Marilyn Musgrave

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Officer Michel Conley of the Estes Park Police Department. On July 31, 1976, Officer Conley and his wife Phyllis were driving up the Big Thompson Canyon. Throughout that afternoon and evening, 14 inches of rain would fall in just over 4 hours time during a tremendous thunderstorm. The rain had brought a large boulder down the canyon, obstructing the road where it came to rest. Conley stopped and headed to a nearby lodge to alert State patrol of the obstruction. By this time the rain was heavy and the canyon was in danger. Conley, though off duty, acted with the bravery and sense of public service with which he served as a police officer and began to alert residents and visitors in the canyon, telling them to get to high ground. He notified somewhere between 75 and 175 people, saving them from the 20-foot wall of water that came rushing down the canyon, sweeping away roads, cars, and buildings in its path. Conley's wife was able to get to higher ground, but he was not. As the wall of water came sweeping toward him he climbed a telephone pole in a desperate attempt to get above the water, but the pole was swept away and Officer Conley lost his life. Along with Officer Conley, 143 people lost their lives in the devastating flood. At the time, the Estes Park Police Department had no formal way of honoring officers who lost their lives in acts of such honor. However, on the 30th anniversary of the flood, and his heroic efforts to save the lives of those in danger, he will be honored with a medal of valor. Today I stand to honor his selfless act of heroism. ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends''--John 15:13. Officer Conley did so for mere strangers and I pay tribute to his valiant act as we remember the legacy of one of the worst natural disasters in the history of Colorado.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Colorado's Big Thompson Flood. On July 31, 1976, residents and visitors in the Big Thompson Canyon suffered the unspeakable horror of one of the worst natural disasters in Colorado history. I will never forget when the news started to break and the tragedy started to unfold. In just a few hours, more than a foot of rain fell in the area surrounding the Big Thompson River, causing a wall of water over 20 feet tall to sweep through the canyon. In its wake, the flood claimed the lives of 144 people and left many others homeless. In all, over 400 homes and dozens of businesses were destroyed. As we pause to commemorate the tragic events of 30 years ago, we remember the many lives that were taken from us by the waters of the Big Thompson and offer our thoughts and prayers for those they left behind. It is often said that the worst of circumstances bring forth the best in people. In the hours and weeks following the disaster, the community surrounding Big Thompson Canyon displayed unparalleled graciousness and compassion. From the heroic rescuers who plucked survivors from the craggy canyon walls, to the countless others who gave their time, talents and resources, we saw the best of the American spirit in the wake of disaster. Mr. Speaker, today Big Thompson Canyon and, more significantly, the lives of those touched by the flood still bear the scars from that terrible July night. As we mark the 30th anniversary of one of the worst natural disasters in Colorado history, I urge my colleagues to join me in remembering those who lost their lives and the countless others whose lives have been forever changed by the Big Thompson Flood.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Hastert and Mr. Leader Boehner for bringing this bill to the floor. Letters and e-mails and phone calls continue to pour into my office urging me to continue in this effort. We know that polls show that the overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman. The people have a right to know whether their elected Representatives agree with them about protecting traditional marriage. I cannot think of a better good that this body may pursue than to promote and defend the idea that every child deserves both a father and a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of a child's biological parents in a child's happiness, health and future achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin to chip away at the future success of that child. I would not want to negate the heroic job that many single parents do every day in providing the necessary support to a child's happiness. But today we are discussing what social policy is best for our children, and I am convinced that the best is found in promoting and defending traditional marriage. Are there other important issues? Of course there are, but preserving the institution of marriage, which, as the Supreme Court said many years ago, is ``the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,'' certainly warrants a few hours of our time. And even if there are other issues we need to address, as a former Member, one of my favorites, J.C. Watts said, ``Members of Congress are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.'' And where are those who say we are wasting time when we were renaming post offices and Federal buildings earlier this year? Mr. Speaker, if we have enough time to rename post offices and Federal buildings, surely we can spend one afternoon debating whether or not the traditional definition of marriage is worth preserving. Others have asked why we need this amendment given that courts in New York, Georgia, and Nebraska have recently turned back challenges to traditional marriage. I just would like to say these decisions simply do not settle the issues. Cases in New Jersey and Washington, to name only two of many, remain pending. Additionally, the Massachusetts Supreme Court's Goodridge decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that State continues to stand. Just last week, legislators in Massachusetts put off a measure to give the people the opportunity to decide this issue for themselves. While the Goodridge case remains on the books, court dockets all over the country will continue to be ensnarled with same-sex marriage litigation as opponents of traditional marriage continue to fight to expand their agenda to the rest of the country. While recent court victories are not unimportant, the ultimate court test, the test in the United States Supreme Court, is still on the horizon. And legal experts agree at least four and probably five of the members of that court will act to overturn traditional marriage across America. That is why most legal experts expect DOMA to fall once a challenge finally reaches the high Court, which is why it would be the very height of foolishness to rely on the Supreme Court to protect marriage. Sadly, that august