Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, in this day and age, it is very unusual for a person to work in a company for 40 or 50 years. For someone to work for the same company for 66 years is truly incredible. One of my constituents, Clyde Tidwell, recently retired from the Alcoa Company, where he worked since May 16, 1941. I want to congratulate him on his well-deserved retirement. I also want to salute him for his contributions to our Country and its economy. This Nation is a better place because of Clyde Tidwell, who I believe can accurately be called a great American. I would like to include the following article about Mr. Tidwell that ran in the Knoxville News-Sentinel on May 16, 2007 and call it to the attention of my colleagues and the other readers of the Record. [From the Knoxville News-Sentinel, May 16, 2007] It's Tiger's Turn: After 66 years at Alcoa, Tidwell's Job Is done (By Michael Silence) Clyde ``Tiger'' Tidwell today hangs up the hard hat after working 66 years at Alcoa Tennessee. At 87, and with his son having retired three years ago, Tidwell figures it's time to put away the safety goggles and the earplugs. When he began May 16, 1941, he made 55 cents an hour, and a meal cost 25 cents. Tidwell was 21. He felt fortunate because the week he started, pay increased by 10 cents an hour. ``That was pretty good'' for that time, the Blount County resident said Tuesday. Tidwell is believed to be Alcoa Inc.'s longest active employee. The company is hosting a reception for him today. While he describes himself as timid, Tidwell said he appreciates the gesture and he will have family and friends at the reception. He took a break from work in 1944 to serve as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne in World War II. The overhead crane operator and machinist attributes his longevity to a good job and working with good people. ``I enjoyed the work and the people,'' he said in an interview at Alcoa's North Plant. Pittsburg-based Alcoa Inc.'s Blount County operation, which produces aluminum used for beverage cans, and its primary metals and materials management office in Knoxville employ about 1,850 workers. Tidwell said the biggest change at Alcoa during his years with the company were the safety measures. When he started in 1941, the plant didn't have such things as safety belts and a sprinkler system, which it now does. And, he added, there's one building in the factory now that if a gate is opened the mill shuts down. Tidwell served in the Army several months in 1944. During that time his daughter, Judy Lynn Carter of Knoxville, was born while he was at sea headed to Europe. It was seven months before he learned of her birth. Tidwell said during the 66 years he's worked for Alcoa there have been some ``not too rosy'' events. Two thirds of the people he started work with have died. Tidwell himself has had two heart surgeries, but on Monday, he visited the doctor and got ``a clean bill of health.'' Now that he has some time on this hands, Tidwell said he might get back into some farming. He used to raise tobacco but has no crops now. He never thought of retirement, but Alcoa came along with an attractive incentive plan, so he took it. And he said it's probably time to retire. His son, Clyde Eugene Tidwell, retired from TVA three years ago. As much as their health allows, Tidwell and his wife, Floy, want to do some traveling and spend some time at their boathouse on Fort Loudon Lake. ``We haven't loafed around a lot,'' he said of those years. And he added, ``Life has been good to me.'' Looking back--Other events of 1941, the year Clyde ``Tiger'' Tidwell started working for Alcoa Inc.: Japanese attack Pearl Harbor; Cheerios introduced by General Mills as CheeriOats; Orson Welles' film Citizen Kane premieres; Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak; and Joan Baez and Vice President Dick Cheney were born.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 376, adoption of the rule for the Conf. Rpt. on the FY '08 budget. I would like the Record to reflect that I meant to vote ``nay.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to voice my support for H.R. 1773, the Safe American Roads Act of 2007, which passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by unanimous vote, 100 percent support by both Democrats and Republicans. In order to comply with NAFTA, the Department of Transportation has taken steps to fully open the Mexican border to truck traffic. To start this process, DOT has announced a cross-border demonstration program. The bill we are considering today specifies requirements that DOT must meet when implementing this program. But compliance with NAFTA does not mean we have to or even that we should open the border without any scrutiny of the process. It is a priority for our committee and for this Congress to stay engaged on this issue and ensure that the border opening for trucks is handled properly with the safety of American motorists as our top priority. A major theme of the bill we are considering today is constant review of the program as it is implemented by the Department of Transportation. The bill requires DOT to ensure the trucks crossing into the U.S. not only understand our safety regulations for motor carriers, but that they are fully compliant with them as well. This bill also requires DOT to maintain an active review of the demonstration project. DOT must respond to the Inspector General's periodic reviews and provide comments and suggestions to make the program better. And when we mean better, we