Tom Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to honor the remarkable achievements of Brigadier General James C Hall. He was born on April 14, 1926, in a time when the day after his birthday, Tax Day, was just another day of the month. This weekend, General Hall was the guest of honor at the home of Governor Bill Owens celebrating his 75th birthday and 30th anniversary with his gracious wife, Georgann. Many of us have read adventure novels, or vicariously experienced adventure in the movies or on television, but General Hall is a real life hero. He enlisted in the Army Air Corps in 1943 during World War II and served as a B-17 Gunner at only 17 years of age. He lost one brother at the ``Battle of the Bulge'' and another brother lost a leg. He served on Tinian Island in the Marianas where the Enola Gay was launched to bomb Hiroshima ultimately leading to the end of the war. Yet, his service to his country did not end there. For a time he attempted to exercise his adventurous acumen on a gold mine in Mexico and after, loosing a plane and risking his life protecting the claim, walked away in search of other ventures. He worked in Hollywood as a consultant for the military movie classic ``Twelve O'clock High.'' Around that same time, General Hall was awarded a direct commission in the USAF in 1948 and distinguished himself as an expert in jumping out of perfectly good airplanes. He was the key developer of the parachuting program at the USAF Academy and has participated in over 1,200 jumps. There is an Internet web site in his honor where Kevin Coyne, the publisher of the Ejection site writes: ``In late 1965, Jim Hall a professional parachute safety instructor and Major in the Air Force Reserve volunteered to act as the human guinea pig for the 0-0 seat package.'' He is still the only human being ever to participate in such a test. His comment after being launched by a rocket 400 feet into the air into a small lake, ``I've been kicked in the ass harder than that.'' Jim Hall is the epitome of the ``right stuff.'' Jim was a close friend of Steve Ritchie, the Air Force's first aerial Ace of Viet Nam and is an active proponent of continued use of Buckley field, General Hall was added, in 1985, to the Colorado Aviation Hall of Fame. He has been active in Colorado politics helping to create the Colorado Leadership Program. He worked to elect Jack Swigert to the 6th Congressional district in 1982 and ultimately worked with the Colorado State Legislature to place the very popular statue of Swigert, right here in our nation's Capitol. General Jim Hall is the Arapahoe County District II Captain to the county Grand Old Party, he is the namesake of the Aurora Republican Forum's ``General Jim Hall Award.'' He is the Military Advisor to Gov. Owens and the Governor's Community Relations Advisor for the Asian Community and I am honored to include him on my District Military Academy Selection Board and District Military Veterans' Committee. It is my honor, and pleasure to recognize this outstanding constituent and distinguished American Service Man, here in the Nation's Capitol.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today I want to tell you about a great American who resides in Colorado's 6th Congressional District. Mr. Kent A. ``Bo'' Cottrell has one of the most diverse and unique histories of any individual that I can think of. He has been, and still is, a fine musician, he has been a police officer, a fund raiser for charities, he has run for elected office and has been elected for multiple terms as the chairman of the Arapahoe County Grand Old Party. Bo has worked for the governor of our great State in a wide variety of positions and ultimately came to rest as part of a unique business venture. He attended Indiana State University and was promptly drafted to serve his country in 1963 where he served in Europe with the Military Police for two years. Bo went on to serve in the Jefferson County sheriffs office as an investigator in the late 1960s and worked in law enforcement for six years. During that time, he formed and wrote for a musical group known then and now as ``The Lawmen,'' made up of law officers. They toured and even has a hit single called ``Darn Good Country'' in the DC area which was so popular that the group went to the White House for a visit with President Nixon. In 1970, a leading local paper in Jefferson County named Bo Cottrell as their pick for the ``Man of the Year.'' His connections in the entertainment industry were leveraged to help Easter Seals in their battle to raise funding and awareness of childrens' health issues and eventually vaulted him to the Board of Directors for the Make A Wish Foundation where he served as its special events director. He worked together with prominent members of the business and entertainment community to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for charity. He formed Kops and Kids, the Easter Seals Golf Tournament, the Make A Wish Golf Tournament and always strives to better the communities around him. Due to all of his charitable efforts, in 1990, Bo was presented the ``Point of Light'' Award by President Bush, Sr., in a White House presentation. In 1996 he was a candidate to the Colorado State House in Arapahoe County and, although he did not prevail, he was soon elected to the position of Chairman to the Arapahoe County Grand Old Party from 1997 until 2001. Another one of my consitutents, Colorado Governor Bill Owens, selected Bo to become a representative on the Parole Board where he presided as Chairman. Bo was soon asked to work with the Colorado Office of Economic Development. In a true expression of his belief in the free-market, Bo gathered his experience dealing with people, both parolees and members of the business community, and began a new and unique business venture. He is now the marketing director of Pure Colorado, a company that bottles our wonderful, and very clean, Rocky Mountain Spring water, and packages it in a unique and innovative way for distribution nationwide. Bo Cottrell's travels from Military Police officer, to musician, to Marketing Director are diverse and amazing examples in pursuit of the American Dream. He was a compassionate conservative before anyone had even heard of such a thing, he is a great individual and I consider him a good friend. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join the Arapahoe County GOP in extending my appreciation to the kindness and good deeds of Mr. Bo Cottrell.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) was up here a moment ago, and while I was waiting to speak to the House tonight, I listened to his concerns with regard to the black beret issue, and I want to add my voice to his in expressing that concern; and to add one other point that I do not believe he made, and I just recalled it as I was sitting here. To add insult to injury, the berets are being purchased, being made in China, being purchased from the communist regime in China, and being imposed as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) said, for political correctness. I want to add my voice to his in expressing deep concern about this particular proposal. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to bring to the attention of the House a tragic accident that occurred in Colorado just yesterday. It took the lives of 6 Mexican nationals and injured 13 others. All of these people were in a van. The van was hit by a truck on the highway which hit a patch of ice. The van was transporting these people, Mexican nationals, to jobs in the United States and they were crossing Colorado. This has become an all too common event. We have had 8 or more people killed in Colorado, I know the numbers are expanded by events in other States. Always the same thing. People being transported, people being exploited by others, having money taken from them for the purpose of bringing them to jobs in the United States, transporting them illegally into this country. They are abused many times. They are certainly exploited, and oftentimes they are exploited when they get here, working under conditions that we would not tolerate in any other situation, oftentimes at lower pay. All of this because, of course, some employers, unscrupulous employers, know that they can do that because the employee, being here illegally, is afraid to go and report it for fear of what would happen to them. The problem that this raises is not just the problem of the tragic toll of human life that occurred in Colorado yesterday, and that is our primary concern this evening. But I think it is important for us to understand that this underscores a much more significant problem that we face as a Nation. Mr. Speaker, this Nation cannot absorb the number of people that are coming across our borders, both legally and illegally. The immigration into this country over the last 10 years has been extraordinary. Now we are, of course, a Nation of immigrants. I understand that very well. My own grandparents, like everyone else's here in this room, with the exception of Native Americans who might have claim to some other way of being here, the fact is that most of us are here as a result of our grandparents coming in the recent past. I do not blame for a moment the people who are seeking a better life, the people trying to come here for the purpose of getting a better life for themselves and their families. I do not blame them; I blame the system. We must begin the debate, although it is a difficult one, we must begin the debate on exactly what this country will look like. How many people are we going to let in here, both legally and illegally. The fact is we are letting them in and I say that, letting them in because essentially there is no border. It is a porous border. People come across almost at will, millions annually. Several million, it is estimated between 1 and 4 million people, no one knows exactly how many end up here, we have a net increase every year of immigration through illegal immigrants of that number. Mr. Speaker, massive immigration into the United States must be stopped. We must begin at least to debate the costs of this immigration. There are extraordinary financial costs, both for infrastructure development, for schooling, housing, social services, for the incarceration of aliens here who have violated State or local laws. We have to look and see exactly what American businesses may need in terms of both skilled and unskilled workers, and then come up with a plan to deal with it. We must begin the debate.