tribunal is part of the problem. Justice Scalia has already warned us that the Court's 2003 Lawrence decision was only the beginning of a road at the end of which is a radical redefinition of marriage at the hands of the Court. Does anyone else see the irony in the opponents of this bill calling on us to wait until the Supreme Court rules before deciding this issue? Many of those who protested the loudest that DOMA was unconstitutional when it was enacted in 1996 are today the ones who say we ought to presume DOMA is constitutional until the high Court tells us otherwise. The American people want us to settle this issue now. They don't want us to wait to see how much havoc the courts will wreak on the definition of marriage before we act to protect it. Our marriage laws represent centuries of cumulative wisdom regarding the best way to address public concerns about property, inheritance, legal liability and raising children. The last matter is especially important because we now know beyond any reasonable doubt that children thrive best when they are raised in a traditional family. And statistically speaking, the further we go from this ideal, the more we can expect to see increases in measures as a whole host of social problems. Again, this is not to say that children raised in nontraditional families will necessarily fall prey to these problems, but public policy is based on cumulative, not individual experience. Facts, as it has been said, are stubborn things. And one sad but stubborn fact is that the statistical dice are loaded against children who are raised without a father and a mother. Some oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment on the grounds that the institution of marriage is already in trouble. Why be concerned, they say, about same-sex marriage when the divorce rate among couples in traditional marriages is so high? But can't you see this is a non sequitur? It is like saying to a doctor, The patient already has pneumonia, so why are you taking precautions to prevent him from getting a staph infection? Yes, traditional marriage has its problems, we all know that, and the high divorce rate is a national scandal. But far from undermining my point, this reinforces it. We are dismayed by the breakup of families because we know broken families lead to more and more children being deprived of the tremendous benefit of having both their mom and dad around to raise them. Other opponents of this amendment argue that the existence of same- sex marriage in Massachusetts has not caused the earth to stop spinning on its axis, so they ask what is all this fuss about. After only 2 years of experience, it is absurd to suggest that we can even begin to guess how the redefinition of marriage in that State will ramify in the future. And the fact that same-sex marriages in Massachusetts do not directly affect my marriage or your marriage means nothing in regard to the public policy debate. The breakup of the family next door does not directly affect your marriage or my marriage either, but we all recognize that every family that comes apart is a tragedy, and that is why our laws have always sought to encourage, not undermine, traditional families.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to Mr. Nadler, your statements about hospital visits and those things, that was a misstatement. That is not what this amendment does. There are State legislatures that have the authority to handle all of the benefits that you have talked about, and that is what the amendment clearly states. I would just like to say, we can look at places like the Netherlands, where since 1997 they have had registered partnership, and gay marriage since 2001. In effect, that is probably the best place to look at what gay marriage has done. The out-of-wedlock births have escalated. The divorce rate is escalating. In fact, many people in Scandinavia don't think that marriage is even relevant today. I would say today if marriage can mean anything, eventually marriage will mean nothing. Within the institution of marriage, society offers special support and encouragement to the men and women who together make children. Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interest of children, it is obviously a matter of public concern. Children depend on society to create institutions to keep them from chaos. That is why we have the obligation to give special support and encouragement to an institution that is necessary to the well-being of children. I urge my colleagues to support public policy that strengthens marriage and vote in favor of this amendment. Marriage is for Children: 1a) In setting up the institution of marriage, society offers special support and encouragement to the men and women who together make children. Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of children, it is a matter of public concern. Children are helpless. They depend upon adults. Over and above their parents, children depend upon society to create institutions that keep them from chaos. Children cannot articulate their needs. Children cannot vote. Yet children are society. They are us, and they are our future. That is why society has the right to give special support and encouragement to an institution that is necessary to the well being of children--even if that means special benefits for some, and not for others. Single people are denied the benefits of married couples, for example. But this is permitted because married parenthood is essential to society. The law has always permitted the state to give special support to critical institutions, if those institutions serve a compelling interest of society. Marriage is exactly such an institution. Marriage is designed to maximize the chances that each child will be provided with a mother and a father, in a stable family setting, during the years when children are too young to fend for themselves. To redefine marriage in such a way as to remove its essential connection to parenthood is to take away its very purpose. (1b) Only a man and a woman have the power between them to create children. Marriage as an institution helps to turn the love of a man and a woman into an instrument for the nurture and protection of children. If we redefine fathers, mothers, and parenthood out of marriage, then this precious institution will be lost. The European Experience With Gay Marriage: Can it be a coincidence that Scandinavia, the region with the highest out-of-wedlock birthrates in the world, was the very first place to recognize same-sex unions? Marriage was already in serious decline in Sweden and Norway when same-sex partnerships arrived, and since that time marital decline in those countries has advanced still further. But the clearest example of the effect of same-sex marriage is the Netherlands, where they have had