Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the author of the bill.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to call up H.R. 3185 for consideration. This legislation introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) designates the postal facility at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the Hugh Gregg Post Office Building. Hugh Gregg, a giant in New Hampshire politics for several decades, was elected Governor of the Granite State in 1953 at the age of 34. As a result, he was forevermore nicknamed the ``Boy Governor.'' One of his most notable achievements was his work in organizing the first-in-the- Nation Presidential primary in New Hampshire. What began as little more than a beauty contest for candidates in 1952, his tireless work is a big reason the New Hampshire primary has evolved into such a critical date for modern Presidential candidates. It is also important to note that Governor Gregg's son, Judd, went on to be elected Governor of New Hampshire in 1989, and he now serves as the State's senior United States Senator. Mr. Speaker, America mourned on September 24th of this year, when Hugh Gregg passed away at age 85. He is survived by his wife, Catherine Warner Gregg, two sons, five grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for his work on H.R. 3185, and I strongly support its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3185) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the ``Hugh Gregg Post Office Building''.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3185.

Mr. DUNCAN

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

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1590, a bill sponsored by Senator Schumer of New York, names a postal facility in Brooklyn, New York, as the James E. Davis Post Office Building. My distinguished colleague on the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), authored the House version of this postal naming bill, H.R. 3012. I commend both the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and Senator Schumer for their work on this meaningful effort. Mr. Speaker, James E. Davis was a devoted public official who lived and worked in Brooklyn all of his life. The son of a corrections officer himself, Davis became an officer in the New York Police Department in 1983. After nearly 2 decades on the police force, he was elected to the New York City Council in November of 2001. In that capacity Davis was able to utilize his dynamic public speaking ability. He truly had a gift for connecting with audiences and delivering messages that advocated non-violence. Mr. Speaker, defeating crime and eliminating violence in inner-city New York were lifelong missions for James E. Davis both as a law enforcement and elected official. This reality made July 23, 2003, an even more ironically tragic day for New Yorkers as well as all Americans. On that afternoon, James Davis had invited a political rival to City Hall to attend a council meeting. Just after 2 o'clock, Councilman Davis' guest brandished a handgun and inexplicably shot Davis twice in the chest. Mr. Davis sadly passed away at a nearby hospital later that afternoon. Mr. Speaker, many of us saw the story of James E. Davis' tragic murder in New York City Hall on national newscasts last summer. I want to join with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and Senator Schumer in extending the sympathy of all Members of Congress to the family, friends, and supporters of James E. Davis. I am pleased that passage of this legislation will immortalize James E. Davis' contributions to his community and to the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of S. 1590. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1590) to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 315 Empire Boulevard in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York, as the ``James E. Davis Post Office Building''.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3300, the bill under consideration.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballance) for introducing this very appropriate bill, and I urge all of our colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3353. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, this coming Monday, Lt. Colonel Allan West is scheduled to face an article 32 hearing to see if he should be court martialed. Colonel West is accused of threatening an Iraqi prisoner. According to news reports, Colonel West shot his handgun into a firing barrel and also fired it near this prisoner. He did not harm the prisoner in any way, but he apparently scared him into giving information that foiled an attack on American soldiers. If these news reports are accurate, Colonel West saved many American lives. This is a man who has served honorably for almost 20 years in the United States Army. He should not be court martialed. He should be given a medal for saving American lives.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, liberals who gave us Big Government should love the DynCorp contract to train police in Iraq. Almost all Federal contracts are sweetheart deals that hire former high-level Federal employees or retired military officers, but this police training contract just about takes the cake. NBC News reported the night before last that we have already spent $30 million on this deal and will in short order be spending $800 million more. We will be spending, according to NBC, $400,000 per trainer, counting salaries, benefits and expenses. No policeman in this country makes anywhere near this much. DynCorp was so embarrassed they refused to comment because they knew there was no way they could justify the obscene profits and ripoff of the U.S. taxpayers in this sweetheart deal, $850 million, $400,000 per trainer. DynCorp should be ashamed, but I suppose they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute and congratulate Jessie Roberson, Department of