Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 258, which congratulates the superintendent and staff of the United States Coast Guard Academy, as well as the commandant of the Coast Guard, on the 100 years of operation of the United States Coast Guard Academy. Established in 1910 as the instructional school to the U.S. Revenue Cutter Academy and since being renamed and relocated to its present location on the banks of the Thames River in New London, Connecticut, the United States Coast Guard Academy has, for the last 100 years, upheld the highest reputation in molding young men and women into officers that form the backbone of leadership in the United States Coast Guard. Many years ago, in fact, shortly after graduating from the University of Tennessee, I took a tour with a friend of mine up to new England and one of the things we did was tour the United States Coast Guard Academy. In more recent years, I have gone many times to various Coast Guard installations around the United States and have seen the work of the Coast Guard and seen demonstrations that they have performed, and I have great admiration and respect for all of the men and women in the United States Coast Guard. Often sort of an ignored or forgotten branch of our military service, I think in more recent years the Coast Guard has come into its own and more and more people recognize the great importance of the mission being performed by these outstanding men and women. The quality of character and leadership traits displayed by graduates of the United States Coast Guard Academy reflect on the exemplary job that the staff and faculty have been doing for the last 100 years and this resolution is at least small, a small way of recognizing all persons affiliated with the Coast Guard Academy for a job well done. I encourage all Members to support this resolution, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and especially the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) for introducing it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I will join with Ranking Member Mica and Chairman Cummings in their commendations, particularly of Admiral Allen, for whom all of us have such great respect, and say once again congratulations on this 100th anniversary to the United States Coast Guard Academy.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I spent 7\1/2\ years, before coming to Congress, as a criminal court judge in Tennessee trying felony criminal cases. I tried the attempted murder of James Earl Ray and many other high-profile cases, thus I have a great interest in our legal system, our courts, and especially appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. I realize that Elena Kagan will be confirmed very soon as our next Supreme Court justice, but I am very disappointed by her nomination. I certainly have nothing against her personally, but the Supreme Court is our highest appellate court. Courts of appeal basically second-guess trials. I wish our President and all future Presidents would appoint people who have actually tried cases. We should try to nominate justices who have had experience both as trial lawyers and as trial judges, people who understand the heat of the battle, the give and take, the decisions that have to be made on the spur of the moment both by lawyers and judges. Ms. Kagan may be a brilliant woman, but she has none of this experience. I want to read a portion of an article in the June 28 issue of Human Events by a man who spent over 20 years as a judge before coming to Congress, our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe). Congressman Poe wrote, ``Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has never been a judge. She's never seen a courtroom from the bench. She's never had a judge's responsibilities. ``Elena Kagan has never instructed a jury or ruled on a point of law--any point of law. She's never tried a criminal case or even a traffic case. She has not decided even one constitutional issue. We don't know whether she believes the Constitution is the foundation of American law or whether she thinks, like many, that the Constitution constantly changes based on personal opinions of Supreme Court justices. But either way, Elena Kagan has never had to make a constitutional call in a court of law in the heat of a trial. She has never admitted evidence or ruled out evidence or ruled on the chain of custody regarding evidence. She has never made even one decision regarding any rule of evidence. She has never ruled on the exclusionary rule, the Miranda doctrine, an unlawful search and seizure allegation, a due process claim, an equal protection violation, or any other constitutional issue. ``She has never impaneled a jury. She has never instructed on reasonable doubt or sentenced a person to the penitentiary. She has never had to decide whether a witness was telling the truth or not. As a judge, she has never heard a plaintiff, a defendant, a victim, or a child testify as a witness. She has never made that all-important decision of deciding whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime. She has never ruled on a life or death issue. ``Elena Kagan has never made a judgment call from the bench, not a single one. Yet, as a Supreme Court justice she would be second- guessing trial judges and trial lawyers who have been through the mud, blood, and tears of actual trials and actual courts of law. How can she possibly be qualified to fill the post of a Supreme Court justice?'' Mr. Poe continued, ``Kagan is an elitist academic who has spent most of her time out of touch with the real world and with the way things really are. Being a judge would be an exercise to the new Supreme Court nominee. She has read about being a judge in books, I suppose. She might even have played pretend in her college classroom, but she has never held a gavel in a courtroom. Her first time to render judgment should not be as a member of the United States Supreme Court. ``Aside from being a judge, she has never even been a trial lawyer. She has never questioned a witness, argued a case to a jury, or tried any case to any jury anywhere in the United States. Real world experience makes a difference.'' This was written by our colleague, Mr. Poe. And I agree with everything he wrote. Finally, I want to commend a Member from the other body, the gentleman from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, my own Senator, for his decision to vote against the nomination of Mrs. Kagan. It is a very poor nomination.