mean safer. I want to say that this bill is an excellent example of bipartisanship. Concern over Mexican trucks does not fall on one side of the aisle or the other. Many Republicans and Democrats both feel strongly about this issue. It impacts the entire country. Two bills were recently introduced that address this issue, one by our colleague, Mrs. Boyda from Kansas, and one by Mr. Hunter from California, on which I was an original cosponsor. While Mrs. Boyda's bill is the base bill and we certainly want to commend her, the bill we are considering today has many aspects from Mr. Hunter's bill as well, combined together to create the bill we are voting on today. I believe H.R. 1773 was made stronger by taking the best attributes from both the Boyda bill and the Hunter bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need reciprocity. I said at a hearing on this legislation that we should not approve more Mexican trucking companies than American trucking companies that are approved to go into Mexico. We need reciprocity, and we need fairness for American trucking companies and American workers. Again, though, I will voice my support for this bill, H.R. 1773, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, who has been one of the most active members of our committee on this particular legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I will close on our side. I will simply say that no matter how much we want to have good relations and trade with our friends in Mexico, and we all certainly want that, the first obligation of the U.S. Congress is to the American people. This bill is important for the safety of American roads, it's important to our American trucking companies, our small businesses, and to our truck drivers. It's legislation that all of our colleagues can support, and I urge our colleagues to do so. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking Republican on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a man who has been a leader on this legislation and on many others, Mr. Mica.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, we all respect, admire and appreciate those who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces. Serving in our military is certainly one of the most honorable ways anyone can serve our country. I believe national defense is one of the very few legitimate functions of our national government, and certainly one of the most important. However, we also need to recognize that our military has become the most gigantic bureaucracy in the history of the world. And like any huge bureaucracy, it does many good things; of course, always at huge expense to the taxpayer. And like any huge bureaucracy, our military does many things that are wasteful or inefficient. And like any huge bureaucracy, it tries to gloss over or cover up its mistakes. And like any huge bureaucracy, it always wants to expand its mission and get more and more money. Counting our regular appropriations bills, plus the supplemental appropriations, we will spend more than $750 billion on our military in the next fiscal year. This is more than all the other nations of the world combined spend on their defense. The GAO tells us that we presently have $50 trillion in unfunded future pension liabilities on top of our national debt of almost $9 trillion. If we are going to have any hope of paying our military pensions and Social Security and other promises to our own people, we cannot keep giving so much to the Pentagon. No matter how much we respect our military and no matter how much we want to show our patriotism, we need to realize that there is waste in all huge bureaucracies, even in the Defense Department. There is a reason why we have always believed in civilian leadership of our Defense Department. The admirals and generals will always say things are going great, because it is almost like saying they are doing a bad job if they say things are not doing well and the military people know they can keep getting big increases in funding if they are involved all over the world. However, it is both unconstitutional and unaffordable for us to be the policeman of the world and carry on civilian government functions in and for other countries. National defense is necessary and vital. International defense by the U.S. is unnecessary and harmful in many ways. Now we are engaged in a war in Iraq that is very unpopular with a big majority of the American people. More importantly, every poll of Iraqis themselves shows that 78 to 80 percent of them want us to leave, except in the Kurdish areas. They want our money, but they do not want us occupying Iraq. Surely, we are not adopting a foreign policy that forces us on other people, one that says we are going to run Iraq even if the people there want us to leave. A majority of the Iraqi Parliament has now cosponsored a bill asking us to leave. It is sure not traditional conservatism to carry on a war in a country that did not attack us, did not even threaten to attack us, and was not even capable of attacking us. And it is sure not traditional conservatism to believe in world government even if run by the U.S. Our war in Iraq has greatly damaged the Republican Party and conservatism in general. Even though this war has gone against every traditional conservative view, especially fiscal conservatism, it is seen by most as a conservative war. Even worse than the damage it has done to my party and a philosophy I believe in very deeply is the harm it has done to our relations with other countries, especially