registered partnerships since 1997 and full gay marriage since 2001. In the Netherlands, out-of-wedlock birthrates were low until the arrival of registered partnerships and gay marriage. But since the advent of registered partnerships and same- sex marriage, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has risen faster and longer in the Netherlands than in any other west European country. (1a) What is marriage? Marriage is society's way of supporting the men and women who together make children. Children can't fend for themselves. That's why the public has always taken an interest in marriage. By supporting the institution of marriage, the state encourages the rearing of children under the secure care of a mother and father. But what would happen if we said marriage doesn't have anything to do with mothers, fathers, and children? What would happen if we said marriage is really just about a couple of adults who love each other--whether they're men and women or not? Well, just look at Scandinavia and Holland. Over in Scandinavia they've had various forms of same-sex partnership nearly two decades. And they've had gay marriage in Holland for several years. But marriage in Scandinavia is dying, and marriage in Holland is growing progressively weaker every year. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born out-of-wedlock. In some parts of Norway, as many as eighty percent of first-born children and two-thirds of subsequent children are now born out-of-wedlock. True, much of that decline took place even before same-sex partnerships came into effect. But in both Sweden and Norway, marriage continued to decline following the introduction of same-sex partnerships. Can it be a coincidence that the region of the world where marriage has traditionally been weakest was the first place to experiment with something like same-sex marriage? The negative effects of gay marriage on marriage are even clearer in the Netherlands. Prior to the introduction of registered partnerships and later gay marriage, Holland was known for having one of the lowest out-of-wedlock birthrates in Northern Europe. Yet out-of-wedlock birthrates have been rising at an unusually rapid rate in the Netherlands ever since registered partnerships, and then formal gay marriage, were established. In the last decade, no other West European country has seen its out- of-wedlock birthrate rise as fast as Holland's. And there were no other major legal or social changes during the last decade that might explain Holland's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate in some other way. So it looks very likely that registered partnerships and same-sex marriage have helped to hasten the unusually rapid decline of marriage in the Netherlands. Gay marriage has helped send a message to parents in Scandinavia and Holland that being married doesn't have much of anything to do with being a parent. Nowadays, a lot of parents in Scandinavia and Holland put off getting married until after they've had a child or two, if they don't break up first--which many do. Increasingly, parents in these countries don't get married at all anymore. If marriage is disappearing in the parts of the world that have had something like gay marriage longer than anywhere else, I don't want to take a chance on gay marriage here. 1b) Marriage is not meant solely, or even mainly, for husbands and wives. Marriage exists as a public institution because children need mothers and fathers. Once marriage is treated as a mere celebration of the love of two adults, there is no reason for it to necessarily happen before children are born instead of after. And if marriage could just as well happen after children are born, it doesn't really need to happen at all. European parents have increasingly stopped marrying because they no longer think of marriage as an institution meant to bind children to mothers and fathers. Gay marriage helps Europeans to see it that way, making them consider marriage nothing more than the expression of mutual affection between two adults. But this view translates into marrying long after children are born--if parents don't break up first. It means rising rates of family dissolution. That's what's happening in Europe. Do we want it to happen in America? That the family is the bedrock of society is more than just a cliche. In Scandinavia, where they've had de facto gay marriage for some time, marriage is dying, and a huge welfare state has taken over for parents. If the family goes here in America, then we will either have the social chaos of more crime and fatherless kids, or we will have to vastly expand our welfare state. So this issue touches on the deepest problems of governance. America's system of limited government works because the family does what the state does not. Weaken the family, and government is bound to expand to take its place. That is exactly what's happened in Scandinavia. Responding to Critics of the Scandinavia/Holland argument: (1) I know some folks have said that same-sex partnerships haven't had any bad effects on marriage in Europe, but I don't find their arguments convincing. (a) For one thing, some of these folks actually deny that Europe's high out-of-wedlock birthrates are a problem at all. That's just not true. In Europe, cohabiting parents break up at two-to-three times the rate of married parents. That level of family instability is very bad for children. So the European experience actually proves that it's better when parents get married. (b) Some folks say that marriage was in trouble in Scandinavia even before same-sex partnerships came along. Well, that's true, although in most parts of Scandinavia marriage continued to decline after same-sex partnerships came along. We all know that marriage has been in trouble for some time in America, and in many other countries, for a wide variety of reasons. But if you want to see a clear case where marriage was relatively strong, and only went into serious decline after the introduction of same-sex partnerships, just look at Holland. (See 1a in the previous section for more on Holland.) (c) Some folks claim that the Dutch example isn't a problem because out-of-wedlock birthrates have been rising almost as rapidly in Eastern Europe as in Holland. But the decline of marriage in Eastern Europe is rooted in the economic chaos that followed the collapse of communism. The amazing thing is that a prosperous Western European country like The Netherlands is experiencing the same sort of marital decline we're seeing in countries recovering from the collapse of their entire social system. (d) Some folks say that out-of-wedlock birthrates in Sweden haven't gone up all that much since registered partnerships came along in 1994. But they're not counting from 1987, when Sweden introduced the very first same-sex