[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23411-23416]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         EDUCATION, THE ARTS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to talk about a number 
of different subjects. I was not going to talk about education until I 
heard some of the previous comments, and I think it is important to 
clarify some of those comments that were made and talk about the 
direction that the Republican party is going in regards to education. 
Those remarks will be somewhat brief.

  I then want to cover the topic that we have seen with the Brooklyn 
Museum in New York City. I am going to move from that subject to a 
subject that I think will be very uplifting to all of my colleagues, 
and that is the Third Congressional District of Colorado.

  We are going to talk about natural resources, as we can see with this 
picture I have behind me. That is what that district looks like. We are 
going to get into much more detail about that, cover the water issues, 
cover the Federal land management issues, and so on. So I think it is 
going to be a very interesting hour. I look forward to the 
participation of my colleagues.

  But let me begin, first of all, by talking about the preceding 
comments. First of all, it is important that our friends and our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle from North Carolina understand 
that everybody across this country, 49 States across this country, are 
going to pitch in for that one State that got hit as devastating as 
North Carolina.

  North Carolina, you are not alone. You are in the United States; and 
in the United States of America, we are a team and we stick together 
and we help the other States when the other States are in need of help.

  I would expect the other States to help me in Colorado if we had some 
sort of a disaster. That is why we are the United States of America. So 
the preceding speaker who spoke on North Carolina, bless her. I 
understand the tragedies that she is going through. I do not live 
there, but we are willing to help make it right. Everybody in this 
chamber is willing to help make it right for North Carolina.

  But let me talk just for a moment about the kind of disaster aid. And 
when we do this, we must be careful. We still have a fiduciary 
responsibility to the people who have elected us to make sure that that 
money gets to the people that need it. We have a fiduciary 
responsibility to minimize, if not eliminate, Government waste.

  So if we ask for accountability on these disaster funds, do not come 
back at us and say, my gosh, you do not care about the poor people who 
have suffered these tragedies. You know, that often happens in 
government business. The minute you question a program for 
accountability, for efficiency, to see whether or not you have got 
waste, to see whether or not those dollars are going to the people that 
need the dollars or the people for whom the dollars were intended, the 
minute you question it, all of a sudden you are cold and heartless and 
you do not care about these people that are in these tragic situations.

  We have an obligation to make sure that money goes where it is needed 
and where it is going to do the most good. So do not be upset or 
offended if we ask some pretty tough questions about how these dollars 
are being spent.

  Which leads me into education. It is amazing to me that the Democrats 
can stand up here on this House floor and say that they are the only 
ones for education and that this side is anti-education.

  How many people, think of it, how many people have you ever run into 
that will tell you they are against education? You do not run into 
people that are against education. Education is a critical mass for the 
success of this country. It is absolutely essentially for the future of 
this country. It is what gave many of us in this country a base from 
which to operate because we learned something because the generations 
ahead of us taught us and made sure we had good schools. We on the 
Republican side and the Democrat side feel an obligation to make sure 
that education is the best.

  Well, let me tell my colleagues, there are some things we need to do 
in the classroom. And some people disagree with that. But on the 
Republican side, we feel we have to put discipline back in the 
classroom. And if you do not believe me, take a look at what the 
disciplinary problems were 20 years ago and take a look at what they 
are today and take a look at the difference in discipline allowed to 
the school teacher who has a very difficult job, take a look at the 
discipline he or she is allowed to exercise in her classroom compared 
to the discipline that he or she was allowed 20 years ago.

  I can tell you, when I was in the 7th grade, I got in a fight on the 
school ground. It meant an automatic swat on the butt with a board. I 
remember that to this day. Now, I cannot tell you I did not get in any 
more fights, but I sure did not get in any more fights on school 
grounds. Because we had some discipline in the classroom. The 
Republicans feel that is an important issue, and we do not think that 
you are anti-education if you say let us give the teachers the tools 
they need to have discipline in the classroom.

