Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as we know, India is one of the largest democracies in the world. China is the largest communist country in the world. President Clinton has taken the time to condemn the largest democracy, one of the largest democracies in the world, India, for developing or testing nuclear weapons to defend themselves against the largest communist country in the world, China. While the President condemns India, what does the President do with China? Let me quote from a couple of articles here: ``Clinton made a decision to overrule his own Secretary of State and ease the exportation of satellite technology to China in 1996. The Justice Department also is investigating whether two satellite companies, Loral and Hughes Electronics, violated the national security laws in 1996 by giving satellite technology to China that could be used for nuclear missiles.'' Remember, China, the largest communist country in the world. This is our President in his negotiations with that country. Both firms are big Democrat donors. Loral chief, Mr. Schwartz, was the Democrats' biggest single donor in 1995-96, giving more than $600,000. Let me quote from U.S. Security for Sale. That is the article. It is an essay by William Safire. U.S. Security for Sale. Essay. Washington: ``A President hungry for money to finance his reelection overruled the Pentagon; he sold to a Chinese military intelligence front the technology that defense experts argued would give Beijing the capacity to blind our spy satellites and launch a sneak attack. How soon we have forgotten Pearl Harbor. ``October 1996 must have been some tense months for the Democratic fund-raisers. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times had begun to expose the Asian connection of John Huang and Indonesia's Riady family to the Clinton campaign. ``The fix was already in to sell the satellite technology to China. Clinton had switched the licensing over to Ron Brown's anything-goes Commerce Department. Johnny Chung had paid up. Commerce's Huang had delivered money big time (though one of his illegal foreign sources had already been spotted). The boss of the satellite's builder had come through as Clinton's largest contributor. ``But public outrage was absent. The FBI didn't read the papers and Reno Justice did not want to embarrass the President. And television news found no pictorial values in the Asian connection. Stealthily, the Clinton administration held back the implementation of the corrupt policy until November 5, the day the campaign ended. ``Now the reporting of Jeff Gerth and the Times' investigative team is putting the spotlight of pitiless publicity on the sellout of American security. ``We begin to see how the daughter of China's top military commander steered at least $300,000 through the Chung channel to the Democratic National Committee. (Apparently Mr. Chung skimmed off a chunk and may be spilling his guts lest he have to face his Beijing friends.) ``We begin to learn more of the February 8, 1996, visit of the arms dealer Wang Jun to the Commerce office of Ron Brown, and Wang's `coffee' meeting that day with the President, the very day that Clinton approved four Chinese launches, even as China was terrorizing Taiwan with missile tests. ``Clinton's explanation, which used to slyly suggest that China policy was not changed `solely' by contributors, has now switched to total ignorance; shucks, we didn't know the source of the money. But this President's Democratic National Committee did not know because it wanted not to know; procedures long in place to prevent the unlawful flow of foreign funds were uprooted by the money-hungry Clintonites. ``Today, 2 years after this sale of our security, comes the unforeseen chain reaction; as China strengthens its satellite missile technology, a new Indian Government reacts to the growing threat from its longtime Asian rival and joins the nuclear club. In turn, China feels pressed to supply its threatened ally, Pakistan, with weaponry Beijing promised us not to transfer. This makes Clinton the proliferation President. ``Who has helped keep this sellout of security under wraps?'' Let me just conclude by saying this. India is one of the largest democracies in the world. China is the largest communist country. And I hope every citizen of this country takes the time to read about the technology that was transferred to China through this administration. It is a critical security issue. Mr. Speaker, the remainder of the article by William Safire, is as follows: ``In the Senate, John Glenn was rewarded with a space flight by Clinton for derogating the leads to China of the Thompson committee. Fred Thompson's warnings about China's plan to penetrate this White House were then scorned by Democratic partisans; his Government Operations Committee should now swarm all over this. The House's aggressive agent of the Clinton cover-up, Henry Waxman of California, is finally ``troubled'' by the prospect of damning evidence he prevented the Burton committee from finding. At least three Democratic partisans who foolishly followed Waxman in blocking the testimony of Asian witnesses may have difficulty explaining their cover-up vote to even more troubled voters in their districts. The Gerth revelations lead to more questions: Where were the chiefs of the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, their intelligence so dependent on satellites, on the satellite technology sale to China? Is anybody at Reno Justice reexamining testimony taken by independent counsel investigating corruption at Commerce before Ron Brown's death? Does Brown's former lawyer claim ``dead man's privilege'' on notes? Did N.S.A. tape overseas calls of suspect Commerce officials? Who induced Commerce to lobby Clinton for control of satellite technology? And the most immediate: Will homesick prosecutor Charles LaBella, beholden to Janet Reno for his political appointment in San Diego, dare to offend his patron by calling for independent counsel?''

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask for order on the floor. I have time on the floor.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Oregon, I know he is getting ready to leave the Chamber, but I think he needs to be aware, because he is probably going to be embarrassed by the fact that he was not, that hundreds of copies of the committee print were available a week ago Monday. Last Monday a week.

Mr. McINNIS. I will not yield.

