Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I raise a point of order against section 3602 of the bill on page 58, lines 9 through 17, on the grounds that it constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Section 3602 of the bill provides that the executive draft on Federal transportation in the National Capital Region has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget and shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this bill. The section further provides that within 60 days of enactment, the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to Congress a report on implementation of the executive draft. This provision would enact into law a policy that Congress has not reviewed; a policy, in fact, that is still in the process of being written by the administration. Although the latest version of the draft Executive Order referenced in section 3602 has not been made available, we understand that it sets forth a variety of requirements for Federal agencies in the National Capital Region in an effort to reduce the number of employees who drive alone to work. We understand that the draft Executive Order would require Federal agencies to develop and implement transportation management plans designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled by Federal employees, and various other requirements. In addition, the draft Executive Order would apparently require all agencies in the National Capital Region to provide maximum tax-free transit benefits to all employees. This transit benefit alone, Mr. Chairman, is estimated to cost $60 million to $80 million each year for this region and would ultimately be extended to other regions across the country and be even more costly. The cost of complete implementation of the policies set forth in the draft Executive Order may be far greater. While some of these requirements may have merit, they are, nevertheless, significant policy changes. Not only have no congressional hearings been held on the draft Executive Order, its contents have not even been made known to Congress. Costly and significant policy changes such as these should be subjected to the normal congressional authorization and review process, not approved sight unseen. Mr. Chairman, clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives prohibits the reporting of a provision changing existing law in a general appropriations bill, including a supplemental appropriations bill, such as we are dealing with here tonight. In other words, this rule prohibits legislation on an appropriations bill. For the reasons stated previously, section 3602 of this bill on page 58, lines 9 through 17, constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI. Mr. Chairman, I have to insist on my point of order.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Jack Sharp has now completed 25 years of service as a member of the Knoxville, Tennessee City Council. Jack is a close friend of mine and is one of the finest men I know. He has represented the entire City fairly and honorably, but he has been especially effective for his home area. He holds one of three at-large seats on the Council and is very popular throughout the City. He has served as Vice-Mayor and has frequently filled in for the Mayor at public functions of all types. Jack has been a very forceful advocate for the fire fighters, police, and other City employees. With his wife Doris almost always at his side, they have been outstanding goodwill ambassadors for Knoxville and a great team in thousands of ways for the City and its residents. This Country would be a much better place if we had more men like City Councilman Jack Sharp. I congratulate him on his 25 years of community service and am thankful that term limits did not deprive us of his knowledge and experience many years ago. I want to say thank you to Councilman Sharp and bring to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the service of a great Tennessean and great American, my friend, Jack Sharp.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in today's Scripps-Howard newspapers around the Nation is an editorial entitled ``Unhappy Anniversary.'' It reads in part, ``after its ill-advised air war against Serbia that started a year ago this month and concluded with the deaths of many innocent civilians, NATO finds itself administering a stalemate with no evident means of disengaging. The outcome certainly has not been a happy one for NATO.'' All around the world, NATO is seen as the U.S., and I think it is obvious that this war would never have been started if the White House had not insisted on it. How easily, how cavalierly we say those words ``air war'' that ``concluded with the deaths of many innocent civilians.'' We made the situation much worse and many thousands more were made homeless or killed by what we did there. Billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money down the drain and billions in damage done by U.S.-NATO bombs. And around the world, the U.S. is seen more and more as a big bully trying to run the whole world instead of taking care of our own country. The globablist elites in this administration who are not satisfied just running the U.S. are making more enemies than friends for this country. We are being seen around the world as continually butting our nose into situations that are known of our business. As the Scripps-Howard editorial says, ``Kosovo is basically a problem for Europe and its institutions,'' or at least it should be, and it always was. Many months ago, at the end of the air war, William Ratliff and David Opponheimer wrote a column in The Washington Times which said in part, ``NATO's bombings precipitated floods of refugees and other disasters that have destabilized the region in political, economic, and other terms far beyond what Mr. Milosevic could have ever done on his own.'' They added, ``Since for most people NATO is a America, this war has reignited anti-Americanism and suspicion of U.S. intentions from Argentina to China. Most people do not believe this war was to defend human rights, particularly since we harmed so many innocent people in and far beyond the Central Balkans.'' The Washington Post reported a few days ago that our soldiers are now having to fight and take weapons away from the ethnic Albanians, the very people we supposedly went in originally to help. Today's Scripps-Howard editorial says, ``the Serbians weren't killing as many ethnic Albanians as contemporary accounts claimed,'' adding this ``in Kosovo today, the ethnic Albanians are intent on revenge on the dwindling number of remaining Serbs, Kosovar courts and police are corrupt and inefficient, and the still heavily armed Kosovo Liberation Army is staging cross-border raids into parts of Serbia.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, the situation is a mess, and as Scripps Howard says today, ``Kosovo is a tragic example of where President Clinton ordered bombs instead of continuing with diplomacy.'' Why is it important that we talk about these things now since this air war ended months ago? Well, for two very important reasons. First, we need to talk about this so we will not make these mistakes again. There are always numerous shooting wars going on around the world, some right now worse than Kosovo was when we went in. Second, this week, presently scheduled for Wednesday, the House is scheduled to take up a $9 billion supplemental appropriations bill, $4.95 billion, almost 5 billion of which is for our expenses in Kosovo. This 5 billion is on top of all the billions this stupid war cost us when we were doing all the bombing. We are told that we have to pass this supplemental bill because the military has already spent this money by taking it from other accounts. However, we gave the Pentagon a huge increase in spending with the fiscal year that started just 5 months ago, about a $17 billion or $18 billion increase. This supplemental bill, just a couple of months ago, when people started talking about it was less than half what it is now with all the things that have been added to it. What we need now, though, is what syndicated columnist Doug Bandow calls a foreign policy for a Republic not an Empire, one that puts our country and its security first and does not have us wasting billions and making millions of enemies trying to be the policeman of the world. We will make many more friends by bombing only as an absolute last resort and only when our own national security is threatened or a very vital U.S. interest is at stake, neither of which was the case in Kosovo.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, almost every day we read or hear about some terrible waste of taxpayer dollars by the Federal bureaucracy. Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that the Veterans Benefits Administration spent more than $200 million to upgrade its computers, but now it is slower than ever in processing claims. This terrible inefficiency comes at a time when our veterans are dying at a rate of more than 500,000 a year, no major war for many years, and fewer soldiers and veterans now than in the past. It now takes 205 days to complete a veteran's claim compared to 164 in 1991, and 164 days was slow. The problem is that Federal employees are paid the same whether they work hard or whether they work easy. There is already a big bonus system in place for outstanding performance. What we need now is to cut the pay of Federal employees who are not working hard and efficiently and producing good results. This is what happens in the private sector. Real estate agents are not paid unless they sell the house. The Federal Government will always be a sea of ineptitude and inefficiency, as former Energy Secretary Watkins just described it, unless we make it operate more like the private sector.