  I urge the Democrats to join with us. Frankly, some of the 
conservative Democrats do. There is nothing wrong with telling our 
young people, you must behave, there are certain behavioral standards 
that you have to live up to; and if you do not live up to these 
standards, there are consequences,

[[Page 23412]]

there is punishment, because our primary purpose is to educate you to 
the highest degree possible.

  A second point we should make about some of the previous comments 
early in this last hour. You know, you do not make schools better by 
just necessarily throwing more money at all. What happens around here 
the minute you question a budget for education, the minute you stand up 
and question are we wasting the money, is the money producing results, 
is the money accounted for, is the money getting down to the classroom 
and not being spent in the administration, is it really going to the 
classroom, the minute you ask those questions, and primarily those 
questions are asked by Republicans, the Democrats primarily rush right 
up and put a label on you ``anti-education.''

  You know what, we can make a better educational system in this 
country if we demand accountability, if we see where those dollars are 
going and make sure they are being spent efficiently, if we allow those 
dollars to get into the classroom. That is how we are going to make a 
difference in education.

  I think it is very important that we also recognize that there are 
alternatives to public education. Now, I am not against public 
education. I have three children. My youngest child, Andrea, is a 
senior in high school. My son Dax is a junior at Colorado State 
University. And my daughter Tessa is a junior at Bryant College in 
Providence, Rhode Island. My point is this: All three of Lori's, my 
wife, and my children, all three of those children went to public 
schools.

  Now, they had the option to go to private school, but we were very 
confident in our local public schools and in the schools that they went 
to throughout their schooling career. But the point is we should not 
take away from the people who want to home-school.

  I want to say to my Democrat colleagues who were criticizing the 
Republicans, it was your side of the aisle just a few short years ago 
that went out and said, if you are a home-schooler, you should have to 
be licensed in every subject you teach. In other words, a father or a 
mother who wants to stay home and home-school their children would have 
to be licensed or certified in math or science or physical education. 
Whatever they taught that child, they had to be certified. What did 
that mean? It meant the elimination of home-schooling. That is exactly 
what it meant.

  I am saying to my colleagues on the Democratic side, come work with 
us in a bipartisan fashion. Do not just think that public education is 
the only way to go. Obviously, it is the most significant mode of 
education in this country. And, obviously, we need to make it as good 
as we can. And, obviously, it is going to cost us a lot of dollars.

  On the other hand, I think I can use the word ``obviously'' in most 
cases, home-schooling is doing a darn good job. Look at the test 
results. Obviously, asking for accountability of these dollars that are 
being spent in the classroom should be done. I do not know one Democrat 
or one Republican who does not look for accountability or efficiency or 
ask for a balance in their own checkbook.

  We all have a fiduciary duty to the citizens, whether they vote or 
not, of this country to be prudent in our fiscal decisions, to be 
prudent in how we spend the taxpayer dollars, to be prudent that when 
we spend those dollars we get the biggest bang for our dollars, to be 
prudent that when we spend those dollars that these kids are getting an 
education off those dollars. There is no question on either side of the 
aisle, no question that education right now is the highest priority in 
this country. And rightfully it should be.

  But do not discount a commitment by a Republican education because 
they stand up and say, hey, track for me or trace for me where these 
dollars are going. We want the biggest bang.

  Let me move on to another subject and tell my colleagues where I am 
extremely disappointed, extremely disappointed, in a particular aspect 
of the arts community in this country. I want you to know at the very 
onset here, I am a supporter of the arts. I think arts are very 
important in our community.

  Now, I know some people, some of my good friends, disagree with me, 
but I think it is very important and I think there are certain arts 
programs that the Government has an obligation to be involved in. But 
if you want to know what gives a black eye to the arts, it is when you 
use taxpayer dollars to offend the public in such a way you know it is 
not just an offense, it is a horrible offense to them.

  What am I talking about? Let us lay out the facts right here of the 
New York City Brooklyn Museum, a museum which has benefactors of great 
wealth. This museum gets government dollars from the City of New York 
and, as I understand it, government dollars from the Federal 
Government. What do they choose to do with a portion of those dollars? 
They are opening tomorrow a show which has a portrait of the Virgin 
Mary with dung, and where I come from, in the mountain country, we call 
it crap, thrown right on the face of the portrait of the Virgin Mary. 
And they call that art.

