Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, another important, but unrelated issue of national concern is the impending teacher shortage. This is a very artificial, political government-produced shortage. It has come about only because the teachers' unions and colleges of education want to drastically restrict and limit and control the number of people allowed to teach in the Nation's public schools. If a person with a Ph.D. and 30 years of experience, say a chemist, wanted to teach after working for years for the Government, he cannot do so under the rules in most States today. If a small college went under and a professor with 25 years of teaching experience, let us say a professor of English, wanted to move to a public school, he could not do so in most States today. If a very successful businessman wanted to teach for a few years as a way to contribute back to society, he could not do so today, despite all of his great wealth and success and experience. Why? Because they would not have the required degrees in education. So school boards are restricted to hiring 22-year-olds with no experience because they have taken a few education courses over people with Ph.D.s and great experience and success and knowledge who have not had the education courses. This makes no sense at all at any time, but it is crazy in a time when there is or is about to be a teacher shortage. School boards should never hire an unqualified teacher, but they should be given the flexibility and freedom and power to hire people who have great knowledge or experience or success in a particular field, even if they have never taken an education course. If they could do this, there would be no teacher shortage in this country. There are hundreds of thousands of experienced, well-trained, well- educated people with degrees and even graduate degrees who have not taken education courses, but who could and would make great teachers, if only government regulations would give them the freedom and opportunity to do so.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, the Census Bureau is proving that it is another arrogant Federal agency with a power-mad, public-be-damned attitude. Despite the huge public outcry against the personal, intrusive questions on the Census long form, the Bureau wants to keep prying with the same or similar personal questions on the form called the American Community Survey to be sent to 250 homes each month. The lame defense of questions on the long form was that these questions had been approved by Congress and that they had been asked before. Well, Congress never had a vote on the specific questions and no Member saw those questions beforehand except possibly a few on the Subcommittee on the Census. Also, if these nosy, personal questions were asked in the past, it was before the Federal Government got as big and out of control as it is today and before the age of the Internet. I guess with the computer-controlled society we have today, true privacy is a thing of the past. But the Congress should offer at least a little resistance and not allow the Census Bureau to keep butting its nose into areas that should be none of our Federal Big Brother's business.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in this year's commencement speech at Notre Dame, Kofi Annan, the head of the United Nations, bitterly attacked the United States. He said the U.S. was one of the ``least generous'' Nations in helping the world's poor. Actually, the exact opposite is true. No nation on the face of this Earth has even come close to the U.S. in what it has given to poor people around the world. Mr. Annan called the U.S. ``shameful.'' Actually, U.S. taxpayers pay one-fourth of all U.N. costs and most of the costs of the so-called U.N. peacekeeping missions. Mr. Speaker, most of our tax money for the U.N. is wasted to pay high salaries to U.N. bureaucrats who pay no Federal income taxes. Interestingly, Mr. Annan has refused to release a copy of his financial disclosure as required by law or a copy of his own personal charitable giving for the past 5 years as requested by the Freedom Alliance. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Annan is the one who should be ashamed, not U.S. taxpayers.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DUNCAN. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a tremendous rip-off of the taxpayers of this Nation, and I would urge and I hope that at least a few people vote against this bill. I know, as I say, it will pass by an overwhelming margin, but I will be requesting a vote on this bill.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this legislation to purchase the Baca Ranch in New Mexico. I know this bill is going to pass with an overwhelming majority and almost no opposition. In fact, I have not sent out ``Dear Colleagues'' or tried to stir up opposition in any way because the votes simply would not be there. I would say too that I believe that the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are simply doing what good Members from New Mexico should do. However, I think this is a very bad deal for the taxpayers. In fact, this bill is strongly opposed by the Citizens Against Government Waste, the 600,000-member Citizens Against Government Waste. A portion of that letter says, ``According to the Congressional Research Service, that price,'' the price the owners of the Baca Ranch paid for ``when adjusted for inflation would be the equivalent of $11.7 million today. However, the legislation will force the taxpayers to pay nearly 10 times that amount, or 50 times the original purchase price, a whopping $101 million. This is a great deal if you are the seller of the property, but a horrible deal for taxpayers. ``This bill is not only extravagant, it is unnecessary.'' Those are the words of the Council for the Citizens Against Government Waste. As noted in their letter, the family that owns this ranch bought it in 1961 for $2.1 million. Under this bill, the Federal Government is going to pay $101 million for this property, almost 50 times the original purchase price. I would bet that almost everyone in this Nation would love to sell their property for 50 times what they paid for it. This is a colossal rip-off of the taxpayers and, as noted in the Citizens Against Government Waste letter, the Congressional Research Service ran the numbers on this. According to the CRS, there has been 452 percent inflation since 1961, and when we adjust this price for inflation, this property should be worth $11.7 million. We definitely should not be paying $101 million for property that was bought for $2.1 million and today, adjusted for inflation, should be worth $11.7 million. Mr. Speaker, this is welfare for the rich. It is a windfall for the wealthy. I watched a tape about this property. It is beautiful. However, as I noted in committee when this bill came up, the most over- used word in our committee in the Committee on Resources and in the Congress is ``pristine.'' We are constantly told that we have to buy this property or that property because it is beautiful or pristine. But if the Federal Government tried to buy every beautiful, pristine piece of property in this country, it would bankrupt our government and saddle our economy. Besides, as the gentlewoman from New Mexico just noted, the Federal Government already owns 37 percent of New Mexico, millions of acres. That should be more than enough. The Federal Government certainly does not need any more of New Mexico and has too much already. Mr. Speaker, private property is one of the main foundations of our prosperity. It is one of the cornerstones of our freedom. Private property is one of the main things that has set us apart from socialist and Communist nations. Already, the Federal Government owns over 30 percent of the land in this Nation. State and local governments and quasi-governmental units own another 20 percent. Half of the land is in some type of public ownership. Yet what is alarming is the rapid rate at which government at all levels continues to take over more and more and more property. Also, we keep putting more and more restrictions, limitations, rules, regulations and red tape on the land that does remain in private hands. If we keep doing away with private property, we are going to drive up the prices of homes and cause serious damage to our economy. We will hurt the poor and the working people and those of middle income the most. We should not waste the taxpayers' money in this way. Mr. Speaker, $101 million for property bought for $2.1 million is more than 4,000 percent higher than what it should be or what we should have paid for it when adjusted for inflation. We should not take money from lower- and middle-income Americans to pay a rich family almost 50 times what they paid for their property. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again what the Citizens Against Government Waste said. Quote: ``This is a great deal if you are the seller of the property, but a horrible deal for taxpayers. This bill is not only extravagant, it is unnecessary.'' Mr. Speaker, at this time I will include for the Record the letter from Citizens Against Government Waste. Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Washington, DC, June 2, 2000. Hon. John Duncan, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Duncan: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts to highlight the waste and abuse of taxpayer money in S. 1892, the Valles Caldera Preservation Act. The Valles Caldera Preservation Act would authorize the purchase of the Baca Ranch in New Mexico. As you noted, the current owners purchased this property in 1961 for $2.1 million. According to the Congressional Research Service, that price, when adjusted for inflation, would be the equivalent of $11.7 million today. However, the legislation will force the taxpayers to pay nearly ten times that amount, or 50 times the original purchase price, a whopping $101 million dollars. This is a great deal if you are the seller of the property, but a horrible deal for taxpayers. This bill is not only extravagant, it is unnecessary. The federal government currently owns more than 30 percent of all the land in the United States and cannot properly maintain those holdings. In 1998, the National Park Service estimated that it would cost $3.54 billion to repair maintenance problems at national parks, monuments and wilderness areas. Last year, the House Appropriations Committee estimated that there is a $15 billion backlog of maintenance. CCAGW urges your House colleagues to support your efforts to stop this boondoggle. Any vote on the purchase of the Baca Ranch will be among those considered for CCAGW's 2000 Congressional Ratings. Sincerely, Thomas Schatz, President.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Matt Bennett, who is a very good friend of mine, wrote an editorial today in the Knoxville News-Sentinel about the management of our national forests. This Administration has proposed a plan to manage our national forests which many people believe could actually end up harming our forests by preventing access to areas in danger of fire. I agree that we should be preserving our existing wilderness areas and national parks. However, the federal government already owns 30 percent of all the land in the U.S. If we keep locking up more and more land, we will just end up hurting the middle- and lower-income families by driving up the cost of forest products. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mr. Bennett's column does an excellent job describing the dangers of this proposal put forth by the Administration. I have included a copy of the editorial that appears in today's edition of the Knoxville News-Sentinel and would like to call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Congressional Record. [From the Knoxville News-Sentinel, June 28, 2000] President's Roadless Plan Too Confining For Future Generations (By Matt Bennett) In the legal parlance of estate planning, the term ``dead- hand control'' refers to one generation's attempt to control the future of another from the grave. For the obvious reason that we can never know what circumstances future generations might face, most attorneys advise against it. Yet in preparing to designate another 60 million acres of our national forests as permanently roadless, this is precisely what the Clinton administration is preparing to do, and it should not be allowed to succeed. Seeking support, the administration has argued (as it has on every issue from higher taxes to gun control) that we need to set aside these roadless areas for the children. Likewise, environmentalists often cite the seven-generations concept of the Iroquois nation, asking that we consider the implications of our actions seven generations removed. These environmentalists, convinced that our generation lives at the expense of the next, hope that trans- generational guilt will lead to policies more to their liking. No matter how charming the notion, if we reverse the exercise and think backward seven generations, we can see the obvious shortcomings of the idea. If policies common 150 years ago had been perpetuated until today, slavery would still exist, women would not be allowed to vote and forests would be cut as fast as possible to clear the land for farming. And, while environmentalists point to polls that indicate the public's support of the roadless policy, I suspect polls taken 150 years ago would have shown support for the above policies too: policies that now seem terribly inappropriate. The truth these examples illustrate is that our ancestors could not see the future, and neither can we. We can know neither the demands nor the emergencies future generations may face. Setting aside these lands as permanently roadless would be a terrible mistake, tying the hands of future generations and denying them the freedom and the choice to make their own decisions. In other words, we would be controlling them from the grave. Today, experts point out that as many as 65 million acres of our national forest are at risk from wildfire and disease. They also point to wildlife and plant species at risk due to the aging of our forests. Consequently, most reject the notion that public forests should be left unmanaged. Yet, the president's plan makes that naive idea a virtual certainty. For that reason, the wildlife directors of five southern states, Tennessee included, have publicly expressed their concerns about the plan. Because flexibility is the most necessary tribute of long- range planning, the lack of it in the president's roadless plan makes it woefully inadequate to meet the needs of future generations. What we need is management that requires the U.S. Forest Service to develop a plan every 10-15 years for each national forest that will meet the public's needs while protecting the long-term health and condition of the forests. Incorporating local input and sound science, these plans would recognize that both forests and society are dynamic and changing over time. Most of all, these plans would refrain from giving the current generation irrevocable control over subsequent ones. Their legacy would be their flexibility. This may sound too good to be true, but actually it is pretty much the way the forest service does it now. The president's new plan actually excludes the public from the decision-making process, not just this generation but for all those that follow. If you believe that each generation deserves the right to make its own decision, then please contact the forest service at the address below. Tell them that you oppose the president's roadless plan and support instead Alternative 1, which preserves the current planning process. Tell them that future generations should have the freedom to choose their options instead of being forced to accept one mandated by Bill Clinton and Al Gore. The address for comment: USDA Forest Service-CAET; Attn: Roadless Area Proposed Rule; P.O. Box 221090; Salt Lake City, Utah 84122. The fax number is 1-877-703-2494, and the e-mail address is www.roadless.fa.fed.us.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time, and I thank him for those very kind words. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from the first district of Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins) for his prime sponsorship of this very appropriate legislation naming the new Federal courthouse in Greeneville after Congressman James H. ``Jimmy'' Quillen. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins) mentioned and as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) mentioned, Congressman Quillen served the first district of Tennessee for 34 years in this House, longer continuous service than any Member of the House of Representatives in the history of the State of Tennessee. Congressman Quillen was very proud of that, and rightly so. He was a very district-oriented, constituent service-type of Congressman. In fact, I think he was one of the first Members of this body to just routinely fly home each and every weekend. I think it is fair to say and proper to note that he probably spent more time at home in Tennessee than he did in Washington, D.C., and so he stayed in constant contact with his constituents and was always on top of the needs of his district. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins) mentioned, probably his greatest accomplishment was the medical school at East Tennessee State University. There was tremendous opposition to that medical school, because some people thought that the State could not support two medical schools. But the other medical school is in Memphis, which is at the opposite end of the State, Tennessee is a very long State across, and that medical school would not have been opened, I do not believe, if it had not been for the strong support and determination that Congressman Quillen put behind it. Congressman Quillen did rise to become the ranking Republican and chairman emeritus of the Committee on Rules, and served with great distinction on that committee. He also contributed to so many other things. There is a highway in his district named after him. I think the main building at the Methodist Children's Home is named after Congressman Quillen; and this courthouse, as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins) noted, was the last major project that Congressman Quillen worked on for his district of many, many projects. Congressman Quillen was born into what some people would call absolute poverty today, in Gate City, Virginia. He was born into a good family but a family of very little money, and one of 10 children. He came up surely the hard way. In fact, I would say that people on welfare today have much, much more than Congressman Quillen's family had. But he started the newspaper that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins) mentioned at the age of 19, and then he became one of the biggest developers in the city of Kingsport, and then one of the leading insurers in that community and one of the most successful businessmen in that entire area. Then, as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins) noted, he served in the Navy for 4 years. He was very proud of that, a very patriotic man, very pro-military, and then he served 6 years in the legislature and 34 years in this House, for 44 years of public service. Most of us will remember that Congressman Quillen always sat in the second seat in the second row, right below me here. In fact, many of us thought that we should have named that the James H. Quillen seat here in the House. I heard that NPR had on the news the other day that there were no seats