other countries in the Middle East. But worst of all, of course, is the fact that so many young Americans have been killed and horribly wounded in a very unnecessary war. President Bush when he ran for office in 2000 campaigned strongly against nation building. Unfortunately, that is what we have been doing in Iraq. The President in 2000 said what we needed was a more humble foreign policy. That is what we needed then, and it is what we need now. William F. Buckley, often called the godfather of conservatism, summed it up best in a column he wrote almost 2 years ago: ``A respect for the power of the United States is engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride. It can't reasonably be disputed that if in the year ahead the situation in Iraq continues about as it has done in the past year, we will have suffered more than another 500 soldiers killed. Where there had been skepticism about our venture, there will be contempt.'' That was William F. Buckley in 2005, and the key point there, he said ``a point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, no country has ever done as much for another country as the United States has done for Iraq. We have spent hundreds of billions rebuilding their infrastructure, providing police protection, building hospitals and clinics, schools, and water and power plants, giving free medical care, hiring hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and on and on. All of this in a country that had a total GDP of only $65 billion the year before the war was started. In spite of all this generosity, a huge majority of Iraqis, 78 to 80 percent by almost every poll, wants us to leave. They want our money, of course, but not our presence, except those who are working for us. But there needs to be some limit to our generosity. We need to start putting our own people first. If we do not, we are soon not going to be able to pay all the Social Security and military pensions, and all the other things we have promised our own people with money that will buy very much. Governments all over the world have gotten in this situation. They then start printing more money, and people do not realize what is going on. All they see is each year their pensions buy less than the year before. Today we have a national debt approaching $9 trillion. Even worse, according to the GAO, we have unfunded future pension liabilities of $50 trillion. We all love and respect our military, but there is waste in any gigantic bureaucracy, and there is huge waste even in the military. A year and a half ago, it was reported by the Defense Department's own inspector general that $35 billion had been misspent in Iraq due to waste, fraud and abuse, and another $9 billion had simply been lost and could not be accounted for at all. Not only has the U.S. done more for Iraq, we do more for every other country, by far, than does any other Nation. Almost every Federal department and agency has operations around the world. Liberals will tell you that our foreign aid is only a little over 1 percent of our budget. This is very misleading. We are spending megabillions in other countries when you add up not only the Defense Department but all the other departments' spending, too. We all love and appreciate our country, but all of this spending is not helping. There is more resentment than ever toward the U.S. because of our interventionist foreign policies. President Bush campaigned in 2000, saying that we needed a more humble foreign policy, and that we should not be doing nation-building. Interventionist foreign policies and nation-building are not only causing resentment toward us, but we simply cannot afford them if we are going to pay our Social Security and other promises a few years from now. You can still love this country and be a very patriotic American and oppose interventionist foreign policies. We cannot afford perpetual war just because defense contractors and people at the top levels of the Pentagon always want more and more money. All of this is stated more articulately by two conservative writers, Jacob Hornberger, president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, and Richard Ebeling of the Foundation for Economic Education. Mr. Hornberger wrote: ``If Americans come to realize that the Federal Government's philosophy on foreign aid, foreign intervention and empire lies at the heart of foreign anger, resentment, and hatred for America, then they will see that another option is available to them: End the motivation for terrorism by putting an end to the U.S. Government's role as international welfare provider, intervenor, and meddler. ``The interventionist and imperial vision will inevitably lead to more terrorism against Americans, less freedom for the American people, and more power for the Federal Government. It is a vision that will inevitably lead us away from the principles on which our Nation was founded.'' He continued, ``The contrary vision, a vision based on liberty, free markets and limited government, is the key to peace, prosperity and harmony for the American people. That vision entails ending the U.S. Government's interventionist and imperial role in the world and limiting it to protecting our Nation from attack or invasion.'' Mr. Ebeling wrote: ``Two wrongs do not make a right. That America does things abroad it should not is not an excuse or rationale for what happened on September 11. But the United States will continue to create desperate and fanatical men who will view it as the enemy for as long as it interferes into the