  Well, let me say this to you: What they are trying to do right now, 
the prima donnas on that board of directors of that Brooklyn Museum, 
what they are trying to say to the American people or frame this 
argument as is an issue of First Amendment rights, the freedom of 
speech.

  In this country, we believe very firmly in the right for freedom of 
speech and in the First Amendment of our Constitution. We believe very 
strongly in that amendment. What are they trying to say? They are 
saying, that, well, our opportunity to use taxpayer dollars to pay for 
a display, a portrait of the Virgin Mary, to throw crap on it, that is 
our right to express First Amendment rights.

                              {time}  1945

  Let me say, this is not to be framed as a first amendment argument. 
It is not a first amendment argument. Those of us who are opposed, and 
obviously I am deeply opposed to what they are doing, but those of us 
who are opposed to this are saying, Look, you have a right to display 
that kind of art, but you do not have a right, we have to draw a 
limitation somewhere, you do not have a right to do it with taxpayer 
dollars. Nobody is taking away your right of freedom of expression 
under the first amendment. You can go downtown and show that, you can 
carry a picture of it in your wallet, you can carry it on the subway, 
you can carry it on horseback out in the mountains if you want to show 
people. Nobody is denying that you have the right to do that. But you 
do not have the right to take taxpayer dollars to display a portrait of 
the Virgin Mary with crap thrown all over it.

  I wonder what the reaction would be of these liberal prima donnas if 
somebody put up a portrait of Martin Luther King and threw crap on it. 
They would do something. Of course it would be horribly offensive. 
Would they be standing up today saying, well, it is the first 
amendment, we in the Brooklyn museum ought to display something like 
that?

  I wonder what these prima donnas would say if with public dollars, 
taxpayer dollars, we got a Nazi swastika and put it in a park for 
public display? I wonder what these prima donnas would say if somebody 
got an AIDS quilt, those beautiful quilts made in memory of the people 
who have died as a result of AIDS, I wonder what they would think if 
they hung an AIDS quilt and somebody threw crap on it?

  It is wrong. You know it is wrong. You should not be using taxpayer 
dollars for this display. So what do they do? It is not in them. It is 
not in them to stand up to the American public and say, you know, we 
were wrong. We made a mistake. This portrait of the Virgin Mary with 
crap splashed all over it should not be displayed with taxpayer 
dollars. But they do not do it. They are not going to do it. So what 
happens? We as publicly elected officials and specifically a publicly 
elected mayor in the city of New York, Mayor Guiliani, steps forward 
and says, you are not going to use taxpayer dollars for that kind of 
display. That is off-limits. You went across the line. He did

[[Page 23413]]

not say you could not display it anywhere. He did not put a ban on the 
portrait. He just said with taxpayer dollars in this tax-paying 
institution, you are not going to display the portrait of the Virgin 
Mary with crap splashed all over it.

  So what happens? Well, the liberal community, the prima donnas, they 
decide this is where we are going to draw a line in the sand. Today it 
is a Catholic symbol. Tomorrow they will go after a Jewish symbol. 
Where do we draw the limit with taxpayer dollars? When do we say enough 
is enough? You have got to use some common sense.

  Today I was on a radio talk program. It was pretty interesting. I had 
the commentator say to me, ``Scott, how can you tell what's offensive 
or not?'' I said, ``What do you mean how can I tell what's offensive? 
Common sense ought to tell you.'' You think a Nazi swastika in a public 
park is offensive? The most reasonable man concept, and I say that 
generically obviously, your common sense, your gut reaction, your gut 
tells you, that is offensive. We should not have taxpayer dollars doing 
that. That is not a violation of the Constitution. It is not a 
violation of the Constitution at all. We say to TV broadcasters, you 
cannot show certain things on TV. That is not a violation of the first 
amendment. It is taxpayer dollars.