Mr. McINNIS. I have not yielded.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also urge that we pass this bill. We are going to have appropriate time for general debate this evening. The next few days are going to be consumed on the issue of defense. It is absolutely critical. I think the good congressman, the gentleman from the State of Utah (Mr. Hansen), stated it very well in his remarks. He quoted George Washington, ``The best way to be prepared for peace is to be prepared for war.'' I think these are key issues. I think both sides of the aisle have a lot of keen interest in seeing that our defense is strong and appropriate. And, therefore, I urge the first step in this process, and that is passage of the bill. I urge a yes vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume once again to correct. I mean the gentleman from Oregon makes it sound like there were lots of amendments up there to decrease spending and none of them were allowed on the floor. Only one amendment was filed, Mr. Speaker. Only one amendment. I think we need to show the whole story, show the whole picture here before we reflect upon our colleagues some kind of Committee on Rules that is theoretically disorderly and not fair. It is eminently fair. This rule has had over 100 amendments. We are going to have lots of debate in the next few days. And, quite frankly, the gentleman needs to be a little more accurate, in my opinion, in regards to the action the Committee on Rules has taken. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment of the gentleman sounds good. I think the amendment has a lot of merit to it. However, this amendment was offered last year. It is going to be addressed at the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform. Other committees are going to take a look at it. That is a more appropriate location. I would urge my colleague to go ahead and support the rule. That is what is going to allow us some good debate.

Mr. McINNIS. Furthermore, I would advise the gentleman that over 100 amendments have been filed. So what I would surmise from this is that a number of our colleagues have determined that this is a very open process. They have taken the time to file over 100 amendments. The fact that the gentleman from Oregon neglected to do this or neglected to watch the schedule, he should not then come down here on the floor and say that this rule is not fair. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, please include the attached text in the Congressional Record. ``My Voice in our Democracy'' 1997-98 vfw voice of democracy scholarship competition (By Neil Rhodes, Colorado Winner) A few years ago, when I was about eleven years old, I was profoundly affected by the chronicle of a young Jewish girl during the second world war: a girl who, while hiding out from the Nazis, wrote in the red-checkered diary she had received for her thirteenth birthday; a martyr who was eventually discovered and sent to her death in a concentration camp; a visionary whose diary writings encompassed the plight of millions around the world. That little girl was Anne Frank. One of the final entries in Anne's red-checkered diary proclaimed the desperation of a nation without democracy. It read: ``ideals, dreams, and cherished hopes rise within us only to meet the horrible truth and be shattered . . . At the young age I was, this was the first real connection I had ever experienced with the evils of tyranny. Since then I've encountered a multitude of other stories and situations that have increased my awareness of democracy. Like the time I visited a small holocaust museum and spoke with Mr. Kelen--a survivor of the holocaust himself; or the time I traveled just across the Mexican border, and witnessed first-hand the crippling poverty caused by government corruption; the time I sat glued to the television, my eyes locked on the image of a young Chinese boy facing certain death as he stood in the path of an oncoming military tank. Every new experience helped shape my thoughts, mold my perspective, and strengthen my voice as an American citizen. I have come to realize just how fortunate I am--how fortunate we all are--to possess the light of democracy. I've learned that democracy is priceless and powerful. Priceless, because our basic rights are stained with the blood of millions who fought to gain them. Democracy also has boundless power: quite simply, the power to shatter the chains of bondage forever. But as we live our lives in freedom we must remember the horrible truth that Anne Frank wrote about. The horrible truth is that there are still millions of people living in the darkness of oppression. For those not yet experiencing liberty, we must continue the battle. If we believe in our own sovereignty, that is our duty. The Declaration of Independence does not say ``All Americans are created equal'' but that ``All men''--all around the world--``are created equal.'' Thus, we cannot simply work to continue our own democratic system; we must bring that system to the rest of the world. Only then will the visions of our forefathers be completed. In the social and political arena every American has a voice--a platform from which to speak. In many parts of the globe that could not be farther from the truth. Anne Frank never had a voice. I, however, do. I stand before you now, and I speak on behalf of those who couldn't and those who still cannot. My voice in our democracy is the reflection of a free person; my voice pays tribute to the thousands who died for the cause of liberty; my voice cries out an urging for the respect of our nation and an offering of hope for the future. Yes, even in the midst of the cruelest oppression, hope is one thing that can never be destroyed. Because, you see, I never finished the quotation by Anne Frank that I gave earlier. Here is the quote in its entirety: ``ideals, dreams, and cherished hopes rise within us only to meet the horrible truth and be shattered . . . yet in spite of everything I still believe that people really are good at heart.'' Anne Frank's devotion to the human spirit should serve as an example to all of us, and especially to Americans. Progress in the world must begin with you and me. I would hope that one day all Americans would understand that with strength, compassion, diligence, and the fortitude of our voices, we have the ability to change democracy from an ideal, a dream, and a cherished hope . . . into a powerful and permeating reality.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and the courtesy of the gentleman from Florida. Unfortunately, I think the previous speaker kind of sidelined this issue into a second amendment issue. That is not what this is about. I used to be a cop. I was a police officer, and I can tell my colleagues my first day on the job actually was not on the job; I had to go to the police academy. The first day I was at the academy, they came up to me and said, as they were explaining the benefits of a police officer, what you signed up for, they said, by the way, the cheapest life insurance you can buy in this country is a bulletproof vest. The cheapest life insurance you can buy. Go out and buy it. And I went out and bought it. It makes a difference, and it is an important issue. It is an issue that obviously is bipartisan. Take a look at that clock up there. Twenty-four hours from now when that clock is right where it is today, 2 more police officers in this country will have been shot. If we pass this bill, if we pass this bill, we will save 1 police officer's death, 1 police officer a week from dying if we pass this bill and those officers wear these vests. I can tell you from experience that some of the officers I worked with, good, close friends of mine, did get into that habit of, well, it won't happen to me, or it is uncomfortable in the heat of the summer. So we have to take this a step further. We can supply this for them, but we have to urge those officers to wear the darned things. They do not do you any good if you do not wear them. It does not guarantee us that we are going to save that officer a week, but if these officers wear these vests that we are going, together, jointly with the local communities, going together to supply, if they wear them, that clock will run 1 extra week before another officer dies. We can save the life of a police officer once a week. I think it is a terrific bill. I think it does exactly what we should do, and that is sharing with the community, cost-sharing. It gives them an incentive to go out and buy their officers vests. I could never figure out why it was not standard issue to give out a bulletproof vest. Those who say these things are expensive, they are outrageously inexpensive. A good vest you can buy for under 700 bucks. That seems like a lot of money, until you figure out your life is on the line. As they told me that first day in the Police Academy, it is the cheapest life insurance you can buy.