affairs of other people in other nations. That means there is no end to this 'war on terrorism' as long as the United States follows the foreign policy'' of recent years. ``Ending U.S. foreign political and military interventionism is the only way to reduce the creation of enemies of America in other lands.'' He continues, ``Ending the policy of foreign internventionism is also crucial to protecting our freedoms at home. ``Who will guard us from the guardians is the perennial dilemma. When the crisis has passed there will be new government agencies and bureaus with new government employees who will look around for new justifications and rationales to keep their jobs and expand their budgets. They will have powers to intrude into our lives that they will want to use in ways not originally intended. And even more of our freedoms will then be at risk.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentlelady from New York for her support for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and honor of representing Knoxville and the surrounding area, which is the home of the main campus of the University of Tennessee and the home of the great basketball team, the Tennessee Lady Vols. I have sometimes said, Mr. Speaker, that the colors orange and white are almost as patriot or more patriotic in my district than red, white and blue. And I also have said that oftentimes it appears that the biggest thing in my district is Tennessee football and Tennessee women's basketball, although Tennessee men's basketball is coming back under the leadership of our great new coach, Coach Bruce Pearl. But we are especially proud of our Lady Vols basketball coach, Ms. Pat Head Summitt. Under Coach Summitt, Tennessee women's basketball sometimes frequently had crowds of two and three times the number of fans that the men's basketball team would draw, sometimes drawing crowds as large as 24,000, 25,000 people. Pat Summitt is the NCAA's winningest coach, man or woman, in Division I, and has posted an overall record of 947 wins against only 180 losses, a phenomenal winning percentage of 84 percent. Her 2007 NCAA title was the seventh in her 33-year career at Tennessee. She also captured NCAA titles or led the Lady Vols to NCAA championship titles in 1987, 1989, 1991, 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as this year. She trails only UCLA's legendary John Wooden for the most lifetime NCAA titles. Coach Wooden captured 10 during his tenure. She was named SEC Coach of the Year in 1993, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007. She was the NCAA women's Coach of the Year an unbelievable number of times, in 1983, 1987, 1989, 1994, 1995, 1998 and 2004. She was named the Naismith Coach of the Century in the year 2000. I want to congratulate Pat Head Summitt and her assistant head coach Holly Warlick who has been with her through most of those years, and also assistants Nikki Caldwell and Dean Lockwood. The 2007 Lady Vols compiled a 27-2 regular season record, a 14-0 SEC record, a 34-3 allover record including the SEC and NCAA tournaments. On April 3, 2007, before a crowd of over 20,000 fans, the Lady Vols beat the Scarlet Knights of Rutgers by a score of 59-46. Mr. Speaker, all of the players on the Lady Vols have grade point averages over 3.0. Coach Summitt, in her 33 years of coaching, has had an astounding record of a 100 percent graduation rate. And she won't even let her young women take easy courses. It is an amazing record that no other coach in the country can match. I want to commend Candace Parker, the most outstanding player of the 2007 NCAA tournament, and the starting lineup of Shannon Bobbitt, Nicky Anosike, Sidney Spencer, Alexis Hornbuckle; Sidney Spencer, the only senior on the team; and certainly the key bench players like Dominique Redding, Alberta Auguste, Alex Fuller, and Cait McMahan from my own district in Maryville, Tennessee. I want to also thank all of the members of the Tennessee delegation for cosponsoring this resolution with me, as well as 22 other bipartisan cosponsors from across this country, from California to West Virginia and South Carolina to Pennsylvania. I appreciate the nationwide support this resolution has.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me this time, and I thank the majority side for agreeing to this unanimous consent request. I simply wanted to rise to say this. During my 6 years as chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I do not believe we had a better member or more active member than the gentleman from Oregon, and I certainly have the greatest admiration and respect for him and his concern about this legislation. I simply wanted to rise to say this. I don't believe this Congress could pass a stronger environmental bill than this legislation that is before us at this time; Chairman Oberstar has continually made sure of that. And when we started with this bill several years ago, some people wanted no Corps reform at all; some people wanted so much Corps reform that really they were trying to stop every project that was included in this bill. Mr. Costello, who was my ranking member at that time, we compromised, we worked out things. I want to commend the staff for their work in this regard, and we put in many environmental concerns the first time around. Then we put in even more the second time around when we passed this bill. We are now here again. We have given reform on peer review now so that all the major projects, all the projects over $50 million are subject to peer review. We have put in environmental reform and Corps reform in regard to mitigation issues. We have put in Corps reform in regard to project planning so that all the concerns of all the environmental groups who want to be involved in this process will be included. I just want to point that out, how environmentally strong this legislation is thanks to not only our efforts on this side and the staff and Mr. Baker, but also Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Costello, Chairwoman Johnson with a lot of contribution from the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) himself.