and extraordinary contributions of one of the leading statesman in Colorado's proud history, State Senator Tony Grampsas. Sadly, Colorado lost this leading member of its political community to cancer on February 8, 1998. While his overwhelming presence will be missed greatly by friends, family and colleagues alike, Senator Grampsas' larger than life persona, and his multitude of personal achievements, will echo in the corridors of the Colorado General Assembly for many years to come. After his election to the Colorado House of Representatives in 1984-- a seat that he would hold until 1998, then Representatives Grampsas quickly became one of the most influential and beloved members in the Colorado legislature. As a legislator, Representative Grampsas rapidly moved through the thicket of the rank and file becoming chairman of two of the Colorado General Assembly's most powerful committees: the House Appropriations and Joint Budget Committees. In these positions, Representative Grampsas served distinguishedly, acutely balancing his fiscal conservatism with his deeply rooted support for social programs like child welfare and education. After leaving the state House in 1998, Representative Grampsas became Senator Grampsas, again, swiftly rising to positions of great import within the state Senate. In his first session as a State Senator--the current legislative session, Senator Grampsas served as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Beyond his legislative accomplishments, Senator Grampsas also served distinguishedly in the private sector for 26 years as the director of national affairs for Coors Brewing Company. For 15 of those years, Senator Grampsas admirably balanced the significant time demands of his job with Coors with the weighty requirements of serving in elected office. While the annals of Colorado history will likely remember Senator Grampsas for his multitude of legislative and professional accomplishments, for those, like myself, fortunate enough to know him as a friend, Senator Grampsas will long be remembered for his wit, wisdom and unyielding charity. In the final analysis, for those who have known him, Senator Grampsas was a genuinely kind and unassuming individual worthy of the proud legacy that he has left behind. It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say thank you to Senator Tony Grampsas for endeavoring tirelessly on behalf of Coloradans and for providing leadership and inspiration to many, including myself, I am hoping that Senator Grampsas' family--particularly his wife Sandy and children Lisa and Samuel--will find strength in this difficult time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the remarkable life of my friend, Willis Parkison. Sadly, Willis died on February 5, 1999. Though friends and family will no doubt miss him greatly, everyone who has known Willis can take great solace in the memories of this truly exceptional individual. As those familiar with the area would surely testify, Willis Parkison was one of the ablest and most respected attorneys in Western Colorado during his over thirty years in the legal profession between 1938 and 1978. In fact, except for being called into service during WWII as a Special Agent in the FBI, Willis practiced law in Glenwood Springs, Colorado continuously and with great distinction, specializing in probate work, wills and tax law. As the fourth of six successive generations of Parkisons living in the Glenwood Springs area, Willis was also a proud member and active participant in his community. What's more, as the proud husband of Ruth Parkison for 57 years, the father of Don, Susan, and Sarah, and the grandfather of Jessica and Amanda. Willis was, above all else, a family man. It is with these that our friend Willis' legacy now rests. Like his family, all of Willis' friends, including myself, feel a great sense of loss in this difficult time. Though family, friends and the community of Glenwood Springs are clearly worse off in his absence, I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that each of these will find comfort and strength in the knowledge that they are better off for having known Willis Parkison, a truly remarkable man.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, due to business in Colorado, I was unable to vote on the bill, H.R. 409. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, due to business in Colorado, I will be unable to vote on the following bill, H.R. 436. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, due to business in Colorado, I will be unable to vote on the following bill, H.R. 438. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to honor an individual who for so many years has exemplified the notion of public service and civic duty and an individual we on the western slope of Colorado will be hard pressed to replace. Senator Tillman Bishop has represented Colorado's 7th District in the Colorado Senate for 28 years and before that, in the Colorado General Assembly for 4 years. His years of service rank him 5th in the state's history for continuous years of service and he is the longest serving senator from Colorado's western slope. Senator Bishop, or Tillie, as he is affectionately known, has for decades selflessly given of himself and has always placed the needs of his constituents before his own. I myself served with Tillie when I was a member of the Colorado General Assembly and I consider myself fortunate to have worked with a representative of his caliber. The number of honors and distinctions that Tillie has earned during his years of outstanding service are too numerous to list, and too few to do justice to his contribution to the state of Colorado. Senator Bishop will be sorely missed in the halls of the Colorado Capitol, both for his wisdom and knowledge of Colorado, but also for his kind and gentle demeanor which endeared him to all those with whom he came in contact. 