[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 17, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4104-H4109]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE UNIQUE QUALITIES OF THE AMERICAN WEST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I come before my colleagues this evening to 
discuss one of my favorite topics, of course, the American West. I plan 
to spend the next few minutes talking about the differences between the 
western United States and the eastern United States.
  I talk quite regularly about these issues because, of course, being a 
native of the wonderful State of Colorado, I believe very strongly, 
very strongly in the American West and the virtues and the values of 
the American West.
  I think it is important, because of our small population out there, 
that we continue to be heard in this country; that our way of life in 
the American West somehow be preserved and not trod upon.
  I had a wonderful experience this last weekend. I was in Buena Vista, 
which in Spanish stands for ``good view,'' Buena Vista, Colorado. I and 
a couple of friends and my wife, Laurie, we went to Buena Vista for one 
purpose: We wanted to hear a singer, somebody who I had known, a person 
of great character, a gentleman named Michael Martin Murphy.
  This is an individual who is not only able to sing in such a way that 
it warms your heart, but also has the very canny ability of passing on 
and communicating through his music about the values of the American 
West. Not only can Michael Martin Murphy communicate about the values 
of the American West, he also communicates about the need and the 
necessity of character, of real character; of the standards that we as 
Americans ought to live up to.
  When we went to Buena Vista and we heard some of the discussions, we 
had an opportunity not only to listen to the music of Michael Martin 
Murphy, who I pay tribute to today; not only to meet his good friend, 
Karen Richie, but also to listen to some of the background and some of 
the values and the future that people like Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, and 
Marty Robbins saw about the American West.
  I can say that Michael Martin Murphy in my opinion rises to the level 
of those legends, the legends of Marty Robbins, the legend of Gene 
Autry, the legend of Roy Rogers; that he rises to their level, because 
in my opinion he is able to communicate the message as those people did 
for their generation, and Michael Martin Murphy does that for this 
generation. I think his music will carry that message to future 
generations.

[[Page H4105]]

  It was a wonderful experience. We were up on the mountain plain, 
Chalk Mountain right in the distance, of course among 14,000-plus foot 
peaks. The wind was blowing slightly, the sun was going down, not until 
about 9 o'clock. It was cool. The mountains can get awful cold this 
time of year; not like winter, obviously, but very, very cool.
  It was just the perfect setting. It was the perfect setting to let 
one's mind rest for a few minutes and to go back in history and 
remember the values upon which this great Nation was built, upon the 
individual characters that stepped forward to settle the West, to stand 
strong for the West, to make sure that the wrongs were righted, because 
we know there were wrongs that were committed in the acquisition of the 
West.
  It is interesting, when we look back in history, our history 
professors tell us, Mr. Speaker, that history often repeats itself, and 
that if we look upon the strong values of this country, the foundation 
that made this country the greatest country known in the history of the 
world, when we look back we see certain characteristics that I think 
have been represented in music, at least in the West, by the legends of 
the Gene Autrys, the Marty Robbins, and Roy Rogers, and in my opinion, 
Michael Martin Murphy.
  I intend here in the next few days to issue a tribute for Michael 
Martin Murphy, because I think it is so important for the generation, 
for our generation, the obligation of our generation to pass on to the 
next generation what life in the American West really is about; how 
wonderful it is and how important it is to preserve that independence, 
that love of nature, that mountain area way of life.
  There are several ways we can do it. Of course, we can put it in 
history books. We can teach it in our classes. Those are all important. 
But it seems to me one of the most effective ways to pass the message 
from one generation to the next generation is through music. Michael 
Martin Murphy does exactly that.
  I was not enthralled, so do not get me wrong, I was not starstruck by 
Michael Martin Murphy. I was impressed, because I felt that I had met 
an entertainer who was much more than an entertainer, but an individual 
who really cared about the American West, an individual who understood 
the land values and the need for open space and the beauty of the Rocky 
Mountains, yet firmly believed that people had a right to live in those 
areas; that people have a right to enjoy that.