partnerships in the world. Just because these first same-sex partnerships didn't include all the rights of marriage doesn't mean that they weren't a huge legal and symbolic step. Amazingly, in 1987, at the very same time that Sweden introduced the first same-sex partnerships in the world, Sweden also granted just about all the rights of marriage to unmarried heterosexual couples. So from 1987 on, Sweden's parliament sent out a powerful message that married parenthood isn't important. Same-sex partnerships were part of that message from the start. (e) Some folks say that marriage in Denmark hasn't suffered since they adopted same-sex partnerships in 1989. Well, it's true that the Danish out-of-wedlock birthrate hasn't risen since they adopted same- sex partnerships, like it has in Sweden, Norway, and Holland. But that's a bit misleading. Actually, the rate of unmarried parenthood has increased among young people in Denmark, who are adopting the same practice of cohabiting parenthood favored in other Scandinavian countries. But the increased rate of unmarried parenthood among young Danes has been temporarily offset by marriages among older Danes. You see, there are virtually no housewives left in Denmark. The need to support the huge Danish welfare state forces nearly all Danish women to work. And it was only in the late 1980's and 1990's that Denmark created a parental leave policy and other changes that allowed large numbers of women to take time off of work to become mothers. That policy change unleashed huge pent-up demand among Danish women to have children, and that led to a temporary increase in the marriage rate among older Danes. But all that time, younger Danes have been taking up the practice of unmarried parenthood that is already so popular in the rest of Scandinavia. The Slippery Slope to Polygamy, Polyamory (Group Marriage) and Parental Cohabitation: (1) Once we say that same-sex couples can marry, it's going to be impossible to deny that right to polygamists and believers in group marriage. After all, gay marriage is being advocated on grounds of relationship equality. So if all relationships are equal, why is group marriage forbidden? And don't think it can't happen here. We already know that there are thousands of practicing polygamists in some Western states. But did you also know that there are groups of ``polyamorists'' all over the country? Just go to the Internet and run a google search on the word ``polyamory.'' The polyamorists have already had one court case trying to gain recognition for a marriage of a woman and two men. They're just waiting for gay marriage to pass to begin agitating for legalized group marriage. And after granting gay marriage on equal protection grounds, how is a court going to deny them? There are plenty of polyamorists out there, but the problem goes further than that. We now have an advocacy group called the ``Alternatives to Marriage Project'' which supports polyamory and other innovations like parental cohabitation. The Alternatives to Marriage Project is frequently quoted in the mainstream media. And believe it or not, the most powerful faction of family law scholars in our law schools favors legal recognition of both polyamory and parental cohabitation. There are even law review articles out now advocating both. And the influential American Law Institute has even come out with proposals which would grant nearly equal legal recognition to cohabiting and married parents. If we allow marriage to be radically redefined now, we will not be able to stop these further changes. (2) Now I know that some folks scoff at the claim that same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy. But just look at what's happened around the world in the past year or so. In Sweden, which passed the first same-sex partnership plan in the world, we've had a serious proposals floated by parties on the left to abolish marriage and legalize multi-partner unions. In the Netherlands, the first country in the world to have full and formal same-sex marriage, a man and two bisexual women signed a triple cohabitation contract. When a conservative political party asked the Dutch government to withdraw recognition from that contract, the government refused. In fact, the Dutch Justice Minister said it was actually a good thing that the law was beginning to provide support for multi-partner relationships. In Canada, two out of four reports commissioned by the last government recommended the decriminalization and regulation of polygamy. True, the revelation of those reports helped Canada's Conservative Party win the last election. But the fact remains that many of Canada's legal elites want to see the abolition of traditional marriage and official recognition for multi-partner unions. And of course, in America we've got ``Big Love,'' a popular television show on HBO about polygamy. Even a year ago, no-one would have believed it if someone had said we'd soon have a television show with polygamists as heroes. But it's happened. And next week the BRAVO Channel is going to run a sympathetic documentary about a relationship between a woman and two bisexual men. It's called ``Three of Hearts,'' and it's already played in movie theaters across the country. The truth is, this is only the beginning. Advocates for multi-partner unions are out there, but many of them are waiting for same-sex marriage to be legalized before they make their move to gain public acceptance. Newsweek has already said that ``polygamy activists are emerging in the wake of the gay marriage movement.'' Well, just wait till gay marriage is actually legalized. If that happens, you can bet we'll see plenty more movies and television shows along the lines of ``Big Love'' and ``Three of Hearts.'' The people on the so-called ``cutting edge'' of culture in Europe and Canada have already made it clear that multi-partner unions are their next crusade, and it's happening in America even as we speak. The only way to put a stop to it is to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Threat to Religious Freedom: (1) It's becoming increasingly apparent that gay marriage poses a significant threat to religious liberty. Scholars on both the left and right agree that same-sex marriage has raised the specter of a massive and protracted battle over religious freedom. In states that adopt same-sex marriage, religious liberty is clearly going to lose. Gay marriage proponents argue that sexual orientation is like race, and that opponents of same-sex marriage are therefore like bigots who oppose interracial marriage. Once same-sex marriage becomes law, that understanding is likely to be controlling. Legal same-sex marriage will be taken by courts as proof that a ``public policy'' in support of same-sex marriage exists. So in states with same-sex