Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To conclude this, let me first of all just say that I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his kind comments in regard to this legislation and the WRDA bill. Most of his concerns relate to the WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act, which was pulled; and it is still my hope that we can reach some type of consensus agreement on that bill before this session ends. There are very serious and heartfelt concerns that Chairman Young has concerning that bill and we will have to see if those can be addressed. But certainly the gentleman from Oregon has been one of the most hardworking and dedicated members of our subcommittee, and I appreciate that very much. Also, I want to thank Chairman Young, ranking member Oberstar, and also the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for their work on this legislation. This is an example of the bipartisan legislation of which our full committee is so proud. We have worked together to produce a very good bill, a very necessary bill that will help wastewater treatment facilities and municipalities and local governments all over this country. I think this is legislation that all of us can support. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5169) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5169, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2002. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, made the identification and protection of critical infrastructure a national priority and taught our Nation to take a broader look at our vulnerabilities. A good deal of planning and protection of our Nation's crucial infrastructure is now under way as a result of those tragic events. Only limited attention has been given to security issues associated with our Nation's wastewater treatment plants. Sewer pipes form a vast underground network that can provide a terrorist with access to many public buildings, metropolitan centers, private businesses, residential neighborhoods, military installations, transportation systems and urban centers. A wastewater treatment system itself could also be a target of an attack, with significant public health and environmental impacts. H.R. 5169 will help communities address these security concerns by authorizing $200 million for grants to wastewater utilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and implement security enhancements at their facilities, $15 million for technical assistance to small wastewater facilities on security measures, $5 million for the further development and refinement of vulnerability self-assessment methodologies and tools for use by wastewater facilities. These authorizations are designed to help wastewater treatment utilities take immediate and necessary steps to improve security at their facilities. These authorizations do not create a new, ongoing infrastructure assistance program or create any new Federal mandates. I urge all Members to support this very bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5169.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on August 26, this Nation lost a great and patriotic American. Dr. Matthew Prince, a very close friend of mine, passed away suddenly due to a heart attack. Matt was one of the finest men I have ever known. He was both a lawyer and a minister, having graduated from the University of Tennessee with both undergraduate and law degrees, and the Dallas Theological Seminary. He founded New Life, Inc., an evangelistic ministry and Bible study and served for several years as Pastor for Calvary Evangelical Church. He was host of the Answerline program on WRJZ Radio Station for more than 15 years and later the Treasures of Grace Program. He had also served as Legal Counsel for the Young Life Christian organization and as a lawyer in private practice. In addition to all this, Dr. Prince was a Sunday School teacher for many years at Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church and West Park Baptist Church. His brother, Dr. Tom Prince, said ``Matt was one of the great men of God in his time. . . '' Most important of all, Matt was a good family man who loved his wife, children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren very much. He was very proud of them, and they have every right to be proud of the life he led. Matt Prince was a man in the arena. He fought very hard for the things he believed in, and he was never afraid to take a stand for God or Country. This Nation is a better place today, and thousands of lives were touched in a positive way, because of Matt Prince. I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the following article about the life of Matt Prince which ran in the Knoxville News-Sentinel on September 18, 2002. Evangelist, Christian Radio Host of Answerline, Dies of Heart Attack (By Sherri Gardner Howell) The Rev. Dr. Matthew ``Matt'' Prince, evangelist and longtime Christian radio host, died Monday, Aug. 26, of a heart attack. The Rev. Dr. Prince, 73, was a radio host for more than 15 years for Answerline on WRJZ radio and taught Sunday School classes at Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church and West Park Baptist Church. After Answerline went off the air, the Rev. Dr. Prince began the Treasures of Grace radio program, which aired each weekday. A graduate of the University of Tennessee, the Dallas Theological Seminary and UT Law School, the Rev. Dr. Prince founded New Life Inc., an evangelistic outreach ministry and Bible study. As part of his law practice, the Rev. Dr. Prince served as head of legal council for Young Life in Colorado Springs, Colo., and then practiced law in Knoxville. In 1988, the Rev. Dr. Prince led a team that formed Calvary Evangelical Church in West Knoxville and served