  In Michael Martin Murphy I saw not a superstar, but I saw a star kind 
of different than like a Hollywood set. What I saw was a superstar in 
character, a person who spoke about the characters that are necessary 
for our new generations; about the obligations we have, the obligations 
that were fulfilled by previous generations.
  We live in a great country, wherever one lives in this country. I 
just happen to have a prejudice towards the mountains, whether it is in 
Virginia or in the Missouri flats or up in Montana, up in those areas, 
Idaho, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and of course my district, the Third 
District of Colorado, which is essentially the mountains of Colorado, 
whether one is in Durango, Buena Vista, Walsenburg, Steamboat Springs, 
Meeker, Colorado, Glenwood Springs, Beaver Creek, all of these 
communities.
  What is important is that there are a lot of generations that have 
come ahead of us, including multiple generations on my side of the 
family and multiple generations on my wife's side of the family.
  It is a way of life. It is a way of life that I think we can 
preserve. It is a way of life that we should not allow the elitists to 
come out and destroy. It is a way of life of those people who come out 
and buy property in the mountains, or come out to the West and buy 
land, whether it is in the prairie or in the mountains. It is a 
responsibility that kind of runs with the land. It does not disappear 
from one owner to the other, it is a responsibility that should go with 
everybody who touches the land. It runs with the land, and it should 
run with the land for all future generations.
  A part of getting that message out is through the music of the likes 
of Michael Martin Murphy. So for that, I intend to issue a tribute, 
because I consider him in that bracket, having met that standard of a 
legend, not just for the music, which by the way is beautiful, whether 
it is Wildfire, or his rendition of the Yellow Rose of Texas, or I 
could go through a number of different songs; but most importantly, 
what Michael Martin Murphy says and what he practices and what he 
encourages other people to do in regard to the preservation of the 
American West.
  Let me point out some differences in why life in the West requires 
some special attention, why it really does. I am not trying to preach 
to my colleagues this evening, but I am trying to say that out in the 
West we have a unique situation. It is not found in the East, or very 
rarely in the East. It is unique to the West. We have to have a good 
understanding of it if we really want to comprehend the challenges that 
we face out West.
  It all started years ago with the founding of this country. As we all 
know, the country was not founded on the west coast. It was not founded 
in the mid country, it was founded on the east coast, out in this area. 
The population was up and down the coastline.
  As our forefathers decided to expand this wonderful dream of theirs 
to build a country of freedom, a country that was free from the king, a 
country where we would have no king, a country which allowed for a 
representative and democratic type of government, to do that they in to 
expand, so they purchased land. They needed to encourage people to 
occupy that land.
  What happened back then, just because one had a deed, they had a 
piece of paper that said you owned this piece of property, that did not 
mean much.

                              {time}  2215

  What meant something was for an individual to be actually placed on 
the land with both their feet. Possession of the land. And frankly, not 
only possession of the land, it also probably required in a lot of 
cases, a six-shooter strapped to one's side. This was a new frontier 
for us, and it was a frontier we wanted to build into the country.
  And thank goodness they had the raw courage and the persistence to go 
out west. Despite the illness, despite the fact that there were no 
maps, despite the fact that they had to break the trails and hunt for 
their food and negotiate with the Native Americans, we still had people 
that did it. That is where, by the way, the saying came from, 
``possession is nine-tenths of the law.'' That is where that came from.
  So let us go back to this map. We know we have people settled on the 
East Coast. We know that the Government wants them to move to the West. 
Now remember, to the West could be simply getting them out to Missouri. 
Somehow we have got to get the American people out into this new land 
that we want to expand into a country, the United States of America. So 
they tried to figure out ways and incentives for the American people to 
move west. Interestingly, they came up with an idea. In 1776, what the 
Government did, and this is very interesting, by the way, for those who 
are history buffs, in 1776, the Continental Army decided, hey, let us 
offer free land to people. Let us allow, in effect, homesteads to 
soldiers that will defect from the British Army. If they are defectors, 
we will reward them in our new country with free land.
  Well, years later, as our expansion began to take place, and remember 
our expansion was delayed somewhat because of the ongoing battles 
between the North and the South. The North and the South, neither one 
of them wanted to have the other get an advantage over this new land, 
an advantage that would allow slavery or an advantage that would not 
allow slavery. So the expansion and the possession of these lands was 
somewhat delayed. But when they got finally to a position where the 
Government could really encourage it and take it as a serious effort to 
go out and settle the American West, they decided that the incentive 
should be to give away land, and they called it homesteading.
  Again, that idea originated in 1776. Now, maybe if there is a history 
professor amongst my colleagues, they may have a date preceding that, 
but my reading shows about 1776 with the defections from the British 
Army.
  So now we speed up again back here where we are possessing the 
country.