marriage, religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, etc. will be forced to choose between going out of business and violating their own deeply held beliefs. If a religious social service agency refuses to offer counseling designed to preserve the marriage of a same-sex couple, it could lose its tax-exempt status. Religious schools would either have to tolerate conduct they believed to be sinful, or face a cut-off of federal funds. It's already happening, as we've seen with the recent withdrawal of Boston's Catholic Charities from the adoption business. Free speech could also be under threat, as sexual-harassment-in-the- workplace principles are used by nervous corporate lawyers to draw speech prohibitions on the marriage issue. Fear of litigation will breed self-censorship. One expert predicts ``a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others.'' Some folks say the answer to this problem is special exemptions from the law for religious conscience. But conscience exemptions would be very difficult to enact. And in Europe, which has tried this in places, conscience exemptions are breaking down and failing to provide protection for the traditionally religious. The lesson in all this is clear. There's a lot more at stake in the battle over same-sex marriage than the marriage issue itself, important as that is. The very ability of religiously affiliated organizations to exist and operate is under threat.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the patriotism and heroism of Mr. Mel Ring. Mr. Ring served with distinction in the Army Air Corps during the harrowing days of the Second World War. As a B-17 crew member in the 815th Squadron of the 483 Bombardment Group, Mr. Ring and his fellow crew members played an integral role in the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany. The crew of the Good Deal formed in November 1943 with Mr. Melbourne Ring of Crook, CO, as one of the 13-member crew, which included Paul E. Ray, Warren O. Griffin, Carl B. Hardy, Gerald Kramer, Foster F. Knight, James I. Korshak, Walter J. Gladieux, August O. Bresciz, Theodore Engelun, Fred A. Clark, Jr., Robert J. Dalzin, and John M. Spear. On April 12, 1944 Mr. Ring and the crew of the Good Deal participated in their first mission to Split, Yugoslavia. In the following months, the crew of the Good Deal saw action over Toulon, Milan, Weiner Neustadt, Vienna, Budapest, Blechhammer, Ploesti, and Memmingen. Despite the fact that 14 of 26 American B-17s were lost over the German town of Memmingen on July 18, 1944, Mr. Ring and his crewmates successfully downed seven German fighters. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Mr. Ring's distinguished service and humbled by his courageous patriotism. The sacrifices he and the men of the Good Deal made to ensure the liberty and freedom of future generations will never be forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Melbourne D. Ring and the crew of the Good Deal.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I have left?

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will prohibit any funds in this bill from being used to enforce the burdensome trigger lock law that was passed and that went into effect on April 24 of this year. I believe this law is needless and equivalent to a tax on citizens who purchase firearms. The law states that all licensed manufacturers, licensed importers and licensed dealers must provide a trigger lock with every handgun they sell. This is not a cost that will be absorbed by the gun industry; it is a cost that will be passed on to lawful gun owners. Trigger locks do not stop gun crimes or accidental shootings. Mandating gun buyers to pay for a gun lock is not making America safe; it just is making guns and self-defense and personal protection more costly. Mr. Chairman, should the government mandate safety devices for every possible household danger? Lawn mowers can be dangerous. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, approximately 9,400 children younger than 18 years of age receive emergency care for lawn mower related injuries every year. Should we mandate that all lawn mowers be sold with a blade lock? Medicine cabinets contain dangerous substances. According to the Center for Disease Control, in 2000, over 1 million children younger than age 6 were exposed to poison, with some of the most common exposures being cosmetics and personal care products. Should we make medicine cabinet locks mandatory? Knives, electrical outlets, power tools. I could stand here and list hundreds of household mechanisms. Safety needs to be a priority in all households; we all know that. I believe that parents should be responsible and store and manage household products in a safe manner. But should lawn mower dealers be required to sell blade locks with every lawn mower sold or every cabinet maker sell a cabinet lock with every cabinet sold? Mr. Chairman, my point is that many things around the home are dangerous when used without proper instructions or supervision. But it is not the government's job or responsibility to mandate every conceivable protective mechanism imaginable. Responsible adults do not need the government to force them to purchase protective mechanisms for their homes or businesses. Responsible gun owners who need a trigger lock would have purchased one on their own without a government mandate. A government mandate is not the answer. Forcing gun buyers to purchase gun locks will not make guns more safe; it will only result in gun lock manufacturers making larger profits and increasing costs for all lawful gun owners. Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow Members to vote in favor of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the law is needless and equivalent to a tax on law-abiding citizens who buy guns. I urge Members to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the patriotic public service and self sacrifice of Colorado Senator Dave Owen. For more than five decades, Dave Owen has used his God-given abilities to serve his country as an Army officer, as a small business owner, and State Representative and Senator in Colorado. His tenacity, his sense of humor, and his integrity endear him to many people. He is worthy of our respect and admiration. Mr. Owen comes from a family with a history of public service. His stepfather served as an Army officer and the chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. Following in his footsteps, Owen joined the Air Force Reserves while studying at Denver University and then volunteered to fight the communists in Korea in 1951. As an armorer, he worked for 12 months arming and cleaning the weapons on F-51 Mustang fighter planes. After returning home to Colorado he used the GI Bill to get a Bachelor's Degree in English at Colorado