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, last week there were headlines saying that leaders on both sides of the aisle agree that we need to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70. Before we do that, we need to stop spending hundreds of billions we do not have on very unnecessary foreign wars, but we also need to revise the entire Federal retirement system--both civilian and military. We cannot change the retirement benefits for those already in the system. The political opposition would just be too strong. But we need to inform new Federal hires and new military recruits that we can no longer allow healthy, able-bodied people to retire in their late thirties or even in their forties or fifties. Local police fight street crime. Almost no Federal law enforcement today is physical in nature. Early retirement in most Federal law enforcement can no longer be justified. Working as a waiter or waitress is more physically demanding than most Federal Government positions for which we now grant early retirement. With a $13 trillion national debt, Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to give relatively young people lavish retirement benefits.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this bill, and I commend the gentleman from Virginia, who just finished making his remarks. H.R. 5604 rescinds $106.8 million in contract authority from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. This rescission of contract authority will come from the following programs: $81 million from NHTSA's safety belt performance grant program; $8.5 million from NHTSA's administrative expenses, the National Driver Registry, and research and development programs; and $17.4 million from FTA's formula and bus grant programs. In total, H.R. 5604 rescinds approximately $107 million in contract authority, which is a type of budget authority. However, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that H.R. 5604, while certainly well intentioned and worthy of support, will not have any impact on outlays or direct spending. According to the CBO, the budget deficit is defined as the amount by which the Federal Government's total outlays exceed its total revenues. Because CBO's official cost estimate for H.R. 5604 finds that this legislation will not reduce the Federal Government's outlays, this bill, unfortunately, will not reduce the budget deficit. This bill could ultimately lead to savings if the Congress does not simply spend this money someplace else. For the first 9 months of fiscal year 2010, we are running a budget deficit of $1 trillion, and the deficit will reach at least $1.4 trillion by the end of the fiscal year on September 30. These are staggering, incomprehensible sums, and these deficits will only add to our growing Federal debt, which is already at over $13 trillion. By the end of this year, the Federal debt will represent 62 percent of the Nation's economy, the highest percentage since World War II, according to CBO. This mounting debt will be passed on to our children and grandchildren. I believe, and most people believe, that Congress isn't doing enough to reduce the current budget deficit or our swelling national debt. While this bill is certainly a step in the right direction, it will not reduce the current budget deficit or the national debt. And so while this is good legislation that I do support, we are going to have to go further if we're going to do what the American people expect and need us to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our outstanding chairman of the full committee, for his very accurate explanation of the confusing, convoluted way we go about the budget and contract authority differences in this Congress. I want to commend the gentlemen from Virginia and from Michigan for bringing this legislation to the floor. It is a good bill. As I said, even though the CBO may not count it as reducing the deficit by $107 million, it is a step in the right direction, and we should be looking for savings in every Department and agency in this Federal Government, and we are going to have to if we are ever to get the Federal deficit and our national debt under any type of control. What we first need to be doing, though, is to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars on very unnecessary foreign wars and turning the Department of Defense into the Department of Foreign Aid with all the nation-building that they are doing. Then we need to go to every Department and agency, and instead of building other countries with money that we don't have, we need to start building our own country. I think no one has been more of a leader in that regard than our chairman, Chairman Oberstar, but we need to start taking care of our own country and start putting the American people first once again. I do think that this bill is a step in the right direction; so I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, Chairman Oberstar, for those kind words. No one in this Congress admires the chairman more than I do. Certainly no one knows the work of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee better than Chairman Oberstar. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, according to both the Congressional Research Service and the Center for Defense Information, the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach over $1 trillion by the end of this year. Today we are being asked to approve many billions more in a supplemental war appropriations bill. There has never been anything conservative about these wars. This is world government at its worst. We have never had any wars in the past with so much waste, fraud, and abuse, and so many billions ripped from the taxpayers by Pentagon contractors. Fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by all this spending. The worst thing is the loss of young American lives, when Iraqi and Afghani troops should have been doing this fighting. And there's really no telling how much we will have to pay out in future medical and disability costs. Defense contractors have so many retired admirals and generals to lobby for them that they keep requesting and getting more money. But these wars have gone on far too long already. We should bring our troops and, especially, our rip-off contractors home.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. We have been told that this is the time the majority wanted us to discuss this proposal by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), and so that's why we're doing this at this time. And I want, first of all, to commend Mr. Chaffetz for his proposal, which would save taxpayer money and which would potentially help cut into the huge deficit, the huge debt that we have, in a very significant way. As he mentioned, we have a national debt of over $13 trillion now. The Congress recently voted to raise the debt limit to $14.3 trillion. That's an incomprehensible figure. But what it means is that in a few short years we're not going to be able to pay all of our Social Security, veterans' pensions, and civil service pensions and all of the things we promised our own people with money that will buy anything. The Congress in those years will not politically be able to come in and cut the benefits, but they'll just print more money. And then people will find that their pensions that they were counting on will buy a third or a half of what they expect. This is an issue that I have been interested in for quite some time, when I found out as far back as 1999 that the Bureau of Land Management had identified 3 million acres that they did not want because it was difficult to manage, inaccessible, unnecessary, and expensive. And so I introduced legislation in both the 106th and 107th Congresses to dispose of some of this property to gain some money for the Federal Government. The Federal Government today owns approximately 30 percent of the land in this country. State and local governments and quasi- governmental agencies own or control another 20 percent. So, in other words, you have half the land in some type of public ownership. Yet we keep taking more and more, a few million more acres each year off of the tax rolls. At the same time that the schools and the police and everybody come to us wanting more money, we keep decreasing the tax rolls. It sounds great for a politician to create a park, but we've created so many parks now at the Federal, State, and local levels that we can't even begin to get the use out of them to justify these parks unless our people somehow find a way to go on permanent vacations. And then, USA Today reported that there are 1,667 land trusts and there are 1,400 nature conservancies, all taking over more and more land, so much that USA Today on its front page reported that they're taking over approximately 6.2 million acres a year, equivalent to half the size of the State of New Jersey each year, adding to--constantly adding to that hundreds of millions of acres that are already under some type of Federal, State, or local ownership, decreasing the tax rolls. I introduced a bill with my colleague from the other side, Dennis Moore, in the last Congress, called the Federal Real Property Disposal Enhancement Act. The Office of Management and Budget had found 21,000 Federal properties that the Federal Government no longer wanted worth $18 billion, and $9 billion of those were real property assets that the Federal Government wanted to dispose of. But it's so complicated and so bureaucratic to dispose of it at this present time that it's cheaper for these agencies to keep this property that they're not even using. Jim Nussle, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget at that time, in the last Congress, recently sent me a letter and endorsed the bill that I had introduced in the Congress and that Senator Tom Carper, a Democrat from Delaware, and Senator Tom Coburn had introduced in the Senate. The goal of the OMB was to dispose of $9 billion in unneeded real property.

Mr. DUNCAN. Director Nussle wrote at the time I introduced that bill with Congressman Moore, he said, ``To reach this objective, I believe we must improve and streamline the current process that Federal agencies face in disposing of real property assets. Therefore, I applaud your introduction of H.R. 3049, which would establish a 5-year pilot program for expediting the disposal of properties no longer needed by the Federal Government.'' We've got to wake up, Mr. Speaker, and realize that private property is a foundation of our freedom and our prosperity. Yet we're slowing doing away with it in this country, and we need to reverse this trend. And this action by Mr. Chaffetz will help start that process and save taxpayer money.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, this Nation has sent millions of good jobs to other countries over the last 30 or 40 years because of environmental rules, regulations, and red tape. This has hurt millions of poor and lower-income and working people by destroying jobs and driving up prices on everything. The BP oil spill in the Gulf is a terrible thing, and we need to do all we reasonably can to see that something like this does not happen again. However, some extremists want us to stop offshore oil production entirely. Talk about wrecking our economy. Talk about killing countless numbers of jobs. And all this at a time when our unemployment is far too high and underemployment is even higher. John Engler, the former Governor of Michigan, wrote a column 5 days ago in the Washington Times under the headline, ``Drilling Moratorium is a Jobs Moratorium.'' Governor Engler wrote, ``Our country cannot afford to use this accident as