Mr. McINNIS

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

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, my district is the Third Congressional District of the State of Colorado. This is a very unique district. First of all, geographically, this district is actually larger than the State of Florida. There is the State of Florida. My district, here, is the State of Colorado. The district that I represent goes from north to south, about like that. This land mass here, or the Third Congressional District, this is geographically larger than the State of Florida. This evening I want to visit a little while on government lands; the mass of government lands in the West, what the difference is between land in the East and land in the West, what the historical perspective is of how that land was settled under the Manifest Destiny; and then I want to move on to the subject and discuss water in the West, because water in the West is clearly much more complicated than water issues in the East, and an entirely different type of system has been devised to address the uniqueness of water in the West. So let us start first of all with some statistics. The Federal Government owns about 688 million acres of land. Now, a lot of homeowners out there may have a home on a quarter of an acre of land. Imagine 688 million acres. That is what the Federal Government owns. And 95 percent, 95 percent, of that 688 million acres is in the West. This map that I have up here is titled ``Government Lands.'' Take a look at the difference between the western half of the United States and the eastern half of the United States. Take a look. And we should not include Alaska, which on this map, by the way, is shown on half the scale as the other States. So Alaska really would be twice that size. Now, the key to this land ownership out here is what we would call multiple use. Now, Colorado is not unlike that. In Colorado, as you can see from my district, there are about 20 million acres, 20 million acres in the Congressional District that I represent, that is owned by the Federal Government. Now, the historical perspective of how this land mass came about was really driven through the Manifest Destiny. We began the acquisition of our lands under that idea to stretch the scope of the Nation. We wanted to go from the Atlantic out to the Pacific. And the district that I represent actually came through several different things. One was the Louisiana Purchase, and that occurred in 1803; the secession from Mexico, which occurred in 1848; and the purchase from Texas in 1850. So there is a good portion of the district that I represent that actually used to belong to the country of Mexico. So the Louisiana Purchase, secession from Mexico, and the purchase from Texas is how a lot of this land was acquired by the United States. Now, let me step back for a moment. What the agenda was of the government in Washington, D.C. was to go west, young man, go west. They wanted to get into this new land that was acquired through the Louisiana Purchase. They wanted civilization to go out into the West and make it one large unified country. Well, what they did is they did several things. They had the Homestead Act. In the areas like Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri, there was lots of very, very fertile farmland. And the government decided the best way to persuade people to go out to these States was to give them land grants, or let them homestead; i.e. if people would go out there, if they would work the land for a certain period of time, the government would actually deed the land to them. Maybe 160 acres. Maybe 320 acres. And that actually, in these States which are very, very fertile, was enough to make a living off of. A family could have a farm off 160 acres. They could farm 320 acres and support a family back then. But what they discovered, first of all, was not a lot of settlers wanted to go up in the mountain terrain of the West. The snows were very, very difficult. The winters were very, very harsh. And furthermore, the government discovered that when people went to the West, they could not do it on 160 acres. In fact, 160 acres in some areas of the district that I represent, one can hardly run one cow on it. The government believed that they really could not politically give away the thousands of acres that would be necessary for a rancher or a farm family or the settlers to make a living. So what they decided, since there was such a large mass of Federal land, was to go ahead and retain the ownership of this Federal land, keep the ownership in the government's hands but under the doctrine of multiple use. What is multiple use? Multiple use is simply best defined by a sign that was on all the Federal lands when I grew up, and that sign said welcome, you are now entering, for example, White River National Forest, a land of many uses. They wanted this to be a land of many uses. Unfortunately, in the last two decades, we have seen people who really, in my opinion, do not know this land, have tried to take away the land of many uses concept and put on a sign that says no trespassing. Now, I am not speaking from inexperience. My family actually settled in Colorado, down about right there, 1872, up in Boulder. I was born over here on the western slope. So since 1872, and I am proud of the fact I have two daughters that are pioneer daughters, meaning that our family was here before the State of Colorado became a State. My wife's family, they are up here. They have a ranch. It is 115 years old. Right up there. David and Sue Ann Smith. They still run it. Cattle operation. Takes a lot of land to run a cattle operation. But what has happened on this multiple use concept is, first of all, especially for my colleagues who are from the East, understand that multiple use is critical for our life-style out there. And when we mention multiple use, or use of the Federal lands, a lot of my colleagues say, well, we are talking about grazing, cattle grazing; we are talking about ski areas. But the picture is much, much broader and much, much more critical than that, although we certainly should not downplay the critical importance of tourism in Colorado and the fundamental foundation of ranching as it is to the West. But the fact is multiple use has many uses. First of all, water. In my particular district, the district that I represent, water is either stored upon Federal land, it runs across Federal land, or originates on Federal land. In order for the populations in my particular district to get water, we have to depend upon multiple use, or the lands of many uses on the Federal lands, to do that. If we were to shut off the Federal lands, as many people would like to do, we would shut off the water supply to the population that has elected me to represent them back here in Washington, D.C. Not just water supply. Radio towers. A lot of my colleagues in the East take for granted, for example, States that have very, very little Federal land, take for granted