College, in Colorado Springs, while simultaneously becoming the Cadet Commander in his ROTC unit. As a 2nd Lieutenant, he again entered full time military service and was sent to Europe and his wife, Marilyn, was able to accompany him. For several years, he served as a platoon leader in German to help defend against a possible invasion from the Soviet Union. After returning to the United States, Mr. Owen decided to pursue the remaining part of his military career as an Army personnel officer. This new career gave Mr. Owen the opportunity to travel the world. After working at Fort Bragg in North Carolina for three years, he received training in the Persian language of Farsi in California before being sent to Iran as an advisor for the Shah. After two and a half years in the Middle East, he returned to work at Fort Campbell, Kentucky before being sent to Vietnam in 1967 to work as the Deputy Adjutant General of the 101st Airborne Division. After Vietnam, Owen's military service continued when he joined the U.S. Strike Command in Florida. As a Lt. Colonel, he traveled to various countries in Africa and the Middle East as an advisor on the use of military equipment supplied by the United States. In the mid-70s, Owen finished his military career working for the Army and Air Force Postal Service in Washington, D.C., supervising the delivery of mail and postal services to Army and Air Force personnel worldwide. He also oversaw military personnel charged with transporting top secret documents to U.S. Embassies around the world. In 1979, Mr. Owen retired from the Army and came to Greeley, Colorado, for a business opportunity. For the next 10 years, he owned and operated a wholesale snack food company. Owen sold the business after he decided to devote his energy full-time into public policy. He was appointed to his first elected office in 1987 to replace Tom Norton, who resigned from office, as State Representative in the 48th House District. In 1988, Owen ran and won reelection for the same House seat. He served his district faithfully until 1998 when he ran and won as Senator for Colorado's 13th District. As a State Senator, Owen consistently receives high rating from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers for fighting government waste, and the National Federation of Independent Business for being a ``Guardian of Small Business.'' He currently serves on the state's prestigious Joint Budget Committee and is the past president of the National Republican Legislative Association. He has received the Statesman of the Year award from the National Right to Work Committee and was recognized as the National Legislator of the Year by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Owen has gained a reputation for his work to improve children's health care and for creating the nation's first Foreign Capitol Depository, which acts as a Swiss bank and encourages foreign investment in Colorado. Owen continues to live in Greeley with his remarkable wife Marilyn. After 41 years of marriage, they have two sons and two teenage grandchildren. Dave is currently running for State House District 50. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent a decorated veteran and extraordinary public servant Dave Owen. We are indebted to men like Dave, who view public service not as a career but as a way of life. I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing my heartfelt gratitude and sincere appreciation to Dave Owen; he is a true American hero.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker I rise today to pay tribute to Frank Kogovsek, a man of quiet but firm character who spent his life making a difference in the lives of ``underdogs.'' Frank Kogovsek was born June 22, 1939 in Pueblo, Colorado, to Frank L. and Mary Blatnick Kogovsek. He graduated from Pueblo Catholic High School in 1957 and went on to the seminary. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1965. His fifth assignment was in La Junta, where he served as assistant pastor of Assumption Churchl in Bessemer. He taught at Seton High as well, a Catholic school for girls. At Seton High he reconnected with a former classmate who had become a nun, Leona Reinert. Frank left the priesthood and Leona gave up being a nun and they were married in November 28, 1970 in Lakewood, Colorado. Leona fondly remembered his work with students, describing him as a mentor who was ``always looking out for the underdog, trying to guide them and educate them as to things available to assist them. He was a kind, understanding, soft-spoken person.'' Frank continued to work with underdogs when he and Leona moved to Adams County. He took on a job as a probation officer for the City of Denver. Until 1995, he worked with at-risk youth, mentoring and guiding young people that were mixed up with the law. Frank and Leona's love of children led them to adopt three of their own. They had a daughter, Jennifer, and two sons, Greg and Jerome. Jennifer fondly remembered her father's love for the simple things in life. ``He loved his backyard,'' she said. ``He built a patio when we were kids. He just loved to be outside in summer.'' Weakened by Parkinson's disease, Frank succumbed to pneumonia on February 22, 2006 at the age of 66. Frank was a common man that spent his life making an uncommon mark upon individuals that often had nowhere else to turn. I join his family in grieving his loss and commemorating his life of service as an example for all of us.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Ben F. Parmer. Mr. Parmer was a dear man who I admired greatly, and I am proud to stand before you today to honor his memory and deeds. ``Uncle Ben,'' as he was fondly known, was a lifelong resident of Burlington, Colorado, and throughout his lifetime the people of Kit Carson County were truly blessed to have known him. Ben married his lovely wife Mildred in 1937. Both he and Mildred had a strong faith and deep love for each other. Through hard times and raising children they never lost sight of their faith. Ben and Mildred had three beautiful children: Paul who preceded Ben in death, and his beautiful daughters Tony and Judy. Their devoted children were always extremely proud of their parents. Ben and Mildred celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary just a few months before Mildred's passing. During their marriage, Ben was a farmer, rancher, and a man of strong conviction. As a farmer Ben was successful, and as a rancher he was well known for the excellence of his white-faced Herefords. He also raised hogs and on occasion, sheep. Every success that Ben had from his family to his business dealings showed the conviction to do what was right and to do it right the first time. Ben's philanthropic efforts did not go unnoticed by his community. The park in the city of Burlington hosts his name and the ``Golden Wheat Award'' that was given in recognition for his service and involvement with the Kit Carson County Memorial Hospital. It is said that Ben spent many hours comforting the patients and sharing the Word of the Lord. The Kit Carson Memorial Hospital was not the only place that Ben was able to minister; it is quite notable that the only State he did not minister in was the State of Vermont. Ben was a man of courage and strength and admired by those around him. He was undaunted by doubt and his faith always prevailed. Ben F. Parmer was a loving husband, wonderful father, a man of incredible faith and integrity. He is deeply missed by his family and community. It was an honor to not only know him and attend his church and receive his teaching, but to have represented him in the U.S. Congress.