designated in the House except the Speaker's chair and one that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) sits in on the other side. But everyone knew that that second seat in the second row was Congressman Quillen's seat in this House; and he was, I think, very proud of that too. I am proud of the fact that, for 32 of the 34 years that Congressman Quillen spent in this House, he served with a Duncan. He served 12 terms with my father; and they were very, very close friends. And then I had the privilege and honor of serving with Congressman Quillen for 8 years. During that time, he was my mentor, he was my advisor, he took me under his wing. I will say this, Mr. Speaker: Congressman James H. Quillen was one of the finest and is one the finest men that I have ever known in my lifetime. I am proud to support this legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced the High Need Hospital Medicare Rate Relief Act of 2000 to address the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It had a disproportionate impact on hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicare and Medicaid patients. These hospitals are located in our most rural communities and in our largest urban areas and include sole rural hospitals and large academic medical centers. What they have in common is the overwhelming amount of care they provide to our Country's elderly and poor, insured and uninsured. It is their service mission that distinguishes them and now puts them at grave financial risk. With the revenue stream heavily weighted toward Medicare and Medicaid, these 600 or so safety net hospitals are more dependent on federal and state reimbursement than any other hospitals. They have relatively few commercially insured patients, and therefore, little or no ability to offset Medicare costs. This financial problem is exacerbated by the large numbers of uninsured patients that rely on these same providers for care. We are talking about the providers that make up the Nation's health care safety net. The High Need Hospital Medicare Rate Relief Act of 2000 defines these hospitals as ones whose combined Medicare and Medicaid inpatient days exceed 65 percent and whose Medicare disproportionate share percentage exceeds 40 percent. The Act targets relief to these high-need hospitals through two separate payment mechanisms. First, this bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to calculate a qualifying hospital's market basket update--or inflation adjustment--for federal fiscal years 2001 and 2002 as if there had not been a 1.8 percentage reduction in the market basket adjustment for fiscal year 2000. By restoring the rate base at these hospitals for purposes of calculating future year rates, this proposal would partially offset the accumulated cuts inflicted by the Balanced Budget Agreement, which are compounded each year due to Medicare's rate setting methodology. Second, since there is no uniform measurement of uncompensated care, this legislation provides a 2 percent adjustment to the Medicare inpatient rates of high-need hospitals to reflect the added costs incurred by providing large amounts of uncompensated care. The rate supplement is authorized for three years, with the expectation that new federal and state insurance initiatives will gradually reduce the number of uninsured patients. The High Need Hospital Medicare Relief Act of 2000 targets relief to safety net hospitals across the Country from Tennessee to California and ensures that vulnerable patients have continued access to essential health care services.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, many Americans are becoming very upset about the great and tremendous rise in gas prices around the country, and certainly they should be upset about this. Let me just point out a few things though. The price of gas could be and should be much, much lower than it is; but in 1995, the President vetoed legislation passed by this Congress that would have allowed oil production in less than 3,000 acres of the 19.8 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I represent a big part of the great Smoky Mountains National Park, which is by far the most heavily visited national park in the country. Ten million visitors come there each year, and they think it is huge and beautiful, and it is. It is only about 600,000 acres in size. This Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 35 times the size of the Great Smokey Mountains, 19.8 million acres. Of that 19.8 million acres, 1.5 million acres is a flat brown tundra without a tree or bush or anything growing on it. It is called the coastal plain of Alaska. The U.S. Geologic Survey says, if we drill for oil on less than 3,000 acres of that 1.5 million acre coastal plain, that there is potentially 16 billion barrels of oil there, which is 30 years of Saudi oil, yet the President vetoed that even though it can be done in an environmentally safe way. We started years ago drilling for oil at Prudhoe Bay. The environmental extremists opposed that at that time saying it would wipe out the caribou herd. There were about 6,000 caribou at that time. Now there is over 20,000. It has been a great thing for this country. We are far too dependent on foreign oil. Over half of our oil has to come from foreign countries now. Yet the President vetoed this which would have allowed us to get potentially 16 billion barrels of oil. In addition to that, he signed an order putting 80 percent of that Continental Shelf off limits for oil exploration and drilling. That is billions more barrels. The price of gasoline could be much, much lower. If the American people like high gas prices, they should write the White House and thank them, because that is where the responsibility or that is where the fault lies for the high gas prices that we have in this country today. I know there are some people who want higher prices. I know some of the environmental extremists want the gas price to go to $3 or $4 a gallon because then people would drive less and there would be less pollution. Some people really believe that would be a good thing. But I can tell my colleagues it would put the final nail in the coffin of the small towns and rural areas if we let these gas pries go to those kinds of levels. Some people say, well, that is what they are paying over in Europe. But the Europeans and all the others pay the same oil prices that we do, they just add all kinds of taxes. So we should drill and explore for much more oil in this country, try and become much less dependent on foreign oil, and we could easily bring down the price of gas in this country. But this administration will not do it because they are too controlled by these environmental extremists who almost always are real wealthy people, so they are not hurt by high gas prices as much as the poor and lower income and the working people of this country. Supreme Court Decision On School Prayer

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, let me mention one other unrelated thing that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) got into, and that is the Supreme Court decision on school prayer that was issued a couple of days ago. In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Zorach v. Clauson said there is ``no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.'' I remember, about 3 years ago, William Raspberry, the great columnist for the Washington Post, wrote a column, and he asked a question. He said, ``Is it not just possible that antireligious bias masquerading as religious neutrality has cost us far more than we have been willing to admit?'' And that is a good question, tonight, Mr. Speaker. Is it not just possible that anti-religious bias, masquerading as religious neutrality, has cost us far more than we have been willing to acknowledge? The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) pointed out this Congress opens every session with prayer, and yet we will not allow this to be done at school events. There was a very poor decision by the Supreme Court a couple of days ago, and I think our Founding Fathers would be shocked if they knew the extent to which people are going to in this country to keep people from saying voluntary prayers.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. As both the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) mentioned, the original estimate on the cost for this Space Station was $8 billion in 1984. The old Washington con game or shell game is at work here again, drastically low-balling the original estimate of cost and then spreading the funding around to as many congressional districts as possible to try to get political support. Seven years after the start of this in 1991, an extraordinary coalition of 14 leading scientific groups came out strongly against the Space Station because of the tremendous drain on funding from other worthwhile scientific projects. Robert L. Park, executive director of the American Physical Society, has estimated the full cost to build and equip the station to be $118 billion and said, ``If you include operating costs over what NASA claims will be a 30-year life, it comes to an S&L-bailout-sized $180 billion.'' This, Mr. Chairman, is going to go down as probably the biggest boondoggle in the history of this Congress. I know this is probably a losing effort, but I admire the gentleman from Indiana's courage and perseverance; and I urge support for his amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today I honor retired Commander William Robert Anderson for his service to his Country in both the military and the House of Representatives. Commander Anderson distinguished himself in combat and scientific accomplishment during his long career in the submarine service. During World War II, he completed a total of 11 submarine wartime patrols and earned