Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I speak at this time in regard to an amendment which I understand will be offered later concerning the National Animal Identification System.

Two Tennessee legislators who also happen to represent parts of my district, State Representative Frank Niceley and my own State Senator Tim Burchett, have introduced a bill to prohibit the use of State funds to implement the program in Tennessee. As Representative Niceley told the Knoxville News Sentinel: ``I think this thing had more to do with selling chips than anything else.'' He said, ``I just get tired of business going to Washington and selling their business plan up there and getting rich off the public.''

The people pushing this are international and national bureaucrats who want more power and control, their academic supporters, and especially a few agri-giant businesses. Small and medium-sized farmers do not want it.

Ron Freeman, a fifth-generation cattleman said, ``NAIS will not prevent or control disease. Instead it will allow the government and big business to control our food supply and intrude into the lives of every farmer and rancher.''

Judith McGeary, a Texas lawyer, described the program as, ``One of the most far-reaching acts of surveillance of the most wholesome activities of U.S. citizens. Children in 4-H with pet goats, senior citizens raising food for themselves, friends going on trail rides would all be forced to endure the warrantless government surveillance.''

If this isn't Big Brother government I do not know what is.

Mr. Speaker, this sure isn't traditional conservatism. Costs of new programs such as this are always low-balled on the front end. The president of the Australian Cattleman's Association called this program ``the single worst thing to ever hit the beef industry in Australia.''

He said they were promised on the front end that it would cost only $3 a head. The costs are already running $37 a head counting cost of scanners and various indirect costs.

A farmer in Roane County, Tennessee, Everett Phillips has only eight beef cattle, a milk cow, some chickens and a few barnyard animals. He told the Knoxville News-Sentinel, if you add up cost, the inconvenience of Federal bureaucracy and privacy concerns, and ``It is going to hurt the farmer.'' He said he considers selling out and moving to Argentina. I know that people laugh when people make statements like this, but this highlights the serious concern that small farmers have about this program.

If this is still a free country, Mr. Speaker, we should at least make this program voluntarily instead of mandatory. This NAIS program will really hurt the smallest of our farmers, the very farmers we always claim to be helping.

I urge support if this amendment is offered later today to really help the small farmer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Chabot amendment. I know that its passage is very unlikely, but this is the type of thing that a conservative Congress should be doing. In fact, the Citizens Against Government Waste says, facing a massive Federal deficit, there is no reason taxpayers should be underwriting the advertising campaigns of multimillion dollar corporations.

Cutting funding for these programs would save precious taxpayer dollars and provide a dose of common sense to our agricultural programs.

In addition to that, the National Taxpayers Union says, this program is ``an egregious example of Congress's unlimited appetite for special interest funding.'' Mr. Chabot has already mentioned the $8.3 trillion national debt. What is even worse is that the Congressional Budget Office says we are going to add $350 to $400 billion each of the next 10 or 11 years to that debt.

If we cannot do this, then we cannot call ourselves conservatives.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the paragraph.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I raise a point of order against the provision beginning on page 73, line 3 and ending on line 8.

This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on behalf of Chairman Young.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, before I yield some time to Chairman Walden, I would like to mention a couple of things. A few years ago I read the book ``A Walk in the Woods'' by Bill Bryson about hiking the Appalachian Trail. He says in that book that New England in 1850 was 30 percent in forestland. Today it is almost 70 percent in forestland. A few days ago I think it was USA Today or one of the national publications had an article about the State of Vermont and said it is 77 percent in forestland.

The Knoxville New Sentinel a few years ago said that Tennessee in 1950 was 36 percent in forestland. Today it is 55 percent in forestland. Yet if I went to any school in this country and asked the kids, are there more trees now than there was 100 or 150 years ago, they would all say, no, there are a lot fewer trees; when the truth is, there are billions and billions more trees, and hundreds of millions of acres more in forest today than at any time in our history.