[[Page H4106]]

 How do we get people out there? So we decide to homestead. They offer 
people to go out into Missouri, into Tennessee, out west to Kansas and 
to Colorado. Go out there and farm, set up their families, and be given 
160 acres. If they would go out there and work it for a fee of like $12 
and a closing fee of like $5, they could have this land, 160 acres.
  And every American, even today, every American dreams of owning their 
own piece of land. That is one of the beauties of the United States of 
America, one of the things that sets our country apart from other 
nations throughout the entire world is the right of private property. 
It is deep in our heart. It is deep in our heart to own a piece of 
property. So the Government encouraged families to go out west and be 
given ownership to 160 acres. They had to go out and work it. They need 
to put their family on it. The Government wanted it to be farmed, to be 
productive land. And if a family would make it productive land, if they 
were dedicated to the cause, meaning that they persevered through all 
the tough conditions, after a period of time, a few years, they got to 
own that land free and clear.
  However, there was a problem; and the problem is clearly demonstrated 
by this map that I have to my left, and that was that the frontiersmen, 
and I say that generically, because clearly it was families that took 
on this challenge, not just the men of the country but families. And 
back then the conditions were harsh. Think of women in childbirth, the 
death rate of women in childbirth. It was horrible. The sacrifices were 
enormous that these people made to expand our country and in part to go 
out and find the American Dream.
  But as I said, there was a problem; and it is demonstrated by this 
map. Take a look at this map very carefully. The western United States 
has lots of color on it on this map. The eastern United States, with 
the exception of the Appalachians, a little shot down there in the 
Everglades, a little shot up there in the northeast. With those 
exceptions some of these States hardly have any color in them at all. 
Why? The color denotes government lands.
  Now, my colleagues might say, well, gosh, there are hardly any 
government lands in some of these States. And the lands that have very 
little government land, what we call public lands, are in the East. 
They are not in the West. Why? Why would be a logical question on this 
map to my left. Why would all the West be in color or public lands and 
very little in the East, comparatively speaking? Private property is 
held by private individuals. That was the problem they ran into. What 
happened was, as the frontiersmen began to hit the Rocky Mountains, 
they discovered that 160 acres not only would not support a family, it 
would not even feed a cow.
  So word got back to Washington, and it kind of put a stop in the 
expansion plans. They said, hey, we are having a problem. This 
Homestead Act has worked very, very well getting people halfway across 
the country, because 160 acres in eastern Colorado, unlike 160 acres in 
western Colorado, can support a family. 160 acres in Missouri can 
support a family. Same thing in Kansas. Same thing in some of these 
other States. But when they hit the mountains, it was a lot different.
  So how did we resolve this? What do we do? How did we encourage 
people to go into those mountains and take the sacrifice that was 
necessary for us to expand this great country of ours? One of the 
answers was, well, to get people into this area of the western United 
States, if 160 acres does not do it, let us give them 3,000 acres. Let 
us give them whatever amount of land it takes to be comparable to that 
family in Kansas or Nebraska that can make do on 160 acres. But 
somebody said, well, we cannot do that. Politically we could never give 
that much land away to an individual.
  So somebody else, one of the other policymakers, came up and said, 
well, let us do this. In the West, where we meet the mountains, let us 
just go ahead and keep the land titled, the actual ownership of the 
property, let us keep it in the name of the Government but let us allow 
the people to use it as if it were their own. And, in fact, let us 
encourage them to go out there and use it. And let us call this land 
that is owned by the Government, it is not a title that fits here in 