the fact that they can have a cellular telephone tower, or they can have a radio tower or the power lines. There are a lot of electrical power lines that the only way we can get electricity to the population that I represent depends on the amount for multiple use of Federal lands. Same thing with microwave. Same thing with cellular telephones. In fact, in the district that I represent, I am not sure that there is a highway out there that at some point is not dependent upon being able to cross Federal lands. Now, these Federal lands are massive. The Federal Government has designed a management technique to carry out the philosophy of multiple use, and that management technique involves several agencies. It involves, of course, the Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, National Parks. And they are granted. These Federal agencies are given several different tools under which to manage this large mass of land. Now, the most obvious on this ranch, the most obvious lack of management is kind of a free-for-all. And frankly, when they settled the West many, many years ago, the government kind of let them go, free for all. ``Go out there, conquer the land.'' And of course, we did not have the environmental technology we have today, but there was a lot of damage done. In fact, some of our rivers in Colorado still run with some of the mineral that had seeped from the mining back in there. But as time went on, the government became a little better, a little smarter; and so did the population. And let me stress, so did the population. The people that know that land the best are not the governmental bureaucrats, they are not the government employees out there. The people that know that land the best are the people that grew up on that land. And there are a lot of great, long-time families that care about that land as much as they care about their children. Let us go back to the management tools. So we have got the free-for- all over here, which clearly is an idiotic, frankly, management tool to use. It would never pass today and it should not pass as a management tool for today. And the other tool we have clear over on this extreme is the designation called ``wilderness areas.'' Now, ``wilderness'' sounds very fuzzy. It is a very good word. I was in a town meeting, in fact, about a week ago and I asked the people there, ``How many people in this room do not like the word `wilderness?' '' Everybody likes the word ``wilderness.'' But understand what it does. Basically, the word ``wilderness'' locks up the land. That is the designation of the ``no trespassing'' sign that I spoke of. There are appropriate areas in the West where the ``wilderness'' designation, that is what they call it, the ``wilderness'' designation is appropriate. For example, I have got a bill myself on the Spanish Peaks that I am a cosponsor on with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs). Spanish Peaks, we go clear to the very top of the peaks. It is an appropriate designation for wilderness. It is an appropriate area for, in essence, a lockout. But my colleagues will find many environmental groups, the national Sierra Group for example, that wants to drain Lake Powell, Earth First. They would like to take all of this Federal land or the biggest chunk of this Federal land and put it into wilderness areas. They now are trying to put big chunks of this land in wilderness areas, lock them out, keep the people out of it. Well, that is the most extreme tool. By the way, if we employ that tool of management, it is totally, totally inflexible and it cannot be changed except under the rarest of circumstances. And I cannot imagine, even if we were at war and we needed the resources off that, I cannot imagine getting the votes necessary that would unlock that wilderness area. So we have the wilderness area over here as a management tool. We have the free-for-all over here. And in between we have the Forest Service, National Parks, and the BLM that have a number of tools that they can utilize to manage these lands. And with the exception of the Federal Wilderness designation, every other tool that the Forest Service, for example, has or that the BLM has or National Parks has, has flexibility. Remember, wilderness has no flexibility. Once we are in it, we are locked in it forever. But the other management tools have flexibility. The reason they have flexibility is that, who knows what the future brings. We may find that the technology on how to handle the environment or what to do with the resources out there demands a different management tool than the one we have under it today. But because of our discovery of technology or better management tools, we think we should shift it over here or shift this one over here. We have got that flexibility. Now, I want to tell my colleagues, I know a lot of employees of the United States Forest Service. I know a lot of employees at the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Park Services. If we allow them to do their job, I think they can do a pretty good job. They are a dedicated bunch of people. But, unfortunately, what happens out there is we have special- interest groups, for example, the national Sierra Club, Earth First, and by the way, most of these are headquartered not in this area, they are headquartered back here in the East, primarily in Washington D.C., who come into this area and try and dictate, not compromise with common sense, but try and dictate the policies of their special interests on the management of these Federal lands. Frankly, they have been pretty successful. What kind of impact has it had? The kind of impact that it has is, it drives our ranching communities. I tell my colleagues, our ranching community is vital, not just for the State of Colorado, not for the cattle markets, not for the sheep markets, but for the wholesome style of living that that signifies. The West is what the United States is known for. And these families, and again look at my in-laws, David and Sue Ann Smith, we can still see the cabins where their grandparents came and homesteaded in that area. And they are very dependent frankly upon multiple use of Federal land. So is everybody in Meeker, Colorado. So is everybody in Grand Junction. So are the skiers. It is very heavily depended upon. If we can allow the Federal employees to do their jobs and do them with a little anecdote of common sense, we can protect this land, we can live off this land, and we can preserve this land for everybody's use. But, please, do not be taken in by some of these special interest groups that are going to try and convince us, first of all, that there is gross abuse going on here on these Federal lands, that these Federal lands are being degraded. They can always find an example here and there. Gosh, I am a Catholic. We can look in the Catholic church and we can find an example of a bad person here or there in our religion. But that does not mean that we revamp the entire system. It is the same thing here. When somebody