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. This is indeed an historic occasion, and I believe that we are on the brink of passing legislation that does more for small- and medium-sized communities and their airports than any other aviation bill in the history of the Congress. In addition, this bill makes major strides towards ensuring that our aviation system remains one of the safest and most efficient in the world and it does so without any earmarked pork barrel type projects. We do this by ensuring that aviation taxes paid for by passengers and airlines on tickets and fuel will be spent for aviation purposes as they were intended. This has been a long, hard fight. We have been without a reauthorization bill for the FAA for over 2 years. We have had no long- term guaranteed funding of critical FAA programs during that time. The AIP program has been without funding since last year. Now, through the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and those of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, we have guaranteed $3.3 billion of spending from this trust fund for FAA programs through 2003. This was a team effort, Mr. Speaker, but I do not believe we would be here today without the great strong and effective leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster). This bill is a real tribute to him, above everyone else. I know that some people are concerned about the spending caps. Let me say two things about that. First, this money is desperately needed by an aging aviation infrastructure to reduce delays and allow our already stretched aviation system to catch up to the record number of passengers that traveled this past year and are predicted for the future, 656 million passengers this past year, one billion before this decade ends. Aviation is the cornerstone of our Nation's economy. Everyone, even people who never fly, benefit from a strong aviation system. Second, with respect to the spending caps, this bill still permits annual review and oversight of aviation programs and does not alter our current budgetary or appropriations structures. It gives the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations the flexibility they have asked for. In fact, both the chairman of the Senate budget and appropriations committees voted for this very bill. At the present, because of the willingness of everyone to work together, this bill is more fiscally conservative than the bill that passed this House several months ago by a vote of 316-110. At the present rate of growth, 10 new airports the size of Dallas/Ft. Worth, Atlanta Hartsfield, or Chicago/O'Hare would be needed to adequately absorb the increase in air passenger traffic. According to the Air Cargo Association, in addition to this passenger growth, air cargo volume rose 50 percent last year and is increasing at a rate of 2\1/2\ times the increases in air passenger traffic. With all this growth, aviation delays are too high now and would be much higher without a bill such as the one we have before us today. The airlines estimate that these delays will cost them over $4 billion in the next year. I urge strong support for this bill. The National Civil Aviation Review Commission has predicted that if we simply maintain the status quo, our aviation system will face gridlock early in this decade. With these increases in travel, it is likely that people who wanted to fly could not fly without increased investment in aviation infrastructure. Flights would have to be limited in the very near future. AIR 21 will ensure that proper investment is available to fund the necessary improvements to our aviation system. By 2003, the bill raises the level of FAA operations to over $7 billion, the Airport Improvement Program to $3.4 billion, and the Facilities and Equipment account to $2.9 billion. The increase in AIP funding will double the entitlement dollars for primary airports, double the minimum entitlement for small airports, and, for the first time, fund an entitlement for general aviation airports up to $150,000. In addition to ensuring that our nation continues to have the safest, most secure, most efficient air service in the world, one of the most important benefits of this new funding will be the tremendous improvements in airport infrastructure at small and mid-size communities. This bill doubles the small airport fund. This will give small and non-hub airports as well as general aviation airports more money to meet their needs. In addition, the bill creates a new discretionary set-aside for reliever airports. It authorizes a contract tower cost-sharing program so that small airports can get the benefits of air traffic control services, and creates an incentive program to help airlines buy regional jets if they agree to use them to serve small airports. It also helps small communities by creating a new funding program to help small, under-served airports market and promote their air service. In addition the bill increases funding for the essential air service. Phasing out the slot restrictions at New York and O'Hare will provide smaller communities better access to these large cities. This provision will also act to increase competition when the slot restrictions are fully lifted in 2002 in Chicago and in 2007 in New York. In addition, by providing substantially more money to build terminals, gates, taxiways, and other infrastructure, competition will be stimulated at other airports. This bill also raises the cap on the Passenger Facility Charge from $3 to $4.50. Under this provision, each local airport continues to have the flexibility to determine whether it wants to charge this fee. By raising the cap, the locality also can determine how much up to the cap it wants to charge based on its individual needs. This new PFC provision can be implemented by the FAA without the need to institute a rulemaking proceeding. AIR 21 also incorporates the National Park Overflights provisions based on a bill that I introduced. These provisions represent a strong compromise reached between all the parties involved in air tours over national parks. The provision will ensure that both air and ground visitors to our national parks will have the ability to experience and enjoy our national parks. I am personally proud of the work that went into these provisions and I thank Chairman Young of the Resources Committee for his work on this issue also. Finally, although everyone is talking about all the big things this bill does, it also does a lot of little things that merit mentioning. We have raised the fine that can be imposed on unruly passengers, to $25,000. This will help to ensure the safety of the flight crew and other passengers on a flight. We have also acted to improve the training of security screeners so that we can continue to assure the traveling public of its safety when it flies. We have a provision requiring collision avoidance devices on cargo aircraft. This will ensure that cargo aircraft have similar technology that passenger aircraft have now to avoid collisions. And we have changed the applicability of the Death on the High Seas Act so that it does not apply to airplane crashes within 12 miles of the United States. This will help to ensure that victims of tragic plane crashes over the water will have the same ability for recovery as those crashes over land. AIR 21 has been a bipartisan project and has resulted in a bipartisan product that I truly believe is good for aviation. In this bill, there is the promise of safety and efficiency in our nation's aviation infrastructure in the years to come. That should be a promise we all can support. I urge you to vote yes on the conference report for H.R. 1000.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, experts are now predicting that gas prices will soon go to $2 a gallon or perhaps even higher. This sudden big rise in gas prices is hurting lower income and working people most of all. It will hurt small towns in rural areas because their people usually have to drive further distances to work. It will hurt tourism and agriculture and trucking, and mean higher prices for airline tickets. The saddest part of this whole scenario is the Congress could easily keep this from happening. The U.S. Geologic Survey estimates there are 16 billion barrels of oil in less than 1 percent of the coastal plain of Alaska. There are billions more barrels offshore from other States, yet environmental extremists do not want us drilling for any of this oil even though it could be done in an environmentally safe way. These extremists almost always come from wealthy or upper-income families and perhaps are not affected that much when prices go up and jobs are destroyed. Some of these environmental extremists even think it would be good for gas prices to go even higher so people would drive less. If we allow gas prices to go much higher, Madam Speaker, millions of people, including millions of children, are going to suffer greatly.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, almost everyone is understandably upset about the recent rise in the price of gasoline. The really sad thing is that we could easily bring these prices down or at least keep them from going up further. We have become far too dependent on foreign oil, with slightly over half, in fact some estimates as high as 60 percent, of our oil coming from other countries. This endangers our national security, in addition to hurting us in the pocketbook. We are sitting on many billions of barrels of oil in Alaska and offshore other States but some extremists do not want us to drill for any oil, cut any trees or dig for any coal. In fact, one environmentalist once told me he hoped the price of gas would go to 3 or $4 a gallon so more people would be forced to use mass transit and there would be less pollution. We could drill for oil on less than 1 percent of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and potentially get billions of barrels of oil and billions more offshore from other States. In 1998, the U.S. geologic survey estimated that the coastal plain of this Arctic Wildlife Refuge, an area set aside by Congress for evaluation of its oil and gas potential, could have up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. This is equivalent to 30 years of Saudi oil imports. The House Resources Committee web page states that ``ANWR consists of 19 million acres in the northeastern corner of the State, of which 8 million has been designated as wilderness. The coastal plain of ANWR, designated as a study area for possible oil development in 1980, comprises 1.5 million acres, or 0.4 percent of the total acreage of Alaska. This debate centers on development which would affect only 2,000 acres within that 1.5 million acres with the potential to produce the largest unexplored onshore geologic structures known in the United States.'' The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is almost 19.8 million acres, 1.5 million acres of which is flat, brown tundra without a tree or bush on it and very few animals. Yet the groups opposed to drilling never show pictures of this flat, brown tundra. They almost always show pictures of the Brooks Range which is mountainous with trees and animals, but no one has ever advocated oil exploration there. The less than 1 percent area where the oil is can be explored without cutting one tree or bush or harming a single animal. Offshore oil can now also be produced in a very environmentally safe way. I voted several years ago to require double hulls on oil tankers and have voted for many other environmental bills. But you cannot just shut down development of natural resources without destroying jobs, driving up prices, and hurting poor and working people most of all. Often what is behind much of what happens here is big money. Some of these environmental extremists are some of the best friends extremely big business has. I wonder if some companies which want us to import a lot of oil, or possibly the OPEC countries themselves, or possibly oil companies with big investments elsewhere simply do not want us drilling in Alaska because they would lose big money. Are they supporting and funding some of these environmental groups because it is to their monetary advantage to do so? I mean, if you are talking about drilling on only a couple of thousand or a few thousand acres out of an area many millions of acres in size and you can do so in a completely safe way environmentally, why do these people keep fighting it? Almost all of these radical environmentalists come from wealthy families. But they will be hurting the poor and working people the most if they keep these oil prices from coming down. Mr. Speaker, we should open up this less than 1 percent area of ANWR and certain other offshore areas, get many millions barrels of oil and become less dependent on foreign oil in the process. If we do not, gas prices in the future could go even higher or not come down and millions of poor and working people will be the ones who are hurt the most.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have said before that while our unemployment rate is very low, our underemployment is terrible. We have young people with degrees or even graduate degrees all over this country whose highest paying employment is as a waiter or waitress in a nice restaurant. While working in a restaurant is certainly honorable employment, it is sad that so many millions now have degrees or even graduate degrees and cannot find jobs in their degree fields. In yesterday's Washington Times, an article said that far less than half of those who have received doctorates, Ph.D.s in English or foreign languages, were able to find college teaching jobs. The story told of one man who received a doctorate in English from the University of Colorado and who did not bother to apply for a job at a small college in northeast Texas after he found out that he would have been the 350th applicant for that job. We now have a trade deficit of $350 billion. Most economists tell us that we lose conservatively 20,000 jobs per billion. This means we lost roughly 7 million jobs to other countries last year alone. Because of weak trade dealings and because environmental extremists do not want us to drill for any oil, dig for any coal, cut any trees, or use our natural resources in any way at all, we are losing many of our best highest paying jobs to other nations. First this was a trickle. Now it is happening very, very fast. We cannot base our whole economy on the tourism that the environmental extremists always want and always bring up unless we want millions more working at minimum wage or barely above minimum-wage jobs. Also, our colleges and universities are doing a real disservice to the young people of this country if they do not start warning students that certain fields have almost no jobs or good job prospects; and I think they should at least warn the young people and parents and entering freshmen should check out these things very closely, because it is a very sad thing to sit with parents or grandparents of very fine, nice- looking young people who have made very good grades and who have received degrees, sometimes even graduate degrees and cannot find good jobs after getting these degrees. Secondly, I heard while driving in this morning that because of rapidly rising oil prices, some fishermen and others in the Northeast have asked the President to declare a state of emergency because fuel and home heating prices are going up so fast, particularly in the Northeast. Everyone knows that we have become far too dependent on foreign oil. We have done this at a time that we are sitting on billions and billions and billions of barrels of oil. We could easily bring down the price of oil or at least hold it steady by drilling for more oil offshore and in Alaska. But once again environmental extremists who almost always are very wealthy people do not want us drilling for any more oil. Some of these extremists even have said that they think our oil prices should be two or three times higher than they are so that more people will be forced to use mass transit. But this would really be harmful and would put the final nail in the coffin of some of our small towns and some of our rural areas where mass transit is not available and where people have to drive sometimes long distances to get to good jobs. Do we really want to force more people into our big cities that are already overcrowded and where more pollution occurs? If we want lower prices for everything and more good jobs, we need more domestic oil production. The very misnamed Arctic Wildlife Refuge, which has 19.8 million acres of land in Alaska, could produce many billions more barrels of oil if we would just allow drilling on far less than 1 percent of its territory. Most of this refuge is nothing but a frozen, huge brown tundra that does not have a bush or a tree on it or at least not one within many, many miles. If we opened up only 12,000 acres, far less than 1 percent of this refuge, we could get to billions of barrels of oil; and it could be done in an environmentally safe way and without hurting even a single animal or cutting even one tree. Yet once again wealthy environmental extremists do not want us to do this, even though their actions are hurting the poor and working people of this country most of all and are also helping keep young college graduates from getting good, high-paying jobs. These are just some things that I hope many people in this country and in particular my colleagues here in the Congress will consider in the months ahead.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the best students in my district, Brandi Nichole Gaskey, has just graduated from Farragut High School. She has had an amazing four years in high school. She was a member of the National Honor Society all four years, and she was also President of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes her junior and senior year. Brandi was also involved in sports at Farragut and was voted most athletic, as well. Mr. Speaker, recently Brandi Gaskey was asked to give the commencement address at Farragut High School. I have attached a copy of her remarks that I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Hope Through Character 1999 Graduation Address (By Brandi Nichole Gaskey) Mr. Superintendent, friends, family, distinguished guests, faculty, and fellow graduates of the last class of the century. I stand before you tonight filled with excitement as I welcome you to the 1999 Farragut High School Graduation Ceremony. As we have come to the end of our formal education, to for some of us a miraculous occasion, the question was asked ``Does character count?'' Although I could not think of one word to define character, I respond with an enthusiastic YES, character does count. I counts for you and me and every person we will ever come in contact with. It counts in a big way through the small things we do or say every day. Character is who you are in the dark, when no one is looking. It's what's on the inside, the gutsy stuff you're made of that no one knows about, but one day every one will see. My pastor, Doug Sager, once said, ``your character is your set of values that are non negotiable. It's the quality of life given to you by God to say what is right and to stand up for it.'' For you see, your character can either make you or break you because everyone has character, it's just a matter of how you choose to develop it. For example, two students at Columbine High School had the character to kill their fellow classmates, while other students at Columbine High School had the character to stand up for their faith no matter what the cost. So I'd like to share with you today how to develop your character, and exactly why it does count. Moris Mandel tells a story of how the forming of our character is like the forming of an icicle. He concludes that an icicle forms one drop at a time until it is about one foot or two long. If the water was clear, the icicle remains clear and sparkles like diamonds. If the water was muddy, the icicle looks foul and its beauty is spoiled. Just so, our characters are forming one little thought at a time, one little action at a time. In the Bible, in Romans 5:3-4, it states, ``Trials make perseverance, perseverance our character, and that character produces hope.'' Helen Keller also stated, ``Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet, it is only through experiences of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved.'' Your character is seen and developed through the hard times of life. So I'd like for you to think of an experience that has helped shape your character. I thought about my basketball team, and how Romans 5:3-4 applied to us in so many ways. We had faced so many trials, from a freshman, sophomore, and junior season all with losing records. I thought of countless hours of practice and endless preseason track workouts and sitting in the teamroom after a loss and doing nothing but crying. But those trials taught us perseverance, and we produced character, and that character gave us hope. Hope for this year in which we proudly finished with a winning record of 16-12. Or think of someone you know who has an extreme amount of character. It may be someone who loses their wife and daughter, but still lives life in the best way he can, or someone who works so hard and only makes enough money to feed his/her family. Or someone who fails so many times but keeps on trying and trying again and no one knows how bad they've hurt or hard they've worked. It's studying so hard for an AP Latin test, a math final, or an English exam to realize you make a D, so the next time you study so much harder and finally make the A. Character is all these things. It is formed when you realize you're at your lowest, but hey, you gotta keep on going. So I'd like to challenge you class of 1999 to see each trial you will face as an opportunity to produce and reveal your character. All of these things will ``strengthen your soul, clear your vision, inspire your ambition, and you will achieve success'' (Helen Keller). Just like the Bible says, your character produces hope. Hope through God that we will make a difference, hope that we are going to be the best future leaders, parents, teachers, ministers, and merchants in the history of our nation, hope that what we do matters, and hope that our character will count informing a better tomorrow. So be the people of character you are called to be and work daily on strengthening your soul and developing your inner spirit. Margot Isobel once said something that reveals the importance of your true heart and true character. She said, ``I think t'would be lovely to live and do good, to grow up to be the girl that I should. A heart full of sunshine and a life full of grace are beauty far better than beauty of face. I think t'would be lovely to make people glad, to cheer up the lonely, discouraged, and sad. What matter if homely or pleasant to see, if lovely in spirit I'm striving to be.'' So you see your character can make a difference in the lives of others. It's what's on the inside, your inner spirit, it's what you've developed these last 17 or 18 years, what you've persevered through at home and at school, it's your character that counts, and yes, character is essential. So let God guide you through your trials you will face in college, your career, your marriage, and as a parent, and let those ``trials make perseverance, perseverance your character, and let character produce in you hope'' (Romans 5:3-4). So I'd like to congratulate you class of 1999. We made it and we finished the ride successfully, but I'd like to leave you with the words of Abraham Lincoln. He said, ``Fame is a vapor, popularity an accident, and riches take wings. Only one thing endures forever and that is your character.'' Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, every time we have one of these year-end omnibus appropriations bills, it always becomes sweetheart deal time. The Washington Times reports on its front page today that the White House and some Members of Congress are attempting to give a $238 million tax break to just one man, Abe Pollin, owner of the Washington Wizards basketball team. Mr. Speaker, this tax break would help defray costs Mr. Pollin incurred in building the MCI Center, which he owns and from which he will make millions. The Times story says, ``The House and Senate are considering whether to include in an omnibus spending bill a retroactive, 5-year tax credit so narrowly tailored that it would benefit only Mr. Pollin . . . .'' The Times quotes one Senate tax aide as saying, ``My jaw dropped. It's so bad, it's not even funny. This is just gross.'' Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Pollin pulls off this sweetheart $238 million tax break, he is more of a wizard than his players. Mr. Speaker, no one should vote for a bill that contains an insider multimillion dollar tax break like this that benefits just one already very rich man.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time and thank him in his work in support of this legislation. I rise in strong support of this very modest, bipartisan legislation. I am pleased to be the original sponsor of the House companion to this Senate bill. The other body passed this legislation by unanimous consent last week. Both the House and Senate bills have a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for allowing this bill to be brought to the floor today. S. 440 would establish five new schools of government across the country. These schools would be dedicated to the study of public policy and government. Each of these schools would be named after great Americans, Members from both sides of the aisle, who have served the public in the United States Senate. While I admire and respect all of these men, I would like to primarily speak about one of them, Senator Howard Baker. I understand that we may have other Members who will want to discuss the others honored by this legislation. Specifically, this bill would create the Howard Baker School of Government at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. I believe this legislation is a fitting tribute to Senator Baker's extraordinary career and exemplary public service which continues to this day. Senator Baker was a member of the United States Senate for 18 years, where he served as minority leader as well as majority leader. He also served as President Reagan's chief of staff. I have said before, Mr. Speaker, that the White House chief of staff is the person who has to say no for the President. As a result, some people have left this job with very unpopular reputations. However, Senator Baker left this job as chief of staff more popular than when he began. I believe this is a real testament to the type of person he is. In fact, I have said before that I believe Senator Baker is the greatest living Tennessean. He is, without question, one of the greatest statesmen in the history of the State of Tennessee. In addition, he has been recognized in a very special way here in Washington. The rooms of the Senate majority leader in the U.S. Capitol building are named the Howard H. Baker, Jr., rooms. These are the rooms of the former Library of Congress. This is a very fitting tribute to one of our Nation's greatest public servants. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have earlier introduced legislation, which passed, to name a Federal courthouse in Knoxville, Tennessee after Senator Baker. This courthouse serves as a reminder to Tennesseans of the great work done for them by Senator Baker. Senator Baker has a wonderful supportive wife, former Senator Nancy Kassebaum. I think they make a great team, and they both continue to work to ensure that this country is a better place in which to live. In spite of all of the success Senator Baker achieved in the White House, the Senate and now his private law practice, he has not lost his humility or forgotten where he came from. He now lives in Tennessee where he can be close to the people he represented so well for so many years. He continues to work to help others. Despite his national recognition, he speaks even at very small events and helps many community organizations. As I stated earlier, I have great admiration for all of the gentlemen honored in this bill. However, I think this is an especially fitting tribute to the greatest living Tennessean, Senator Howard H. Baker. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which will honor four great Americans and at the same time provide additional learning opportunities for our young people. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), Congressman Hilleary, for their work on this legislation and bringing it to the floor for consideration.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, last week, The Washington Post ran a front- page story that said the U.S. Army has rated 2 of its 10 divisions unprepared for war due to the ``strain of open-ended troop commitments in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere.'' This unpreparedness is the result of spending so many billions in Kosovo, where we made the situation many times worse by going in than it was before we started bombing. This unpreparedness is the result of spending many billions in Bosnia, where we had U.S. troops giving rabies shots to Bosnian dogs and where the military's greatest problem was boredom of the troops. This unpreparedness is the result of spending billions in Haiti, where, according to The Washington Post, we had our troops picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes. This unpreparedness is the result of spending even now, according to the Associated Press, $1 million a day on a forgotten war in Iraq that is doing us no good at all. In fact, almost all of these foreign misadventures, in addition to weakening our military and costing U.S. taxpayers many billions of dollars, all of these misadventures are making new enemies for this Nation all of the time. Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and billions and billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' money, all spent at a time when we are still almost $6 trillion in debt, and all spent where there was absolutely no threat to U.S. national security. In addition to these problems is the fact that our constitution is being ignored. Syndicated columnist Doug Bandow wrote ``When the U.S. attacked Yugoslavia earlier this year, it inaugurated war against another sovereign state that had not attacked or threatened America or an American ally. The President, and the President alone, made the decision. The constitutional requirement that only Congress shall declare war is obviously a dead letter. Yet the administration's embarrassing bungling in Kosovo illustrates just why the Framers intended that the decision to go be nested in the legislative.'', according to Mr. Bandow. He also quoted Abraham Lincoln, who said ``Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending that the good of the people was the object.'' Lincoln added that the constitutional requirement that only Congress could declare war came about because war was ``the most oppressive of Kingly oppressions; and (the Framers) naturally resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this suppression on us.'' James Madison wrote that ``The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.'' Of course very few people seem to care that we so routinely violate our constitution today. The Christian Science Monitor had a special section last year showing that there were little wars going on in over 40 places around the world. If we try to stop them all, we can forget about Social Security, Medicare, the national parks, and almost everything else the Federal Government does. Do we now go into Chechnya and stop the Russians from killing people there? Do we start now attacking the Albanians, who have been killing the Serbs in Kosovo now that the shoe is on the other foot? Of course not. We only go where CNN tells us to by whichever hot spot they are playing up at the moment. We need to stop turning our military into international social workers. We need to restore our constitutional form of government, and we need to stop sending troops in and bombing people where there is no real threat to our own national security. And we need to stop spending so many billions of hard-earned tax dollars in military misadventures when so many families have to have both mother and father working so that one can pay all the Federal, State and local taxes imposed upon them. One other unrelated topic, Mr. Speaker, which also shows that the Federal Government is simply too big, is the report just out that the wife of a member of the other body has been paid $2.5 million by just one company over the last 6 months in lobbying fees. When the Federal Government was much smaller, no one was paid $2.5 million for 6 months of lobbying, especially by just one company. It seems to me that it should be wrong for the wife of a Senator or for any one person to be paid $2.5 million in just 6 months to lobby any department or agency of the Federal Government. This is the type of thing that goes on thanks to liberals who have made our Federal Government so big and have given it so much money that it is simply now out of control.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced legislation which would, in the future, require organizers of presidential libraries to disclose the identity of donors and the amounts they give. The Washington Post recently reported that $125 million will have to be raised to construct President Clinton's library. It also reported that: The library fund-raising is striking both for the gargantuan size of the pledges being made and the refusal--at least so far--to disclose the donors. However, we do not know who these donors are or what interests they may have on any pending policy decisions that are to be made. I think that our government needs to operate in the open--not behind closed doors. In addition to the reports in the Washington Post, I would like to note that the Knoxville News-Sentinel discussed this issue in its lead editorial saying: Clinton is still a sitting president and is in a position to do favors for donors. His raising money for his library behind closed doors may be legal, but it smells all the same. He should make public the names of the donors and the amounts of their contributions or he should wait until he is out of office to put the arm on people. It also stated that: The White House defense of this secrecy is lame in the extreme: Ronald Reagan did it. Perhaps so, but that doesn't make it right, and this administration, given its various fund-raising scandals, should be especially sensitive to the appearance of impropriety--or one would hope so. I agree 100 percent, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation so that we can ensure that our government operates in an open manner.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, recently, the United States, and the House of Representatives in particular, lost a true public servant. On October 24, long-time Sergeant-at-Arms Walter P. Kennedy passed away at the age of 78. I first met Mr. Kennedy when my father, John J. Duncan, was a Member of this Body. Daddy always had nice things to say about Mr. Kennedy. I, too, found Mr. Kennedy to be a consummate and dedicated member of the House family. He was a fine Christian man who had a special bond with Members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, Walter Kennedy was also a great family man. He and his wife of 53 years, Ana Luisa Bou, raised a family of seven beautiful children, all of whom still live in the Washington area. Mr. Kennedy also enjoyed success after his service in the House of Representatives. For six years, he served as Chairman and CEO of the Kennedy Group Companies, a consulting and public relations firm based here in Washington, D.C. Walter Kennedy set an example that we should all try to follow. He was truly a great American and gave tirelessly to many good causes. He was a volunteer for the Boy Scout program for many years and a long- time and dedicated member of the Catholic Church. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my condolences and best wishes to the Kennedy family. America has lost a true statesman in this fine man. The United States would be a far better place if we had more men like Walter P. Kennedy. I submit a copy of Mr. Kennedy's obituary that I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. [Press Release from the Kennedy Companies, Oct. 25, 1999] Retired Republican Sergeant-at-Arms, U.S. House of Representatives Walter P. Kennedy, retired Republican Sergeant-at-Arms, U.S. House of Representatives (1950-1993) and a 43 year resident of Bethesda, MD, died on Sunday, October 24, 1999 in the Coronary Intensive Care Unit of the Washington Hospital Center. He was 78. Born to Thomas Kennedy and Mary Stella McElvogue on February 23, 1921, he was an immigrant with them from Ireland in 1924. He was raised in Paterson, New Jersey. During World War II, he served in the Army from February 1943 to November 1945. In 1943, as his unit was preparing to deploy, he became a naturalized citizen. He saw combat in France, Germany and Austria as a medic in the 63rd Engineer Battalion, 44th Infantry Division. After his discharge from the service, he completed his studies at Seton Hall College, in New Jersey and went on to receive a law degree from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. He began a 44 year career in the U.S. Congress in 1950 as the chief administrative assistant for the Hon. Gordon Canfield of New Jersey, retiring in 1993 as the Republican Sergeant-at-Arms for the last couple of decades. In his position with Republican Leadership, he served under Charles Haleck, Gerald Ford, John Rhodes and Bob Michel. Mr. Kennedy's 44 years of Congressional service is significant inasmuch as it represent more than 25% of all the years Congress has been in existence. Notably, on the day of his retirement, he was honored by the House of Representatives while it was in session with impromptu speeches by many Members. Subsequent to his retirement, he logged an additional 6 years on Capitol Hill with consulting, political fundraising and public relations through The Kennedy Group Companies of Washington, D.C., for which he was the Chairman and CEO. Since the death of his father, he had been the patriarch of a big and very close-knit family. He is survived by his wife, Ana Louisa Bou, to whom he was married for more than 53 years, 7 children, Walter P. Kennedy, Jr., Ana L. Kennedy, Thomas F. Kennedy, Dennis M. Kennedy, Stella M. Kennedy-Dail, Kevin J. Kennedy, and Kathleen P. Kennedy McGovern, 4 daughters-in-law and a son-in-law, 12 grandchildren, all who reside in the great Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. He, himself, was the oldest of four children and he is survived by a brother, three sisters, their spouses and children. He was also the brother for two sister-in-laws, Ernestina Bou and Marie Isabel Pelalas. He was active with the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Committee on Scouting for more than 40 years. Since 1956 he was an active member of Holy Redeemer Roman Catholic Church in Kensington, Maryland, particularly with the Holy Name Society and the Social Concerns Committee. He was an active member and a Knight of the 4th Degree in the Knights of Columbus. He was a man of leadership and vision, but also, above all else, a good, honest and kind man. Though never losing focus on the future (which he always maintained as promising), he would consider everyone, yet remain vigilant for the underdog. He was loved deeply by all and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the current politically-correct, fad issue with the liberal elite is what is called urban sprawl. Those who are shouting the loudest about this are for the most part people who are very anti-private property or at least people who are very lukewarm about property rights. They are usually wealthy environmental extremists, and ironically they are the very people who are the most responsible for urban sprawl in the first place. Today, the Federal Government owns about 30 percent of the land in this Nation. State and local governments and quasi-governmental units own another 20 percent, so that almost half the land is in some type of public ownership. The most disturbing things, however, are, number one, the very rapid rate in which government has been taking over private property in the last 30 or 40 years; and, number two, the governmental restrictions being placed on the land that remains in private ownership now. I attended a homebuilders meeting a few years ago in which they estimated that 60 percent of the developable land in this country would be off-limits with strict enforcement of our wetlands laws. Also, the Endangered Species Act has stopped or delayed for years the development of roads that would have saved many lives and has stopped construction and driven up costs of many homes. And there is something called the Wildlands Projects which the Washington Post said is a plan by environmentalists to place under public ownership half the land that remains as private property today. I know that to many people, the word ``development'' has become almost a dirty word. But home ownership has always been a very important part of the American dream. Are those of us who have homes now going to say to young couples and young families, ``Well, we have ours but we don't want you to have yours''? Are we going to tell young people in small homes now that they cannot someday move to a bigger home because we basically have to stop all development? Are we going to tell homebuilders and construction workers that they are going to have to find some other work, probably at much lower pay? No one wants our beautiful countryside turned into strip malls or parking lots, but development can be done in beautiful, environmentally sound ways. Old, unsightly buildings or blighted areas can be greatly improved. We should stop the local government appetite for farms which they then turn into industrial parks and give land at bargain-basement rates, sometimes to foreign corporations. Why do I say environmentalists have caused a great deal of urban sprawl, indeed most of it? Well, just think about it. When more and more land is taken over by government or restricted from development, that forces more and more people on to smaller and smaller pieces of land. It also drives up the price of the remaining developable land, which also forces more people into apartments, townhouses or houses on postage-stamp-size lots. Big government, brought on primarily by our liberal elite, has also caused urban sprawl. Big government has given most of its contracts, favorable regulatory rulings, and tax breaks to extremely big business. This has driven many small businesses and small farms out of existence. Now the environmental extremists are aiming at agricultural run-off or spill-off. Rigid Federal rules and red tape hit the small farmers hardest and keep driving them out, which of course inures to the benefit of the big corporate farms. When the Federal Government drives small businesses and small farms and even small hospitals out of existence, it drives more and more people into the cities and causes more and more urban sprawl. We need to remember that private property is one of the main things that has given us the great freedom and prosperity that we enjoy in this country today. It is one of the main things that sets us apart from nations like the former Soviet Union and other starvation- existence type countries. Tom Bethell in his new book, ``The Noblest Triumph,'' says, ``Private property both disperses power and shields us from the coercion of others.'' He quotes Pope Leo XIII in 1891 who wrote that the ``fundamental principle of socialism, which would make all possessions public property, is to be utterly rejected because it injures the very ones whom it seeks to help.'' Brian Doherty, in the November 4 Journal of Commerce wrote that ``if the anti-sprawl agenda became a truly powerful political force, we would have to obey the dictates of busybody politicians who think it better for us to live in a crowded, central city walk-up than to have our own house with a two-car garage and a nice quarter-acre lawn.'' We should remember that private property is good for the environment because people always take better care of their own property than they do of property in public ownership. We should realize, too, that if we really want to stop urban sprawl, we must stop this stealth-like abolition of private property so even more people are not forced into central cities and overcrowded suburbs. Mr. Speaker, we should stop government takeover of property and people will then have both the freedom and the opportunity to spread out.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today in a hearing before the full Committee on Resources we discussed the President's proposal to lock up some 40 million acres of our national forests. I am sure this sounds good to some. But what it mainly will do is drive up prices on houses and everything else that is made from wood, and it will destroy jobs. So if my colleagues want to hurt poor and working people by driving up prices and destroying jobs, then they should support this proposal to lock up our national forests. In the 1980s, the Congress passed what was then thought to be a very strong environmental statement that we should not cut more than 80 percent of the new growth in our national forests. Today we have reduced logging down to less than one-seventh, less than 14 percent of the new growth. Today we are not even cutting half the number of dead and dying trees each year. This is causing so much fuel buildup that the Forest Service tells us now that 39 million acres are in great risk of burning. Actually, we need to cut some trees to have healthy forests. And we are not even coming close to doing that. Today, in my part of the country, the Forest Service says that only .02 percent of the trees in the Cherokee National Forest is being harvested annually, two-tenths of one percent. Yet, the July-August issue of the Sierra Club magazine said that the Cherokee is being logged at a ``furious pace.'' Much of the environmental movement has been taken over by extremists. Some are putting out very false or very distorted or very exaggerated information because they know they have to scare people to keep their big contributions coming in. Many of these environmental extremists are wealthy or upper-income people who simply do not realize how much some of what they advocate hurts the poor and working people. Also, some of this environmental extremism is financed by extremely big business because they know the stringent rules and regulations and red tape about the environment drives the small farmers and small businesses out. Thus, the big guys have less bothersome competition to deal with. Which brings me to my second topic, the Kyoto agreement. I read in one of the nonpartisan congressional publications this week that the administration knows it cannot get the Senate to ratify the Kyoto Agreement, so it is trying to get it enacted through the back door. This report said that Federal agencies hope to build big business support for Kyoto by giving favorable treatment on regulations, contracts and so forth to businesses that will voluntarily comply in advance. Then they believe these big businesses would then lobby the Senate for the agreement in order to force everyone else to comply. Many people around the world and some rich socialists in this country think it is unfair that with just 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. consumes about 25 percent of the world's goods. This is really what was behind the Kyoto Agreement. The administration was apparently so eager to say that an agreement had been reached that it approved a very bad deal. The Senate passed a resolution 95-0 saying that if an agreement was reached in Kyoto, it should apply to all countries and should not harm the U.S. economy. This agreement exempts 129 of 173 countries including China and Mexico. The Global Climate Information Project says: ``So while the U.S. cuts energy use by more than 30 percent, most U.N. countries get a free ride. Because U.S. energy prices will rise, American products could be more expensive at home and less competitive overseas. That will slow down our economic growth and cost American jobs. All for a treaty that will produce little or no environmental benefit.'' One thing it would do for sure is speed up the transfer of wealth and jobs from this Nation to underdeveloped countries. Unless we want to make our constituents' jobs even less secure and force them to cut their energy use by 30 percent or more, we had better oppose the Kyoto Agreement. Finally, Mr. Speaker, in talking about big business and big money in politics and government today, let me briefly mention campaign finance reform. This administration has done more to get around or flout or violate our campaign finance laws than any in history. Over 90 people pled the fifth or even fled the country to avoid testifying in the various campaign finance investigations. It is ironic that some of the leaders who are the loudest in support of campaign finance reform are some of the biggest violators of our present campaign finance laws. What people should think about, Mr. Speaker, is that when the Federal Government was small, we did not have all this trouble with big money influencing politics and political decisions. If we really want to remove the influence of big money and big business in government today, then the best way to do so is to downsize the Federal Government and decrease its costs. Big government liberals who always say they are for the little guy have done more to help extremely big business than any conservative ever dreamed of doing. It is no accident that the bigger our Federal Government has become, the harder it has become for small businesses and small farmers to survive, and the more the gap between the rich and the poor has grown.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today we will pass the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, which contains many good things. It also contains a 1 percent across-the-board cut, which I support, because we have to do that unless we want to dip into the Social Security funds for other purposes. But this bill also contains $1.4 billion for a program that I hope at least some people will begin to question. It is one of the most wasteful programs in the entire Federal Government, and yet, because it theoretically is for children, nobody will question it. That is the Job Corps program. Today we are spending over $26,000 per year per Job Corps student. We could take each one of those students and give them a $1,000 month allowance, send them to some expensive private school, and still save some. The GAO says hardly any of those students are ending up in jobs for which they were trained. That program is benefiting only the bureaucrats and the fat cat government contractors. Mr. Speaker, we need to question that program. It is harming children by taking money away from their parents to send instead to bureaucrats and fat cat government contractors.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, usually when I rise to speak in the period of special orders it is to talk about some specific bill or specific legislation. Tonight I am doing something a little different and discussing something that I think has the potential of becoming a problem in some ways, and I would just like to call some attention to it and get some people, hopefully, to start thinking about it. In doing so, I will start by reading a quote that I read, I think sometime last year in, I believe, an Associated Press story, and it was a quote from David Geleanter, who is a professor of computer science at Yale University. He said this. ``Computers themselves are fine. But we are in the middle of an education catastrophe. Children are not being taught to read, write, know arithmetic or history. In those circumstances, to bring a glitzy toy into the classroom seems to me to be a disaster. It reinforces our worst tendencies. The idea that children are in educational trouble because they do not have access to enough glitz and what they really need is a bigger database is staggeringly ludicrous. They need practice in the basics.'' That is a quote by a professor of computer science at Yale. What I am saying tonight is let us do not forget the basics in education. Sure, it is important to learn about computers, but we seem to be worse off with the computer today in thinking that it is the end- all of education and we are neglecting the basics in many, many ways. Children still need to learn to read and write and know arithmetic and know history and the basics. Secondly, along this same line, I heard Tony Kornheiser, one of the sports columnists for the Washington Post and on ESPN and so forth, and he mentioned in a column, and also I heard him on the radio talking about this one time, about three young men who had called him at different times during the time of the last World Series, and he said they each asked for Tony Kornheiser's e-mail address. He said when he told them that this was Tony Kornheiser to whom they were speaking, he said they got so flustered that a couple of them hung up, and one got so nervous that he could hardly speak. He asked the question, are we raising a generation of young people who are spending so much time in front of the television set and so much time in front of the computer screens that they are not developing the social skills that they really need or that people have developed in past years. We became concerned as a society because children were spending so many thousands and thousands of hours in front of the television set. So we took them from in one of one screen and placed them in front of another screen called a computer, and I am just wondering if they are not isolating themselves. It is getting where people can shop at home, work at home, and we can all become Unibomber hermits if we want to, I suppose, but I do not think it will be good for society. I tell young people at home to watch a little television. I have no objection to that. Learn the computer. We all have to do that today. It is an important and valuable thing. But every once in a while get out and get involved with a real life human being. Life will mean more if you do. Unfortunately, we are having fewer and fewer people who are joining the American Legion and the Kiwanis and the Shrine and all the various civic and charitable organizations that have been so very important to this country for so many years. Thirdly, Madam Speaker, I heard a few months ago Barbara Walters on 20/20 one night saying she was going to present the most important hour she had ever presented on television. That got my curiosity up because she has been on television for so long. And what it was, it was a program devoted to warning parents about the sick, evil things that are on the Internet. There again, that is another facet of this same problem. I am not against computers. I am all in favor of computers. But what I am saying is we still need to make sure our young people learn the basics in school, like reading, writing, and history. We still need to make sure that our young people develop the social skills that they need to survive. My father told me many years ago, half jokingly and half seriously, that the problems of this country grew worse when they stopped putting front porches on the houses. People stopped visiting with each other. They tell us many people do not know their next door neighbors. All I am saying is we need to make sure we do not get isolated unto ourselves to where we do not really know people and get involved helping other people in their lives. During this program by Barbara Walters, she told the story of a little boy who had actually become involved with such terrible things over the Internet that he ended up with such rage built up in him that he killed another child. Barbara Walters thought it was so very important to warn parents about some of these horrible things that are on the Internet and that children are exposed to that they were not exposed to so many years ago. So all I am saying tonight is we need to be aware of those three things, those three concerns, because it is very, very important to this country and to its future that we make sure that young people get the benefits of all this new technology but are not harmed by it.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 514, I inadvertently missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), spoke on this floor about our trade deficit. He pointed out that our trade deficit in the last quarter hit an all- time record of $87 billion. If that keeps up, it would be an astounding $350 billion for the full year, meaning that we are buying that much more from other countries than they are buying from us. Most economists agree that we lose, conservatively, 20,000 jobs per billion, meaning we would lose 7 million jobs to other countries in one year if our trade deficit stays at the rate of this last quarter. Many people believe we are losing these jobs, that we have this unbelievable trade deficit in large part because of bad trade deals, trade deals good for big multinational companies but very harmful to small American businesses and American workers. The Christian Science Monitor, one of the leading national newspapers, had this on its front page recently, quote, ``America's widening trade deficit, now more than $25 billion a month, is starting to cause concern in the topic echelons of the United States. ``While the trade gap has been growing for years, it is becoming large enough that experts are becoming increasely worried it will slow the `miracle' economy of the 1990s.'' Just 1 week later, the Washington Post reported that the ``suddenly slumping'' U.S. dollar ``is stirring unease about the potential for a stampede by foreign investors from American stocks and bonds, which could terminate the U.S. expansion and destabilize the world economy.'' According to the Post, ``The problem starts with the U.S. trade deficit . . . as the booming U.S. economy sucks in massive amounts of imports, and slumping overseas markets absorb fewer exports from American firms.'' We simply cannot, Mr. Speaker, continue to run trade deficits of 300 or more billions of dollars each year without causing very serious problems for our own people. Today, our unemployment is very low, but our under-employment is terrible. We have many college graduates who work very hard and spend a lot of money to get a degree in a field in which there are very few good jobs available. There are so many people getting law degrees these days that even they are becoming of very little assistance to many in getting good jobs or positions. Most colleges and universities cannot discourage students from majoring in certain subjects without causing a faculty rebellion. So parents and students really need to start asking the hard question: Is it likely that I can get a decent job if I major in this subject? If we keep running trade deficits like we are now, we will have more and more college graduates working as waiters and waitresses. Also, young people had better wake up and tell these environmental extremists that we cannot base our entire economy on tourism unless we want to have almost everybody working at minimum wage jobs. This large trade deficit, which is causing us to lose so many high- paying jobs, is also causing the gap between the rich and the poor to grow much wider. This is, I suppose, why it is hard for so many wealthy people to realize the extent of this under-employment problem and why so many upper income people support extreme environmental measures that really hurt lower income people by driving up prices and destroying jobs. I started thinking about all this after reading a column by William Safire in today's Knoxville News-Sentinel, which I assume ran in yesterday's New York Times. Mr. Safire, after being ripped off due to a big cable merger, wrote in a column entitled, ``Giant Corporations May Not Serve Us Well,'' these lines: ``The merger-manic mantra: In conglomeration there is strength. ``Ah, but now, say the biggest-is-best philosophers, we're merging within the field we know best. And if we don't combine quickly, the Europeans and Asians will, stealing world business domination from us. ``The urgency of globalization, say today's merger maniacs, destroys all notions of diverse competition, and only the huge, heavily capitalized multinational can survive.'' Mr. Safire concluded, ``Only John McCain dares to say: `Anybody who glances at increases in cable rates, phone rates, mergers and lack of competition clearly knows that the special interests are protected in Washington, and the public interest is submerged.' '' Are we, Mr. Speaker, ``Wal-Marting'' the entire world? In a few short years, are just one or two big giants going to control every field and every industry? I sure hope not. A few years ago, I spoke on the floor of this House, pointing out that U.S.A. Today said competition existed in only 55 out of 11,000 cable markets. The situation is worse today. The Wall Street Journal said then, ``Competition is the last thing big cable operators want. They have vigorously lobbied local and State governments to keep their turf exclusive.'' I said in my speech in Congress at that time, ``What we really need is more competition. Every place there is competition, cable prices have gone down and service has gone up.'' This is true in every field. Here in Washington, the two daily Washington newspapers sell for 25 cents each. Most places where there is no competition, much smaller newspapers sell for 50 cents or more. I voted against the big telecommunications bill a few years ago because of my fear that it would only lead to a massive consolidation within the industry and the big getting much bigger. That is certainly coming true even faster than I thought. If the government, Mr. Speaker, keeps approving more and more mergers, if our anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws become a joke, if we keep giving every break to multinational companies and keep running huge trade deficits, our under-employment will grow worse, our middle class will be slowly wiped out, and the United States will be a very different place than it has been up until now.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to continue speaking out tonight about very wasteful spending by the Federal Government. One of the most wasteful, extravagant programs in the entire Federal Government is the Job Corps. It is now costing about $26,000 a year to put a student through this program, $26,000 a year. We could give each of these young people a $1,000 a month allowance, send them to some expensive private school and still save money. If we did that, these kids would feel like they had won a lottery, they would be so happy. We are still giving this scandalously wasteful program increases each year. The bill that will be before us next week increases the Job Corps appropriation to $1.4 billion. If this bill or this program was good for children, then it would be worthwhile spending. However, the GAO has reported that only about 12 percent of the young people in this program end up in jobs for which they were trained, and that is after you give the Job Corps every benefit of the doubt and stretch the definition of a Job Corps type job to ludicrous limits. Actually the Job Corps is very harmful to young people. It takes money from parents and families, money that they could be spending on their children, and gives it instead to Federal bureaucrats and fat cat government contractors. That is who really benefits from the Job Corps program, the bureaucrats and the contractors. Also, there has been a real crime problem in the Job Corps program, including murders and many drug-related and very serious crimes. People who really want to help children would vote to end this very wasteful program or at least make them bring their cost per student down. $26,000 per year per Job Corps student is just ridiculous. Second, Mr. Speaker, I consider national defense to be one of the most important and legitimate functions of our national government, and the military is continually crying about a shortage of funds. Yet we find that the Air Force has spent $1.5 million to remodel the house of the commandant at the Air Force Academy including $267,000 simply to redo the kitchen. $267,000 should have bought a beautiful new home instead of being just blown on a kitchen. Now we find that the Navy has taken $10,260,000 from operations and family housing accounts to fix up the residences of three admirals. This comes out to more than $3,420,000 per home. These were the houses of the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington, the Commandant of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, and the Commander of the Pacific Fleet in Honolulu. Let me quickly mention two other examples of very wasteful spending. A few years ago I read a column by Henry Kissenger which said that the 50 to $60 billion we had sent in aid to Russia over the previous 5 years or so had just been wasted. In 1991, Senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat, said giving monetary aid to the Soviet Union was like throwing money into a cosmic black hole. But do we ever learn? No. Now we find out many billions more of U.S. taxpayer money to Russia has been put into private accounts that are hidden all over the world, and our wealthy elitist foreign policy establishment will make fun of and sarcastically criticize anyone who opposes sending Russia many billions more. One final example is the $625,000 taxpayers have been ordered to pay by a Federal judge because Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin illegally withheld documents in a lawsuit over Indian trust funds. The judge regretted that the burden would fall on taxpayers and that he could not fine the Cabinet secretaries themselves. We see over and over and over again that the Federal Government cannot do anything in an economical, efficient, low-cost manner. We see over and over again that today we have a Federal Government that is of, by and for the bureaucrats instead of one that is of, by and for the people. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we see over and over again that if you want money to be wasted and spent in ridiculous, lavish ways, just send it to the Federal Government.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on several unrelated but very important topics. First I want to quote from an Associated Press story of a few days ago: ``A billion-dollar-a-year air war forgotten by the outside world but droning on over dusty Iraqi towns does not appear to be getting Washington any closer to its ultimate goal of ousting President Saddam Hussein.'' The Associated Press story said that we have dropped 1,400 bombs and missiles on Iraq since mid-December in this forgotten war. A forgotten war that is doing no good, wasting more than $2.6 million each day, bombing people who could be our friends, but instead making new enemies for the United States each and every day. A billion-dollar-a-year air war that is wasteful, useless, inhumane, and according to the Associated Press, not accomplishing its goal. Second, I want to mention another ridiculously wasteful project. A few days ago NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because one engineering team used metric units while another used English units for a key spacecraft operation. If this had happened in the private sector, heads would have rolled. However, when it happens with taxpayer money done by totally protected civil servants and big government contractors, no one is really held accountable. We see over and over and over again that the Federal Government is unable to do anything in an economical, efficient, low-cost manner. Because it is other people's money, they really just do not care. If we want our money to be wasted, just turn it over to Federal bureaucrats. They will be paid regardless of how bad a job they do and at a rate that is about 50 percent higher than the average citizen for whom they are supposed to be working. Today we just cavalierly lose a $125 million machine because we have a government that is of, by, and for the bureaucrats instead of one that is of, by, and for the people. Third, Mr. Speaker, let me mention the scandalous grant of clemency to the 16 Puerto Rican terrorists responsible for 130 bombings. These bombings killed six people. They left six people dead, and maimed and injured 84 others. One New York City policeman lost his leg and one lost his sight and has 20 pins holding his head together, and the President and the Department of Justice are refusing to give congressional committees the information and papers leading to these grants of clemency. What are they trying to hide? Senator Orrin Hatch, a Member of the other body and chairman of its Committee on the Judiciary said, ``The Justice Department today is run by people who do not care about the law.'' The grants of clemency were given against the advice of every law enforcement agency asked about them. Three examples, Mr. Speaker, of a Federal Government that is simply too big and out of control and wasting billions of hard-earned tax dollars each and every day. Finally, Mr. Speaker, one other concern I have does not deal with Federal Government wasteful spending, but is it possible that many people are spending money in a harmful way on Ritalin. I mentioned once before on this floor that a retired high-level Drug Enforcement Agency official wrote in the Knoxville News-Sentinel last year that Ritalin is prescribed six times as much in the United States as in any other industrialized nation. He said that Ritalin has the same properties, basically, as some of the most addictive drugs there are. Now I read in Time Magazine that production of Ritalin has increased sevenfold in the past 8 years and that 90 percent of it is consumed in the United States. Time Magazine said, ``the growing availability of the drug raises the fear of the abuse: more teenagers try Ritalin by grinding it up and snorting it for $5 a pill than get it by prescription.'' Also, I read in Insight magazine that almost all these teenage school shooters in recent years have been boys who were on at the time or had recently been on Ritalin or some similar mind-altering drug. Now, I believe there are some people for whom Ritalin has been good. But I also read that it is almost always given to boys who have both parents working full time. I am simply asking if it is a good thing to give such a strong drug to so many, or is it simply a way for a big drug company to make huge profits. Why 90 percent in the United States? Why do we have at least six times as much of this prescribed in the U.S. as any other industrialized nation? I hope, Mr. Speaker, that parents, teachers, doctors and everyone else will not be so eager to turn to Ritalin, which is really a potentially dangerous addictive drug and will use it only as an absolute last resort.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. Let me just say I understand the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is going to offer an amendment, and we are going to agree to this amendment concerning the installation of a doppler weather radar system in Brooklyn, New York. This provision was placed in this legislation because there was a dispute between the FAA and the Department of Interior, the Park Service, on the installation of this system. We have been told that the Park Service and the FAA have now reached an agreement to go ahead and install this system. The staff had included this in the legislation just because of some uncertainty regarding a pending Federal lawsuit on this issue. I will simply say this: we feel it is the intent of the Congress that this system should be installed there, and we will remove this provision at this time, reserving the right to revisit this issue if necessary in a conference with the Senate or at some later point if for some reason this agreement is not carried out. With that said, Mr. Chairman, that we will agree to that change, we do have a good bill, a necessary bill, and I urge the support of the entire body for this reauthorization of the National Transportation Safety Board.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers at this time, so I simply reserve the balance of my time.