the East, it is a title that was designed for this block of color in 
the West, let us define it by a land of many uses, public lands.
  This was a title held by the Government but described as a land of 
many uses; a land that will allow people to support families, land that 
will allow people a sense of freedom, land that will allow people the 
enjoyment and, in my opinion, the absolute pure pleasure of being able 
to live in the Rocky Mountains or go up into the plateaus of the Grand 
Mesa or down into the San Juan Mountains and see the fresh water 
streams and the waterfalls. It allows this to be a land of many uses.
  What we have seen, though, recently is that we have more radical 
environmental organizations. Now, I think some of the strongest 
environmentalists are the people who have had to put their hands in the 
ground, the people like my family who, for generations, next to their 
family, their deepest appreciation was for where we lived and they 
loved the land. It is like Michael Martin Murphy. His deepest 
appreciation was being a part of the American West and a big part of 
the American West, as he very ably described in his comments and in his 
music, is the beauty of the land, the ability to get on a horse and 
ride and not see other people for a long ways. And yet the ability to 
take that horse back to a barn where hay can be grown to support it, 
grain to support that horse, and to have a family that could enjoy that 
horse.
  As of late, some of the more radical environmental groups in our 
country have decided that the Government, what they want to do is go to 
the populations, and remember most of the populations, when we look at 
this map to my left, most of the populations, with the exception right 
here, and again we see the private property, the big white section here 
in California, that big white section, and the East, that is where the 
population in the country really is. Here in the West, that is sparsely 
populated land. So what has happened is some of the more radical 
environmental organizations, groups like Earth First, groups like, the 
National Sierra Club, they are trying to educate people in the east 
that this land in the West is unfit for human occupancy, unfit in their 
description so that humans should have minimal contact with these 
public lands; that the design of these public lands was not in fact the 
concept of multiple use, or a land of many uses.
  They use it as one of their priorities to destroy what we knew the 
land to be, a land of many uses or, in short, multiple use. Their 
belief is that multiple use should be eliminated or at least minimized 
in many, many areas, vast amounts of areas out here in the West, 
regardless of the impact that it has on the generations of people who 
started back in the homestead days.
  So there is a big difference between the East and the West. And we 
who live in the West feel very strongly about the fact that we, like 
our friends in the East, like Virginia, for example, when I go into 
Virginia, my good friend Al Stroobants, he lives in Lynchburg, 
Virginia. He came from Belgium, but the pride he shows in being an 
American and the pride he has for Virginia and the Virginia mountains. 
There is a very strong dedication to our States, and I see it in my 
friend Al and all his friends down there in Lynchburg, Virginia. Well, 
we feel the same way as our Virginia colleagues or as our Kentucky or 
Florida colleagues, or some of these other States. We feel the same way 
about the American West. We feel very strongly that our way of life 
should have as much opportunity to be preserved as the way of life in 
Virginia or Kentucky or Tennessee or Maine or Vermont.
  We are lucky. We have 50 of the greatest States in the world. We have 
probably the most beautiful land mass. We have not only the strongest 
country economically, education-wise, militarily; but we also have 
perhaps the most beautiful geography in the world. When we take it all 
together, we have to come out on top, especially when we add in our 
little bonuses like Alaska and Hawaii.
  But my point here this evening is this: I ask my good friends from 
the East to understand the differences that we in the West face. And it 
is not just the geographic differences as a result of public lands, but 
it is also the fact that we are totally dependent in the