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a resolution expressing the sense of Congress with respect to relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995, which states that as recognition of an undivided Israel, the U.S. Embassy should be moved to Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. The bill, which President Clinton signed, also contains waiver authority that the president may exercise if he feels the embassy move should be delayed for national security reasons. Each year since the bill was passed, the President has issued a national security waiver, and the Embassy has still not been moved. The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital enjoys the broad support of the American public. Further, it would be consistent with the United States' practice of accepting the host nation's decision as to where its capital is, and where the U.S. Embassy is located. Currently, Israel is the only nation in which the U.S. Embassy is not located in a city recognized internationally as the capital. In short, moving the Embassy to Jerusalem is consistent with U.S. policy, and does not infringe on the remaining issues of conflict over East Jerusalem. I call my colleagues to support this resolution and I am hopeful that the House International Relations Committee will consider it in the coming weeks. Finally Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following essay, written by one of my constituents, which makes the case for an embassy move most eloquently: Relocation of the American Embassy to Jerusalem: A Proposition Whose Time Has Come (By Cheston David Mizel) Englewood, CO.--On May 22, 2000 President George W. Bush, speaking in front of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, promised that he would begin to move the U.S. Ambassador from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as soon as he was inaugurated. Now that he has been elected and the inauguration has passed, the time to move the U.S. Embassy has come. Moving the embassy, at this time, is not only morally and politically apropos, but would augment vital American interests by sending a clear and unequivocal message, to the region, reaffirming the vitality of the American-Israeli relationship. Domestic Political Implications The recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocation of the U.S. Embassy would immediately and significantly bolster the President's standing with key constituencies on both sides of the aisle. Not only would it clearly demonstrate his determination to fulfill his campaign promises, but it would garner enormous favor among Jewish voters who have felt disenfranchised by the recent presidential election. The prompt relocation of the embassy would further the President's goal of uniting Moral Implications An immediate relocation of the American Embassy is a morally appropriate decision. Israel is the only true western style democracy in a region dominated by ruthless dictatorships. Israel and the United States enjoy a relationship that is unparalleled in the region. Israel is clearly the most loyal pro-American state in the Middle East. Moreover, since biblical times, Jerusalem has always been considered the capital of the people of Israel, whether residing in their land or in exile. The modern State of Israel is no exception. Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's government: the site of parliament and its Supreme Court. Despite Palestinian claims to the contrary, Jerusalem has never been the capital of any other nation during the more than 3,000 years of its existence. The official recognition of this reality by Israel's closest ally is long overdue. It is not appropriate for the United States to choose the location of the capital of any nation nor is it the practice of the United States to do so anywhere else in the world. Security Implications In 1995, The United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act requiring the embassy to be moved to Jerusalem. This act was passed in the senate by a vote of 93 to 5 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 347 to 37. Since that time, President Clinton refused to move the embassy, using the excuse that it would harm America's National Security. Nevertheless, it must be noted that Americans vital security interests in the region are closely tied to the security of Israel and its Capital. These interests would be strengthened, not weakened, as a result of an embassy move. In stark contrast to the paternalistic approach of the Clinton Administration, George W. Bush, in December of 1999, speaking before the Republican Jewish Coalition, acknowledged that ``A lasting peace will not happen if our government tries to make Israel conform to our vision of national security.'' In Navigating Through Turbulence: America and The Middle East in A New Century, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Presidential Study Group concluded that ``[t]he top Middle East priority for the new President is to prevent a descent into regional war.'' The Report cites multiple scenarios for the current situation deteriorating into a wide scale conflict. While the scenarios differ in regard to course of events, they are all connected to the same general instability in the region, which has been greatly contributed to by the United States' failure to demonstrate the strength of its allegiance to Israel. Indeed, the Presidential Study Group's initial recommendation in averting a war is that: The United States needs to ensure that Middle Easterners have no doubt about the strength, vitality and durability of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership, about America's willingness to strengthen Israel's deterrent, and about the U.S. commitment to provide political, diplomatic and material support to Israel. These objectives can be achieved through presidential statements, meetings with senior Israeli officials and acts that signal U.S. resolve and support. The rationale behind the Report's suggestion is that such a course would silence those extreme Anti-Israel elements which view Israel's willingness to compromise as a sign of weakness; and America's ``evenhandedness'' as evidence that Israel can be defeated while America stays uninvolved to preserve its ``evenhanded'' diplomatic role. The Presidential Study Group concludes, however, that a showing of stronger American commitment to Israel would actually ``strengthen the U.S. role as mediator in negotiations, which flows from--and is not antithetical to--the U.S. role as Israel's ally.'' Where equivocal support has served to embolden Israel's enemies, a showing of strength and absolute support for Israel will command respect and force a recognition that Israel cannot be defeated and that compromise is the only viable Arab option. In light of the Clinton plan for Jerusalem, which President Clinton himself acknowledged would not bind the Bush administration, Israel's position on Jerusalem has been significantly weakened and is in much need of rehabilitation. The Clinton proposal, which calls for division of Jerusalem's Old City, and transfer the Temple Mount to Palestinian control, is opposed by the majority of the Israeli people and has been ruled completely unacceptable by Israel's Chief Rabbinate. It should be noted that other elements of the Clinton proposal, such as transfer of the Jordan Valley, have drawn severe criticism from members of the Israeli security establishment as posing a severe danger to Israeli security and regional stability. What is worse is that the Clinton proposal has given the Palestinians an unrealistic expectation that they will receive even more than what has already been offered. Moreover, this unrealistic expectation is exacerbated by the perception, in the Arab world, that the Bush administration will be even more sympathetic to Palestinian positions. This misconception could lead to dangerous miscalculations, with potentially dangerous consequences, and should be remedied. So long as America encourages Israel to engage in a policy of appeasement, there can never be long-term stability in the Middle East. Each Israeli concession merely increases the appetite of its enemies. This process will inevitably lead to a scenario where Israel is unable to give any further and its foes will respond with escalated violence. In a world of Weapons of Mass Destruction proliferation, America can not afford to re-learn the lessons of World War II concerning appeasement of hostile regimes. U.S. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and immediate movement of the American Embassy to the western part of the city, will force the Palestinians to revise their expectations. Nevertheless, it will still leave room for a Palestinian presence in the Eastern part of the city, if an agreement can be reached which is not opposed by the Israeli people and does not jeopardize Israel's security or national interests. This policy is entirely consistent with President Bush's statement that ``[his] support for Israel is not conditional on the outcome of the peace process. * * * And Israel's adversaries should know that in [his] administration, the special relationship will continue even if they cannot bring themselves to make true peace with the Jewish State.'' Timing Considerations With negotiations deadlocked and a new administration taking root in Washington, the appropriate time to officially recognize Jerusalem and move the U.S. Embassy has come. The fragility of the Oslo process is no longer a deterrent to such a move in that many of the remaining issues have revealed themselves to be intractable. Opponents of the immediate recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the relocation of the American Embassy generally argue that the appropriate time for the move would be within the context of a final status agreement. While this thinking may have been tenable before the outbreak of the current violence, when peace seemed an imminent possibility, it has little credibility in the current situation. Initially, this argument relies on the premise that there will be an agreement in the near future. Given the fact that the Palestinians are unwilling to compromise on key issues, shamelessly fabricate blood-libels before the international community, and continue to inculcate anti-Israel sentiment in the media and schools, a final settlement could be generations away. Moreover, leaders throughout the Arab world have made very clear statements that there never will be peace without full Israeli recognition of the Palestinian ``Right of Return.'' (The ``right'' for the four million descendants of Arabs, who fled Israel in 1948 to make way for advancing Arab armies, to resettle within Israel proper, despite the creation of a neighboring Palestinian homeland.) Given the fact that such a recognition would mean demographic suicide for Israel, as a Jewish state, the perpetual call for Israel to accede to such a recognition, is little more than a politically correct euphemism for the old refrain of ``Death to Israel.'' In the current environment, any further delay in recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the embassy would simply reward Arafat for his intransigence. If the U.S. allows Arafat to set the American timetable and agenda, America's esteem is greatly diminished and its strategic interests are harmed. Secondly, many argue that the relocation should only occur upon reaching a final agreement in order to avoid offending Arab sentiment. It is true that the Palestinians and neighboring Arab states will likely respond negatively. Such is the natural consequence of having faulty expectations shattered. Given the fact that the far-reaching concessions asked of Israel, in the Clinton proposal, were viewed by the Arab world as decidedly pro-Israel, any action which the United States takes in furtherance of its strategic relationship with Israel will always be condemned by the Arab world. They simply have not accepted Israel's right to exist. Moving the embassy will demonstrate the U.S. determination to support Israel's existence in the face of regional hostility. Failure to relocate the embassy only perpetuates unachievable expectations that make violent conflict all the more likely. The Presidential Study Group recently concluded that America's ties with Arab states should not be dependent on avoiding pro-Israel positions, but rather; America is the country with which the large majority of regional states will still wish to have close political, economic, and military ties. Maintaining a strong alliance with Israel has not stopped Arab Gulf states from welcoming the United States as their defender against potential subregional hegemons. Similarly, it has not prevented every state on Israel's border, except Syria, from accepting America as a major, if not the principal source of military aid and material. Indeed, the very closeness and solidity of U.S.-Arab ties is a reason why some Arab leaders and spokespersons can afford to use license in their rhetoric. Finally, many of those who argue that a relocation of the embassy should not occur at this time subscribe to the notion that America should use its political capital with Israel to nurture Israel's willingness to engage in further negotiations and concessions. Not only does this directly contradict the approach suggested by the Presidential Study Group, but it also directly opposes President Bush's own statements that his support would not be conditional on the peace process. Conclusion We are at a critical time of transition for America, Israel, and the entire region. The Middle East, and perhaps the entire world, may be confronted with a situation with devastating potential. President Bush is just beginning his administration. He possesses the opportunity to make an eventful decision that will not only contribute to the advancement of his political agenda but will reinforce vital American interests in the region by contributing to stability through the promotion of more realistic Arab expectations. The relocation of the embassy enjoys strong bi-partisan support. It will contribute to the unifying culture being promoted by the administration. It will finally bring the United States into compliance with its own law and fulfill the weighty moral obligations imposed by the sacred principles of democracy and freedom to our faithful ally which has been ignored for too long.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer). It is true, as has been cited here by other Members, that there was one time in history, about 1966 or 1967, at the time I was in college in Colorado, and I happened to see a television rebroadcast of a speech that, again, as I say, has been cited here, by Ronald Reagan. It was at a campaign rally for Goldwater. I was mesmerized by that speech. It was the first time I had heard that man speak. I was amazed at his ability to capture the imagination of the audience he was speaking to directly and of the millions of people he was speaking to through the power of television. I was later privileged to be a delegate to the national convention, a Reagan delegate in the 1980 election, and shortly thereafter was asked to serve, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) mentioned, in the Reagan administration. Although I am truly humbled and proud of my service here in this body, it is a wonderful experience; it is an incredible experience for anyone. I must say that I have never cherished anything in my public life more than I have cherished the time I spent in Mr. Reagan's administration, because I was serving in the Reagan revolution and he made me feel like a revolutionary, and he gave me the zeal and the ardor and the enthusiasm for the cause. His words inspired me. His integrity illuminated the American spirit. How wonderful it was to be proud of the President of the United States. How wonderful it was to see him up there on that dais when he spoke to the assembled Congress of the United States, or when he spoke at the Berlin Wall or when he spoke at Normandy. How wonderful it was to recognize that this man, the leader of the free world, was in fact a man with as great a heart as anyone who has ever occupied that office. I have in our office in Denver, our regional office, I have almost a shrine to Ronald Reagan. We have everything, every imaginable picture that has ever been taken, we have all of the Christmas cards that they sent us from the White House in those days, and every time I walk into my office, I look back and see that and I am just again reinspired for what he did for us. Mr. Speaker, Michaelangelo, I believe it was, stated once, when they asked him about his particular talent as a sculptor, and I am certainly paraphrasing here, I know I am not quoting, but he said something like, I am just the person that takes away all of the exterior rock from this form that God has put inside that thing. I can see it in there. I am just moving the rock away, that is all I am doing. I often think of Ronald Reagan in that way. I think that Ronald Reagan saw the beauty of America and the American spirit. He saw it inside a complex and somewhat rough mold that we would see it as, someone without his insight, and he saw the opportunity of America, the greatness of America, and he expressed it eloquently. And, in doing so, he let us all see inside that rock. He let us all see that form. He made us all part of that incredible experience. Mr. President, you made us proud. You made me proud to be part of the Reagan revolution. And even as you said good-bye to America, you, once again, inspired me personally in your message to the country when you told us of your debilitating disease, of Alzheimer's, and I say you inspired me personally because my father is stricken with the same affliction. This is the way the President left us; these are the words he gave us in this letter: ``I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease. ``Upon learning this news, Nancy and I had to decide whether as private citizens we would keep this a private matter or whether we would make this news known in a public way. In the past, Nancy suffered from breast cancer and I had my cancer surgeries. We found through our open disclosures we were able to raise public awareness. We were happy that as a result, many more people underwent testing, they were treated in early stages and able to return to normal, healthy lives. So now we feel it is important to share it with you. In opening our hearts, we hope this might promote greater awareness of this condition. Perhaps it will encourage a clearer understanding of the individuals and families who are affected by it. ``At the moment I feel just fine and I intend to live the remainder of the years God gives me on this earth doing the things I have always done. I will continue to share life's journey with my beloved Nancy and my family. I plan to enjoy the great outdoors and stay in touch with my friends and supporters. ``Unfortunately, as Alzheimer's disease progresses, the family often bears a heavy burden. I only wish there was some way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience. When the time comes, I am confident that with your help, she will face it with courage and faith. ``In closing, let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your President. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for this future. ``I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead. ``Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you.'' And may God always bless you, Mr. President, and happy birthday.