as its pastor for 5 years. ``Matt was one of the great men of God in this time, and he recreated `Friendship Evangelism,' a way of introducing people to Christ through friendship and in people's homes,'' says his brother Dr. Tom Prince. Their father, Thomas C. Prince, was instrumental in bringing Young Life to Knoxville in 1947. The Rev. Dr. Prince is survived by his wife, Judy Prince, sons Matt S. Prince Jr. and David Prince of Simi Valley, Calif.; daughters Peggy Miller of Plano, Texas, Patty Mastro of Huntington Beach, Calif., Penny Griffin and Beverly Sharp; step-daughter Trudi Neubeck, and stepson Rick Boensch of St. Petersburg, Fla.; brother, Dr. Tom Prince; nephews Tommy, Gary and Steven Prince; and niece Gayle Scaggs. The Rev. Dr. Prince had 10 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. The family will receive friends from 5 to 8 p.m. Wednesday at Rose Mortuary Mann Heritage Chapel. The funeral service will be at 11 a.m. Thursday at West Park Baptist Church with burial at 3 p.m. Thursday at Highland Memorial Cemetery.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Barbara Ann ``Bobbie'' Householder, one of my constituents, passed away last week after losing a battle with cancer. Barbara Ann was a longtime community volunteer and was well-known in my District for her extensive community service, as well as her years of association with the Blount County Chamber of Commerce. Barbara Ann helped organize events for the Adopt-A-School program, she volunteered for Leadership Blount and the Blount County Dogwood Arts Festival and also was a great volunteer in her church. She retired with the title of vice president of community development for the Blount County Chamber of Commerce. Although retired, she continued to work hard on her volunteer work. Up until a week before her death, she was recruiting volunteers for the United Way from her hospital bed. Bobbie Householder was one of the finest people I have ever known and will be greatly missed by the whole community. Her efforts and achievements are an inspiration to us all, and I would like to call a newspaper article that was printed in the Maryville Daily Times about her life to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. [From the Daily Times, Aug. 22, 2002] Volunteer, Former Chamber Official Householder Dies of Cancer at 74 (From Staff Reports) Longtime community volunteer Barbara Ann ``Bobbie'' Householder of Alcoa died Wednesday morning at Blount Memorial Hospital after a battle with cancer. Although she was never elected to public office, Householder was one of Blount County's best-known people through her volunteer work and her years of association with the Blount County Chamber of Commerce. ``To many people in Blount County and throughout the area, Bobbie was the chamber of commerce,'' chamber President and CEO Fred Forster said Wednesday. ``She was the core of enthusiasm in this community for many years. Many of the things we enjoy here now are the fruits of her work over the years. ``All of us in the chamber family will miss her,'' Forster said. Householder, 74, was a native of Knoxville. She and Glen, her husband of 56 years, moved to Blount County in 1952 and became the parents of two sons and a daughter. Not long after the Householders' move to Blount County, she went to the Chamber of Commerce-United Way office, then located at the Maryville Municipal Building, to help out for a few days. Her volunteer work with the chamber led to a full-time job there, and she retired in 1994 after 33 years with the organization. Early in her career with the chamber, the staff consisted of the executive director, a bookkeeper and Householder. She handled office responsibilities and coordinated chamber projects, including coordination of Blount County's United Way campaigns for 25 years. By the end of her tenure with the chamber, Householder was vice president of the Blount County Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber Foundation and the Smoky Mountain Visitors Bureau, three of the four organizations under the Blount Partnership's administrative umbrella. In addition to her other duties, Householder helped organize and coordinate Homecoming '86 for Blount County, the Adopt-A-School program, Leadership Blount and the Blount County Dogwood Arts Festival. She also was extremely active in the Maryville-Alcoa Jaycettes, an organization involved in initial promotion of tourism efforts. She retired with the title of vice president of community development for the Blount County Chamber of Commerce. Retirement did little to slow Householder, and her efforts to better her community were recognized when she received the 2001 Pride of Tennessee Award. The award is given to one person each year who has a history of community involvement. Since 1994 she has served as president of the Friends of the Library, a member of the Keep Blount Beautiful Board of Directors, a member of the Blount County Bicentennial Committee, an officer with the Blount County Education Foundation, and co-chairman of the Blount County Millennium Committee. Householder also served several years as chairman for the United Way of Blount County's Day of Caring and in other volunteer roles for United Way. ``She was a great lady with great ideas, but the best thing about Bobbie was that you could count on her,'' United Way Executive Director Sandra Davis said Wednesday. ``She was still recruiting United Way volunteers from her hospital bed as recently as last week,'' Davis said. ``She was one of the best volunteers any nonprofit organization could ask for--always willing to go the extra mile.'' Davis said she and Householder also shared an interest in activities through the Methodist church, not only at the local level but at the conference level as well. Her work in the church included