a Bronze Star for his assistance in the sinking of 17 cargo- carrying crafts and the rescue of a downed aviator. In May of 1953, Captain Anderson was granted his first command, the submarine U.S.S. Wahoo, and saw even more action during the Korean War. Two years later he would be chosen for another type of command, as head of the Tactical Department at the U.S. Submarine School in New London, Connecticut. This would not be the end of his sea duty, though. In fact, his most important command and date with history was yet to come. It was actually while Anderson was at the U.S. Submarine School that the United States commissioned its first nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. Nautilus on January 17, 1955. The potential of this new type of submarine brought a need for more officers trained in nuclear operations. And so, Commander Anderson found himself being called into Rear-Admiral H.G. Rickover's office to interview for the program in January of 1956. He soon found himself recruiting and awaiting a new command. During this time Rickover asked Anderson to devise a method of study for new officers entering the program. This project eventually evolved into the core study program for all nuclear submarine commanders. It was on April 30, 1957, that Captain Anderson was ordered to assume command of the U.S.S. Nautilus. His classified mission was to be ready to take his submarine and crew under the Arctic polar ice cap whenever he received the order. Known as ``Operation Sunshine'' by the Navy, this project would challenge both Captain Anderson's leadership skills and his nautical training. No one had ever succeeded in finding a northern sea passage before, and the lack of information and charts on the pack ice, the inability of normal navigational instruments to operate so near to the magnetic North Pole and other instrumentation problems had to be sorted out and solved--all in the deepest of secrecy. With the summer of 1957 ending, the crew of the Nautilus made its first attempt to traverse the ice pack while submerged. Using special ice detecting sonar, the Nautilus started maneuvering around the icebergs. It would not succeed on this attempt or the next one in June of 1958. The same cannot be said for the third attempt, and on August 3, 1958, Captain Anderson and the crew of the Nautilus finally crossed under the North Pole. Upon return to the United States, the entire crew was honored with a ticker tape parade in New York City, and Anderson was personally awarded the Legion of Merit by President Eisenhower. Commander Anderson's career continued to flourish--from his serving as an aide to the Secretary of the Navy, Fred Korth, to his appointment as the Director of the National Service Corps, which would be renamed the Peace Corps in later years by President Kennedy. In 1960, Anderson was even considered as a possible gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee, but he decided to fulfill his 20 year commitment to the Navy. Upon retirement from the Navy, Anderson was elected as the Representative from the Sixth District of Tennessee in 1965, and he continued to serve his constituents for four successive terms in office before retiring to Virginia. I, for one, am proud of the accomplishments of my fellow Tennessean, William Robert Anderson. For his diligent and long-standing service to this great Country and the State of Tennessee, I would like to return the honor by paying him this tribute to his great accomplishments. While Commander Anderson now resides in the great state of Virginia, we Tennesseans still choose to claim him as one of our native sons.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, we understand that today there is tremendous growing concern about the rapidly increasing price of gasoline in this country. The American people need to know that the President, in 1995, vetoed legislation which would have allowed drilling and oil exploration in one tiny portion of the coastal plain of Alaska. Less than 3,000 acres out of the 19.8 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains what the geologic survey tells us is up to 16 billion barrels of oil. This is 30 years of Saudi oil. The President also signed an Executive Order putting 80 percent of the outer continental shelf off limits for oil drilling. This is many billions more barrels of oil in those areas. So if the American people like higher oil prices, they should write the White House and thank them, because that is where the blame and the responsibility lies. Gas prices could be much, much lower if the President had not vetoed that 1995 legislation and if he would allow more oil drilling and exploration in the outer continental shelf.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today I honor retired Commander William Robert Anderson for his service to his Country in both the military and the House of representatives. Commander Anderson distinguished himself in combat and scientific accomplishment during his long career in the submarine service. During World War II, he completed a total of 11 submarine war patrols and earned a Bronze Star for his assistance in the sinking of 17 cargo- carrying crafts and the rescue of a downed aviator. In May of 1953, Captain Anderson was granted his first command, the submarine U.S.S. Wahoo, and saw even more action during the Korean War. Two years later he would be chosen for another type of command, as head of the Tactical Department at the U.S. Submarine School in New London, Connecticut. This would not be the end of his sea duty, though. In fact, his most important command and date with history was yet to come. It was actually while Anderson was at the U.S. Submarine School that the United States commissioned its first nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. Nautilus on January 17, 1955. The potential of this new type of submarine brought a need for more officers trained in nuclear operations. And so, Commander Anderson found himself being called into Rear-Admiral H.G. Rickover's office to interview for the program in January of 1956. He soon found himself recruiting and awaiting a new command. During this time Rickover asked Anderson to devise a method of study for new officers entering the program. This project eventually evolved into the core study program for all nuclear submarine commanders. It was on April 30, 1957, that Captain Anderson was ordered to assume command of the U.S.S. Nautilus. His classified mission was to be ready to take his submarine and crew under the Arctic polar ice cap whenever he received the order. Known as ``Operation Sunshine'' by the Navy, this project would challenge both Captain Anderson's leadership skills and his nautical training. No one had ever succeeded in finding a northern sea passage before, and the lack of information and charts on the pack ice, the inability of normal navigational instruments to operate so near to the magnetic North Pole and other instrumentation problems had to be sorted out and solved--all in the deepest of secrecy. With the summer of 1957 ending, the crew of the Nautilus made its first attempt to traverse the ice pack while submerged. Using special ice detecting sonar, the Nautilus started maneuvering around the icebergs. It would not succeed on this attempt or the next one in June of 1958. The same cannot be said for the third attempt, and on August 3, 1958, Captain Anderson and the crew of the Nautilus finally crossed under the North Pole. Upon return to the United States, the entire crew was honored with a ticker tape parade in New York City and Anderson was personally awarded the Legion of Merit by President Eisenhower. Commander Anderson's career continued to flourish--from his serving as an aide to the Secretary of the Navy, Fred Korth, to his appointment as the Director of the National Service Corps, which would be renamed the Peace Corps in later years by President Kennedy. In 1960, Anderson was even considered as a possible gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee, but he decided to fulfill his 20 year commitment to the Navy. Upon retirement from the Navy, Anderson was elected as the Representative from the Sixth District of Tennessee in 1965, and he continued to serve his constituents for four successive terms in office before retiring to Virginia. I, for one, am proud of the accomplishments of my fellow Tennessean, William Robert Anderson. For his diligent and long-standing service to this great Country and the State of Tennessee, I would like to return the honor by paying him this tribute to his great accomplishments. While Commander Anderson now resides in the great state of Virginia, we Tennesseans still choose to claim him as one of our native sons.