Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is really no adequate way that we can show appreciation to this young man for giving his life in service to this Nation, but certainly, this is a very appropriate way to recognize the contributions that Adam Kinser gave to this Nation, and I guess you could say, in a way, it is the least that we can do. I know that all Members of this Congress, on both sides of the aisle, join me and the sponsor, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), in expressing our condolences and our appreciation and the thanks of a grateful Nation to the family of Adam G. Kinser, and I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. With the modern technology found in most weapons today, the U.S. military needs a more highly educated force than it needed years ago. Also, the United States does not need the large numbers of soldiers our armed forces required in previous large wars. Our all-volunteer military is working well, and we have raised pay and benefits up to higher levels than most would be making in the private sector. Secretary Rumsfeld agrees. In recent testimony before the Armed Services Committee in the other body, he noted: ``We've got 295 million people in the United States of America. We need 1.4 million to serve in the active force. We have no trouble attracting and retaining the people we need.'' ``We are not having trouble maintaining a force of volunteers. Every single person's a volunteer. We do not need to use compulsion to get people to come in the armed services. We got an ample number of talented, skillful, courageous, dedicated young men and women willing to serve. And it's false.'' Service in our armed forces is one of the most honorable ways anyone can serve this Nation, and our military is attracting very good people. However, in a society that prides itself on individual liberty and personal freedom, public service is not the only way to serve the common good. A free country should never force anyone to work for the government unless there is no other reasonable alternative. We can teach our children to love and appreciate this country without forcing any young person to serve in the military against his or her will. There are plenty of professions where people honorably serve others, a good many of which are in the private sector. Farmers serve this Nation well providing food for the people. Bankers serve the Nation well by creating the capital and financing for small businesses to create jobs and hire hard-working people. Nurses and doctors serve the Nation well by working long hours protecting us from disease and injury. Farmers, doctors, teachers, business people--these are just a few of the countless people in countless professions who work hard at honest jobs serving others in service to this Nation. For every person we force into the military against his or her wishes, we are taking away the ability of that individual to fulfill the God-given right to pursue one's own happiness, a right that Thomas Jefferson made the centerpiece of the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage the House to approve S. 2319 which was first introduced by my Tennessee colleague, Senator Lamar Alexander. Simply put, S. 2319 is a jobs bill that will keep 2,000 jobs through a land exchange between the ALCOA Corporation and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This bill ratifies an agreement between ALCOA and a large number of Tennessee and North Carolina State and local officials, Federal agencies and nonprofit conservation groups. Specifically, this bill allows the relicensing of the Tapoco Project, an ALCOA-owned-and-operated hydroelec- tric project that is federally licensed under the Federal Power Act. Originally licensed in 1955, the Tapoco Project was constructed on the Little Tennessee and Cheoah Rivers. It contains more than 8,000 acres that are located between nearly 10,000 acres of lands owned by ALCOA, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and the Cherokee and Nantahala National Forests. Senate bill 2319 creates a legal barrier that prevents the relicensure of the Tapoco Project because a portion of the Chilhowee Reservoir floods four side streams containing approximately 100 acres of land within the authorized boundary of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Although these lands were included within the park when it was created in 1926, the Federal Government decided for financial reasons not to acquire flooding rights that were then held by ALCOA's corporate predecessor. However, the Federal Power Act and the 1926 Great Smoky Mountains National Park law each prohibit the licensing of hydroelectric projects inside the park. Thus, it appears the Tapoco Project was erroneously licensed in 1955 to include four areas flooded by Chilhowee Dam. Although ALCOA owns valid property rights to flood these lands, FERC does not have the legal authority to issue a new license. Under Senate bill 2319, the Park Service and ALCOA will exchange lands to correct this 50-year-old mistake and allow FERC to relicense the Tapoco Project. Specifically, the bill directs the Secretary of Interior to acquire 189 acres of ecologically valuable lands located within the authorized boundaries of the park, in exchange for 100 acres of land located within the park and the Tapoco Project. This is a net gain of 89 acres for the park. The legislation also authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to adjust the boundaries of the park and adjacent U.S. forests and accept the lands that are expected to be transferred by ALCOA to a nonprofit organization and subsequently by the nonprofit organization to the Federal Government. In conclusion, without this legislation, ALCOA would no longer be able to provide power for its operations in East Tennessee and would be forced to halt its operations. This would be a major blow to 2,000 hardworking families in my district and an annual economic loss of over $400 million to a region that already has lost thousands of jobs overseas. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill. I especially thank my colleague in the other body, Senator Alexander, for his work on this legislation. I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for so graciously yielding me this time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), the author of this legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4731) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 4731, to reauthorize the National Estuary Program. Estuaries are unique and highly productive waters that are important to the ecological and economic bases of our Nation. Fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and tourism are heavily dependent on healthy estuarine systems. Yet despite their value, most estuaries in the United States are experiencing stress from physical alteration and pollution, often resulting from development and rapid population growth in coastal areas. In the 1980s, Congress recognized the importance of and the need to protect the natural functions of our Nation's estuaries. As a result, in 1987 Congress first authorized the National Estuary Program. Today this program, the National Estuary Program, is an ongoing nonregulatory program designed to support the collaborative, voluntary efforts of Federal, State, and local stakeholders to restore degraded estuaries. Currently all 29 estuaries in the National Estuary Program have developed and are implementing restoration plans. Under this program, $35 million a year is authorized to allow the EPA to help these State and local restoration efforts. The program's current authorization expires in 2005. Thus, the need for this legislation. H.R. 4731 reauthorizes the National Estuary Program at the same level of funding for an additional 5 years. The bill contains no Federal mandates and imposes no costs on State or local governments. I certainly want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) on sponsoring this bill and on the great leadership they have provided on this. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Sometimes some of the best and most important legislation that this Congress does comes to the floor without much fanfare and does not receive a lot of attention because it is noncontroversial. This is such a bill. But I can tell the Members that it is a privilege for me, as chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, to bring such vital legislation to this floor and urge its passage. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), the sponsor, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her assistance and cooperation on this, and I especially want to thank the staff that has worked on this very important bill. I urge passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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. 4731.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for yielding me this time, and for his work on this legislation and his work on so many other important bills before this body. I also want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for his outstanding leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, in a 1952 Supreme Court case, Zorach versus Clawson, in an opinion written, I think, by Justice Douglas, it said, there is ``No constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.'' Similar to that, a few years ago the great columnist for the Washington Post, William Raspberry, who I am sure most people would describe as being fairly liberal on most issues, when he was writing about an issue similar to this, he said ``Is it not just possible that anti-religious bias, masquerading as religious neutrality, has cost this Nation far more than we have been willing to acknowledge?'' Mr. Chairman, I spent 7\1/2\ years as a circuit court judge or State trial judge in the State of Tennessee. For years, I have heard and read Federal judges complaining about how Congress is putting too much into the Federal courts, expanding their jurisdiction too much, and how overworked they are, and how there should be more limits on the jurisdiction of these courts and that we should stop taking so many cases away from State courts. This is a very minimal limitation on the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Very minimal. A very reasonable limitation. As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) pointed out a few moments ago, there is almost no question that it is within the scope of congressional jurisdiction, or Congressional power to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Alexander Hamilton, writing many years ago in Federalist paper number 81 said, ``To avoid all inconveniences, it will be safest to declare generally that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction that shall be subject to such exceptions and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.'' And Thomas Jefferson, in a letter written in September of 1820, said this, responding to the argument that Federal judges should be the final interpreters of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote this: ``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 party, for power, and the privilege of their 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.'' Mr. Chairman, I am sorry my time has run out. I urge support for this very reasonable, very minimal limitation on the Federal Courts' jurisdiction.