an excuse for an overbroad moratorium that stops progress to the detriment of our economic and national security. We do not need to choose between energy security and environmental safety. We need to continue to strive for both.'' Charles Krauthammer, the TV commentator and columnist, is respected even by people with whom he disagrees as one of the smartest men in this city. He recently wrote a column asking why we were drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place. He wrote, ``Environmental chic has driven us out there. Environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic Coast off limits to oil production. And, of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.'' Mr. Krauthammer is right. For many years, we have tried to allow drilling on about 2,000 or 3,000 acres of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. ANWR is 19.8 million acres, some 35 times the size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The Smokies get over 9 million visitors a year, and people think it is huge. They cannot humanly comprehend how big ANWR is, yet it is home to only a couple hundred people in the village of Kaktovik and gets a couple of hundred visitors each year. Yet radical environmentalists, who almost always come from very wealthy or upper-income families, oppose oil production almost everyplace. They want gas to double or triple in cost so people will drive less. They can't relate to people who cannot afford gas that costs $7 or $8 or $10 a gallon like it does in some other countries. Not only would shooting the cost of gas way up cause the loss of huge numbers of jobs, it would put the final nail in the coffins of many small towns and rural areas. People in rural areas generally have to drive longer distances to get to their jobs. Already, two-thirds of the counties in the U.S. are losing population. Yet, once again, radical environmentalists see nothing wrong with this. Most of them are city people, anyway. They probably think it would be good if everyone was forced to live in 25 or 30 urban areas, with the rest of the country left totally empty and people could be bused to a national park or wilderness area every couple of months, under government supervision, of course, so they would not harm the land. Everyone pays lip service to energy independence, but we already had 84 percent of our U.S. oil off limits even before the President imposed this latest moratorium. Environmental radicals will say they, too, want energy independence. But, then, environmental groups oppose drilling for oil, cutting any trees, digging for any coal, or producing any natural gas because of the pipelines and the refineries. And, heaven forbid, they certainly don't want more nuclear power. The opposition varies from group to group and geographic location, but the environmentalists are always there to fight any kind of energy production except for solar and wind. But then some oppose the windmills, too. And solar energy, despite mega billions in government subsidies over the last 30 years, only produces one-seventh of 1 percent of our energy, and adding wind power only brings it up about 1 percent more. If we limit this Nation to wind and solar, we might as well just shut the country down economically. And all these young people with degrees who are working as waiters and waitresses or in other low-paying jobs can thank the environmentalists. I told my wife as we were eating out last Saturday night, the American people used to work in factories and eat out just occasionally. Now, most of the factories have gone to other countries and restaurants have replaced the factories as our biggest employers other than government. Now, a slight majority of our people get most of their income from Federal, State, or local government. When a country passes that threshold, it is on the way down. We need to wake up and realize that the worst polluters in the world have been the socialist and communist countries. And we need to realize that only a free market, free enterprise system can generate the money to do the good things for the environment that everybody wants done. Charles Krauthammer wrote in another column a few months ago that, ``socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck on a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power.'' Once again, Mr. Krauthammer is right. We certainly need to clean up the BP oil spill, but we should not let misguided radicals shut down our economy and hurt many lower- and middle-income people in the process.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding me this time. I don't think I will take that much time. Each workday every Member of Congress receives a publication called Congress Daily. A few months ago, the Congress Daily had a cartoon which showed the President and his Secretary of the Treasury hollering out, ``Loan, loan, loan.'' And then it showed the banks with huge bags full of money, and then local examiners pulling back saying, ``No, no, no.'' And that is the crux of the problem. The banks have plenty of money to loan, but they have got the examiners at the local level saying, ``No, no, no.'' And this is something that both administrations have agreed on, because President Bush and his Secretary of the Treasury started this back before President Obama even came into office, urging the banks to make more loans to small businesses. But they can't do it because the examiners have turned down almost every kind of loan that they wanted to make except to people who didn't need loans. Just the weekend before last I had a banker in east Tennessee tell me that they had turned down a $5.5 million loan. They have plenty of money to loan, but they knew the examiners would turn this down. A few months ago, the chairman of the BB&T banking chain, one of the most respected banks in this country, told a group of us that it was breaking his heart because they had plenty of money to loan, but they were having to destroy people's businesses, turning down loans that at any other time they would have made. So we will never really correct this problem until we get the top banking regulators to get on their examiners on the local level to start giving some businesses some flexibility and start making some loans. Not only do the banks tell me this, they are in a catch-22 position. They can't complain publicly because then the examiners would come down even harder on them. But they are telling me this, and then all the small business people from all types of businesses are telling me they can't get the loans because the examiners are saying, ``No, no, no.