Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this coming Monday, Lt. Colonel Allan West is scheduled to face an article 32 hearing to see if he should be court martialed.

Colonel West is accused of threatening an Iraqi prisoner. According to news reports, Colonel West shot his handgun into a firing barrel and also fired it near this prisoner. He did not harm the prisoner in any way, but he apparently scared him into giving information that foiled an attack on American soldiers.

If these news reports are accurate, Colonel West saved many American lives. This is a man who has served honorably for almost 20 years in the United States Army. He should not be court martialed. He should be given a medal for saving American lives.

Mr. Speaker, liberals who gave us Big Government should love the DynCorp contract to train police in Iraq. Almost all Federal contracts are sweetheart deals that hire former high-level Federal employees or retired military officers, but this police training contract just about takes the cake.

NBC News reported the night before last that we have already spent $30 million on this deal and will in short order be spending $800 million more. We will be spending, according to NBC, $400,000 per trainer, counting salaries, benefits and expenses. No policeman in this country makes anywhere near this much.

DynCorp was so embarrassed they refused to comment because they knew there was no way they could justify the obscene profits and ripoff of the U.S.

taxpayers in this sweetheart deal, $850 million, $400,000 per trainer. DynCorp should be ashamed, but I suppose they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute and congratulate Jessie Roberson, Department of Energy's (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, and Gerald Boyd, DOE's Oak Ridge Operations Manager, his team and their many partners, for recently winning the prestigious Phoenix Award from the Environmental Protection Agency--for their outstanding local reindustrialization program and for excellence in brownfield redevelopment.

This Phoenix Award, which is comparable to winning a Hollywood Oscar in the brownfield development world, was recently presented at the International Brownfields 2003 Conference in Portland, Oregon.

The Department of Energy's office in Oak Ridge, along with the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee and the Bechtel Jacobs reindustrialization team, has worked on remediating and redeveloping the former K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Oak Ridge, now called the East Tennessee Technology Park, into a thriving new economic development model celebrated by brownfield redevelopers around the world.

Sixty years ago, the K-25 facility was constructed to help America win a war. From 1943 through most of the Cold War, this facility served as an example to the world of our Nation's technological capabilities. This technology played an essential role in our Nation's security. I believe it is a great testament to the men and women who made this work possible that today, the East Tennessee Technology Park is once again an example of American ingenuity. From preserving our Nation's freedoms to helping restore our Nation's environment, those working at the East Tennessee Technology Park are recognized as leaders.

They have taken dirty, abandoned government facilities and cleaned them up and turned them into available commercial properties to help create new jobs in our region. To date, more than 1,200 jobs have been created, with over $40 million in new annual payroll.

As chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am proud that EPA's region 4 office has recognized this outstanding example right in the heart of the Tennessee Valley Science and Technology Corridor of how we can work to transform abandoned industrial properties into productive new economic development projects that help create new jobs and new opportunities for more Americans.

I ask the entire House to join me in thanking and congratulating DOE and their partners for their innovation and this outstanding achievement.

Mr. Speaker, in last Friday's New York Times, columnist Thomas Friedman quoted some advice Richard Brodhead, the dean of Yale College, recently gave to incoming freshmen:

`` Above all,'' Dean Brodhead told the students, ``do not limit your associations to people who agree with you.''

Yet as David Brooks pointed out in the September issue of the Atlantic Monthly magazine, the place where there is the least diversity today is on college faculties. Conservatives simply are not welcome, except for a few tokens in some places. As Mr. Brooks wrote, ``No group of people sings the diversity anthem more frequently than administrators at our elite universities, but elite universities are amazingly undiverse in their values, politics, and mores. Professors, in particular, are drawn from a narrow segment of the population.'' Mr. Brooks pointed out that conservative students and professors may be one of the groups most discriminated in this country today.

Mr. Speaker, I hope our elite universities will strive for true diversity and academic freedom and allow at least a few conservatives to teach in their classrooms and speak on their campuses.

