Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 44, introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), expresses support for the celebration in 2004 of the 150th anniversary of the Grand Excursion of 1854. Mr. Speaker, during the summer of 1854, the Chicago Tribune sponsored a trip for around 1,000 well-regarded east coast journalists, artists, businessmen and others to visit the great Midwest. The Tribune wanted to expose this influential group to American culture west of the east coast. These people traveled through Chicago and on to Rock Island, Illinois, by train, and then boarded a steamboat to head to the Twin City area of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota. This event, called the Grand Excursion of 1854, is credited with having massively impacted the development of the Upper Mississippi River Valley and greatly promoted westward expansion in the United States as a whole. Many communities and organizations in the Mississippi River Valley have celebrations planned for the summer of 2004 to commemorate the 150th anniversary of this momentous event. Therefore, I urge all Members to join in this tribute by supporting the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 44. I thank our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), for introducing this important measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 44) to express support for the celebration in 2004 of the 150th anniversary of the Grand Excursion of 1854.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will simply close by saying that I would also like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). The scope or magnitude of this problem is simply staggering. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) mentioned that there are 1.3 million children on the streets, either because of running away or because of homelessness. Probably the most conservative study I have seen on this says there are a minimum of 450,000 children who run away from homes all across this Nation each year. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I was so amazed when I heard, as I was driving to the airport one afternoon here in Washington, I heard on the CBS National Radio News that the national head of the YMCA said children are being neglected in this country today like never before. Unfortunately, children have more material wealth today than probably ever before, but there are also many, many, many children who are growing up without the love or discipline that they had in past years or, perhaps because of broken homes or parents working long hours, they are not getting the attention that they need and deserve. I have said before that children today would be far better off with a few less toys and designer fashions and another brother or sister, or certainly more attention from their parents. So this resolution is a small, but important, step in trying to do something about a very serious national problem; and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 57, introduced by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the City of New York (Mr. Israel), recognizes and supports the goals and ideas of National Runaway Prevention Month. Mr. Speaker, we all want every child in America to grow up in a safe, loving home and to realize his or her full potential in life. However, the plight of children who run away from their homes continues to plague American families. Sadly, the factors that prove to increase the chances that children will leave their homes seem so preventable. These factors include drug and alcohol abuse by a family member, severe neglect or mistreatment, and serious family unrest. I remember hearing after one of the school shootings a couple of years ago the national head of the YMCA on the CBS national news who said children were being neglected in this country like never before. Even in this compassionate Nation, the challenges that today's youth face are many. But so too are the responsibilities that all Americans have to be aware of the conditions that encourage children to run away from home, and to address those conditions where they exist. Hopefully, all Americans will pay more attention to the serious problem of runaway children. We can each act to enrich the lives of children in our communities by volunteering at a local school, or in a child-mentoring program, or in a faith-based organization that works with children or families. And in the most unfortunate cases in which children have left their homes, for whatever reason, it must be a priority of all Americans to work together to reunite parents with their runaway children. Since nothing is more important than the safety and stability of the lives of our Nation's children, I urge all Members to support the adoption of House Resolution 57. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for introducing this worthwhile measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 57.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 57) recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Runaway Prevention Month''.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on March 12, 2003, Jim Gray, a member of my constituency, was honored with Tennessee's highest artistic award. The Tennessee Arts Commission presented Jim with the Distinguished Artist Award as a part of the 2003 Governor's Awards in the Arts in Nashville, TN. Jim's artistic drive has been with him his entire life, and he used his talents to guide his career as a young adult as an illustrator, an advertising executive, and as a technical illustrator in the United States Air Force. After a visit with his family to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 1966, Jim found an artistic inspiration that he had never felt before. This inspiration led him to move to east Tennessee, where his desire to paint the beauty of the Tennessee countryside became his passion. Throughout the years, Jim has sold more than 2,000 paintings and 125,000 prints to collectors in the United States and abroad. He has won several other awards, has been commissioned to do many major works, and has held workshops where he has instructed hundreds of students. His two sculptures of President Andrew Johnson are on display at Johnson's hometown of Greeneville, TN and at the Tennessee State Capitol Building in Nashville. Most recently, Jim's painting titled ``Rising Above'' was purchased as part of the Knoxville Convention Center art collection. I am proud to display one of Jim's paintings in the entrance of my Washington, D.C. office. Mr. Speaker, I ask the readers of the Congressional Record and my fellow colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Jim Gray for his achievements. On April 4th of this year, Jim will again be honored at a reception at the Knoxville Museum of Art, and a copy of this congratulatory statement will be presented to him. I also include here today an article written about Jim from the Knoxville News-Sentinel. Jim's art continues to be an inspiration to us all and I am pleased today to speak on his behalf. State Honors 2 of Its Greatest Grace Notes Dolly Parton, artist Jim Gray win Tennessee's highest award for achievement in arts (By Terry Morrow) Nashville, Mar. 12, 2003.