talks to us about going to Colorado or we need this wilderness area out here, ask them what the impact would be if we went to New York City and put a wilderness area in Central Park, or if we went out here on the Mall in Washington, D.C., and made the Mall a wilderness area, gave it a wilderness designation. What would happen to it? Nobody gets to go on it. We want to preserve this for the future. Meaning no one has access to the National Mall. The country would not tolerate that for 2 seconds, and they should not tolerate that for 2 seconds. Well, we in the West face the same kind of challenges. Let the people in the West live as my colleagues do. Let us enjoy the historical perspective and listen to our opinions on what could help the land, how to preserve the land. Last week I had an opportunity to speak here and I named several ranchers. Bill Volbraught has got a ranch in Evergreen, Colorado. Al Stroobauts has a farm in Virginia, and he has a ranch in Colorado. The Smiths, they ranch up in Meeker. The Strangs, a former U.S. Congressman, ranches in Carbondale. His brother ranches up in Meeker. Go out and spend just a few minutes with these people. Go to Golden Bears Ranch out in the Glenwood Canyon, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, near Aspen. A lot of my colleagues know where Aspen is. Spend a few minutes with these people. See how important the concept of multiple use is. But more important than that, see how important the management and love of that land pours out of their hearts. When they pick up a handful of soil, when they point out an elk, when they take us down and show us the stream, take us trout fishing, or show us how generation after generation has been raised through 4-H, calves or 4-H sheep or at the county fair, we will have a much, much better understanding of how important this area is and the ability to live in this area and the ability to have multiple use, how important that is for the entire United States. Let me move from Federal land ownership over to something that is important to all of us, and that is water. I think an interesting thing about water is to talk a little about how much water is necessary for each and every one of us to have on a daily basis. I bet none of my colleagues know that it takes a thousand gallons of water a day, a thousand gallons of water a day, to grow the necessary food to give each person in these Chambers three balanced meals. The average person, when they cook for those meals and drink, 2 gallons a day. A washing machine uses about 20 gallons per load, a dishwasher, 25 gallons per load. Taking a shower, oh, 7 to 9 gallons per shower. Now, growing food, and by the way, growing foods is the biggest consumption of water in the country. Growing foods, to get one loaf of bread, this is a hard statistic to believe, to get one loaf of bread takes 150 gallons of water for one loaf of bread. One egg to produce, when that egg finally comes out, we have gone through 120 gallons of water. Quart of milk, 123 gallons of water. One pound of tomatoes, just to raise one pound of tomatoes, it takes 125 gallons of water. One pound of oranges, 47 pounds. And one pound of potatoes, 23 gallons. If we took 50 glasses of water, just to give a comparison, 44 glasses of that 50 glasses of water, so we own 50 glasses of water, 44 of those glasses have to go straight to agriculture. That is how critical water is for our food supply in this country. Three glasses of those 50 glasses would be used by industry. Two glasses would be used by the major cities. And a half a glass of water is used in the country for the smaller population that we have. Now, water is critical. When we look around the world, we say the world has lots of water. Ninety-seven percent, 97 percent of the water in the world is salt water; less than 3 percent is pure water. Now, if we take a look at the map, and going back again, if we take a look here and we draw a line somewhere between Kansas and Missouri, so we go down about like this, that area right there, we will find that 73 percent of the stream flow, 73 percent of the water in the United States, is here in the East, 73 percent. So that line represents 73 percent. Over here we are going to find that 12.7 percent of the country's water supply is up here in the Pacific Northwest, and the remaining 13 or 14 Western States over here have 14 percent. So about a percent per State. So 14 States only have 14 percent of the water supply. Now, in the East, one of their problems with water is how to get rid of it. In the West our problem is how do we save it. Take, for example, the State of Colorado. Colorado is a very arid State. Colorado is the highest State in the country. In fact, the district that I represent is the highest district in the country. It is a mountainous district. We have 54 mountains over 14,000 feet in my district. But in Colorado we do not get much rainfall. Where we get our water, and by the way they call the State of Colorado ``The Mother of All Rivers.'' Colorado, when we get our water, comes from the melting of the snow on the high peaks. Colorado is the only State in the lower 48, the only State where all of our free-flowing water goes out. We do not have water that flows into the State of Colorado. It is a critical issue. And the water we get, as I mentioned earlier, comes from the snow melt off the top of the mountain peaks. That is called the spring runoff. But the springs runoff only occurs for a period of time, about 60 to 90 days; and during that 60-to-90-day period of time, if we do not store that water, we lose that water. Now, the beauty of water is it is the only natural resource that is renewable. For example, if we use a gallon of gasoline, it is gone forever once we burn it up. We use a gallon of water and a gallon of water up here in the mountain range, by the time a gallon of water leaves the headwaters there and gets down here, say, to the Utah border, that gallon of water has the equivalent of 6 gallons of water. And so on, it just goes. It is the only natural resource that is a renewable resource. It is a critical resource for us. But in the East, there is I think somewhat of a lack of perhaps understanding of how critical water storage is for us to have water outside that 60 to 90-day period of time that we experience the spring runoff. Colorado is a State that is the headwaters for four major rivers, the Arkansas, and the Arkansas flows on into Kansas, goes over to Kansas. Up here in Nebraska it is the Platte, and the Platte flows up that direction. We have a river that originates here and goes up into Nebraska, the Platte. We have the Arkansas that goes down here into Kansas, we have the Rio Grande that goes down here into New Mexico. And we have got the Colorado River. By the way the Colorado River is called the mother of rivers. The Colorado River supplies water for 18 or 19 different States and the country of Mexico. That river goes west, and flows into the State of Utah, eventually makes its way to the