Mr. Speaker, many Americans today may not be familiar with Will Rogers. However, Will Rogers was at one time considered by many to be the most popular man in America. He once said, ``America has a great habit of always talking about protecting American interests in some foreign country.'' Then he said, ``Protect them here at home. There is more American interest right here than anywhere.''

The passage of an additional $87 billion for an operation in Iraq seems to many to be anything but fiscally conservative. The request includes, among many other things, $5.7 billion for a new electric power system; $3.7 billion to improve drinking water; $856 million to upgrade and repair three airports, rail lines, and phone service; $240,000 each for 1,500 police trainers to train Iraqi police; $1.71 per gallon for gas that they are then selling to Iraqi citizens for $4.15 per gallon, according to The New York Times.

Earlier billions have been used to build or rebuild thousands of Iraqi schools, give free health care to many Iraqi citizens, make backpayments to the Iraqi military and Iraqi retirees, and even send 60,000 soccer balls there. Our Founding Fathers could not have imagined all this in their wildest dreams.

A distinguished Member of the other body, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, said, ``Look at the needs we have here at home, with our roads, sewers, and water projects. It is hard to tell people there isn't money for sewers and water and then send that kind of money to Iraq.'' Another distinguished Member of the other body, Mr. Hagel, the gentleman from Nebraska, said, ``There is a great unease about all this reflected across this land. We are getting deeper and deeper into something we have never been in before in this part of the world. This is complicated, dangerous and uncertain.''

Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, have never believed in massive foreign aid, yet our occupation of Iraq has become the largest foreign aid program in the history of the world. Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, have never believed in huge deficit spending, yet we are now told that our deficits for just this year and next will reach close to an astounding $1 trillion.

Supporters of the war scoffed at the predictions that we would spend between $200 billion to $300 billion in Iraq over the next 10 years. Now, by the most conservative efforts, not counting many things that should be counted, the Iraqi operation will cost $167 billion in just the first 2 years.

And because we are in such a deep fiscal hole already, we will have to borrow all these billions we are spending there.

Conservatives have never believed in world government, and have been strong critics of the U.N. Yet, some prominent war supporters, while criticizing the U.N. in one breath, will say in the next we had to go to war to enforce all the U.N. resolutions Saddam Hussein had violated. Most conservatives surely do not believe it is fair to place almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on American taxpayers and the U.S. military. Most conservatives, while believing strongly in national defense, have never believed the U.S. should be the policeman of the world. Most conservatives believe we would not have nearly as many enemies around the world if we followed a noninterventionist foreign policy and did not get involved in so many religious, ethnic, and political disputes around the world.

Now, we are following a so-called neoconservative foreign policy that is anything but conservative. This interventionist policy is breeding resentment, creating more enemies, and putting our children and grandchildren into a financial black hole, and worst of all killing many young American military.

Fortune magazine in its November 25 issue, long before the war started, printed an article entitled, ``Iraq--We Win, What Then?'' The article said a ``military victory could turn into a strategic defeat,'' and an American occupation could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists. These predictions have turned out to be deadly accurate.

The columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote, ``Critics of the war against Iraq have said since the beginning of the conflict that Americans, still strangely complacent about overseas wars being waged by a minority in their name, will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the globe.''

Saddam Hussein was an evil man but he had a military budget only about two-tenths of 1 percent of ours and was never any real threat to us. Everyone knew we would win the war quickly and easily.

Winning the peace, everyone said, would be much more difficult. Now, we are hearing noble-sounding cliches like ``we have to get the job done'' and ``we must stay the course'' and ``the American people must be willing to sacrifice.'' Well, we should all be asking why?

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Iraqi people do not want us running their country, they only want our money. Any country would want all these billions. Now war supporters seem to be criticizing the media for reporting all the killing but failing to emphasize all the good that is going on there. For all of the billions we are spending there, I certainly hope some good things are going on, but these good things should be paid for by the Iraqi citizens with their own oil wealth. Let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

A very small minority of very powerful Neo-Cons have apparently dreamed of war with Iraq for many years. They got their wish. But what they may have thought would be their crowning achievement may instead lead to their downfall.

So many people in the United States and around the world feel that they were misled about the need to go to war in Iraq that they almost certainly will be much harder to convince the next time around.

