Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we hear and read about so many examples of waste by the Federal bureaucracy that almost nothing shocks or surprises us anymore. However, the Washington Post reported yesterday on a really ridiculous waste of money.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency paid $24 million for 112,000 tons of ice after Hurricane Katrina. 42,000 tons were stored for future use, and FEMA paid $12.5 million in storage fees. Now, all this unused ice is going to be thrown away. But here is the really ridiculous part.

FEMA is going to pay $3.4 million, $3,400,000 to melt the ice. It's over 90 degrees outside. The Department of Homeland Security, of which FEMA is a part, has 171,000 employees. A first-grader could melt ice. But the Federal Government is going to pay $3,400,000 to have it done.

No wonder the Federal Government is almost $9 trillion in debt. If we ever created a Hall of Fame of government waste, FEMA should be the first admission.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), who very rightly claims east Tennessee as a home also. I am pleased to join with him. I want to commend him for his work on this legislation. I also want to especially commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for their comments about this legislation.

I originally agreed to cosponsor H.R. 980 several years ago, several Congresses ago, at the request of firefighters and police officers from my district. I certainly am not anti-union, nor am I controlled by any union. I strongly believe, though, that no one should be forced to join a union. But I also feel that anyone who chooses to organize or join a labor union should have that right. Employees should be able to make this decision for themselves. In fact, I am a cosponsor, and have been in several Congresses, of H.R. 697, the National Right-to-Work Act. This legislation would prohibit compulsory union membership by applying the right-to-work laws that we have in Tennessee to the entire Nation.

In regard to H.R. 980, I want to emphasize four of the act's main points and then provide some additional details. First, this bill specifically prohibits strikes and lockouts by public safety employees and employers, as has been pointed out by previous speakers.

Second, the bill is not mandatory. It is totally voluntary and, therefore, is a right-to-work bill. Third, it does not federalize or nationalize this aspect of labor relations. The important details would still be governed by State law.

As has been pointed out by some other speakers, several States give their public safety employees more collective bargaining rights than this bill, and it certainly hasn't caused any problems that anyone knows of in those States.

Finally, this bill would simply give firefighters and police officers some, but not all, of the rights enjoyed by other workers. The legislation provides very limited collective bargaining rights and does not give State and local public safety employees the right to strike or numerous other rights that almost all other employees have.

Over the years, Congress has enacted a number of laws granting such rights to other workers and has expanded the scope of collective bargaining laws to govern private sector, nonprofit association, transportation and Federal Government employees.

Since the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, State and local public safety employees are the only workers left in America who do not have the right to enter into collective bargaining agreements with their employers. While most States provide collective bargaining rights for these employees, others do not.

When this legislation was being considered originally during the 105th Congress, local firefighters and police officers contacted me directly regarding the bill. Unfortunately, as local elected officials changed, these public safety workers have found that their benefits and wages have sometimes been subject to change, too. These firefighters and police officers feel that this legislation will help them establish consistency in their benefits between the administrations.

Firefighters and police officers have taken an oath to protect public safety. I believe that these individuals should have the opportunity to voice their concerns about issues affecting their livelihood. These brave people risk their lives for public safety every day and should have the same rights as workers in other fields.

Mr. Speaker, let me just mention, as others have, that the Fraternal Order of Police and other police of the National Association of Police Organizations are supporting this bill, and the International Association of Firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, finally, I will close just by emphasizing once again that this legislation would give firefighters and police officers an option to participate in collective bargaining discussions but would not require such action.

I think the good labor unions do not need compulsory unionism agreements. I believe that this is a bill that is encouraging and voluntary, and I urge its support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a Tennessean who truly embodies the Volunteer spirit of my home State of Tennessee.

On June 30, 2007, Dr. David L. Eubanks of Knoxville, TN, ends a remarkable run as president of Johnson Bible College in Knox County,

Mr. Speaker, I won't take much time. I'll be very brief.

I just wanted to come over here and congratulate my colleague, Congressman Grijalva, and especially congratulate his women's softball team from the University of Arizona. They proved, once again, as they have done several times before, that they really have another great team. I think this was probably, what, their seventh national championship or something like that.

This was the first time that my Lady Vols softball team had gone as far as that team did. The University of Tennessee is my alma matter. It's a school of which I am very proud; and it has not only great academics, but it also has a very rich athletic heritage and history. We've been primarily known for our men's football team and our women's basketball, several national championships by both of those programs. But the Lady Vols softball team this year was one of the greatest sports teams in the history of the University of Tennessee. And, in fact, our great pitcher, Monica Abbott, won more games than any pitcher in women's collegiate softball history. And probably no athlete in the history of the University of Tennessee has ever dominated a sport like Monica Abbott.