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to recognize Ms. Betty Fitzpatrick from Evergreen, Colorado, who was selected by the National Association of School Nurses (NASN) as the School Nurse Administrator of the year for 2000. Recently, NASN hosted an event for Ms. Fitzpatrick on Capitol Hill to honor her, and to applaud her for her excellent work on behalf of the public school children in my district. As a former public school teacher, I had first-hand experience in seeing the hard work of our Nation's school nurses. All teachers know that being a good student require a degree of good health, and I appreciate the work of Ms. Fitzpatrick in organizing health efforts for the children in my district and wish to extend my personal congratulations. It is important to note that the work of many school nurses, like Ms. Fitzpatrick, goes beyond the assistance they provide directly to students. They serve as mentors to their colleagues, and serve an array of needs ranging from medical ailments to counseling for a student who needs a listening ear. Betty Fitzpatrick, especially, has participated in training for and as a consultant to school nurses, to assist them in developing crisis plans, and in dealing with tragic situations. Ms. Fitzpatrick has spent her personal and professional life advocating children's physical and mental health while supporting school nursing. For the past 11 years she has served as the Director of Health Services for all 136 Jefferson County Schools in Golden, Colorado. She has been the president and treasurer of her state organization, a prolific author, an advocate for legislation, a grant writer and a national presenter. The NASN newsletter reported that aside from the day to day challenges of being a school nurse administrator, Ms. Fitzpatrick had the great misfortune of dealing with an incomprehensible tragedy, which took place at one of her high schools--Columbine. Within minutes, she was contacted, and her emergency plan was activated. She and her nurses didn't wait for instructions, they knew what needed to be done, and they got to work. As the newsletter stated, the Columbine tragedy wounded a nation, but Betty continues to meet the unique needs of this school community and the others she serves. Again, I am delighted by this honor that Ms. Fitzpatrick has brought to the State of Colorado, and I offer my sincere congratulations.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today I proudly share with my colleagues a recent accomplishment by Operations Management International, Inc (OMI), which is based in my district. Founded in 1980 by the Colorado- based, employee-owned CH2M HILL Companies, Ltd., OMI offers complete infrastructure development, financing, design, and operations and maintenance services. The company manages 160 water and wastewater facilities in the Americas, the Middle East and Asia. On November 21, 2000, OMI made history by being the first company in the water and wastewater industry, as well as the first Colorado-based company to receive the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. This is the nation's premier award for quality achievement. OMI is the only company in the service category to win this year. In fact, only four companies nationwide will receive the Baldrige Award in all categories this year. Named after a former Secretary of Commerce, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award is an annual honor that recognizes U.S. organizations for performance excellence, and is the highest-level quality award given in the United States. Given the growth of Colorado's economy, and the quality of its workforce, I expect to see this award return often to our state. The Baldrige Award evaluates organizations on seven performance excellence criteria: leadership; strategic planning; customer and market focus; information and analysis; human resource focus; process management; and performance and business results. OMI uses these important criteria as a cornerstone for its Obsessed With Quality management process, which focuses on empowering associates to develop new approaches to enhance how they perform their jobs. The company's mission is summarized in its ``E3'' motto: Exceed customers' expectations, empower people and enhance the environment--three main goals that illustrate how OMI conducts its business and developed its stellar reputation. Winning the Baldrige Award rewards the deserving employees at OMI for two decades of work that has positively affected millions of lives worldwide, through the daily provision of superior utility management services. To win such a prestigious award, OMI has proven that its emphasis on quality is evident in their work product. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Don Evans, the president of OMI and his staff of over 1,400 on their outstanding achievement.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, in April 1999, I received a phone call and correspondence from TMJ Implants, a company located in Golden, Colorado, in my district, which had been having problems with the review of its Premarket Approval Application of the TMJ Total and Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Over the last year and a half--and delay after delay resulting in the pulling of the implants from the market, I have watched the process drag on, leading to the loss of millions of dollars by the company and countless number of patients who have been put through unnecessary pain. While I will let my submission speak for itself, suffice it to say that I sincerely believe that most of the frustration could have been avoided had everyone sat down and laid everything out on the table in the spirit of what was called for under the FDA Modernization Act. Unfortunately, the agency has been unwilling to do so--and it seems that these problems will continue into the foreseeable future. Over the last year and a half, my office has received numerous letters from physicians all across the country--from the Mayo Clinic to the University of Maryland--each relaying to me the benefit of the partial joint and the fact that the partial and total joint results in immediate and dramatic decrease in pain, an increase in range of motion and increased function. To date, there is no scientific reasoning for the fact that the total and partial joints are not on the market. All of this calls into question the integrity of the agency--something that I find very disturbing. Dr. Christensen is a true professional and a pioneer in his field and holder of the first patents. His implants are widely accepted as effective and safe throughout the dental and surgery community--indeed, several of my constituents have literally had their lives changed by the procedure. I am convinced that the work of TMJ is based on solid, scientific principles and the removal of the implants from the market has been and continues to be erroneous, contrary to the Agency's earlier findings and the statutory standard that should be applied. I would like to take this opportunity to submit into the Record a copy of a letter from Mr. Roland Jankelson to the FDA urging the agency to come to an agreement as soon as possible so that this disaster is remedied and thousands of patients in the general public can receive relief. Roland Jankelson, 15 PONCE DE LEON TERRACE, Tacoma, WA, December 28, 2000. Mr. Les Weinstein, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Ombudsman, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville MD. Re: TMJ Implants, Inc. Dear Mr. Weinstein, With reference to our phone conversation today, please note the following comments (especially the last point, which I hope will shape your actions in the next couple of days): 1. There is no need for another meeting with ODE. The purposes of this meeting (as stated in the Blackwell E-mail) are bogus--just more obfuscation and more delay. As Mike Cole stated in his December 27, 2000 letter to Tim Ulatowski, a copy of which you have: ``You say we must arrive at an acceptable, consistent diagnosis criteria in order to write a label''. I say we are already there, and have been for two months . . . (Underlining is my emphasis). 2. There never has been any credible evidence before the FDA of a safety problem (in over thirty plus years of use) that would prevent the Christensen devices (total and partial joint) from meeting the required standard of reasonable assurance of safety. Approval was given to TMJ Concepts device with limited data and little history. The information, data and history given to FDA for the TMJ Implants device exceeds many-fold, by every possible measure, the composite of information used to approve its competitor. The Christensen Company, its consultants and its attorneys have responded to every issue, every hypothetical concern posed by FDA, no matter how far-fetched these issues and concerns were. See Mike Cole's notes attached for just a quick summary of the Company's responses since the October Panel meeting. As Mr. Cole states in his letter, the questions posed in the Blackwell E-mail were addressed two months ago. Yet, for two months, there has been no response from the Ulatowski side. You and Mr. Ulatowski have been informed that this was a company on the verge of financial ruin. This does not make any difference to Mr. Ulatowski--It is not his concern, not his focus. A man's reputation, ruined. A company financially gutted. Patients suffering. ``Myotronics'' all over again. How could this happen again? it has. With respect to the meeting called for in the Blackwell E- mail: There is no more explanation needed from the Company. There is no more ``perspective (Blackwell's word) to share. Just more delay. 3. Forget that Dr. Christensen faces financial ruin. Forget that his company's resources are nearly exhausted. Every day that goes by without FDA approval of the TMJ Implants, Inc. total joint, and partial joint in particular, is a day that patients suffer. The PMA record is indisputable. Physicians and patients have uniformly made it clear that the FDA is harming them. The FDA is on notice that physicians are withholding needed surgery, waiting for the Christensen devices, both total and partial joint. The physicians have uniformly made it clear to the FDA that the TMJ Concepts, Inc. joint is 4. About five years ago, Rick Blumberg, Deputy Counsel for Litigation, for whom I have great respect, persuaded me to forego what would have extended FDA's involvement in the Myotronics matter, i.e. litigation by Myotronics that would have further publicized the already well-publicized findings of more than two years of Congressional hearings, OIA and IGHHS investigations. Rick assured me, and I believe he believed, that the FDA was, indeed, changed in reaction to the revelations of the multiple and extra-legal activities of FDA employees intentionally directed at and intended to harm Myotronics. BUT HE WAS WRONG! The abuse, misuse of agency authority for the pursuit of a private agenda to harm a targeted company, retaliation and punishment, is all repeated against TMJ Implants, Inc., whose devices for thirty plus years served a specialized ``salvage need'' and relieved human suffering. Standing in the middle of these abuses: the same Mr. Tim Ulatowski. 