No matter who is President, almost all the leaders of the Defense Department, the State Department, the National Security Council, and our intelligence agencies are going to advocate more and more involvement in foreign affairs, even those which should be none of our business or even when there is no threat to our vital interests.

This is because all their power and glory, and most importantly, their funding are determined in large part by our involvement in the

affairs of other nations. These people are not seen as men and women of action and world statesmen when they urge that we do more and more in other countries.

I wish more of our leaders would heed the advice of President Kennedy who said in 1962: ``We must face that fact that the United states is neither omnipotent nor omnisicient--that we are only six percent [now four percent] of the world's population--that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind--that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity--and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.''

There is nothing conservative about the U.S. policy in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this matter; but as I listened to this debate, I decided to make a few comments.

There is waste in the private sector, just like there is waste in the public sector; but the waste in the private sector pales in comparison to the waste that is in the public sector. So it has been proven all over the world that the more money that can be left in the private sector, in whatever country, the better off everyone is, the better off especially the poor and low-income people are because more jobs are created, the lower prices are; and so all over this world it has been proven that the more money government takes, either legally or illegally or corruptly, that the people who are hurt the most are the poor and working people of that particular country. In every country where we have been able to keep the amount of the GDP that the government takes to a relatively small amount, the better off everyone is, especially the poor and lower-income people.

I am probably one of the least partisan Members of this Congress. I have been here 15 years. I do not think I have ever mentioned the word ``Republican'' and ``Democrat'' in any speech that I have ever given, but I mentioned to the gentlewoman from Washington State a while ago an article I read a couple of years ago in the Atlantic Monthly magazine, and David Brooks wrote an article, and he compared Montgomery County, Maryland, one of the wealthiest counties in this country, which went 68 percent for Vice President Gore to Franklin County, Pennsylvania, 70 miles to the north which went 68 percent for President Bush. What he said was it is just exactly the opposite of the image the media tries to portray or some of those on the other side who participate in

what I think has actually been described as class warfare.

This author, Mr. Brooks, said that when he went to Franklin County, Pennsylvania, he tried to find a meal that cost more than $20, he could not. The Cracker Barrel was the most expensive restaurant. He said the death of Dale Earnhart in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, was a big event. In Montgomery County, Maryland, they did not even know who Dale Earnhart was.

What I am saying to my colleague is the most liberal areas in this country are always the wealthiest areas, and if they want to talk about class warfare, let us talk about it. Our party is very much a middle- income, particularly even lower-middle-income party, and the easier people get money the more liberal they are politically. It is just like a kid. If one gives a kid a $20 bill, it burns a hole in his pocket until he spends it. If he has to go out and earn it, he is a little more careful with the way he spends it; and our party, the Republican Party, we have some people with money but they are almost always people who started with nothing or very little and who made some money.

That is what we are trying to do with these tax cuts. We are trying to give people an opportunity to better themselves, and the people who get the bulk of the tax breaks that we came up with are almost entirely in the middle-income levels of our society. So we get pretty tired of hearing all this class warfare that is going on on the other side, when 9 out of the 10 wealthiest contributors politically in this country are to the Democratic Party. That was in an article in the Roll Call newspaper today. So if they want to play class warfare, we can play it; but we should not have that on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on two very different and unrelated topics, Mr. Speaker, but both are certainly of national importance.

First, almost every college and university in this country receives very

large amounts of Federal money through grants, appropriations, or student loan money. Yet, there is in some ways a one-sided brainwashing of students on many campuses today because of the lack of true diversity in college and university faculties.

There is also a lack of true academic freedom because conservative students generally feel they cannot express their true views on papers or in person without being penalized on their grades.

Possibly the group most discriminated against today is conservatives who wish to teach on college campuses. They simply are not welcome, to put it lightly, especially at left-wing colleges like Berkeley, Oberlin, Antioch, and many, many others.

I wish our colleges and universities would make true diversity a major goal and hire a few token conservatives at least. I wish so many college and university faculties were not so intolerant toward conservatives.

I wish the speakers who are invited to speak at graduation ceremonies or major college speaking programs were not 100 to one or more liberal to left-wing.