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on July 23, 2004, McMinn County, Tennessee lost one of its sports legends. Mary Grace Ramey served as a teacher and cheerleading coach for McMinn Central High School since it opened in 1966. She was 73 years old. Mrs. Ramey touched the lives of hundreds of cheerleaders and thousands of students who passed through the halls of McMinn Central High School. Her colleagues said she was always positive and cared deeply about her students. Mrs. Ramey, a mother of one and grandmother of three, will be missed by all those who knew her. I would like to call this Daily Post-Athenian article from July 26, 2004, on Mary Ramey to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. [From the Daily Post-Athenian, July 26, 2004] Ramey Loss Leaves Hole in the Central Family Fabric (By Jack Slayton) She never hit a home run, sank a clutch basket, or scored a touchdown, but McMinn County was stunned by the loss of a sports legend in her own right this past Friday. Teacher and cheerleading sponsor Mary Grace Ramey passed away at Chattanooga's Erlanger Medical Center on Friday. Ramey, who taught Family and Consumer Sciences, was discovered behind the school on Friday, July 16, by two students where she had either accidentally fallen or suffered a seizure and struck her head, suffering a concussion. Ramey (age 73) had shown some improvement and had been moved from the intensive care unit to a private room before her sudden passing Friday. ``Mary Grace,'' as I had known her over the past 30 years, had been a teacher for more than half a century and the cheerleadering sponsor at Central High School since the doors opened in the 1996-97 school year. ``It's a sad day at Central High School,'' said Principal Roger Freeman of the last remaining member of the original staff at the school. ``She was a legend--an icon of what everybody should aspire to be as both a person and a teacher. She was dedicated to her profession and students, always prepared and way ahead of the game.'' Ramey touched the lives of hundreds of cheerleaders and countless thousands of students who passed through her classroom over the past 51 years. ``I don't know of anyone who didn't like Mary Grace--she was always so positive and cared deeply about her students,'' Freeman said. ``It will be difficult, no impossible, to replace her. People like Mary Grace are rare.'' Rare, indeed. In a day and time where most people can't wait to call it quits, Mary Grace never discussed retirement, despite being well beyond the required age and with her lengthy years of service. She had returned earlier in the week from a stay in Knoxville where her latest batch of cheerleaders had attended a camp at the University of Tennessee. She loved what she did and continued to serve the students of Central with a level of excellence and commitment equally rare today. I would more often as not run into Mary Grace and husband, Jack, who recently celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary, going into games at Central or on the road--it seemed we always arrived at about the same time. She always had a smile and chipper attitude as we exchanged pleasantries walking into the gym or stadium together. I recall one time several years ago at a basketball game, with the skies threatening, Mary Grace asked me if I thought it was going to snow. ``Not a chance,'' I said. Of course, it did and we faced a slippery ride home that night. She never let me forget it. From that time on, regardless of the conditions, Mary Grace would look at me with that wry smile of hers and asked me if I thought it was going to snow. The family will receive friends from 5-8 p.m. tonight and funeral services will follow with Bordwine Funeral Home in charge of arrangements (see Page 2 for complete obituary information). Friends and family will gather at Sunrise Cemetery in Englewood at 11 a.m. Tuesday for the burial service. And no, Mary Grace, I don't think it will snow.