[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 27 (Tuesday, March 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H818-H823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               RELEVANT ISSUES TO COLORADO AND OUR NATION

  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 look forward to spending a little time 
with my colleagues this evening. There are a number of different issues 
I would like to talk about. But first of all, I want to mention a fine 
young man from Grand Junction, Colorado, Ryan Patterson. Ryan was just 
selected on Monday of this week as the best young scientist in the 
world. What Ryan did is, first of all, he has won several contests, 
scientific contests. He is a very, very gifted young man. He was back 
here, he racked up another $100,000 in scholarships and is being 
recognized here.
  Let me just go through a couple of things. Prior to Monday, he won 
$192,000 in scholarships, about $16,000 in cash, two laptop computers, 
two trips to Sweden to attend the Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies. 
Throughout all of his achievements, he has obviously maintained his 
modesty. What Ryan did is came up with a glove, a glove-type of 
apparatus that can take sign languages, as they work sign language with 
the finger, and it instantaneously puts it into the written word in a 
little computer screen. So someone who only knows sign language or who 
has some other type of handicap and their primary language is sign 
language can actually go to a McDonald's restaurant or some restaurant, 
hold the little screen there and put it out instantly, instantly on to 
that screen.
  This is a young man still in high school; he is a senior in high 
school. I am awful proud of him. Obviously, he is from my district, 
Grand Junction. But the achievements and the recognitions he has 
received this last year probably top any other student in the country 
in the scientific field and, obviously, in the latest recognition he 
was seen as the youngest and best scientist in the world for his age. 
So Ryan, congratulations.
  I was going to speak and still intend to speak on some water issues. 
As my colleagues know, the district that I represent is in the State of 
Colorado. The State of Colorado is the highest point not only in the 
United States, but also the highest point on the continent. So I am 
going to speak a little about Colorado, the dynamics of our snowfall up 
there, some of the land, the dynamics of the land and the situation 
facing Colorado, facing all of the States. There are many States that 
depend on the State of Colorado. I will talk about the geographical 
nature, a number of different things that I want to visit with on 
Colorado, but that is going to come later.
  Today, I just pulled this off the computer, and I am amazed: 
``Lawmakers doubt the need for a missile defense plan.'' As my 
colleagues know, I spend a great deal of time on this House floor 
talking about the absolute necessity for this Nation to have a missile 
defense. It is unbelievable to most of the citizens that I represent 
that this country, the United States of America, has no capability, 
zero capability, zero capability to stop an incoming missile into this 
country.
  Now, we have lots of capability to determine that a missile has been 
fired against this country. In fact, the primary location of that 
headquarters is in Colorado, NORAD, Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado 
Springs. We can, within seconds, determine anywhere in the world that a 
missile has been launched. We can within seconds of those seconds 
determine where the destination of the missile is, what type of missile 
it probably is, what kind of warhead it is probably carrying, the 
estimated time of arrival. Beyond that, as far as preventing the 
horrible destruction that it could wreak, the havoc that it could wreak 
on the country that it is directed towards, the United States cannot do 
anything. Fortunately, our President and this administration, as have 
some previous administrations, have made a very dedicated effort 
towards providing this country with a national security blanket for 
some type of defense against a threat by enemy missiles.
  Now, I am amazed to read that some of my colleagues today in a 
committee hearing act as if a missile threat does not exist out there. 
Where were they a couple of days after September 11? Can my colleagues 
recall what happened on September 11? We know September 11. Can my 
colleagues recall what happened a few days shortly after September 11? 
Think about it. Think about a missile, what happened with a missile. Do 
we remember what happened with that missile? A missile was accidentally 
fired in the Black Sea by the Ukrainian Navy by accident. Guess what 
that missile hit? It hit an airliner and it blew the airliner out of 
the sky.
  Now, the horrible, horrible events of September 11 overshadowed this 
tragedy. The only reason I bring this tragedy back up to the House 
floor is there is a perfect example of a missile that was not intended, 
they did not intend to shoot down a commercial airliner, there was no 
intent to do that. That missile was targeted at that airliner by 
accident. Once that missile was launched off its ship, there was no way 
to stop it.