What has spurred these comments, Mr. Speaker, is an article in the September Atlantic Monthly magazine, certainly not recognized as any conservative-type publication, but this article said, ``It is striking that the institutions that talk the most about diversity often practice it the least.

``For example, no group of people sings the diversity anthem more frequently and fervently than administrators at our elite universities. But elite universities are amazingly undiverse in their values, politics and mores. Professors, in particular, are drawn from a rather narrow segment of the population.

``A recent study found that roughly 90 percent of those professors in the arts and sciences who had registered with the political party had registered Democratic. Fifty-seven professors at Brown were found on the voter registration rolls. Of those 5,4 were Democrats. Of the 42 professors in the English history, sociology and political science departments all were Democrats.

``The results at Harvard, Penn State, Maryland, and the University of California at Santa Barbara, other universities that were in the study were similar to the results at Brown.''

This article continues, ``What we are looking at here is human nature. People want to be around others who are roughly like themselves. That is called community. It probably would be psychologically difficult for most Brown professors to share an office with someone who was pro-life, a member of the National Rifle Association, or an evangelical Christian.

``It is likely that hiring committees would subtly, even unconsciously, screen out any such people they encountered. Republicans and evangelical Christians have sensed that they are not welcome at places like Brown or other elite universities so they do not even consider working there. In fact, any registered Republican who contemplates a career in academia these days is both a hero and a fool.

``So, in a semi-self-selective pattern brainy people with generally liberal social mores flow to academia and brainy people with generally conservative mores flow elsewhere.

``The dream of diversity is like the dream of equality. Both are based on ideas we celebrate even as we undermine them daily. On the one hand, the situation is appalling. It is appalling that Americans know so little about one another. It is appalling that many of us are so narrow-minded that we cannot tolerate a few people with ideas significantly different from our own. It is appalling that evangelical Christians are practically absent from entire professions such as academia, the media, and filmmaking. It is appalling that people should be content to cut themselves off from everyone unlike themselves.'' That is, as I said, quoting from an article in the September issue of the Atlantic Monthly magazine.

Vulnerability in Future Electrical Blackouts

Mr. Speaker, the Associated Press reported a few days ago that the fix for the recent blackout in the Northeast ironically may make us even more likely to have such blackouts in the future. The AP story said the proposed improvements ``are making the electricity supply vulnerable to a different kind of peril: computer viruses and hackers who could black out substations, cities, or entire States.''

Now, I know that everyone is supposed to worship the computer god today, and I know computers can do miraculous things that make our lives better in many ways. But when we decide what to do about the recent blackouts, surely we should not allow love for computers to make us even more vulnerable in the future.

To quote the AP story, it says, ``In the past the grid's old electro- mechanical switches and analog technology made it more or less impervious to computer maladies, but now switches and monitoring gear can be upgraded and programmed remotely with software and that requires a vulnerable connection to a computer network. If that network runs on Microsoft Corp. operating systems, which virus-writers favor, or connects to the Internet, the vulnerabilities are increased.''

Also, we should not have an electric power grid that is nationwide-- even though that has some advantages--because a nationally integrated system also makes us even more vulnerable.

It is ridiculous that we have allowed ourselves to get into a situation where a minor incident in suburban Ohio can black out almost the whole Northeast, and part of Canada, and cause 40 to 50 million people to lose their power.

Bigger is not always better, and smaller, more independent utilities, with free competition, would make our power both more secure and less expensive.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take 2 minutes, but I rise in strong support of the rule for consideration of H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. This is a good rule and a good bill. All amendments that were submitted were submitted in a timely manner and were germane and made in order.

The reason I rise is to take just a moment to say that there are few amendments because the committee worked hard to address Members' needs in the bill and in the manager's amendment.

I just wanted to commend the staff on both sides for their hard work and long hours that they put in on this bill because, in many cases, groups and Members and staff started out far apart on many controversial issues, but this bill became a real effort and the best of bipartisanship, and we ended up with a very good bill that has flood control and environmental restoration projects, navigation projects, water conservation, recreation and dam safety projects.