  My point that I am making here is that it is important for all of us 
to understand that it is really pretty easy to decide what is obscene 
art and what is not. What the Brooklyn museum could have done and 
should have done is to call one of their private benefactors, many of 
whom are very wealthy, and ask them to put up the private dollars to 
display this somewhere, fund it with private dollars. By the way, 
anybody that funds this kind of display is sick in my opinion and do 
not get me wrong. I do not think this is acceptable in any form of the 
word. But constitutionally it is permitted. But not with taxpayer 
dollars. This Brooklyn museum should have gone to those benefactors and 
said, put up private dollars, not the taxpayer dollars, private dollars 
and display it with private dollars.

  What happens? All of a sudden the politics get involved. Hillary 
Clinton, First Lady, steps in, she is running for the United States 
Senate. Well, she says, this museum ought to be entitled to do this. 
She has taken the side of the museum. There is a pretty clear 
difference right there between what the mayor of New York City is 
saying, no taxpayer dollars, and this display is deeply offensive, and 
what the Senate candidate over there is saying. It is common sense.

  Can you imagine our forefathers, the generations of the people who 
fought in wars for us, or the Catholics in this country, and, as I 
said, it may be the Buddhists next, it may be the Jews next, it may be 
some other group next, can you imagine our fathers and mothers, our 
grandmothers and grandfathers, the Founding Fathers of this country, 
what they would have done if they saw that today, under the guise of 
the Constitution, we were paying with taxpayer dollars to display a 
portrait of the Virgin Mary with crap splashed on it? Of course you 
know what your gut reaction tells you that those people would say. They 
would not believe it. They would be stunned. They could not believe 
that this great country did not have the restraint with taxpayer 
dollars to say, Enough is enough. We have certain standards in this 
country and one of those standards is we are not going to use taxpayer 
dollars to put a Nazi swastika in a park, we are not going to use 
taxpayer dollars to destroy or insult the Virgin Mary, which is a huge 
Christian symbol, by throwing crap all over it, we are not going to 
display a portrait of Martin Luther King and throw crap all over it, we 
are not going to display an AIDS quilt and throw crap over it. We have 
standards in this country. And it is not asking too much to say out 
there, ``Don't do it.''

  How does it affect the Third District of the State of Colorado out 
where I live, out where I represent? Because of the attitude of these 
prima donnas on the board of directors of the Brooklyn museum in New 
York City, it puts a black eye on the arts clear across this country. 
Do you know how many of my constituents are going to say to me, 
``Scott, if we're putting an art display in Colorado somewhere, is it 
going to be this kind of display? Is it going to be taxpayer dollars?'' 
I am begging these people on the board of directors of the Brooklyn 
museum, look what you are doing to the art industry across this 
country, in the little communities of Colorado or the little 
communities of Utah or up in Washington State or down in Nevada or in 
North Dakota or in Wyoming, or Kansas or Texas. Do you think this story 
is isolated in New York City? Of course it is not isolated in New York 
City. It is all over the country. And here we have so-called patrons of 
the arts standing up and saying we are justified under the Constitution 
to display a portrait of the Virgin Mary with taxpayer dollars and have 
crap thrown on it. It is wrong. You are hurting everybody in the art 
business, in the art profession.

  I know I am going to get a bunch of angry phone calls this evening, 
people opposed. I went to law school. I have got experience with this. 
The Constitution does not protect the right for you to use taxpayer 
dollars and have that kind of display. I hope for the sake of 
everybody, because it is really a losing deal. You may get a lot more 
people to your show, Brooklyn museum, and maybe you are doing this for 
the money, but in the long run it is the arts that suffer. It is the 
very community that you profess to protect. It is the very community 
that you profess to stand up for. It is the very community that 
probably in your heart you feel very deeply about. It is that 
community, the art community, that you are helping destroy through this 
kind of action in New York City with your display of the Virgin Mary 
with crap thrown all over it. You ought to grow up, and you ought to 
get one of your private benefactors and pay for it with private 
dollars. It is a disgrace. More than anything else, you in your heart 
know it is a disgrace. You in your heart know, and mark my word for it, 
the next time either this evening before you go to bed or tomorrow when 
you wake up and you look in that mirror, you look in that mirror and 
say, it is art, to do this to a portrait of the Virgin Mary with the 
taxpayers' dollars.