Energy's (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, and Gerald Boyd, DOE's Oak Ridge Operations Manager, his team and their many partners, for recently winning the prestigious Phoenix Award from the Environmental Protection Agency--for their outstanding local reindustrialization program and for excellence in brownfield redevelopment. This Phoenix Award, which is comparable to winning a Hollywood Oscar in the brownfield development world, was recently presented at the International Brownfields 2003 Conference in Portland, Oregon. The Department of Energy's office in Oak Ridge, along with the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee and the Bechtel Jacobs reindustrialization team, has worked on remediating and redeveloping the former K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Oak Ridge, now called the East Tennessee Technology Park, into a thriving new economic development model celebrated by brownfield redevelopers around the world. Sixty years ago, the K-25 facility was constructed to help America win a war. From 1943 through most of the Cold War, this facility served as an example to the world of our Nation's technological capabilities. This technology played an essential role in our Nation's security. I believe it is a great testament to the men and women who made this work possible that today, the East Tennessee Technology Park is once again an example of American ingenuity. From preserving our Nation's freedoms to helping restore our Nation's environment, those working at the East Tennessee Technology Park are recognized as leaders. They have taken dirty, abandoned government facilities and cleaned them up and turned them into available commercial properties to help create new jobs in our region. To date, more than 1,200 jobs have been created, with over $40 million in new annual payroll. As chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am proud that EPA's region 4 office has recognized this outstanding example right in the heart of the Tennessee Valley Science and Technology Corridor of how we can work to transform abandoned industrial properties into productive new economic development projects that help create new jobs and new opportunities for more Americans. I ask the entire House to join me in thanking and congratulating DOE and their partners for their innovation and this outstanding achievement.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in last Friday's New York Times, columnist Thomas Friedman quoted some advice Richard Brodhead, the dean of Yale College, recently gave to incoming freshmen: `` Above all,'' Dean Brodhead told the students, ``do not limit your associations to people who agree with you.'' Yet as David Brooks pointed out in the September issue of the Atlantic Monthly magazine, the place where there is the least diversity today is on college faculties. Conservatives simply are not welcome, except for a few tokens in some places. As Mr. Brooks wrote, ``No group of people sings the diversity anthem more frequently than administrators at our elite universities, but elite universities are amazingly undiverse in their values, politics, and mores. Professors, in particular, are drawn from a narrow segment of the population.'' Mr. Brooks pointed out that conservative students and professors may be one of the groups most discriminated in this country today. Mr. Speaker, I hope our elite universities will strive for true diversity and academic freedom and allow at least a few conservatives to teach in their classrooms and speak on their campuses.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, many Americans today may not be familiar with Will Rogers. However, Will Rogers was at one time considered by many to be the most popular man in America. He once said, ``America has a great habit of always talking about protecting American interests in some foreign country.'' Then he said, ``Protect them here at home. There is more American interest right here than anywhere.'' The passage of an additional $87 billion for an operation in Iraq seems to many to be anything but fiscally conservative. The request includes, among many other things, $5.7 billion for a new electric power system; $3.7 billion to improve drinking water; $856 million to upgrade and repair three airports, rail lines, and phone service; $240,000 each for 1,500 police trainers to train Iraqi police; $1.71 per gallon for gas that they are then selling to Iraqi citizens for $4.15 per gallon, according to The New York Times. Earlier billions have been used to build or rebuild thousands of Iraqi schools, give free health care to many Iraqi citizens, make backpayments to the Iraqi military and Iraqi retirees, and even send 60,000 soccer balls there. Our Founding Fathers could not have imagined all this in their wildest dreams. A distinguished Member of the other body, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, said, ``Look at the needs we have here at home, with our roads, sewers, and water projects. It is hard to tell people there isn't money for sewers and water and then send that kind of money to Iraq.'' Another distinguished Member of the other body, Mr. Hagel, the gentleman from Nebraska, said, ``There is a great unease about all this reflected across this land. We are getting deeper and deeper into something we have never been in before in this part of the world. This is complicated, dangerous and uncertain.'' Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, have never believed in massive foreign aid, yet our occupation of Iraq has become the largest foreign aid program in the history of the world. Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, have never believed in huge deficit spending, yet we are now told that our deficits for just this year and next will reach close to an astounding $1 trillion. Supporters of the war scoffed at the predictions that we would spend between $200 billion to $300 billion in Iraq over the next 10 years. Now, by the most conservative efforts, not counting many things that should be counted, the Iraqi operation will cost $167 billion in just the first 2 years. And because we are in such a deep fiscal hole already, we will have to borrow all these billions we are spending there. Conservatives have never believed in world government, and have been strong critics of the U.N. Yet, some prominent war supporters, while criticizing the U.N. in one breath, will say in the next we had to go to war to enforce all the U.N. resolutions Saddam Hussein had violated. Most conservatives surely do not believe it is fair to place almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on American taxpayers and the U.S. military. Most conservatives, while believing strongly in national defense, have never believed the U.S. should be the policeman of the world. Most conservatives believe we would not have nearly as many enemies around the world if we followed a noninterventionist foreign policy and did not get involved in so many religious, ethnic, and political disputes around the world. Now, we are following a so-called neoconservative foreign policy that is anything but conservative. This interventionist policy is breeding resentment, creating more enemies, and putting our children and grandchildren into a financial black hole, and worst of all killing many young American military. Fortune magazine in its November 25 issue, long before the war started, printed an article entitled, ``Iraq--We Win, What Then?'' The article said a ``military victory could turn into a strategic defeat,'' and an American occupation could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists. These predictions have turned out to be deadly accurate. The columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote, ``Critics of the war against Iraq have said since the beginning of the conflict that Americans, still strangely complacent about overseas wars being waged by a minority in their name, will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the globe.'' Saddam Hussein was an evil man but he had a military budget only about two-tenths of 1 percent of ours and was never any real threat to us. Everyone knew we would win the war quickly and easily. Winning the peace, everyone said, would be much more difficult. Now, we are hearing noble-sounding cliches like ``we have to get the job done'' and ``we must stay the course'' and ``the American people must be willing to sacrifice.'' Well, we should all be asking why? Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Iraqi people do not want us running their country, they only want our money. Any country would want all these billions. Now war supporters seem to be criticizing the media for reporting all the killing but failing to emphasize all the good that is going on there. For all of the billions we are spending there, I certainly hope some good things are going on, but these good things should be paid for by the Iraqi citizens with their own oil wealth. Let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis. A very small minority of very powerful Neo-Cons have apparently dreamed of war with Iraq for many years. They got their wish. But what they may have thought would be their crowning achievement may instead lead to their downfall. So many people in the United States and around the world feel that they were misled about the need to go to war in Iraq that they almost certainly will be much harder to convince the next time around. No matter who is President, almost all the leaders of the Defense Department, the State Department, the National Security Council, and our intelligence agencies are going to advocate more and more involvement in foreign affairs, even those which should be none of our business or even when there is no threat to our vital interests. This is because all their power and glory, and most importantly, their funding are determined in large part by our involvement in the affairs of other nations. These people are not seen as men and women of action and world statesmen when they urge that we do more and more in other countries. I wish more of our leaders would heed the advice of President Kennedy who said in 1962: ``We must face that fact that the United states is neither omnipotent nor omnisicient--that we are only six percent [now four percent] of the world's population--that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind--that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity--and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.'' There is nothing conservative about the U.S. policy in Iraq.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on two very different and unrelated topics, Mr. Speaker, but both are certainly of national importance. First, almost every college and university in this country receives very large amounts of Federal money through grants, appropriations, or student loan money. Yet, there is in some ways a one-sided brainwashing of students on many campuses today because of the lack of true diversity in college and university faculties. There is also a lack of true academic freedom because conservative students generally feel they cannot express their true views on papers or in person without being penalized on their grades. Possibly the group most discriminated against today is conservatives who wish to teach on college campuses. They simply are not welcome, to put it lightly, especially at left-wing colleges like Berkeley, Oberlin, Antioch, and many, many others. I wish our colleges and universities would make true diversity a major goal and hire a few token conservatives at least. I wish so many college and university faculties were not so intolerant toward conservatives. I wish the speakers who are invited to speak at graduation ceremonies or major college speaking programs were not 100 to one or more liberal to left-wing. What has spurred these comments, Mr. Speaker, is an article