So I just wanted to say that I want to commend the Members who worked so hard on this bill, particularly the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) our chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, but especially I wanted to say a word about the hard work and long hours that the staff put in on this to resolve many of the very controversial issues, and I also want to thank the Committee on Rules for giving us this time and a good rule here, and I urge support of this rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. Under the great leadership of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) our committee has focused on the need to meet our Nation's navigation, flood control and environmental restoration needs.

In our subcommittee, we have held numerous hearings in which witnesses have testified about the importance of these water resources projects to our economy. Just last week, our subcommittee held a hearing on the contributions of ports and inland waterways to the Nation's intermodal transportation system. It is clear from the testimony we received that if we do not take action now to improve our ports and waterways, we could severely harm our economy as a result of congestion in our transportation systems.

That is just one reason why we need to pass the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. There are many other reasons.

Each of the over 400 provisions of the bill meets an important national purpose. We are confident of this because for each request the committee received, the committee consulted with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that there was a Federal interest in the project and that the request complied with all rules on cost-sharing and cost-benefit analysis. Obviously not all requests met this standard, but after this review, the committee was able to approve over 60 authorizations, modifications, studies and policies relating to navigation improvements, over 100 flood control authorizations, modifications and studies, over 80 environmental authorizations, modifications or studies.

H.R. 2557 also includes some important new policies. H.R. 2557 encourages watershed planning by authorizing greater technical assistance to State and local governments and authorizes an additional 24 watershed studies.

This bill encourages the Corps of Engineers to carry out projects in partnerships with its local sponsors and to streamline the process for entering into agreements with local sponsors. In fact, this bill has very good streamlining provisions in it so that these very important projects, instead of sometimes taking 8 or 10 or 12 years, hopefully can be done in a much shorter time, saving taxpayer money and saving lives and doing good things for the environment in the process.

H.R. 2557 includes important provisions that allow the Corps of Engineers to help expedite environmental permits for non-Federal water resource projects as well as streamlining approvals for its own projects. And that, as I said, is one of the most important parts of this legislation.

H.R. 2557 includes consensus provisions on peer review of certain Corps of Engineers studies. This is a landmark provision in this legislation. It also includes, Mr. Chairman, 27 shoreline and streambank protection projects, 16 water conservation projects, 12 recreation projects, 12 dam safety projects, and many other projects too numerous to name.

This bill has been put together on a true bipartisan basis. There are no Republican or Democrat navigation, flood control, or environmental restoration projects. We all recognize that communities across the country have water resources needs, very important water resources needs. This bill responds to those communities, our constituents.

I want to recognize the assistance and expertise and friendship provided

by the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). Thanks to his efforts and the efforts of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as well as the entire committee, we tackled some very contentious issues, as I mentioned when I spoke on the rule; and we have come together on a bill that has the unanimous support of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, without whose support and hard work this legislation would not be here on the floor today.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers is currently evaluating a test barrier that was authorized under the National Invasive Species Act in 1996. At the same time, the Corps is studying the potential of building a second barrier under a continuing authority for small projects. I will work with the gentlewoman and be glad to do so to see that this project is not delayed.

This is a serious matter that involves the missions of several Federal agencies and impacts the entire Great Lakes region. The committee plans to work on a reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act during the next session. I am willing to work with the gentlewoman as we work on that legislation to encourage a regional and multi-agency response to this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for her kind words.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), another member who has worked hard on certain parts of this legislation.

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

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

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

I likewise would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), ranking member, for his work on this legislation. I used to say that during my 6 years as Chairman of the aviation subcommittee that I knew of no other chairman and ranking member of a subcommittee who got along better than I did with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), my ranking member. We got along with each. Now, I can say the same thing about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). There must be something special about people from Illinois, Mr. Chairman, but it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) on this bill. This is the most environmentally friendly Water Resources Development Act that this Congress has ever produced. It is also a good bill for the taxpayers in the provisions that it has to speed up and thus

hold down the cost of these very needed projects around the country.