1998 marked the end of Senator Bishop's tenure in elected office and the state of Colorado is worse-off because of his absence. There are too few people in elected office today who are prepared to serve in the selfless and diligent manner of Tillman Bishop. He is the embodiment of the citizen-legislator and a model for every official in elected office. His constituents, of whom I was one, owe him a debt of gratitude and I wish him well in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, in this country we operate on what is called and our foundation is built upon what is called the rule of law. We all know our history. Our history says that we came to this country to go away from a king. Under the rule of law in this country, we say that the law is the king. The king is not the law. We have one President. That position of President of the United States demands the highest public trust. Why the highest public trust? Because we have only one President. I have read with interest the Democratic censure, and I quote parts from it: ``. . . that the President violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of the President, and dishonored the office for which they have entrusted to him.'' It goes on, ``The President made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate, and took steps to delay discovery of the truth.'' And they say to me, after they draft that kind of document, that that individual now qualifies for the position of the highest public trust? Any of these people there that are going to stand up and vote against this, tell me what they would do in their community, what side they would stand on, what kind of letter or report they would give to a newspaper reporter if it were a local schoolteacher? There is not a schoolteacher in this country that would step into the classroom ever, ever again with this kind of conduct, with this kind of misleading inaccuracy. Take it from a schoolteacher, or take a police officer. Some Members, show me, give me a demonstration, anywhere in this country. And those are positions of public trust, not positions of the highest public trust. We owe it to our current generation and to future generations to retain the standards of the Presidency, and those standards rise far above an individual. Let us comply and stick with the rule of law. The law is the king, the king is not the law.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of a gentleman who embodies the virtue of service above self. He is a role model and example to his friends and peers throughout his community of Grand Junction, Colorado. Roger Hagerty, a long-time resident of Grand Junction, received the Volunteer of the Year Award for 1997 by the Colorado Division of the American Cancer Society. This honor was given in recognition of his extraordinary efforts in the fight against cancer. He exemplifies the word volunteer. Roger Hagerty frequently visits with patients and inspires them with his own personal battle with cancer. He labors as a Resource Information and Guidance Counselor at the local American Cancer Society office three afternoons per week. Mr. Hagerty also serves as Chairman of the Legacy and Planned Giving Program, conducting several seminars each year. Furthermore, he has been chosen to lead still other endeavors such as the jail and Bail program and the organization's annual Golf Tournament Fund Raiser in Grand Junction. Finally, Mr. Hagerty serves as an advocate and speaker on television and radio promoting the American Cancer Society's programs. Roger Hagerty is the embodiment of American patriotism. He is responsible for the local Veteran's Day parades and remarkably, Mr. Hagerty still fits into his 35 year-old military uniform. He is also politically active in and around the community. Besides serving as Treasurer for the local Sheriff's campaign, he also regularly participates in raising money for various local organizations. Friends and family claim that the Hagerty's home telephone never stops ringing as they work to help others. In addition to his volunteer activities with the American Cancer Society and other organizations, Roger Hagerty assists his wife Eva, also a cancer survivor, who is the honored coordinator for the Reach To Recovery program. This effort specifically targets breast cancer patients by advocating for regular health checkups. Mrs. Hagerty also works tirelessly on behalf of others, and is often found actively participating in community health fairs and screenings. I ask my colleagues today to join me in commending Roger Hagerty for his integrity and dedication in the service of others. His selfless acts have indeed made a difference to many, and serve as an excellent example of what is best in our society. His work has been invaluable to the Grand Junction community. I wish him and his family continued health and success in the future.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand this day to congratulate and recognize the achievements of a dear friend and confidant. His demeanor, attitude and efforts make a positive difference in the lives of all national legislators and American citizens from around the country. Vincent Farri was promoted on September 30, 1998 to the rank of Sergeant in the United States Capitol police force. This recognition was rightfully bestowed after 10\1/2\ years of diligent service on behalf of the public at large. I have known ``Vinnie'' since I arrived here in Washington, D.C. in 1992 and can attest to his fortitude, honesty, and integrity in the line of duty. Vincent Farri possesses the heart of a giant. He has earned the respect and admiration of all who known him. I was privileged to share his excitement when I learned last month that he had gotten his stripes. Sergeant Farri also excels in his responsibilities outside his professional life. He has been happily married for 6\1/2\ years to his wife Christina. Together they have one child--``one so far'' as Vinnie puts it--a beautiful young son, Richard, born March 15, 1997. Vincent Farri represents all that is good in American society. Please join me in congratulating and applauding the achievements of this great Sergeant, friend, husband, and father.