Pacific Ocean and down for the country of Mexico. In fact, out of Colorado, to show you how important that water and how important the snowfall is up there, 75 percent of the water in the Colorado River, which again goes about like this, 75 percent of that water comes off those mountain peaks in the congressional district that I represent. As of late, we have seen a lot of effort, again by some special interest groups, who in my opinion do not understand how critical water storage is for our species, how important water storage is for our crops, how important our water storage is for our animals and the whole works. These people do not understand that. Some of these organizations, maybe even more frightening is they do understand it. Some of these special interest organizations cannot wait to take down a dam out in the West. First of all, we use those dams to store the water, as I mentioned earlier. Second, this statistic is probably, oh, 4 years old, so I do not know if it is still accurate today, I think it is, there is not a gold meadow fishing stream in Colorado that is not below a dam. The other thing is the hydroelectric power that comes off those dams is probably the cleanest type of power you can get. You go to some foreign country and they chuckle when they see that there are people in our country who want to do away with hydroelectric power. They say it is such a clean power. We know how to take care of these resources. We have got the National Sierra Club, the President of the National Sierra Club named as his top priority to drain Lake Powell. Lake Powell may not mean a lot to you here in the Chambers, but I can tell you it is a critical, critical water resource, not just for the power, not just for the recreation, not just for the drinking but for the environment as a whole. It is a critical body of water out in the West. We need your support. I need your support. This Nation needs your support, to understand how important and how critical water in the West has become and will remain, how just one little innocent bill that goes out of these Chambers addressing either multiple use on Federal lands or impacting the utilization of water in the West, how one little bill out of here can have a major, major impact on the life-styles of the people that settled the West. They have a saying in Colorado that water runs as thick as blood. That is true. We used to have a joke out there that you can mess around with a man as long as you leave his water alone and a couple of other things. Certainly water has risen to the top as a critical issue. Let me just recap, because our lesson really tonight or the discussion I wanted to have with my colleagues out here was Federal lands and why we feel in the West sometimes under siege by some of our colleagues here in the East. In fact, it is kind of interesting. You take a look at some of these so-called environmental ratings put out again by these special interest organizations. Take a look. This demonstrates pretty clearly to me the lack of understanding of some of these organizations of the lifestyle in the West, of the needs of the West. Take a look. You will find high environmental ratings over here. Once you come to the West, you will see noticeably lower environmental ratings by these special interest groups. My bet is most of the people putting those kind of charts together have never sat foot on a mountain in the district that I represent, have never sat down with a Mike Strang or a David Smith or a Bill Volbraught or an Al Stroobauts or Leslie Volbraught or Kit Strang or Sue Ann Smith and asked these people how important land is, how they take care of the land and would they mind just spending a few hours kind of shadowing them around the ranch so they have some kind of an appreciation of what goes on. The use of these Federal lands, the management of these Federal lands here is very, very important. I just ask that each of you this evening, before you criticize those of us in the West who feel that we are under attack, who constantly feel that we are being trampled upon because of a lack of understanding, I ask that you take a little time the next time one of these issues comes up and study the issue or come out to the West, not on a vacation to Aspen or Vail, although they are beautiful places to visit, they are in my district, but go out to a small little town like Silt, Colorado or Meeker, Colorado or maybe go out in the east to Sterling, Colorado and just visit with some of those people and see how a Federal policy in Washington, D.C. can devastate a lot of history, a lot of family and a lot of love for that land. The final thing I want to revisit very quickly is this water issue. Remember that most of the water in the country, you have already got here in the East. That in the West for us to have this water, we have to, one, manage it, and I think we do a pretty good job of it, two, we have to have water storage, and we need to use common sense. The way to build water storage projects today has changed from the way we built water projects 20 or 25 years ago. We have got more advanced technology. We know how to get a bigger bang for the buck. We know how to get a bigger bang for the environment. We know how to build these projects in such a way that we can minimize, in fact enhance. The days of mitigation of the environment are over. Now, when you have a project like a dam water storage project, you are not going to be expected just to mitigate the environmental impacts you have. We now expect you to enhance the environment, make it better. We can do that and we are doing that. But to my colleagues here, do not just automatically say any water storage project in the West must be pork, must be disastrous to the environment, because it is our lifeblood. When you come west of the Mississippi, that is our lifeblood. All of this region, we have got to have water. In conclusion, one of the people that I have enjoyed the most up here learning from, a fellow who is a tugboat captain, who has lived this land, who understands this land, who understands common sense and is under siege by the government ownership of land is the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). Some of these special interest groups write him off, ``Oh, my gosh, he's terrible.'' But not many of them have ever been on a tugboat with him. Not many have ever been up to Alaska to see the kind of wilderness that he is so proud of. Not many of the critics have gone out there and visited with some of the natives or some of the people out in Alaska that live off the land. The same thing in my district, the same thing in Utah, in the district of Mr. Hansen. The same thing in a lot of others, Mr. Ensign in Nevada. I appreciate your time this evening. I will be back again. As long as I represent the Third Congressional District in this fine body, you can count on me standing up for the rights, not just of the citizens I represent but the rights of the future generations, so that they too, without having to be wealthy, they too can live on the land and enjoy the land that I have been privileged to do.