And then I remember in the forest subcommittee in 2002, at the first of the year and then again in late spring, we were warned that 40 million acres in the West were in imminent danger of catastrophic forest fire, and later that year we saw some 7 million acres burned by needless, unnecessary forest fires that could have been prevented. I am told by the staff that we will probably have 7 million acres more burned this year, and that is a sad, unfortunate thing.

We have groups all over this country who do not want you to drill for any oil, do not want you to dig for any coal, do not want you to produce any natural gas, and do not want you to cut any trees. Madam Chairman, do you know who that hurts? It hurts the poor and the lower- income and the working people of this country most of all. The wealthy are always going to do all right. But these things that we do up here affect the poor and the lower-income and working people most of all because when you do not allow anything, any type of natural resource production in this country, what do you do? You drive up prices and you destroy jobs. Who does that hurt the most? It hurts the poor and the lower-income and the working people. And it drives up prices for everything that uses wood, from homes and furniture to toilet paper and everything else.

And so that is what some of this bill is about today. I have got some more I would like to say on it.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Chairman Walden for some further remarks.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman from Washington, who is a really good Member and a good friend of mine, that he mentioned the small logging companies. I remember in 1978, we had 157 small coal companies in east Tennessee, and then they opened up a Federal mining office and now there are none of those small companies left.

When you overregulate anything, it helps the big giants, but it first runs the small companies out and then even the medium-sized companies. And I am told that is what is happening all over the country to our small logging companies. And I remember, I was told years ago that in the mid-eighties that Congress passed a bill that the environmentalists wanted that would not allow cutting of more than 80 percent of the new growth in our national forests. Today, we are cutting less than one- seventh of the new growth in our national forests, and we have two or three or four times as much dead and dying trees, and under the present rules we can't even go in there and get some of these dead and dying trees out. Like he said earlier, I said this bill is just another of many things that we are trying to not only help the environment but to help the poor and the lower income and the working people by not driving up prices and not destroying jobs in the way that we have been doing. But also this is a bill that would help some of the small businesses, some of the small logging companies maybe to survive instead of all having to go out.

H.R. 4200, this Forest Emergency Research and Recovery Act, would allow land managers to move swiftly after a disaster to stabilize soils, protect streams and riparian areas and reforest the land. The bill allows for the establishment of preapproved management practices and emergency procedures that could be implemented quickly after a fire or other catastrophic event. This bill, H.R. 4200, allows for compliance with the Clean Water Act requirements to occur simultaneously with the implementation of these preapproved management practices or emergency procedures.

H.R. 4200 is essential, I think, to ensuring our national forests are forested for future generations. This is a good bill. It is good for the environment, it is good for business, and it is good for the average ordinary citizen who doesn't need for wood product prices to just go out of sight. And so I urge passage.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just today one leading national newspaper reported the Federal revenue has gone up 11.2 percent in the first 7 months of this fiscal year over last year, three times the rate of inflation. The tax cuts enacted under Chairman Thomas' leadership have strengthened the economy so much that not only has Federal revenue gone way up, but growth was 4.8 percent the first quarter, and unemployment is at a very low 4.7 percent.

Now, as to the deficit and the debt that some on the other side have mentioned, they are too high. But those on the other side attack us continually for not spending enough on every program out there. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't continually enact big increases in spending and lower the debt at the same time.

But the best way, the best thing we can do is to keep lowering taxes so we can keep improving our economy. And I commend Chairman Thomas and his staff, and I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.

And I rise in strong support and urge support for this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to assume the time of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, people sometimes resort to scurrilous personal abuse or childish sarcasm when their case is weak. Let me repeat: people sometimes resort to scurrilous personal abuse or childish sarcasm when their case is weak.

For instance, on foreign policy, you know instantly when someone uses the word ``isolationist,'' they are resorting to name calling, rather than a serious discussion on the merits or the lack thereof.

On the issue of immigration, the scurrilous, personal abuse is when people imply or say that someone is a racist or a bigot if they want our immigration laws enforced.

The childish sarcasm is when a columnist or someone else says we would have to line up 200,000 buses to remove 12 million immigrants.

No one thinks you can enforce all our immigration laws overnight or instantly solve this problem, but just because we cannot solve this problem all at once does not mean we should just give up and open up our borders.