service as communications coordinator for the Holston Conference United Methodist Women. Householder was a member of Broadway United Methodist Church. Her pastor, the Rev. James Dougherty, will officiate at a celebration of her life at 8 p.m. Friday at the church. The family will receive friends from 6:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. Friday at the church. In addition to her husband, she is survived by her son and daughter-in-law, Gary and Janet Householder of Louisville, KY, her son Alan Householder of Cosby, and her daughter and son-in-law, Glenda and Darrell Eastridge of Alcoa, grandchildren Cindy and Brian Householder of Louisville, Ky., and Jeff and Amy Eastridge of Alcoa. She is also survived by her sister, Grace Goode of Maryville, her brother, Richard Hubbs of Johnson City, and several nieces and nephews. The family suggests no flowers. Memorials may be made to Broadway United Methodist Church, to the Blount County Education Foundation, to Friends of the Library or to the United Way of Blount County.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the contribution of medical imaging and radiation professionals to the care of Americans as we celebrate National Radiologic Technology Week (NRTW) November 3- 9, 2002. Many people are unaware of who radiologic technologists are or what they do. This week to honor those dedicated health care professionals was started in 1979 by the American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT). The purpose for the week is to educate the public about the important contributions of medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals in providing quality patient care and a safer health care environment. Radiologic technologists are the medical personnel who perform diagnostic imaging examinations and administer radiation therapy treatments. They are educated in anatomy, patient positioning, examination techniques, equipment protocols, radiation safety, radiation protection and patient care. NRTW takes place annually and is celebrated across the Country at hospitals, clinics, imaging centers, educational institutions, corporations and affiliate organizations and at public events held at schools, health fairs, fund-raisers and other community locations. NRTW also commemorates the founding of the ASRT in October 1920. ASRT is the oldest and largest national, not-for-profit member association representing medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals, with a membership exceeding 100,000. Since 1920, ASRT has helped foster the professional growth and educational needs of radiologic technologists throughout the world. The Society represents individual practitioners, educators, students and managers/administrators in radiologic technology, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and sonography. I would like to congratulate and thank our Country's medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals for a job well done. It is an honor to commemorate and celebrate National Radiologic Technology Week.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, once again, millions of acres out west have burned, causing billions of dollars in damage. We were warned in the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health in early 1998 and early 2000 that this was going to happen; and then a few months later in 2000, 7 million acres burned, causing $10 billion worth of damage. If I went out and burned down one tree in a national forest, I would be arrested; and yet, because of the policies of the past administration and following these extremist environmental groups, these policies have caused millions and millions of acres out west to burn and caused billions of dollars' worth of damage. This year, 20 firefighters have lost their lives because of the fires out there. Also one of my constituents, a young woman firefighter in an accident fighting one of the fires, has been paralyzed from the waist down. Extremist groups, Mr. Speaker, protest any time anyone wants to cut any trees, even though we have many millions more acres in forest land now than 50 or 100 years ago. I will repeat that. We have many millions more acres in forest land now than 50 or 100 or 150 years ago. These groups have driven many small logging companies out of business. Most of these fires have been caused by groups which have stopped even the thinning of forests or the removal of dead and dying trees, resulting in a tremendous buildup of fuel on the floors of our national forests. The Washington Times had a front page story a few days ago which said, ``There are simply too many trees.'' It quoted Dale Bosworth, head the U.S. Forest Service, who said, ``We have so many more trees out there than under natural conditions. There might have been 40 or 50 Ponderosa pine per acre at one time. Now you have several hundred per acre.'' The June 27 Washington Post had a headline reading, ``Did politics put a match to West wild lands?'' As I said, we were warned in the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health that these fires would occur, also in early 1998 that we had some 40 million acres in imminent and immediate danger of catastrophic fires. Yet the political strengths of environmental groups were too strong to do anything about it. Jay Ambrose, director of editorial policy for the Scripps-Howard newspaper chain, wrote that the most flammable and dead trees and underbrush should have been removed, but ``the extreme environmentalists hate the prospect. It is unconscionable to them that anyone might make money off the forests. Never mind that a multi-use, private-public plan would help save the national forests from high-heat scorching fires that will slow renewed growth, and never mind that mechanical thinning would give firefighters a