[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25609-25616]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Michigan). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening, there are two subjects I want 
to focus my attention to. One is especially parochial to the State of 
Colorado, and especially important to me in regards to the State of 
Colorado, but it is parochial.
  The other issue I want to talk about is of national interest, and it 
is not parochial. In fact, it is something that is vitally important 
for every citizen of America. It is a subject of which we will see lots 
of publicity in the upcoming days. It is a subject of which this House, 
each and every one of us, needs to stand up and support our President 
on the position that he is going to take, and that is on missile 
defense. I want to go through this evening the importance of missile 
defense, exactly what the anti-ballistic missile treaty is all about, 
the age of the treaty, and what the extraordinary circumstances are 
that now threaten the security interests of the United States of 
America, as well as allies of the United States of America; and I would 
include within those comments Russia.

[[Page 25610]]

  Let us begin first of all by saying to all Members exactly what our 
current defense system is in this Nation. Many Members assume if a 
missile were launched against the United States of America, that we 
would very quickly detect it. So the question is if a missile were 
launched anywhere in the world against the United States of America, do 
we currently have the capabilities to pick up that missile launch?
  The answer to that question is, yes. Actually the location of those 
facilities is well known throughout the country. The NORAD Space 
Command Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, we have extraordinary 
capabilities to detect a missile launch. We can determine within 
seconds, in some cases before the launch takes place from the activity 
on the launch pad; but once that missile is launched, we can determine 
anywhere in the world exactly what time the missile was launched, the 
direction of the missile, where the most likely target of the missile 
is, what the estimated time of arrival of the missile is, what kind of 
missile it is, what kind of detonation or missile load or explosive 
load that missile usually carries. So very quickly, within seconds, we 
can assess if a missile threatens the United States of America.
  But what most people do not understand is that once the United States 
detects that a missile has been launched against it, it has no defense. 
We have no missile defense, no security blanket to protect the borders 
of the United States of America.
  Tonight as I make my comments, I want to make it especially clear 
that when I speak of the United States of America, I also speak of our 
allies, of our friends in the world, who also are subject to a missile 
attack. When I speak about the need for this country to defend its 
citizens, I also think that our country has an obligation to help the 
citizens of our friends across the world. In fact, I firmly believe 
that a missile defense system could easily avoid what could be a world 
war.
  Let me explain that last comment before I proceed discussing the 
current status of a security blanket, i.e., a missile defense system in 
this country, how could it possibly avoid another war. Remember, there 
are two types of missile launches. One is an intentional missile 
launch, an attack against the United States of America. The second 
missile launch would be an accidental missile launch. In other words, 
by accident a missile is launched against the United States or its 
interests. Now, some might say that an accidental missile launch 
against the United States is highly unlikely. I would beg to differ, 
and I beg to differ in a very strong way.
  Mr. Speaker, take a look at what happened shortly after the September 
11 tragedy that hit this country. Take a look at what happened in the 
Black Sea during a military exercise. A missile was accidentally 
launched against a civilian airliner, and it blew that airliner out of 
the sky. Remember that missile out of Ukraine? That is exactly what I 
am talking about. We never thought it would be possible. We never 
thought about it, that planes would be used as missiles against our 
buildings, the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. But I think it would 
be a shortfall of our duty, it would be a dereliction of our duty if we 
did not look into the future and into the security interest of our 
homeland, of protecting our borders and our people in this Nation. I 
think it would be a very serious mistake, a serious dereliction of duty 
for us not to assume that at some point in the future, and hopefully in 
the distant future, but at some point in the future a missile will be 
launched against the United States of America.
  I think we owe it to our citizens, colleagues, to assure our citizens 
that we buy the insurance ahead of time. And the insurance that I am 
talking about is a missile defense system. Let us say, for example, 
that a country like Russia that we do not see as an enemy right now, 
and Russia could be a good ally in the future, but let us say Russia or 
some other country out there by accident, not intentionally, but by 
accident launches a missile against the United States. If that missile 
were a nuclear missile and if that missile were destined to hit a major 
city, let us say New York City, God Lord, they have suffered enough, 
but some city in the United States, if we had the capability to shoot 
that missile down, imagine the kind of chaotic, horrible tragedies that 
we would have avoided, including the threat of a retaliatory strike 
against the country that launched against us if we had the capability 
to stop that missile before it came into the air space of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, to me it is a pretty basic defense. Mind you, I use 
defensive missile system throughout my language. We are not talking 
about building a brand new offensive missile system. It is a security 
bubble in the air over the United States. It is not an offensive 
missile system. It is not designed to be that. It is designed with one 
purpose in mind, and that purpose is to solely protect the people of 
the United States against a missile attack.
  Well, let us look at the history of the anti-ballistic missile 
treaty. The anti-ballistic missile treaty was signed by President Nixon 
and Leonid Brezhnev, the leader of the Soviet Union, May 26, 1972. This 
is an important date. 1972 in Moscow. It was ratified by the United 
States Senate in 1972 and entered into force on October 3 of the same 
year. It is a relatively short treaty consisting of 16 articles that 
fit single spaced onto five sheets of paper. So colleagues, I know that 
some of us take a look at the treaty books that we have in our offices, 
the treaties of the United States, those books are very thick.
  Before I first read the anti-ballistic missile treaty, I prepared 
myself for a long treatise, a long document, many, many changes of very 
complicated language discussing treaty obligations between the United 
States and the USSR. Remember that is where the agreement was made. To 
my surprise, it was six pages. Six pages.
  So, colleagues, if Members have not read the anti-ballistic missile 
treaty, you must read it tomorrow. Why do I say tomorrow? Because the 
President of the United States rightfully and, frankly, I think it is 
his responsibility, which he has shouldered very well, but rightfully 
he intends this week or very shortly to announce that the United States 
of America under the terms of the treaty, under those six pages, under 
the agreement contained in those six pages, that the United States of 
America will withdraw from the treaty.
  There will be lots of constituent questions here in the next few 
days. There will be lots of commentary in the news. There will be lots, 
maybe not lots but some dissension. I think it would benefit Members to 
pull out that six-page treaty and read it. But tonight I am going to 
brief Members. It would take us 4 or 5 minutes to read all six pages, 
but I would like to highlight key provisions. This treaty was in 1972. 
We are in 2001. We have 29 years. This treaty is 29 years old. I think 
we need to go back to the point in time 29 years ago and talk about the 
treaty and what threats existed 29 years ago when Richard Nixon, as 
President of the Nation, felt it was in the best interest of the Nation 
to sign this treaty.
  Twenty-nine years ago there were only two nations in the world that 
really had the capability of delivering a nuclear missile or a 
ballistic missile across an ocean into the borders of another country. 
Those two nations were the United States of America and the USSR. There 
was a lot of academia about how do we avoid an arms race between the 
USSR and the United States of America; how do we limit how many 
missiles are going to be out there.
  The academia at that time came up with the conclusion that the best 
way to avoid proliferation of missiles and the best way to avoid a war 
between the USSR and the United States of America would be an unusual 
and unique approach, and that unique and unusual approach was that both 
countries would agree not to defend themselves. Understand what I am 
saying. The USSR and the United States of America would agree not to 
defend themselves against a missile attack by the other country. Now to 
me that sounds insane. Twenty-eight years ago I would not have agreed 
with the academia any more than I agree with them today.