Our government estimated several years ago that half the people of the world would come here very quickly if allowed to do so. Our schools, hospitals, roads, jails, sewers, our entire infrastructure simply could not handle such a rapid, massive influx of people.

A couple of years ago, Newsweek magazine said half the people of the world have to get by on $2 or less a day. Consistent with this was a column I read a few months later that said half the people in the world do not even have a second pair of shoes.

We are blessed beyond belief to live in this country. We all have great sympathy for those who have to live under difficult circumstances in other countries.

God has blessed every nation with natural beauty and/or natural sources that can make those countries rich. However, in most countries, people have fallen for the myth that government could solve all problems, and they have voted in liberal or left-wing governments or they have had dictators who forced big governments on them, and the economies have been ruined.

You cannot blame so many people for wanting to come here, and we all admire the work ethic of many who come here from other countries; but we cannot take in half the people of the world, especially in a short time. We have to have a legal, orderly system of immigration, and it has to be enforced.

Rush Limbaugh said a few months ago that if you do not have borders, you do not have a country.

Thomas Sowell, writing about this a few days ago, said, ``We could solve the problem of all illegal activity anywhere by legalizing it. Why use this approach only with immigration? Why should any of us pay a speeding ticket if immigration scofflaws are legalized after the fact for committing a Federal crime?

``Most of the arguments for not enforcing our immigration laws are exercises in frivolous rhetoric and slippery sophistry, rather than serious arguments that will stand up under scrutiny.''

Mr. Sowell continues, ``How often have we heard that illegal immigrants `take jobs that Americans will not do'? What is missing in this argument is what is crucial in any economic argument: price.

``Americans will not take many jobs at their current pay levels, and those pay levels will not rise so long as poverty-stricken immigrants are willing to take those jobs.''

And he went on in this column to say, ``The old inevitability ploy is often trotted out in immigration debates: it is not possible to either keep out illegal immigrants or to expel the ones already here.

``If you mean stopping every single illegal immigrant from getting in or expelling every single illegal immigrant who is already here, that may well be true.''

Mr. Sowell said, ``But does the fact that we cannot prevent every single murder cause us to stop enforcing the laws against murder?''

Mr. Speaker, with the Simpson-Mazzoli Act 20 years ago, we tried the same type of law that some who want to be soft on immigration are advocating today, but that law led to a quadrupling of illegal immigrants. We simply cannot afford to let that happen again.

President Theodore Roosevelt said many years ago, in fact in 1919, ``In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.''

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

And Theodore Roosevelt continued. He said, ``There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile.''

And Theodore Roosevelt concluded this statement by saying, ``We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And we have room but for one sole loyalty, and that is the loyalty to the American people.''

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say that if people want the rights, privileges, and opportunities of American citizens, they should wave the American flag. If they want to be Mexicans and wave the Mexican flag, and there is nothing wrong with that, but they should go home to Mexico to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a long-standing institution in my district that has been serving the people of Knoxville, Tennessee for 50 years. On March 27, 2006, Long's Drug Store will mark its Silver Anniversary.

Determined to provide friendly, prompt service to the Knoxville community, Dr. Clarence Long opened Long's Drug Store on March 21, 1956. It was the first drug store to serve West Knoxville and was included in the first shopping center in Knoxville. Long's is a landmark that has remained at its Kingston Pike location since its opening.

Along with Dr. Long, several members of the Peck family joined the staff in the late 1950s and early 1960s. After the passing of Dr. Long in 1966, the Peck family took over the business and continues to maintain it today.

Today, Long's Drug Store offers the community the same welcoming service it did when it opened its doors 50 years ago, despite advances in technology. Long's continues to fill prescriptions and provide free home delivery service to its customers.

While commonly paired many decades ago, soda fountains in drug stores are a rare find these days. Long's Drug Store has the distinction of having the only old-time soda fountain in the City of Knoxville. This soda fountain provides relief during hot East Tennessee summers with its delicious Coke floats and chocolate malts. It is one of the most popular and memorable sections of the store.