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself several such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 414 is a simple resolution. The proposed rule merely waives the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House for resolutions reported from the Committee before May 1, 1998, under certain circumstances. This narrow, short-term waiver only applies to special rules providing for the consideration or disposition of H.R. 3579, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, amendments thereto, a conference report thereon, or items in disagreement from a conference for H.R. 3579. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 414 is straightforward, and it was reported by the Committee on Rules with a voice vote. The Committee recognizes the need for expedited procedures to bring these emergency supplemental appropriations forward as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, the timeliness of some of these emergency appropriations cannot be understated. There are many areas within the country that have been hit by significant natural disasters which need relief as well as critical funding for military operations. Therefore, we must move promptly. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 414. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to inquire of my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) if he has any further testimony or any further discussion on his side?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 414) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for the Congressional Record. My Voice in Our Democracy 1997-98 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition Colorado Winner (By Neil Rhodes) A few years ago, when I was about eleven years old, I was profoundly affected by the chronicle of a young Jewish girl during the second world war: a girl who, while hiding out from the Nazis, wrote in the red-checkered diary she had received for her thirteenth birthday; a martyr who was eventually discovered and sent to her death in a concentration camp; a visionary whose diary writings encompassed the plight of millions around the world. That little girl was Anne Frank. One of the final entries in Anne's red-checkered diary proclaimed the desperation of a nation without democracy. It read: ``ideals, dreams, and cherished hopes rise within us only to meet the horrible truth and be shattered . * * *'' At the young age I was, this was the first real connection I had ever experienced with the evils of tyranny. Since then I've encountered a multitude of other stories and situations that have increased my awareness of democracy. Like the time I visited a small holocaust museum and spoke with Mr. Kelen--a survivor of the holocaust himself, or the time I traveled just across the Mexican border, and witnessed first-hand the crippling poverty caused by government corruption; the time I sat glued to the television, my eyes locked on the image of a young Chinese boy facing certain death as he stood in the path of an oncoming military tank. Every new experience helped shape my thoughts, mold my perspective, and strengthen my voice as an American citizen. I have come to realize just how fortunate I am--how fortunate we all are--to possess the light of democracy. I've learned that democracy is priceless and powerful. Priceless, because our basic rights are stained with the blood of millions who fought to gain them. Democracy also has boundless power: quite simply, the power to shatter the chains of bondage forever. But as we live our lives in freedom we must remember the horrible truth that Anne Frank wrote about. The horrible truth is that there are still millions of people living in the darkness of oppression. For those not yet experiencing liberty, we must continue the battle. If we believe in our own sovereignty, that is our duty. The Declaration of Independence does not say ``All Americans are created equal'' but that ``All men''--all around the world--``are created equal.'' Thus, we cannot simply work to continue our own democratic system; we must bring that system to the rest of the world. Only then will the visions of our forefathers be completed. In the social and political arena every American has a voice--a platform from which to speak. In many parts of the globe that could not be farther from the truth. Anne Frank never had a voice. I, however, do. I stand before you now, and I speak on behalf of those who couldn't and those who still cannot. My voice in our democracy is the reflection of a free person; my voice pays tribute to the thousands who died for the cause of liberty; my voice cries out an urging for the respect of our nation and an offering of hope for the future. Yes, even in the midst of the cruelest oppression, hope is one thing that can never be destroyed. Because, you see, I never finished the quotation by Anne Frank that I gave earlier. Here is the quote in its entirety: ``ideals, dreams, and cherished hopes rise within us only to meet the horrible truth and be shattered * * * yet in spite of everything I still believe that people really are good at heart.'' Anne Frank's devotion to the human spirit should serve as an example to all of us, and especially to Americans. Progress in the world must begin with you and me. I would hope that one day all Americans would understand that with strength, compassion, diligence, and the fortitude of our voices, we have the ability to change democracy from an ideal, a dream, and a cherished hope * * * into a powerful and permeating reality.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the summary of what the IMF is asking us to do is to subsidize the IMF so they can turn around and subsidize mismanagement. These economies, these large private families that took private risks now want the American taxpayer, who by far is the largest contributor to the IMF fund, they want the American taxpayer to subsidize overseas their mismanagement, their miscalculation and their risk. We do not even do it for a farmer in our district that does not get the prices he needs for his milk. We do not go in there and bail them out. We do not reward mismanagement. But we do with this. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with both of my colleagues this evening and have a discussion about this, because this is an issue which, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) said, it is an issue that is complicated. It is hard to understand what IMF stands for, but it is important for us. I appreciate my colleagues including me in this conversation this evening to try to at least get the message out to our colleagues: Take a second look at this deal. Money is not free. Somebody is paying for it. And in these circumstances, all of our constituencies are paying for this $18 billion to be shipped, wired out of here and wired over to these mismanaged international economies.