  Some people think that the only missile threat to the United States 
of America is an intentional missile launch against this country. Wake 
up, folks. I am telling my colleagues that there is another threat out 
there. It is called an accidental launch against this country. Think of 
Russia, how many nuclear warheaded missiles they have in that land. It 
is possible. In fact, it is pretty possible that at some point in the 
future, one of these ballistic missiles may be, totally innocently and 
by mistake, could be fired by one nation against another nation. I hope 
that our country has in place a defensive mechanism that could stop the 
horrible, horrible events that could follow an accidental launch of a 
missile. I will talk about intentional firings here in just a minute.
  But every peace activist in the world ought to be the biggest cheer 
leaders out there for a missile defense system. What would the United 
States do if, for example, a sequence of missiles fired by mistake were 
launched out of Russia against a major city in the United States of 
America? If the United States could stop those missiles before they did 
any damage, it is something that could be worked out at the bargaining 
table. But if the United States does not have, and some of my 
colleagues would wish upon the United States that we not have a missile 
defensive system, if we did not have a way to stop those, what would 
our response be if our Nation was hit by several simultaneous missiles 
from another country, and that country says, wait a minute, do not 
retaliate. We did it by accident, and we are sorry we wiped out four or 
five of your cities. We did it by accident. That is why I say peace 
activists. Let me tell my colleagues, it is a lot easier to sit down at 
a bargaining table if we were able to stop the incoming bullet than it 
is after we look around and see our colleagues dead and our cities 
destroyed.
  Now, let me read a couple of quotes. Let me say that I am not going 
to use the names of the colleagues that these

[[Page H819]]

quotes are attributed to, because I am not sure of the accuracy of 
these quotes, outside of the AP wire that I pulled it off of this 
evening. But let me say one of my colleagues says this: ``Why would 
someone send a missile when they can just put it in a suitcase?'' Well, 
my friend, my colleague, the fact is they can perhaps, we are not 
convinced of it, but they can, perhaps, put it in a suitcase, and we 
ought to prepare for that. But because they might put it in a suitcase 
does not mean they will not put it in a missile. I can tell my 
colleague right now that there are a lot more ballistic missiles with 
nuclear warheads sitting on them aimed at the United States than there 
are nuclear suitcases being carried around. Only because, frankly, they 
do not have the technology in a lot of countries to get their hands on 
a so-called nuclear suitcase. I can tell my colleagues that one 
ballistic nuclear missile makes that suitcase look like an amateur's 
program.
  These nuclear missile heads can destroy entire cities. They can 
launch countries into war. We better prepare for those. I can remember 
Margaret Thatcher at the World Economic Forum, Beaver Creek, Colorado, 
3 years ago. I cannot quote her exactly, but I can remember the quote 
pretty closely. She stood up and she looked at our Secretary of 
Defense, Bill Cohen at the time, under the Clinton administration, and 
her words were similar to this: she says, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, 
your Nation has a fundamental and fiduciary responsibility to provide 
its citizens with a missile defense system. Failure to do so would be 
pure neglect and would shirk your responsibility as a leader of this 
country.