[[Page H4107]]

 West, we are totally dependent, completely, 100 percent, I do not know 
any other way to say it to describe our dependency, on public lands.
  The concept of multiple use is the foundation for the utilization of 
public lands. If we do not have multiple use, if my colleagues buy into 
some of the more radical organizations in our country, that the way to 
eliminate multiple use, for example, is to burn down the lodges in Vail 
or go to Phoenix, Arizona, and burn down homes, luxury homes. That is 
sometimes the kind of tactics that they revert to to eliminate multiple 
use; that is wrong.
  And one of the other more legitimate ways, although I disagree with 
it, is to try to educate the mass population in the East that life in 
the West is kind of like life in the East; not to educate the people on 
the need for multiple use. If I went down the street here in 
Washington, D.C., I bet I could stop 100 people; and of those 100 
people, I bet I could not find two, maybe not even one, maybe not even 
one who could tell me what the concept of multiple use and what public 
lands really means.

                              {time}  2230

  Now, I will bet also out of those 100, based on the educational 
efforts of some of these more radical environmentalists over the last 
few years, I bet the perception of a lot of those people out of that 
100 is that in the West we are destroying the lands; that Yellowstone 
is being drilled upon; that we are cutting down all of the forests. It 
could not be further from the truth, colleagues.
  Most of you probably vacation in my particular district because of 
the resorts. I would hope that you take an opportunity, especially 
during our August recess, to go out into these public lands. Take a 
close look at them. Put all the propaganda aside and go out and see it 
for yourself. Go out to Jackson Hole. Go out to Beaver Creek. Go over 
to Durango. Go to Buena Vista and see just how well that land is cared 
for.
  If you have an opportunity, which should be a basic requirement of 
your visit, just go stroll on down to the coffee shop. Go talk to a 
cowboy or cowgirl and ask them a little about the lands. You know what 
you will get? You will get the same kind of feeling I get out of 
Michael Martin Murphy and a lot of people, millions of people get out 
of Michael Martin Murphy.
  You get a sense of belief out of the American West. You get a sense 
of the love that these people have for the land upon which they live 
and upon which they thrive. You get a sense of our inherent 
responsibilities to protect this land while at the same time enjoying 
the use of the land, but to protect it in such a way that we can pass 
on this gem, and that is what it is. It is a gem. It is a diamond in 
the rough. Pass this on to future generations.
  That vision for future generations, as I just mentioned, we consider 
it an inherent obligation, a part of our heart. Out in the West it is a 
part of our heart. We need your support here in the East to help us in 
the West to continue to thrive and continue to enjoy the type of life-
style that our forefathers upon the founding of this country intended 
for us to have.
  That does not mean, by the way, that we turn our face the other way 
if we sense abuse out there. I think you will find the first people to 
crack down on abuse are the people that are most closely impacted by 
it. The people that are most closely impacted by abuse of the lands are 
the people that live on that land.
  I have zero tolerance for people that leave decimated trails and tear 
up the terrain. I have zero tolerance whether it is mountain bikes, 
whether it is SUVs, whether it is a canoe or a kayak or a sloppy hiker. 
I have zero tolerance for people that drop litter, for people who do 
not properly care for the lands, for people that do not leave the land 
as much as they found it, for people who do not have respect for that 
land.
  If we allow that to occur we then dilute our obligation and our 
vision for the next generation. So we do feel very strongly about 
enforcement, but we also believe in balance. We do not think balance is 
by burning down the lodge at Vail on top of the mountain. We do not 
believe that balance is going out into a subdivision just because some 
people who are building these homes have money and burn their homes 
into the ground. We do not believe you ought to put spikes in trees. We 
do not think that is necessary.
  We have a lot of different projects. I will talk to you about the 
Colorado National Monument and our special conservation areas.
  In our community we felt that we really needed to instill some vision 
for this generation. To take the Colorado canyons and the Colorado 
National Monument and come up with some kind of plan, some kind of 
strategy to preserve those lands in a special way for the future.
  Do you know where that inspiration came from? It did not come from 
Washington, D.C. That inspiration did not come from some radical 
organization like Greenpeace or Earth First. That inspiration came from 
the hearts of the people that lived on the land, from the hearts of the 
people that listen to the music of people like Michael Martin Murphy, 
from the hearts of the people like David or Sue Ann Smith or Cole and 
Carol McInnis who lived there and had their family there for 
generations. That is where that inspiration came from.
  Do you know what we were able to put together? We have people like 
the Gore family up on top of the monument in Glade Park. We have people 
like the King family, Doug and Cathy, from the King ranches. We have 
people like Mr. Stroobants from his ranch up in Glenwood Springs to sit 
down with people from our active environmental community, with people 
from our chamber of commerce, with locally elected officials like our 
county commissioners in the various counties, with our State 
representatives and our State senators.
  You know what? We were able to put together a vision that helped 
preserve this land but at the same time allowing multiple use. We put 
tens of thousands of acres in the wilderness. That is the most extreme 
management tool you can use out there. That truly does exclude most of 
the population from touching that land.
  At the same time, we have put in special conservation areas so that 
people could continue to enjoy their horses for their horseback riding. 
People could take their hikes. People could spot wildlife. People could 
go down to the mighty Colorado River and sit on its bank and wonder 
about the millions and millions of lives and the environment and the 
heritage of that river.
  All of this was done as a result of people who lived on that land 
coming together, not as a result of a coalition out of Washington, 
D.C., who thought they knew better about how to describe life out here 
in the West.
  We can do it. We are not a bunch of numbskulls out there or rambling 
cowboys as some people have the image. In fact, we are pretty proud of 
ourselves. We think we are pretty thoughtful. We think we are 
thoughtful in that we understand your concerns here in the East.
  There are a lot of people in the East who are justifiably concerned 
that, regardless of where you live in this country, whether it is the 
beautiful mountains in Virginia, whether it is the hills of Tennessee, 
whether it is the coastal areas of Florida, we all as a Nation should 
be concerned about the preservation of these lands and about the life 
people lead.
  A basic and fundamental part of that concern should be a 
communication, an expression and participation from the people that 
live on the land or live on the shore or live on the hills or farm on 
the plains. Those people ought to have a strong voice at the table. 
Why? Once you sit down with them as we did with the Colorado Canyon 
Lands Project, once you sit down with them you will find out that that 
old geezer has something to say. There is a little history there.
  You sit down with somebody like a David Smith and you find out more 
about water than you ever thought you would know in just a few minutes 
and about the importance of water in the West and why life in the West 
is written in water. It is so dry out there that water is fundamentally 
important.
  Mr. Speaker, my real concern this evening, I think I have ably 
expressed, and I want to deeply again express my appreciation to the 
communicators in the West, the people who are able to communicate the 
balance that is necessary so that we can come together as a team to 
preserve our way of life in