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I had heard the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) saying that a ``yes'' vote on this apparently, I guess the implication was it would be not an educated vote. I can tell my colleagues that in order to vote ``no'' on this bill tomorrow, they ought to be make sure that is an educated vote as well. Both of those votes demand that we pay attention to this budget bill, that we look through it closely and, if necessary, burn some midnight oil. I do not mind it. In fact, I get a little excited dealing with this budget. We can find any budget this Congress has ever voted on and we will find that there are a lot of good reasons to vote for it and there are some reasons to vote against it. I would suggest that tomorrow this bill will have more reasons to vote for it than to vote against it. Every one of us probably every month, some of us every week, sit down with our own family and we budget. There is a lot of times, at least in my own family, where I do not get necessarily the spending money that I would like. Lori, my wife, does not get what she would like. Our three children, two of whom are in college, do not get what they like. But through talks and negotiations, even in the family negotiations, we come up with a budget. That is what we are doing here. Let me highlight a couple of areas that I think are very important that this budget does do: Number one, no tax increase. None. Zippo. No tax increase. Now, people who want to vote ``no'' say there is no tax cut. Folks, we do not have the tax cut in there. We did our best. We got it out of the House, but the fact is at least we stopped a tax increase with this bill. The next item that is important is important for each and every one of us. We have got to invest in our infrastructure in this country. Our infrastructure in this country, the most important infrastructure I can think of, are our young people. And the most important thing in investing in our young people is their education. This bill does a lot for more teachers, but do my colleagues know what the Republicans insisted on and now, as a result of joint negotiations, that we have come up with? We are going to hire more teachers, but they are not going to be hired at the Federal level. They are not going to be hired at the State level. This money goes directly into the classroom. Mr. Speaker, I have a sister that is a schoolteacher. At times in the past, she has had to go out with her own money and buy school supply material, even though the budgets in Colorado have gone up for school supplies. Why? Because it does not get down to the classroom. These negotiations over the last 24 hours are now driving this into the classroom, and the gentleman from Mississippi should realize that. A ``no'' vote put its back to the Federal bureaucracy. There are some other issues. Defense is very important to me. We do not have a defensive missile system to defend this country. If Russia or Iraq or North Korea or China or some other country launched a missile against the United States of America, contained within the boundaries of the State of Colorado we could detect it within 3 or 4 seconds, we could tell what kinds of missile and where the missile is going to hit, when it is going to hit, and what kind of load it is probably carrying. And then all we can say is good-bye, because this country does not have a missile defense system. We need a shored up defense. We need to have a missile defense system. This bill puts a billion more dollars into the security of this country and this country's future on missile defense. It does some other things. It increases student loans. I have a couple of kids in college. Most out there are either facing it, have faced it or are now facing it. These student loans are critical. A lot of our kids could not go to college if they did not have a loan to do it. This increases the student loans. Again to the gentleman from Mississippi, another reason to vote ``yes.'' A ``no'' vote cuts those student loans back. Talk about the government ID system. They wanted to put in an ID system so that Uncle Sam in Washington, D.C., could keep track of us. This bill wipes it out. They wanted to put in a computer system, a database, to follow all college graduates. The government does not need to know that. It is not the Federal Government's business. This bill stops it. Another good reason to vote ``yes'' on this bill. For the self-employed out there, and it has been a consistent and a very legitimate complaint that unlike other people in our society, they cannot deduct their insurance premiums for their medical insurance. This bill is putting us back on track to allow that deductibility for them. Mr. Speaker, by digging in a document this thick we can very easily find a reason to vote ``no'' on this bill. But we have a fiduciary duty, a responsibility to look in that bill and see if there are not more good reasons to vote for it than against it. I suggest after we do that, we will support this bill.