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. I come in support of this resolution because of a very meaningful time that I spent as a judge in Tennessee. I spent 7 and a half years as a criminal court judge before coming to Congress, trying the felony criminal cases, the most serious cases. I've never forgotten that the first day I was a judge, Gary Tullock, the chief probation counselor for 16 counties in east Tennessee, told me that 98 percent of the defendants in felony cases came from what he referred to as broken homes. He was not exactly right on that. It was not quite 98 percent, but it was well over 90 percent that came from father-absent households, and that's the key. I went through over 10,000 cases in the time that I was judge because 97 or 98 percent of the people in felony cases in criminal court plead guilty and then apply for probation, and I would get 8- or 10- or 12- page reports into their family and work background and so forth. And every day for 7 and a half years, I would read, Defendant's father left home when defendant was 2 and never returned; defendant's father left home to get a pack of cigarettes and never came back. When you read that thousands of times over several years, it really makes an impression. I know that many wonderful and many outstanding people have come from broken homes and even from father-absent households, but it's an amazing statistic that the gentlewoman from California gave a few minutes ago when she said that one out of every three children in America are living apart from their biological fathers now. We need to get a message across some way, especially to the young men of this country, that marriage is very, very important and that the role of fatherhood is very, very important and that it is harmful to a great many young people when a father leaves and removes himself from the raising of a child. A child is really blessed to have two loving parents, and certainly we all know and appreciate the very, very important role of mothers, but the role of fathers is important as well and not just for young men. I have read in the past that many prostitutes and many women who get in trouble have had abusive or very negative or bad relationships with their fathers. So it's important to young girls as well, but it is especially important to young boys. The root of the crime problem in this country is father-absent households. Drugs and alcohol are involved in most crimes, but they are secondary to the problem of father-absent households. Where fathers have left the lives, we need to encourage mothers to get boys into Boy Scouts or find other good male role models within the family or within the neighborhood, and we need to encourage more men to teach in elementary schools and lead Boy Scout troops and do things like that because, unfortunately, millions of young boys are growing up without a good male role model in their lives. I remember several years ago driving to the airport one Friday afternoon after we had finished our session, and there had been a school shooting out in I think Oregon. They had the national head of the YMCA on the national CBS news, and he said children are being neglected in this country like never before. I hope that's not true, but that is what he said. And it is a growing problem, and this resolution I hope will call attention to the great importance of fathers in the lives of their children, especially as we approach Father's Day.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in today's Washington Post, the very prominent columnist George Will has a column about how the very limited recovery that has gone on in this country over the last few months is a jobless recovery, a term that we are hearing from many, many experts throughout the country. I can tell you that, all over this country, college graduates are having trouble finding jobs, and many are having to work as waiters and waitresses in restaurants or at other very low-paying jobs. In large part, that is because environmental radicals have forced us to send millions of good jobs to other countries for 30 years or more now, and that is the main cause of that problem. But another problem that is going on all over the country is the credit situation. Yesterday, in the Washington Times, there was a lengthy article about the problem that is still going on, that the banks are not making loans to anyone who really needs a loan, and particularly small businesses are hurting. Well, I can tell you exactly why the banks are not making loans to the people who need them. And that is because, while the President and the Secretary of the Treasury--and both President Bush and his administration did this and President Obama and his Secretary of the Treasury have been doing this--they are up here in Washington saying, loan, loan, loan, and the banks have all this money, but the examiners down on the local level are saying, no, no, no, and turning down what would be really good loans even in just recent times. Unless the examiners start giving small businesses at least some flexibility, this economy is not really going to recover. We know, for instance, that there have been almost no jobs created over the last few months in the private sector. And about the only jobs that have been created or the biggest number of jobs that have been created have been jobs in the census, which occurs only once every 10 years. My main purpose in coming here today is to read into the Record a letter that I have received from one of my constituents, Mike