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, Chairwoman Johnson, with whom I spent so many hours. She was my ranking member during the entire 6 years that I had the privilege of chairing the Water Resources and Environment, or during part of the time that I chaired the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and such a good friend, and Ranking Member Baker, for bringing this bill to the floor today and for their good and hard work on this legislation. And I urge its support. This is a very conservative bill, Mr. Chairman. It is a bill that passed this House with only eight dissenting votes a few years ago and then later only 14 dissenting votes. The bill passed with over 400 votes in favor of it each time in the House. We did our work, but then it got held up in the other body. Some people say that these projects should be paid for entirely on a local basis. But I can tell you there is a very important Federal role in regard to our water resources because people in California or New York or Michigan use the water in Tennessee. And people expect us to have a good wastewater and clean water system in this country. And yet it is something that people take for granted probably more than anything else that I can think of. And we have got to improve and strengthen our water resource system in this country. Over the last few years, we have spent many billions on the water system, our wastewater and clean water systems in Iraq. But we have fallen down at the Federal level on what we are doing on our wastewater and clean water systems in this country. And most of the spending has been done by the State and local governments and particularly by the ratepayers. And so this is a very necessary, very overdue bill, as many have pointed out. And I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I thank, first of all, the gentlelady from Florida, the new ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for yielding me this time and for her kind words and her strong support of this legislation. I also commend Chairman Lantos for bringing this resolution to the floor. But I especially want to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for his work in bringing this matter to the floor today and also calling attention to what is a very, very serious problem. I had the privilege of chairing the Aviation Subcommittee for 6 years, and that subcommittee seemed to generate a lot of attention and publicity. Then I chaired for 6 years the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and unfortunately I think people did not pay as much attention to that subcommittee; and I thought it was just as important, perhaps more important, than the Aviation Subcommittee. And yet I said many times there probably is nothing that the people in this country take for granted as much as they do our clean water and wastewater infrastructure in this Nation. Madam Speaker, much work needs to be done in this country in regard to our water to keep it to the standards that the people of this country want. And so the day after tomorrow we will hopefully pass a long overdue bill, the Water Resources Development Act, a bill that we passed two or three times here in the House, that has been held up in the Senate, but that is very, very important for our water infrastructure in this Nation. You have heard some of the statistics already. My statistics vary just a little bit. I was given the information that 1.2 billion don't have access to clean water; Chairman Lantos said a lower figure, I think Mr. Blumenauer said a higher figure, but it is an astounding number of people, whatever the exact number is, that don't have access to a good, clean water source. Water-related diseases, as Chairman Lantos said, kill over 5 million people each year. Six million are blind today because of trachoma, an eye infection spread through poor hygiene caused by dirty water and unsanitary conditions. I could give all kinds of statistics. As the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) said, I was proud that in my hometown of Knoxville recently, the city council, at the urging of our great Mayor Bill Haslam, passed a proclamation in support of World Water Day. This was done without my knowledge, and so I am pleased that other people are helping to call attention to what is one of the most serious problems that this world faces today. And so I think that it is very appropriate that the Congress take up a resolution at this time, and I think that this will help lead to progress in this area, much, much needed progress; and I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my regret for missing several recorded votes during consideration of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2008. Unfortunately, I was called out of Washington to deliver the eulogy for a close friend of mine and my father's, Ed Bailey. Ed served the House of Representatives for 16 years as an aide to my late father, and I am honored to be making