Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 59) recognizing the contributions of African-American basketball teams and players for their achievements, dedication, and contributions to the sport of basketball and to the Nation.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 59.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 59 introduced by the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). This resolution would recognize the dedication of African-American basketball players who played on the barnstorming teams of the early 1920s through the 1950s. The motivation of these teams to organize despite being excluded from playing in the white-only structured teams and leagues was truly a story of perseverance and honor.

The history is very similar to the Negro baseball leagues which have received such honor and distinction in recent years. One of the first basketball dynasties, the New York Renaissance, was founded in 1923. The team's namesake came from their home court, the Harlem Renaissance Ballroom, in which they played 27 seasons. The Renaissance organized games each day of the week and twice on Sundays. Because the racial climate of the 1930s was often harsh and unforgiving, while away from their home court, the Rens were often refused food and board. Other barnstorming teams included the Harlem Globetrotters, the New York Enforcers and the Philadelphia Tribunes.

Not only did these players bring organized basketball to all those who may not have had the opportunity to play, but they also helped influence the way basketball is played today. The fast pace of the game and the short, concise passing techniques originated with the talented players that dominated the barnstorming teams. More importantly, on April 25, 1950, the first African-American player was drafted into the National Basketball Association.

By demanding respect on the basketball court, these brave players did their part to facilitate racial integration in all aspects of American life. They were an inspiration to many.

Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution, and I congratulate the gentlewoman from Michigan on her efforts.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the adoption of H. Con. Res. 59.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3439) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 201 North 3rd Street in Smithfield, North Carolina, as the ``Ava Gardner Post Office''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3439.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 3439, authored by the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

This bill would designate the Post Office in Smithfield, North Carolina, as the ``Ava Gardner Post Office Building.'' All Members of the North Carolina delegation have cosponsored this legislation.

The life of Ava Gardner is a true rags-to-riches story that started on a tobacco farm in the rural south. Born and raised in Johnston County, North Carolina, Ava Gardner had planned on becoming a secretary in her adult life. However, at the age of 18, a scout from MGM Studios offered her a 7-year contract from seeing a photo of her in the window of her brother-in-law's New York photograph shop. Having no acting an experience at all, Ava had to settle for scripts containing little better than one-line bits.

In 1946, she landed her first starring role in the B-grade movie, Whistle Stop. Later that year, on loan from MGM, Universal Studios cast her in her breakout hit, The Killers. Her career as a leading lady then took off in such films as Magambo opposite Clark Gable, The Barefoot Contessa and Night of the Iguana, all between the years of 1953 and 1964.

Ava Gardner, the earthy girl from North Carolina, had beaten the odds to become one of Hollywood's most famous icons. Today, anyone can view the personal effects and career artifacts of Ava's extraordinary life at the Ava Gardner Museum in Smithfield, North Carolina. The museum enables both young and old to experience the history of classic cinema. I urge all Members to join me in saluting her dedication and perseverance towards her unlikely but spectacularly successful career.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to thank my colleague from Illinois for his help on all of these resolutions. He is always such a gentleman, so dignified. I have sometimes said that east Tennessee, where I am from, is the only part the whole country where the people speak with absolutely no accent whatsoever, but I do have to admit that the gentleman from Illinois has a beautiful voice, and it is always a pleasure to work with him.

Madam Speaker, with that, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 3439.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, H.R. 3824.

I want to first of all commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for what is very commonsense, bipartisan legislation; and I want to thank the chairman and his staff for all the long hours and the hard work they have put into this bill.

The latest figures I have show that my home State of Tennessee has one of the highest numbers of listings on the endangered species list. As my colleagues can imagine, this is a very big issue in my State.

I think everyone has read and heard horror stories about ridiculous rulings that have come out over the years, very unfair rulings, under the Endangered Species Act. The burden of compliance under present law is, by far, the hardest for the smallest of our landowners.

It is a simple fact that the existing law hits the hardest on the small- and medium-size farmers and ranchers and landowners, and these are the people least able to fight it.

The wealthiest people and the biggest corporations always seem to be able to get their way. They have enough money, and compliance with the law is either a simple nuisance or just a small cost of doing business. I think, and the fact is, that the way the present law is, it drives out a lot of the competition for the big guys by getting rid of some of the little guys.

I think that anyone who approaches this legislation with a truly open mind would call this a very moderate bill. In fact, in almost any other country in the world, H.R. 3824 would be held as great environmental legislation.

The United States has made greater progress in regard to environmental protection than any other country in the world in the last 30 years. Yet there are some extremist groups that simply cannot seem to admit we have made this progress.

Right now, these groups are telling their members how terrible this legislation is. However, if we look at their mailings, they always tell their members how bad things are, and I think it is probably more related to fund-raising and money than it is to actual concern about endangered species.

If people want to both protect endangered species and not force small farmers or small landowners off their land and force them to sell to big developers or big government, then this is balanced legislation that will accomplish these goals.

Mr. Speaker, the simple, easy answer to any problem or solution is almost always wrong.

Today the simplistic, politically correct explanation for hurricanes Katrina and Rita is global warming. Yet simple, easy science is almost always wrong.

CNN reported a couple of days ago that the biggest, worst decade for hurricanes was the 1940s, long before there was any thought or theory or even mention of global warming. In addition, Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center, said in news stories and television reports that hurricanes are cyclical in nature. He said it was wrong to invoke our alleged global warming without valid science or any hard science to back it up. Mr. Mayfield also noted the terrible hurricanes of the 1940s and the hurricane cycles.