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and bringing this rule to the floor. She is one of the great leaders in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill that was originally authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). For 7\1/2\ years before I came to Congress I served as a circuit court judge in Tennessee. For many years, I have heard Federal judges complain about the Congress expanding Federal jurisdiction too much, so they are greatly overworked. This is a very reasonable, minimal limitation of their jurisdiction and I am sure that even if this legislation passes, the Federal judges will still claim that they are very much overworked. On July 12, 1996, the House passed and on September 10, 1996, the Senate passed the Defense of Marriage Act. That act said the word ``marriage'' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ``spouse'' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. I repeat that. That legislation said the word ``marriage'' means only a legal union between one man and one woman. That legislation further said no State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding of any other State respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, Territory and so forth. That legislation, Mr. Speaker, passed by the overwhelming margin of 342 to 67 in this House, and by the even more overwhelming margin of 85 to 14 in the Senate. That is 85 Senators voted for that legislation. Further, it went to the President, President Clinton at that time, and he signed that legislation into law. This legislation, authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), is a reasonable expansion of that legislation limiting the jurisdiction because it is true that many, many people in this country have been upset that unelected judges have assumed so much super- legislative power in this country in recent years. The overwhelming majority of the American people do believe that the only true marriage is that between one adult man and one adult woman. There are other limitations on marriage such as prohibitions against marriages by family members or bigamist marriages, and I think the overwhelming majority of the American people feel that our society, our families, and especially our children would be better off if we defined marriage, the only true marriage, legal marriage, as that of being between one man and one woman. Mr. Speaker, I know that many outstanding people come from broken homes, but I also know that the greatest advantage that we can give to any child is a loving mother and father. That is so important to the future of this country. That is a greater advantage than unbelievable amounts of money. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a man who was one of the most respected Members of the Senate, a Senator from the other party, said several years ago that we have been, unfortunately, defining deviancy down, accepting as a part of life what we once found repugnant. We should stand behind traditional marriage. We should stand behind this legislation and support it as strongly as we possibly can.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, almost every Member of this Congress wants us to have a strong military, and we all want to support our troops. Yet almost everyone realizes, too, that the Defense Department unfortunately wastes a lot of money. It seems to me that we have an obligation to the taxpayers to speak out against this waste, or it will get even worse. Now national news organizations and publications have reported that the Defense Department has paid for 556 breast enlargements and 1,592 liposuctions for soldiers and dependents from 2000 through the first 3 months of 2004. These are very expensive operations. I realize the Federal bureaucrats can rationalize or justify almost any expense, especially since it is not coming out of their pockets, but soldiers have an obligation to stay in shape and meet physical fitness requirements and should not need liposuction for severe obesity. Certainly, it does not make any sense to say that breast enlargements will make women better soldiers.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 105. This section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 107. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It establishes a deadline for completing the general reevaluation report for the Mill Creek, Ohio, project and adds a planning requirement. This constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 108. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It authorizes the Secretary to provide certain credit to the non-Federal sponsor for the project at Ashtabula River, Ohio. It, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 109. This section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It directs the Corps of Engineers to proceed to the design phase of the Central Riverfront Project on the Ohio riverfront in Cincinnati. This, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. DUNCAN. Finally, Mr. Chairman, once again, on behalf of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), I raise a point of order against section 110. Mr. Chairman, this section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It prohibits amounts in the Corps of Engineers revolving fund from being used for certain maintenance work on corps dredges. It limits the use of funds not made available in this bill and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

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