  Let us move on to another subject. Obviously after the last couple of 
comments, I want to lighten it a little. I want to talk about the 
natural resources, kind of the layout of the United States. In order to 
do that, I need to give a little description of where I live and the 
district that I represent. I am very proud of my district. I think 
every Member in here, both Democrat and Republican, obviously are proud 
of their districts. My family has lived in this district, they were 
pioneers in the mid to late 1800s, and through all the generations we 
have been there.

  I will tell you a little story. When I went to law school, my wife 
and I wanted our oldest daughter born in Colorado. I went to law school 
in Texas. We felt so strongly about our heritage in Colorado, she 
stayed behind to deliver our baby, so that she was born in Colorado. So 
we feel strongly about that.

  I will give you an idea of the Third Congressional District of 
Colorado. It is geographically larger than the State of Florida. 
Looking to my left, here is this portrait. That is what most of my 
district looks like. It is beautiful, mountainous terrain and these 
mountains you see up here, we have in Colorado over 56 mountains above 
14,000 feet. I would guess that this peak right here, with the red dot 
on it, is probably above 14,000 feet. What is interesting is a lot of 
these mountains have snow year round. In fact, I am sure many of you 
saw, and of course we are big Bronco fans, but I am sure many of you 
saw last week that in Denver, it snowed in Denver. Very interesting 
geographical locations and lots of beauty obviously up in these 
mountains. You can see these trees right here, we call those Aspen 
trees, they are in my opinion some of the most beautiful trees, 
certainly in my district and probably in the entire world.

  Now, a lot of this land that we have, by the way, let me show you the 
blue

[[Page 23414]]

sky. I am going to do a little promotion here about Colorado. That blue 
sky right there in Colorado, we have over 300 days a year of sunshine, 
300 days a year of sunshine in the State of Colorado. My district takes 
up a little more than half of the State of Colorado. But one of the 
things you have got to remember about the West is water. That is a 
pretty boring subject, water. It is real boring unless all of a sudden 
it is not coming out of your faucet, or it is not there to flush the 
toilet or they do not have it to serve you in the restaurant. Water is 
a critical resource obviously. By the way, it is the only resource that 
regenerates itself. It is the only natural resource, I guess the better 
way would be to say that it has got automatic renewal, it automatically 
renews itself.

  Here are some interesting statistics. Ninety-seven percent of the 
water in this country is saltwater. Of the remaining 3 percent of water 
in this country, 75 percent of that is tied up in the ice caps. 
Actually only .05 percent of that water is in our lakes and our river 
for drinking and consumption by humans. When you break that out, 73 
percent, and I know I am throwing a lot of statistics out to you but 
just kind of picture it as we go along. Picture the United States, a 
map, imagine the United States, a map in front of you. Imagine a line 
going down between Kansas and Missouri. Seventy-three percent of the 
water in this country is east of that line. About 13 percent, actually 
12.7 percent, around there, about 13 percent, we will round off, 13 
percent on our imaginary map right here is up in the Pacific Northwest. 
And 14 percent is located, almost 15 percent, is located in what we 
call the mountainous west. That is 14 States. Those 14 states have one-
half of the continental nation's land mass. Half of the land mass in 
this country, in the continental States is located in 14 States, and 
those 14 States have 14 percent of the water. Water is a critical 
resource.

  In the East, one of the problems in the East is getting rid of water. 
Remember, 73 percent of the water lies east of the Kansas-Missouri 
line, so your problem out in the East, if you live in the East, in a 
lot of aspects is how you drain off the water, how do you get rid of 
the water. Our problem in the West is how do we save the water.

  Of those 14 States that I talked about, Colorado is at the top of 
those 14 States. Colorado has been called the mother of rivers. 
Colorado has four major rivers which originate out of those mountains 
and they originate, of course, as the result of the snowfall. So all of 
that snow that you see throughout those mountain ranges, and this of 
course is a small fraction, the red dot on the picture, that snow is 
what provides the water for those four rivers. That is why Colorado has 
the title, The Mother of Rivers. It has got the Colorado River, the Rio 
Grande River, the Platte River, and the Arkansas River.