[[Page 25611]]



                              {time}  2100

  I would not have agreed that the way to stop or avoid a missile 
attack against your country is to have a treaty with one country that 
you cannot build a ballistic missile defense system against any country 
in the world. But let us go back again to 29 years. The thought was 
that there are only two nations in the world that have this capability, 
the USSR and the United States of America. They put together this 
treaty.
  While I disagree with the substance of the treaty or the theory of 
the treaty, that being that the best way to avoid a missile attack is 
that you would not be able to defend yourself, so therefore, you would 
not start a fight with the USSR nor would the USSR start a fight with 
the United States of America because both countries knew they did not 
have the capability to stop a retaliatory strike against them. That is 
the theory. But fortunately the people who put this together, the 
people that put this treaty together, understood that things change. In 
the technological world of 29 years ago, they thought change was pretty 
rapid. So they wanted to include in this treaty a special provision. I 
think it is very important that we look at the provision in the treaty.
  They had the foresight to understand that there could be changes and 
not simple changes but changes that met a much, much higher standard, 
substantial changes, extraordinary changes, and that if the world 
changed sometime in the future, both the USSR and the United States of 
America wanted within the four corners of that agreement, within the 
antiballistic missile agreement, both parties wanted the ability to 
withdraw from the treaty so that they could appropriately address the 
extraordinary circumstances that might occur.
  There are some extraordinary things. The world is extraordinarily 
different today in regards to missiles, proliferation of missiles, 
proliferations of nuclear capability, proliferation of attacks of 
terrorists, as we unfortunately have felt in a very deep and hurtful 
wound just a couple of months ago.
  It is my premise tonight that extraordinary events have occurred. So 
now I think we should revert back to one of the articles within that 
six-page treaty and see exactly what it says about withdrawal from the 
treaty, because the President has put the Nation on notice. He did this 
in his election. He said that it is an outdated treaty. He is 
absolutely right. The President and his Cabinet, his Vice President, 
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, these people have made 
it a commitment of their responsibility to this Nation to protect the 
security of the people of this Nation. In order to do that, one of 
their high priorities is the capability of this Nation to stop a 
missile from coming in within its borders. So they have looked at the 
treaty. Tonight I want us to look at the treaty to see whether or not 
the President will be justified in saying that extraordinary events 
that threaten our national security interests have occurred, which 
therefore allow our Nation and this Congress to support our President, 
that would allow our Nation, as led by our President, to withdraw from 
that treaty.
  The ballistic missile treaty, they call it the ABM treaty. Those are 
the initials they use for it. This treaty shall be of unlimited 
duration. Each party shall, and notice the word ``shall,'' shall in 
exercising its national sovereignty, have the right. Remember, it is a 
right. There is no breaking the treaty. I have read some of the media 
reports on this, and I am sure some of the commentary coming up in the 
next few days are going to talk about how the United States of America 
broke the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. We are not breaking any treaty. 
We are not walking away from any responsibilities in any treaty out 
there, especially the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. In fact, within the 
four corners, within the corners of this treaty, it is a right to 
withdraw from this treaty. What the President has correctly said is 
that the United States of America intends to exercise that right and 
withdraw from the treaty.
  But let us see what it takes. What does it take? Let us see what it 
does take to be able to exercise that right to pull away from the 
antiballistic missile treaty and allow your Nation to build a missile 
defense system to protect its citizens.
  Let us repeat the sentence. Each party shall, in exercising its 
national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty if 
it, not the opinion of other countries, not the opinion of the other 
party to the treaty, but if it, if our Nation, our Nation decides that 
it is in the interest of this Nation to withdraw from this treaty, it 
is a right that we have. The power of that decision does not rest with 
France or Europe or the USSR. It rests with the United States of 
America. If it decides that extraordinary, and this is a very important 
term, extraordinary events related to the subject matter, missiles. 
Missiles, that is our subject matter.
  So we have met that. The subject matter of this treaty have 
jeopardized its supreme interests. This is the key paragraph. This 
paragraph is a paragraph which in the next few days we will hear lots 
of commentary about it. I hope we have good discussion on this House 
floor, because this is a vital paragraph to the future of America. If 
we want to provide a security blanket for this Nation, which I think we 
have a fundamental responsibility to do as Congressmen, if we want to 
provide a missile defense, we have to be able to utilize this 
paragraph. We have to be able to justify to our partner, the USSR, 
which although it does not exist as the USSR, it has kind of melted 