5. The record cries out for intervention by you and other responsible FDA officials. Neither Susan Runner nor Tim Ulatowski have credibility in this matter. In reviewing this matter, you and senior FDA and OIA officials should look at a number of issues: (a) A phone call from Dr. Susan Runner to Dr. Christensen days before the May 1999 Panel meeting informing Dr. Christensen that his PMA would be disapproved, and advising him to withdraw it. (b) Information leaked by the FDA prior to the 1999 Panel that TMJ Implants, Inc. devices ``were either withdrawn by FDA or would soon be''. Remember the FDA leaking in the Myotronics case. (c) Treatment of TMJ Implants, Inc. PMA's with standards different than used for its competitor, TMJ Concepts, Inc.'s PMA: TMJ Concepts, Inc. was approved without delay in spite of a device history covering only a few years and limited data, compared to a device history of more that thirty years for the Christensen devices, and much more data. (d) Removal of the partial and total joint form the market in spite of a 9-0 Panel approval and a need acknowledged the FDA Panel. (e) Allegations that Dr. Susan Runner had a conflict of interest stemming from her past relationship with Dr. Mecuri, TMJ Concepts, Inc. chief technical consultant--allegations rejected by OIA without any apparent serious injury. (f) Data and evidence covering over thirty years of use that demonstrates a remarkable safety record. Why has this device been held hostage? (g) Staff's dismissal of TMJ Implants, Inc. request for the addition of qualified experts for the October 2000 Panel. (h) The assembly of a Panel for the October 2000 meeting which lacked balance and qualifications. Only one certified Oral Maxillo-Facial surgeon among five consultants. Why? (i) Concerns about the independence of a number of October 2000 Panel members and consultants. (j) Acknowledgement by one of the October 2000 Panel members to Dr. Christensen prior to the Panel meeting that he believed (knew) the Panel would recommend disapproval. (k) Acknowledgement by the same Panel member that he knew by the noon break in the October 2000 Panel meeting that members intended to vote for disapproval. (l) Acknowledgement by the same Panel member that he believed the PMA (the TMJ Implant, Inc. partial joint) should be approved, but that he voted for disapproval (with the majority) because he believed he would not otherwise be invited to another panel. So much for the idea of independence! (m) Questions concerning why the partial joint PMA was subjected to a second Panel (the October 2000 Panel) after a May 1999 Panel recommended approval 9-0 (what conditions). (n) Questions regarding the appropriate level of micro- management of diagnostic protocols, and pathology indications, and why labeling provided by the company was deemed unacceptable. On the issue of concern about improper staff micro-management, see December 31, 2000 letter from Roland Jankelson to Lee Weinstein. (o) Did the Ulatowski group, particularly Susan Runner, ignore information and misrepresent data and information provided by the Company? Incompetence? Deliberate? (p) Did the Ulatowski group ignore for two months the Company's responses following the October 2000 Panel meeting when it knew the delay threatened the financial viability of the Company? See (1) Mile Cole notes, and (2) Mike Cole letter to Ulatowski dated December 27, 2000. (q) Questions about Susan Runner's independence and objectivity. Appearances of a personal agenda to favor TMJ Implants, Inc. competitor. Differences of standards and treatments applied to each are indisputable. Why did it happen? (r) Concern about the extraordinary delay in the review process, continuing to this date, and whether it is intended to deliberately punish TMJ Implants, Inc. There are similarities between this case, and a history of retaliation by FDA employees revealed by 1995-1996 hearings of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. (s) Concern about Susan Runner's competence (qualifications, training and experience) to review these particular devices. (t) Questions about why the Ulatowski group has ignored the physicians' claims of patient harm from the removal of these devices from the market. See sample of physicians' letters. See sample of patients' letters. 6. No more meetings, please. No more conference calls that just provide more delay. Have Tim Ulatowski put in writing all matters with which he is not satisfied, any standing in the way of approval. If he cannot state it in writing, ``it should not exist''. Have this happen on Tuesday, Ulatowski's first day back (while he took last week away from work, Dr. Christensen continued to ``bleed'' more money). Get this PMA done next week. We can argue about culpability, need for investigations and legal remedies later. I thank you in advance for doing what needs to be done. Sincerely, Roland Jankelson. F ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, for quite some time, we have been hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle that Republican attempts to abolish the death tax is just a sop to the rich and that few ``regular'' folks would ever benefit from its elimination. I would like to bring to the attention of the House an article that appeared in The Denver Post this weekend entitled ``Death, Taxes end Rancher's Dream.'' The article describes the plight of the Laurence family who have for the last couple of generations been eking out a living from an 1,800 acre ranch in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Merrill Laurence died 4 years ago and the family has been struggling ever since to keep the tax man at bay. They have run out of time and resources. Soon, the auctioneer's gavel will fall; and the ranch will be sold to developers. November 11 will be the date that ends a 180- year history of the Laurence family ranching heritage. This family will be moved off the land and homes will be built where the ranch now stands. But the proceeds from the sale will not accrue to the heirs. They do not want the sale. They will not receive very much at all of what comes from that sale. The money raised by this forced sale will go to satisfy the demands of the IRS. I can assure my friends on the other side of the aisle that there are real people out there who are affected by the death tax and who are far from ``fat cats,'' that phrase that we so often hear them employ when attempting to foster class hatred in this country. These people and hundreds of thousands, millions others like them all over the United States are regular, hard-working tax-paying families who, in fact, have made only a couple of mistakes in their lifetime. Like Mr. Laurence, many of them work too hard, accumulated too much, according to, again, people on the other side of the aisle who keep talking about the death tax as something that so few people would get and so few people deserve the elimination of the death tax. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there are lots of people who actually are, as I say, hard working, and they are not the top 1 percent, as we have often been told, of this Nation's income-earners who would benefit by the elimination of this death tax. They are people like Mr. Laurence who, as I say, he made a few mistakes. He worked too hard. He died before a new President could take office. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will soon be able to reintroduce this idea, the elimination of the death tax, and we will soon pass it; again, this will be the third time, and it will be signed by the next President of the United States, because it is a tax that needs to be eliminated, it is an unfair, unjust tax that people like the Laurences of Colorado are now being forced to pay and, as a result, being forced to sell their own heritage.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize Joe Nacchio, chairman and chief executive officer of Qwest Communications International Inc. of Denver, CO, and join the National Italian American Foundation as it honors him for the Special Achievement Award in Communications which will be presented on October 28, 2000, in Washington, DC. As the Representative of Colorado's Sixth Congressional District, and a fellow Italian-American, I am extremely pleased to recognize Joe Nacchio as he receives this award. Joe Nacchio was born in Brooklyn to a blue collar Italian immigrant family. His late grandparents and great-grandparents all arrived in America via Ellis Island. It is an honor for me to recognize the determination and commitment he has exhibited in his personal and professional life. He has been blessed, fortunate and has epitomized the entrepreneurial spirit, especially at Qwest, in order to achieve this award and great success in the high technology world. His parents, Frank and Carmela Nacchio, will join Joe in Washington, DC, as he is recognized for his exemplary contributions to corporate success and growth. I know that Joe has been a great source of pride for them and his wife, Anne, and his sons, David and Michael. The people of Colorado have every right to be proud of him, especially now that Qwest Communications is the largest private employer in the State. I salute Joe Nacchio, for his leadership and drive, which has and will continue to benefit the business environment as well as his deep commitment to his family, values, and principles as an Italian-American.