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, at the request of the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and on behalf of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure I rise to raise a point of order against page 2 line 23 beginning with ``provided further'' through page 3 line 5. Let me say, first of all, that I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Ranking Member Visclosky) who have done such an outstanding job on this legislation. But this provision, this particular provision, violates clause 2 of rule 21. It directs the Secretary of Army to include additional analysis in the southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 106. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, once again, I will say that I certainly commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and his staff for the fine work they have done on this bill, but I do have six points of order that I am required to raise at this time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents has written a poem that showcases our Nation's flag in a glorifying manner. Mr. Victor Miller of Madisonville, Tennessee, is the author of a poem titled ``Soliloquy.'' Mr. Miller is the son of Jeanette Miller, who passed this poem along to me. Our country's morale and heritage is strong today because of patriots like Victor Miller. I would like to call ``Soliloquy'' and its interpretation to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Interpretation of Soliloquy I pray this poetic edification enhances your respect for the flag from Memorial Day through Veterans Day, but more significantly, enamors your appreciations for the risen Son of God. If reverenced as Old Glory, ``God Bless America'' will enrich all our personal, domestic & international pursuits exceedingly beyond our imaginations in continual abundance if, ``In God We Trust.'' The Lord in the USA is a bipartisan, consuming Spirit of Holiness & Power! In Christ, ``Thanks be unto God who always causes us to triumph'' (2 Cor. 2:14). ``Imagine as a flag (Christ) on all folks (souls) passing by with edifying waves (love) influencing (redeeming) their lives.'' The essence of duty to God & country He epitomized when his ascension secured for all, Independence! In Christ are ``opportunities, honor, recognition, patriotism & liberated freedoms.'' We're told to ``stand fast in the liberty in which Christ has made us free'' (Gal. 5:1). With Jesus, we're more than winners, we're ``conquerors'' (Rom. 8:37). The USA thrives prestigiously, powerfully & prosperously because of our humility in embracing the risen Intercessor for all humanity. His triumphant valor extends to whosoever will. ``The Glory in your stripes'' belongs exclusively to Jesus Christ. May we forever abstain from worshiping entombed doctrines because if we forsake his sovereignty he will abandon his favor upon the USA. He tells us in his word, ``No greater sacrifice exists than to give ones' life for a friend'' (John 15:13). Emulating this virtue honors our Savior & rewards us blessings. Our allegiance he is worthy of, as too our ``tribute'' & service. Let's pray America ``valiantly'' & steadfastly adheres to his ``esteemed'' righteousness so our liberties are preserved. ``The Lord is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty'' (2 Cor. 3:17). The colonists were wise in understanding & adopting our Constitution upon biblical integrity. Indigenous to our country it is not but we have progressively strengthened since its inception as a nation because of their keen & humble foresight in acknowledging & incorporating in our executive, legislative & judicial structures his preeminence. Soliloquy was penned in Luray, Virginia in April 1999. I worked for the Shenandoah National Park. On this particular morning while walking to the car I heard the vigorous, insistent ``waving'' of Old Glory in the blustery air. The owners of the Cardinal Inn always flew a large flag from their rock garden. As I turned to ``observe'' the Holy Spirit spoke: I am your Leader, your Warrior, your Friend & Victor. You are adopted into the Almighty Army of God.'' America owns patriotism as a majority but is loyalty void of Christ efficacious or self-promoting? Most citizens defend the sanctity of their flag tenaciously when affronted by another. Almost universally, it flies proudly from homes, schools, parks, libraries, cemeteries, vehicles, courts, businesses & even dons our clothing. It is a rallying, focal point of inspiration in times of crisis, mourning & festivities: Higher than all other flags, it ``reigns!'' Holidays confirm our gratitude for the military dives spent & lost defending its cause of unanimous liberation around the globe against oppression & persecution. Membership in our armed forces always begins at conscription with a sworn vow of allegiance. Patriotism isn't predicated on military service but whenever iniquitous aggression asserts itself against integrity. ``When our cause is just...`In God is our trust!' '' is how Francis Scott Key so zealously in 1814 proclaimed. Honest defense of righteous liberties is not immune to costs but ``abiding in the shadow of the Almighty'' (Ps.91) secures for all patriots ultimate victory. Jesus is not envious or jealous of anything, except his glory. He is however, deserving & desirous of greater, adulation & duty. May Soliloquy serve all of God's children with victorious knowledge & hope from his Holy Spirit so we continue shining in the world as a beacon of his omnipotent Love, just as a ``rushing mighty wind'' beautifies Old Glory! Soliloquy Imagine as a flag on all folks passing by with edifying waves influencing their lives! A patriotic stance of opportunities advocating feedoms by land, the air & sea. Esteemed a lofty reign & honored to belong all would offer tribules in oaths, salute or songs! Recognition could abound for victories secured defending liberties despite many injured. In each of fifty stars & elsewhere when observed the glory in your stripes would valiantly be served!