The overly simple political science of global warming is just not accurate here, and people should not use the tragedy of these hurricanes to advance or promote political theories.

Mr. Speaker, the whole Nation has been saddened by the terrible and tragic events of Hurricane Katrina. Because of our great concern about this, I would like to read a portion of a story the Los Angeles Times ran just 12 days ago on September 9.

The Los Angeles Times said: ``In the wake of Hurricane Betsy 40 years ago, Congress approved a massive hurricane barrier to protect New Orleans from storm surges that could inundate the city.

``But the project, signed into law by President Johnson, was derailed in 1977 by an environmental lawsuit. Now the question is: Could that barrier have protected New Orleans from the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina?

``If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded,' said Joseph Towers, the retired chief counsel for the Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans district.

``Tower's view is endorsed by a former key Senator, along with academic experts, who say a hurricane barrier is the only way to control the powerful storm surges that enter Lake Pontchartrain and threaten the city.''

Still quoting the Los Angeles story: ``The project was stopped in its tracks when an environmental lawsuit won a Federal injunction on the grounds that the Army's environmental impact statement was flawed. By the mid-1980s, the Corps of Engineers abandoned the project.''

The story goes on, but I will just say this: that project, which was stopped by environmental lawsuits, really led or allowed the damage, the horrible events that happened in New Orleans and the surrounding areas. Environmental extremism, Mr. Speaker, has caused almost every highway, aviation, and water project in this country to take three or four times longer than it should and cost about three or four times more than it should. This hurts the poor and the lower income and the working people of this country most of all.

Perhaps wealthy environmentalists do not realize how much they hurt people by driving up costs and destroying jobs; but hurt they do. Some projects they are able to stop altogether. This barrier protection for New Orleans is just one of many examples, but certainly the worst.

However, some people say the city was at fault in its response to this tragedy. Some say it was the State.

Some say it was the Federal response that was too slow. Actually, there were mistakes made at all levels, but most people at all levels responded more quickly and with more money than any other country in the world would have been able to do when faced with a similar natural disaster.

We should be proud of how the American people have responded. I doubt there is a fire or police or sheriff's department of any size in this country that has not sent people to the affected area. Private contributions and volunteer help worth billions has been provided. Congress has voted to send $62 billion there. Fortunately, the death toll, while still terrible, was not even close to the predicted 10,000, probably with apparently a few hundred.

What should we do now? The best way we can help is for the other body, the Senate, to follow the leadership of this House and pass the Water Resources Development Act. This bill was passed several weeks before our August recess by a vote of 406 to 14 here in the House. We passed it in the House by a similar margin in 2003, but it bogged down in the Senate.

This bill provides roughly $2 billion for hurricane and flood protection and environmental restoration for the Louisiana coastal region and the gulf coast. No bill before the Congress will do more to protect those areas in the future than this worthy bill. The Senate should not let this bill be bogged down again. It should follow the lead of the House and pass this very important bill just as soon as possible.

No bill does more to provide protection against these tragedies, not only in Louisiana and Mississippi but in other at-risk areas, than does the Water Resources Development Act.

I hope everyone will work together to pass this very important legislation just as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, on September 15, John D. Lee, the President of the Boys & Girls Club of the Tennessee Valley, will be honored for 35 years of service. He is only the second President in the organization's 60-year history.

John went to work for the Boys & Girls Club of the Tennessee Valley as a Facility Director on September 16, 1970. He was later promoted to Assistant Executive Director and then to President and CEO.

The Boys & Girls Club of the Tennessee Valley has experienced amazing growth under his leadership. When John became President 26 years ago, it was operating only two Boys Clubs. Since then, he has led the organization through a merger with the Girls Club in 1990 and has overseen an expansion that now provides care and supervises activities for 7,845 members annually in 19 Club facilities in five East Tennessee counties (Knox, Blount, Scott, Loudon, and Fentress). The Boys & Girls Club of the Tennessee Valley employees a staff of 275 people and provides over 460,000 hot meals annually.

John's excellent leadership and service has not gone unnoticed either. In 1985, he received the Robert M. Sykes Award for Professional Excellence. In 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice presented him with the Directors Community Leadership Award.

The parent organization of the Boys & Girls Club is also very appreciative of John's work. On May 23, 2000, he received the Boys & Girls Clubs of America Service to Youth Award and Service Bar for 30 years of service to the Boys & Girls Club Movement, and in 2002, he received the Boys & Girls Clubs of America National Professional Service Award for Service to the National Movement.

John was born in Charleston, South Carolina, and is a graduate of Samford University. He has been a fine husband to his wife, Phyllis, and a great father to his three children, Amanda, Maria and Phillip.

The Boys & Girls Club of the Tennessee Valley is a leader in youth development and has touched the lives of countless young people throughout John's tenure. I have come to know John Lee well over the years, and I can assure you that he is a fine human being who has made East Tennessee a much better place to live.

Mr. Speaker, this great Nation owes a debt of gratitude to John D. Lee for his outstanding service as President of the Boys & Girls Club of the Tennessee Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to LTC Larnell Exum, Deputy Chief, Army House Liaison Division, Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, who retired September 1. Lieutenant Colonel Exum's illustrious career as an infantry officer embodies all of the Army's values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage and spans 20 years, during which he has distinguished himself as a soldier, leader, and friend of the United States House of Representatives.

Lieutenant Colonel Exum demonstrated his outstanding tactical and operational expertise in numerous command and staff positions overseas and in the continental United States. Continually serving in positions of ever-increasing responsibility, the highlights of his career include serving as a Company Commander with the 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, at both Fort Campbell, KY, and in combat in Kuwait and Iraq during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and then as Aide-de- Camp to the Undersecretary of the Army.

As the Deputy Chief of the Legislative Liaison in the House Liaison Division, his last assignment in the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel Exum demonstrated the outstanding dedication and leadership skills that have characterized his distinguished career. In particular, he excelled at building relationships with Members of Congress and their staffs.

He escorted over 45 worldwide fact-finding missions for congressional delegations, traveling with over 135 Members to 25 countries. These ventures served to educate Members on subjects as diverse as the global war on terror, Army transformation, magnetic levitation trains, and future transportation technologies.

I traveled with Lieutenant Colonel Exum on several times and was thoroughly impressed with him on each occasion. He is one of the finest people I have worked with during my 17 years in Congress.

From 1986 to 1989, Lieutenant Colonel Exum distinguished himself as one of the top company grade leaders in Alpha Company, 1/22 Infantry Battalion, Fort Drum, NY, serving as a Rifle Platoon Leader and Mortar Platoon Leader in a light infantry battalion. He then was assigned to Alpha Company, 2/187 Infantry Battalion, both at home station and in combat operations in Kuwait and Iraq for Desert Shield and Desert Storm, when he was decorated for valor in combat.

Due to his fabulous reputation as one of the bright young officers in the Army, Lieutenant Colonel Exum was selected as the Aide-de-Camp/ Military Assistant for the Under Secretary of the Army. He performed magnificently in this position and was subsequently

given the rarest of opportunities, a second company level command, which he maintained for all Army soldiers assigned to the Military District of Washington with duty at Fort Meade, MD.

In 1995, Lieutenant Colonel Exum was assigned with the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army and served there until 1996. During his year of seryice, he was the Protocol Staff Officer. His actions had a direct, positive impact on the public persona of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army by coordinating events for the ``Big Four'' senior Army leadership with foreign dignitaries, senior U.S. Government officials, and senior military leaders.

He then transitioned from active duty to become an active Guard Reserve National Guard officer. His contributions to the National Guard while serving as the Security Clearance Adjudications Officer and Reserve Incentive Program Manager from 1996 to 2001 were without measure and positively impacted the lives of individual soldiers and the readiness and training of the Guard Bureau as a whole.

After serving as the Chief of the Inquiries Branch in the National Guard Bureau Legislative Office, he was then hand-picked to represent the National Guard Bureau and the Army as the first National Guard officer to serve in the House Liaison Division of the Secretary of the Army's Legislative Liaison office for many years.

Lieutenant Colonel Exum is a natural at building and maintaining credible relationships with Members of Congress and their staffs, which was invaluable as the Army faced many challenges associated with its budget and real world combat operations in the Global War on Terror. Members knew they could count on Lieutenant Colonel Exum for his sage counsel, professional advice, and unwavering integrity.

Lieutenant Colonel Exum's faithful service, leadership, loyalty, and dedication to duty uphold the highest traditions of military service, and he has repeatedly stood for the defense of this Nation, her citizens, and their freedom. His devotion to the defense of liberty epitomizes the words soldier, patriot, and American. Lieutenant Colonel Exum is a role model for his two children, Tyler and Taylor, and is a devoted husband to his wife, Tina.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my gratitude and that of the entire Nation to Lieutenant Colonel Exum for his service to the United States and his hard work in defense of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I have often said that veterans have been called on to give more for their country than most of us ever will. Paul Lankford, a survivor of the Bataan Death March and a resident of Maryville, Tennessee, is living proof of that.

Mr. Lankford was captured by the Japanese military on the Bataan Peninsula on April 9, 1942, and was freed by Russian soldiers in July 1945. In those three years and three months in captivity, he survived horrific conditions.

At Bataan, Lankford was forced to march 65 miles in five days in unbearable heat, walk on human flesh, and bury his comrades. After the march, he was forced into slave labor.

When Lankford joined the Army Air Corps in 1941, his weight listed at 150 pounds. After being freed in 1945, he weighed 60 pounds.

After taking six months to recover from this terrible ordeal, Lankford continued his service to the Air Force, retiring in 1968 as chief master sergeant. A building at McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base is named in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, this Country owes a debt of gratitude to Paul Lankford. He is a fine man, and our Nation is a better place because of his service.

I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the following article from the July 17 edition of the Knoxville News Sentinel.

[From the Knoxville News Sentinel, July 17, 2005]

March of Death, Life

(By Fred Brown)

Paul Lankford slipped back through his memory, as if

turning pages, recalling a scene, and then explaining details

of what he saw. It was like a movie reeling off in front of

him, frame by frame. A war movie. A war movie of hell.

Six decades ago in July 1945, Lankford was a prisoner of

war, having been held by the Japanese military for three

years and three months. He had been captured along with the

rest of Gen. Douglas MacArthur's army April 9, 1942, on the

Bataan Peninsula.

He was 23 years old the day of his capture and 26 upon

release. In July 1945, Lankford still had one more month to

go before being liberated by a wild Russian army.

With the arrival of the Russians, who went on a rampage,

Lankford and other POWS were transformed from slave to

master. The allied soldiers who had been POWS were now

guarding their former masters. The situation was surreal in

the extreme.

In fact, Russian soldiers instructed former American POWs,

including Lankford, to pick out a guard they particularly

disliked, and the Russians would politely shoot him for the

Americans.

Lankford's ordeal began the day MacArthur deserted the

Philippines, leaving the bruised, battered and beaten army to

survive the best way they could. He sent a message from the

safety of his headquarters in Australia that the army was to

fight to the end.

The end came April 9, 1942, after three months of aerial

and artillery bombardment, starvation and disease. Lankford

and the soldiers were out of ammo and food, with no choice

but to surrender.

With the surrender of the Philippines, Lankford and his

27th Bomb Group were corralled. There were perhaps 1,200

defenders on Bataan, but including all soldiers, allies and

Filipinos, the number was around 70,000.

Of that number, maybe 8,000 would survive the next three

years. Of the 1,200 of Lankford's group on Bataan, an

estimated 200 are alive today.

There are few, if any, monuments to the soldiers and

sailors of Bataan--those Battling Bastards of Bataan, as they

were known.

Lankford was born near Gadsden, Ala., and joined the U.S.

Army in 1939. He then made the transfer to the U.S. Air Force

when it was formed in 1948.

Now 86, he lives in Maryville, having retired in 1968 as

chief master sergeant. He became the first commandant of the

Professional Military Education Center at McGhee Tyson Air

National Guard Base until his final retirement in 1981.

But in 1945, he was one of the few who survived the Bataan

Death March.

``I had one canteen of water for 10 days,'' Lankford began

his story.

``There was one rice ball, about the size of my fist,'' he

said, making a ball with his hand.

Lankford was, he said, among the lucky. He was marched 65

miles from one end of the peninsula to the other. He

eventually was moved from the Philippines to Korea and then

wound up in Mukden, Manchuria.

When he left Korea for Manchuria in December 1942, it was

30 below zero. He had little warm clothing for the trip.

``The Japanese needed slave labor,'' said Lankford. ``I

worked on farms, in steel mills, tool and dye plants, tanning

plants, foundries.''

The day his personal march into hell began, Lankford made a

promise to himself: ``I said I would never give up, I would

survive,'' he said. ``I would take whatever they threw at

me.''

That was a fairly easy deduction for a fellow who was

already down to eating horse, iguana and mule meat to

survive.

``When you get hungry,'' says Lankford, ``you will eat

anything.''

The soldiers who had survived Japanese bombardment were

already listless from four months of half rations, then no

food at all. They suffered from malaria and dysentery.

Lankford had a severe case of malaria and malnutrition with

sores around his mouth, nose and eyes.

``Our fighting men were zombies,'' he said.

He marched from the south in Mariveles, at the very tip of

Bataan Peninsula in the South China Sea, north to San

Fernando and then to Camp O'Donnell, a former Philippine Army

training camp.

Along the way, historians believe some 10,000 Filipino

soldiers died at the hands of Japanese guards. About one of

every six on the march would die from brutality, murder,

dehydration, beatings, starvation or other atrocities.

Of the 70,000 who began the march, some figures cite that

54,000 reached O'Donnell.

Lankford was bayoneted in the right shoulder because he was

not moving fast enough or had infuriated his Japanese guard.

He never knew why he had been bayoneted. He just was.

Lankford marched 65 miles in five days in the broiling sun.

The only time the prisoners were allowed to rest--standing,

not sitting--was at a change of Japanese guards. They were

allowed no food, no water. If they dropped to the ground,

they were shot. If they fell behind, they were shot.

If they cried out in agony, they were shot--or worse.

``If they heard a soldier screaming, they would cut his

head off,'' said Lankford.

``The first day, we lost maybe 50. The second day, we lost

200. The third day, we lost another 300,'' said Lankford.

``Shortly after we started the march, a truck would come

through, and if you didn't get out of the way, it would just

run over you. There were bodies all over the road.

``At times, you walked on human flesh. It was like walking

on jelly,'' said Lankford.

``We marched day and night. What I tried to do was to stay

as far to the right side of the road as I could. Trucks

filled with Japanese soldiers would come by, and they would

bayonet you or hit you with bamboo rods,'' he said.

``It never crossed my mind that I would die, but you never

knew what was going to happen to you.''

Like being stuffed into narrow French-made boxcars on a

narrow-gauge railroad.

The boxcars were big enough for maybe 50 men. Hundreds were

jammed inside. The steel cars had no windows, no ventilation.

There was no air, and it was pitch dark. Lankford said they

were fast using up what oxygen there was in the railcar.

``Some of the men who were claustrophobic went stark raving

mad,'' said Lankford. ``Others died standing up.''

When the cars were unloaded at one of the designated stops

before arriving at Camp O'Donnell, the dead fell out.

He was at Camp O'Donnell until he was moved to Manila in

November 1942. While at O'Donnell, he was placed on burial

detail, bringing bodies to graves that were dug by POWs from

sunup to sundown.

He had to transport his best friend to a grave.

``He had just given up and passed away,'' said Lankford, as

if talking about a wisp of air that passes by and is gone.

During the O'Donnell ordeal, if an escape was attempted,

the guards would take prisoners out and execute them,

Lankford said, as an example to the others.

After working at other camps, Lankford was eventually put

aboard a ship.

He and 1,500 other prisoners were forced down into the

ship's hold, which had been used to transport horses and

cattle. Filthy straw, with scattered piles of manure and the

strong stench of urine, was everywhere, he says.

``We were suffering from dysentery, and some men went

mad.''

Men began dying immediately. They were fed a thin gruel of

fish-head soup and a handful of rice twice a day.

They were sailing from Manila to Korea. U.S. naval vessels

and submarines were hunting Japanese ships. The POW ships

were unmarked and were attacked by the American vessels of

war with impunity, never knowing that U.S. POWs were aboard.

Thousands of American POWs died an ignominious death below

decks in horse manure, human waste, vomit and stacks of the

already dead.

It took his ship one month to go from Manila to Pusan,

Korea. When the ship arrived, Lankford was among the 175 men

in the worst condition.

He was taken to a racing track being used for a hospital.

The remainder of the men he had traveled with were sent to

Mukden, Manchuria.

``Each morning I would wake up, and there would be dead men

on my left and right,'' he said.

The day he arrived in Mukden, he was given a big bowl of

stew. Being from Alabama, he loved beef stew.

``This was dog meat. It tasted mighty good,'' said

Lankford.

``You didn't see many stray dogs around there.''

When he arrived in the Army Air Corps back in 1941, he had

weighed about 150 pounds. In Manchuria at liberation, he

weighed 60 pounds.

The Russians arrived, he said, and things became rather

chaotic.

``I'll never forget it. These Russians were front-line

troops. They were plenty rough. The Russians would make raids

every night.

``It was like the Fourth of July every night. Everybody was

shooting at everybody else.''

Lankford was set free of his Japanese ordeal Aug. 20, 1945.

The Russians put the POWs aboard a train and sent them back

toward American lines.

He arrived in Port Arthur, Manchuria, and ran into an old

navy chief who asked him what he'd like to eat.

``I told him I wanted some ice cream,'' said Lankford.

``But I couldn't eat it. The chief said he'd just put it up

for me with my name on it. I could have all the ice cream I

wanted.''

Eventually he was returned to Manila, put aboard a Danish

ship and sent home.

``We were heading home,'' said Lankford. ``We were so

happy.''

In the state of Washington, he boarded a hospital train.

There he was given slippers and pajamas for the first time in

four years.

``We crossed the big, ol' U.S.A.,'' he said, his face

beaming with pride.

He was able to meet his family in Atlanta and spent about

an hour with them before leaving for Augusta, Ga. Unlike

most, Lankford had been able to let his family know by 1944

that he was a POW. They just didn't know where he was or

under what conditions he had survived.

``I was lucky. Most of the POW families never knew their

soldiers were alive until they got back to America.''

He took six months to recover in an Augusta hospital. After

a short time at home, Lankford decided to make the Air Force

a career.

Today, a building at McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base

is named for Lankford. It houses all of his medals, and he

plans to be buried there. The tombstone is already up.

But he is at peace now.

``For the first four or five years after I came home, I

hated the Japanese,'' he said.

``Then I got to thinking about it. Why should I hate them?

It didn't have anything to do with the war.''

He and his wife, Edna, of 59 years, returned to Japan in

2001.

``It was no problem, really,'' he said. ``I feel very

fortunate that I got to speak to the Japanese people again.''

But that hasn't stopped the nightmares. He still sees the

brutal guards and their nicknames in his dreams. ``The

Bull,'' was one, he said.

``We knew who to stay away from.''

Some nights in the early months after his return, said

Edna, her husband would scream out and grab her by the

throat.

And then Paul Lankford would wake up. He was back home and

not in Manchuria, dodging the Bull.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for yielding me this time; and I want, first of all, to thank him for the Herculean job he has done on this legislation. My dad told me years ago, and I do not remember what it was about, but he said everything looks easy from a distance. Well, I can tell you, this legislation did not look easy from a distance or from close up.

The chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and his ranking member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), had to work with 535 Members of the House and Senate. Each time we would come within a hair of finishing this bill, some glitch would develop and some problem; and I can tell you that I cannot express strongly enough my admiration and respect for Chairman Young and Chairman Petri and ranking members Oberstar and DeFazio for the work they have done.

One national magazine, Mr. Speaker, estimated we lose $67 billion a year due to congestion costs and people being stuck in traffic. As one other Member just said a moment ago, this job will save thousands of lives over these next 5 years. We have spent several hundreds of billions of dollars each year in other countries, Mr. Speaker, through every department and agency of the Federal Government, but this is an American bill. This is a bill to do things for the people of this country and to put our own people first.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of this. This is a 6-year bill with 5 years left. It sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but when you divide it by six, it really does not cover the infrastructure needs of this Nation. I can tell you that I especially appreciate what is in this bill for my constituents in east Tennessee.

This bill is progress for America. It is one of the finest products that has come out of this Congress in a long, long time; and it was a privilege for me to be a small part of it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a fellow Tennesseean and our Navy's first admiral, David Glasgow Farragut.

Farragut was born in Campbell's Station, Tennessee, near the city of Knoxville. One of the largest, fastest-growing and most beautiful communities in my district is named in his honor. Raised in a Navy family, Farragut sailed on the Essex as a young boy during the War of 1812, took command of his first ship when he was only 12 years old, and later grew to prominence as a Union hero during the Civil War.

He was the first to prove naval forces could seize control of an entire city

when he led the Union Navy to the capture of New Orleans in 1862. And his command, ``Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead'' during his victory at Mobile Bay has become legendary.

As a result of Farragut's tremendous service, Congress established the ranks of rear admiral, vice admiral and admiral. Amazingly, he was the first person to hold each of these titles.

Tomorrow in Bath, Maine, the Navy will christen its newest guided missile destroyer as the USS Farragut. This recognition of Farragut's contribution to our naval tradition is a fitting tribute to one of our Nation's greatest military heroes.

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to recognize Admiral Farragut on the House floor today. He was a true Tennessee hero and one of our greatest Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2864.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I rise to urge all Members to support H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. I want to first acknowledge the great assistance, the hard work, and especially the bipartisan nature of all the efforts of the staff on both sides and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), our great chairman; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our ranking member, who has worked on this committee as a staff member and as a member since being elected to the House and has seniority over all of us on that; and my close friendship and good working relationship with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie

Bernice Johnson), my ranking member. And I want to acknowledge also the hard work done by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the former ranking member, with whom we worked out so many contentious issues the first time this bill came up.

The bill authorizes and directs the Corps to carry out various studies, projects, and programs relating to navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, water supply, recreation, and environmental restoration and protection. H.R. 2864 is very similar to H.R. 2557 from the last Congress, which passed this House on September 24, 2003, by a vote of 412 to 8.

At the beginning of this Congress, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure leadership sent a Dear Colleague to all House Members to give them an opportunity to update their project requests. In response, the committee received more than 340 letters from Members making requests for more than 1,000 projects, studies and modifications. Given budgetary constraints, we could not accommodate every request. However, we were able to address over 600 separate matters.

The bill also includes provisions that reform the planning and project development process of the Corps of Engineers, including the most extensive independent peer review process ever set forth in one of these water resources bills or any other bill. These provisions were worked out in a bipartisan manner in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure last Congress and were in the WRDA bill that the House approved overwhelmingly at that time.

We stand by the agreement that we made during the last Congress and have made only a few clarifying changes to these policy provisions. As a result, the main difference between H.R. 2864 and the bill from the last Congress is the addition of three large projects that were not ready for authorization during the last Congress but have now completed chief's reports from the Corps of Engineers. These projects are the Indian River Lagoon Everglades Restoration project, the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration program, and the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration program. Together, these projects represent $5 billion in federal authorization or about half the cost of this bill. We knew these chief's reports were coming, so, in the last Congress, the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee held separate hearings on each. Later there will be debate on part of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway chief's report, the authorization of the seven new locks there. This is a $1.8 billion authorization, but one half of that funding comes from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, which is funded by a 20 cents per gallon tax on inland waterway fuel.

These lock authorizations are the number one priority of the Inland Waterway Users Board, the board representing the people who pay into the inland Waterway Trust Fund. It is important to understand that the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation Authorization is not the most costly Corps project. The authorization of $1.8 billion is for seven different locks; so the per-project cost is really on average $257 million.

At the subcommittee hearing on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway project, the subcommittee received very strong testimony in support of this project from the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. All of the civil works projects in this bill, all of them, Mr. Chairman, are investments in America that save capital, make our exports more competitive, make our imports more affordable, and improve our environment and our quality of life.

Over 200 organizations have sent us letters supporting this legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who has stated that they will make this one of their key votes of the year; the American Farm Bureau; the American Association of Port Authorities; the American Society of Civil Engineers; the Associated General Contractors of America; the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies; the National Corn Growers Association; the National Association of Wheat Growers; the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; the National Mining Association; the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; the Portland Cement Association; seven different national labor unions. In fact, I do not believe that we will deal with any bill in the Congress this year that has more bipartisan and broad support from both labor and business than this legislation, and over 180 other organizations that would be too numerous to name, and it would take too much time.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize again the expertise and friendship provided by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the subcommittee. It is an honor and privilege to work with her and also the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member, and the entire committee. We have a bill that has the unanimous support of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, it is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a member of the committee.

(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack), an outstanding member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a strong proponent of the Everglades portion of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute at this time to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for the purpose of making a brief statement and entering into a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my understanding that this is a very fine project that the gentleman has endorsed and is strongly proposing here, and we will be glad to work with the gentleman in every way to assure that this ends up in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a former member of the committee.

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think everyone here knows that I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this Congress, but this is a very fiscally conservative bill. It is not fiscally conservative to let a very important asset to deteriorate, and so I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment makes technical and conforming changes to project-related provisions in the bill and authorizes or modifies additional projects brought to the committee's attention following committee action.

Specifically, the Corps of Engineers has informed the committee that six additional chief's reports recommending that Congress authorize a water resources project will be completed by December 31, 2005.

The amendment also directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out a number of small projects under existing corps authority to provide flood damage reduction and emergency streambank protection.

For other projects that have not been studied, the amendment authorizes for new Corps of Engineers' projects. The amendment authorizes one land transfer for a navigation project. Finally, the amendment authorizes a number of activities or programs for water resources management.

This amendment, like the underlying bill, has been developed in a bipartisan fashion. All projects must be in the Federal interest and must comply with cost-sharing rules. This means not every project could be addressed, but within these constraints we did the best to meet the needs of all communities. I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), an outstanding member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not intend to speak in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would authorize an environmental restoration project in New Jersey contingent upon the Chief of Engineers completing a final report not later than December 31, 2005.

The chief's report is the final technical document submitted by the Corps of Engineers for a project. It describes the analysis done, the alternatives considered, and the recommended plan.

In putting this bill together, the committee included those projects that had favorable chief's reports. With passage of the manager's amendment, we have added additional projects that the corps tells us will soon have completed chief's reports. These projects are authorized contingent on there being a completed chief's report by December 31, 2005.

Although the Liberty State Park project was not on the list of nearly completed studies provided earlier by the Corps, we now understand that this report is expected to be completed by the end of this year. Therefore, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment to include his project as a contingent authorization.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not intend to speak in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the administration has issued performance-based budgeting criteria based on tonnage being moved. That method places a very low priority on maintaining small ports.

This process ignores the fact that two-thirds of all cargo on major waterways either start or finish at small ports. If we abandon our small harbors, we adversely affect the entire waterway system that is already plagued with deferred maintenance and crumbling infrastructure.

The gentleman's amendment would ask the Corps to prepare its budget using its previous criteria that were based on maintaining an acceptable level of service at least cost for a commercial port. It is not primarily based on the tonnage in transit. Using this previous method would not ignore the contributions of our small harbors to the Nation's commercial transportation system.

I believe the administration's current method of budgeting could adversely affect commercial navigation. Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

The gentleman from California is one of the best friends I have in this Congress, and I certainly have great admiration and respect for him, and I sympathize with everything that he has just said; but I must regretfully state the position of the committee at this point, which is in opposition to this amendment.

The civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers provides Federal assistance for dredging entrance channels and harbors and the Department of Homeland Security now offers grants for security projects.

But, generally, capital improvements to port infrastructure are a non-Federal responsibility. The gentleman's amendment would permit a non-Federal interest, which could be the port authority or the State generally, to collect a fee per container that moves through the harbor and to use those funds for security purposes or for infrastructure projects within the port or any transportation infrastructure outside the harbor.

First, if the goal is to help ports, this amendment is unnecessary. Ports can already charge fees for services under the authority of section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which they can use to help them with the cost of security and port infrastructure.

Second, this amendment goes too far by allowing the collected funds to be used for transportation projects outside the port. This could mean potentially a State fee paid by shippers of containers at ports being used to pay for highway and rail projects elsewhere in the State. This is why the American Association of Port Authorities and even the gentleman's home port of LA/Long Beach oppose this amendment.

The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on this bill in November 2003. The American Association of Port Authorities, the Waterfront Coalition, and the World Shipping Council all testified in opposition to this proposal.

This amendment is the same as the amendment the gentleman from California brought to the House floor last

Congress. It was defeated by a vote of 359-65. The committee believes that the ports can and should charge whatever fees they believe are necessary to cover their security needs and infrastructure projects. They have the authority to do that now, and Congress should not dictate how they make this business decision.

I can assure the gentleman that I would like to work with him on some of the broader section 208 issues to see if we can better address his very legitimate concerns. We certainly sympathize with the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned, but at this point the committee position is to urge our colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

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

I rise in opposition to the Flake-Blumenauer amendment. The gentleman from Oregon is one of the most active and one of the finest members of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. The gentleman from Arizona and I vote alike on probably 98 or 99 percent of the issues that come before this Congress, so I cannot overstate my respect and admiration for both of these gentlemen; but I do have to oppose this amendment.

Failure to upgrade our infrastructure is not fiscally conservative. Not constructing the upper Mississippi navigation improvement project, according to the National Corn Growers Association, will result in a loss of $562 million in annual farm income by 2020. Of this, $246 million would be lost in reduced exports to other countries. Navigation on the upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway provides for more than 400,000 jobs, including 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs. The navigation improvement project in H.R. 2864 would create an additional 48 million man-hours of work. There is a critical Federal interest in navigation. The vast array of navigation infrastructure is important to the Nation's economy and a secure economy is a necessary part of a secure Nation.

Right now, increased transportation costs mean that some of our farmers and manufacturers will not be able to compete in the world market and may go out of business. This means the shipment of cargo on these rivers will decrease, not increase. So it is sort of a self- fulfilling prophecy that we have been discussing. Right now, traffic on these rivers is constrained, very constrained, by small aging locks. It is not fiscally conservative to constrain the United States economy with outdated and obsolete infrastructure. If you do not improve or maintain buildings and homes, they deteriorate. That is not a fiscally conservative thing to do. We could say the same about our locks and our dams.

The language contained in title 8 of the bill is compromise language. This language was negotiated last year with the other body. The WRDA bill pending in the other body contains virtually identical language. The Flake-Blumenauer amendment will either delay or halt the project, costing U.S. taxpayers much, much more in the future. As a fiscal conservative, I try to be a careful steward of taxpayer dollars. This project is an investment in America, and I support it. Voting against the Flake-Blumenauer amendment is the fiscally conservative thing to do. Accordingly, I must oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

I will not oppose the amendment. I will simply say, the gentleman's amendment relates to the project for navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System. This framework for what will be multiple projects is authorized in title VIII of the reported bill.

Section 8005 of H.R. 2864, as reported, requires that the Secretary make a determination whether or not the projects are being carried out at comparable rates. This amendment directs the Secretary to submit an annual report to Congress on this determination that is already required by the reported bill. I have no objection to the Secretary's reporting to Congress on this issue, and therefore, I have no objection to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for those very kind remarks, and I could say everything back to her that she just said. And we appreciate the cooperation and the hard work of the staff on both sides.

I had the privilege to introduce Susan Bodine to the Senate committee this morning, and I said so many good things about her at that time that I would not want to repeat those again or her head would get so big, she would not be able to get out of this room here today.

But we do appreciate so much the work that she has done over the years for our subcommittee, and she has been one of the finest staffers that this Congress has ever had, and we want to congratulate her. We hate to lose her to the EPA, but certainly she is moving onward and upward and we wish her the very best.

With that, I urge passage of this bill.

Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

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

Mr. Speaker, our guest chaplain today is my friend, Dr. Arnold Lovell, pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church in Knoxville.

The Second Presbyterian is one of Knoxville's leading churches with approximately 1,000 members. Arnold has led that church as a senior pastor since 1997. Prior to that, he served for 10 years on the faculty of Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, VA, as a professor of evangelism. He still teaches there in summer programs.

Before that he was pastor of the first Presbyterian Church in South Charleston, WV. Dr. Lovell has two doctorates and is a leader in denominational activities of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.

Before going into the ministry, he was a coach of football and other sports at West Davidson High School in North Carolina. He is a chaplain for the Knoxville Quarterback Club and an avid fan of NASCAR and U.T. football.

He and his wife Emily have two daughters, Carolyn and Catherine, and the Lovell women are here today in the gallery.

Arnold Lovell is a patriotic American, a leader in both Tennessee and the Nation, and I am fortunate to have him as a friend and as guest chaplain in the United States House of Representatives today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for yielding me this time and for her hard work on this bill. I rise in strong support of the rule for consideration of H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. This is a good rule and a good bill. There are, as all of us know, very few amendments; and I think that is in large part because the committee has worked hard over a long period of time to address Members' needs in the bill and in the manager's amendment.

I think that our subcommittee does not have a better member than the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I will speak more to his amendment during general debate. But I can tell you that I certainly sympathize with the thrust of his amendment because I think every water project in the country should be looked at very closely and should be done in the most cost-effective way possible. I will say just simply at this point that the project of which he has spoken and to which his amendment is addressed is the number one priority of the Inland Waterway Users Board representing the taxpayers who pay into the inland waterway trust fund and that pays one-half of the project cost. As I said, I will speak in more detail about the general provisions of the bill during general debate.

Right now, let me just say that H.R. 2864 is the product of several years of bipartisan work by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) mentioned the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) who was the ranking member and with whom I worked so closely on this bill in the last Congress.

Basically, this bill in the last Congress is really the product or was the forerunner and is very, very similar to this bill and that bill passed the last Congress by a vote of 412-8. Basically, we have the same bill here today. By working together, the committee is presenting to the House a bill that is supported by over 200 organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has stated that they plan to score the vote on this bill when they issue their annual ``How They Voted'' ratings.

I certainly would not want to run through the more than 200 of those groups, but just let me give you a short list of some groups supporting this bill, and you will see some of the wide variety:

the Chamber of Commerce, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, the International Longshoremen's Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Association of Port Authorities, the Laborers International Union, the National Mining Association, the Agricultural Retailers Association, American

Waterways Operators, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the American Shipbuilding Association, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association.

I could go and on. But you see that we have business groups supporting this bill, labor groups supporting this bill, governmental organizations supporting this bill; and so I think this is a bill that deserves bipartisan support. It is a very fiscally conservative bill.

But I think perhaps even more importantly, we have passed WRDA bills and water resource development bills usually every 2 years for many years. No WRDA bill in the history of this Congress has done more to be environmentally friendly, none has done more for environmental infrastructure projects, none has gone further in setting up peer review procedures for our major projects; and so I think this is a bill that will receive and will deserve the support of a very large number of Members on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rules Committee for their help and assistance and cooperation, and I urge passage of this rule and passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time and for bringing this resolution to the floor tonight.

This 5-to-4 decision by the Supreme Court in the Kelo case is one that will ultimately be very harmful to our freedom and our prosperity. Even a brief study of economics and world history shows that the most prosperous nations in world are those that have given the most freedom to their people and the greatest protection to private property. Some have said we do not need to worry about this decision because this new power will be used sparingly by local governments. Those who say that either do not believe very strongly in the right of private property or they do not realize how government at all levels can rationalize or justify almost anything, especially almost any taking of property.

People do not really get upset unless or until it is their property being taken. Yet we can never satisfy governments' appetite for money or land. They always want more.

Will your property be next?

The City of New London wanted more tax revenue than these small homes could provide. As I said, we can never satisfy governments' appetite for money or land.

Justice O'Connor wrote that there is now no realistic constraint on the taking of private property. Her words have already been quoted at length, but I will insert them in my statement.

In my home region of East Tennessee, government has taken huge amounts of land. Almost all has been taken from poor or lower-income families who would be wealthy today if they still had their beautiful land.

Justice Thomas said in his dissent, ``Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.'' He went on to say, ``The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict and promise to be harmful . . . Extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.''

Mr. Speaker, this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a very dangerous one and will end up being especially harmful to the poor and lower-income and working people of the country.

Thomas Jefferson once said, ``A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have.''

Justice O'Connor wrote that there is now no realistic constraint on the taking of private property.

She said: `any property may now be taken for the benefit of

another private party, but the fallout from this decision

will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those

citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the

political process . . . As for the victims, the government

now has license to transfer property from those with fewer

resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have

intended this perverse result.'