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Harry Moskos is the highly-respected editor of the Knoxville News-Sentinel, the major daily newspaper for East Tennessee. More importantly, everyone who gets to know Mr. Moskos soon realizes he is one of the finest men they have ever known. Over the years, he has developed a real expertise in foreign policy. He writes honest, sincere thoughtful editorials, without undue prejudices or special axes to grind. He is certainly not beholden to or controlled by any special interests. Within the last few days, he has written two very important pieces which I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. The first is an insightful editorial on the history, current situation, and what needs to be done now to settle the thorny Cyprus issue. He points out that the Turkish invasion in 1974 resulted in 200,000 Greek Cypriots being expelled from their homes and almost that many Turks and Turkish Crypriots living illegally on land and in homes that are not theirs. The second article is one that was distributed by the Scripps-Howard News-Service and reprinted in the Washington Times and other newspapers. It deals with the situation in Kosovo and the continuing cycle of violence, ethnic cleansing and retribution. I hope that those in the State Department and in the Congress who deal most directly with these issues will give serious consideration to these editorials by Harry Moskos. [From The Knoxville News-Sentinel, June 4, 2000] Two Sides Must Talk--Opportunities More Favorable Than In Past For Settlement of Cyprus Issue The eastern Mediterranean sovereign state of Cyprus has been forcibly divided in two since the invasion of the island republic in 1974 by Turkey. Now, 26 years later, the issue of Cyprus remains one of the world's thorniest international problems awaiting resolution. Reflecting the position of President Clinton, Secretary of Defense William Cohen has stressed that the status quo in Cyprus is not acceptable. Since the invasion, the Cypriot government controls the south of the island while the north is under Turkish occupation with more than 35,000 troops from mainland Turkey stationed there in violation of numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions. In fact, most of the Turks now living in the occupied areas of the island are not Turkish Cypriots but are Turkish settlers. About 200,000 Greek Cypriots, expelled from their homes in the north, are still prevented from returning. Historically, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots lived in comparative harmony until recent time. The Turkish invasion further increased the tension--an invasion in which some believe then-American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a direct role by working behind the scenes with Greece's then-military junta to successfully oust Archbishop Makarios as Cypriot president. Turkey used the coup against Makarios as a pretext to invade Cyprus. Of the 780,000 people currently living in Cyprus, there are about 65,000 to 80,000 Turkish Cypriots and about 100,000 Turks who have moved illegally to the island from Anatolia. A solution to the Cyprus problem has been elusive for more than a quarter-of-century with President Clinton raising the Cyprus issue in his State of the Union Address this year, terming it one of his highest priorities. It was the first time in 20 years that a president had mentioned the Cyprus question in that annual speech. Clinton, who has actively immersed himself in other international issues including Ireland and the Middle East, still has seven months remaining in office to push for a Cyprus settlement. There are hopeful signs that the situation is improving. Devastating earthquakes that hit both Greece and Turkey last year resulted in both countries coming to the aid of victims. In Cyprus itself, Turkish and Greek Cypriots worked together to solve common issues, such as in the divided city of Nicosia when officials resolved sewage problems and other municipal issues. And hundreds of Turkish Cypriots volunteered to have their blood tested to see if they could provide a bone marrow transplant for a six-year-old Greek Cypriot boy fighting for his life. Another round of U.N.-sponsored talks aimed at reunifying the island will get underway July 5 in Geneva. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan hopes the pace of the talks will accelerate but stresses it is difficult to anticipate what progress will be made. He urges both parties to discuss key issues. The European Union and the United States are pushing for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, the framework for a solution that has repeatedly been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides fully supports the actions of the international community for a solution along the U.N. guidelines. Turkey, however, has remained intransigent in seeking an island with two separate states, which is a wholly unacceptable solution. While Clerides is recognized internationally as the head of Cyprus, only Turkey has recognized the self-proclaimed ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'' in the occupied area of the island headed by Rauf Denktash, who to date has refused to budge from his hard line. Compromise is needed. The U.N. plan is the framework to follow since it is a carefully constructed outline that both communities previously accepted, but the Turkish side keeps changing its position. An eventual solution needs to include a complete demilitarization of the island, with the Turkish troops leaving and the illegal settlers returning to where they came from. Reunification also will allow both communities to enjoy the benefits of EU membership since Cyprus is expected to join the organization within a few years. Lellos Demetriades, the Greek Cypriot mayor of Nicosia, points out that ``you can't live next to each other and not talk.'' This is what is needed most at this time--constructive and substantive talks that will lead to a settlement of the Cyprus issue. As Defense Secretary Cohen points out, a resolution is needed sooner rather than later. Active leadership from the United States is needed now more than ever to solve this issue.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to first of all to say that I rise in very strong support of this legislation to eliminate the death taxes in this country. This is something that I have cosponsored for several years. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding. First of all I want to commend him for putting together this very important special order and for leading the charge in this battle as he has on so many other things over the years in this Congress. I first got to know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) when he came to speak to a very small group of conservative students at the University of Tennessee in 1966. Then I think it was about 1972, I had him come speak to the George Washington University Law School to a packed audience. I think he put those students into shock because with the lack of true academic freedom that we have on the college campuses in this country, many of those students at George Washington Law School had never really heard a truly conservative speaker such as the gentleman from Illinois. I am proud to call him a friend. I think he is one of the finest men that I have ever known in my life. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that today, and many people do not realize this, the average person pays almost 40 percent of his or her income in taxes of all types, State, Federal and local, sales, property, income, gas, excise, Social Security, all of the other types of taxes, and the estate or death taxes. Then it is estimated that consumers pay another 10 percent in regulatory costs that are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. A Member of the other body our good friend Senator Thompson from Tennessee, I remember a couple of years ago he had ads on television which said today one spouse works to support the family while the other spouse has to work to support the government. There are some of us in this Congress, in fact many of us in this Congress and I think an even greater majority across the country that think that basically half of the average family's income going to support government is not only enough, it is far, far too much. This legislation to eliminate the death tax I am told will put over $20 billion back into the pockets of average Americans. It probably, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) has just pointed out, is the most important single thing that we can do to help small business and to help small family farmers in this country. It has been a regular thing since World War II to have White House conferences on small business. In almost every one of those conferences, the number one or number two issue for these small businesses has been the effort to try to eliminate the estate or death taxes. It has been I think one of the very top issues for the American Farm Federation and other farm organizations. It is something that is long, long overdue. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) told me that it takes $12 billion just to collect this tax. And so the government really does not make that much but it takes a lot of money away from families and small businesses in this country. As the gentleman from California did such a great job just a few minutes ago pointing out, this is probably the best thing that we could do to help small business, if we all decry the fact and worry and show concern about the fact that every industry seems to be going to the big giants, the big keep getting bigger and the small keep going by the wayside because they cannot survive, they have to merge and they have to keep growing and get bigger and bigger to survive or merge or sell out. And so if somebody wants to really help the big giants in almost every industry and if you want to help, as the gentleman from California said, the big multinational corporations, probably one of the best things you could do is support keeping these death taxes in effect. But if you want to see family farms survive and if you want to see small businesses survive, then you will support this legislation to eliminate these death taxes that I think we will have on the floor on Friday. I remember several years ago, quite a few years ago I went with a friend to see the University of Tennessee play Georgia in a football game. We were in Atlanta and had breakfast with these two accountants who specialized in buying businesses. They told us that most of the businesses they bought, they bought from second-generation owners because they said it was hard to buy from a first-generation owner because the business was usually that person's dream. But they said that if they ever found a business that was in a third-generation ownership, they thought they had hit the jackpot. But they told us, do you realize how rare it is, how extremely unusual it is that a business makes it into the third generation of ownership? And I think one of the main reasons that so few businesses make it into the third generation of ownership is because of these death or estate taxes that have forced so many families to sell out to bigger businesses or bigger corporations. We started several years ago when control of this Congress changed trying to bring Federal spending and the Federal Government under a little bit of control. The first 6 years I was in this Congress, we were just routinely voting 12, 15, 18 percent increases for every department and agency out there. Mr. Speaker, to show how bad it had gotten, Alice Rivlin who was the President's head of the OMB and is now in the Federal Reserve put out a memo that said if we did not make some changes, this was a few months after President Clinton came in, we were going to have yearly deficits or yearly losses of over $1 trillion a year by the year 2010 and between 4 and $5 trillion a year by the year 2030. If we had sat around and allowed that to happen, I think everybody knew the whole economy would crash. Since the control of the Congress changed, we at least have brought Federal spending under some type of control so it is basically just rising at the rate of inflation. But we have not cut nearly as much, and we really have not cut at all like some people think. About 3 months ago, Robert Samuelson in Newsweek wrote a column, and he is not considered to be a conservative columnist at all, he wrote a column and he said, ``Government is slowly getting bigger because paradoxically we think it is getting smaller.'' That is what Robert Samuelson wrote in Newsweek about 3 months ago. ``Government is slowly getting bigger because paradoxically we think it is getting smaller.'' Government keeps getting bigger and taking more and more from the people of this country and there are many of us who think that the average person in this country knows better how to spend his or her own money than Federal bureaucrats in Washington know how to spend it for them. That is the philosophy behind this legislation to eliminate the death taxes. There is very little legislation that can do more to help the economy and to help small business and small family farms and to give a little money back to the people of this country so that they can use it on their own families rather than have the Federal Government just continue to waste it and waste it and waste it. I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Resources passed a bill to purchase the Baca Ranch in New Mexico. This is a very bad deal for the taxpayers. The family that owns this ranch bought it in 1961 for $2.1 million. Now, under the bill passed out of committee today, the Federal Government is going to pay $101 million for this property, almost 50 times the original purchase price. I would bet almost everyone in this Nation would like to sell their property for 50 times what they paid for it. This is a colossal rip-off of the taxpayers. My office yesterday asked the Congressional Research Service to run the numbers for us. According to CRS, there has been a 452 percent inflation since 1961. Adjusted for inflation, this property should be worth $11.7 million, or about 5\1/2\ times the original purchase price. We definitely should not be paying $101 million for property that was bought for $2.1 million, and today adjusted for inflation should be worth $11.7 million. This is welfare for the rich, a windfall for the wealthy. However, it will be passed by a huge margin, because it has strong bipartisan support in New Mexico. I watched a tape about this property. It is beautiful; however, the most overused word in this Congress is the word pristine. We are constantly told that we have to buy this property or that property, because it is beautiful and pristine, but if the Federal Government tried to buy every beautiful, pristine piece of property in this country, it would bankrupt our government and shatter our economy, besides the Federal Government already owns 37 percent of New Mexico, millions of acres. The Federal Government certainly does not need any more of New Mexico; it has too much already. Private property is one of the main foundations of our prosperity. It is one of the cornerstones of our freedom. Private property is one of the main things that has set us apart from socialist and Communist nations. Already the Federal Government owns 30 percent of the land in this Nation. State and local governments and quasigovernmental units own another 20 percent, half the land in some type of public ownership. Also we keep putting more and more restrictions, limitations, rules, regulations, redtape on the land that does remain in private hands. If we keep doing away with private property, we are going to drive up prices for homes and cause much serious damage to our economy. We will hurt the poor and working people the most and those of middle income. We should not waste the taxpayers money in this way. We should not rip off the taxpayers in this way. $101 million for property bought for $2.1 million is more than 4,000 percent higher than what it should be when adjusted for inflation. We should not take money from lower- and middle-income Americans to pay a family almost 50 times what they paid for their property. Mr. Speaker, $101 million for property originally bought for $2.1 million is simply too much. The Baca Ranch purchase will pass this Congress overwhelmingly; but I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is a colossal rip-off of the taxpayers of this Nation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the forest fires in Los Alamos and Nevada have highlighted what may have become a much bigger problem. One of the subcommittees on which I serve is the Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health of the Committee on Resources. We heard testimony a few months ago that almost 40 million acres of Federal land out West was in imminent danger of catastrophic forest fires. This is because environmental extremists fanatically, sometimes even violently, oppose cutting any trees in our national forests. Forestry experts tell us that we have to cut some trees to have healthy forests, yet some of these extremists oppose even the removal of dead and dying trees, thus causing huge fuel buildups on the floors of these forests, leading to forest fires. The Los Alamos fire was a so-called controlled burn set by Federal bureaucrats that simply got out of control. Of course, we all know that no Federal bureaucrat has ever made a mistake, or at least one that they have been held accountable for. The leading environmental extremist, Secretary Babbitt, said on television last week that our forests are now 100 times more dangerous than they were 100 years ago, but it is because of the very policies that he has been advocating. If we do not start cutting more trees in the national forests soon, then in the very near future we are going to see forest fires that make the Los Alamos disaster look like peanuts in comparison. Yet some of these environmental extremists want the forests to be thinned only by forest fires because that is the ``natural way,'' and the way it occurred before man started populating the Earth, and, according to the extremists, messed things up. Last year in the subcommittee we were told that the Congress in the mid 1980s passed what was then proclaimed as a great pro-environment law that we would not allow cutting of more than 80 percent of the new growth in the national forests. Since then, we have repeatedly reduced that percentage, stopping it altogether in some places. From the pro- environment law of 80 percent 15 or 16 years ago, we now allow harvesting of less than one-seventh of the new growth in our national forests. National forests have about 23 billion board feet of new growth each year. Today we cut less than 3 billion board feet, or only about 12 or 13 percent of the new growth. There are about 6 billion board feet of dead or dying trees in the national forests, yet these extremists will not even permit the removal of these dead trees. Now we are cutting less than half of the dead and dying trees, and unbelievably, some people want it stopped altogether. Environmental extremists have had such an impact that many schoolchildren have almost been brainwashed about these things. They never hear the other side. If I went to any school in Knoxville and told them I was against cutting any trees in the national forests, they would probably think that was a really good thing. They never stop to think that we have to cut trees if we want to build houses or furniture, or have books, newspapers, toilet paper, and many, many other products. Also, it we keep limiting and restricting where and how trees are cut, it will drive the prices for homes and many other items much higher than they already are. Even now, lumber dealers tell me they are having to import all kinds of Canadian lumber because we have cut out or halted so much U.S. lumber production. When extremists get our lumber production in our national forests reduced so drastically, it helps big businesses and other countries, but it destroys jobs and drives up prices in this country. The people it hurts the most are the lower-income and working people in this country. I know most of these environmental extremists come from very wealthy families, and I know they are more or less insulated from the harm that they do. But I think it is really sad that they destroy so many jobs and drive up prices for so many people who really cannot afford it. I am not talking about cutting any trees in our 356 national parks, I am talking about cutting trees in our national forests so they can grow and be healthy and keep lumber prices down. Our national forests cover 191 million acres. I know when people look at a map of the United States on one page in the book, the country looks small. Yet, 191 million acres is equal to about 325 Great Smoky Mountain National Parks. Most people who go to the Great Smokies think it is huge. Yet I am talking about forests that cover more than 300 times the Great Smokies, and this does not count any of the land in our national parks or the land the Bureau of Land Management controls. The Federal government owns over 30 percent of the land in this Nation today. State and local governments and quasi-governmental agencies own another 20 percent. Half of the land is in some type of public ownership. What is most disturbing, though, is how government at all levels has been taking over private land at such a rapid rate in the last 30 years, and perhaps even more dangerous, putting so many rules, regulations, restrictions, and red tape on the shrinking amount of land that still remains in private lands today. Yet, there are some of these environmental extremists who are not satisfied with half of the land and want even more. There is something known as the Wildlands Project, which I first read about in the Washington Post, which advocates taking half the private land in the U.S. and placing it in public ownership. This may sound OK until some bureaucrat comes and takes your home or your property. Also, we could not emphasize enough that private property is one of the main keys to our freedom and our prosperity. It is one of the main things that has set us apart from countries like Russia and Cuba and other socialist or communist nations. These national forests are not national monuments. They are natural resources, renewable resources. Whenever some of these extremists are confronted by loggers who have lost jobs or communities that have been devastated, they always say just promote tourism. Well tourism is an industry filled with minimum or low wage jobs. Even more importantly, it is just not possible to turn our whole country into tourist attractions or base our whole economy on tourism. I know these environmental groups have to scare people and continually raise the bar so that their contributions will keep coming in. I know, too, that many big companies, and particularly big multi- national corporations are helped by extreme environmental rules because they drive so many small and medium-sized businesses out of business or force them to merge. So many contributors for these groups come from these big companies, often headquartered in other countries. But, Mr. Speaker, if we want to continue having a strong economy, with good jobs and half-way reasonable prices, and especially if we want to have a free country, we must use our natural resources in an environmentally balanced way. We cannot stop cutting trees, digging for coal, and drilling for oil and continue to have the good life that we fortunately enjoy today.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago on this floor I mentioned that most polls showed that the people thought that Elian Gonzalez should be returned to his father. As a father, I could understand those feelings. I had very mixed emotions about that case. But I said that regardless of how people thought the custody should be handled, all Americans should have been shocked and saddened by the way the excessive gestapo-like way the Justice Department handled that predawn raid at the home in Miami. I quoted Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz, two very liberal Harvard professors, who said that the way this was handled with the Justice Department taking the law into their own hands should be considered a real danger to the freedom of all Americans. In the May 10 edition of the Conservative Chronicle, there is a column reprinted by Charley Reese, the nationally syndicated columnist, who last year was voted by C-SPAN viewers as their favorite or most popular nationally syndicated columnist. I would like to read most of the column that he wrote concerning this, because it expresses a lot of views that I think need to be expressed and people need to think about. Mr. Reese wrote this: ``The comic book raid on Elian Gonzalez's Miami family is a new low, even for the Federal Government. Pointing machine guns and screaming obscenities seem to be standard operating procedure for Federal law enforcement officers, even when the only people to scream at and point guns at are unarmed Christian men and women and small children. ``The truth is that two unarmed female officers could have gone to that home during any normal hour and removed Elian Gonzalez without any danger to the child, to themselves or to bystanders. That Miami family has never once said it would resist. It has always tried to follow the law, which I should point out is not the same as Attorney General Janet Reno's whim. Instead, the feds chose to act as if they were raiding the hideout of Colombian drug dealers. ``The U.S. action was disgraceful. You don't transfer children at gunpoint. And I, for one American,'' Mr. Reese continues, ``I, for one American, am getting tired of Federal cops screaming profanity, pointing guns, and shoving around people who have not been convicted of any crime. This is not how a free society operates. It is how dictatorships and authoritarian governments act. ``The real message of this raid is how estranged the Federal Government is from the American people. The government apparently fears the people, and people who are feared are soon hated. The Federal Government has increasingly acted as if it has merely to speak, and all of us must lock heels and shout `Sieg Heil.' Horse manure. ``Sovereignty in this country resides with the people. The government is our servant, not our master. The American people had better pull their heads out of that place where they cannot see and reassert their sovereignty before it is too late. There aren't any trends in Washington moving toward respect for the law and liberty. The trends are moving toward arbitrary and authoritarian government.'' Mr. Reese continues in this great column and says this: ``Reno's poor decision-making notwithstanding, the issue of custody is not as clear-cut as she makes it out to be. One of the points to be settled by the Appeals Court is can someone else speak for a child when the child's interest and that of the parent is in conflict? ``The heel-clickers are now pointing to pictures of Elian as if that proves their point. It doesn't. Nobody in Miami has tried to estrange Elian from his father. Their concern all along has been to keep Elian from being forcibly returned to Cuba without having his day in court, which Reno tried to deny him. ``It is the boy's father who has refused to go to Miami, refused to meet with the boy and family at any neutral site. Whether that is his decision or his instructions from the Cuban or American or both governments, I don't know. But I do know that nobody in Miami ever suggested that Elian would not be happy to see his father. They had talked several times on the telephone while Elian was in Miami. ``Once more the Clinton administration has shown its contempt for the law and contempt for the American people, especially conservative Americans. It has, from day one, taken exactly the same position as the communist dictator Fidel Castro. Those who think that Castro really cares about Elian should ask the old greybeard why he ordered his goons to drown more than a dozen children and their parents when they tried to escape Cuba in 1994. ``This administration has slapped in the face and insulted one of the finest groups of Americans within the United States, the Cuban exile community.'' I commend this column by Mr. Reese. I will place it in full in the Congressional Record. I say again that we should be very concerned when the Justice Department takes its law into its own hands and ignores very strong criticism from Federal courts of appeal. Mr. Speaker, I include the article for the Record. Show of Force Wasn't Necessary (By Charley Reese) May 1.--I had thought that there was nothing Bill Clinton could do that would make me think less of him than I already do. That was a mistake on my part. The comic book raid on Elian Gonzalez's Miami family is a new low, even for the federal government. Pointing machine guns and screaming obscenities seem to be standard operating procedure for federal law-enforcement officers--even when the only people to scream at and point guns at are unarmed Christian men and women and small children. The truth is that two unarmed female officers could have gone to that home during any normal hour and removed Elian Gonzalez without any danger to the child, to themselves or to bystanders. That Miami family has never once said it would resist. it has always tried to follow the law, which, I should point out, is not the same as Attorney General Janet Reno's whim. Instead, the feds chose to act as if they were raiding the hideout of Colombian drug dealers. The U.S. action was disgraceful. You don't transfer children at gunpoint. And I, for one American, am getting tired of federal cops screaming profanity, pointing guns and shoving around people who have not been convicted of any crime. That is not how a free society operates. It's how dictatorships and authoritarian governments act. The real message of this raid is how estranged the federal government is from the American people. The government apparently fears the people, and people who are feared are soon hated. The federal government has increasingly acted as if it has merely to speak and all of us must lock heels and shout ``Sieg Heil.'' Horse manure. Sovereignty in this country resides with the people. The government is our servant, not our master. The American people had better pull their heads out of that place where they can't see and reassert their sovereignty before it's too late. There aren't any trends in Washington moving toward respect for the law and liberty. The trends are moving toward arbitrary and authoritarian government. Reno's poor decision-making notwithstanding, the issue of custody is not as clear-cut as she makes it out to be. One of the points to be settled by the appeals court is: Can someone else speak for a child when the child's interest and that of the parent is in conflict? The heel-clickers are now pointing to pictures of Elian with his father as if that proves their point. It doesn't. Nobody in Miami has tried to estrange Elian from his father. Their concern all along has been to keep Elian from being forcibly returned to Cuba without having his day in court, which Reno tried to deny him. It's the boy's father who has refused to go to Miami, refused to meet with the boy and the family at any neutral site. Whether that's his decision, or his instructions from the Cuban or American or both governments, I don't know. But I do know that nobody in Miami ever suggested that Elian wouldn't be happy to see his father. They had talked several times on the telephone while Elian was in Miami. Once more the Clinton administration has shown its contempt for the law and contempt for the American people--especially conservative Americans. It has, from day one, taken exactly the same position as the communist dictator Fidel Castro. Those who think that Castro really cares about Elian should ask the old greybeard why he ordered his goons to drown more than a dozen children and their parents when they tried to escape Cuba in 1994. This administration has slapped in the face and insulted one of the finest group of Americans within the United States, the Cuban exile community. I expect that a lot of Florida Democrats will regret that in November.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to briefly discuss two unrelated but very important matters of national importance. Last year, we spent billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars bombing Kosovo. As the Scripps-Howard Newspapers said a few weeks ago, ``the outcome certainly has not been a happy one.'' As the Scripps-Howard chain noted, ``many innocent civilians killed.'' How cavalierly we brush over that, ``many innocent civilians killed.'' Hundreds of innocent civilians killed and we are not ashamed of that for some reason. Hundreds of thousands made homeless by our actions. We wasted billions of hard-earned tax dollars to make a situation many times worse than it would have been if we had simply stayed out. We bombed people who would like to have been our friends, and we bombed in a situation, and bombed repeatedly, where there was no threat whatsoever to our national security and no vital U.S. interest at stake. To make things even worse, Newsweek Magazine this week has a major story entitled The Kosovo Coverup. Listen to what part of this article says. ``An antiseptic war, fought by pilots flying safely three miles high. It seems almost too good to be true, and it was. In fact, as some critics suspected at the time, the air campaign against the Serb military in Kosovo was largely ineffective. NATO bombs plowed up some fields, blew up hundreds of cars, trucks, and decoys, and barely dented Serb artillery and armor. According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by Newsweek, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120, as claimed; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 `confirmed strikes' by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot found evidence of just 58.'' About 5 years ago, I remember reading on the front page of The Washington Post one day that we had our troops in Haiti picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes. A couple of years ago, I remember another Member on this floor saying we had our troops in Bosnia giving rabies shots to dogs. Well, I have nothing whatsoever against the Haitians, but they should pick up their own garbage. And I have nothing whatsoever against the Bosnians, but they should give their own rabies shots. We should stop sending our troops into situations where there is no vital U.S. interest at stake and no threats to national security and turning our military into international social workers and spending billions and billions of hard-earned tax dollars in the process. This administration has committed troops to other countries 36 times more than the six previous administrations put together. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this type of thing to stop. Mr. Speaker, the other unrelated topic I wanted to discuss was this predawn raid of the home where Elian Gonzalez lived in Miami. All of the polls showed that most of the people thought that this young man should have been with his father. And as a father myself, I certainly can understand that. But regardless of what people thought about the custody, everyone should have been shocked and saddened by that picture of that INS border agent in full riot gear pointing that submachinegun at that little boy. Anyone who was not shocked or saddened by that, I think, does not really appreciate freedom. I want my colleagues to listen to what three very liberal left-wing people have said about this just recently. A.M. Rosenthal, the very liberal former Executive Editor of The New York Times said ``The armed invasion of the home of Elian's relatives in Miami by federal officers combat-ready with the deadliest of military rifles, the shocking abduction of the boy seen around the world, are so unconstitutional and cruel that they keep the hope alive that this time the courts and Congress will not allow the White House to get away with it.'' Laurence H. Tribe, the very liberal law professor from Harvard, writing in The New York Times said, ``Ms. Reno's decision to take the law as well as the child into her own hands seems worse than a political blunder. Even if well intended, her decision strikes at the heart of constitutional government and shakes the safeguards of liberty.'' And the very left wing, Alan Dershowitz, another Harvard law professor writing in the Los Angeles Times said this, ``By enforcing its own order, without the judicial imprimatur of a court mandate, the Justice Department has reinforced a precedent that endangers the rights of all American citizens.'' Mr. Speaker, I was a Circuit Court judge in Tennessee for 7\1/2\ years before coming to Congress, and I believe that the Justice Department has grown so arrogant, abusive, and out of control that, unless we greatly downsize this department and decrease its funding, the freedom of all Americans is in jeopardy.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, most people apparently felt Elian Gonzalez should have been returned to his father. However, regardless of what anyone felt about custody, the actions of the Justice Department were ridiculously excessive in busting into that home in Florida in the early morning hours several days ago. To send in officers in full riot gear, brandishing submachine guns was something a Federal police state would do. It was something that we would have expected in some Communist dictatorship, but not here. The picture of that officer pointing a gun at Elian and that fisherman is something that should have shocked and saddened everyone. Taking the law into its own hands just after it had been severely criticized by a U.S. Court of Appeals, not waiting for the next scheduled court hearing just a few days away, the Justice Department has shown once again that it has grown far too arrogant, far too abusive, far too big and really out of control. Mr. Speaker, if we do not drastically decrease the size, power, and especially the funding of the Justice Department in the years ahead, the freedom of all Americans will be in jeopardy.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, a woman who has performed more than 30 years of service to this Nation is retiring, and I feel like I am losing my right arm. Judy Whitbred has been my Chief of Staff the entire time I have been in Congress, and I am now in my 12th year in the House. I have relied on Judy for thousands of things, big and small, day in and day out for all these years. She has served with great dedication to the people of the Second District of Tennessee for almost 20 years, working first for my father and then for me. She worked for more than a decade for Congressman John Hunt of New Jersey and Congressman Bill Young of Florida before starting to work for the people of Tennessee. I have heard Judy Whitbred described by several people as ``the best on Capitol Hill.'' I believe this to be true. No one could have worked for the citizens of the Second District with more kindness and compassion than Judy. I know that no one would have worked harder. Almost every night and most weekends, she took work home. I do not know how she was ever able to do nearly as much as she did. Perhaps more importantly than simply working hard and putting in long hours, she produced results. She got the job done. Many projects for the Second District and many problems that were solved for individuals, and for which I sometimes received credit, were really the result of Judy's hard work. Judy unfortunately for me is taking early retirement to be able to spend more time with her husband, Andy, and help in the family business. Judy's retirement is a great loss for me and my constituents, but it is very well deserved. I wish her the very best in the years ahead in every way. To sum up, Mr. Speaker, Judy Whitbred is a young woman from the old school--dedicated to the Congress and to the American people. She is a truly great American, and this Country would be a much better place if we had more people like my friend, my boss, my pal, Judy Whitbred.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 3602 of the bill on page 58, lines 9 through 17.