these remarks. This duty required that I leave for Knoxville prior to the final votes of Thursday, March 29, 2007. I would like the Record to reflect that had I been in Washington, I would have supported the Republican Budget Substitute and opposed the underlying text of H. Con. Res. 99. The reason for these votes is simple. I am fiscally conservative. The Democrat budget provides for tax hikes on Americans and America's businesses in order to pay for more Government spending. Also, this budget ignores the problems with our entitlement spending and defers these burdens to later generations. I support the Republican budget because it continues to give American workers real tax benefits. It curbs out of control and inefficient discretionary spending. The Ryan substitute also tackles the massive problem of entitlement spending and seeks to reform the Medicare and Medicaid systems. These reforms are absolutely necessary to ensure that these valuable programs are around for our children and their children.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chairman for revitalizing this important technical corrections bill and voice my support for H.R. 1195. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. There were many minor errors--in policy and in Members projects--in SAFETEA-LU that need technical correction. Most people may not remember, but the House and Senate actually passed a SAFETEA-LU technical corrections bill that was signed into law in October 2005. That bill was taken up with extreme urgency because it prevented the accidental shutdown of boat safety programs. In the time that has passed since the October 2005 SAFETEA-LU technical corrections bill was signed into law, we have heard from DOT and various states regarding fixes to different programs and high priority projects. I believe H.R. 1195 addresses most of the areas which need correction. It is important to note that this bill does not make substantial policy changes to SAFETEA-LU. Rather, this bill corrects provisions that were not ``workable'' in SAFETEA-LU. After we pass this bill, SAFETEA-LU will finally be able to accomplish what Congress voted to do 2 years ago. H.R. 1195 addresses all of the true technical corrections except one. This bill does not include a correction to an error in the motor carrier title of SAFETEA-LU. In SAFETEA-LU, we attempted to harmonize the definition of ``commercial motor vehicle'' with ``motor vehicle''. Unintentionally, this change removed trucks weighing 10,000 lbs or less from the truck exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act and from DOT's safety oversight. I am very concerned with this change in policy that was never negotiated for or discussed during the bill's original conference. Now, small trucking business, who will have to change their business plan in order to comply with the law, are going to suffer the most. These are the small businesses who have high overhead and small profits, but are providing necessary services and products to urban areas and rural towns across the country. This change is going to create great hardships on the small companies who are already in the business and most likely will inhibit others from entering the business. It is disappointing this Congress has not addressed this problem, but I hope we can do so before final passage of this bill. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for revitalizing this technical correction bill and I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairwoman, I rise at this time to request unanimous consent to place a statement in the Record in regard to H.R. 1362.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and I thank all who have worked to bring this legislation to the floor today. I wish the bill went much further, but there are so many former Federal employees working for Federal contractors now, and so many present Federal employees who want to some day hitch on to this lucrative Federal gravy train, that the pressures against reform are tremendous. Unfortunately, almost every Federal contract is a sweetheart or insider or friendship type deal. Almost all Federal contracts have at least one or usually several former Federal employees working for them. Defense contractors are the prime examples. The International Herald Tribune had an article a year and a half ago describing what it called the revolving door at the Pentagon. It said the top 20 defense contractors had hired over 300 retired admirals and generals during the 90s. But this type of thing is rampant throughout the Federal Government. Now I am not against the Federal Government contracting out many functions. Usually, or often, the Federal bureaucracy is so wasteful and inefficient that Federal contractors can do things better or cheaper, even while making huge profits. But some of the markups on contracts in Iraq have been mind boggling. I believe fiscal conservatives should be the ones most upset about some of the ripoff deals in Iraq. Be that as it may, this bill helps highlight what has become a serious abuse of power, and abuse of the taxpayer, and this is a good start toward correcting this problem.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Halliburton has decided to move its headquarters to Dubai. This is a company that has received over $25 billion worth of contracts in Iraq, and this is the kind of thanks the U.S. taxpayers get. In fact, this is a real slap in the face of the U.S. taxpayers. The ABC National News reported Sunday night that Halliburton has been charged by government inspectors of overcharging our government and overcharging our taxpayers to the tune of $2.7 billion. No company that commits those types of overcharges should ever get a Federal contract again. In fact, in my opinion, the U.S. Government should not give a contract to any company that cannot certify that over half of its employees are U.S. citizens.