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Colorado State Representative Gary McPherson--a husband and father of three, a public servant, a self-made individual, and a leading citizen of Arapahoe County and the great State of Colorado, who recently passed away. On October 12th of this year, Colorado suffered a tragic loss with the passing of my friend, Gary McPherson. Gary represented State House District 40 for the last six years and was considered a rising star in Colorado's political realm. At 37 years of age, he was a respected lawyer as well as a distinguished lawmaker. He always had a smile on his face and was willing to share advise on anything from legislation to how well the Nebraska Cornhuskers were going to do next season. His legislative accomplishments run the gambit from protecting property rights and seeking tougher criminal sentencing to returning TABOR tax surpluses to Colorado taxpayers, reducing the State income tax rates, and bringing a special civility and decorum to the State House floor. Gary was the quintessential citizen legislator, he began his public service as a precinct leader in southeast Aurora and hosted local caucuses for the surrounding precincts. During this time, gained the respect of the community and was appointed, in 1995, to fill the vacancy in his local House District. Gary established himself as a leader in the State Legislature, becoming the chairman of the 13 member House Finance Committee as well as serving on the Appropriations and Judiciary committees. His honesty and forthright approach to every endeavor was highly valued and respected by his colleagues. His dedication to the Colorado Civil Air Patrol, where he participated, has led his family to ask that contributions be directed to them in his memory. Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States reflect that Gary McPherson was a gentleman of proud Scottish heritage, a father to three lovely daughters: Christina, Elizabeth, and Ashley, and loving husband of Shelley, and that he will be missed by one and all.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1453, the Sudan Peace Act. Since coming to Congress, I have devoted a substantial amount of time with my colleagues in the House International Relations Subcommittee on Africa to finding solutions to the horrible current situation in Sudan. Over the last 2 years we have held hearings and passed House Concurrent Resolution 75 condemning the government of Sudan which has continued to harass, bomb, murder and enslave the mainly Christian population in the south. But now is the time for real action. The Sudan Peace Act addresses the humanitarian concerns that are devastating this nation and also calls for the administration to take a more active role in addressing the peace process and condemning the actions of the government of Sudan. The bill will hopefully make the situation in Sudan more marketable for this administration. The bill condemns the human rights violations and overall human rights record of the government of Sudan. It condemns the ongoing slave trade and the role of the government in organizing raiding and slaving parties on the people of the South. The current ban of Operation Lifeline Sudan, imposed by the government of Sudan, and humanitarian relief has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Sudanese and medical epidemics of astounding proportions. The population of the largest displaced camps doubled and, overall, the number of those who have fled just the Blue Nile region increased from 63,000 in May to near 80,000 by the end of June. This adds to the almost 2 million that have already died in the war-torn country. On November 19, 1999 the Senate passed the bill--whose centerpiece is a provision calling for the President to take actions through our U.N. envoy to pressure the government of Sudan and develop a comprehensive solution to the problems in Sudan. The House version of this bill introduced last September and passed by the International Relations Committee this month was the same as the Senate version but included a substantial difference. We felt very strongly that without language levying sanctions against Sudan, we would continue down the path we have pursued for the last couple of years, namely passing resolutions and holding hearings but having no change in the government of Sudan's policies. We now have a bill that has real teeth and has a chance to send a message to the government of Sudan. It is time for the leaders of Sudan to get the message and stop persecuting Christians and other minorities in the South. If you think the situation in Sudan will fade away or somehow correct itself, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, a recent U.N. report accused the Sudanese Government of using an airfield built with Chinese assistance to bomb schools and hospitals in the South. In addition, we have recently learned that Sudan has acquired 34 new jet fighters from China, doubling the size of the country's air force. We can no longer turn our head when it comes to the situation in Sudan. I would encourage this Congress and this administration to act now before the government of Sudan continues to evolve and before the Chinese increase their foothold in Sudan. The longer we wait without substantive changes to our policy in Sudan, the more innocent people will get killed and the more the government of Sudan will court friends to help them in their evil bidding. I would encourage my colleagues to accept the House version of S. 1453 the Sudan Peace Act, and pass it here today. The time has come for this Congress and this administration to act on Sudan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act. The communities in my district have learned first hand that the Army Corps of Engineers has become a large, bloated and intransigent bureaucracy. Now is the time for reform, and while I commend the Transportation Committee for their efforts to bring about some reform in the area of peer-review for projects in S. 2796, I believe more work must be done, and more efforts to shrink the size and power of the Corps of Engineers should be made. To illustrate the point, I am enclosing for the Record the following Op-Ed I recently submitted to the Aurora Sentinel regarding the need for reform in the Army Corps of Engineers. On a related topic, I believe that the public image and reputation of the Corps of Engineers might be improved tremendously if it would adopt some of the recommended policy changes suggested by the 1999 National Recreation Lakes Study Commission. Specifically, I believe it is time for the Corps to reverse its long- standing opposition to cost-share proposals that would rehabilitate facilities on the recreational properties it leases to non-federal entities such as the State of Colorado. Over the last year and a half, I have worked with the interested parties to encourage the Corps to enter into a cost-share agreement with the state of Colorado to improve the recreational facilities of Cherry Creek Reservoir, Chatfield Reservoir, and Trinidad Reservoir State Parks. Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Reservoirs are each operated and maintained by the Corps, while the State manages all parks and recreation facilities on the surrounding federally-owned land. These reservoir-parks are the most valued sources of water recreation in Colorado, a state where virtually no natural large body of water exists. The three parks combined host almost 3.5 million visitors annually. Most recreational facilities in these parks were constructed over 25 years ago. Entrance gates, trails, campsites, and outhouses are near states of disrepair. Worse, public safety is at risk if water, sewer, and Americans with Disabilities Act compliance improvements are not addressed. The State is not financially capable of meeting the repair and renovation needs without matching federal assistance. In a recent meeting with Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Dr. Joseph Westphal, I was assured by Secretary Westphal that the Corps is committed to beginning this cost share agreement as a pilot project. Governor Bill Owens has also committed the State of Colorado to meeting its financial obligation for the cost share program. Unfortunately, the project has not progressed as planned. As was demonstrated by previous recreational facility cost share agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation, these agreements are a tremendously efficient way to leverage federal dollars and to help preserve Colorado's quality of life. In addition, the facilities provided through the cost shares enable the Corps to meet their legal obligation to provide recreation on these three reservoirs. Because of the lack of an agreement, I proposed a policy reform in the form of an amendment to S. 2796 that instructed the Corps of Engineers to submit a plan in no less than one year on how it could implement cost-share programs with non federal entities for recreational purposes. While the amendment was not made in order, I intend to craft legislation that will seek to reform and improve the operations of the Corps of Engineers, and introduce the legislation when the 107th Congress convenes. A Bright Light Shed on the Army Corps of Engineers (By Congressman Tom Tancredo) The evidence is in, and it is conclusive. The Army Corps of Engineers has tried to throw a blanket over the heads of American taxpayers in order to advance their own projects and agenda, and the citizens around the Cherry Creek Dam and Reservoir have been a top target. The Washington Post released an article on February 24th entitled ``Generals Push Huge Growth for Engineers,'' which details an internal push to expand the budget, size, and scope of the Army Corps of Engineers. At the surface, the Corps has internally planned for growth of their budget to $6.5 billion by 2005, more than $2 billion greater than their 2000 budget, which breaks down more specifically within the agency. The information obtained by the Washington Post also shows that Corps officials had been pressured by superiors to ``get creative with cost-benefit analysis in order to greenlight major projects.'' The