Always at near capacity with loyal customers, both young and old, Long's provides a welcoming meeting place to enjoy a fountain drink or congregate with neighbors over breakfast or lunch.

Long's Drug Store provides its customers and the citizens of Knoxville with caring, personal service. Generations of customers continue to come to Long's for their pharmacy needs as well as a place to meet friends. I'm sure that Dr. Long would be delighted by the staying power of his business and its commitment to tradition.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend Long's Drug Store for its service to the people of Knoxville, and ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating them on this anniversary and wishing them the best for the next 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, William F. Buckley has often been described as the godfather of modern-day conservatism. In 2004, he wrote that if he had known in 2002 what he now knew, that he would have opposed the war in Iraq. Last June, he wrote that if we stayed much longer there, it would soon become misapplication of pride rather than steadfastness of purpose. Now, in one of his most recent columns, Mr. Buckley wrote that, ``One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. ``

Many conservatives said before this war started that it would mean massive foreign aid, huge deficit spending, and would place almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on our taxpayers and our military, when traditionally conservatives have been the biggest critics of the U.N.

The so-called neo-con architects of this unnecessary war have led people down a primrose path in the opposite direction of and very much against every traditional conservative position.

Mr. Speaker, this Dubai ports deal will probably go through even though these types of contracts should be given to American-owned companies. But the deal will probably be approved with Congress passing some meaningless, feel-good limitations or restrictions and increasing funding for port security.

The deal will probably go through because, one, it involves $6.8 billion and it is almost unheard of to stop a deal involving big money like that.

Secondly, the President and the entire administration are pushing it as hard as they can.

Third, the columnists and commentators are all piling on using words like ``overreaction, racism and bigotry.'' Even though this is name- calling, rather than discussing the merits, most elected officials are going to do anything possible to avoid being called a racist or bigot or even that they are overreacting.

There are legitimate national security concerns here. The United Arab Emirates may be a strong ally now, but these things change. Our government considered Saddam Hussein as an ally all through the 1980s and supported him in a big way monetarily and in other ways.

While I am concerned about national security, my main concern about this deal is economic. We have far too many foreign companies operating our ports. These are some of the best and most lucrative contracts we have. They should be going to American-owned companies. If we give all these lucrative, big-money contracts to foreign-owned businesses, most of the profits and most of the top jobs will go to people from those countries. At some point we need to start putting our own businesses and shareholders and workers first. After all, the first obligation of the U.S. Congress should be to the American people.

It is also of some concern that this deal is not with a private company, but with an organization owned or controlled by the Government of the United Arab Emirates. Let me emphasize, I have nothing whatsoever against anyone from any foreign country. I am certainly not anti-Arab. I think it is sad that a British-owned company was running these port operations, and I am not anti-British. I think we should be friends with the Arabs and the British, and I believe we should have trade with all countries. But I would want foreign countries to be buying things from American companies and vice versa. And I would like to see American ports, which are some of the most important infrastructure assets we have, to be run and controlled but American companies and American citizens.

I do not believe the Chinese or the Japanese or many other countries would let us run their ports. And most of these contracts to operate businesses on these ports are not advertised widely at all. Most are sweetheart, insider-type deals. I believe there are many American business people who would jump at the chance to do this business if they just knew about these opportunities.

Let us start putting our own people first once again and stop giving all this port business to so many foreign companies or especially not to foreign governments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Tennessean, Carl Papa, Jr. After 33 years of dedicated service to East Tennessee, Mr. Papa has retired as the Chief Pretrial Services Officer for the United States District Court for the Eastern Tennessee District.

Carl Papa, Jr. was born on June 29, 1949, in Camden, New Jersey. He graduated from Collingswood High School in Collingswood, New Jersey, in 1968. He attended Milligan College in East Tennessee, graduating in August 1972 with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and Sociology.