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the patriotism and self sacrifice of Master Sergeant Henry Joseph Cornellisson of Greeley, Colorado because of his service to our country during World War II. Mr. Cornellisson was born on February 27, 1920 and was raised in central Kansas. A year after he graduated from high school, in May 1938, he joined the U.S. Army Air Corps and was sent to the Philippines several months later. By July of 1941, he had been promoted to Sergeant. On May 10, 1945, he was captured by the Japanese on the Philippine island of Mindanao and spent the next 1,218 days as a prisoner of war in Japan. He was finally liberated from prison on September 6, 1945, exactly six years to the day from when he joined the Army Air Corps. After returning home to the United States, he decided to reenlist in the Air Force after only a few months. After getting married to Ruth Jordan, he served in the Air Force for three years in Brazil and was eventually promoted to Master Sergeant. After 21 years of service in the Air Force, Mr. Cornellisson retired in 1960 and went into the inactive Air Force Reserves. By this time he and his wife had three sons. From 1961 through 1967, he worked overhauling missiles and missile guidance systems for the Army. After that Mr. Cornellisson worked for the Air Force as an electrician until he retired in 1978. His wife Ruth, of 48 years, passed away in 1995 and he married Genie Payne a few years ago. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent Mr. Cornellisson and the other men and women who have given so much for our freedom. Like so many other members of the ``Greatest Generation,'' Mr. Cornellisson set aside his ambitions in service to our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing my heartfelt gratitude and sincere appreciation for the patriotic service of Mr. Henry Joseph Cornellisson.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to William (Bill) Gaynor whose deep patriotism and compassionate heart has brought strength and comfort to numerous military families in Logan County, Colorado. Bill is a proud Marine who proudly served from 1958-1962. As a Vietnam vet, he went on to serve in the American Legion. Bill was Post Commander for two consecutive terms, Vice-Commander for the State of Colorado, and Vice Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the National American Legion for three consecutive terms. Bill was involved in Marine recruiting for 28 years. When a young Marine that Bill helped to recruit became seriously wounded in Iraq in 2004, Bill found a new purpose for his knowledge and background. As he helped this local family react to the crisis caused by an improvised explosive device (lED) in Iraq, Bill discovered that most local military families had limited knowledge of military procedures and processes. Bill, his wife Denise, and friend LuAnn Travis reacted to this need and formed the Military Family Support Group. This group has been able to locate and reach out to all of the families in the county with children or family members serving in the military. This group has met once or twice a month for almost 2 years, giving families the chance to share news, information, and concerns with each other about their loved ones. Bill is always willing to make himself available on a moment's notice to any family--in times of celebration as well as times of crisis. Members of the military from Logan County have received hundreds of cards from local citizens, boxes of goodies and supplies, as well as cards made by school students for Thanksgiving, Christmas and other holidays through the efforts of the Military Family Support Group. Marines such as Bill are trained to think independently and act aggressively with speed and initiative. Bill demonstrates this by his constant willingness to react swiftly to the needs of the local families. They turn to him because they know his heart is with his family, the American people, and the young men who serve to protect them. Bill never passes up an opportunity to honor or speak on behalf of veterans or members of the military. The United States Marines are the world's finest warriors and they are devoted to each other and the cause of freedom. Bill is in his heart and soul a United States Marine and lives the motto--`Semper Fidelis'--always faithful. Mr. Speaker, our precious veterans are heroes who have left their homes to defend our Nation, and then returned to be valued members of their communities, showing their children and grandchildren how to live meaningful lives of service. I want to take this brief moment to honor Bill Gaynor for the sacrifices that he made and his continued commitment to all of those who serve our great Nation in the profession of arms. May God bless his family, may God bless our precious veterans, and may God bless America.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the memory of Leilani Sperber whose sunny disposition and compassionate heart touched many lives in northeast Colorado. Leilani was born in Holyoke, CO and spent most of her life in Phillips County. She and her husband Gary taught school for a few years before settling in Holyoke where Leilani was a full-time mother and homemaker. Together they raised a daughter, Shawn and two sons, Eric and Mark. Leilani always had time to nurture friendships and gently encourage those she encountered each day. Her generosity and deep faith led to her involvement in numerous church activities including serving on the Missions Committee, teaching Sunday School, sponsoring the youth group, helping with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes High School Huddle group, and participating in two mission trips to Mexico. Leilani always followed wherever her strong convictions led her, but she did it with a kind heart and was always respectful of the needs and concerns of people around her. She worked on numerous community projects. She was actively involved in the Friends of the