Cherry Creek Dam controversy that has developed between the Corps, the local community and local public officials over the expansion of flood controls around the dam is even more alarming with the information contained in the Corps report proposing a ``program with targeted studies that should lead to target construction activities with continuation of historical success rates.'' This answers a few questions I had surrounding the proposed addition of flood controls to the Cherry Creek Dam. Why the conflicting facts and figures from the Corps? And why have they suppressed the concerns of local citizens and elected officials, myself included? The answer to those questions is evident in the report, the growth of the Corps is first and foremost. Like many, I was skeptical of the need to add more flood control onto the Cherry Creek Dam when the Corps had admitted that the chances of a flood capable of breaking the dam, 24.7 inches in 72 hours, is approximately one in a billion. With Metro Denver averaging around fourteen inches of moisture a year, this would be a flood of biblical proportions. What the Corps has turned into is a major public works department with over 37,000 workers attempting to capitalize on the expansion of the American economy and proposed government surpluses. Let me be the first to inform the Army Corps of Engineers that the days of reckless government and fraud is over. America has more pressing needs--saving Social Security and keeping our commitment to our nation's veterans--than to needlessly expand the budget of an agency whose motto is, ``growth.'' I am just sorry that the citizens of this community have had to endure what has become a stressful issue that has scared many families and individuals and affected property values in the proposed area. As this process moves forward, and both Congressman Joel Hefley and I are discussing legislation that would require the Corps to use criteria for similar projects more in line with what the State of Colorado uses, I will keep the communities best interests, and not the Corps, at the forefront of the debate.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a constituent of mine from the Sixth Congressional District of Colorado, Mike Quering, and join others throughout the state of Colorado in recognizing the efforts of the Eighth Air Force and proclaim every October 8-14 as Mighty Eighth Air Force Week. Mike is a member of the Eighth Air Force, which was formed and dispatched to England in 1942 to become the largest military unit in World War II, and the largest bomber force of all time. Over 350,000 airmen served in Europe and the Eighth Air Force has continued as an operational combat unit to this day with over one million serving our country in war and in peace. In the one week period between October 8-14, 1943, the Eighth Air Force lost over 100 Heavy Bombers to enemy action over the skies of Europe, and despite heavy losses, many feel that this was the turning point for daylight strategic bombing. Targets during the week were as follows: on October 8th, over Bremen, Germany, the force lost 14 bombers and 3 fighters; on October 9th, over Anklam, Germany, they lost 6 bombers; on October 10th, over Munster, Germany, the Eighth Air Force lost 30 bombers and 1 fighter; and on October 14th, over Schweinfurt, Germany, the force lost 60 bombers and 1 fighter. I think it is important, at this time, to point out that no Mighty Eighth mission was ever turned back due to enemy action--at a cost of 26,000 killed in action and over 28,000 taken as prisoners of war. The number of missing in action and wounded have even today not been counted. The Eighth Air Force Historical Society, the largest single military unit veterans group in history, holds its annual reunions in the month of October and today 20,000 Eighth Air Force Historical Society members are seeking to inform future generations of the contribution and sacrifice made by their generation to perpetuate America's freedom and way of life. The Mighty Eighth stands as proof to America and the rest of the world of the sacrifices that our World War II veterans made to ensure that freedom and democracy survive and flourish around the world. And so, as many proud veterans do every year during the week of October 8-14, I rise to proclaim this week of October 8-14 as Mighty Eighth Air Force Week. I would also ask every Eighth Air Force veteran and friend of the Eighth to wear and display items identifying them with The Mighty Eighth to honor and remember their comrades and especially those who made the supreme sacrifice.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I could not do better in terms of describing the importance of this resolution and its historical implications than my two colleagues from the State of Maryland have done here. Both of them, I think, have been incredibly articulate in expressing those sentiments. I will only add that it is important also to remember that James Madison, as the fourth President of the United States, was also the major author of the Virginia Plan, which is a model and the basis for the United States Constitution that emerged from the Constitutional Convention in 1787. I want to also say that this whole issue comes to us today on the floor as a result of the really tireless efforts of one individual in my district, a gentleman by the name of Andy McKean, who with other members of the Lion's Club took this on as a project some time ago and decided something had to be done in order to increase the level of knowledge that students, especially students and youngsters, have about the Constitution, about the Bill of Rights and about really what liberty means in the United States of America. As part of that task, they have been instrumental in delivering and distributing literally hundreds of thousands of copies of the Constitution. Liberty Day Colorado is the way it is identified here, but these little pocket Constitutions have gone out to schools all over Colorado. There are over 1 million active members of the Lion's Club nationwide, and it is my understanding that this is a project they are anticipating to take on as an organization. It is supported right now in State legislatures throughout the country: Colorado, California, Maine, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Montana, Mississippi, Indiana, Idaho, Wyoming. And other States are on the way. It is nonpartisan, as evidenced by the discussion here today. It is funded entirely through businesses and individual contributions. The national recognition will provide a rallying point for this grass-roots movement; and it is also, I think, a tribute to individuals like Mr. McKean. A textbook could not be written about the way in which he has devoted a good portion of his life to this event and how it has worked its way through the process and it now appears before us on the floor of the House and hopefully will eventually become part of our national recognition of Liberty Day. So, again, I want to thank the committee; and I want to thank the Members here who have spoken so eloquently in its support.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, since coming to the U.S. House of Representatives, I have had the opportunity to become familiar with a volunteer organization in Colorado known as SCORE, or Service Corps of Retired Executives, a great resource partner to the Small Business Administration that specializes in counseling, mentoring and educating America's small business owners. In Colorado, there are 154 men and women volunteering their time, business acumen and counsel to the small business community to provide a top quality resource at no cost to their clients. Nationally there are more than 12,000 volunteer members representing 389 SCORE chapters providing individual counseling and business workshops for aspiring entrepreneurs and small business owners. With over 50 percent of all new businesses failing within the first 6 years, counseling early on can be the difference between success and failure. Small businesses account for 99.7 percent of all employers and 54 percent of employment representing a major contribution to our economic growth. It is time we recognized that this organization is the best kept secret in the country, that we appreciate their hard work and dedication, and that we vote to support its modest budget for this year.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Once again, the bill is very specific about the method of transfer of the material we are talking about. In what you describe, there is no effect from this particular piece of legislation. It has got nothing to do with it.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, the bill sets out the parameters very specifically, referring only to materials unsolicited, and in a case where someone is transferring that kind of material using the interstate, transferring that kind of material, unsolicited to anybody, they would be affected by the measures in this bill.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4147, the Stop Material Unsuitable for Teens Act. In 1998, the Congress passed and the President signed into law the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act. This legislation sought to address many practices carried out to the detriment of our youth. This included halting child pornography online to cracking down on violent offenders. H.R. 4147 would simply include those children under the age of 18 to the list of those who should be protected from harmful and potentially damaging material. The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act also contained new language which provided for enhanced penalties for individuals who knowingly transfer obscene materials to juveniles whether through the mail or interstate commerce. These enhanced penalties carry the weight of up to 10 years incarceration, and/or applicable fines, compared with previous federal statutes under Title 18 of the United States Code that only carried a penalty of 5 years. The bill is important for it builds upon the efforts of this body to regulate and stem the flood of obscene material throughout this country. H.R. 4147 would build upon the efforts taken in 1998 to increase penalties against transferring obscene materials to juveniles under 16 years of age. It would raise the age limit for enhanced penalties for transfer to juveniles to 18 years of age and close the loophole left in the law by not protecting youth between the ages of 16 and 18. If this body is going to act on behalf of our children and concerned parents in limiting exposure to obscene materials, then we should act accordingly and across the board for all juveniles. The bill would not limit any material that is protected by the First Amendment. It would only limit the material which is defined as obscene. The Supreme Court has gone on record several times as saying that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, the Supreme Court has defined ``obscenity'' on several other occasions. The bill in no way will prohibit the exchange of protected material and is designed solely to protect all children from what is clearly inappropriate material. More than 32 years ago, the Court recognized the harm to minors from pornography and the need to protect minor children from pornography in the case of Ginsberg v. New York. The Court ruled that protecting children from exposure to pornography is a ``transcendent interest'' of government because it concerns ``the health, safety, welfare and morals of its community by barring the distribution to children of books recognized to be suitable for adults.'' Furthermore, obscene material is an effective tool in the hands of predators. Pedophiles use the material as part of the seduction process of children. It is used to engage children and lure them into activities that pedophiles find acceptable and the rest of us find deplorable. This bill, in short, would extend protection from pedophiles to those under the age of 18. I would ask all my colleagues to support our children and support this bill. We should make sure that those who would seek to spread this filth knowingly to our children be ready to pay the price of up to 10 years behind bars. I believe strongly that it is the role of this body to protect children across the Nation from both direct violent harm and also from the type of harm that comes from being confronted with this kind of material at such a young age.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TANCREDO. If the gentleman will yield further, I do not know that there would be any impact of this bill on the particular situation that the gentleman identifies. Two people engaged in consensual sex, of course, that has nothing to do with this piece of legislation. Sharing materials at that point in time has nothing to do with this legislation. Quote, ``dirty pictures,'' as the gentleman characterizes it, I do not know that that has anything to do with this legislation because, of course, the Supreme Court has already determined that you can distinguish between certain materials that some people would find objectionable to the kind of materials that this covers, which are strictly pornographic. It is the transfer of that material, unsolicited transfer of that material, from one person to another underage that this deals with. So I do not think, unless I mistook the gentleman's characterization of this particular action, that it would have any impact.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5123, the School Safety Hotline Act of 2000, which would require the Secretary of Education to notify State education agencies so that they can use funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to establish school safety hotlines. One of the effects of the recent rash of violence in our Nation's schools is that many of our students no longer feel safe. Recent studies and polls have confirmed this, showing that the number of students who fear violence in their school is at a record level. We cannot expect the educational process to continue unencumbered when teachers and students are as concerned with their safety as they are with teaching and learning. School safety hotlines allow students, teachers, parents, and school personnel the opportunity to report threats or acts of violence to authorities. They give everyone back some of the security that they deserve, allowing them to concentrate on teaching and learning, the very reasons for which they are in school. According to the report ``The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective'' released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation last week, one of the most important aspects of identifying potential violent adolescents is detecting that point at which they begin to talk about the event they are planning, when a student intentionally or unintentionally reveals clues to feelings, thoughts, fantasies, attitudes, or intentions that may signal an impending violent act. Not too long ago we had the opportunity to hear from members of the Secret Service who came into our office and made us aware of the fact that they had been working on a profile similar to this, or a document similar to this, and looking at the number of people who have been involved with either threats against personnel or threats against elected officials or people who have carried out those threats, and then looking at what they found were similar characteristics among the people who had been involved with school shootings and school violence. One of the things they told us, there were several common elements, but the one that struck my attention at the time was the fact that all of these people tell somebody; that none of them have acted alone, in a vacuum, without ever letting anyone know of their intentions. If that is the case, if in fact that happens and these people are inclined toward that and do in fact tell others, then something like the school safety hotline, the need for it is quite evident. In the aftermath of the tragedies around the country, I worked in cooperation with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the Colorado Department of Education, U.S. West, now Qwest, AT&T, and local sheriffs departments throughout the State to establish the Colorado school safety hotline. We were able to pool the resources of State agencies and private companies to provide this needed resource for the State which provides parents, students, and teachers with a valuable tool in our efforts to make schools safe. We were able to come together as elected leaders, administrators, neighbors, friends, and families to search for ways to restore that sense of safety and security to our schools. Now if someone learns of a potential threat to a fellow student, a teacher, or a school facility, they have an opportunity to provide this information to law enforcement and school authorities who will follow up on their tip, and they can do so anonymously. All reports to the hotline are kept strictly confidential. Here is how it works, and here is how it has worked in Colorado. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation answers the school safety hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This is enormously important. We have talked to other people and other school districts that have implemented these, but they are not really always available and accessible to a live person on the other end. Sometimes they go into a recording. That leaves a great deal of liability for the agency involved. This hotline, the one we have in Colorado, operates, as I say, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It goes to a live person. Then the sheriff's department in the county where the school is located is identified and is provided with the information, if that is necessary. The local sheriff's department then works with local law enforcement agencies to take appropriate action and follow up on tips phoned into the hotline. Of course, one of the most important aspects of the hotline is getting the word out to everyone in our schools and communities. To this end, the Colorado Department of Education provides each school with posters and makes sure all students and parents are aware of the hotline. AT&T-Qwest provides the public service announcements to highlight the school safety hotline to students, and they do so through the cooperation of TCI cable. On the hardware side, Qwest has provided the telephone service for the hotline, including the telephones, the phone service, and installation, and provides the maintenance. As of September 5, the Colorado school safety hotline has taken over 600 calls, including 80 that were in the nature of a threat. Establishing hotlines will hopefully help prevent future tragedy, and are just one of the many actions we can take to help make our schools safer. This will not be a cure, but it is another tool for all of us to use. We all know that the roots of school violence lie much deeper, but we should do everything at our disposal to prevent individual acts from happening. The Colorado school safety hotline has been a success, and we need to make sure that every school district in America knows they already have some of the resources they need to start their own hotline. H.R. 5123, the School Safety Hotline Act of 2000, was devised to help States throughout the nation do just that. While I wholeheartedly advocate the public-private partnerships in developing the hotline, which has been extremely successful in my district, with the passage of this legislation, funding will not be an issue whether to take steps to help protect our schools and communities. It is my hope that tools like the school safety hotline will help restore a sense of security to students, teachers, and their families who undertake this learning mission each day. Once again, I thank the Speaker and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for moving this bill. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5123. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5123) to require the Secretary of Education to provide notification to States and State educational agencies regarding the availability of certain administrative funds to establish school safety hotlines.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5123.