So like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), I urge passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

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 prepared nine additional chief's reports, recommending that Congress authorize certain water resources projects. The amendment also directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out a number of small projects under existing Corps authorities to improve navigation, provide flood damage reduction and improve the quality of the environment. For other projects that have not been studied, the amendment authorizes four new Corps of Engineers studies.

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 and cost-benefit rules. This means not every project could be addressed. But, within these constraints, we did our best to meet the needs of all our communities and all the Members that we possibly could.

I urge all Members to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time and urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my understanding from staff on the other side is that the staff on the other side of the aisle and the Members on the other side of the aisle, particularly the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will be glad to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) if the gentleman withdraws his colloquy at this point.

I will say that there is language in the bill at this time that attempts to get at the problem that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is trying to solve. The language says, ``In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall award contracts based on an invitation for bids procedure.''

If that is not satisfactory to accomplish the goal of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), if he feels that he is in a position to withdraw the colloquy at this point, then it is my understanding that the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will try to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to resolve this issue.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) wanted to be here to make a statement in opposition to this amendment. On his behalf, I have been asked to point out, at least, that the ports already have the authority to charge fees for the services that they render; they do not need Congress to give them this authority.

Also, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) feels that if this amendment were to pass, this could force ships to go to other ports. Also, we have letters from the American Association of Port Authorities and the California Marine Affairs Navigation Conference, the Port of Long Beach, the California Association of Port Authorities, the Virginia Port Authority, the Port of Stockton, and other similar groups opposing the gentleman's amendment.

Let me just say that as the gentleman from Illinois has said, we certainly sympathize with the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman from California and I came to Congress together. There is almost nobody in this Congress that I admire and respect more than the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I think, as the gentleman from Illinois said, this amendment is well intentioned. I think it is something that our subcommittee could and should hold a hearing about. And I think that perhaps if the gentleman would work with the committee and the subcommittee and the various organizations, the port authorities and the shipping industry, there might be a way to accomplish what he is attempting to accomplish through this amendment.

But at this point, we do have to rise in opposition to this amendment because it is something that I think probably deserves and probably needs a little additional work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as I may have remaining to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Kind amendment be made in order immediately after the disposition of the Rohrabacher amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment, so just let me very briefly and quickly say that many groups and Members started out far apart on different issues involved in this legislation, but we came together in the spirit of bipartisanship and arrived at a bill that all the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure supported, that the leadership on both sides support. We had groups like the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, all the environmental groups. And the environmental groups and the business groups came together to endorse this bill. It is almost unprecedented. So we came up with the most environmentally friendly bill that has ever been produced, I think, in a Water Resources Development Act. So I think it is a bill that can be supported proudly by Members on all sides.

I will gladly yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the further amendment I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statement by the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. 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, H.R. 2557.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to Mr. Kenneth E. Russell, a member of my constituency and a true American hero.

Ken Russell is the last surviving member of a group of 17 paratroopers who, in the early hours of D-Day in 1944, parachuted into the town of Ste. Mere Eglise, France.

Ken's heroism and bravery are to be commended. His actions during the D-Day operation have been included in many histories of the liberation of France, including D-Day and the Citizen Soldiers by Dr. Stephen Ambrose, among others.

As he made his way to the ground from his C-47 troop transport, Ken witnessed unthinkable violence. Many of his colleagues did not make it to the ground before being shot by German gunfire.

Both Ken and his friend, John Steel, landed atop a church in Ste. Mere Eglise. Ken landed especially hard, causing damage to his spine which limits his activities to this day. Both paratroopers were helpless as their parachutes were tangled in the church rooftop.

As he dangled helplessly above the ground, Ken was hit in the light hand by German gunfire from the ground below. While still suspended in their chutes, both Ken and John were spotted by a German soldier. Before the German could shoot at Ken and John, he was shot by another American, Sgt. John Ray.

After freeing himself from the church rooftop, Ken Russell blended into the landscape and later met up with paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne. Soon after, the troops set up a defensive position on a road leading to Ste. Mere Eglise and came under attack several times. Each time they were successful in defending their position.

For the wounds he sustained on the church rooftop, Ken Russell was awarded two Purple Hearts. For his determination and bravery, he was awarded the Silver Star.