  As I mentioned earlier, in the West we have got to have the 
capability to store our water.

                              {time}  2000

  You see, we do not have heavy rains like in Washington, D.C. I never 
experienced the kind of rains that you have back here. I mean when it 
rains here, it rains and rains and rains.

  Now we get evening rains in the mountains a lot, but we do not have a 
lot of quantity of rain. So what happens, because of that we are called 
an arid State. We do not get a lot of water, we do not accumulate a lot 
of rain. I think in Colorado our average water is 16 inches a year.

  So where we focus on the water is the snow in the mountains. Now how 
do we get the snow on the mountains converted into the water, and how 
do we get ahold of it? Well, it is a natural process, you all know it. 
It happens in the spring; it is called spring run off. Melts the snow 
down for a period of time.

  Now we have problems with spring run off. If it gets too warm too 
early in the spring, then the water runs off before we are able to use 
it for agricultural purposes because we are not quite ready yet. If we 
do not get the snow accumulation, then we have a drought year. If it 
stays too cold, then the rain, although the water comes down, it can be 
too late especially in regards to agriculture.

  So we are very dependent upon the weather out there, but once this 
run off contains, that run off goes for about, oh, 60 to 90 days; 60 to 
90 days in the spring is when we get the run off from those mountains. 
So for 60 to 90 days we literally have all of the water we could 
possibly want. But after that 90 days, what do we have to do with that 
water? We have to store the water.

  Now I know that some of my colleagues get kind of a charge out of 
criticizing dams and water storage in the west. I want many of my 
friends in the east to understand we are different than you are back 
here as far as water conditions are concerned. In the east you have got 
to get rid of it. In the west we have got to preserve it.

  If we did not have dams, and by the way the first dam was not in the 
Roosevelt era, it was clear back in about 1000 AD in Mesa Verde. It is 
when the cliff dwellers out in Mesa Verde, which is near Cortez, near 
the four corners, and the four corners are where four States come 
together in one spot; it is where the cliff dwellers were; again, a 
thousand AD. The thought is by the historical studies that the reason 
the cliff dwellers disappeared from the Mesa Verde dwellings is because 
they had a drought and their dam did not store enough water. That is 
how serious water is in the west and that is why we have to have dams.

  So, before you buy onto some of these people who condemn dams or 
water storage, understand in the west just how critical it is, and in 
Colorado we have an interesting situation. In Colorado one half of the 
State, the western half, the part I represent, the Third Congressional 
District, produces 80 percent of the water, but 80 percent of the 
population lives on the other side of the State. So you can even see 
that even at the State level within our own State boundaries water is a 
very, very important subject, and there are a lot of things we can talk 
about, but I think some statistics on water and how important water in 
our life is important for us to look at.

  An acre foot of water. A lot of times you hear people talk about an 
acre foot of water. An acre foot of water is about 326,000 gallons of 
water, to be exact 325,900 gallons of water. Traditionally it has been 
considered enough water for a family of four people, a family of four 
people for 1 year. One acre foot of water is enough for a family of 
four for 1 year. But now that we have brought in some very helpful 
conservation efforts, we have expanded that. Now I think in today's 
language one acre foot of water, or 325,000 gallons of water, is enough 
really to extend a family of four for 2 years. Conservation has paid 
off, but we have to use conservation in the right fashion.

  Now just talk for a minute about how much water is needed; for 
example, for a cow. A steer drinks 4.2 gallons of water a day. If you 
are going to have milk, the jersey cow that produces the milk needs 12 
gallons of water a day. For a holstein producing a lot of milk it is 23 
gallons of water a day. An acre of corn, one acre of corn, gives off 
4000 gallons of water per day just in evaporation. So an acre of corn, 
4000 gallons of water evaporate off that acre a day. To grow one bushel 
of wheat you need 11,000 gallons of water. One bushel of wheat; can you 
imagine, one bushel of wheat, 11,000 gallons of water. You need 135,000 
gallons of water to grow one ton of alfalfa. Thank goodness that 
resource is an automatic renewal.