--A couple of hundred miles away from their beloved Smoky Mountains, singer Dolly Parton and artist Jim Gray found common ground Tuesday night on the stage of Ryman Auditorium. It was there that the Tennessee Arts Commission paid tribute to them with the 2003 Governor's Awards in the Arts, the state's highest artistic honor. Parton received the Lifetime Achievement Award for numerous musical, educational and thespian achievements. Gray was recognized with a Distinguished Artist Award for his maritime paintings and his part in helping to create the artists' community in Gatlinburg. Eleven people and three organizations from across the state were honored at the ceremony. Parton, a Nashville resident, and Gray, who lives in Knoxville, attended as did Gov. Phil Bredesen and other state dignitaries, including David Willard, director of Arrowmont School of Arts and Crafts in Gatlinburg, Knox County Commissioner Mary Lou Horner, Randy Tyree and Ted Miller, vice president of Dollywood. Speaking at the ceremony, Bredesen, who is a painter, said the arts should be able to weather the state's current budget crisis. Parton was cited not only for her many musical hits but for her educational pursuits in Sevier County. In her native county, Parton boosted the already thriving economy in Pigeon Forge when she retooled Silver Dollar City into Dollywood in the mid-1980s. She later created the Dollywood Foundation and the Imagination Library, which encourages children to read. ``This is called a Lifetime Achievement Award, but I ain't done yet,'' Parton said, indicating she was working with Bredesen to extend her Imagination Library beyond East Tennessee. Addressing the fact that the award was a ``lifetime'' award, Parton said, ``That makes you feel old. I don't feel old. I don't look that old. As long as I have those surgeons in California, I won't look that old.'' In a tribute to Parton, the Peasall sisters sang Parton's hit that many consider her autobiographical single, ``Coat of Many Colors.'' The sisters, who are from Whitehouse, were part of the ``O Brother, Where Art Thou?'' soundtrack and appeared in the film. Others receiving the Distinguished Artist Award were Chattanooga musician Roland Carter and Memphis sculptor Luther Hampton. Ralph Blizard, a legendary old-time fiddler from Blountville, won the Folk Heritage Award. Parton and Gray were noted for their particular contributions in East Tennessee. Many of Parton's songs are based on her East Tennessee childhood. Gray's work often includes majestic scenes of the Great Smoky Mountains. Moving from Mobile, Ala., in 1966 to Gatlinburg, Gray aided in creating the city's arts and crafts community. Thanking his wife Fran, his three children and seven grandchildren, Gray said, ``What an honor. It's very emotional for me. How can it get any better than this?'' Parton and Gray have worked together before. A bronze statue of Parton, created by Gray in 1987, sits in front of the Sevier County Courthouse in Sevierville. Thousands of tourists stop to see the 2-ton, life-size structure each year. ``At 70, I've been blessed all these years doing what I have loved the best,'' Gray said. ``I have been working full- time in fine arts since 1966. As far as I am concerned, this is icing on the cake, and it has been a wonderful cake I have enjoyed.'' Knoxville will honor Gray with a reception Thursday, April 3, at the Knoxville Museum of Art. In addition to celebrating the Governor's Award, the Jim Gray painting ``Rising Above'' will be on display, and Mayor Victor Ashe will announce that the painting has been purchased as part of the Knoxville Convention Center art collection. The reception is open to the public. Anyone interested in receiving an invitation to attend should contact the Arts and Cultural Alliance, 865- 523-7543.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to understand how anybody could be in favor of big government when we see, day in and day out, so much waste, fraud, abuse and simple inefficiency in the Federal Government. I realize that the government keeps growing, despite the horrendous waste, because so many big businesses are making huge profits from Federal contracts, and so many bureaucrats are drawing salaries and benefits on average far higher than in the private sector. So while I have read and heard about so much waste and exorbitant spending by the Federal Government that it is hard to surprise me anymore, even I have been shocked and amazed by the spending of the new Transportation Security Administration. Apparently I am not the only one shocked by this new agency. Michelle Malkin, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote in a column carried in yesterday's Washington Times and papers across the country, ``The Transportation Security Administration is a fiscal black hole and fiscal conservatives ought to be enraged.'' She said the TSA ``is sucking down tax dollars like a bagless Dyson Cyclone vacuum gone berserk.'' Ms. Malkin reports that ``already the 1-year-old agency has amassed a $3.3 billion budget deficit, and is demanding upward of $6 billion for the current fiscal year.'' She wrote in this column, ``Never has a single government entity spent so much for so little in such a short time.'' It is almost unbelievable to me, Mr. Speaker, that any Federal agency could lose $3.3 billion in its first year in operation. This has to be one for the record books. A few weeks ago I read in the Washington Post a report of testimony by Kenneth Mead, inspector general of the Transportation Department. He said the TSA had budgeted $107 million to hire airport screeners, but they ended up paying over $700 million to the contractor. The only contact I had with this contractor was when they ran an ad saying they would take applications at a mall in my district, and then no one from the company showed up. I received several calls from angry constituents who showed up at 7 a.m. as the ad had directed and had driven long distances to get there, only to find no one from the company there. If the TSA had budgeted $107 million, they should have told this company that that was what they would get, instead of allowing a $600 million cost overrun. Hiring screeners may have been an administrative headache, but it is not rocket science. Thousands of companies around the country could have done a better job at much less cost to our taxpayers. Most Federal contracts are sweetheart insider deals in one way or the other, but this one is the most ridiculous I have ever heard of. Then they hired far too many people. One aviation official told me that TSA now stands for ``thousands standing around.'' I am sure that almost all of the people who have been hired are good, honest, patriotic people, but the TSA has simply hired many thousands more than they need. I know it is impossible to ever convince any government agency that they have hired even enough people, much less too many. Yet before 9/ 11, we had about 28,000 or 29,000 screeners. We were told beforehand, before the legislation passed, that we would need to hire about 33,000. Right after passage, they said they would need about 40,000. Then, a few months later, they went to the staff of an appropriations subcommittee requesting 72,000 employees. There was such an outcry they quickly backed off to 67,000, and then the Committee on Appropriations put a cap on them of 45,000 that they have arrogantly ignored by hiring thousands of temporary employees. So I am told they now have about 66,000 screeners. I had a screener come to see me at Constituent Day in my district a few weeks ago, and he will have to remain unnamed because I do not want to get him in trouble; but he told me that they have so many screeners at the Knoxville Airport and so many radios that when I walk in the airport, they radio ahead and say Congressman Duncan is in the airport, stand up, look busy. It was on the front page of the Knoxville News Sentinel that they were going from about 70 screeners to about 160. I am told one major airport went from about 170 screeners to over 700. Then two members of the other body have uncovered the worst abuse of all. Apparently, 20 TSA recruiters spent nearly 2 months at a luxury resort in Colorado, a 7-week junket, that resulted in the hiring of just 50 screeners. Rates at this hotel run from a low in the high $200s to well over $300 a night for just an average room. The company that ripped the taxpayers off on the screeners' contract, NCS Pearson, has been replaced by the TSA after the obscene cost overrun, but according to Ms. Malkin, the firm still holds several lucrative Federal contracts. Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to understand how anyone could be in favor of big government when we see, day in and day out, so much waste, fraud, abuse, and simple inefficiency in the Federal Government. I realize that the government keeps growing, despite the horrendous waste, because so many big businesses are making huge profits from federal contracts and so many bureaucrats are drawing salaries and benefits on average far higher than in the private sector. So while I have read and heard about so much waste and exorbitant spending by the Federal Government that it is hard to surprise me anymore, even I have been shocked and amazed by the spending of the new Transportation Security Administration. Apparently I am not the only one shocked by this new Agency. Michelle Malkin, a nationally-syndicated columnist, wrote in a column carried in yesterday's Washington Times, these words: ``The Transportation Security Administration is a fiscal black hole, and fiscal conservatives ought to be enraged. . . .'' She said the TSA is ``sucking down tax dollars like a bagless Dyson Cyclone vacuum gone berserk.'' Ms. Malkin reports that ``already, the one-year-old agency has amassed a $3.3 billion budget deficit and is demanding upward of $6 billion for the current fiscal year.'' She wrote in this column: ``Never has a single government entity spent so much for so little in such a short time.'' It is almost unbelievable to me that any federal agency could lose three billion, three hundred million in its first year in operation. This has to be one for the record books. A few weeks ago, I read in the Washington Post a report of the testimony by Kenneth Mead, Inspector General of the Transportation Department. He said the TSA had budgeted $107 million to hire airport screeners, but they ended up paying over $700 million to the contractor. The only contact I had with this contractor was when they ran an ad saying that they would take applications at a mall in my District, and then no one from the company showed up. I received several calls from angry constituents who showed up at 7 a.m., as the ad had directed, and had driven long distances to get there. If the TSA had budgeted $107 million, they should have told this company that was what they would get instead of allowing a $600 million cost overrun. Hiring screeners may have been an administrative headache, but it is not rocket science. Thousands of companies around the country could have done a better job at much less cost to our taxpayers. Most federal contracts are sweetheart, insider deals in one way or the other, but this one is about the most ridiculous I have ever heard of. Then they hired far too many people. One aviation official told me that TSA now stands for thousands standing around. I am sure that almost all the people who have been hired are good, honest, patriotic people. But the TSA has simply hired many thousands more than they need. I know it is impossible to ever convince any government agency that they have hired even though people much less too many. Yet, before 9/11 we had about 28,000 or 29,000 screeners. We were told beforehand we would need to have about 33,000. After passage, they said they would need about 40,000--then a couple of months later, they went to the staff of an appropriations subcommittee requesting 72,000. There was such an outcry, they quickly backed off to 67,000. Then the appropriations Committee put a cap on them of 45,000 that they have arrogantly ignored by hiring thousands of temporary employees, so I am told they now have about 65,000 screeners. I am told one major airport went from about 170 screeners to over 700. Then two members of the other body have uncovered the worst abuse of all. Apparently twenty TSA recruiters spent nearly two months at a luxury resort in Colorado--a seven-week junket that resulted in the hiring of just 50 screeners. Rates at this hotel run from a low in the high $200s to well over $300 a night for just an average room. The company that ripped the taxpayers off on the screeners contract, NCS Pearson, has been replaced by TSA, after the obscene cost overrun, but according to Ms. Malkin, ``the firm still holds several lucrative federal contracts. These contracts total more than $500 million-- including a $140 million deal to manage and operate three national customer-service call centers for federal immigration services.'' As Ms. Malkin said: ``Deeper into the homeland security money pit we go. Where the traditional watchdogs for limited government are, nobody knows.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe and certainly hope that our Armed Forces will achieve a quick and decisive victory in Iraq, and certainly we all hope that this can be done without the loss of even one American life and very few, if any, and hopefully no innocent Iraqi civilians, but every article we read, every analyst we hear says that winning the peace, the aftermath will be much more difficult than the war itself. I know that people in the White House, the State Department and the Defense Department have been working on this aftermath plan for many months now. Because of something I heard on a news broadcast last week, I want to briefly discuss this. Last Wednesday night, as I drove to a meeting here in Washington, I heard on the national news that the Baghdad stock market was booming. The report said prices had gone up more than 50 percent in the last 7 months because investors there feel that the war will be very short and that the U.S. will then spend hundreds of billions of dollars there over the next 10 years or so. Last week, the National Journal, a very nonpartisan publication, said we will spend at least $156 billion in a best-case scenario and as much as $1.9 trillion in a worst-case scenario over the next 10-years in Iraq. Already, big multinational companies like Halliburton, Bechtel and others are lining up to get part of the pie and to make sure that we spend this money in Iraq. If I and my fellow conservatives, who were so critical of the previous administration about nation-building, do not speak out against this, this will end up being by far the biggest foreign aid program in the history of the world. The same people who have told us how great the threat from Iraq is also tell us the war will be over with very quickly. Iraq's military budget is only about 2/10 of 1 percent of ours, counting our supplemental appropriations. So this will be about the most lopsided war in history if the mentally sick, evil Saddam Hussein does not back down. Everyone should hope that we achieve a quick and decisive victory, as I said, without the loss of even one American life. Service in our Nation's Armed Forces is one of the most honorable ways one can serve this Nation. When we put young American soldiers and sailors into harm's way, I know all Americans hope for the best and support our troops. I wish we would get in and get out quickly and bring our troops home as soon as possible. I have never believed that U.S. foreign policy or military decisions should be dictated or controlled by the United Nations. Yet it is also somewhat inconsistent to say, as some have, that this proves the U.N. is irrelevant and maybe we should get out, but then say we have to go to war because Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions. It is not fair, Mr. Speaker, to the U.S. taxpayers or the U.S. military to place almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on them. Also, the Congressional Budget Office has predicted we will run deficits of $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. This is not counting State and local deficits. If we spend hundreds of billions in Iraq over the next decade, we will not be able to meet all our own needs here at home. We have already spent about $25 billion or so just moving our troops, planes, ships and equipment into place. Also, most of our allies are demanding billions for their support. If we do not become more fiscally conservative, especially in regards to this war, we may have difficulty in paying all our Social Security, Medicare, veterans' and Federal retirements and so forth. We could end up then doing what most governments around the world have already done, and that is a combination of decreasing benefits, raising taxes, or, most likely, inflating our currency, which means pensions will buy less. Iraq should use their humongous oil wells to rebuild their own country. U.S. taxpayers should not have to pay our bills and theirs, too. Conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents to turning our military into international social workers. Conservatives have also been the strongest opponents of big deficit spending, huge foreign aid programs, nation-building and world government. Most conservatives are against an interventionist foreign policy, but all conservatives unify behind our troops and support the patriotic young men and women who are simply following orders. However, after this war is over, I hope my fellow conservatives will unite once again and urge that our troops be brought home quickly and that we in the American Congress start putting Americans first once again. Let us achieve victory in Iraq, but not follow that up with the biggest foreign aid program in history.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jim Dick and WIVK, the radio station he created in Knoxville, Tennessee. On Wednesday, March 19, WIVK celebrates its 50th anniversary. Five decades ago, Jim Dick applied for and received a license from the Federal Communications Commission to build and operate a 1,000-watt AM radio station. At that moment, Dick Broadcasting Company was created. Jim Dick is certainly a visionary. He was one of the first people in the radio business to understand the importance of broadcasting on the FM dial. He is also one of the most admired and respected businessmen in East Tennessee. WIVK-AM debuted playing a wide range of music including gospel, country, jazz and others. The station only operated during the daytime hours in the early years. WIVK has grown immensely since then and is now a part of the Las Vegas based Citadel Communications Corporation. Jim Dick and everyone at WIVK have always supported the community and have given so much to the citizens of their listening area. Almost everyone in East Tennessee relies on WIVK for great country music, timely news and information, as well as radio broadcasts of University of Tennessee football games. Mr. Speaker, I would like to again congratulate Jim Dick, all of the staff at WIVK, Citadel Communications Corporation and all of those people who have given so much of themselves to make this great radio station the best in the Country. I have also included an article from the Knoxville News-Sentinel that celebrates the 50-year anniversary of WIVK that I would like to call to the attention of my fellow Members and other readers of the Record. [From the Knoxville News-Sentinel, Mar. 16, 2003] The Frog Hits 50: WIVK Celebrates Half a Century of Broadcasting (By Wayne Bledsoe) Radio station WIVK is as much a part of East Tennessee as UT football and the rush for bread and milk at the first hint of snow. Through five decades of changing musical tastes, the station has unapologetically played country music and retained an unprecedented share of the listening audience. The station has helped launch the careers of country stars and even influenced the general direction of country music. ``It's hard to come up with another station to compare them to because WIVK is such a standout in the radio community,'' said Angela King, associate country editor of Radio & Records. ``People in the industry say, `This is a model of how a radio station should be.' '' On Wednesday, March 19, WIVK will celebrate its 50th anniversary with a gala that will include testimonials from stars like Dolly Parton, Kenny Chesney, Kenny Rogers, Travis Tritt, Charlie Daniels and Ray Price. There'll also be stories and reminisces from the station's longtime personalities. Few would've given the station much hope in 1953 when young radioman Jim Dick put WIVK-AM on the air with $3,000 of his savings. At the time WIVK was just a 1,000-watt station that operated from sunrise to sunset only. Dick initially rented space on the second floor of Greene's Hardware on North Gay Street and broadcast at 850 on the AM dial. Dick didn't think the location of the station mattered much. ``Absolutely the most important thing I did was to determine who were good people and hired them,'' said Dick, who is now 84. Dick's ``good people'' became regional icons: ``Big Jim'' Hess, Claude ``The Cat'' Tomlinson, and later, Bobby Denton, Ed Brantley, Mike Hammond, Mickey Dearstone, Dave Young and other personalities became part of Knoxville's cultural landscape. In its infancy the station aired programs hosted by gospel music impresario the Rev. J. Bazzel Mull and millionaire grocer Cas Walker, who began broadcasting musical shows in 1929 to promote his grocery stores. The station also hired A. C. Wilson, one of the city's first black disc jockeys in 1954. Wilson hosted ``The Acey Boy Show,'' which featured jazz and hot rhythm and blues. ``He was a super guy,'' recalled Dick. ``If he hadn't have died, he could've really gone places.'' Hess and Tomlinson were the first two disc jockeys to establish themselves at the station with the team ``Big Jim'' and ``Little Alf.'' The duo's mischief on the air was but a pale shadow of the trickery they pulled off it. They particularly delighted in playing jokes on Rev. Mull, whose eyesight was so poor he was classed as legally blind. Once Hess and Tomlinson put Mull's car up on blocks just barely off the ground while the preacher and his wife were on the air. When the Mulls attempted to leave the station with Mrs. Mull at the wheel, the car's tires simply spun in the air. Thinking the vehicle was somehow stuck, Mull got out and pushed it, knocking it off the blocks and sending it and Mrs. Mull sailing. On another occasion the pranksters rigged the studio so that when Mull's program went on the air, what the preacher heard in the studio was Elvis Presley singing ``All Shook Up,'' while the radio audience listened to the gospel number that was actually on the turntable. One of the pair's jokes riled Mull so badly that he promised to go to Dick and get them fired. But Tomlinson, who was a master mimic and could imitate Dick perfectly, slipped into the boss' office before Mull got there. The preacher's eyesight was so poor, he didn't detect the impersonation, and Tomlinson promised Mull that severe punishment would be dealt to Hess and himself. ``The Rev. J. Bazzel Mull was very important to WIVK's early success,'' said Dick, who could be both amused and frustrated by his employees' antics. It wasn't the jokes, though, that finally drove Mull from WIVK; it was a referendum to legalize liquor in Knoxville in the early 1960s. Both Mull and Cas Walker were vehemently against the measure and campaigned vigorously against it on shows. But Dick read an editorial on the air supporting legal liquor, and his comments were reprinted in the News Sentinel. The measure passed, and ``the next morning Mull was packing up his records and he left the station,'' Dick remembered. Rock `n' roll did serious damage to country music's popularity in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Stations across the country abandoned the format for Top 40. Local country favorite WNOX had already abandoned country music when WIVK followed suit in 1961. That was about the time a young announcer named Bobby Denton was trying to break into radio. ``I started in radio by announcing drag races from Maryville Drag Strip after school on WSKT,'' said Denton, who is now officially retired but still serves as a consultant to current WIVK owner Citadel Communications. Denton became acquainted with Tomlinson, who then persuaded Dick to give Denton a job at WIVK. But Dick was not impressed with his new hire's broadcasting skills. ``He said, `This guy is so bad we have to get him off the air!' '' Denton recalled. During the station's three years of playing Top 40, they found the field crowded. WNOX and WKGN dominated the Top 40 format, and in 1964, WIVK moved to all-country programming. In 1965 two pivotal events took place. WIVK was granted permission to increase its AM signal from 1,000 to 50,000 watts and an FM sister station was established. FM's replacement, because of its clearer signal, of the AM radio format was still years away, but Dick had the foresight to promote FM heavily from the outset. ``We would sign off at sunset and say, `If you just have half a radio, we'll have to say goodnight until tomorrow morning. But if you have a whole radio, you can tune us in at 107.7 FM.' '' Dick recalled. ``Car dealerships would tell us that people came in wanting to buy a car with a `whole radio.' '' By the mid-1970s, however, FM was the dominant frequency. With its new, more powerful signal, WIVK-AM shifted into high gear. Longtime morning disc jockey Tomlinson created the characters ``Ol' Man Schultz'' and simple soul ``Lester Longmire.'' The characters would remain regional favorites for the next 25 years. The station also began hosting a series of country concerts and championing country performers. In its early days the station had had young singer Dolly Parton performing in its small downstairs auditorium on Cas Walker's program. She had also recorded early demos after hours in the station's studios. By the mid-1960s the station was beginning to wield enough influence to have a big impact in the country music field. For example, Denton has long been credited with persuading Jerry Lee Lewis to give country music a shot when his rock 'n' roll career was at an ebb. ``We became good friends, and he would come to my house,'' Denton recalled. ``I think I just said `Jerry Lee, I think if you would record country, people would buy it.' '' Lewis replied that he was country and was a far sight better country singer than some of the current country stars. Shortly thereafter, in 1968, Lewis began a string of country Top 10 hits. Other stars have credited the station with helping establish their careers. Alabama's Randy Owen has long recounted how he and his wife stopped at the station with the first single recorded by the group, which was then calling itself Wild Country. Owen went inside and asked then-program director Denton if he would take time to listen to the record. ``We listened to it,'' Denton recalled, ``and I said `That's pretty good!' '' Owen and his wife then drove down Kingston Pike and were on their way to the band's Myrtle Beach base when Denton put the single on the air. ``Randy said he just pulled the car over and started hugging his wife and crying because that was the first time he had ever heard his song on the radio,'' Denton recalled. Kenny Rogers' first appearance as a country performer was at one of the station's concerts in 1975. ``He was scared to death,'' remembered Denton. ``He didn't know how the crowd would respond to him.'' East Tennessee natives Con Hunley and current superstar Kenny Chesney were also championed early on the station. Ed Brantley, now WIVK's vice-president and general manager, started at the station in 1973 as a part-time announcer and hosted the station's first call-in talk show, ``Sound Off.'' ``That was when country definitely wasn't the cool format,'' said Brantley, ``but the people who did like it were a solid base.'' The ``solid base'' became even more solid as the decade went on with the station drawing an almost unheard of 20-plus market share. Much of that had to do with the station establishing a solid news department and broadcasting regular weather reports and school closings. In 1978 the station began broadcasting UT football games, which further solidified its audience base. Some of the WIVK's success was due to its programmers knowing the tastes of the audience. Brantley said the station took chances with several artists who dipped their toes into country. When the Pointer Sisters released the song ``Fairytale,'' WIVK was one of the first to add it to the regular rotation. The station was also an early supporter of Olivia Newton-John's music. ``We played a lot of crossover,'' said Brantley, ``and then with `Urban Cowboy' it just broke loose.'' At that time the station was receiving ratings for its AM and FM stations as one number, sometimes giving it better than a 30-point market share. Typical successful stations in other similar-sized markets were happy when they hit a 10 share. Through the years a few local stations have challenged WIVK by going with a country format, but none have succeeded. ``Our research showed that it would take a direct competitor five years and $5 million dollars in advertising and promotions to even compete with us,'' Denton said. The only time that WIVK-FM seemed vulnerable was when Claude Tomlinson became ill in 1990. During his illness, the station would let Tomlinson broadcast from his home and sometimes his hospital bed. Tomlinson died in 1991 and was replaced by the team Darren Wilhite and Tim Wall. The duo remained with the station for six years until they were replaced by Andy (Jerry Chistopher Ritchie) and Alison (West) in 1997. Ritchie said that his and West's goal in coming to such a hugely successful station was to ``just not screw it up.'' They were surprised by the career longevity they encountered. ``It's pleasantly unusual to find anybody who's been at the same station for five years, much less 35,'' said Ritchie. ``It's exciting to find some stability.'' In fact, the station's personalities have nearly all been with WIVK for more than five years and have become part of the culture as their predecessors did. Andy and Alison, Gunner, Colleen Addair, Hoss and Jack Ryan are all part of the fabric of East Tennessee. After the FM station became the dominant vehicle for WIVK, the AM station in 1987 moved to 990-AM, the former frequency of WNOX. In 1992 it shifted to all-talk and news format and became the region's most popular station in that format. Jim Dick is no longer involved with either station. Dick Broadcasting sold WIVK and 11 other stations to Las Vegas- based Citadel Communications for $300 million in 2000. However, Dick does visit the station and has warm feelings for the people still involved with the project he began 50 years ago. ``I'm very proud of them,'' says Dick. ``Very proud.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, each of us has the privilege of representing countless numbers of constituents who work tirelessly to make their communities better. We meet these remarkable men and women every day, but often do not have the opportunity to highlight their contributions before the Nation. Paul Shirley of Knoxville, Tennessee, is one such person, as was his late wife, Nadine. For more than 57 years of marriage this remarkable couple lived a life committed to sharing God's love with all those around them. In November of last year, Nadine went to be with the Lord, but the example they set continues to be a standard matched by very few. Paul's dedication to changing lives around him has not slowed with Nadine's passing, and I know she is proud of his perseverance. After graduating from the University of Tennessee in Business Administration, Paul began a career in the construction industry that continues today. From the very beginning Nadine played a key role in their business success. Paul served as president of the Home Builder's Association of Greater Knoxville in 1962. He presently serves on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the City of Knoxville, a position he has held for 30 years. At each point of his professional career, Paul has always displayed the highest level of integrity and commitment to excellence. It is, however, in the Shirleys' work together outside the business world that they found their most meaningful success. For almost 35 years, Paul and Nadine tirelessly worked to provide hundreds of children in the Knoxville area with a biblically based education surpassed academically only by the Christ-like love shown to each student. In 1969, they, together with a dedicated group of parents, opened what was then known as West End Kindergarten. This soon expanded to become Knoxville Christian School and in 1975, the Shirleys donated 67 acres of land for what was to be the permanent campus of this growing school. Today, Knoxville Christian School provides a biblically based education to 108 students from Kindergarten through the ninth grade. Paul served as president of the school until 1979, and both he and Nadine gave many years of service on the school's board of directors. Paul and Nadine's work, however, went far beyond what any job title implies, and their compassionate dedication to every child reached far beyond the classroom. On February 20, 2003, those close to Knoxville Christian School came together to show their appreciation to Paul and to share in their memories of Nadine. As a small token of thanks for the impact this couple had on so many lives, Paul was presented with the ``Christian Service Award.'' To those of us who attended this moving event, it was obvious that every person there was richer for having known this tremendous couple. I am proud to call Paul my friend, and I share with him in the grief he feels with the passing of Nadine. I also deeply appreciate the unwavering life of service they led together. I know that Knoxville is a better community because of the love they shared and the example they set. As I said at the beginning of these remarks, each of us in Congress has the chance to meet and know many remarkable people. I thank you for the opportunity to introduce you to just such a couple.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to share with you and the House news from my district that will offer life-saving technology to people across our Nation. Thompson Cancer Survival Center in Knoxville, Tennessee, recently received state-of-the-art equipment that experts say will revolutionize cancer treatment. The $2.9 million TomoTherapy unit allows doctors to deliver radiation treatments more accurately, and with far fewer side effects, than traditional treatment. TomoTherapy is especially effective for cancers of the prostate, neck, head and spinal cord, and other cancers that are near sensitive organs or structures. Doctors at Thompson will begin treating patients with TomoTherapy this spring, making them the first in the Nation to benefit from this new technology. Thompson's TomoTherapy unit is one of only nine in the world, and so far only six U.S. hospitals are slated to receive this life-saving equipment. This means people from across our Nation and around the world will look to East Tennessee for help in battling cancer. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Thompson Cancer Survival Center for this latest victory in the fight against cancer.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the Associated Press has now reported that the Federal Government has paid out over $100,000 each in moving expenses to hundreds of Federal employees. Investigators found 388 moves that cost taxpayers over $100,000 each. One FBI employee got $203,000, and three IRS workers got over $190,000 each for their moves. In addition to these hundreds of moves that have already been paid for, 81 other Federal employees have been authorized to receive over $100,000 each for their moves. Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. It is excessive. It is a rip-off of the taxpayers, and Congress should stop it. Federal employment used to be called government service. However, it is anything but public service when employees seem to care less and less about what a move costs as long as it does not come out of their own pockets.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq. A strong majority of nationally syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war. Just three of the many, many examples I could give include the following: Charlie Reese, a staunch conservative, who was elected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-SPAN viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq ``is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire.'' Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: ``An invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history.'' James Webb, a hero of Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: ``The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a Nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.'' It is a traditional conservative position, Mr. Speaker, to be against huge deficit spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a very short war, followed by a 5-year occupation of Iraq, would cost the U.S. $272 billion, this on top of an estimated $350 billion deficit for the coming fiscal year. It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing if we go to war in Iraq. It is a traditional conservative position to be against world government, because conservatives believe that government is less wasteful and arrogant when it is small and closer to the people. It is a traditional conservative position to be critical of, skeptical about, or even opposed to the very wasteful, corrupt United Nations; yet the primary justification for this war, what we hear over and over again, is that Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions. Well, other nations have violated U.N. resolutions; yet we have not threatened war against them. It is a traditional conservative position to believe it is unfair to U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.S.; yet that is exactly what will happen in a war against Iraq. In fact, it is already happening, because even if Hussein backs down now, it will have cost us billions of dollars in war preparations and moving so many of our troops, planes, ships and equipment to the Middle East. It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge foreign aid, which has been almost a complete failure for many years now. Talk about huge foreign aid, Turkey, according to reports, is demanding 26 to $32 billion; Israel wants 12 to $15 billion; Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia want additional aid in unspecified amounts. Almost every country that is supporting the U.S. in this war wants something in return. The cost of all these requests have not been added in to most of the war costs calculations. All this to fight a bad man who has a total military budget of about $1.4 billion, less than three- tenths of 1 percent of ours. The White House said Hussein has less than 40 percent of the weaponry and manpower that he had at the time of the first Gulf War. One analyst estimated only about 20 percent. His troops surrendered then to camera crews or even in one case to an empty tank. Hussein has been weakened further by years of bombing and economic sanctions and embargoes. He is an evil man, but he is no threat to us; and if this war comes about, it will probably be one of the shortest and certainly one of the most lopsided wars in history. Our own CIA put out a report just a few days before our war resolution vote saying that Hussein was so weak economically and militarily he was really not capable of attacking anyone unless forced into it. He really controls very little outside the city of Baghdad. The Washington Post 2 days ago had a column which said, ``The war in Iraq, likely in the next few weeks, is not expected to last long, given the overwhelming U.S. fire power to be arrayed against the Iraqis. But the trickier job may be in the aftermath.'' Fortune Magazine said, ``Iraq, we win. What then? A military victory could turn into a strategic defeat . . . a prolonged, expensive, American-led occupation . . . could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists . . . All of that could have immediate and negative consequences for the global economy.'' Not only have most conservative columnists come out strongly against this war, but also at least four conservative magazines and two conservative think tanks. One conservative Republican member of the other body said last week that the ``rush to war in Iraq could backfire'' and asked, ``We are wrecking coalitions, relationships and alliances so we can get a 2-week start on going to war alone?'' The Atlantic Monthly magazine said we would spend so much money in Iraq we might as well make it the 51st State. I believe most conservatives would rather that money be spent here. It is a traditional conservative position to be in favor of a strong national defense, not one that turns our soldiers into international social workers, and to believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy, rather than in globalism or internationalism. We should be friends with all nations, but we will weaken our own Nation, maybe irreversibly, unless we follow the more humble foreign policy the President advocated in his campaign. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is very much against every conservative tradition to support preemptive war. Another member of the other body, the Senator from West Virginia, not a conservative but certainly one with great knowledge of and respect for history and tradition, said recently, ``This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This upcoming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.'' Mr. Speaker, I would insert at this point my full statement in the Record. Mr. Speaker, most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq. A strong majority of nationally-syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war. Just three of many examples I could give include the following: Charley Reese, a staunch conservative, who was selected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-Span viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq: ``is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension--urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another--has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the costs in both blood and treasure.'' Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally- syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: ``an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history.'' James Webb, a hero in Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: ``The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.'' It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge deficit spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a very short war followed by a five-year occupation of Iraq would cost the U.S. $272 billion, this on top of an estimated $350 billion deficit for the coming fiscal year. It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing if we go to war in Iraq. It is a traditional conservative position to be against world government, because conservatives believe that government is less wasteful and arrogant when it is small and closer to the people. It is a traditional conservative position to be critical of, skeptical about, even opposed to the very wasteful, corrupt United Nations, yet the primary justification for this war, what we hear over and over again, is that Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions. Well, other nations have violated U.N. resolutions, yet we have not threatened war against them. It is a traditional conservative position to believe it is unfair to U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.S., yet that is exactly what will happen in a war against Iraq. In fact, it is already happening, because even if Hussein backs down now it will cost us billions of dollars in war preparations and moving so many of our troops, planes, ships, and equipment to the Middle East. It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge foreign aid, which has been almost a complete failure for many years now. Talk about huge foreign aid--Turkey is demanding $26 to $32 billion according to most reports. Israel wants $12 to $15 billion additional aid. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia want additional aid in unspecified amounts. Almost every country that is supporting the U.S. in this war effort wants something in return. The cost of all these requests have not been added in to most of the war cost calculations. All this to fight a bad man who has a total military budget of about $1.4 billion, less than \3/10\ of one percent of ours. The White House said Hussein has less than 40% of the weaponry and manpower that he had at the time of the first Gulf War. One analyst estimated only about 20%. His troops surrendered then to camera crews or even in one case to an empty tank. Hussein has been weakened further by years of bombing and economic sanctions and embargos. He is an evil man, but he is no threat to us, and if this war comes about, it will probably be one of the shortest and certainly one of the most lopsided wars in history. Our own CIA put out a report just a few days before our War Resolution vote saying that Hussein was so weak economically and militarily he was really not capable of attacking anyone unless forced into it. He really controls very little outside the city of Baghdad. The Washington Post, two days ago, had a column by Al Kamen which said: ``The war in Iraq, likely in the next few weeks, is not expected to last long, given the overwhelming U.S. firepower to be arrayed against the Iraqis. But the trickier job may be in the aftermath, when Washington plans to install an administrator, or viceroy, who would direct postwar reconstruction of the place.'' Fortune Magazine said: ``Iraq--We win. What then?'' ``A military victory could turn into a strategic defeat. . . . A prolonged, expensive, American-led occupation . . . could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists. . . . All of that could have immediate and negative consequences for the global economy.'' Not only have most conservative columnists come out strongly against this war, but also at least four conservative magazines and two conservative think tanks. One conservative Republican member of the other Body (Sen. Hagel) said last week that the ``rush to war in Iraq could backfire'' and asked: ``We are wrecking coalitions, relationships and alliances so we can get a two-week start on going to war alone?'' The Atlantic Monthly Magazine said we would spend so much money in Iraq we might as well make it the 51st state. I believe most conservatives would rather that money be spent here instead of 7,000 miles away. It is a traditional conservative position to be in favor of a strong national defense, not one that turns our soldiers into international social workers, and to believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy rather than in globalism or internationalism. We should be friends with all nations, but we will weaken our own nation, maybe irreversibly unless we follow the more humble foreign policy the President advocated in his campaign. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is very much against every conservative tradition to support preemptive war. Another member of the other Body, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, not a conservative but certainly one with great knowledge of and respect for history and tradition said recently: ``This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of the revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption--the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future--is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense.'' The columnist William Raspberry, again not a conservative but one who sometimes takes conservative positions, wrote this week these works: ``Why so fast. Because Hussein will stall the same way he's been stalling for a dozen years. A dozen years, by the way, during which he has attacked no one, gassed no one, launched terror attacks on no one. Tell me its because of American pressure that he has stayed his hand, and I say great. Isn't that better than a U.S.-launched war guaranteed to engender massive slaughter and spread terrorism?'' Throughout these remarks, I have said not one word critical of the President or any of his advisors or anyone on the other side of this issue. I especially have not and will not criticize the fine men and women in our Nation's armed forces. They are simply following orders and attempting to serve this country in an honorable way. Conservatives are generally not the types who participate in street demonstrations, especially ones led by people who say mean-spirited things about our President. But I do sincerely believe the true conservative position, the traditional conservative position is against this war.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Richard Williams, Jr., who served as Blount County Commissioner from 1984 until recently. Commissioner Williams was dedicated to his family, faith and Country. He was a great American. An active member of the Blount County community, Commissioner Williams was a Sunday school teacher and chairman of the Board of Deacons at St. John Baptist Church of Alcoa. He was Past Master of Granite Masonic Lodge No. 289, Past Commander in Chief of Alcoa Consistory No. 175, Past Potenlate of Almas Shrine Temple No. 71, and was named Mason of the Year. In 2002 he received the Governor's Tennessee Volunteer Commendation Award and was listed in Who's Who Among Black Americans. Williams was also a member of the Alcoa Rotary and American Legion Post 18. When he was elected to Blount County's governing body in 1984, he became the second African-American elected official in Blount County in the twentieth century and the third in the county's history. Above all, he cherished his family. Commissioner Williams was married to Evelyn Robinson Williams for over forty years. He loved being a husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. This Nation is a better place because of Commissioner Williams, and I want, in this small way, to express my great appreciation for his service and my heartfelt condolences to his family.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to George Dodson, a good friend and beloved retired Capitol Police officer, who passed away last summer. George was one of the finest men I ever knew. He was on the Capitol Police force for over 30 years. Most of that time he worked as a plain- clothed detective. He was known all over the Capitol because of his professionalism, courtesy and friendliness. He later went on to help organize the Retired Capitol Police Officers Association. George was close friends with many Members, including Bill Natcher of Kentucky and Speaker Jim Wright. He was always friendly to all Members and the many visitors who traveled to the Capitol each year. George spent many years in the military prior to joining the Capitol Police force. He spent three years in the Air Force and five years in the Air National Guard. He was honorably discharged in 1967 at the rank of Master Sergeant. George Dodson was a family man. He was married to his beloved wife Pat and enjoyed spending time with her whenever possible. George was a life-long resident of Washington, D.C. and graduated from Armstrong High School in 1947. He was also very active in his church. Over the years, George developed a love of trains and spent a great deal of time with his grandchildren sharing that love and interest. He also was very interested in the new convention center being built downtown. He would spend a great deal of time downtown observing the progress of the convention center. In fact, many of the workers at the site got together and gave George his own hard hat. George passed away on June 8, 2002. He was a great American who loved his family and Country very much. Mr. Speaker, this Country would be a much better place if there were more people here like George Dodson.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, included in Title III of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1070 is an authorization of $1 million for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a center for Brownfields Excellence. The purpose of this center is to demonstrate opportunities for public-private partnerships and regional cooperation to facilitate the redevelopment of closed Federal facilities, the transfer of technology from the public sector to the private sector, and the return of such property and technology to productive use. A prime example of this activity can be found in East Tennessee. The closure of major portions of Oak Ridge stranded a very skilled workforce and abandoned a great deal of infrastructure. Working together on a regional basis, local governments, businesses and members of the community have been able to return parts of Oak Ridge to productive use, and facilitate the transfer of technology to the private sector, bringing back jobs and investment to the region. These efforts in East Tennessee should serve as a national model to promote new opportunities for brownfields redevelopment around the country.

Mr. DUNCAN

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

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1070) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out projects and conduct research for remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern in the Great Lakes, and for other purposes.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge all Members to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002. On September 4 of this year, the House passed H.R. 1070 by voice vote. On October 17, the Senate passed this bill, with an amendment, by unanimous consent. Title I of the Senate amendment is the House-passed version of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 with a few minor and technical changes. Industrialization over the past 200 years has contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes. This sediment contamination can limit some uses of the lakes, particularly fishing, when contaminants get into the food chain. As a result, many of the Great Lakes are under advisories warning people not to eat the fish that they catch. Unfortunately, 200 years of contamination is difficult to reverse and sediment cleanups can be very controversial. Little progress has thus been made. The Great Lakes Legacy Act will help overcome the obstacles to cleanup by encouraging voluntary, consensus-based cleanup actions that will be carried out by the EPA in partnership with non-Federal sponsors. The Great Lakes Legacy Act also will help reduce the controversy surrounding sediment cleanups by ensuring that any cleanup actions funded by this legislation will truly benefit human health and the environment. As noted in the report of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure accompanying H.R. 1070, projects should be selected in accordance with a risk management strategy. In addition, the legislation requires the EPA to make sure that the short- and long-term effects of remedial alternatives have been evaluated before selecting a cleanup project. This requirement will help give the public confidence that a cleanup action will not cause more harm than good. For example, if a cleanup alternative involves dredging, we can be confident that the EPA has considered whether dredging at that site will stir up contaminants, causing more harm than good to human health and the environment. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and his colleagues for working with various stakeholders from the Great Lakes. They have reached a great compromise on this that has kept everyone happy and thus has been able to advance this consensus approach to Great Lakes remediation. Title II of the Senate amendment authorizes assistance to State and local governments to improve the quality of Lake Champlain. Lack Champlain is not one of the Great Lakes and is not eligible for assistance under title I of H.R. 1070. Current law authorizes the EPA to help State and local governments develop a plan for the restoration of Lake Champlain. Title II of H.R. 1070 expands this existing authority to allow the EPA to also provide assistance to implement projects recommended under the plan. Nothing in this title provides any assistance for the regulatory activities of any agency or provides any new regulatory authority for the EPA. We expect the Lake Champlain Basin Program to be a model of community-based environmental restoration, giving local governments and other local entities the maximum input into the projects and activities that are carried out with assistance provided under this legislation. Finally, title III of the Senate amendment includes miscellaneous provisions, including language that will reinstate several important Clean Water Act reports that help Congress oversee this program. This is very important legislation, affecting one of the greatest and largest bodies of freshwater in this world, and I urge all Members to support the Senate amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I had the privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on Aviation for 6 years under the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and now the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment for 2 years under the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). Both have been great, great leaders for our committee, really outstanding chairmen, and we have many wonderful members. But I always am so very impressed, in fact at times even amazed at the knowledge that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) our ranking member, has on the issues that come before our committee, and I think there are very few Members in this body who are more dedicated to the work that comes out of a committee than the gentleman is to the work that comes out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I just wanted to express once again, as I have before, my very deep appreciation and respect and admiration for him, and he has shown that once again on this bill. And I do agree with him. He is correct in saying this is not just another bill. The lack of controversy about this bill should not be any indication of its importance. As I mentioned a moment ago and as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) mentioned, it has almost one- fifth of the surface freshwater in the world in the Great Lakes and I think 95 percent of the U.S. surface freshwater. But this bill would not be before us today if it were not for the great and dedicated work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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 on H.R. 1070.