So once again I want to say congratulations to my Lady Vols, my Tennessee Lady Vols softball team. But I'm here today to especially offer congratulations to a great women's softball team from the University of Arizona. They won another national championship, and it was a well-deserved championship because they had to fight very hard to get it, and I just wanted to come and say congratulations at this time.

I want to first thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time. I want to also commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for bringing

this resolution before us today and commend all of the cosponsors, Mr. Davis and others.

Mr. Speaker, some people might think this is an insignificant resolution. I think there is probably very little that we could talk about today that would be more important than fatherhood and the important role it plays in the life of this Nation. This was brought home to me most vividly in January 1981 when I became judge of the criminal court in Knox County, Tennessee, trying felony criminal cases, the murders, rapes, armed robberies, the most serious cases. I was told that first day by Gary Tullock, the chief probation counselor for east Tennessee, 16 counties in east Tennessee, that 98 percent of the defendants in felony cases came from father-absent households. I'm not sure that it is quite that high, but I know it's well over 90 percent. It's the entire crime problem.

I hasten to say that I know many good people have come from father- absent households, but I also know that children cannot raise themselves. And because 96 or 97 percent of the people plead guilty in criminal cases and then apply for probation, I went through over 10,000 cases in the 7\1/2\ years that I served as judge. I cannot tell you how many times I read over and over and over and over again: ``Defendant's father left home to get pack of cigarettes and never came back.'' ``Defendant's father left home when defendant was 2 and never returned.''

And so I can say this, that father-absent households not only are the root of our crime problem, all the things like drugs and alcohol and all of that come secondary. I know there are exceptions to everything that you say, but we need to get into the minds of our young people and teach them how important it is that fathers don't desert their children as so many millions of fathers have unfortunately over the years and have gone out of the lives of their children much to the detriment of those young people and to the detriment of this Nation.

I support this resolution and I commend all of those who have brought this to the floor today.

I do thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I want to say, first of all, that I want to commend the gentleman from Florida and also the gentlewoman from New York, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, two of the Members in this Congress for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect, and I appreciate the fact that they are bringing this legislation to the floor under an open rule.

But as both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) just expressed, there are still some concerns about this bill, number one of which is the fact that this bill is $2.1 billion over the President's request and a 13.6 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. That is more than four times the rate of inflation. With an almost $9 trillion national debt and over $50 trillion in unfunded future pension liabilities, we just can't keep giving every department and agency that wants one or four or five times increase over the rate of inflation. As the ranking member, Mr. Rogers, said a few days ago, even the Department of Homeland Security should be subject to some fiscal discipline.

A few weeks after 9/11 when we had renamed the farm bill that year by adding the word ``security'' to the title, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial in October of 2001 and said: ``Any bill with the word `security' in it should get double the public scrutiny, and maybe four times the normal wait, lest all kinds of bad legislation become law.''

And a few months ago, Secretary Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security, testified before the Senate in a way perhaps no other Cabinet member ever had. He essentially said we are spending too much on security and we should not let overexaggerated threats of terrorism, quote, drive us crazy, into bankruptcy, trying to defend against every conceivable threat.

He went on to say, quote, we do have limits and we do have choices to make. We don't want to break the very systems we're trying to protect. We don't want to destroy our way of life trying to save it. We don't want to undercut our economy trying to protect our economy, and we don't want to destroy our civil liberties and our freedoms in order to make ourselves safer.

That is the Secretary of Homeland Security. I think, Mr. Speaker, we need to take some of those words into consideration. In a short time, later today, we are going to have several amendments to the bill that I think are worthy of consideration by all of our Members and I think should be passed. We just shouldn't blindly pass a bill and pass everything that anybody wants because they attach the word ``security'' to it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bill and Beth Hanks on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary, which they will celebrate June 15.

The story of Beth Ballentine Hanks and William ``Bill'' Franklin Hanks is one of love at first sight and the American Dream. Beth grew up in South Carolina and Bill grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina. The couple met while attending Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina.