  These are numbers you probably never heard of before. They are 
numbers that surprise me, and I spent half my professional career in 
water.

  About 1,400 gallons of water are used to produce a meal of a quarter-
pound hamburger, an order of fries and a soft drink. So when you go to 
the store and you get a quarter pounder and order fries and a soft 
drink, to grow that, to get everything ready for it, took 1,400 gallons 
of water.

  About 48,000 gallons of water, 48,000 gallons of water are necessary 
to produce the typical American thanksgiving dinner for 8 people. So 
those of

[[Page 23415]]

you who are going to have thanksgiving dinner at your house and you 
have got 8 people, keep in mind that about 48,000 gallons of water were 
necessary to produce everything at that dinner table.

  About 1800 gallons of water are needed to produce the cotton in one 
pair of jeans, 1,800 gallons of water for one pair of jeans. Four 
hundred gallons just to produce the cotton in a shirt; 400 gallons for 
your shirt.

  Takes 39,000 gallons of water to produce the average domestic 
automobile including tires. Listen to that: 39,000 gallons of water to 
produce the average domestic automobile.

  So you can see that water plays obviously a very important part in 
our lives, and I know that recently there has been a lot of criticism 
about water and about our water management in the west, and a lot of 
this criticism comes from special interest groups frankly in the east. 
So I want to say to the average person out there: Before you join on 
with some of these people that criticize us, understand our 
differences.

  Now one thing we all have in common when it comes to water is we all 
use, for example, an acre foot of water every year for a family of four 
whether you live in New York City or whether you live in Denver. So we 
have a lot of things in common with the water, with the use of water. 
But the retention of water is different in those western States than it 
is in the east.

  Now a couple of other things that I thought that I would point out 
about water that are important:

  One of the fun things to think about of course are the physical 
characteristics that I told you about the State of Colorado, and as I 
mentioned, in the State of Colorado about half of our State has most of 
the water, 80 percent of the water, and the other half of the State has 
80 percent of the population. It requires a lot of cooperation between 
those two geographical areas of the State of Colorado, but we have been 
able to do it for many, many years, and we intend to continue to be 
able to do that.

  What I hope to do is come back again. I have given a lot of 
statistics this evening on water, and I am going to come back to this 
House floor to talk to my colleagues to address this water, but I am 
going to do it in a series of speeches because you can take in too much 
in one evening, or I can put out too much. I guess you can take all you 
can handle, but I can put out too much in one evening about water.

  I just want you to leave this evening thinking about water is a 
automatically renewable resource. There is a difference in water 
retention in the east versus the west. Most of the water lies in the 
east, 73 percent of the water lies east of the Kansas-Missouri line. 
Only 14 percent of the water lies in half the land mass of the United 
States; those are the western States. Ninety-seven percent of the water 
is salt water. Only 3 percent is the kind clear water, and of that 3 
percent, 75 percent of that 3 percent, so 75 percent of the 3 percent 
is tied up in the ice polar caps. So you can see for all the water we 
have in the world, only a small small fraction of that water is 
actually good for consumption.

  Let me move very quickly, and then I intend to turn over the 
remainder of my time to a colleague of mine who would like to make some 
comments on another subject. I want to talk to you about something that 
happened very exciting this last week here on the House floor.

  Now we have all heard several discussions in the last few days about 
all kinds of subjects, but one of the things that happened on a 
bipartisan basis out of this House of Representatives is for the first 
time in 85 years we have a new national park in the State of Colorado. 
It is called the Black Canyon National Park. We passed it out of the 
House. Senator Ben Campbell was the sponsor in the Senate, I was the 
sponsor in the House. We passed it out. I fully expect the President to 
sign it, and I think within the next month the Black Canyon National, 
what I am calling now National Park was a national monument in 
Gunnison, Colorado, will be a thing of reality. It is spectacular, it 
is incredible, and I hope that you have an opportunity to go to 
Montrose, Colorado, and visit the Black Canyon National Park.

  This is a picture right here. Notice my red dot. These are sheer 
walls, and the Black Canyon, by the way, it is the color of these walls 
which have very black rock on them; that is where the Black Canyon got 
its name. Clear at the very top here, right up there where the red dot 
is in the right hand corner of that picture, those are trees up there. 
So a human being would actually be about a fourth the size of that red 
dot. Look at the sheerness of this cliff.

  Those cliffs, and that gorge and that canyon, as we go down through 
here, are as high as 2,000 feet, 2,000 feet. These are some of the 
oldest rocks known to mankind, and what is neat about this project is a 
lot of people came together to make it happen. This was not a mandate 
by the Federal Congress, it was not an outside-of-the-area group that 
came in and said you do not know how to take care of this country, we 
are going to come in here and make this a national park. It was local 
people who cared about their local community who felt the 
responsibility to their local people, to the State people and to the 
people of the United States to do something to allow people to really 
see and understand the magnitude and the magnificence of the Black 
Canyon in the State of Colorado.

  Now I want to thank publicly here the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey),the majority leader who helped us get it on the floor. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the House 
Committee on Resources. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen) who was the House subcommittee chairman on national parks, and 
Tod Hull. He is a legislative staff on the public lands. I like to also 
thank Cindy Bowen; she is a county commissioner out in Montrose, 
Colorado; Sheridan Steele. Sheridan is the Superintendent of the Black 
Canyon, and they are very proud out there about what has happened. I 
want to thank Siobhan McGill, Floor Assistant, Office of the Majority 
Leader; Ken Gale who is the interim director of the Montrose Economic 
Development, and Ken has been back here numerous times. This is a pet 
project for Ken. Ken, congratulations; you got a lot to be proud of. I 
want to thank Steve Aquafresca, the former State representative out of 
the State of Colorado representing that area. I want to thank Wayne 
Keith, and I want to thank the currently-elected officials that 
represent that area, Kaye Alexander, Jim Dyer and many of the other 
elected local officials and so on, the communities of Crawford, Paonia, 
Montrose, Olathe, Cedar Ridge, Hotchkiss, Delta; the counties, Club 20. 
There are a lot of people, the staff members of the BLM, Dave Roberts, 
the Forest Service. They all pitched in to help us show off to all of 
you the spectacular beauty of the Black Canyon National Park.

  Now amongst all of those walls right there, and here you can see the 
river up close. Now let me tell my colleagues, our water, water sports 
in Colorado on the hottest day of the summer will still make your teeth 
chitter, but there is a lot of excitement in seeing this kind of water, 
pure water. It is said to be so pure; look at the second picture here; 
that you can stand up on some of these cliffs, obviously not at 2,000 
feet, but you can stand up on some of these cliffs and actually spot 
trout in the clear water in the pools down below.

  This is also the home for habitat of bears, bobcats, all kinds of 
animal species. It is beautiful, and you should take that opportunity 
to come out and see Colorado.

                              {time}  2015

  One more quick picture before it falls. Look at the walls here again. 
Two thousand feet, you can see the walls here. There is a tree right 
there where the red dot is, straight down.

  Let me wrap up my remarks by telling you, of course, all throughout 
our country the fall is a beautiful season, the colors, the smell, the 
blue sky. But if you have an opportunity, come out and enjoy our State.


[[Page 23416]]


  Finally, as my final remarks, let me reemphasize my remarks at the 
beginning of my discussion with you this evening, and that is to our 
friends, our family, to people we do not know in the state of North 
Carolina: The other 49 states of this country will not abandoned you. 
The other 49 states of this country will be there to help you through 
the tragedy that you recently suffered. I know that it may seem remote 
at this time, that kind of help, but there are prayers from all across 
the country coming your direction. There are resources, including 
monetary resources and everything from generators to lanterns to 
batteries to fresh water, resources from all across this country, 
coming to help you out.

  Again, North Carolina, you will not be forgotten.

                          ____________________