                              {time}  1915

  Now, that is pretty close to what Margaret Thatcher said, and that is 
right on point. Do not let some of my colleagues here be naysayers and 
say, well, it costs too much to defend ourselves. The fact is, we had 
better do something about these nuclear missiles. Do not try to 
convince our constituents that they do not exist, or that one is not 
going to be launched against the United States of America or one of our 
allies. We have the technology. We are almost there.
  Sure, it seems like a huge challenge right now. But what do Members 
think the airplanes seemed like to the Wright brothers? What did it 
seem like when they wanted to fire a weapon through a propeller on one 
of our fighter planes, when they were doing that? Look at all the 
technology. It is all a challenge.
  There were a lot of people who said it was impossible when they first 
did it, but we are talking about the future of this Nation, the 
security of our citizens. We have an absolute obligation, we have an 
inherent responsibility, to provide a security blanket for this country 
and for our allies.
  Let me go on. This is a quote, again, from my colleague. And again, 
let me say that this is from the AP wire, so I am not sure of its 
accuracy. That is why I am not mentioning which colleague said this. 
But if it is accurate, I will not hesitate next time I am up here to 
use the gentleman's name.
  It is inexcusable for this administration not to recognize that 
possibility and act on it. Speaking of this, why would somebody send a 
missile, instead of just putting it in a suitcase? One of the reasons 
they might is because they have one. There are a lot of countries in 
this world that have missiles. Let me show a poster.
  My poster: Ballistic Missile Proliferation. Look at this: Countries 
Possessing Ballistic Missiles. To my colleague who asked the question, 
Why would someone send a missile when they can just put it in a 
suitcase, well, maybe some of these countries here who do not have 
missiles would not send a missile. But look at these countries that 
have missiles. The reason they would send the missiles is because they 
have them. They have the capability. They have the accuracy of these 
missiles. Unfortunately, several of these countries have nuclear 
capability, nuclear warheads on the tops of those missiles.
  The day of wishing that there were not missiles out there aimed at 
the United States has long since passed. Wake up. The reality of it is, 
the United States is going to be a target. It was a target on September 
11, it was a target in 1941, and it is going to be a target in the 
future. We are the leaders of this country. We are the ones who are 
charged with some kind of capability to look forward into the future 
and say, All right, what do we see as future threats against this 
Nation?
  One clue might be if Members have a map that looks like this, that 
has all of these countries in purple with missiles, one might kind of 
draw a conclusion, hey, in the future, one of the threats against our 
Nation is going to be a missile, a missile coming in, an incoming 
missile.
  As I said not many days after September 11, do not forget, that is 
exactly what happened. A missile was not fired at a U.S. commercial 
aircraft, but it was fired at a commercial airplane and it blew it out 
of the sky. This is by the Ukrainian navy. This is not exactly the most 
sophisticated navy in the world. This is not a country that is known 
for its military might. Yet, they are able to have the accuracy to fire 
a missile from a moving ship being rocked in the sea, fire that missile 
up and hit a small airliner in the sky and blow it to smithereens.
  We need to see these future threats. Those threats exist today; those 
threats exist in the future. We have a fundamental responsibility to 
address these threats.
  Let us talk about this. Here is what the missiles look like. That is 
the proliferation of missiles in this world. Imagine what it is going 
to look like in 10 years. How many of these white spots here are going 
to have ballistic missile capability?
  Now let us look at the next poster. Nuclear proliferation. Look at 
this: Countries possessing nuclear weapons: Britain, China, France, 
Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia. Look over here: Of concern, we think 
Iran probably has nuclear capability. We think Iraq probably has 
nuclear capability. I am confident that North Korea has nuclear 
capability. Libya, I do not know; that one might be questionable.
  Members are saying to me that there is some question whether or not 
we need a missile defense when this many nations in the world have 
missile capability and have nuclear capability combined. Let me go on 
with a quote further. Again, the accuracy of this quote, I am depending 
on the AP press release. It came out of a committee hearing, 
apparently, by some of my colleagues.
  Here is one of my colleagues. By the way, he is a Democrat. The only 
reason I point out that my colleague is a Democrat is, come on, this is 
not a partisan issue. Do not just attack Bush on missile defense 
because he is a Republican. Put the partisanship aside. This is a 
threat to every one of us. Remember, these missiles are not going to 
discriminate between Republicans and Democrats. This is a bipartisan 
issue. Do not just attack the administration simply for political 
convenience.
  Listen to what this colleague of mine says: ``We can't afford to 
waste billions of dollars because of the Bush administration's 
theological fascination with missile defense.'' Now, this is the most 
ludicrous, ill-informed statement I have heard from any of my 
colleagues in my entire tenure in the United States Congress. This 
colleague of ours says, ``No threat assessment exists to justify the 
spending.''
  My colleague is not on the floor this evening to hear this. I wish he 
was. I wish he could come up here and discuss this with me, ``No threat 
exists today to justify it;'' not nuclear proliferation, not ballistic 
missile proliferation, not any of these countries over here to my left 
that have ballistic missile capabilities. In my colleague's opinion, 
none of this justifies, none of this justifies a missile defense 
security blanket for this country.
  Let me go on and read some other things. ``The administration's 
comments followed news reports on its new nuclear posture review.'' By 
the way, every administration does this. It says, ``The Pentagon is 
developing contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against 
countries developing weapons of mass destruction.''
  Let me ask my colleague, what are they going to do about a country 
like Iraq? Iraq poisoned its own people. They went out, and Saddam 
Hussein poisoned his own people in an attack against the Kurds. Do we 
think this guy is going to go to church with us on Sunday, or over to 
the temple or wherever? This is a very sick individual who