At Furman, Bill, a sophomore at the time, spotted Beth, a freshman, waiting in line for the freshman orientation tea. He knew she was the one. Bill and his fraternity brothers showed up at the freshman dance to see Beth. He had his friends continually cut in on Beth and her date so that they never had the opportunity to dance together. Eventually, her date got mad and left. This was when Bill made his move. Bill and Beth were married on June 15, 1957 in Beth's hometown of Walterboro, SC. Today, the couple splits their time between homes in Knoxville, TN and Fripp Island, SC. They enjoy attending UT football and basketball games and spending time with friends and family. The Hanks have 4 grown children, Linda, William, Wallace, and Lucille, and 10 grandchildren. After 50 years, Bill and Beth are very supportive of one another and still do their daily devotion together before they go to bed, no matter how late or how tired they may be. Madam Speaker, in closing, I am pleased to honor Bill and Beth's Golden Anniversary and urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating this very special milestone.

Madam Speaker, one of my constituents, Rip Kirby, sent me the following article and asked that it be placed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Kirby was the Founder of the Baseball Chapel for the minor leagues of professional baseball. He is a respected Christian leader and an outstanding American.

Many people in this Country and really all over the world are becoming fed up with ``political correctness.''

I would like to call this article to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record.

Bravo to the Aussies

I had seen this before, but felt it worth sending again and

again to see if our government can have the guts to follow

suit.

If anyone has a link to the White House, send it. Though

doubt that anything will be done. But maybe in time we can

make a difference with as many decent politicians we can

elect.

This country needs to get God and human decency back into

our society and stop letting others take advantage of our

freedoms.

I and most Americans see nothing wrong with the stance that

Australia has taken. They deserve our applause.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told

on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government

targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror

attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged

loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with

Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it

clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter

Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some

radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they

did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its

laws were made by parliament. ``If those are not your values,

if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic

state, then Australia is not for you'', he said on National

Television.

``I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are

two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian

law and another Islamic law, that is false. If you can't

agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy,

and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to

another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a

better option'', Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to

leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be

asked to move to the other country. Education Minister

Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not

want to accept local values should ``clear off. Basically

people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want

to live by Australian values and understand them, well then,

they can basically clear off', he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on

Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the

nation's mosques.

Quote: ``IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It

or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether

we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the

terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in

patriotism by the majority of Australians.''

``However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled

when the `politically correct' crowd began complaining about

the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I

am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against

anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia.''

``However, there are a few things that those who have

recently come to our country, and apparently some born here,

need to understand.'' ``This idea of Australia being a multi-

cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty

and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our

own culture, our own society, our own language and our own

lifestyle.'' ``This culture has been developed over two

centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of

men and women who have sought freedom'' ``We speak mainly

English, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,

Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to

become part of our society . . . Learn the language!''

``Most Australians believe in God. This is not some

Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because

Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded

this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly

appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God

offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the

world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.''

``We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All

we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and

peaceful enjoyment with us.''

``If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like ``A

Fair Go'', then you should seriously consider a move to

another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture

and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how

you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your

culture, but do not force it on others. ``This is Our

Country, Our Land, and Our Lifestyle, and we will allow you

every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done

complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge,

Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage

you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

`The Right To Leave'.''

``If you aren't happy here then Leave. We didn't force you

to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country You

accepted.''

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American

citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing

the same truths!

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq, since its beginning, has gone against every traditional conservative position I've ever known, especially fiscal conservatism. There is nothing conservative about the war in Iraq. So it should have been no surprise when William F. Buckley, often called the ``Godfather of Conservatism,'' wrote in 2004 that if he had known in 2002 what he knew then by 2004, he would have been against the war. But listen to what he wrote in June of 2005, 2 years ago.

William F. Buckley. ``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 his main point was, quote, ``A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose, but misapplication of pride.'' Unfortunately, we are losing our young soldiers at a much faster rate than the 500 a year that Mr. Buckley said would move the American people from skepticism to contempt; 103 U.S. soldiers killed in April alone, at least 71 more killed through May 21, including 15 this past weekend, and someone told me 8 more today.

Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but he had a total military budget only a

little over two-tenths of 1 percent of ours, most of which he spent protecting himself and his family and building castles. He was no threat to us whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, we all respect, admire and appreciate those who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces. As I said a few days ago on this floor, serving in our military is certainly 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 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 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're 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, and, I might add, unconservative, for us to be the policemen 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.

The majority of the Iraqi Parliament has now signed a petition 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.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush, when he ran for office in 2000, campaigned strongly against nation building. Unfortunately, that is exactly 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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. 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.''

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. 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.''