Carl was hired by the Tennessee Department of Corrections in October 1972 as a Probation and Parole Officer. On January 5, 1976, he was appointed as the U.S. Probation Officer in the Eastern District of Tennessee by the Honorable Robert Love Taylor. Meanwhile, Carl attended the University of Tennessee, my alma mater, where he earned a Masters of Science in 1982.

He served as the U.S. Probation Officer for East Tennessee until April 19, 1993, when he was appointed the Chief Pretrial Services Officer for the Eastern Tennessee District. He retired from his position on the federal court on January 20, 2006. After 30 years of serving the community in federal court, and 33 years of public service to the citizens of East Tennessee, Mr. Papa has begun a well-earned retirement.

Carl has two children. Carl's son, Benjamin C. Papa, resides in Nashville with his children, Eli and Ella. His daughter, Bethany Burnette, lives in Knoxville. Carl has been married to Donna C. Crumpton since May 28, 2004.

I wish to express my gratitude on behalf of my fellow residents of East Tennessee for the dedication Mr. Papa has shown over the past 33 years. I wish him and his family all the best as he begins the next stage of his life. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Papa for his service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to the life and death of a great Tennessean.

Mr. Robert Webb accomplished more good for the people of Southeast Tennessee than many others of greater fame.

Robert Webb was born in Fort Sanders, Tennessee, in 1919. On December 22nd of 2005, he passed away at the age of 86 years. His life's work was spent nurturing Knoxville's educational needs.

Mr. Webb graduated from the renowned Bell Buckle, Tennessee, Webb School founded by his grandfather and former Senator, Robert ``Old Sawney'' Webb, before earning his bachelor's and master's degree from my alma mater, the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. Between degrees, he served our Country admirably in WWII.

After brief teaching stints at the Bell Buckle School and the Webb School of Claremont, California, Mr. Webb founded Knoxville's Webb School in 1955.

The school started with four boys in the basement of Sequoyah Hills Presbyterian Church. Shortly thereafter, Webb added a Girls' School.

The School stood at the forefront of educational equality when it declared an open-door policy in 1965. Mr. Webb followed this pronouncement with a then-controversial speech in favor of racial integration made to a convention of Southern private-school leaders.

Despite criticism, Mr. Webb persevered to make Knoxville's Webb School one of Tennessee's finest private educational institutions. It currently enrolls over 1,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade, and all members of its 2005 graduating class were accepted into college.

It is significant to note that Robert Webb chose the following motto for his school: ``Leaders, Not Men.'' This is a telling statement of how he approached service to the community and the Nation, with a willingness to blaze difficult trails so that others could follow.

Throughout his later years, Mr. Webb remained active in the community, leading the establishment of the Museum of East Tennessee History, and fundraising for the historic Bijou Theatre in Knoxville.

It is clear that his contributions to the legacy of private education in the South, and the cultural edification of Knoxville, will not soon be forgotten.

On behalf of the 2nd Congressional District of Tennessee, I express heartfelt condolences for the Webb Family, and great appreciation for the life work of Robert Webb.

I call to the attention of the readers of the Congressional Record an article written by Judge Bill Swann in the Knoxville News Sentinel that accompanies these remarks.

[From the Knoxville News Sentinel]

Robert Webb: Great Teachers Live On

(By Bill Swann)

I remember the wonder with which Jerome Taylor and I

grasped--it was September 1956, the first week in Mr. Webb's

Latin class, my first week at Webb School--that you could

actually say a thing some other way than English. It was a

transforming moment.

There were a lot of those in my four years at Webb. Some of

them were ``Aha'' moments, like that encounter with my first

foreign language. Some of them were fill-the-backpack

moments--times you knew you were loading up with information

you would always need and use. Some of them were character

moments--times when I was a good citizen or a poor citizen

and learned the consequences. Coach Sharp had a lot to do

with those.

I can still remember the wonder with which I realized that

I had landed at a school

where learning was an unquestioned good, where there was no

such thing as ``geekiness,'' when I realized that all of us

were there because we wanted to learn.