Connor, who started with one restaurant in 1992 and now has a chain of 15 restaurants. He wrote this letter to me recently. He said, quote, ``We, the middle-sized business owners, are going to need a lot of help in the next couple of years. As I understand the current health care reform bill, Connor Concepts, as an employer of more than 50 people, will be required to provide health insurance for all full-time employees or face a $3,000 fine per employee. ``We currently employ around 1,200 team members in five States. We do provide health insurance for around 100 full-time salaried management and upper-management staff. Of the remaining 1,100 team members, around 800 are full-time and are not provided with health insurance. ``If we are required to pay for their health insurance or pay the penalty, we would have to pay an additional $2,400,000. If we are forced to pay this, the five States we operate in will have an additional 1,200 unemployed. We would lose a lot of money!'' Mr. Connor continues, ``Together with my team, I have built this company from one restaurant in 1992, providing jobs for 80 people, to 15 restaurants, employing 1,200. Right now we plan to continue opening one restaurant a year, employing 80 to 100 people. If something doesn't change in the next year or 2 with this reform, we will have to stop growth.'' I want to repeat what he said here. This 15-restaurant chain, which is not a giant business, they will have to stop their growth if the health care reform bill goes fully into effect as it is now written. Mr. Connor continues, ``Though our team members are not provided health insurance because of the expense, they are provided with a good pay wage, excellent vacation benefits, meal privileges, and excellent working conditions. More than anything else, though, they are provided a good job, one that allows them to pay their bills, support their families, or pay for their school. ``We do provide an insurance plan team members can pay for themselves. It is an inexpensive plan that has limits on hospital stays but does take care of routine medical care.'' Mr. Connor ends this letter by saying, ``I look forward to working with you in whatever way I can to change this law so that I can stay in business.'' Businesses, Mr. Speaker, all over this country are facing this same situation. And we have got to change this and allow the free- enterprise, free-market system to work in this country once again if we're going to ever have the recovery that our people want. I thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, the University of Tennessee sports family and the city of Knoxville, Tennessee have lost a legend and dear friend. Haywood Harris recently passed away at the age of 80. I have always said that the colors orange and white are almost as patriotic in my District as red, white, and blue. Anyone who bleeds big orange knows the name and work of Haywood Harris. Haywood served as Sports Information Director, Assistant Athletic Director, and Associate Athletic Director for the University of Tennessee from 1961-2000. Following retirement, he took on the role as the athletic department's historian. I have known Haywood since I sold programs, popcorn and Cokes at UT athletic events as a small boy. He is a very close and longtime personal friend. Haywood's life and legacy is shaped not just by his knowledge and love of UT athletics and extraordinary professional success but also by the way he treated others every step of the way. Upon word of his death, tributes from every corner of the sports world poured in. The Knoxville News Sentinel published many of these reflections, and I was taken aback by the tales of his humility, generosity and kindness. He held the esteem of everyone who ever knew him. ``The word legend gets thrown around way too much, but Haywood is a legend,'' said Tony Barnhart of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. ``He is one those special people who made the SEC what it is today.'' ``I am convinced Haywood was one of the best sports information directors in America--ever,'' said Marvin West, former Knoxville News Sentinel sports editor. ``He was gracious, patient and efficient,'' and ``as good as he was as a professional, he was a better man.'' John Pruett of The Huntsville Times wrote about an occasion where, as a young reporter who had lost his press pass on a UT opening day, Haywood came down from the press box to let him into the stadium. ``Not a blockbuster anecdote, maybe. But I never forgot Haywood's courtesy and professionalism that day to an out-of-state sportswriter who was little more than a casual acquaintance at that time,'' he concluded. Brent Hubbs of volquest.com was a UT student when Haywood went out of his way to help him with a project for a television class. ``Haywood's nature was to treat everyone like they were the most important person in the world,'' he said. ``And he did it for a 19-year-old student for a project that was never going to air anywhere but in the classroom for teachers to grade.'' ``He always had a keen interest in what you were doing and what might have been going on in your life. Kind, thoughtful and sharp as a tack when it came to UT sports history,'' writes Rick Russo of WVLT-TV in Knoxville. Even simple encounters with Haywood Harris turned into lasting memories for those who had the pleasure of meeting him. Mark Bradley of the Atlanta Journal Constitution recalls, ``The highlight of my life-- then, and maybe still--was being a guest on Haywood's pregame radio show back in 1981.'' Chris Dortch of the Blue Ribbon Yearbook writes, ``I can say with absolute certainty that Haywood Harris is the kindest, most gracious sports information director I've met, worked with or heard tell of.'' WATE-TV's Jim Wogan said, ``My first year in Knoxville wasn't without a few bumps, and Haywood was always polite, patient and a go-to source for background on Tennessee sports.'' ``Haywood Harris is a person you never forget once you meet him. He was salt of the earth and loved Tennessee down to the bone. Institutions like