[[Page H4108]]

the West. Amongst those communicators are the people like the locally 
elected officials, the State representatives, the State senators, our 
local county commissioners, our Chamber of Commerce, our local 
environmental organizations. Those are communicators, ordinary people 
that love the land, that know the history of the land in the West, that 
are proud to be a part of the American West.
  Also, as I have mentioned several times, I pay special tribute to one 
of the finest communicators of today's modern day through music, and 
that is Michael Martin Murphy. It is obvious I have a bias towards his 
music, but when one goes beyond the music and looks at the message and 
looks at the intent and deep dedication and the focused love of the 
communicator, one understands that this is a good way to communicate 
the word of the importance of the American West.
  Not long ago I heard somebody say, ``You better get used to it. Your 
days in the American West are limited. That is something in the past. 
We have moved on. The old frontier is out of here. There are no more 
great, vast areas.'' These are the kinds of people who want to destroy 
our open space. These people want to come out and tell people they are 
not allowed to farm and ranch the land. They are not allowed to do this 
and do that, the big brother out of Washington, D.C., knows best for 
the West. And that somehow they reinterpret or reinvent the history of 
why this block of color is located in the West, while there is hardly 
any color in the East.

  Mr. Speaker, they want to educate and use propaganda to say this was 
intended to be kind of off limits to people. Here in the East, we 
already have our piece of land. We already have what we want. But out 
here in the West, we want to control your lives. We have no use for 
that type of philosophy. We think at the local level, at the regional 
level, with input at the national level, because it is one Nation, that 
we can put together a plan, a blueprint so that the next generation can 
experience the West as we have experienced it.
  Fortunately, because of the visions of people like Teddy Roosevelt 
and others, in the communication of Gene Autry, as Michael Martin 
Murphy pointed out so well, or Roy Rogers, they were able to in that 
generation figure out a blueprint so that the appreciation of the West 
could continue to my generation.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have laid out a blueprint or been a 
participant, whether it is the Colorado Canyonlands, whether it is Sand 
Dunes National Monument which last year we put into a national park, 
whether it is the Black Canyon National Park which Senator Campbell and 
I created about 4 years ago, we hope that we have somehow participated 
in that blueprint to pass on the dreams and the life of the West.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not something that needs to be eliminated. It is 
not something that in the East you have to force your way of life upon. 
It is something that you, too, as American citizens or as visitors to 
our great country can enjoy. But when you come out there, do not come 
out with earplugs in your ears, and do not come out thinking that you 
know it all or trying to impose your values, which may be good values, 
but for your area. Do not come out and try to impose your values on us 
in the West. Do not listen to all of this propaganda that you hear.
  And I can tell you the propaganda machine about what ought to happen 
in the West is a well-oiled, well-moneyed machine in the East. I am not 
saying totally discount what the other side has to say. Listen to that 
propaganda, but take the time to look up what the other side of the 
story is. You know the old saying: ``There are two sides to every 
story.''
  That is why I take this microphone tonight, colleagues. I am asking 
take a look at the other side of the story. Because. When you do, you 
will understand why we are so proud of our heritage in the West, why we 
think that we take pretty good care of the Rocky Mountains and the 
Dakotas and Utah, Montana, and the Colorado River. It is our lifeblood. 
We care about it. I want you to care about it and care about it in such 
a way that the next generation and the next generation can live on it, 
enjoy it, preserve it and respect it because, if we do that, we will 
have accomplished a great deal for the next generation and for the 
future of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, the rest of this week looks like it is going to be very 
busy, and it looks like we are going to be working quite late nights. I 
was hoping to make some comments tomorrow evening and go into specific 
detail on missile defense. So break away those 40 minutes about which I 
have spoken to you about the American West, and let us shift our mind 
into missile defense and talk for just a few minutes. I will not be 
able to brief Members this evening like I intended to brief Members 
tomorrow or Thursday evening, but it looks like I will not have that 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, we had a pretty remarkable success with the missile 
defense this weekend. We had a targeted missile coming under our 
scenario, a missile aimed at the United States traveling at 4\1/2\ 
miles per second. And we had an intercept missile coming in at 4\1/2\ 
miles. The two of them had to hit. Remember they could not miss by more 
than three feet. It is like hitting a bullet with a bullet, the effect 
of shooting a basketball in California and making it through the hoop 
in Washington, D.C. It is a tremendous success.
  Now some would say, oh, especially the Chinese and the Russians, how 
terrible. Who could imagine the American people ever agreeing to 
protect themselves from incoming missiles.
  Mr. Speaker, most American citizens believe that we have some kind of 
protection from American missiles. They have heard of Cheyenne Mountain 
in Colorado Springs, the home of NORAD. Do my colleagues know what 
NORAD does, NORAD detects?