There were 16 of us in the class of 1960. I can name them

all, fondly and with pride: Jim Hart, LeClair Greenblatt,

Clark Smeltzer, ``E.R'' Boles, David Creekmore, Hugh Faust,

Jim Bradley, Doug Newton, Chip Osborn, Sam Colville, Peter

Krapf, Ed McCampbell. Sterling Shuttleworth, Kit Ewing. Jeff

Goodson and me. Yes. ``me,'' direct object of the verb ``to

name'' in the previous sentence. Thank you, Miss Freeman.

Fondly, because of the friendships, successes,

embarrassments, mistakes, follies and secrets. With pride,

because of our progress in four years to a Webb-shaped

maturity. There were also moments of grace: Jeff Goodson

teaching me to tie a bow tie; it took Jeff three days, but it

stuck Sam Colville teaching me to drive straight shift, in

his own creampuff '55 Chevy with three on the column. It took

him all track season, driving from the new campus to Fulton

High School. Coach Sharp had gotten us practice privileges at

Fulton. The new campus on Cedar Bluff Road didn't have a

track; it barely had a football field.

By now we have read the obituaries, the newspaper articles,

the tributes. All the talk about Robert Webb in the

community, Bob Webb the force for social good.

For me and for many of us, there is no Robert Webb, no Bob

Webb. There is only the great and fine man we called and

always will call ``Mr. Webb.'' He limped into our lives in

the basement of Sequoyah Hills Presbyterian Church and

changed each one of us forever.

So Mr. Webb is dead? I don't think so. ``But,'' they say--

the people who believe Mr. Webb is dead--``there was the

memorial service. The singing of hymns. There was the great

obit by Jack Neely in Metropulse. There was the long obit in

the News Sentinel He's dead, they say. Nope, Mr. Webb is not

dead; never will be.

In my life and I hope in yours there is an unbroken line of

great teachers. For me, the line is: Miss Freeman, who taught

me seventh-grade English at Tyson Junior High School. Mr.

Webb, who introduced me to Latin. in the ninth grade. Ted

Bruning, my English teacher for the four years at Webb. RE.

Sharp, the teacher of life skills at Webb. And John Sobieski,

professor of civil procedure at the ``University of Tennessee

law school.

The line is unbroken not because these great teachers are

all still alive but because they are all still with me. They

always will be. They live in my house. They are with me when

I talk to my children, they are with me when I try to be my

best, they are with me when I reach out to others. These five

fine people required hard work and excellence in their own

lives and expect the same of me.

I had some good teachers at Harvard and Yale. But I had my

great teachers, my five great teachers, right here in

Knoxville. I don't know what that means. Perhaps the best

teaching is done by those who are not overly impressed with

themselves, by those who know that you never stand so tall as

when you reach down to help someone, by those who love

learning and want you to share that love.

Henry Brooks Adams said. ``A teacher affects eternity. He

never knows where his influence stops.'' Mr. Webb affected

our eternities. He trained us to excellence. Mr. Webb wanted

the best from each of us, there in the basement of the

church. We delivered him our best because of his enthusiasm

for learning. We delivered him our best because of his

evident joy in the life of the mind. We delivered him our

best because of his love of life itself.

He wanted us to be leaders. We became leaders because we

wanted to be like him. He took mere human beings and produced

leaders. You know the Latin in the coat of arms: You went to

Webb.

Mr. Speaker, on January 18th of this year, Farragut High School Head Football Coach Eddie Courtney was named the first recipient of the Eddie Courtney Courage Award named in his honor.

This ceremony took place at the end of a grueling and testing season for Coach Courtney and his Admiral football team. Coach Courtney was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease last spring and despite months of radiation and chemotherapy, he guided the Admirals to the Class 5A quarterfinals and an 11-3 record. Throughout his intensive treatment, he never missed a team function, including summer conditioning workouts, cutting the grass and lining the field before games and scrimmages.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the readers of the Congressional Record and my fellow colleagues to join me in honoring the courage, strength and leadership of Farragut High School Head Football Coach Eddie Courtney. I also include the following news article printed in the Knoxville News-Sentinel.