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, as we have just recently reflected on the loss of President Reagan and have also recently remembered those who have given their lives in defense of this great Nation on Memorial Day, I wanted to also pay tribute to the late Drury Shoemaker of my District in Tennessee. Drury's beloved widow, Hazel, sent me a nice note in remembrance of her late husband, who served in the United States Marine Corps. Drury Shoemaker was a fine Marine, part of the C-1-28-5th Division that participated in the battle of Iwo Jima. He survived the War, but later took ill as a result of exposure to radiation from the Hiroshima nuclear explosion. Drury went to be with the Lord on December 11, 2001. Known as Papaw to his special grandson Darrian, Drury often spoke of taking his wife and grandson back to Iwo Jima to share with them such an important place in his life. Unfortunately, his health did not allow for that special trip. During the many services I attended on Memorial Day, I especially remembered the service of Drury W. Shoemaker to our Country and the love he showed for his family and fellow Marines. Mr. Speaker, this Nation would be a much better place if there were more people here like Drury Shoemaker. His loving widow, Hazel, composed a wonderful prayer, especially timely as we remember those who have paid the ultimate price and at a time when we dedicate a wonderful new memorial to those who served in World War II. I would like to call this special prayer to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Dear Lord and Creator: As America is preparing to dedicate the World War II Memorial in Washington, at a time our Nation is again involved in a war, Lord, my plea to you this day is that through your wisdom and power you will help the people of America truly understand what freedom has cost us. From Flanders Field to Arlington, from Iwo Jima to Hiroshima, all across Europe (the world really), our loved ones have paid the price in full, Dear Lord, either with their living until death takes them in conditions almost unbearable for them and the ones caring for them. Our veterans are dying by the thousands every day Lord, and the pain and loneliness only you know and understand. Tears, Lord, that seem to have no end. Long days and worse nights, torment that never goes away. Lord, please stand by the widows and the little ones who cannot understand where their Papaw has gone, they just cry themselves to sleep and ask why. God, please help us to endure, because that's all we can do, just endure until we are again with the ones we love. In your mercy and love please protect my President and the men and women who are truly trying to bring this war to an end. Give them wisdom and courage and strength. The Memorial is beautiful Lord, but only you can know that the heartbreak the ones left behind endure is not pretty, it's awful and never ending. God, please, I pray again, stay close by our little ones who just can't understand loss. Help us, Lord, as a Nation to stand firm and faithful and every day thank you for your Love and Protection. Thank you Lord for listening. Amen. Mrs. Drury W. Shoemaker.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for yielding me the time, and I thank him for the great leadership he has provided for many years in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, NPR News a couple of weeks ago had a report about why gas prices are now over $2 a gallon in some States and very high everywhere. The reporter explained that while demand has gone way up, as everyone has known it would for many years, capacity has gone way down. He said due to environmental restrictions, no new refineries have been built in this country for more than 20 years and the number of refineries in California has decreased from 37 to 13. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) mentioned that 170 refineries have closed since 1981. A previous speaker said some refineries are making record profits. Well, if we decrease the number of refineries even more, they will make even higher profits. Also, radical environmentalists have successfully fought and stopped oil production in the frozen tundra of Alaska and most other places where it can be safely and environmentally and economically done in the U.S. Environmental extremists almost always come from wealthy or at least very upper-income families, but they are really hurting the poor and lower-income and working people of this country and even our national security by shutting down so much oil production and refining here and making us overly dependent on foreign oil that is being sold at rip-off prices. Some environmental groups want gas prices to go to $3 or $4 a gallon so people will drive less, but that would be another nail in the coffin of small towns and rural areas where people often have to drive long distances to get to work. We need to support this and other pro-consumer energy legislation so we can bring gas prices down or at least hold them stable. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, almost every Member of this body is pro- military. But we also should be pro-taxpayer too. So all of us should be shocked that the Defense Department lost $100 million on unused airplane tickets over the 6 years between 1997 and 2003. In addition, the Pentagon bought 68,000 first class or business class tickets over this same period. Members of Congress fly coach class unless they use frequent flier miles to upgrade. Public officials, including those in the military, are supposed to be public servants, not rulers or some elite, special, privileged class. The Defense Department gets almost everything it asks for, so it just does not seem to care about wasteful spending. But if any high-level officials at the Pentagon have even the slightest concern for the taxpayer, they should immediately eliminate this unused ticket business so we do not lose $100 million or more over the next 6 years. Also, all members of the military should fly coach, like almost all Members of Congress and almost all our constituents do, instead of buying 11,000 or more first class tickets each year.