                              {time}  2245

  It is a huge complex, built within the granite mountain of Cheyenne 
Mountain. They can detect missile launches anywhere in the world. There 
are a lot of things that they can do for our security. But once they 
make that detection, that is about all they can do. They can call you 
on the phone and say to you, hey, look, despite all of the treaties, 
despite all of the promises made, we have just had a foreign country 
launch a missile against the United States, against the people that you 
are sworn to protect. That missile is going to land in about 30 
minutes, and we believe it is carrying a nuclear warhead. What else can 
we tell you?
  What are we going to do?
  There is not much we can do. We can repeat what we just told you, 
where it is going to land, the nuclear warhead that we think is on top 
of it. I think that there is a responsibility for the leaders of this 
country, not only for this generation and the future generation, but 
for the people of the world, to provide missile defense so that we do 
not end up in some kind of horrible, horrible situation, with a world 
at war, because a missile, an incoming missile, was not stopped before 
it hit a city like Los Angeles or New York City or Washington, D.C. We 
can stop that.
  The best way to stop a war from happening, the best way to maintain 
peace is to disarm your neighbor, especially if it is an unfriendly 
neighbor. Think about it. Why on earth would you say we should not 
defend ourselves against incoming missiles? It does not make sense. It 
is kind of like your neighbor having a gun, and your neighbor deciding 
that he wants your watermelons. And the neighbor is known to sometimes 
use that gun against you. Do you think it is crazy to set up some kind 
of defense, maybe a big fence that your neighbor cannot get over to 
come use his gun? That is exactly what we need to do here.
  At some point in time in the future, and mark this, Members who are 
opposing some kind of missile defense network, at some point in the 
future, somebody will launch a missile against the United States of 
America. For those of you who oppose a defensive system, not an 
offensive system, a defensive system, for those of you who will cast a 
vote against a defensive missile system, you, I hope, will be around to 
answer to the survivors of a missile attack against this country. I 
hope that you will never have to do that. I hope that the idea that a 
missile would be launched against the United States does not happen.
  But I think every one of us has to be realistic here. The fact is, 
the odds are

[[Page H4109]]

that somebody at some point will launch a missile against the United 
States of America and that the United States of America is fooling 
itself. There is a saying out there. The last person you want to fool 
is yourself. The last person that the United States of America wants to 
fool ought to be itself. Kudos to the President. Kudos to our defense 
and our military operational heads to say, look, we cannot afford to 
put blinders on and pretend. Look, nobody is going to fire a missile 
against us. Look, nothing is going to happen against us by these rogue 
countries.
  Take a look at how many rogue countries now have missiles. Take a 
look at how many of these rogue countries have nuclear warheads on 
those missiles. Do you think that the United States of America by 
patting them on the back is going to get them to destroy those 
missiles, or to disarm? No way. These countries are not going to 
disarm. They could care less what the United States of America tells 
them. Having a nuclear missile or any type of missile, that is a pretty 
macho thing in some of these countries. In some of these Third World 
countries, having the ability to simply reach over and push a button 
and take on the strongest country in the history of the world and 
destroy one of their cities or, even worse, it makes them feel pretty 
good. We play right into their card game; we play right into their game 
if we do not build some kind of defense.
  We need to have a defense. We use it everywhere else, not missile 
defense, but we use defenses everywhere. Take a look at highways. We 
put speed bumps to slow you down. Why? Because we do not want an 
incoming car. We want to slow them down. Every one of my colleagues 
could think of example after example after example where we deploy a 
defensive mechanism to protect our health and well-being or the health 
and well-being of our children. That is why we have speed zones at 
schools. That is why we have crossing guards. That is why we have tough 
law enforcement, so that we can preserve those things that are special 
to us. Now, for us not to put out a defense that protects a country 
that is special to us is foolish.
  Now, because I cannot go into the details, but I will in the next 
week, I hope, I am going to have some diagrams and some charts and show 
you why this system will work. Now, remember that the critics of this 
system will tell you, first of all, we have offended China and Russia. 
Do not offend China and Russia. And our European colleagues, they are 
upset about this because of the fact we might offend Russia and China.
  Who do you think is likely to use a missile against the United 
States? Not only those rogue countries, but do not discount China and 
do not discount Russia. I hope it never happens. I hope we become 
allies with these people. And if we do become allies, then we do not 
need to use a defensive missile system. You just have it in place. You 
never have to engage it. But the reality is somewhere in the future 
there is going to be a difference of opinion, a professional difference 
with these two countries. A rogue nation, a rogue Third World nation 
may not need a reason to fire a missile against us. People have been 
willing to blow up our airplanes, they have been willing to shoot 
athletes at the Olympics, they have been able to set off a bomb at the 
Olympics. Do you not think that someday somebody may want to launch a 
missile against the United States?
  Now, the critics, as I was saying earlier, will say, well, the system 
has had too many failures. How many failures did we have before we came 
up with penicillin? How many failures did we have before we mastered 
the car? Of course you are going to have failures. The technological 
requirement, the expertise to have two objects that are traveling 4\1/
2\ miles a second, to be able to bring them together and to be able to 
intercept right on the spot, you cannot afford to miss. You do not get 
two shots; you get one shot on that intercept over the weekend. It 
worked. I can assure you that our European colleagues and that the 
people, the leadership in Russia and China are saying, wow, American 
technology.

  By gosh, we may disarm Russia and China simply by coming up with a 
defensive mechanism. Why put all your money in an offensive missile 
system if the country that you are concerned about, the United States, 
has the ability to stop them? You want to know what is going to stop 
missile growth in this world? It is the ability to make them an 
ineffective weapon. But how do you make them an ineffective weapon if 
you do not have some type of shield against them? What we are talking 
about with our missile defense system is a shield, a shield that not 
only protects the United States but a shield that we would share with 
our allies. Frankly, a shield that the more it is shared, the less 
likely that there will ever be a missile attack because the missiles, 
which are very expensive and the technology that is required is 
substantial, those missiles become pretty darn ineffective. How could 
somebody legitimately argue that we should not deploy a strategy that 
will make missiles less effective?
  Mr. Speaker, we have a heavy burden on our shoulders. That heavy 
burden requires that we protect. We have an inherent responsibility to 
protect the citizens of this country from somebody who decides they 
want to launch a missile against us. This is not starting a war. It is 
not starting an arms race. That is rhetoric. And even if it was not 
rhetoric, are we going to let them bully us into not defending our 
citizens? Members, we are elected to the United States Congress in part 
to not only protect the Constitution but to protect the people of this 
country.
  We have deep, running obligations to the people and the safety and 
the welfare of this country. It is in every bill we pass. A part of 
doing that requires us to deploy, in my opinion, a missile defense 
system so that the United States and its allies, 20 years from now, I 
want them to look back and say, gosh, those missiles, that is what used 
to scare them back then. Today, nobody could fire a missile anywhere 
because you could stop it in flight or better yet you could stop it on 
the launching pad.
  So there is a lot to think about with the missile defensive system. 
But the basic philosophy, the basic thought ought to receive a ``yes'' 
vote from everybody in these Chambers. Everybody in the Chambers, every 
one of my colleagues ought to be in support of a missile defense 
system. I think you owe it to the constituents that you represent.
  In summary, we need a missile defensive system for this country. 
Technologically we are going to be able to do it. Sure it is going to 
be expensive. The airplane was expensive when we deployed it. Landing a 
person on the Moon was expensive. Sending a ship to Mars was expensive. 
There are lots of things the technology requires is expensive. 
Conservation is going to be expensive for us but it works. And this 
missile technology worked this weekend, and we have years of testing 
left; but it will work and it will be a lifesaver for hundreds of 
millions of people in this world.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues had an opportunity to listen to my 
comments on the American West. I am proud to be an American citizen, 
but I am deeply proud of being able to have been born and raised in the 
American West. I hope all of my colleagues have that opportunity to 
experience what I have been able to spend an entire lifetime 
experiencing.

                          ____________________