[From the Knoxville News-Sentinel, Jan. 19, 2006]

Courtney Award Stands for Courage

(By Drew Edwards)

Farragut High School football coach Eddie Courtney was

named the first recipient and namesake of the Courage Award

at the PrepXtra football awards banquet Wednesday night in

the Wolf Kaplan Center inside Neyland Stadium.

Courtney was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease last spring

and guided the Admirals to the Class 5A quarterfinals and an

11-3 record. Throughout months of radiation and chemotherapy,

the 52-year-old coach never missed a team function, including

summer conditioning workouts.

He continued to perform his other duties, including cutting

the grass and lining the field.

``It started with (my faith) and having great friends,''

Courtney said. ``And I'm here because of the game of

football. As a player, it was always just suck-it-up and

go.''

Farragut linebacker Nick Reveiz said Courtney's attitude

rubbed off on the team.

``He's a man, and that's the true definition of a man,''

Reveiz told the News Sentinel in November. ``He takes what

life gives him. He doesn't whine about anything. That's one

person that no matter what comes his way, no matter how

unfair it is, no matter what happens, he's not going to

complain about anything. He's going to take what's given and

make the best out of it.''

Courtney finished his radiation treatments last month and

will visit doctors once every two months for the next year.

The Eddie Courtney Courage Award will be given each year to

a player, coach or contributor to local high school football

who has shown the spirit to face fear or danger with

confidence, resolution and dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that prior to the end of the 1st Session of the 109th Congress, Subcommittee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairman Don Young, Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, and I introduced H.R. 4650, the ``National Levee Safety Program Act of 2005.''

We have seen in the Gulf Region what can happen when hurricane and flood protection infrastructure is inadequate or fails to perform.

The National Inventory of Dams shows that 45 percent of all Federal dams are at least 50 years old; and that 80 percent of them are at least 30 years old.

We know less about the status and capabilities of our levees. We do not know how many levees there are in the United States, we do not know how old they are, and in many cases we do not know who constructed them or who is responsible for their operation and maintenance. There has never been a national inventory of levees.

Over the decades, levees have been built by different entities, at different times, and to different standards. They have been linked together to provide a protective system for a city, but with such a mixture of conditions, the true level of protection may be in doubt.

Every day the Nation's engineers and scientists learn more about the reliability and limitations of dams and levees. New techniques and materials are discovered in the laboratories. Without investments in infrastructure, we cannot benefit from what we have learned.

What is the condition of our hurricane and flood protection infrastructure? What should it be? Do we need to make policy changes to be sure that we are making the best investments of taxpayer dollars? Before we make a massive investment of taxpayer dollars, we need to do an inventory of levees across the United States.

That is why today we are introducing the ``National Levee Safety Program Act'', to get an inventory of levees in the United States and work with the States to encourage them to develop their own levee safety programs.

We have worked closely with members on both sides of the aisle and the various groups to advance the goal of improving the infrastructure in the most cost effective manner. We have received favorable feedback from diverse parties. The National Levee Safety Program Act of 2005 embraces innovative solutions for these parties and I urge members to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the ``Clean Water Trust Fund Act of 2005.''

We are all well aware that our national water infrastructure is aging, deteriorating, and in need of repair and replacement. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently graded the condition of the infrastructure throughout our country. Wastewater infrastructure received a ``D-.'' Nearly half of the sewer pipes in American cities are over 50 years old. Some are over 100 years old. Treatment plants built in the 1970s need to be upgraded. New mandates to manage municipal stormwater runoff have gone into effect. And water quality must be improved.

As a nation, we are not investing enough in our wastewater treatment infrastructure to ensure that we will continue to keep our waters clean. Unless we act, we could lose the significant gains in water quality that have been achieved over the last 30 years.

The Congressional Budget Office, EPA, and the Water Infrastructure Network have estimated that it could take over $400 billion to address our Nation's clean water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years, twice the current level of investment by all levels of government. We can help reduce the overall cost of water infrastructure with good asset management. Innovative technologies, increased water efficiency, and regional approaches to water pollution problems also will help reduce costs. But, these things alone will not close the large funding ``gap'' that now exists between water infrastructure needs and current levels of spending. Increased investment also must take place.