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mrs. Cubin and I would like to clarify several issues regarding S. 2500, the coalbed methane gas bill, for the record. We understand that this bill is very important to this country, including the Third District of Colorado and the State of Wyoming, as well as large parts of at least six states with coalbed methane gas patents, contracts and leases. This bill will address the uncertainty that has arisen elsewhere following a decision in the case Southern Ute Reservation v. Amoco Production Company in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. People may not realize the impact the litigation has made upon an area in the district of the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McInnis. We wanted to take this opportunity to discuss and clarify some issues on behalf of constituents of the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McInnis, who are concerned about the possible impact of this bill. First, this bill specifically exempts any interest in coal that was transferred, conveyed or restored by the United States to a federally recognized Indian tribe. The goal of this bill was not to impact the ongoing Southern Ute litigation. This bill is meant to address concerns raised elsewhere as to the ownership of coalbed methane gas and prevent financial hardship and disruption. Second, this bill is not intended ion any way to be construed to prejudice the right of any person to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari in the case of Southern Ute Reservation v. Amoco Production Company. This legislation specifically carves out the subject matter of the Southern Ute case and should not impact any decision by the United States Supreme Court as to whether to take the case on appeal from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Third, supporting passage of S. 2500 should not be considered opposition to the Supreme Court hearing the Southern Ute case. Several parties, including many of the states impacted by the Southern Ute case, plan to offer briefs urging the United States Supreme Court to hear this case. This bill, S. 2500, should not prevent any interested parties from seeking Supreme Court review. Moreover, the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Cubin, has pledged to work towards getting appropriate interested parties to write amicus briefs asking the United States Supreme Court to hear arguments in the Southern Ute case. After all, as discussed above, this legislation specifically carves out interests in coal transferred by the United States to Indian tribes. The normal appeals process to the United States Supreme Court is the appropriate manner for resolving the ongoing Southern Ute litigation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous resolution was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one point to the fine gentleman from the State of Maryland in regard to the CBO statement or the estimate that there is no cost. First of all, my point to the gentleman from Texas was that in one statement he said there was no cost, and in the next statement he said it was negligible, so I am not sure what it is. Frankly, I think the gentleman probably observed it a little more closely. The point is, there is a shift in cost. While it is true that the government does not pick up additional costs, the individual will pick up additional costs. I think we just need to clarify that. What the gentleman has said is accurate, but to complete the picture, we need to show that the individual will pick up additional costs. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, think it is important to get to this good bill. To get to this good bill we have to pass this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, obviously the gentleman from Texas paints as pretty a picture as he can get on it. He likes to put roses and flowers into it. Let us talk about some economic reality here. First of all, I am astounded that in one-half of the gentleman's sentence he says there is no cost to the Federal Government, and in the next half of the sentence he says the cost is only negligible. That sounds like Democratic talk. That is what got us into a deficit: ``Well, it is just negligible, throw a few more bucks in.'' The second point is, remember, it is wrong for Members to stand up here and act like we can offer to the American people and the Federal employees of this government Mayo Clinic coverage. We cannot do it. If we want to do it, we can do like they did in Kentucky. They kept expanding and expanding what they ought to put in their medical plan and their choices. If we want to talk about choice to the gentleman from Texas, their choices went from 47 plans to two plans. So what the gentleman is proposing up here is, let us go ahead and offer them the moon, which means that first of all and most importantly, most of these companies are not going to be competitive, which gives us the Kentucky example, 47 choices to two choices. It is very important here that we understand that nothing is free. We do not get something for free. It just does not happen. Every time we give something to somebody free, we are taking it out of somebody else's pocket. It is debit-credit. It happens automatically. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have asked the gentlewoman to return because I think that the comments that she brought up are very pertinent to the subject, and since we seem to have gotten off the rule and onto the subject of contraception, I think we need to close this out, and then we can get back to the rule and the fairness of the rule. So I am asking that the gentlewoman from Kentucky come back. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.