Mr. McINNIS. And another thing we might ask is, when are they going to pay us back? I think that is a pretty logical question. Somebody borrows money from the bank, the bank says not only when are they going to pay it back, but how are they going to pay it back? The other thing is that in an economy we have to let correction take place. There has to be that cycle of correction. And what we are doing is really we are doing an injustice to this country. We are avoiding the correction, the necessary correction by bailing it out. That correction will not take place and the next correction they get hit with is going to be much, much harder. Again, we need to move on to some other subjects, but I do appreciate my colleagues and I appreciate the time that they have allowed me to join them this evening.

Mr. McINNIS. It is because it is free. They think they can just go to the Congress and the money is going to flow in. Of course, as I was saying, that money that goes over to these countries, what we are doing there, there are many private enterprises. Now, in the past with the IMF, what they have done in the history of the IMF, they have bailed out governments of countries that got into trouble, where the entire government was on the verge of collapse. This time, it is different. This time, the IMF is going in to families, private families, who assume the risk, and they are going to bail these families out of a misjudgment. They took a risk. What we are saying is that we are now making any kind of business ventures outside of the boundaries of our country risk-free. All you have to do is go out, throw out a few hundred million dollars, if you lose it, come to Washington, come to us, and get the money.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I woke up this morning and, doing the usual morning, looked at the newspapers and read some of the comments about Earth Day yesterday, and I was surprised at some of the remarks that were made that seem to want to imply to the American people or convince the American people that the way to protect our environment is to have a larger and bigger government in Washington, D.C.; that the people in Washington, D.C., truly know better than those of you out there who own property, who have worked property, who work your land and live your land; that the people in Washington, D.C., really should be trusted with your water, they should be trusted with utilization of your land, they should be trusted with all of the decisions to be made about the environment. So briefly tonight I wanted to talk to you about a few people that live on the land. David and Sue Ann Smith, the Smith ranch located in Meeker, Colorado, that ranch is what they call a centennial ranch, which means one family has been on that ranch more than a hundred years. In the Smith case, it is one of the most beautifully managed ranches that I have been on, and I have spent a lot of time on it. It is a centennial family, they care about it, they make their living off that land. Down in Carbondale, Colorado, former Congressman Mike Strang, Mike and Kit Strang have their ranch down there. It looks out over Mount Sopris. They take care of that land as if it were their own child. You go back up to Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Al Strouband's. Al has a beautiful ranch up there, Storm King Ranch. He takes care of it. You should see what he does with the vegetation, you should see what he does with the utilization of the water, how he takes care of the game. And not only does Al have a ranch in Colorado, he also has a farm in Virginia. Go down and see the farm and what he does with his farm, how well manicured it is, the animals that are taken care of, how he takes care of the environment, the soil, the water. And you come back to Colorado. Go back up to Meeker again, go visit Bart and Mary Strang. They have been there a long time, these Strang families, long, long time. See how they take care of the land, see how protective they are of the environmental issues. Go back up to Evergreen, Colorado, to Bill and Leslie Volbright. That is the utilization of conservation easements so that they can protect their land into the future. Or if you want to, go back to Grand Junction, Colorado, Doug and Cathy King. I go up there every year to bugle elk. Some of the finest elk in the country are up in that area, beautiful aspen trees. You should go up there sometime in the fall, should go and ride in the pickup truck with Doug and see how much he cares about that land, how fragile they are with the land. Go to Carbondale, Colorado to Tom and Ruth Perry's ranch; to their in-laws, Tom and Rossie Turnbull's. Look at what they do with their land and how protective they are. You will find three things in common with all of these families. Obviously the first thing in common is they care about that land. They love that land. They know how important the land was for generations before them. They know how important that land is for generations ahead of them. The second thing they all have in common is no one in Washington, D.C., no one in Washington, D.C., no Environmental Protection Agency, nobody from Earth First or the National Sierra Club had to march onto this property and tell these people how to care for that land. Nobody from Washington, D.C. or Earth First or these organizations had to tell them about the future generations. Nobody in Washington, D.C. or Earth First or any of those programs know anything about the past generations of this land. The other thing that is in common, they are all Republicans. Now when I read the papers this morning, the Democratic Party seems to think that through big government, through a larger EPA, through organizations like Earth First, that that is the way we ought to control and protect our environment. Well, I am telling you they have got it all wrong. What they need to do is just take a few minutes, go talk to their local members, go talk to the local ranchers, go talk to the men and women that make their livings off farms and ranches. Take enough time to ride around on horseback or in a pickup or walk around, whatever you want to do. That land, see how they care for it, see how they talk about it, see how they cuddle it like it is a small child, see how they talk about future generations, and then reassess whether it is necessary for Washington, D.C. to impose their excess regulations, to impose some of the utopian ideas and in many cases to drive these people off that land. You know it is very easy in the East to tell them what to do in the West because there is not much government land in the East. In the West, my district for example, my district, geographically larger than the State of Florida, 20-some-million acres of Federal land. We know about that land. We do not need Washington, D.C. to tell us. Sometime take a deep breath and go visit a ranch in Colorado.