[[Page H820]]

 may very well have weapons of mass destruction and is on a fast, mad 
race to accumulate as many weapons of mass destruction as he can get 
his hands on. How else are we going to address this?
  Do Members think they can trust this guy? Look at the history of 
Saddam Hussein. How many years did the United States deal with him on 
inspections? How often were the inspectors stopped at the gates, the 
inspectors? The United Nations finally threw their arms up in the air. 
They said, We cannot do it. We cannot get our inspections done. Why? 
Because this individual, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, has no intention of 
stopping their pursuit for weapons of mass destruction. That is a 
threat to the United States of America, and these weapons of mass 
destruction involve not only nuclear weapons, but ballistic missiles 
fired at the appropriate location.
  For example, take a look at North Korea and South Korea. North Korea 
does not need a nuclear missile to wreak havoc on South Korea. All they 
need to do is fire a couple of missiles, I think, 35 miles away and 
they can hit the city of Seoul; ballistic missiles, not nuclear 
warheads. What do Members think would happen to a city with a 
population of 20 million people if a few missiles hit one morning? What 
kind of panic would happen? Those are threats. Those are viable 
threats.
  The only way in the long run to provide some type of defense against 
these missiles is to build ourselves a security blanket. If we have a 
system that will stop an incoming missile, and the technology is there, 
or will be there, if we have that, it makes those missiles and it makes 
a lot of these countries' capabilities to strike not only at the United 
States less, but it also diminishes or eliminates their capability to 
strike at other countries in this world.

  We are being completely naive. We are refusing, maybe because we are 
afraid to, and I am speaking of some of my colleagues, we are refusing 
to confront the reality that we are not loved by everybody in this 
world. There are a lot of nations that would love to see the United 
States fail and be a nation destroyed. There are a lot of nations that, 
once they get the capability, if we do not have the capability, one, to 
retaliate, or two, to defend ourselves, they will not hesitate. They 
will not hesitate to take what steps are necessary to destroy the 
United States, for all historical purposes.
  How can we sit by idly and criticize the President, a President who 
realizes this, who has had the guts to step forward and say that we are 
going to confront it? No Chicken Little here. We have to face up to 
this fact.
  It is kind of like discovering cancer on oneself. We say, look, if I 
do not confront it, do not irritate it, maybe it will not spread. Yes, 
right. Do Members know what that cancer is going to do? It is going to 
spread. Do Members think it will stop because we hope it will not go 
any further; because we think by not confronting it, by not cutting it 
off, by not taking radiation or chemotherapy that it is going to stop; 
that it is going to stop because you are a great person? Do Members 
think it discriminates because of its victims?
  Just as deadly as cancer are some of these countries and people out 
there who are developing these weapons of mass destruction. Take a look 
at what they do. What is the number one country they trash? What is the 
number one country? They take their children as soon as they can learn 
and they teach them to hate the United States of America. Yet, we have 
Congressmen of the United States of America willing to say that, Gee, 
there is no threat assessment that exists to justify spending money for 
a missile defense system.
  I think Colin Powell said it best this weekend: One of the reasons 
for a nuclear policy, one of the reasons they called those missiles 
peacekeeping missiles, is because, and I am quoting Colin Powell, ``We 
think it is best for any potential adversary to have uncertainty in his 
or her calculus.'' We want people out there to know that if they decide 
to fire one of these ballistic missiles against the United States of 
America, if they decide to launch a September 11 attack against the 
United States of America, they are going to have in the back of their 
minds what type of retaliation this will bring upon them.