Library and served as president. She worked to get the Heginbotham Library in Holyoke in the register of historical places. She was also part of the effort to raise funds and help restore the Peerless Center in Holyoke. She was a huge supporter of local sports, especially when her husband was coaching or her children were participating. Leilani also was actively involved in the Republican Party and served as precinct chairman and delegate to the State Conventions. When her children were out of the home, Leilani's eagerness to learn and grow led her to return to school and earn her Master's degree in agency counseling. She worked for Centennial Mental Health as a counselor before taking a position with the Haxtun Hospital as a Social Service director. While in this position, Leilani organized a cancer survivors support group. Leilani's life was a lesson in how to enjoy life, honor God, care for others, face difficulties with courage, and make a positive impact on the world. I am proud to honor Leilani who is the embodiment of all the values that have molded America into the great Nation it is today. ``Strength and honor are her clothing; she shall rejoice in time to come. She opens her mouth with wisdom, and on her tongue is the law of kindness. She watches over the way of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: Many daughters have done well, but you exceed them all. Charm is deceitful and beauty is passing, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised'' (Proverbs 31:25-30) Leilani was a precious, beautiful woman.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to highlight the seriousness of the Japanese beef embargo. My amendment would state that none of the funds available in this act could be used to provide assistance to any country identified by the Department of Agriculture as a country that prohibits the importation of United States beef from animals less than 30 months of age. We have a wonderful product that comes from this Nation. When we look at the firewalls that we have for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, our beef is truly the safest in the world. And this ongoing trade ban against the United States has caused billions of dollars in loss of trade for our American ranchers, packers, and shippers. In Colorado alone, at least 1,000 job losses can be directly related to this beef embargo. Some countries such as Japan are using the guise of health and safety protocols for an excuse for protectionist policies. I believe that this needs to stop immediately. Since the USDA testing procedures were put into place in 2004, only two cows have been tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and neither of those cattle made it into the food chain. The United States has the highest quality, safest beef in the world. I believe that our science is very sound, and we have met all of the requirements that the Japanese Government requires. I hope that this highlights the concern that we have with the beef embargo with Japan, and I don't believe that our tax dollars should go to nations that act in this unreasonable way. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the USDA's enhanced BSE surveillance program continues to test targeted animals identified as most likely to have the disease. Since June 1 of 2004, the program has tested almost 726,000 cattle and has found again only two confirmed cases, evidence to show that our safeguards are working. Testing 268,500 animals can detect BSE at a rate of one in 10 million adult cattle at a 99 percent confidence level. I would ask the respected chairman if he would work with me and the Members of the Agriculture Committee to resolve this problem.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your ranching background and your awareness of how this beef embargo affects our ranchers, shippers and packers; and I thank you for your consideration. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 835, the rule for H.R. 5429, the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act. This legislation introduced by our own Chairman Pombo will provide for the responsible development of our domestic resources located on a very small portion of the nearly 20 million acre Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve. The size of the surface area that is proposed to be utilized is 2,000 acres. To put that in perspective, when I fly out of Denver, Colorado from the airport there, DIA is situated on 34,000 acres. When the 20 million acre wildlife refuge was created by President Carter, a 1.5 million acre northern section was set aside for future energy exploration and development. Utilizing 2,000 acres is not an unreasonable amount to safely produce nearly 5 percent of our Nation's daily oil needs. The people of Colorado are reasonable. They understand the need to find and produce domestic energy resources in a safe and sound manner. The small portion of ANWR that is proposed to be developed will produce approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil per day every day for 30 years. The level of production could replace imports from Saudi Arabia again for nearly 30 years. Relying on hostile governments for the fuel that runs our economy is dangerous, and it compromises our national security. In order to meet our current and future energy demands, we must responsibly develop our abundant domestic resources in ANWR. I urge all of the Members to support House Resolution 835.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I have recently become aware that the Army is considering expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Area in Colorado. I have two concerns about this expansion plan. First, the Army hasn't been responsive to my questions about their plans. Second, I am troubled that the Army may use eminent domain or unfriendly condemnation to acquire property in that area. You are probably aware that I offered an amendment for today's debate that would help the farmers and ranchers in my area get information about this and would limit the powers of eminent domain, but the Rules Committee did not make that amendment in order and we can't debate it. But I would appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your assistance in getting information on this proposal by the Army. I am very disappointed in the lack of response, and I hope the chairman can use the power of your committee to assist me and the rest of the Colorado delegation in this matter. Remarkably, when my office called the Army on this, they said it was ``an academic discussion.'' Thus, they refused to provide any details at all. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for your commitment to work on this issue, and I look forward to working with you. Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hooley