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time and for his work on this legislation and his kind comments from a few minutes ago, and I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut who is managing the bill today. Especially I want to thank Chairman Waxman because this bill, while it has been mentioned that we passed this once before in an earlier Congress, it would not be on the floor today if it were not for the support of Chairman Waxman, and I do appreciate that very much. As has already been mentioned, I introduced this bill several years ago, and in fact it was the 106th Congress when I first introduced this because I learned that some foreign governments from the Middle East were making very large contributions to the proposed library for President Clinton, and I was concerned that could lead to undue influence on the part of not only foreign governments but perhaps others. Many months later after I introduced this bill, I learned that Marc Rich's ex-wife, and one of his closest friends, had made very large contributions to the Clinton library, and then President Clinton, on his last day in office, granted a pardon to Mr. Rich who had fled the country after evading $40 million in income taxes. I can tell you this, in my mind, is not a partisan bill. I introduced this under a Democratic President. I reintroduced it in the 107th Congress under a Republican President. As has been noted by the gentleman from Ohio, this bill passed the House by a vote of 392-3. There was not enough interest in the Senate at that time, and so we are back here today to try to pass this bill this time to bring as, has already been said, some openness, some transparency, to shed some light on these contributions and on what would be a real potential for abuse under either a Democratic or Republican President in the future. As Chairman Waxman and others have said, the price tag on these Presidential libraries has escalated just in a few years' time from $80 million to $500 million projected for this President's library, and no telling where those libraries might go in the future in regard to costs. This bill does not prohibit any contributions. It allows even very, very large contributions. All it does is require reporting, quarterly reporting. My original bill has been made stronger by the suggestions, by the actions by Chairman Waxman, and I support this bill. I think it is a good government bill, and I think it is one that all of our colleagues can be proud in supporting. It will certainly help to prevent some real serious potentials for abuse in the years ahead if we pass this legislation. So I appreciate the support of everyone who has spoken here today, and I urge the support of all of my colleagues.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I certainly want to first thank Dr. Boustany for yielding me this time and for his hard work on this legislation. As he mentioned, I had the privilege of chairing the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee for 6 years, for the past 6 years, and he served as my vice chairman during part of that time. I appreciate his work. I also want to salute my really good friend, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, whom I admire and respect so much, and who was my ranking member of that subcommittee and now serves as the full chairman. I want to also commend Congressman Bill Pascrell, the gentleman from New Jersey, who has been interested in this issue for several years, as has my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Camp, and who are the primary sponsors of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I have said many times that there is nothing that the people of this country take for granted as much as they do our clean water and waste water systems in this country that are so very important, first of all, to our environment, our public health, but also to our economy. We have environmental extremists in this country who don't want us to cut any trees, dig for any coal, drill for any oil or produce any natural gas, and they basically want to shut our whole economy down. I don't go along with their agenda, but I can tell you that this bill is one of the most important bills that we could do for the environment. Those who really care about the environment should be over here in strong support of this bill. The water infrastructure network has done some real yeoman's work in regard to the needs of this country, in this regard, for the last few years, and they have estimated that we have needs over the next 20 years or so of over $400 billion in our clean water and waste water systems in this country. This bill and the other two bills we will take up later this week certainly are very important, and they are good starts in alleviating some of this problem. It has been said that we have spent more from a Federal level on the water system in Iraq over the last 4 years than we have spent from the Federal level on the water systems in this country. Certainly more money has been spent in this country on our water systems, but that has been done by the ratepayers and the local and State governments. There is an important Federal role in this regard because people in California drink the water in Tennessee and vice versa. We have a mobile society, and there is an important role for this Congress to play and for our Federal Government to play in this regard. I think this bill is a good start in the right direction, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. There are going to be, I think, two or three amendments offered from our side to make the bill a little more fiscally conservative, and, certainly, I have no objection to that. But we need to pass this legislation, because, as Mr. Camp said, there is a lot of this water infrastructure in our country, both waste water and clean water, that dates back to the 19th century. We need a lot of work if we are going to have the water systems and the kind of country that our people want us to have.