                              {time}  1930

  Let me summarize what I have been saying here for the last 15 or 20 
minutes.
  I was surprised today to pick up an AP wire entitled Lawmakers Doubt 
the Need for a Missile Defense System for This Country.'' That is 
naivete at its height. That is a remark based on kind of a shot from 
the hip, a reactionary remark.
  Think about the kind of threat that this country faces. It is not 
imaginary. We know that missiles have been launched by countries, 
including our own country, by mistake. Missiles are very lethal weapons 
and we add on top of the missile the leadership of a country that is 
politically unstable; we add on top of the missile a missile system 
that is not adequate, does not have adequate safeguards and could be 
fired by accident; we had on a missile, put on top of the missile 
itself a nuclear warhead; we continue to see the ballistic missile 
proliferation spread around the world, and then our colleague has the 
audacity to sit up and tell the rest of their colleagues that we should 
not be building a missile defense system, or as I quote, we cannot 
afford to waste billions of dollars because no threat assessment exists 
to justify the spending. No threat assessment exists to justify this 
spending. The threat not only is out there, it exists in a very 
threatening mode, and I am telling my colleagues the consequences.
  Do I think it is going to happen tomorrow? I hope not. Do I think a 
lot of countries are all of the sudden going to fire random missiles 
against the United States of America? No. But do I think countries 
throughout have that capability? There is no doubt they do. Do I think 
there are countries out there who are not friendly to the United States 
of America who, in fact, have made throughout their history open 
resentment towards the United States of America, had the capability and 
possessed missiles that could wreak destruction upon the United States 
of America today if they desire? The answer is yes.
  One of my colleagues, and I said earlier, one of my colleagues, and 
let me quote that colleague, ``Why would someone send a missile when 
they can just put it in a suitcase?'' The reason they would send the 
missile is because they had the missile. They have got the capability 
to wreak destruction with these missiles, and the other reason they 
would launch a missile is because they know the United States of 
America cannot defend itself against an incoming missile.
  What President Bush has done, Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald 
Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, what this administration has 
done is not run from it, not pretend that the threat does not exist; 
but they have confronted it, and they have said to the world, and many 
of our allies, by the way, have joined in this statement, they have 
said to the world, the United States of America no longer intends to go 
into the future without a defense mechanism to protect its citizens and 
the citizens of our allies and our friends from a rogue nation firing a 
missile against us.
  It is unbelievable to me, unacceptable and frankly a violation of a 
fundamental obligation for any one of us on this floor to stand up and 
say that a missile threat does not exist against the United States of 
America in such a way that would justify us defending against it with a 
missile defensive system. That is stupidity, stupidity not referring to 
my particular colleague and his personality, but stupidity in the 
thought that by simply putting shades over your eyes, that the missile 
threat against the United States of America will just disappear. It 
makes as much sense as closing your eyes to cancer on your body and 
saying if I pretend it is not there or if I simply acknowledge that it 
is there and ignore it, saying that it does not justify me going to the 
doctor to see about this cancer, it will go away on its own. It will 
only grow, and it will only become more deadly and more threatening to 
a person's very existence; and the same thing happens here.
  Every one of us, whether Republican, whether Democrat, regardless of 
party affiliation, September 11 was a wake-up call for all of us and 
not just in the United States. September 11 was a wake-up call for the 
world. There are

[[Page H821]]

evil people out there who do not care who their victims are. It has 
been said 10 million times if it has been said once, the victims on 
September 11, they were not white Anglo, they were not U.S. citizens, 
restricted to those. They were every nationality, 80 different 
countries, all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. It did not matter. It was a 
son or daughter, mother or father, sister or brother.
  It did not matter to these people who did not care, and some of my 
colleagues who think that some of these evil people will care and will 
not launch a ballistic missile, and let me tell my colleagues they have 
got them out there, there are countries out there, will not launch some 
type of harmful missile against this country is naive. It is going to 
happen. It is going to happen at some point in time.