Mr. Speaker, Ken Russell is a true American hero. His selfless actions during the D-Day operation saved lives and contributed to our great victory in World War II. I can say without hesitation that our country would be a much better place today if there were more people here like Ken Russell.

As we approach the 60th anniversary of D-Day, I hope all Americans will remember the sacrifices made by so many soldiers like Ken and will take time to thank them for their service.

Mr. Speaker, one of my leading constituents, former Blount County Executive Bob Davis, recently sent me an editorial from the Daily Times of Blount County, Tennessee.

This editorial concerns the medical treatment given to our Nation's veterans who are not high profile celebrities.

This editorial expresses my views 100 percent.

Another Daily Times editorial concerning Free Trade and Fair Trade also expresses my views. I am sick and tired of seeing so many American jobs go to other countries.

We need to start putting our own citizens first once again or we are going to have some real problems in this Nation.

I want to commend the outstanding Editor of the Daily Times, Dean Stone, for these patriotic, common-sense, well-written editorials and would like to call them to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record.

Time for Congress To Care for Veterans or Take Their Place!

If our nation expects its healthy citizens in military

service to serve and fight on the missions on which they are

sent around the world, it is high time we decide to support

these veterans who serve.

There may be some question about providing health care for

health problems that are not service related but the least we

can do is provide prompt and adequate care for wounds and

injuries received on active duty.

And this should not be reserved for military personnel such

as former prisoner of war Pfc. Jessica Lynch who because of

her high-profile situation was given all the medical care

anyone could use. And we don't need a double standard for

enlisted personnel or officers either. All who serve are

human beings, individuals created equal in God's sight and

deserving the same medical care for their wounds or injuries.

Army Sgt. Vannessa Tuner, a six-year Army veteran who

survived a still-unknown illness doctors feared would kill

her, is finding it even tougher after a military flight

brought her to her mother's home in Boston's Roxbury

neighborhood last month. She had experienced hospital stays

in Germany and Washington, D.C.

Despite severe nerve damage in her right leg, she was told

it would be mid-October before a doctor at the local Veterans

Affairs hospital could see her.

She sought help from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and

eventually got an appointment scheduled this week but the

experience has been frustrating.

Veterans advocates said Turner's frustration is not

unusual. More than 100,000 veterans are waiting six months or

more for their initial visit with a VA doctor or to see a

specialist, the Veterans' Administration acknowledges.

Our nation ignored the complaints of health damage from

Agent Orange in the Vietnam War for a couple of decades and

we waited almost a decade after Gulf War I to acknowledge

there might be something to the many health complaints

resulting from that war.

There might be some excuse for those delays of what seemed

to be unusual illnesses. However, the majority of individuals

who have served in the armed forces are not deadbeats looking

for a handout in the form of health care. They have

illnesses. They have wounds.

Many have delayed their civilian careers in order to serve

our nation. They have postponed their education and preparing

for their profession because they felt obligated to defend

our nation and the freedoms that all of us treasure.

If you have not put your life on the line in behalf of your

country, it is difficult to fully appreciate the awesome

responsibility that it is for both you as an individual and

your family members. American lives are not trash to be

thrown away and should not be considered as such.

Some of our members of Congress, such as Rep. John J.

``Jimmy'' Duncan, have worked to help veterans and succeeded

in getting a new hospital to be built in this area. However,

many of these veterans could be treated by doctors as

outpatients while living at home if there were an adequate

number of doctors.

It is time members of both the House and Senate decide to

provide reasonable medical care for members of the armed

forces injured or wounded while on duty or let all of our

people in service return to civilian life.

But don't count on getting enough volunteers to replace

even a company of them from the House or Senate. Too many of

these folks are to busy running for the next higher office,

better paying job or feathering their nest to see that

veterans receive adequate health care.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that not a large number of people read the articles we place in the Record, but I am sure that at least a few across the country do. I wish everyone, especially young men, would read the column Richard Cohen wrote about his father in today's Washington Post.

Many years ago, I got a degree in journalism and worked briefly both as a newspaper reporter in Knoxville and as a teacher at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria. I would guess that Richard Cohen and I are about as different in backgrounds and beliefs as any two men could be, but I greatly admire his writing. I read almost all his columns, but I believe this column about his father is possibly his best ever.

Perhaps this touched me because I was very close to my own father. But, I am going to send this column to my two sons, ages 17 and 23, with a note from me. I will tell them that I believe they have the intelligence and skills and personalities to do great things with their lives, but as Richard Cohen has written, you do not have to be rich or famous or ``important'' to lead a good life, and that it is far more important to be good than it is to be great.

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

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2003.]

(By Richard Cohen)

He Did Not Set Standards, He Lived Them

Newton, Mass.--Harry L. Cohen died early Sunday morning

here after a long illness. He is survived by his wife of 66

years, Pearl ``Pat'' Rosenberg Cohen, two children, two

grandchildren and the sweet memories of anyone who knew him.

He was 94 years old and my father.

Newspaper obituaries are generally reserved for the

notable, the exceptional--people of some achievement or

notoriety. My father does not fill that bill. He was a mere

high school graduate who worked almost all of his life for

one firm. He invented nothing, discovered nothing, wrote

nothing and was elected to no office, high or otherwise. He

was the most ordinary of men--but, God, I have known few like

him and neither have you.

Over the years I have written several columns about my

parents. I did that by way of sending them a gift and also

because they were great material. My mother, 91, was born in

Poland just before World War I. She came to this country as a

child and she was--always in Poland and for a time in

America--desperately poor. If there is a single person who

embodies the glory and the promise of this country, it is my

mother. It is that simple.

My father, too, has a story. His starts in some Ken Burns

documentary, black-and-

white photo of the Lower East Side of New York, where he was

born in a tenement. It was in a tenement, too, where his

mother died when he was still a child. My grandfather, poor

and unskilled, put my father and my uncle in an orphanage,

where--with some Dickensian spells with foster families--he

was raised.

He was a Depression kid, my father. In some ways, though,

the worst of times were the best of times for him. He had a

job. He had a car. Soon, he had a wife and she, of course,

worked, too. The two of them virtually never stopped working.

Even in retirement, my father took jobs. He went door to door

for a polling firm. He parked cars in West Palm Beach, where

he had ``retired'' with my mother. He worked as a doorman in

a fancy Palm Beach high-rise. In some sense, he did this

because the Depression was, for him, always lurking nearby,

but also because he found dignity in work.

Some of this is colorful, I know, but it is not why my

father was exceptional. It's because he was a good man. Not

once--not ever--did I know him to cheat: not in business, not

on his wife, not on his friends and never on his children. I

know of no one he hurt, no one he slighted, no one he

abandoned. The great men I have spent a lifetime around--the

politicians, the statesmen, the rich, the powerful, the

creative--can make no such claim. They always say they had to

break some eggs to make their omelet. My father made no

omelet. But he broke no eggs, either.

I have written this before, but it is worth saying again:

My father's sort of goodness is rare. As he lay dying, as we

talked about his life, he expressed no regrets. Not from him

came reservations about how he neglected his children in

favor of work, how he spent too much money, how he cared too

much about the appearance of things and little about their

substance. He did not understand men who were not charitable,

who exchanged wives as they do cars, who would slight a child

to score another business deal. He had his dreams, but the

overriding one was to lead an honorable life.

To be perfectly truthful, we did not always agree--not on

certain issues (Israel, for instance) and not on how one

should live one's life. I could not--I have not--been him. He

did not set standards, he lived them--and deep into my career

I kept thinking that some of the things I wrote and some of

the things I did were like a bad report card I was bringing

home from school. His disapproval, sometimes not even stated,

was concussive. I reeled.

He died in his sleep. He died at home, still tended by my

mother and my sister, Judith, and the remarkable women whose

chosen work it is to care for the dying. He was never in pain

and he was alert almost to the end, still getting the joke,

still not wanting to go. He was, I tell you, the most

extraordinary of ordinary men, what in Yiddish is called a

mensch--not a great man but, much rarer still a good one.

There is nothing greater.