in the September Atlantic Monthly magazine, certainly not recognized as any conservative-type publication, but this article said, ``It is striking that the institutions that talk the most about diversity often practice it the least. ``For example, no group of people sings the diversity anthem more frequently and fervently than administrators at our elite universities. But elite universities are amazingly undiverse in their values, politics and mores. Professors, in particular, are drawn from a rather narrow segment of the population. ``A recent study found that roughly 90 percent of those professors in the arts and sciences who had registered with the political party had registered Democratic. Fifty-seven professors at Brown were found on the voter registration rolls. Of those 5,4 were Democrats. Of the 42 professors in the English history, sociology and political science departments all were Democrats. ``The results at Harvard, Penn State, Maryland, and the University of California at Santa Barbara, other universities that were in the study were similar to the results at Brown.'' This article continues, ``What we are looking at here is human nature. People want to be around others who are roughly like themselves. That is called community. It probably would be psychologically difficult for most Brown professors to share an office with someone who was pro-life, a member of the National Rifle Association, or an evangelical Christian. ``It is likely that hiring committees would subtly, even unconsciously, screen out any such people they encountered. Republicans and evangelical Christians have sensed that they are not welcome at places like Brown or other elite universities so they do not even consider working there. In fact, any registered Republican who contemplates a career in academia these days is both a hero and a fool. ``So, in a semi-self-selective pattern brainy people with generally liberal social mores flow to academia and brainy people with generally conservative mores flow elsewhere. ``The dream of diversity is like the dream of equality. Both are based on ideas we celebrate even as we undermine them daily. On the one hand, the situation is appalling. It is appalling that Americans know so little about one another. It is appalling that many of us are so narrow-minded that we cannot tolerate a few people with ideas significantly different from our own. It is appalling that evangelical Christians are practically absent from entire professions such as academia, the media, and filmmaking. It is appalling that people should be content to cut themselves off from everyone unlike themselves.'' That is, as I said, quoting from an article in the September issue of the Atlantic Monthly magazine. Vulnerability in Future Electrical Blackouts

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the Associated Press reported a few days ago that the fix for the recent blackout in the Northeast ironically may make us even more likely to have such blackouts in the future. The AP story said the proposed improvements ``are making the electricity supply vulnerable to a different kind of peril: computer viruses and hackers who could black out substations, cities, or entire States.'' Now, I know that everyone is supposed to worship the computer god today, and I know computers can do miraculous things that make our lives better in many ways. But when we decide what to do about the recent blackouts, surely we should not allow love for computers to make us even more vulnerable in the future. To quote the AP story, it says, ``In the past the grid's old electro- mechanical switches and analog technology made it more or less impervious to computer maladies, but now switches and monitoring gear can be upgraded and programmed remotely with software and that requires a vulnerable connection to a computer network. If that network runs on Microsoft Corp. operating systems, which virus-writers favor, or connects to the Internet, the vulnerabilities are increased.'' Also, we should not have an electric power grid that is nationwide-- even though that has some advantages--because a nationally integrated system also makes us even more vulnerable. It is ridiculous that we have allowed ourselves to get into a situation where a minor incident in suburban Ohio can black out almost the whole Northeast, and part of Canada, and cause 40 to 50 million people to lose their power. Bigger is not always better, and smaller, more independent utilities, with free competition, would make our power both more secure and less expensive.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this matter; but as I listened to this debate, I decided to make a few comments. There is waste in the private sector, just like there is waste in the public sector; but the waste in the private sector pales in comparison to the waste that is in the public sector. So it has been proven all over the world that the more money that can be left in the private sector, in whatever country, the better off everyone is, the better off especially the poor and low-income people are because more jobs are created, the lower prices are; and so all over this world it has been proven that the more money government takes, either legally or illegally or corruptly, that the people who are hurt the most are the poor and working people of that particular country. In every country where we have been able to keep the amount of the GDP that the government takes to a relatively small amount, the better off everyone is, especially the poor and lower-income people. I am probably one of the least partisan Members of this Congress. I have been here 15 years. I do not think I have ever mentioned the word ``Republican'' and ``Democrat'' in any speech that I have ever given, but I mentioned to the gentlewoman from Washington State a while ago an article I read a couple of years ago in the Atlantic Monthly magazine, and David Brooks wrote an article, and he compared Montgomery