chance of controlling fires and protecting homes without risking their own lives.'' Mr. Ambrose ended by saying, ``The extremist ideology spits on private enterprise.'' Mr. Speaker, these fires are continuing. We have been holding a hearing today in the Committee on Resources about this important issue with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture. The Congress passed a law in the mid-1980s that the environmentalists wanted saying that we would not cut more than 80 percent of the new growth in the national forests. Now we have approximately 23 billion board feet of new growth each year, but we are only allowing less than 3 billion board feet, less than one-seventh of the new growth to be cut. This is less than half of the dead and dying trees. This has led to a tremendous fuel buildup on the floor of the forests and is the main reason for these fires that we have been having out West. Robert Nelson, a professor at the University of Maryland, wrote a column and said, ``In fact, over the last decade, it was more important to the Clinton administration to promote wilderness values by creating roadless areas and taking other actions to exclude a human presence. This aggravated last summer's tinderbox forest conditions and continues to threaten public land.'' He said Federal policies have ``produced an enormous buildup of small trees, underbrush and deadwood that provide excess fuels to feed flames.'' Mr. Speaker, you have to cut some trees to have a healthy forest and prevent forest fires, yet, amazingly, there are extremists that oppose even the removal of dead and dying trees. Professor Nelson said in many Federal forests, tree density has increased since the 1940s from 50 per acre to 300 to 500 per acre and that these forests are ``filled with dense strands of small, stressed trees and plants that combine with any deadwood to provide virtual kindling wood for forest fires.'' I recently read Bill Bryson's book about hiking the Appalachian Trail. He noted that New England was only 30 percent in forest land in 1850, but is 70 percent in forest land today. The Knoxville News- Sentinel reported a couple of years ago that Tennessee was 36 percent in forest land in 1950, while today it is almost half in forest land. Yet, if I went in any school in my district in Tennessee and asked the students there if there are more trees today than 50 or 150 years ago, they would probably all say there are many, many fewer trees today. Mr. Speaker, there has been a tremendous amount of brainwashing going on about this type of issue, but we need to cut some trees so we can stop these horrendous forest fires out West.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002. H.R. 1070 reflects a consensus approach to addressing sediment contamination in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are, without question, a vital resource for both the United States and Canada. The Great Lakes system provides a waterway to move goods; water supply for drinking, industrial and agricultural purposes; a source of hydroelectric power; and swimming and many other recreational activities. The industrialization and development of the Great Lakes Basin over the past 200 years has had an adverse impact on the Great Lakes. As a result, many of the Great Lakes are under fish advisories warning people not to eat fish that may be in the water there. By treaty, the United States and Canada are developing cleanup plans for the Great Lakes and for specific areas of concern. Unfortunately, only one area of concern, located in Canada, has been cleaned up. Most of the activity at U.S. areas of concern has occurred as a result of Superfund enforcement action or threat of such action. However, Superfund's suitability for cleaning up the Great Lakes is limited. The Great Lakes sediments became contaminated as a result of pollution from many sources over several generations. Applying Superfund could make virtually every citizen of the Great Lakes Basin a liable party. There are better ways to address this problem. One solution is to encourage cooperative efforts through public-private partnerships. That is the solution recommended by the bill H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002. H.R. 1070 would authorize $50 million a year for 5 years to clean up contaminated sediment in areas of concern in the Great Lakes. This Federal funding must be matched with at least a 35 percent non-Federal share, encouraging local and private sector investment. This bill also makes sure that these funds are well spent. At some sites, removing sediments will be the best way to address short- and long-term risks. At other sites, the last thing we want to do is go in and stir up contaminated sediments by dredging, causing even more harm to the environment. This consensus bill does not try to presume any particular cleanup option. It simply encourages stakeholders to take action and to make sure that the action they take will make a real improvement to human health and the environment. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and his colleagues for working with stakeholders from the Great Lakes to advance this legislation. I believe this is a great example of bipartisan legislation that everyone in this Chamber can support. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1070) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make grants for remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern and to authorize assistance for research and development of innovative technologies for such purpose, as amended.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the original author of the bill.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just close the debate by saying there is almost nothing that people take for granted as much as they do their water. Yet many people have said and have written that water may well be the oil of the 21st century. The importance of our water supply is going to grow and grow and grow with the passing years. Certainly the Great Lakes, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) just said, is a precious national resource. The Great Lakes contain, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has said, almost one-fifth of the world's fresh-water supply. The Great Lakes contain 95 percent of the U.S. surface fresh-water supply. The Great Lakes is a very, very important asset. This is a good bill. This is a very pro-environment bill. The lack of controversy should not mask or decrease or cover up the significance of this bill, the importance of it. I think this is one of the most significant clean-water bills that this Congress has ever passed. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Let me say one other thing before I yield back my time. I just want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). The gentleman from Minnesota is certainly always one of the most active members of our committee and a real leader on all of these issues, and I thank him for his support of this legislation. 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1070.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I know the new Homeland Security Department is going to pass with almost no dissenting votes, but it really is sad that we have to create a new cabinet level department just to get government agencies to cooperate with each other. Really it will just make the government bigger, more bureaucratic, more expensive and no safer. Many syndicated columnists are now questioning the rush here. Dan Thomasson in the Scripps Howard News Service, in the Scripps Howard papers all over the country, said the last thing the Nation needs now is a half-baked Department of Homeland Security removed from the oven too quickly because of obvious political considerations. He said this is a monumental task that if not carefully and cautionly tended could produce an unwieldy, overblown bureaucracy that would worsen the situation and leave the country even more vulnerable than it is now. I hope that we will heed these words of Dan Thomasson and not make the problem worse than it is now.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, this morning's Wall Street Journal has an editorial which says this about the proposed Homeland Security Department: ``It seemed like a good idea at the time. But the more we look at the hash Washington is making of President Bush's proposal for a new Department of Homeland Security, the more we think we would be wiser to call the whole thing off.'' Steven Moore, in a column in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, said the new Department would probably cost $4 billion just in reorganization costs. Then he said, ``There are, however, a number of problems with the proposal. First, and most important, we already have a Department of Homeland Security and it is called the Department of Defense. If Defense, which spends about $350 billion a year, more than almost all of the other nations combined, if Defense isn't spending money on protecting the homeland, what is it spending these funds on? The very reason we had a 9/11 attack was that our government wasn't doing the one thing it is supposed to do: Keep us safe from foreign harm.'' This new department will simply make the Federal Government bigger, more bureaucratic and much more expensive, and it will not make it any safer. We should not have to create a Cabinet level department just to get government agencies to cooperate with each other. If we do, the Federal Government is much worse than even I thought it was.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I realize that almost everyone in the Congress is going to vote to create the new Department of Homeland Security, but I am afraid all this new Department is going to do is make the government bigger, more bureaucratic and more expensive and the country will not be any safer. In yesterday's ``Congress Daily,'' we read that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will cost $43 billion just to implement the new Department. The New York Times on June 23 had a column which said the proposed Department contains ``elements so big that even a fee-hungry Wall Street investment banker might have hesitated to propose it.'' William Schneider, in the ``National Journal,'' said it will ``simply add another layer of bureaucracy. Will adding another layer of government at the top make a great deal of difference? Not if the problem is at the bottom.'' Tony Blankley, in Wednesdays's Washington Times said, ``Congress should slow down, be more deliberative . . . Perhaps some bill can be cobbled together at such breakneck speed, but not the bill that this country needs.'' Mr. Speaker, we should not have to create a new cabinet-level Department just to get Federal agencies to cooperate with each other.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want, first of all, to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my good friend, for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong support of the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act and the rule that brings this bill to the floor. I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, for bringing this very reasonable and very moderate bill and this pilot program to the floor of this House. The Boston Herald editorialized about this and said, ``No one is proposing that a pilot be required to carry a gun, only that he or she have the option. There is probably no more professionally responsible group of people in America than airline pilots.'' They went on to say, ``If pilots will be reassured, if they will gain a little more confidence on the job from having a last-ditch defense before an F-16 shoots down the plane and kills everybody anyway, they should be allowed to carry arms. A large fraction have military backgrounds and will need little training.'' The Wall Street Journal editorialized about this issue and said, ``Arming pilots is an important security measure. Federal air marshals will never be able to protect more than a small fraction of flights. It shouldn't take another disaster before we get serious about keeping hijackers out of the cockpit.'' The Chicago Tribune said, ``The chief value of an armed pilot is to deter terrorists from getting on the plane in the first place. Even if they could get weapons past security, overcome air marshals, flight attendants, and passengers, and penetrate the cockpit door, they would then find themselves staring down the barrel of a gun. That prospect would create a powerful incentive for terrorists to give up on the idea entirely.'' As we all know, the tragedies of September 11 have dramatically changed the way we look at aviation security. Now, more than ever, we need to make sure that we are doing everything we possibly can to protect the flying public. Mr. Speaker, I believe that includes arming pilots. We passed the aviation security bill, and we did a lot through that legislation. This act will establish a pilot program that will allow only about 2 percent of the pilot workforce, about 1,400 pilots, to have guns in the cockpit. I would just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that these volunteer pilots would be trained by the Transportation Security Administration and would go through training similar to that of Federal air marshals. I wish this bill could allow more than 2 percent of the pilots to participate, but I am glad to see this legislation at least moving forward. This is something that a majority of my constituents support as well as every pilots association group, and I think this Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act will go a long way in protecting the American people by deterring terrorists and preventing future tragedies. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that all of my colleagues support this very important legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, because of the corporate scandals at WorldCom, Enron and Global Crossing, C-SPAN a few days ago asked people call in on the question of whether they had lost their faith in American corporations. The problem is that bigger and bigger government has led to and resulted in bigger and bigger businesses controlling or dominating almost every industry or business sector. Almost every major problem we have today has been made worse because liberals over the last many years have made our government at the Federal and now even at the State levels far too big. Big government, in the end, really helps only extremely big businesses and the bureaucrats who work for the government. The big giants in every industry have come to the government and have gotten the government contracts, the favorable regulatory rulings, the tax break, the insider sweetheart deals in trade deals and so forth. So the big keep getting bigger and small businesses and small farms go under or struggle to survive, and now even medium-sized businesses even barely hang on. Despite the most economic leverage of any Nation in the world and the fact that every nation drools to get into our markets, we have not used this economic leverage to help American small- and medium-sized businesses and workers, and instead have helped only big multinational companies. Liberals always claim they are for the little guy. Yet their policies have hurt the little man in almost every way. For example, big government has driven medical costs almost out of sight. Another example, liberals expanded the FDA and made it so big and bureaucratic that it now takes an average of over 10 years and over $850 million to get a drug to market. This is why prescription drugs cost so much. People wonder why and do not realize it is their own government that has done it to them. Big government liberals and their allies in the environmental movement protest every time anyone wants to cut any trees, dig for any coal, drill for any oil, or produce any natural gas. This has caused many small companies to go out of business and forced them to merge and has driven up prices and destroyed jobs. This has hurt the poor and lower-income and working people most of all. I am sick and tired of seeing so many American jobs go to other countries. However, when big government taxes and regulates small businesses or small farms out of business, it simply means that the big keep getting bigger. Then the big giants have to go where labor and regulatory costs are the lowest, and they are much more likely to move out of the country, and then our people wonder why we keep losing so many good jobs. Well, it is primarily because of a Federal Government that has grown so big and so bureaucratic that it is simply out of control. In the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, we recently learned that some 400 pages of proposed EPA regulations would run 40,000 small farmers out of business. We had farmers in our hearing crying because their own government was about to do them in. I am told that in 1978 we had 157 small coal companies in east Tennessee. Now there are none. All the small- and medium-sized ones were regulated out of existence by Federal mining regulators under intense pressure from environmental special interest groups which get their contributions mainly from extremely big business. We have just had some 500 square miles of forests burning in several States out West. Two years ago, the previous administration followed policies that caused 7 million acres to burn and over $10 million in damage. The head of the Forest Service told the Washington Times that ``there might have been 40 to 50 Ponderosa pine trees per acre at one time. Now you've got several hundred per acre.'' Yet environmental extremists oppose even any thinning of the trees, no cutting at all, and even oppose removal of dead and dying trees. The Washington Post said the combination of drought and refusal to thin the forests has been deadly and has caused all these fires because there is such a tremendous build-up of fuel on the floors of the forest. The opposition to cutting the trees has driven many small logging companies out of business and once again has destroyed jobs and caused another industry to be limited primarily to big grants. When big government liberals make it impossible for small drug companies and small businesses in every industry to survive, it decreases competition and drives up prices. This hurts lower-income people the most. When big government liberals and wealthy environmental extremists force mom-and-pop mining or logging companies or small farms out of business, it destroys jobs and opportunities not only for loggers and miners and farmers but also their lawyers, accountants, secretaries and salespeople. This is a big part of the reason why so many college graduates cannot find good jobs and have to go to graduate schools and work as waiters and waitresses. When I was growing up, a poor man could start a gas station. Now, because of all the environmental rules and regulations and red tape, it takes a multimillionaire or a giant corporation to start one. Mr. Speaker, to sum up, big government liberalism is killing the little guy. Liberals and environmental extremists are the best friends extremely big business has ever had, and it is no wonder we are seeing the major corporate scandals we are reading and hearing about today. Unless and until we downsize our Federal Government, we will continue to see even more.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, national defense is one of the most important and one of the most legitimate functions of our national government. Serving in our Nation's Armed Forces is certainly one of the most honorable ways a person can serve this country. And because of our pride in being considered a peace-loving Nation, we changed the name of the War Department many years ago to the Department of Defense. Now, however, most of our leaders in both parties, people for whom I have great respect, seem to be eager to go to war against Iraq. We should not be eager to go to war against any country, and especially against one that has not attacked us or even threatened to attack us. We cannot use the terrible tragedies of September 11 to justify it, because Saudi Arabia had much more to do with those events than Iraq did, and we still consider Saudi Arabia to be one of our allies. We are already spending mega billions to increase our security. We do not need to go against our military traditions and spend billions more on an unnecessary war unless Iraq threatens to, or does, take some type of action against us. We do not need to turn the Department of Defense into the War Department once again.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I first want to salute and commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for bringing this bill to the floor today. The lack of publicity about this legislation should not be any reflection on its importance because I consider this to be very, very important legislation. In previous Congresses, we held a couple of hearings about this problem, and we heard testimony that the average time of completion of a runway project in this country was approximately 10 years. In fact, we heard one witness tell us that the main runway at the Atlanta airport took 14 years from conception to completion, but only 33 days, those were 24-hour workdays, so we could say 99 working days of actual construction. That is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. We also heard testimony that these delays are primarily due to environmental rules and regulations and red tape, and it was driving the cost of these projects up so they were costing three or four times what they should. Those costs had to be passed on to the flying public. What this has done over the years, it has driven up the cost of air travel. It has forced many lower-income people back onto the highways, or made sure that they stayed on the highways instead of having the much safer and quicker and more comfortable alternative of flying. This is very important legislation. We passed in the last Congress the AIR-21 bill, which was the largest aviation bill in the history of the Congress; but we certainly will not be able to gain the full benefits of the AIR-21 legislation unless we pass this legislation to complement and improve that earlier bill. This will help taxpayers receive the greatest bang for their buck on these aviation projects and will greatly improve and hold down the cost of air travel in the future. I think it is a very good bill, and I commend the authors and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Knoxville's ``hugging principal'' has retired. One of our leading educators, Juanita Cannon, has retired after 40 years of outstanding work with young people. Mrs. Cannon was a teacher for 26 years before becoming a principal. She taught health, physical education, sociology, and biology and coached tap dancers, cheerleaders, and girls basketball and volleyball teams. She became known as the ``hugging principal'' because no one, parents, students, teachers, came to her school without getting a hug. She could have retired five years ago, but she chose instead to take on one of the toughest assignments in the Knox County School System. She became principal of the Transition School, overseeing students who had been in criminal trouble or who had been determined to be unruly and out-of-control at other schools. She said: ``When someone would ask me if I worked with criminals, I would say `Excuse me. I work with young men who made a bad choice. They just got caught. They served their time.''' She is a woman who knows there is some good even in the worst people and she worked to try to bring out the best in everyone. Knoxville City Councilman Raleigh Wynn said: ``Juanita had a way of getting along with the worst of the worst and the best of the best. She didn't show partiality with people.'' She jokingly referred to herself as my spouse since she used my spouse's ticket to the 1993 inauguration of President Clinton. I want to congratulate her on her retirement and on her 40 years of service to young people. This Nation is a better place because of the dedication and simple human kindness of Juanita Cannon.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to fulfill a pledge we made a year ago. The Congress succeeded last year in phasing out the death tax by 2010. Unfortunately, due to a quirk in budget rules on the other side of the Capitol, it will snap back to life January 1, 2011. We believe this is unfair and that it is unacceptable. It is bad tax policy and it must be changed. It is important to recognize the lack of permanence has real consequences, Mr. Speaker, for small business owners and family farms. Without permanence, they will continue to have to spend thousands of dollars every single year to put together expensive estate plans and to purchase life insurance policies just to ensure that business can survive to the next generation. The sudden reappearance of the death tax in 2011 creates the ridiculous situation where a person who dies on December 31, 2010 would not be subject to death taxes, but if he had lived one more day his heirs would be forced to pay death taxes of up to 55 percent. The opponents of the repeal parade the same tired reasons for keeping the death tax. They say it only helps the super wealthy. Not true. According to the IRS, 85 percent of the estates that paid the tax in 1999, our most recent figures, were valued at between $2.5 million, and many of these were small businesses. Any capital-rich, cash-poor business, like a trucking company, for example, or a hardware store or construction company or a family-owned newspaper, would undoubtedly be valued at more than $2.5 million. Why not simply provide a special exemption for small businesses and farms? We have already tried that, Mr. Speaker, and we have been shown that it does not work. The formula for applying the exemption is far too onerous and it is too complicated. It was so unworkable that the American Bar Association recommended that we repeal it because it was only taking into consideration between 1 and 3 percent of small businesses, small farms, and small estates. It did not work. More importantly, a carve-out of that sort of exemption affirms the flawed notion that it is fair to tax somebody at the end of their life because they were successful. These are assets that already have been taxed once, and many times more than that. Death tax repeal attracts support from both sides of the aisle and from a diverse group of interests. Conservation organizations, like the Nature Conservancy, support repeal because they are very worried about the forced sale of valuable property to developers. In one fell swoop a parcel of land that has been in the family for generations is sold simply to pay that death tax and must be paid in cash within 9 months of the death of the owner. Minority business groups, like the Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Business Roundtable support repeal because they understand it takes more than one generation to build a business that will be in the family. Why should the death tax stand in the way of their attempt to realize the American Dream? Women business owners support repeal. They are well aware of the threat the death tax poses to their hard work. According to one recent survey, 40 percent of women business owners claim that the death tax would force the sale of all or part of their businesses. Opponents also claim that repealing the death tax will entrench our Nation's wealthy elite. They maintain that the tax represents the best intentions of meritocracy, in which citizens begin life without financial advantages. But their populist sentiments are simply misguided. The death tax is an insult to hardworking Americans and it penalizes entrepreneurs for their successes. Mr. Speaker, we spend a huge amount of time and energy encouraging Americans to save for retirement, to save for the unexpected, to save for their children. We should not punish them at the end of their life for doing the right thing. The death tax has no moral, economic, or social justification and it should be repealed completely. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind the gentleman from California that the death tax extracts $4 billion from the State of California to the Federal Government, money that might be used to assist him in the problems in the State of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), who is the author of the bill we debate today.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my colleague and good friend from Washington State that it was, in fact, Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat president, who in 1916 signed the death tax into law, not Teddy Roosevelt. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who is a very strong member of the House Committee on Ways and Means and who is very involved in this debate. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)