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today the Federal Government owns over 30 percent of the land in this country. State and local governments and quasi-governmental agencies are controlling the other 20 percent. Half the land, 50 percent, is in some type of government or public ownership or control. We could probably live with this, but the problem is that government at all levels keeps taking over more and more property at a faster rate than ever before. People don't get upset unless or until their property gets taken. And it sounds great for a politician to create a park, but now we have so many parks, recreation areas, nature preserves, national forests, and on and on that we can't take care of all of them. We are constantly being told we have a mega-billion-dollar maintenance backlog for the national parks and all these other public areas; yet we keep taking over more land. You really can never satisfy government's appetite for money or land. We just do not teach our young people how important private property is to both our freedom and our prosperity. We see this most clearly in the fact that counties that have high percentages of public land are almost always poverty areas or at least counties with incomes far below the national average. Also, because we keep taking so much land off the tax rolls, we keep shrinking our tax base at the same time that all of the schools and government agencies tell us they need more money. Now almost every State has gone to lotteries, casinos, or some type of gambling in a desperate attempt to get more revenue because property taxes just don't raise enough money since so much land has been taken off the tax rolls. Because of this, I believe gambling addiction is going to become a real problem in this country in the years ahead. Another part of this problem is that government at all levels keeps putting more and more restrictions on the land that remains in private hands. The Washington Post had a headline a few months ago that said: ``Judge Saves Land From Development.'' It might also have said: ``Judge Preserves Land for Wealthy'' or ``Judge Keeps Young People From Buying Homes.'' Preventing more land from development is driving up the cost of homeownership and putting it out of reach for many young families. It is also forcing more people into apartments or townhouses or homes on postage-stamp-size lots, leading to new problems from congestion. The Washington Times pointed out that more than five times as much land, more than five times as much land, has been set aside as national parks, wilderness areas, Federal forests, and Federal grazing areas than has ever been developed. Today, you could put every family of four in the State of Texas and give them 3 acres of lands each and leave the whole rest of the country empty. Over three-fourths of the population lives on 3\1/2\ percent of the land. USA Today reported last November 30 that the U.S. now has 37 million acres of private land under some type of protective trust or restrictive easement, a 54 percent increase just since 2000. Also, conservation of private land from 2000 to 2005 averaged 2.6 million acres a year, which USA Today said was almost half the size of New Jersey, each year. This is information from the Land Trust Alliance, which represents 1,200 of the 1,667 local, State, and national land trusts. Another group, the Nature Conservancy, manages 1,400 areas in the U.S. and now has assets of $4.14 billion. Some people will recall The Washington Post series about the sweetheart deals the Nature Conservancy was doing for its wealthy contributors and board members. The Nature Conservancy had income of $1.8 billion in 2004 and 2005 and has set aside 15 million acres. According to its tax returns, the Nature Conservancy in fiscal year 2005 received over $97 million in government grants, over $14 million in government fees and contracts, and over $165 million from sales of land almost all to government. All this is always reported in the news as the greatest thing since sliced bread; but unless these activities are slowed, which is very doubtful, young people will find it extremely difficult to find places to start small businesses or build new homes. Also, there will be less money for people to travel to and enjoy all the parks, preserves, national forests, and recreation areas we already have. Mr. Speaker, if we keep taking more and more property off the tax rolls, we are going to really cut back on government services. Much worse, if we keep destroying private property and restricting development, we are going to slowly do away with the dream of homeownership and we are eventually going to bring about a lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren.