Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) on the occasion of its 35th Anniversary and on its name change to the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, or NACWA. Its 35 year record of advocacy and leadership in meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act has helped guarantee the chemical, biological, and physical health of our Nation's rivers, lakes, streams, bays, and coasts.

NACWA's members serve the majority of the sewered population in our Country and treat and reclaim over 18 billion gallons of wastewater a day. Simply stated, NACWA and its members deserve to be celebrated for their ongoing role in the remarkable revitalization of America's waterways.

Despite the improvements made so far to our Nation's waters, NACWA understands that significant work remains to be done to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. From the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's

close working relationship with the Association, we know NACWA is well- positioned to continue building on our Nation's water quality gains.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has looked to AMSA and will continue to look to NACWA as a valued informational resource and advocate on behalf of sound water quality policy. The Association has always been willing to share its expertise and to provide leadership in challenging times. For example, in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Association responded immediately with creative ideas and vital leadership in developing tools and resources to help further secure our Nation's critical water infrastructure. The Association has been a vital resource on a host of clean water issues from wet weather control, nonpoint source pollution prevention, and the critical need for a sustainable, Federal-State- local partnership to meet our Nation's clean water challenges.

I have worked closely with the Association and know that NACWA will build on its tradition as a trusted resource for Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I also am confident that NACWA will meet its strategic objectives and the goals of AMSA's original founders. Most importantly, NACWA's success is a direct result of its broad membership. NACWA (then AMSA) was established in 1970 by representatives of 22 municipal wastewater treatment agencies. Since then, AMSA has grown into an organization of nearly 300 municipal agency members and a total membership of nearly 400 organizations poised to ensure that the 21st Century will enjoy continued water quality improvement.

The Association's public agency members not only represent what is best about public service; they exemplify what it means to be environmental practitioners. Their daily work enables us to enjoy our Nation's rivers, lakes, streams, bays, and coasts--something we, as a Nation, must never take for granted.

Once again, I congratulate NACWA on this important milestone as an organization and applaud its members for their outstanding service.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow a funeral will be held for Staff Sergeant Stephen Kennedy, the second soldier killed in Iraq who was a member of an Army National Guard unit headquartered in my hometown of Knoxville.

Both of these young men who were killed were from just outside my district; but I was able to attend the funeral for the first, Sergeant Paul Thomason, as we were not in session in Congress at the time.

Both of these men leave wives and each had four small children and many other relatives. I admire and respect their service. There are many ways one can serve this country, but certainly one of the most honorable is by serving in our Nation's Armed Forces.

I am pro-military and believe we should have a strong national defense, but I emphasize the word national. It goes against every traditional conservative belief for the U.S. to try to be the policemen of the world and to place all of the burden and cost of enforcing U.N. resolutions on our military and our taxpayers.

It is no criticism of anyone in the military to say that the war in Iraq was a very unnecessary war. The more than 1,500 soldiers who have died there were simply doing their duty in the best way they could, probably hoping to come home as soon as they could, but certainly hoping to come home safely rather than in a body bag.

Now this past Saturday we saw headlines about anti-American demonstrations all over Iraq. One wire service story said more than 300,000 demonstrated in Baghdad.

Last year, our own government took a poll and found that 92 percent of Iraqis regarded us as occupiers rather than liberators. An earlier poll had a similar, but slightly lower, figure of 82 percent; and these were polls taken by us, or at least by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which is 95 percent U.S.

Obviously, the great majority of people in Iraq do not appreciate what we have done there and do not want us there. They do want our money, and that is the only reason some will say good things about us being there because we do still have several hundred thousand Iraqis on the U.S. payroll.

This is a nation that Newsweek said had a GDP of only $65 billion the year before the war. By the end of this year, we will have spent $300 billion in just 3 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, but mostly in Iraq. Iraq had a total military budget of just a little over two-tenths of 1 percent of our military budget in the year before we attacked. They were no threat to us whatsoever. Just a few weeks ago, a report came out saying our prewar intelligence was dead wrong. At that time, Richard Perle, one of the main architects of this war, appeared before the House Committee on Armed Services to say that everyone at that time thought there was a threat. This was not correct.

Just before the House voted to authorize the war in October 2002, I was asked to come to the White House for a briefing with Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and John McLaughlin. I asked at that time how much Hussein's military budget was in comparison to ours and was told the two-tenths of 1 percent figure I mentioned a few minutes ago. I asked was there any evidence of imminent threat. I said one man cannot conduct a war by himself, it would have to involve many others, was there any movement toward war. I was told there was none. George Tenet later confirmed there was no imminent threat in his speech at Georgetown University just after he resigned as head of the CIA.

There were just five other Members at that briefing, so we got to ask a lot of questions. I asked about former economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey's prediction that the war would cost 100 to $200 billion. Ms. Rice said the war would not cost nearly as much. Now we know that Mr. Lindsey's prediction was far too low. Most of what we have spent and are spending in Iraq is pure foreign aid, megabillions to provide free health care and rebuild Iraqi roads, schools, water and power plants, airports and railroads, and provide law enforcement, among many other things.

At the White House briefing, I said most conservatives have always been against massive foreign aid and huge deficit spending. The war in Iraq has led to foreign aid and deficit spending on unprecedented scales.

There is nothing conservative about the war in Iraq, and many conservative columnists and activists have now realized this. Columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote in 2003, ``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 minorities in their name will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the globe.''

The first obligation of the U.S. Congress should be to our own citizens, not the citizens of Iraq. In 1998 when Saddam Hussein was not even in the news, I voted to give $100 million to the Iraqi opposition to help them begin the effort to remove Saddam Hussein. We should have let Iraqis fight this war instead of sending our kids over there to fight and die and be maimed, and the sooner we bring our troops home the better. I hope we have learned that we should never be anxious to go to war and should do so only when we are forced to do so and there is no other reasonable alternative.

Mr. Speaker, the Scripps-Howard News Service recently ran a story about what it describes as ``Capitol Hill's extravagant new visitors center.''

The story said: ``Another year and another $37 million in unforeseen cost increases'' in what is becoming an annual sad joke.

There have been so many examples of ridiculous, wasteful spending at the Federal level over the last 30 or 40 years that it seems the Federal Government cannot do anything in an economical, efficient manner.

The Scripps-Howard story said: ``Originally estimated to cost $40 million, the project has grown into a 5-story Taj Mahal that so far has cost taxpayers $454 million.''

The current final cost is estimated to be $559 million, and Citizens Against Government Waste describes it as ``monumental waste.''

Apparently, if we want something to cost about 10 times more than it should, just let the Federal Government do it.

Those who are in charge of managing this project should be ashamed and embarrassed, but all they will probably do is laugh at these comments, since the money is not coming out of their pockets.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 135) to establish the ``Twenty-First Century Water Commission'' to study and develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy to address future water needs.

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. 135, the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 135, introduced be my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), and cosponsored by a wide range of Members from both parties, creates the 21st Century Water Commission to find ways to increase and conserve water supplies. The gentleman from Georgia and his colleagues have properly recognized that water shortages are a common problem throughout the United States.

The goal of this legislation is for a broad-based commission to recommend a comprehensive water strategy that recognizes and upholds the primary role of the States in administering our water laws. The commissioners, appointed by the President and the Congress, would look at ways to improve interagency coordination, eliminate government duplication, create new financing opportunities and improve our Nation's water infrastructure, among other things, all very important goals.

The commission is directed to hold no less than 10 public hearings around the Nation and submit a final report no later than 3 years after its first meeting so that this commission will not drag on forever. The legislation sunsets the commission within 30 days of the final report's submission.

Madam Speaker, there is, and should be, a limited Federal role in these matters since States and localities primarily administer water rights and know the most about them. This bill does not add Federal regulation to the books. It simply creates a mechanism for further dialogue and potential solutions for all levels of government.

This idea has come a long way since it was originally introduced over two Congresses ago. It has been subject to hearings and comprehensively vetted through both the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, both of which I have the privilege to serve on.

In fact, last Congress I held a series of hearings on water supply issues, including a hearing on this legislation. The witnesses who testified before my Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment strongly supported greater planning to meet future water needs, involving all levels of government, and supported the 21st Century Water Commission Act as a means to help start that process.

It, like the identical bill passed by the House in the 108th Congress, is the right solution for the right time. It respects the primary role that States play in addressing water resources issues.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), probably the Member of this body who was the first to recognize the grave importance of water issues in this Nation, the distinguished primary sponsor of this bill. I commend the gentleman for his steadfast and yeoman's work on this legislation, and it should be noted that one of our leading national newspapers just a few years ago wrote a series of articles saying that water would be the oil of the 21st century.

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, let me just close by saying that although this bill is not controversial and has not received a lot of publicity, that should not denigrate its significance. Because of our aging clean water infrastructure, because of water supply problems in many parts of this Nation, and for all of the other reasons that our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), just mentioned, this is a very important bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters on H.R. 135 for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC, April 5, 2005.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I request your assistance in scheduling

H.R. 135, the Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act of

2005, for consideration by the House of Representatives. This

bill was referred primarily to the Committee on resources and

additionally to your committee.

As the text of this bill is identical to what passed the

House of Representatives under suspension of the rules last

Congress, I ask that you allow your committee to be

discharged from further consideration of the bill to allow us

to pass it again. Perhaps with more time, the Senate will be

able to give it due consideration.

By allowing the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

to be discharged, you are not waiving any jurisdiction you

may have over the bill. I also agree that in the unlikely

event that this bill becomes the focus of a conference

committee that I will support your request to be represented

on that conference. Finally, I agree that this discharge will

not serve as precedent for future referrals.

Thank you for your consideration of my request. I look

forward to another Congress of extraordinary cooperation

between our committees on matters of mutual interest.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 482) to provide for a land exchange involving Federal lands in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes.

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 the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 482 would authorize a land exchange involving Federal lands in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico. This legislation would exchange 80 acres between the Lincoln National Forest and Lubbock Christian University for a much-needed expansion of the University's Pine Springs Camp. The camp is used in the summer for week-long camp sessions and utilized in the winter by college groups, youth groups, and churches for retreats.

In recent years, the camp has seen an increase in visitors and will soon run out of room, forcing the camp to turn visitors away. Both the camp and Lubbock Christian University are nonprofit. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important measure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the author of this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I simply want to close by commending the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for his very fine work on this legislation. This is a very worthwhile land exchange. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 541) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use as cemeteries.

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 the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 541 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use as public cemeteries. Specifically, the town of Kingston, Nevada, requires an additional 8.75 acres of Forest Service land to supplement the 1.25 acres of Forest Service land conveyed to it in 2000 for the town's cemetery. The additional acreage would ensure that areas of unmarked graves are included in the town's cemetery and that space is available for future graves in Kingston Cemetery. In addition, H.R. 541 would authorize the Bureau of Land Management to convey 10 acres of disposable land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use at Maiden's Grave Cemetery.

H.R. 541 is supported by the majority and the minority of the Committee on Resources and is identical to legislation that passed the House of Representatives by voice vote during the 108th Congress. I urge adoption of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

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

The land involved here is approximately 20 acres. Many of us believe that the Federal Government owns far too much land in the State of Nevada

already. Frankly, as our colleague from Nevada pointed out, this makes two one-thousandths of 1 percent, which is a minuscule part of the State of Nevada, and so I think this is very worthwhile legislation. I commend the gentleman from Nevada for bringing this to the attention of the House, and I urge the passage of this legislation.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 18) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and in coordination with other Federal, State, and local government agencies, to participate in the funding and implementation of a balanced, long-term groundwater remediation program in California, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 18, authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the funding and implementation of a balanced, long-term groundwater remediation program. This bill establishes a limited Federal fund to resolve groundwater problems in the Santa Ana, California, watershed. This area has approximately 30 major water wells that are currently shut down or are out of production due to groundwater contamination from man-made and naturally-occurring chemicals. For example, a local perchlorate plume has impacted 250,000 residents in Rialto, California.

This bill is just one small, but very important, part of a comprehensive solution to resolve a water emergency. The House passed identical legislation in the 108th Congress. I urge my colleagues to once again adopt this measure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 794) to correct the south boundary of the Colorado River Indian Reservation in Arizona, and for other purposes.

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 the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 794, which is sponsored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), corrects an historic injustice to the Colorado River Indian Tribes. It is substantially identical to H.R. 2941, legislation that was passed in the House last year but was not considered in the Senate.

Passage of this measure is long overdue. It restores 16,000 acres of public lands in Arizona to the Colorado River Indian Reservation wrongfully excluded from the reservation over 90 years ago.

Created by an Act of Congress in 1865, the reservation was expanded by President Grant in order to prevent encroachment by non-Indians. The expansion included a 16,000-acre area called the La Paz lands.

The La Paz expansion did not hold up for very long. The original surveys to affix the boundary of the La Paz addition were rescinded by President Wilson. A survey of dubious merit, apparently at the behest of people who coveted the Tribes' lands, was substituted for the valid surveys. As a result, the La Paz lands were excluded from the reservation.

All credible evidence indicates that the La Paz lands were wrongly deleted from the Tribes' reservation. Subsequent attempts to restore them a few times during the 1900s did not meet with success.

H.R. 794 finally restores the La Paz lands to its rightful owner, subject to valid, existing rights and interests and excluding certain parcels owned by the State of Arizona. The bill requires the boundary line of the reservation to reflect the addition of these lands.

As I explained, with one minor exception, this bill is exactly the same as H.R. 2941 that was passed by the House last year but went no further. The only difference is the title of the map has been changed to correct a typographical error.

Because this measure is unchanged from what the House approved last year, I urge my colleagues today to pass H.R. 794. With Congress' help, the Colorado River Indian Tribes can finally put this justice behind them. I urge adoption of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, regardless of how one feels about the Terri Schiavo case, and regardless of whether one is a liberal or a conservative, everyone should be concerned that the judiciary seems to be setting itself up as a type of superlegislature.

Our Founding Fathers clearly did not mean for the judicial branch to be superior to or more powerful than the legislative and executive branches.

A Member of the other body, former State supreme court justice, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), made some very serious charges on the floor of the Senate Monday. He said, ``It causes a lot of people great distress to see judges use the authority they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions.''

He added that ``sometimes the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people.''

The reason people on both sides of the political spectrum should be concerned about this judicial power grab is that the political pendulum swings. Sometimes conservatives control legislative bodies; sometimes liberals do. Would liberals someday want conservative judges overruling their legislation?

The Schiavo bill was very narrowly drawn to apply to just that case at the request or insistence of more liberal Members of both the House and Senate.

Then some liberals in the media, in Congress, and in the courts criticized the bill as being too narrowly drawn. One judge, showing great arrogance, even scolded the Congress for acting, issuing a bitter non-judicial type of an opinion.

I served for 7\1/2\ years as a circuit court or State trial court judge in Tennessee. I have great respect for the legal profession and the judiciary. When I attended George Washington University's law school in the early 1970s, I took a course in legislative law. We were taught then that the courts were not legislatures. They were not to be political bodies, and they were to give great deference to the actions of the Congress and the State legislatures.

In fact, we were taught, through a great amount of case law, that the primary role of the courts was to try to determine legislative intent, not to try, whenever possible, to overrule it anytime judges might disagree for personal and/or political reasons.

The intent of the Congress was clear in the Schiavo case, with the bill passing the House 203 to 58 with strong support from both bodies and by unanimous agreement in the Senate. Are we now to have some type of judicial dictatorship?

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter written in September of 1820, said this, responding to the arguments that Federal judges should be the final interpreters of the Constitution: ``You seem to consider the Federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power, and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.'' A quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Alexander Hamilton, writing many years ago in Federalist Paper No. 81, said: ``To avoid all inconveniences, it will be safest to declare generally that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdictions that shall be subject to such exceptions and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify this in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.''

All judges are elected or appointed through a political process, yet many do not like to admit this either to

themselves or to others. So they sometimes go to extremes and bend over backwards to prove how nonpolitical they are. They leap at the opportunity to rule against a political defendant or show their power by overturning a political decision by Congress or some other legislative body.

Federal judges in particular are not only unelected; they are, as a practical matter, almost totally unaccountable. Thus they have very great power, which is very easy to abuse. For most of the history of this country, Federal judges exercised this power with great restraint, giving great deference to legislative bodies. For many years now, however, we have had far too many judges who have lost their humility and have not shown this same restraint. In the process of trying to show how nonpolitical and above politics they are, they have ironically become more political than ever before.

This has become so common that now a majority of people in this country have become upset with government by the Judiciary instead of by coequal legislative and executive bodies. We are going down a dangerous path, Mr. Speaker, and one that was clearly not intended by our Founding Fathers or the Constitution they gave us.

We are supposed to have a government of, by, and for the people, not one that ignores clear legislative intent and becomes one that is only of, by, and for the courts and of, by, and for very political and power-hungry judges.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor one of the finest men I have ever known and a long-time family friend, Tutt Bradford.

Tutt served as publisher of The Daily Times in Maryville, Tennessee, from 1955 until 1985. He was a highly respected voice for Blount County and an advocate for its residents throughout those three decades and continues to contribute to the paper's opinion pages on a regular basis.

Tutt's peers long ago recognized him as one of East Tennessee's greatest journalists. They rewarded him with a coveted spot on the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association Board from 1968 until 1970 and then elevated him to President of the Tennessee Press Association in 1974.

In addition to tremendous achievements in the field of journalism, Tutt can also claim many accomplishments within his community. Among other endeavors, he has served on the boards of countless charitable organizations, promoted higher education, and worked to improve the quality of life among all East Tennesseans.

Tutt's contributions to his community have been recognized on numerous occasions. The United Way of Blount County recently named its endowment program in his honor, and he is a past recipient of the University of Tennessee's Volunteer of the Year Award. The National Society of Fund-Raising Executives even named Tutt its Outstanding Philanthropist of the Year in 1991.

The complete list of Tutt's awards could fill several pages in the Record, so I will not attempt to list them all. Needless to say, however, he is a man of strong character and great compassion who represents the values of Blount County remarkably well.

The East Tennessee Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists will pay tribute to Tutt June 18 when he serves as the honoree at this year's Front Page Follies. The annual event provides funding for communications scholarships by inviting local elected officials, journalists, and other community leaders to roast a guest of honor.

I would like to call the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record to a recent Daily Times article regarding the 2005 Front Page Follies and a true Blount County treasure, Tutt Bradford.

Journalists to Honor Bradford

[From the Daily Times, Feb. 16, 2005]

The 2005 Front Page Follies will honor Tutt Bradford,

retired publisher of The Daily Times and a community leader

who led and supported many causes in the area.

Bradford was publisher of The Daily Times from 1955 to

1985. Prior to that, he was publisher of the Bristol (Va.)

Herald-Courier and the Cleveland Daily Banner. He was a

member of the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association Board

from 1968 to 1970 and was president of the Tennessee Press

Association in 1974.

``The East Tennessee Chapter of the Society of Professional

Journalists is very proud to honor Tutt Bradford for his many

accomplishments in the field of journalism,'' said Chapter

President Dorothy Bowles. ``Equally impressive is the

dedicated service that Tutt has given and continues to give

to Tennesseans.''

Bradford was a member of the University of Tennessee

Development Council from 1980 to 1983 and served on the board

of Maryville College from 1974 to 1979 and from 1981 to 2003.

He served on the boards of the Knoxville Symphony

Orchestra, Knoxville Museum of Art, Thompson Cancer Survival

Center, Lakeshore Mental Hospital, the Tennessee Technology

Foundation, the Boys Club Foundation, the Blount Hearing and

Speech Foundation, and the Blount Library Foundation. He was

president of the Blount County Industrial Development Board

from 1970 to 1972.

Bradford has received many honors and awards. He was

recipient of the Distinguished Service Award of the Bristol

Junior Chamber of Commerce, and he received the Sequoyah

Literacy Award from the Tennessee Historical Commission.

Junior Achievement named him to the East Tennessee Business

Hall of Fame in 1990. In 1994, the University of Tennessee

named him Volunteer of the Year.

The National Society of Fund-Raising Executives named

Bradford Outstanding Philanthropist of the Year in 1991. He

was president of the Blount County Chamber of Commerce in

1960 and president of the Kiwanis Club in Maryville in 1967.

The Follies are scheduled for 6 p.m., Saturday, June 18, at

the Knoxville Convention Center.

The annual roast of newsmakers is sponsored by the East

Tennessee Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists

and raises funds for communications scholarships at the

University of Tennessee-Knoxville and Pellissippi State

Technical Community College.

This year's skits and songs will feature Vols football

coach Phillip Fulmer in ``The People's Court,'' state Sen.

Tim Burchett and his ``shadow,'' ``Hysteric Preservation''

highlighting Cherokee Country Club, and a legal battle royal

with Knox County Mayor Mike Ragsdale, Sheriff Tim Hutchison,

and Commissioner Wanda Moody.

Local TV anchors and meteorologists will add their special

brand of fun to the event.

Mr. Speaker, the World Trade Organization has now ruled the State of Utah cannot ban Internet gambling within its own borders. The WTO said if the ban was enforced, Utah would be impeding the rights of the small nations of Antigua and Barbados.

Who would have ever thought that Antigua and Barbados would have more control over what goes on in Utah than the people of Utah themselves do?

This is ridiculous. What have we come to? Utah State Representative Sheryl Allen commented on this ruling saying, ``It's not just gambling. The States are losing their authority in a lot of areas.''

Where are those people now who told us that membership in the WTO would not cause any loss of U.S. sovereignty?

Mr. Speaker, we had plenty of free trade before the WTO even existed, and we could do so again. At the very least, we should renegotiate the terms of our membership to allow our States to prohibit Internet gambling if they wish to do so.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, a Connecticut eminent domain case which I think is one of the most important cases it will hear certainly during this term of court and for the future of this Nation.

Nationally syndicated columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote a column about this on February 28, and he quoted Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice. Listen to what Scott Bullock said, ``Every home, church or corner store would produce more jobs and tax revenue if it were a Costco or a shopping mall. If State and local governments can force a property owner to surrender his land so it can be given to a new owner who will put it to a more lucrative use, no home or shop in America will ever be safe again.''

Jeff Jacoby asks, ``But can government kick people out of their homes or businesses simply to make way for new development?''

No one gets concerned about the taking of property unless it is their property being taken. But this is getting to a very dangerous point in this country today. The whole history of eminent domain has been in large part taking land from the poor for the use and benefit of the rich and our government bureaucrats.

Government at all levels in this country now owns or controls half the land and continuously wants more. You can never satisfy government's appetite for money or land. On top of this, government at all levels is continually putting more and more restrictions on the land that remains in private ownership. If this trend continues, Mr. Speaker, housing prices will continue to skyrocket. New homes will be built on much smaller pieces of land, and more young families will be crowded into high-rise apartments or townhouses. A very important part of the American dream, home ownership, will slowly fade away for many young people.

Huge parts of East Tennessee, my home area, have been taken over the years from poor or lower-income families who would be rich today if they still had their land.

Columnist Thomas Sowell recently wrote about what he called the ``misuse of the power of eminent domain'' and how government was taking property from working class people. Columnist Sowell said this, ``Those who are constantly denouncing greed almost never apply that term to what the government does, no matter how unconscionable it may be, as the routine misuse of eminent domain has become with its Robin-Hood-in- reverse redistribution of wealth.''

Many people do not realize how important private property is to our freedom and our prosperity. As I said a few minutes ago, the Federal Government now owns or controls over 30 percent of the land and State, and local governments and quasi-governmental entities now own another 20 percent. Half the land is in some type of public ownership, and government at all levels keeps taking more and more and putting more and more restrictions on the land that is still private.

Richard W. Rahn, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, wrote recently, ``Government-owned land is removed from the tax base, so it not only costs everyone to maintain it, but the government also loses tax revenue. When land is removed from private use by government ownership or unreasonable use restrictions, it reduces the supply of land, thus driving up housing prices.''

Because of government taking or restricting use of land, more and more people are being forced on to smaller and smaller areas or developments. You can never satisfy government's appetite for land or money, and we desperately need to elect more people at all levels who will pledge to stop taking private property.

As I have said, it is just impossible to satisfy government's appetite for land, and over the last 40 years or so, governments at all levels have been taking

private property at a very alarming rate.

Private property is an extremely important element for both our freedom and our prosperity. It used to be that eminent domain was used mainly to take private property for public use. Now, according to a column in the nonpartisan National Journal, condemning private property for private use is a booming national business. The magazine gave several examples, including the taking of Randy Bailey's 27-year-old brake shop in Mesa, Arizona, for a new chain store.

This is happening in thousands of places all over the Nation. Jonathan Rauch wrote in the National Journal, ``In the last decade, it has become common for city leaders to define blighted as not developed as nicely as we would prefer or not developed by the people we would prefer. But property is held sacrosanct in America not to protect the rich and powerful, who always make out all right, but to protect the poor from the predations of the rich and powerful.''

He quoted in his column an official of the Institute for Justice, a law firm trying to protect private property owners, as saying ``this is now a major nationwide problem.''

Once again, I will say, I hope we elect more people to Federal, State and local offices who will stop taking so much private property. It sounds good for a politician to create a park, but then when that land is taken off the tax rolls, the taxes for everybody else have to keep going up. We are doing this at a very, very alarming rate, and we need to at least cut back on this.

We cannot take care of all the national parks and State parks and local parks that we have in this country today, and we need to stop taking more, or we are going to ruin our economy, and we are going to take away an important part of the freedom that we have in this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 41) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a day should be established as ``National Tartan Day'' to recognize the outstanding achievements and contributions made by Scottish-Americans to the United States.

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. Res. 41.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 41 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding ``National Tartan Day.'' This is a resolution for which I have the privilege to be the primary Republican sponsor, and the primary sponsor on the Democratic side has been the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre). Each year, thousands of Americans of Scottish origin recognize April 6 as Tartan or Clan Day. Next month many events around the country will commemorate National Tartan Day at churches, festivals, and other social gatherings.

In March 1998, the Senate designated April 6 of each year as National Tartan Day because that is the date the Declaration of Arbroath was drafted.

The House no longer permits establishments of commemorations, but I am pleased to support National Tartan Day and salute all Americans who will observe this day.

The consideration of this resolution also provides an opportunity to review an important time in world history. In 1296, King Edward the First of England invaded Scotland. The following year, Robert the Bruce responded by leading Scots in a revolt to regain their sovereignty. Members may remember Robert the Bruce as the leader who continued the Scottish rebellion after his comrade-in-arms William Wallace's death, as portrayed in the movie ``Braveheart.''

After years of conflict, the outmanned Scottish soldiers, led by Robert the Bruce, who had since been crowned King of Scotland, overcame the English at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. This battle was the culmination of Robert's struggle for Scottish independence.

Afterwards, the Declaration of Arbroath was written and completed on April 6, 1320, most likely by the monks of Arbroath Abbey on behalf of the Scottish barons and nobles. The declaration was a letter, in Latin, sent to Pope John the 22nd because the Pope had yet to recognize Scottish independence. The declaration affirmed Scotland's determination to maintain its independence.

Ultimately, the Pope was swayed by the Scottish appeal, and King Edwards, III, recognized King Robert and the independence of Scotland in 1328. The Declaration of Arbroath is undeniably the most important document in Scottish history, but it is also widely viewed as greatly influencing the American Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Members can also see Scottish-American influence throughout the history of our great Nation. Thirty-five U.S. Supreme Court justices have been of Scottish descent. Nearly half of the Secretaries of the U.S. Treasury, and one-third of the Secretaries of State have been of Scottish origin. Nine of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were directly or indirectly descended from the Scots. And nine out of 13 Governors of the newly created United States were Scot or of Scottish descent.

The 2000 census reported that almost 5 million Americans are of Scottish heritage, and 4.3 million of Scots-Irish descent.

Madam Speaker, almost everyone who settled my home area of east Tennessee was of Scottish or Scots-Irish origin. The Scots-Irish were originally the poorest people in Scotland. Then they moved to Ireland and became the poorest people there. Then the Scots-Irish moved to the United States and became the poorest people here. They seem to have a knack for it.

Scottish-Americans, however, also have a knack for working hard to preserve their ancestry and heritage. There are more than 200 organizations through the United States that honor Scottish heritage. In my district, the Scottish Society of Knoxville recently held its annual Robert Burns Night when they honored Scotland's most celebrated poet.

Each year in Gatlinburg, right outside my district, Scottish- Americans from all over the country gather for the Gatlinburg Scottish Festival Games, or better known as Highland games. Festivities include throwing the battle axe, the kilted mile, and highland wrestling. Highland games like these are held all over the Nation.

A few years ago, the airline magazine ``World Traveler'' of Northwest Airlines profiled my Scottish ancestry. In that interview I told them one cannot get much more Scottish than having the name Duncan, being Presbyterian, and having most of one's relatives coming from Scott County, Tennessee.

Madam Speaker, I am proud of my Scottish and Scots-Irish heritage. I am pleased to join with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) in support of House Resolution 41. I thank him for offering this measure and urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

Let me just close by, first of all, thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his words and especially thanking our colleague from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for his great leadership on this legislation. I thank you for your noting the origins of the great game of golf in Scotland. As one who loves golf, and you mentioned golf jokes, I might just tell you that when I come in from playing golf and people ask me how I did, I just tell them unbelievable, and they can take it anyway they want to then.

I think this is important legislation, and I will tell you why. There are very few countries that have as close ties as the United States and Scotland. We have mentioned many of those ties and much of that heritage here today. But until this day and until this legislation, those close ties between Scotland and the United States have not been recognized in any way by the United States House of Representatives. And so I urge my colleagues to support this very important resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for

yielding me this time, and I appreciate his recognition of my home area of East Tennessee. Native Tennesseans are more likely to tell you they are from East Tennessee or West Tennessee or Middle Tennessee than they are the State of Tennessee, and I am very proud of my section.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very important legislation which will improve our transportation infrastructure and create millions of jobs. Our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), as well as our ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), all good friends of mine, are to be commended for their great leadership on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is the biggest jobs bill that we will vote on in this Congress. Every day, when we are travelling, we see men and women working on our highways and mass transit systems. By increasing our investment in transportation and infrastructure, we are increasing our investment in American jobs. In fact, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that every additional $1 billion invested by the Federal Government in transportation creates over 47,000 new jobs.

While many of us would have liked to have seen a larger bill brought to the House Floor for consideration, this legislation will do so many good things. I also want to stress the importance of maintaining and improving our system of ground transportation in this country. No member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure wants to pave over every inch of this country. However, if we are going to reduce congestion, improve safety and have a system where goods can be transported to market quickly and efficiently, we are going to have to make an investment and have to make improvements in our infrastructure.

I believe the investment that this bill makes will help reduce congestion on our Nation's highways. One of our leading national magazines said recently that ``congestion costs the Nation about $67 billion a year. Americans waste 3.6 billion hours and 5.7 billion gallons of gas sitting in traffic, all at an average cost of $1,160 per commuter year.''

We also need to improve the safety of our roads so that we can save lives. Every 4 months, more deaths occur on our highways than have occurred in all aviation accidents since the Wright Brothers started flying over 100 years ago.

I know some people have expressed their concerns about increasing the funding for transportation and infrastructure. However, we are now spending billions of dollars on terrorism due to the actions of just 19 terrorists in 2001. I believe we should do everything we can to protect this country from terrorism, but I also believe you can go overboard on almost anything. The very respected National Journal publication has pointed out that we are thousands of times more likely to die in an automobile accident than by an act of terrorism.

We are currently spending billions and billions, hundreds of billions of dollars in other countries, through all kinds of foreign aid and activities. The funding contained in this bill comes from American highway users and should be spent here in this country. I do not have anything against helping other countries. However, I believe we can only continue to do this if we remain economically strong in this Nation. One of the keys to our economic growth in this country is to have a reliable system of transportation.

I am urging my colleagues to support this bill. If you believe in job growth, safer highways, economic stimulation, cleaner air, less congestion and a strong America, then you should vote for this bill. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that helps the economy, it helps the environment, and it saves lives. I do not see how we could do any better than that.