Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very modest, common sense, and much-needed proposal. I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for yielding me this time, and I commend him for bringing this very fine legislation to the floor of this House. Our Founding Fathers established a Government which is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. Unfortunately, what happened in Utah shows that what we have now is a Government of, by, and for the bureaucrats and a few elitists at the top. Unfortunately, what we saw with this Utah land grab was an abuse of power through a very old law that is really no longer needed. There were no checks and balances. There was no public discussion. There was no consultation with the Utah congressional delegation or the Governor of Utah. There was a deliberate attempt to keep this thing as secret as possible for as long as possible. H.R. 1487 simply requires the administration to solicit public participation and comment while preparing a national monument proposal. It also requires that the President consult with the governor and congressional delegation of the State in which the lands are located. To oppose this bill is to oppose even very minimal public participation in this process. What we saw with the designation of this 1.7 million acres in Utah was a very real abuse of power. During a hearing before the House Committee on Resources in 1997, the Governor of Utah testified that the first reports that he had received regarding this proposal were from a story in the Washington Post. In addition, he testified that he did not receive official word of this proposal until 2 a.m. in the morning the night before the announcement was being made. At this same hearing, Senator Robert Bennett testified that his staff found a letter from the Interior Department to a Colorado professor who was responsible for drafting the proclamation. In this letter, the Interior Department official stated, ``I can't emphasize confidentiality too much. If word leaks out, it probably won't happen so take care.'' This almost makes one wonder if we have people running our Government today who want to run things in the secret, shadowy way of the former Soviet Union and other dictatorships. People in other parts of the country should be concerned about this. We should all be concerned because of the political wheeling and dealing, the arrogance, the extremism of the way this designation in Utah was carried out. But perhaps even more importantly, if they do it in one place, they will do it in another if people do not speak out against this type of political shenanigans. With that said, let me just note that all this legislation would do is make a minor modification to make sure that the public can be involved in decisions that affect large portions of public land. This Utah land grab affected 1.7 million acres, which is three times the size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most heavily visited park in the country. So millions of people all across this country realize how significant this is. Mr. Chairman, is it really so bad that we allow the public to participate in such important decisions? I do not believe the President should be able to designate such a huge amount of land as a national monument without some extensive public discussion and meaningful participation. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a modest proposal. This is not a Western or an Eastern issue; this is a democratic issue that affects us all. If my colleagues think that we should have just a small group of people at the top making significant, important decisions like this in secret, without any real meaningful public involvement, then they should vote against this bill. However, if they think it should be the right of the American people to have at least a small say in what their Government does, then I hope they will vote for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1487 so that we can put the people back in the process at least in a small way.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, we have done a very good job in this Nation bringing class sizes down. But we have made a bad mistake going to large, centralized schools and closing down thousands of small neighborhood and community schools particularly at the high school level. This point was made in a very articulate way in a letter entitled ``Smaller Schools are Safer Schools'' in the August 30th issue of the Christian Science Monitor. I commend this letter by Michael Klonsky to my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Smaller Schools Are Safer Schools Regarding ``Safer Places of Learning'' (Aug. 20): The new ``militarization'' of schools may do more harm than good. Tens of millions of dollars are now being spent, without much thought or planning, on security cameras, metal detectors, and police may make school violence the expected norm. This trend also shifts the responsibility for teaching children away from teachers to counselors and police. When the shootings first took place, there was some serious discussion about the size and culture of schools. All the shootings occurred in large schools where kids outside the mainstream could easily fall through the cracks. Teachers and administrators claimed ignorance of the threat from neo-Nazi gangs and antisocial cliques. But now the discussion has shifted almost entirely toward militarization and regimentation of schools and side issues of student dress codes. Calling on students to eat lunch with kids they don't normally eat with is a nice idea but it avoids many of the responsibilities that adults should bare, like school restructuring. Over the next decade we will spend billions in the construction of new gigantic high schools and junior highs. This is a recipe for more Littletons. If we are serious about safe schools, one of the first things we need to consider is the creation of smaller communities of teachers and learners where kids are known by the people charged with educating them.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Earline McClain, one of my constituents who has had a very distinguished career in education, has written a poem that I hope will be read by a great many people. It expresses some very important ideas about our Nation and how each of us has a responsibility to treat each other with respect and humility. I have enclosed a copy of the poem, entitled ``Think,'' and would like to call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, many small colleges are unfortunately in a struggle to survive today. Let us suppose a very possible hypothetical situation in which a college professor with a Ph.D. and 20 years of teaching experience loses his or her job because a college closes down. Today, that professor, even with a Ph.D. and many years of teaching experience, could not teach in the public schools--this in the face of a teachers shortage. It makes no sense whatsoever hat someone with great education, experience, or success in a particular field should not be allowed to teach because of not having taken a few education courses. A degree in education should be a plus in favor of hiring a teacher. But lack of an education degree