County, Maryland, one of the wealthiest counties in this country, which went 68 percent for Vice President Gore to Franklin County, Pennsylvania, 70 miles to the north which went 68 percent for President Bush. What he said was it is just exactly the opposite of the image the media tries to portray or some of those on the other side who participate in what I think has actually been described as class warfare. This author, Mr. Brooks, said that when he went to Franklin County, Pennsylvania, he tried to find a meal that cost more than $20, he could not. The Cracker Barrel was the most expensive restaurant. He said the death of Dale Earnhart in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, was a big event. In Montgomery County, Maryland, they did not even know who Dale Earnhart was. What I am saying to my colleague is the most liberal areas in this country are always the wealthiest areas, and if they want to talk about class warfare, let us talk about it. Our party is very much a middle- income, particularly even lower-middle-income party, and the easier people get money the more liberal they are politically. It is just like a kid. If one gives a kid a $20 bill, it burns a hole in his pocket until he spends it. If he has to go out and earn it, he is a little more careful with the way he spends it; and our party, the Republican Party, we have some people with money but they are almost always people who started with nothing or very little and who made some money. That is what we are trying to do with these tax cuts. We are trying to give people an opportunity to better themselves, and the people who get the bulk of the tax breaks that we came up with are almost entirely in the middle-income levels of our society. So we get pretty tired of hearing all this class warfare that is going on on the other side, when 9 out of the 10 wealthiest contributors politically in this country are to the Democratic Party. That was in an article in the Roll Call newspaper today. So if they want to play class warfare, we can play it; but we should not have that on this floor.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. Under the great leadership of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) our committee has focused on the need to meet our Nation's navigation, flood control and environmental restoration needs. In our subcommittee, we have held numerous hearings in which witnesses have testified about the importance of these water resources projects to our economy. Just last week, our subcommittee held a hearing on the contributions of ports and inland waterways to the Nation's intermodal transportation system. It is clear from the testimony we received that if we do not take action now to improve our ports and waterways, we could severely harm our economy as a result of congestion in our transportation systems. That is just one reason why we need to pass the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. There are many other reasons. Each of the over 400 provisions of the bill meets an important national purpose. We are confident of this because for each request the committee received, the committee consulted with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that there was a Federal interest in the project and that the request complied with all rules on cost-sharing and cost-benefit analysis. Obviously not all requests met this standard, but after this review, the committee was able to approve over 60 authorizations, modifications, studies and policies relating to navigation improvements, over 100 flood control authorizations, modifications and studies, over 80 environmental authorizations, modifications or studies. H.R. 2557 also includes some important new policies. H.R. 2557 encourages watershed planning by authorizing greater technical assistance to State and local governments and authorizes an additional 24 watershed studies. This bill encourages the Corps of Engineers to carry out projects in partnerships with its local sponsors and to streamline the process for entering into agreements with local sponsors. In fact, this bill has very good streamlining provisions in it so that these very important projects, instead of sometimes taking 8 or 10 or 12 years, hopefully can be done in a much shorter time, saving taxpayer money and saving lives and doing good things for the environment in the process. H.R. 2557 includes important provisions that allow the Corps of Engineers to help expedite environmental permits for non-Federal water resource projects as well as streamlining approvals for its own projects. And that, as I said, is one of the most important parts of this legislation. H.R. 2557 includes consensus provisions on peer review of certain Corps of Engineers studies. This is a landmark provision in this legislation. It also includes, Mr. Chairman, 27 shoreline and streambank protection projects, 16 water conservation projects, 12 recreation projects, 12 dam safety projects, and many other projects too numerous to name. This bill has been put together on a true bipartisan basis. There are no Republican or Democrat navigation, flood control, or environmental restoration projects. We all recognize that communities across the country have water resources needs, very important water resources needs. This bill responds to those communities, our constituents. I want to recognize the assistance and expertise and friendship provided by the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). Thanks to his efforts and the efforts of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as well as the entire committee, we tackled some very contentious issues, as I mentioned when I spoke on the rule; and we have come together on a bill that has the unanimous support of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, without whose support and hard work this legislation would not be here on the floor today. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?