into Russia, to Russia that we are within our rights to pull out of 
this treaty. It is in our interests to begin to provide a missile 
defense system for this country.
  Of importance, notification, it shall give notice of its decision to 
the other party 6 months prior to the withdrawal of the treaty. Such 
notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the 
notifying party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
  So we know it is a 6-month period of time, and what date the 
President decides to use, I do not know yet, but I am confident that 
the President will make a firm announcement within the next couple of 
days that, in fact, the United States intends to withdraw from the 
treaty under the rights of the treaty and that the United States at 
that time will give the date of inception for the 6-month notice.
  These are important, but the key paragraph is this: Number one, we as 
a population, we have to figure out, okay, what is extraordinary? In 
the last 29 years, what has happened that we could properly define 
under any definition of a dictionary, the term extraordinary events? I 
want to show you what I think are the extraordinary events. That is 
question number one, extraordinary events. And, number two, they have 
to meet a qualifier, and, that is, they have jeopardized our, its, us, 
the United States, they have jeopardized our interests.
  Let me show my colleagues a poster that I think should really get 
their attention. It is what has happened in the last 29 years. Remember 
when you look at the last 29 years, you have to figure out the 
technological rate of growth. As we know, every year that goes by, we 
see a disproportionate increase in the amount of technological 
knowledge, in the amount of technological gain. So it is not an even 
graph. You are not going to have a graph whose line looks like this. 
You have a graph over 29 years that goes like this and all of a sudden 
it is increasing at an increasing rate. That is the technological 
advancement. Let us take a look at what extraordinary events have 
possibly occurred in the last 29 years that would allow our President 
and this Nation and my colleagues and I to stand up and say the treaty 
is outdated, and for the interests of our partner, Russia, and for the 
interests of the United States, we should exercise this article, this 
right within the treaty.
  Nuclear proliferation. Take a look at what has happened in the last 
29 years. It really does not serve as any kind of surprise to my 
colleagues, because we all know it is happening. These are the

[[Page 25612]]

countries that now possess nuclear weapons. Remember, it used to be the 
United States and it used to be the USSR.
  Now take a look at what we have got, all the various countries: 
Britain, India, Russia, China, Israel, France, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, 
North Korea, Libya, Turkey. There are some on here that I do not even 
have listed. There is no question that an extraordinary event has 
occurred. Not a good event, but nonetheless let us be realistic. The 
extraordinary event is that we have seen a tremendous amount of nuclear 
proliferation. If you read today's papers, and I am sure most of my 
colleagues have, you noticed in there that two nuclear scientists spent 
an entire day, maybe more than a day advising and talking about nuclear 
weapons with Osama bin Laden. This is a dangerous situation. At some 
point, somebody will attempt to use a nuclear weapon against the United 
States of America.
  Would you call that an extraordinary event? I certainly do. I think 
the insurance is something we better start securing today. The 
insurance for the future, the insurance we owe not only to our 
generation, but the insurance we owe for future generations is to 
provide a security blanket around the United States of America and its 
allies so that at least we have the capability of preventing a nuclear 
missile attack against the United States.
  That is extraordinary event number one. Let us talk about 
extraordinary event number two. Look long and hard at this poster. This 
is ballistic missile proliferation. Remember, 29 years ago, there were 
only two nations in the world, the United States of America and the 
USSR, that had the capability of an intercontinental missile, of a 
ballistic-type missile. Look what has happened in 29 years. This is the 
map as it looks today. These are countries that now possess ballistic 
missiles. Take a look at them. Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina.
  I will just skip to Croatia, China, Egypt, France, Iran, India, North 
Korea, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, 
Vietnam, Taiwan, Syria, South Africa. Take a look at the map. That is 
what we are trying to get an insurance policy against. That has 
happened in 29 years. Today it is increasing at an even faster rate. It 
is not unrealistic at all to imagine that 10 years from now, there will 
be a lot less white on this map than there is right now. You may have 
most of the world covered in blue. If we do not prepare today, if our 
Nation does not exercise its right to protect itself by providing a 
security blanket for this Nation against the missiles of these parts of 
the world, remember, today a friend, tomorrow they may not be. Today an 
enemy, tomorrow they may still be an enemy.
  My point is this, and let us go back to our original provision. Just 
those two events alone, nuclear proliferation and ballistic missile 
proliferation, qualify in my opinion as an extraordinary event that is 
related obviously to missile defense that have jeopardized our supreme 
interests. If my colleagues do not call the proliferation of ballistic 
missiles or the proliferation of nuclear capability serious 
jeopardization of our supreme interests, then you are not awake.

                              {time}  2115

  The fact is, this country faces a threat; a threat, in my opinion, 
that could be much more devastating, if we could imagine, much more 
devastating than the horrible events that took place in this country 
two months ago.
  So my purpose in appearing tonight is to tell you I could go through 
some other extraordinary events. Look at where terrorism has come from. 
I mean, look how much more active it has become in this world. The 
world has realistically become much smaller, and the hatred in this 
world now is easier to spread through weapons of mass destruction.
  This Nation has the capability to protect itself, and that is the 
next question we want to ask ourselves. You will hear from some of my 
colleagues, some might say, oh, my gosh, we could never do it. We do 
not have the technology available.
  We do not have it today, because the treaty does not allow us to have 
it today, but we are well on our way towards overcoming the 
technological barriers that stand in front of us. Remember, you have a 
couple of missiles. You have to bring them together at 5,000 miles an 
hour. We have got to have a satellite system for detection and for 
laser intercept. There are lots of things that have to happen.
  But do not think for one minute that the car you drive today was the 
car that we originally started with 100 years ago. Do not for one 
minute think those fighter aircraft that are fighting over Afghanistan 
protecting our interests, the bombers, or the Jeeps or the vehicles or 
the weapons or the laser items we are using, was what we started with 
in the beginning. Obviously we progress.
  It is incumbent, and I could not say this strong enough, it is 
absolutely our responsibility, it is incumbent upon us to push ahead 
with the technology to protect this Nation, to push ahead with the 
security blanket that this Nation will some day need.
  I do not know how any of my colleagues today could stand up and look 
their constituents in the eye and say, I am going to oppose building a 
missile defense system for this Nation. Do not go out there and use as 
an excuse to your constituents, well, it is a big waste of money. I am 
telling you something: If we do not build a missile defense system, 
those are statements that some day will come back to haunt you in such 
a way you will not even be able to look in the mirror.
  I do not mean to overstate my position. Obviously I believe very 
strongly, and I have a very deep, deep commitment, that this Nation's 
security is the highest priority, it is the most important part of our 
job. Sure, there are a lot of important issues. Education is important, 
health care is important, our transportation system is important, our 
judiciary system is important. But if you cannot protect yourselves, if 
you do not have the capability to keep the enemy from entering your 
garden, you are in big trouble.
  I can think of no higher priority for an elected representative of 
the people than that of protection of the people that he or she 
represents. That is exactly the question we face, whether we support 
the President or whether you do not support the President.
  The President will this week announce that he intends to give 
notification that under the provisions of the Antiballistic Missile 
Treaty the United States of America will exercise its right to withdraw 
from the treaty and proceed to build a system that will protect this 
Nation from a missile attack.
  Now, I want you to know that many of our allies have expressed 
support. Italy, for example, Taiwan, Korea, there are a number of other 
countries out there. What will happen, once we get through this next 
few weeks, I think you are going to find all of a sudden a lot of other 
countries saying, hey, do you mind if you share a little of that 
technology with us?
  I think the United States ought to be willing to share the 
technology, because I think it is a good way to avoid future conflict. 
I think it is a way to help limit nuclear proliferation. I think it is 
a way to help limit proliferation of ballistic missiles.
  So, Members get a week. This week. Every one of us in this Chamber, 
every one of us in these Chambers, is going to be asked by our local 
media whether or not you are going to support the President's move to 
withdraw from the antiballistic missile treaty? For those Members who 
have chosen to say no, and, by the way, I hope the media puts you right 
on the spot, either yes or no, no cloudy area; you either support a 
ballistic missile defense system for this Nation, or you do not support 
it. There are no if's. So I hope the media says, wait a minute, do you 
or do you not? Just yes or no. Do you or do you not? That is the 
answer, yes are no. The choice is simple.
  This week, and I am not saying this to be harsh, I am not saying this 
to be offensive in any manner, but it is fact, it is reality, this is 
probably one of the most important questions of our political career. 
Are you going to support

[[Page 25613]]

President Bush in his quest to build a security blanket against missile 
attack for United States of America? If the answer is yes, then give us 
your full support. If the answer is no, I hope you really, really think 
about that answer before you give it, and I hope you think about not 
only your generation, but your obligations to future generations. 
Because, if you do, if you think about your generation, our generation, 
our Nation and our future generations, if you really think about it, I 
do not understand how you could possibly say no, that the United States 
should continued to obligate itself to a treaty that says we should not 
build a system to defend ourselves against either an intentional or an 
accidental missile launch.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move on to my second subject. 
The second subject I want to speak about is totally and completely away 
from the first part of my comments this evening. I want to speak about 
a very parochial interest. I want to talk about the State of Colorado 
and the interests of the State of Colorado.
  Obviously there are only six Congressmen from Colorado. There are 
probably only six Congressmen on this House floor that are going to be 
interested in my comments in regards to the State of Colorado, and, 
guess what, the redistricting process.
  As we know, every 10 years, based on a census across the Nation, 
every one of our States redraws their Congressional districts. Now, the 
easiest States for that decision to be made in are States that only 
have one Congressman.
  Because of the census, because of the population having gone up, but 
some populations in respective States have gone down, or in other 
respective States have gone up, there has to be a balancing act. As my 
colleagues know, some States gain Congressional seats; other States 
lose Congressional seats. In this particular case, the State of 
Colorado because it has gained population, moves from six Congressional 
seats to seven Congressional seats.
  Now, to get to that seventh Congressional seat, to give it a 
geographical area within the borders of the State of Colorado, that 
means that the other six, obviously, the other six Congressional 
districts have to give up geographic and populated mass.
  Where do you fit that seventh seat in, with the least amount of 
disruption, the least amount of disruption, to the current voices that 
the State of Colorado has?
  Now, in Colorado, which is where the Republicans, by the way, have a 
heavier registration advantage than the Democrats, so in Colorado we 
have, logically, four Republicans and two Democrats. Now, that can 
vary, but that is pretty representative of what the population base 
looks like in Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on the other Congressional districts 
in Colorado, other than my Congressional district. I say ``mine,'' it 
is really the one I am privileged to represent, the Third Congressional 
District of the State of Colorado.
  I think it is important that I define it. Some people define it as 
the western slope of Colorado, but that really does not include all of 
the Third District of Colorado. The mountains, the western slope of 
Colorado, really is well-known throughout the Nation primarily for its 
mountains, but, again, it does not include all the mountains and it 
does not include all the Third Congressional districts.
  Some people say, well, the Third District is the San Luis Valley. 
That is a very critical part of the Third Congressional District. It is 
a part of the district that is very compatible with what some people 
say is the western slope of the district. But the San Luis Valley 
standing alone is not the Third Congressional District.
  What the Third Congressional District really is composed of and the 
easiest way to think of it is it is primarily almost all of the 
mountains in the State of Colorado.
  Let me give you some statistics about the Third Congressional 
District. As it stands today, it is the highest district in elevation 
in the Nation. In other words, there are no higher points in the United 
States for a district on a mean average. We have 67 mountains in the 
United States that are over 14,000 feet. Of those, 53 of those 
mountains are in the Third Congressional District, 53 mountains over 
14,000 feet.
  So the Third District, really a fair representation of what the Third 
District looks like or should be described as is the mountain district. 
When you go to Colorado, or when you go anywhere in the Nation, since 
the mountains of Colorado are highly popular and highly visited, when 
you go to people and you say, well, I represent the mountains of 
Colorado, or you are in the State of Colorado and say I have the 
mountain district, nobody has to think for more than two seconds 
exactly what district you represent, because it is unique by geography, 
it is unique as compared to anywhere else in Colorado, and it is 
certainly unique as compared to any other district in the Nation.
  Now, within the borders of Colorado, the Third District stands out in 
Colorado for its uniqueness. What are those unique factors in the State 
of Colorado? Let us go through a few of them.
  Let me begin by saying that at the conception of our country many, 
many years ago, there were purchases made by the United States to 
expand and to grow our country. The Louisiana Purchase is one that is 
probably the best known. And most of our population in the United 
States was heavily concentrated on the East Coast.
  So our leaders, our great leaders back then, thought, well, how do we 
expand our country? We have purchased land, but having a deed, having a 
deed to a piece of property as we did after we purchased the Louisiana 
Purchase, having a deed did not mean too much. If you wanted to own 
land back in those days, you really needed to have a six-shooter 
strapped on your side and you needed to possess the land. You needed to 
be on it.
  So our Nation has just acquired new lands. Put yourself back in their 
place. We just bought new lands. Now we have to get people out to those 
new lands. But the people that we represent are very comfortable in 
their homes on the Eastern Coast. How do we get them to move in to the 
center of the United States, into the Rocky Mountains, over to the 
Pacific Ocean? How do we get them to move to that direction?
  You know, every American has a dream, and that dream is to own land. 
So our leaders decided to use a tool that had been used in the 
Revolutionary War. It is called land grants, homestead. It actually was 
used in the Revolutionary War. Our leaders said to soldiers of the 
British, if you defect, we will give you free land. Come to our new 
country. We will give you free land. You will own it.
  They decided to employ that tool again, the tool of homesteading. In 
other words, tell people that if they will go out into the Louisiana 
Purchase, those vast lands, and they farm 160 acres or 320 acres, and 
they do it for a certain period of time, it is their's, and it is 
their's forever.
  Well, they ran into a problem. In most of the lands in the East, and 
certainly the lands actually up to the boundaries of about the Third 
Congressional District in the State of Colorado, you could easily, for 
example, clear up here in Eastern Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, any of 
those States, 160 acres, you could support a family off it. It was very 
fertile land, and 160 acres was plenty of land to support a family. But 
when you hit the mountains of Colorado, and it also pertains to the 
mountains of Wyoming, Montana or New Mexico, when you hit the 
mountains, 160 acres, that does not even feed a cow. You cannot get by 
on 160 acres.
  So they go back to Washington to our leaders and say, there is a 
problem. We are getting the population to move out into our new land, 
to grow our country.

                              {time}  2130

  But they are stopping when they get to the Rocky Mountains. They 
cannot make a living of it. So somebody pops up and says, well, let us 
give them more land. If it takes 160 acres in eastern Colorado; now, 
again, I want to be parochial about my discussion tonight and kind of 
focus in on Colorado, and it

[[Page 25614]]

takes only 160 acres on the other side of the third district boundary 
for a family to survive, what does it take on the western side of that 
boundary, 3,000 acres? Let us give them 3,000 acres.
  But what had happened is that this was a period of time where the 
government, where our leaders were under harsh criticism because the 
people were saying, you gave too much land away to the railroads. This 
Intercontinental Railroad that you wanted to build across the Nation, 
you gave away too much land. There was a scandal. Too much land has 
been given away by the government to these big railroad corporations. 
So our leaders were very sensitive, very sensitive about giving any 
more land away.
  So they said, well, what we ought to do is let us just, for the 
formality, let us let the government keep the title to the land and we 
will let the people use the land. That is the concept of multiple use. 
The government owns the land, they are called public lands, but the 
people are allowed to use them.
  Now, remember, when we take a look at a map of the United States, we 
will see across the Nation that up to the borders, literally, the 
borders, in Colorado up to the border of the third district, we will 
see very little public land. Out here in eastern Colorado, take a look 
at it. This is Bureau of Land Management lands. They are probably the 
largest holder of government land in the West. Look at how little land 
they own. Look where it starts. It starts right on that boundary of the 
third congressional district. The third district of Colorado is the 
public lands districts, and there are lots of issues with public lands, 
whether it deals with water, whether it deals with access, whether it 
deals with the concept of multiple use, whether it deals with 
wilderness areas.
  We do not have wilderness areas out here. Our wilderness areas are 
focused on the public lands, and in Colorado they are public lands, 
here, as shown by this diagram to my left, the public lands are the 
Bureau of Land Management, they rest in the mountain district, the 
third district, the mountain district. Let us look further.
  The U.S. Forest Service, again, another large holder, another large 
agency, or an agency that has large holdings of government land. U.S. 
Forest Service lands in Colorado. Look at the black line as depicted on 
this map to my left, that line is the third congressional district. 
That is the mountain district of Colorado. These green lands represent 
land owned by the government. We can see that outside the mountain 
district, out here in these other 5 congressional districts, there is 
very little land owned by the government, very little Forest Service 
land.
  In fact, in some of these communities when they talk about public 
land, we think they are talking about the courthouse, because literally 
in these counties, that is all the public land there is. So there are 
fundamental differences between the mountain district and the rest of 
Colorado when it comes to government lands. I think I have demonstrated 
that with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
  However, there are other differences. For example, our national 
parks. The national parks are primarily located in the mountain 
district. Most of Rocky Mountain National Park, or a big chunk of it, 
the Mesa Verde National Park, our national monuments, the Black Canyon 
National Park, the national parks in Colorado are primarily located in 
the mountain district. The same thing applies to our monuments. The 
majority of monuments, national monuments in the State of Colorado are 
located in the mountain district. The interests of the mountain 
district, the community of interest revolves around public lands. 
Public lands is a huge community in the mountain district of Colorado.
  Now, it is not a community of interest in eastern Colorado, it is not 
a community of interest in Denver, Colorado, and it is not a community 
of interest in anywhere, frankly, other than the mountain district. But 
we can go on, we can go on from public lands and continue to study the 
uniqueness of this mountain district. Take a look at the head waters of 
the State of Colorado.
  Now, we will remember earlier in my comments I mentioned that this 
district, the mountain district, is the highest district in the Nation 
elevation-wise. That includes the mountains, it includes the mountains 
of the San Luis Valley, it includes the plateaus of the San Luis 
Valley, just as much as it includes the plateaus of the Grand Mesa. 
These plateaus are all high. We get lots of snowfall every year, 
hopefully we get lots of snowfall every year. A little plug for skiers: 
we have lots of snowfall this year, but we usually have lots of 
snowfall.
  Now, in the mountain district of Colorado, we get very little rain. I 
never saw a rainstorm until I got back to the east. Our rains out there 
maybe last 20, 25 minutes. It is a very cold rain, it usually comes in 
and moves out very rapidly. Where do we get our water? We depend very 
heavily on the snowfall for our water. Then, when the snow melts, that 
is when we are able to store it. If we cannot store water in Colorado, 
and primarily, that water has to be stored in the mountains of 
Colorado, if we cannot store water in Colorado, we do not get it, 
except for about 60 days of the runoff.
  So water is a critical factor in the mountain district. It is not a 
critical factor just to the mountain district, but the mountain 
district, logically, because it is the highest point in the Nation, has 
more head waters in it than any other district in the country. It is 
what they call the mother district of rivers, that mountain district. 
We have the Colorado River, we have the Rio Grande River, we have the 
South Platte River, we have the Arkansas River. Take a look. Here is 
the third district. Take a look at the head waters that it has and the 
water basins.
  Now, let me add that the head waters of the river, that is where the 
river starts. The head waters of a river have a different community of 
interest than a user of the river downstream. They are completely 
different communities. They do have in common that they use water out 
of that river. But where the river starts is a lot different than the 
location where the water simply runs through. Both of those communities 
have differing interests. Both of those communities have differing 
utilization of those water resources. Both of those communities have 
differing environmental factors to consider. So water is a critical 
issue.
  In Colorado, there is one spokesman, there is one congressional 
district that can speak for those head waters. Now, the only way that 
we could increase, have more than one Congressman for the mountain 
district is to split the mountain district. But if we split the 
mountain district of Colorado in an effort to provide land for the 
seventh district, this seventh seat, if we split this district up, what 
happens is, let us say we did it like this, to the left, or let us just 
say we came down here and tried to take out the valley, which is very 
illogical, because the valley is locked in to these mountain 
communities. The valley is the mountain community. Just because it is a 
plateau, it is like the Grand Mesa, we could be on the Grand Mesa and 
think we are at 13,000 feet.
  But my point here is that if we split this district up, that is 
right, we would have two Congressmen, and I say that generically, we 
would have two Congressmen instead of one. But because, in order to 
justify the population, we would have to go east, east of the 
mountains. We would have to leave the mountains and go out of their 
community of interest into the flat areas, into the planes, into the 
large cities of Colorado to get the population that is necessary to 
justify that congressional seat.
  What does that mean? That means when election time comes around, the 
numbers, the largest percentage of population is not in the mountains; 
the largest percentage of population is in the cities or in the plains 
of Colorado. They then determine who is going to represent the 
interests of the mountains of Colorado.
  Now, remember when it comes to water, the mountains in Colorado 
provide 80 percent of the water. Eighty percent of the water in 
Colorado is in the mountains. Eighty percent of the

[[Page 25615]]

population is outside the mountains in Colorado. We have an inherent 
conflict. We have one portion of Colorado that is rich in resource and 
another part of Colorado, by far a big part of Colorado, that is rich 
in need. They need that resource. So there is a constant tug of war. 
There is nothing more that the people in need of the water would like 
than to have control of the mountain congressional seat. That is what I 
am concerned about on this redistricting process.
  When we take a look at the mountain district, it is true that we have 
to give up about 106,000 people. Fortunately, the district, it is 
almost like it was made for this process, because in this district we 
have a community called Pueblo, Colorado. It is a strong community. It 
is a community that has been a leading example across the Nation of 
economic recovery. But the community has about 130,000, 135,000 in 
their county.
  We can actually go in without any kind of severe disruption. Since we 
have to find 106,000 people, we really have two choices. We can go into 
Pueblo, Colorado and pick up out of the city, right there, 106,000 
right out of Pueblo. But if we do not take that 106,000 out of a 
relatively small area and, by the way, it would be about the size of, 
the head of my pointer would be about the size of the area that we 
would take out of this district. Let us put up a better graph; it would 
probably be right here. Right down here would be Pueblo, the gray head 
of this pointer, right here. That is about the area. If we took that 
area out, we could satisfy the requirements for the new congressional 
seat.
  But if we do not take it out of Pueblo, Colorado, if we do not move 
the City of Pueblo, to find 106,000 people in these mountains, we are 
going to have to take huge chunks of land. We are going to have to 
interrupt, we are going to disrupt the community of interest in regards 
to national parks, in regards to water, in regards to national forest 
land, in regards to Bureau of Land Management land; even in regards to 
the tribal lands. All of the tribal lands in Colorado are in the 
mountain district. This district is so unique that there is an 
obligation, I think, of the legislature and of my colleagues to keep 
this district intact, to let this district have one voice.
  Now, some would say, well, that is kind of interesting, coming from 
you, because you are the one that is the Congressman. Is this not a 
little self-serving? Let me tell my colleagues, I will win any race I 
have out there. The geographical area of my district is not of concern 
to me for my own political interests. The critical key here is, I am 
the one that is expected to speak up for this district when this 
redistricting occurs.
  So as the spokesman for the district, I have to look into the future. 
I have to say into the future, what is important for the interests of 
the people of the mountain district of Colorado? Is it important, for 
example, that the heaviest population be outside the mountains, the 
water consumers, instead of the water suppliers? It would be a disaster 
for the mountain district. Is it important to keep all forestlands 
unified as they are right now? You bet it is. Is it important that the 
public lands in Colorado, to the extent possible, which, by the way, is 
about 98 percent, is it important that 98 percent of the public lands 
be in the mountain district where they are located with one unified 
voice?
  The answer is, you bet it is. Is it important that our Forest Service 
lands right here stay in that district? You bet it is. The community of 
interest of the third mountain district, the third congressional 
district is overwhelming. We have a problem. We have too many people. 
We have to move 106,000 people. I do not want to move anybody. I do not 
want to lose one single soul, not one single soul out of the mountain 
district. But look, the law says, hey, the third district, the mountain 
district, is going to have to give up 106,000 people. Where are you 
going to come up with them?
  So with great regret, the only logical place to find 106,000 people 
is Pueblo. Now, I think Pueblo should be protected in its own way. 
Pueblo should be the predominant community in its own district. So 
Pueblo can be taken care of, and it is very important to me personally 
and as their Congressman that Pueblo be taken care of. But it is 
illogical, illogical to come out here and divide the mountain district, 
by either taking the valley out; which taking the valley out of the 
mountain district is like taking the heart out of the patient and 
saying, look, the patient is still pretty whole, we just take the heart 
out.
  We cannot take the valley out of the mountain district. Look at the 
water issues, the mountain issues, the public lands, the national 
forest, the Forest Service lands, the agriculture, the timber industry, 
the mining industry, all of these are unique to this district in 
Colorado.