  The people who have made these remarks, if, in fact, they are 
accurate, I want my colleagues to put this in a little time keeper, and 
remember a few years from now, God forbid this ever happens to our 
country, but if it happens, I want my colleagues to remember the 
position they took in the U.S. House of Representatives with the 
statement, no threat assessment exists to justify the spending to build 
a ballistic missile system to protect our country.
  Let me wrap it up by telling my colleagues, we do not stand alone in 
the world. In fact, I think it is safe to say that every country in the 
world that could get their hands on a missile defense system mechanism 
would deploy it. Why? It only makes sense. It is like getting a 
bulletproof vest. The other side may complain. Maybe the criminal is 
going to complain because the police officer gets the advantage of a 
bulletproof vest, but if the criminal had the opportunity they would 
put them on, too. Why? Because it gives them an advantage.
  We have a lot of nations in this world that support the United States 
of America in building a missile defense system. We are in partnership 
with Canada. The Brits are supportive. The Italians are supportive. And 
I can guarantee my colleagues, once we get the technology mastered, 
there will be a lot of nations knocking on our door saying, hey, do you 
mind if we had that missile defense system; do you mind if we provide a 
security system for our citizens.
  So I urge my colleagues to reconsider some of the statements they 
have made today in opposition to a missile defense system, and frankly, 
get ready for it. My colleagues can jump up and down all they want for 
media attention, for partisanship advantage; but the fact is, this 
administration will do what is necessary to protect the citizens of 
this country with the security blanket for a missile defense. It is a 
critical and fundamental obligation that we have to not only our 
generation but future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to shift my comments pretty dramatically 
here. I was not going to speak about missile defense this evening 
because, frankly, I have had several discussions on the House floor 
here with my colleagues about that; but after I read those remarks 
today, I could not resist it. I mean, I felt fire in my belly to come 
up here to the House floor and talk about that.
  Now I want to move towards more the direction I had planned all week 
to come tonight and the comments I wanted to make.
  Let me start out as I said at the beginning of my comments, 
colleagues. My district's in the State of Colorado. For those of my 
colleagues that do not know, Colorado is the only State in the Union 
where all of its water runs out of the State. We have no water that 
comes into the State of Colorado for our use. All of our water goes out 
of the State, and Colorado's a very unique State in its geographical 
makeup and frankly in its geographical location and its elevation.
  It is the highest point on the continent. In our area, for example, I 
think there are 64 mountains in the United States, including Alaska, I 
think 64 mountains that are over 14,000 feet, 64 of them. Fifty-six of 
those 64 mountains are located in the State of Colorado, 79 percent of 
the Nation's 14,000 foot peaks, and over 600 peaks at 13,000 feet. We 
have over 1,000 mountain peaks over 10,000 feet. The average elevation 
in the State of Colorado is 6,800 feet. That is a thousand feet over a 
mile. Well over a mile is the average elevation in the State of 
Colorado.
  Take a look at the lowest point in the State of Colorado. It is about 
3,400 feet. That is about the lowest point in Colorado. The difference 
between our lowest points and our highest points are 11,000 or 12,000 
feet. So just as a result of the elevation alone, we have got dramatic 
weather; we have got dynamics that do not happen in other States.

  The State of Colorado is a critical State for a number of different 
reasons, but first of all, look at what we find within the boundaries 
of the four corners. First of all, we find the plains. A lot of people 
think that Colorado's just a mountain State, that it is the State of 
mountains; but half of the State of Colorado are the plains, and when 
we look at Colorado, and I will just use my pointer here. To my left I 
have a better map of Colorado, but when we get on the very western 
edge, we actually have the desert plateaus. On the eastern side of the 
State of Colorado we have the plains, and then of course in between the 
desert plateaus and the plains we have the Colorado Rockies and some 
other mountains, not just the Rockies.
  To give my colleagues an idea of the land mass of it, it is about the 
eighth largest State in the Nation. I guess it is number eight. It has 
got four major parks that are without trees. There may be a couple of 
trees but generally without trees, north park, south park, places like 
that.
  Colorado's a very unique State and one of our most important assets 
in the State of Colorado is snow. Colorado's a very arid State. It does 
not get much rain. We cannot depend on our rainfall for our moisture. 
We have to depend on our winter snows. This year, for example, we have 
a lot to be concerned about because our winter snowfall is 
significantly below average. Now, not only Colorado that is dependent 
upon the snow fall in Colorado, but many, many States in the Union, 
well above 25 States in the Union, are also dependent for their water 
upon the snow fall in the high mountain peaks of the State of Colorado; 
and we not only depend on the snow fall in Colorado for our water, but 
we also depend on it for our economic well-being.
  Our ski areas, as my colleagues know, Colorado probably has the 
finest ski areas in the United States. Certainly known throughout the 
world for skiing in Colorado because of its elevation, because of the 
light, dry snow. So snow is a critical factor out there in our mountain 
region.
  Before I move much further, I want to give a little history. I have 
reviewed this history before, but it is important to remember Colorado 
is a State that is unique. On the western side we have the mountains 
and the eastern side we have the plains, generally speaking; and 
Colorado really is almost like two States. I am not suggesting it is 
two States or that it should become two States; but the dynamics in 
public ownership, public lands, where the forest lands are, where the 
Bureau of Land Management is, where the mountains are, one part of the 
State is water provider. The other part of the State is a water user.
  There are lots of different dynamics that play within its boundaries 
for Colorado, but first of all, I thought we ought to look at the 
dynamics of the continental United States and where the West fits in, 
why life in the West is a little different than life in the east, why 
the water issues in the West for example are entirely different in many 
cases than the water issues in the East.
  In many places in the eastern United States, the problem is getting 
rid of water. In the West, the problem is storing the water. In fact, 
if we drew a line down through Kansas and Missouri kind of like this, 
that portion of the United States gets about 73 percent of the water. 
If we took a look at the mountain region here, which is about half of 
the United States geographically, it only gets about 14 percent of the 
water.

                              {time}  1945

  When the good Lord created this continent of ours, for some reason 
there was not even distribution of the water. So water becomes a 
critical factor.
  Now, let us take a look and kind of go back in time, go back in 
history, when our country was first being settled. The real comfort, 
and where most of the people lived, was on the East

[[Page H822]]

Coast, over here to my left. And the West, really, if you went very 
deep into Virginia, you were considered in the West. There was not much 
settlement at all, except for the Native Americans, of course, and the 
Mexicans. This was the nation of Mexico here. We actually had France 
and a number of others, but I think my colleagues understand what I am 
saying.
  The population of the United States in our early days was on the East 
Coast, and our leaders wanted to expand the United States of America. 
They wanted to make it a great country and they wanted to conquer and 
obtain as much land as they could. But in those days when the land was 
purchased, it did not mean much. Title to the lands did not mean much. 
What was important was who possessed the land. And to possess the land, 
you really needed to be on it with a six-shooter strapped on your side.
  So as this young country began to grow and we began to expand to the 
West, our leaders said, Well, how do we encourage people to move from 
the comfort of their homes on the East Coast into the inner part of the 
country, into this new land we bought? How do we get them to possess 
it? And the idea they came up with was, Well, let us give away land, 
like we did in the Revolutionary War. Believe it or not, in the 
Revolutionary War is when we first had other land grants in this 
country. We would give land or offer land to British soldiers who would 
defect and come to our side. We would give them free land.
  After all, our leaders correctly assessed that every person's dream, 
or most every person's dream was to own a piece of their own property, 
to build a home, to farm. Back then in the early days of our country, 
99 percent of our population was involved in agriculture. So to be able 
to cultivate your own fields, to have your own wheat, your own cow, 
your goats, et cetera, et cetera, was everyone's dream. So they decided 
to offer land to encourage people to settle in the West. People would 
go out there, live on it, and they would be given 160 acres, or 320 
acres, depending on the program they were involved in.
  Well, that worked pretty successfully, except for one region of the 
country, and that region is depicted by the colors on this map to my 
left. You can see some of these States have very, very little Federal 
lands. In the East the only real big blocks of Federal lands are down 
there in the Everglades, the Appalachians, and a little up here in the 
Northeast. In a lot of States, when you talk about public lands, people 
think you are talking about the courthouse. That is because the 
government was able to successfully turn this land over to private 
ownership by encouraging people to go out and settle the land.
  Well, the problem was that as soon as they hit the Rocky Mountains, 
and take a look at the State of Colorado, right here, right where the 
white hits the color on this map in the State of Colorado is exactly 
where the mountains start. And what happened is, when the settlers 
began to hit the mountains, they discovered 160 acres would not even 
feed a cow. In eastern Colorado, again referring to my map and going 
over here to my left, in eastern Colorado, 160 acres could support a 
family. In Nebraska and in Kansas you could support families there. But 
as soon as you hit those mountains, boy, the dynamics changed pretty 
dramatically.
  So they went back to Washington and they said, What do we do? We are 
not getting people to live in the mountains. They are not possessing 
the land so that we can lay claim to the land. Although we bought the 
lands, our Nation says we need people to be up there.
  What happened was, they had discussions here in the Nation's Capital 
and they thought perhaps what they should do is give them an equivalent 
amount of land. If they gave 160 acres in eastern Colorado or in 
Nebraska, take what they can grow on that and see how many acres in the 
mountains it would take, and maybe give them 3,000 acres.
  Well, what happened was that at the time they were making a lot of 
these land grants, the railroads had already been given large amounts 
of land and there was political pressure not to give any more 
government lands away. So the government, our leaders in Washington, 
D.C., consciously decided to hold the land in the government's name for 
formality purposes, but to let the people go out into the West and use 
it for multiple uses. A land of many uses. Those are enchanted words 
for us in the West. That is what we grew up under.
  In my particular congressional district, which geographically is 
larger than the State of Florida, every community in my district, 
except one, every community in my district, which is about 120, 119 
communities, is completely surrounded by government lands. We are 
totally, not partially, not just a fraction, but totally and completely 
dependent upon government lands for our water, for our highways, for 
our utility lines, for our telephones, for our agriculture, for our 
recreation, for our environmental needs, for our enjoyment, for our own 
open space. All of those are completely dependent upon public lands, 
and that is the major difference between the West and the East.
  So I oftentimes find myself listening to some of my eastern 
colleagues, for whom I have great respect, talking about but not really 
understanding why we are so sensitive in the West when people in the 
East say, Well, let us just take this land out of bounds, let us get 
the people off this land, let us limit multiple use. Clearly, we have 
to manage these government lands, but we have an entire part of our 
Nation's population that live amongst those government lands and live 
on those government lands. And before we make decisions here, we need 
to understand that. My colleagues need to put themselves in the same 
kind of living situation, in other words, completely surrounded by 
government lands as we are in the West. So that is the clear 
distinction between the West and the East.
  As we move further, and now that we have a little description, let us 
move back to the State of Colorado and let me pull this other poster up 
here quickly. Now, this poster is a little cluttered, but I think I can 
go through parts of it. First of all, because Colorado has an average 
elevation of about 6,800 feet, because it is the highest point in the 
continent, obviously we are going to have a lot of water that runs off 
when that snow melts.
  Now, in Colorado, we have all the water we need for about a 60-to-90-
day period of time, and that is actually beginning as we speak. It is 
called the spring runoff. Colorado is known as the State of the Rivers, 
the Mother River State, because we have five major rivers that have 
their headwaters in our State. But as the snow begins to melt, the 
water available diminishes dramatically. For example, we supply water 
not only for other States, but we even supply water for the country of 
Mexico.
  Here in the State of Colorado, this bright yellow section, basically, 
are the public lands of Colorado. That is what the public lands look 
like. All the rivers, all the headwaters are up here in the high 
mountains, and they run all directions out of the State of Colorado, as 
the mother rivers. Let me give a couple of the rivers. We have the 
Arkansas River, the Rio Grande, the South Platte River, the Colorado 
River, and so on.
  Now, what I hope to do, what I wanted to do tonight, and I intended 
to get a little further in my comments than I have, but I wanted us to 
visit a lot about that missile defense system, so we did not get quite 
through the series that I wanted to this evening, more specifically, on 
water coming out of those mountains, and what the salinity issues are, 
what the dilution issues are, what the multiple use issues are, what 
the water storage issues are, what are the hydropower issues, and why 
is it critical that we have a good understanding all across this 
country of multiple use on public lands? What does it mean not to 
divert any water?
  So these are issues that I kind of wanted to just tempt you with a 
little this evening. Now, I intend to continue my comments next week in 
much more depth on the dynamics of the high mountains, on the San Juans 
down in the southwestern part of the State, on the below-average 
snowfall that they have had this year and what the consequences of that 
is to fellow, down-river States; what down-river really means; what the 
wilderness areas are and what kind of impact the wilderness areas have; 
the government lands, the range management.

[[Page H823]]

  There are lots and lots and lots of issues that face us high in the 
Rocky Mountains that are unique to the mountains or unique to the West, 
not found very often in the East, in fact, in some States not found at 
all.
  So I look forward next week to discussing these issues with my 
colleagues.

                          ____________________