A recent survey by the Luntz Research Companies found that most Americans believe clean and safe water is a national priority, and are willing to pay more to get it. The survey also found that most Americans want a sustainable, dedicated source of funding for water infrastructure projects, and would support the creation of a sustainable trust fund for wastewater infrastructure.

The ``Clean Water Trust Act of 2005'' addresses these issues by:

Establishing a Clean Water Trust Fund to provide an assured source of funding to help the nation meet its water infrastructure needs.

Authorizing over $37 billion over five years from the Clean Water Trust Fund for increased investment in critical water infrastructure, improvements in technology and infrastructure management, addressing water quality issues in critical regional waters, and improving and protecting wetlands and fisheries uses.

Encouraging innovative and alternative approaches to solving water quality problems and financing infrastructure improvements;

Encouraging appropriate management of infrastructure assets, including planning for the payment of the costs of repair and replacement; and

Increasing support for rural and small communities through technical and funding assistance.

In crafting this bill we have looked at the national goal of improving water quality, establishing an assured source of funding to help the nation meet its water infrastructure needs, and the responsibilities of local communities to provide municipal services and maintain their local wastewater systems.

The ``Clean Water Trust Act of 2005'' embraces innovative solutions for these interests and I urge Members to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon, 3 days ago, issued a directive which should be of great concern to any traditional conservative. The Washington Times on its front page reported it this way: ``The Pentagon yesterday announced a landmark change in the use of combat troops, elevating stability missions, commonly called nation-building, to an equal status with major combat operations.''

Conservatives used to be opposed to world government. Conservatives used to believe in the United States of America rather than the United States of the New World Order. Conservatives used to oppose turning the Department of Defense into the Department of Foreign Aid.

Probably well over half of what we have spent in Iraq is just pure foreign aid, building roads, power plants, water systems, new schools, railroads, ports, new prisons, training their police and military, and giving free medical care, among other things.

President Bush, when he campaigned in 2000, in many speeches came out strongly against nation-building. We have so many needs in this country, especially with our aging clean water and wastewater systems. We also have a national debt that will soon reach $9 trillion. We simply cannot afford to build or rebuild nations all over this world.

Georgie Ann Geyer, the nationally syndicated columnist, wrote a couple years ago: ``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 eventually come to a point where they see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the globe.''

But this is not primarily about Iraq. It is about whether we want a Department of Defense or a Department of Foreign Aid. We are not going to be able to pay all of our military pensions, civil service pensions, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the new prescription drug benefit, the 44 million private pensions we have guaranteed through the PBGC, in just a few years with money that means anything if we do not stop all this nation-building around the world.

I have nothing at all against anyone from any other country, but the first obligation of the U.S. Congress should be to the American people. The first thing that is said about anyone who opposes spending mega billions in other countries is that he must be an isolationist. But the isolationist charge means the person who says it is resorting to childish name-calling rather than a discussion on the merits.

Our interventionist foreign policy has caused great resentment and animosity against us all over the world.

There is another way, a better way than intervening in almost every major political, ethnic, religious or military dispute around the world. The middle way between isolation and intervention is to have trade and tourism, cultural and educational exchanges, help out during humanitarian crises, give technical advice by government agencies and try to be friends with all nations but maintain an enlightened neutrality on disputes that really are none of our business.

This new directive is more about money than it is about security. Like any gigantic bureaucracy, the Pentagon and its Defense contractors always want more money. One of the most common ways any government agency uses to get more money is by expanding its mission. You can never satisfy any government's appetite for money or land. They always want more.

President Eisenhower warned us many years ago of what he called the military-industrial complex. I have great respect for anyone who serves in the military. I believe in having a strong national defense. But I do not believe in the U.S. providing international defense, and it is certainly not a traditional conservative position to make those in our military the policemen of the world or take on the defense needs of the whole world.

And it is certainly not conservative, nor is it constitutional, for the U.S. to do nation-building all over the world, whether it is done by the Defense Department or any other department.