Haywood are far too few today,'' said Joe Biddle of The Tennessean. Chris Low of ESPN.com, a UT alumnus himself, writes, ``. . . to Haywood, it was never a job. The University of Tennessee was his life, which is why he was so good at what he did.'' And The Knoxville News Sentinel's Mike Strange puts it simply, ``Not just a nice guy. The nicest guy.'' Haywood will not only be missed by his many friends, family, and colleagues but also by his many fans. He co-hosted a radio show, ``The Locker Room,'' with Gus Manning for decades. Gus told The Knoxville News Sentinel, ``I have lost an incredible friend.'' Haywood holds many awards for his work, too many to fully recount here. He was an Inductee in the College Sports Information Directors Hall of Fame, the Knoxville Sports Hall of Fame, Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame, and he received the very prestigious Arch Award in 1991 and UT Chancellor's Citation in 1992. As much as Haywood loved sports, he had other interests as well. One was his great attention to politics and national issues of importance. He was a patriotic American with a great love for his country and native east Tennessee. Even many of Haywood's Democratic friends commented after his death that they respected his deep love and strong loyalty to the Republican Party. Haywood's grandson, Matthew Lehigh, is a former member of my staff. I find that Matt holds many of his grandfather's qualities, and I can think of no better legacy for Haywood than his values and character living on through his three children, four grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. I extend my deepest sympathies to them and his wife Carolyn Jo. Madam Speaker, I call the life of Haywood Harris and the remarkable impact he made on my district to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Haywood's close friend and longtime Voice of the Vols announcer John Ward sums up his life best: ``Haywood didn't ask for credit; didn't want it. He simply did what a really smart person does--help other people.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on the Joe Scarborough Show, Richard Haass, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, said China had been investing in its economy over the last 10 years while we have been investing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Haass proudly described himself as an elitist. Well, it is elitists like him and the organization he heads who helped lead to the rush to an unnecessary war in Iraq, and continues to push military and civilian spending in Iraq and Afghanistan that we simply cannot afford. These people apparently are not happy unless we are spending hundreds of billions in other countries. Mr. Haass seemingly did not feel guilty at all when he said China had invested in its economy while we have blown a couple of trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, it's long past time for us to bring our troops and contractors home and start investing in our own economy. And it is time for us to start putting Americans first and stop spending so much money and sending so many jobs to other countries.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1337 was introduced by the Tennessee delegation last week to express the sympathy and condolences of the House of Representatives to those impacted by the recent flooding in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi. As we all know, earlier this month, Tennessee and Kentucky and Mississippi experienced severe rainfall resulting in unprecedented flooding, and it hit my home State of Tennessee the hardest of all. And while my district, fortunately, was spared from any of this flooding, our official title is United States Representative from whatever State we're from, and I think that the Tennessee delegation has always worked together and joined together to try to represent the whole State even though we do each run in districts. And on May 4, the President issued a major disaster declaration for Tennessee authorizing Federal assistance to supplement the State and local response and recovery efforts. And as our colleague, the gentleman from the 9th District, Mr. Cohen, has just stated, the outpouring of support for the people affected by this flooding has just been tremendous in, as he mentioned, our great Volunteer State of which we are so proud. Unfortunately, as a result of these floods, in these three States dozens of people were killed and hundreds of homes were destroyed. Thousands of people were displaced and forced to take shelter. In Tennessee, the Governor declared 52 of Tennessee's 95 counties as disaster areas, and key landmarks like the Grand Ole Opry House were flooded with several feet of water. In Tennessee, it hit primarily the districts of our colleagues Congressman Cooper and Congresswoman Blackburn and Congressman Gordon. In Kentucky, the Governor declared a state of emergency in 79 of its 120 counties and issued boiled water advisories affecting nearly 83,000 residents. In Mississippi, nearly 250 homes were destroyed or suffered major damage, and the Governor has requested six counties receive a major disaster declaration. But even in this tragic situation, we saw and continue to see many examples of heroism. As we have seen in previous disasters, people in the community, first responders, and volunteers have responded and in a big, big way. The State and local officials, along with organizations like the American Red Cross, continue to provide assistance and aid to those affected by this flooding. And FEMA's assistance has and will help supplement these efforts. I strongly support passage of this resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do the same, and I'm sure they will. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying that almost all Tennesseans have friends and relatives, including me, people who were affected by this flooding. And I want to commend all the people from my district who volunteered and who went to the aid of those people who were touched by this tragedy. And I want to commend the gentleman from Nashville, my friend Mr. Cooper, for bringing this resolution to the floor. Again, I wish to express my sympathy and condolences to all those who were hurt or harmed in some way by this flooding or who have lost family members, and I urge support for this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, Ralph Ross of Knoxville, Tennessee turned 100 years old on May 3, 2010. I cannot think of a finer father, Christian, or community leader. Ralph has had an amazing, blessed life. But despite his personal business success, he remains a humble Christian who devotes his resources, time, and heart to others. Like many of Ralph's generation, he entered into the military during World War II after completing dental school and served admirably as the head of the dental corps at Camp Blanding, Florida. While safeguarding the health of his fellow soldiers during the war, Ralph met the love of his life. Frances was the head of the nurse's corps at Camp Blanding, and that chance encounter would result in a 63- year marriage, two children, and four grandchildren. Ralph served full time from April 1, 1941, to May 9, 1946. Even after the war, he continued his commitment to the United States, serving in the Reserves through the 1960s and retiring a Lieutenant Colonel. Following his military service, Ralph got into the construction business. It takes a lot of hard work, determination, and a bit of luck to get a successful business off the ground. Ralph did it twice. After getting much of the contract work for construction at Oak Ridge, a subcontractor ran off with most of his supplies and pay for the work. He was left with a shovel, a bulldozer, and no money. Never one for self-pity, he started from scratch again by joining his brother in the coal business. And once again, he built a very successful business, selling it in 1982. Ralph is a shining example of how to live a Christian life. Blessed with security on this Earth, he has never stopped giving to those who are not as fortunate. From serving as President of the North Side Kiwanis Club in Knoxville, to his activities with Campus Crusade for Christ, YOLK Youth Ministries, Young Life, and Shriners International, Ralph spends his time helping others, especially youth. He is also a generous benefactor to the University of Tennessee. I graduated from high school with Ralph's son Roger and used to frequently play basketball at his house. I have known Roger Ross almost his entire life. He describes a bulletin board in their home filled with images of his father's generosity. ``You name it, he was in it,'' Roger says. ``Being a Christian was Daddy's life.'' As a member of First Presbyterian Church in Knoxville, and then later Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church, Ralph served as elder and deacon. He is a very outgoing individual and meeting other people is his favorite thing. ``He always told me not to lie, and he never said a harsh word about anybody. And he would always help people,'' Roger says. ``You ask him for help, or came and asked him for money, and he would give it to you.'' Ralph lives by the creed that you always help those in need, even if some folks may try to take advantage of you. ``That's life,'' he always says. ``It doesn't mean you stop helping people.'' Madam Speaker, Ralph Ross, through his faith in God, continues to live an honorable life. I call his devotion to others to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record and wish him a very happy 100th birthday. Roger Ross says of his father, ``He just has people everywhere that love him.'' I think there is no better definition than that of a good life.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington State and the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. I have been to Puerto Rico three times. The people there have treated me in a very kind way, as kind as any place I have ever been, and I think Puerto Rico is a wonderful place. I served with Governor Fortuno, who is the main proponent of this bill, and Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila before him. I have great respect for and, I hope, friendship with both of those men, but I oppose this bill. The Washington Times said in an editorial yesterday that this is a bad bill, written ``to stack the deck in favor of statehood for Puerto Rico'' and that it ``actually tramples self-determination in favor of an underhanded political power grab.'' Those aren't my words. Those are the words of the Washington Times. The Times' editorial went on to read, ``The bill is deliberately designed to unfairly make it harder for Puerto Rico to keep its current status as a territory with special benefits rather than as a State.'' The fairest way to have a vote on this issue would have been to have a simple, straightforward ballot with three choices--statehood, Commonwealth, or independence. However, the proponents of this bill seem to know that the statehood option would not receive over half of the vote in a fair, simple, straightforward ballot. Each time Puerto Rico has voted on this issue, less than half the people have voted for statehood. When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, some 80 or 85 percent of the people in those States voted for and wanted statehood. This is not the case in Puerto Rico. I have serious reservations about making a territory a State with less than half the people who really want that status. In addition, the last time this issue came up, it was estimated that it would have an immediate impact of several billions of dollars on the Federal budget. With the economy the way it is now, statehood for Puerto Rico would be even more expensive today. As one previous speaker pointed out, Puerto Rico could set up a vote on this any time they want, but the statehood proponents want Congress to rig the election in favor of statehood. That is not the right way to do this, Mr. Chairman, so I oppose this bill. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and to defeat the gimmick process that we are dealing with here today.