                              {time}  2145

  We do not have logging out there in eastern Colorado; we do not have 
ski areas. We have 26 ski areas in Colorado, and 24 of them are right 
here. Our major ski areas are right here. We do not see any ski towns 
in Denver, out here in the eastern plains, for obvious reasons.
  The community of interest, there is a huge community of interest in 
our ski community and our ski towns that have to deal with employee 
housing, that have to deal with public land issues, that have to deal 
with wilderness areas, that have to deal with any multitude of 
management of Federal lands, that is all unique to this district.
  The mountain district, in my opinion, is one of the most unique 
districts in all of the United States. There are 435 districts. It is 
probably one of the most well-known districts in the United States 
because of the resorts: Aspen, Vail, Steamboat, the beauty of the San 
Luis Valley, the mountains. You name it, a lot of people who have 
traveled, a lot of people who have traveled in our Nation and been 
fortunate enough to travel have been to the mountain district of 
Colorado.
  It would be a shame, it would be wrong, but it would also be a shame 
to go into Colorado and divide that mountain district, divide its 
unified voice, divide its ability to elect its representative from the 
mountains.
  If we divide this district up in any significant way, we are going to 
shift the political power out of the mountains into the big cities, or 
out of the mountains into the plains. There is not a community of 
interest there.
  Obviously, we feel very proud of the fact that we are all Coloradans, 
and we love those Colorado Buffaloes. There are a lot of things on 
which we feel as a State we are unified. But within the family, some 
parts of the family have assets and the other parts of the family have 
different assets. We all bring to the table our own unique strengths.
  It would be a mistake within the family to take one of our family 
member's strengths, and I am speaking of the districts, and to split it 
up. What we should do is try and maintain the strength of each member 
of our family. We have six members in our family. We are bringing in a 
seventh member. What we need to do is, with the least amount of 
disruption, to provide for the seventh member of the family.
  We can do that by protecting the interests of Pueblo, for example, 
and yet protecting that community of interest which bears out so 
strongly, so strongly in Colorado.
  Again, let me just repeat, and I could go on in much more explicit 
detail, and I am sure that I will be doing that within the immediate 
future, but my point is this: the mountain district of Colorado, which 
includes the headwaters of the rivers of Colorado, which includes the 
San Luis Valley and the vast mountain ranges of the San Luis Valley and 
the plateaus, the high plateaus, and the western slope, what some 
people have called the western slope, that all combines now to make a 
very well-suited, a very strong and a very commonsense district when we 
consider the community of interest.
  Again, that community of interest is everything from ski areas to 
tourist traffic, the heaviest tourist communities. People go to 
Colorado to see the mountains. They go to Colorado primarily to see the 
mountain district.

[[Page 25616]]

Now, sure, they love to go see the Air Force Academy, that is gorgeous, 
and things like that. But overall, when we speak of Colorado, we think 
of mountains. That is the mountain district.
  So it is not only ski areas, it is not only tourism, it is the water. 
Remember that I said earlier that the mountain district has 80 percent 
of the water. The other five districts have 80 percent of the 
consumers. It is the national forests. By far, the mountain district 
probably has 98 percent of the national forests. It has probably three 
and a half of the four national parks. It has almost all the national 
monuments.
  When we take a look at it, and in fact, if we think about it, the 
sports teams, even the sports teams here, they do not go out of the 
mountains to play other sports teams, they play within it.
  So I urge that we keep the mountain district unified.

                          ____________________