should not prevent a well-qualified person from being hired as a teacher. I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the following article by Jeanne Etkins from the September 2 issue of the Christian Science Monitor. Teachers vs. ``Educators'' American students bottom-out on international math and science tests and too many need remedial reading and writing classes in college. One important reason is that we easily accept credentialed educators over effective teachers. Too many unprepared graduates are allowed to become ``educators.'' Teaching is one of America's most important professions and yet our education bureaucracy--high on credentialism and low on pay-- makes it difficult for well-educated people to become teachers. Instead of making it easier for better teachers to enter the profession, our solution to our problems is too often to dumb down, not wise up. For example, we gave A's and B's to two-thirds of the nations eight-graders, even though many are unprepared to handle high school. We ``re-center'' SAT scores to obscure declining student abilities. And we grant college diplomas--and teaching degrees--to people who haven't mastered high school material. (Tell me, who hasn't heard about that 60 percent failure rate on the Massachusetts teacher's entrance exam?) Although students, teachers, and school administrators clearly don't make the grade, taxpayers spend a fortune on education--$565 billion, in federal, state, and local funds, in 1997. And yet, the United Way estimates states and businesses shell out $20 billion annually to teach employees and college students fundamental literacy skills. A very big reason for this is that we invest in good ``educators'' not good teachers. People serious about a subject don't major in education. Scientists major in science, historian study history, and mathematicians focus on math. If people are really serious, they earn graduate degrees. So why aren't more of these experts teaching our children? Because a BA in education qualifies teachers, but an MA or even a PhD in any other field does not. Furthermore, adding college teaching to a doctorate won't get the most persistent teacher-wannabe a job in a public school. We don't ``certify'' people to teach unless they've taken education theory courses, no matter how knowledgeable they are in academic areas. Not that every expert in a field is going to teach well-- but it's not a far-fetched notion that someone who loves and understands a subject can ignite a student's interest in it. How many brilliant people with graduate degrees do you think are willing to sacrifice $20,000 and an additional two years on education courses in order to land a $25,000 per year teaching job? Not many, and the number is smaller if you consider that we refuse to pay higher starting salaries to career-changers who may have spent years working in their fields. Noncompetitive salaries and unreasonable requirements discourage professionals and capable college graduates from entering teaching. Even the most dedicated teachers already in the profession bail out because of other reasons--overcrowded classrooms and disrespectful students. One out of 5 teachers--many of the best--began abandoning the profession in 1991 for more rewarding careers, according to the US Department of Education. Can we really blame them? All too often we demand they tolerate students whose abusive language and disruptive behavior in the classroom prevent teaching and would surely get them locked up or expelled from any church, store, library, or theater. ``Teaching is rewarding, but the pay is lousy'' is fast becoming ``Teaching is unrewarding, and the pay is lousy.'' It's no wonder that the best and the brightest rarely go into teaching, and when they do, few stay. It's time to reverse this dangerous trend. We will save money and graduate smarter kids when we make it easier for motivated, knowledgeable professionals to make the transition into teaching. They don't need to be credentialed to start the job. There's no reason we should be able to train defense employees on the job--to program ballistic missiles, for goodness sake--but not teachers. Don't misunderstand, though. Paying teachers competitive starting salaries and hiring more academic experts won't guarantee a Lake Wobegon society. Every student is not ``above average,'' regardless of the number of A's and B's teachers are encouraged to pass out. But our chance for improving public schools rises dramatically when we make it easier, not more difficult, for the right people to become teachers. Well-educated people want to teach. Are we wise enough to let them into the classrooms? Will we pay what it takes to keep them there?

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] has 264 million acres that it manages for the federal government. None of this land is national park or national forest land. The BLM has identified three million acres that it would like to sell, because it is not environmentally significant, surrounded by private land, difficult to manage, or isolated. Today, I have introduced the Federal Lands Improvement Act which will allow the sale of this land, with proceeds to go; one-third to the counties where the land is located for schools and other needs; one- third to the national debt; and one-third back to the BLM for environmental restoration projects on its remaining land. As I have already stated, this bill would not sell any national parks or wilderness areas. It only proposed to sell lands that have already been identified for disposal by the BLM. Currently, the federal government owns 30 percent of all the land in the United States. This is roughly 650 million acres. In comparison, the State of Tennessee is only 26 million acres total. It only makes sense that the federal government consolidate its holdings so that it can better manage those areas which are truly environmentally sensitive. I hope my colleagues will join me by cosponsoring this legislation so that we can take a step forward in protecting our federal lands.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to briefly discuss the Waco tragedy that has been so much in the news over the past few days. Before coming to Congress, I spent 7\1/2\ years as a criminal court judge trying felony criminal cases. I tried the attempted murder of James Earl Ray, several death penalties cases, and many high profile cases of all types. I believe in the death penalty as it is now used, meaning on our most horrible cases, and I believe in very long sentences for violent, hardened criminals. I am very strongly anticrime; but I must say tonight that I think this Waco tragedy was one of the most tragic episodes in our Nation's history and one of the most despicable things the Federal Government has ever done. Eighty-six people, including 24 children, were put to death simply for attempting to be left alone, so they could practice what I and most other people felt were kooky religious beliefs. But in a free country, people are supposed to have the right to have kooky, weird or unusual beliefs as long as they are not hurting anyone else. The Waco victims were killed apparently because federal law enforcement officials were bound and determined to conduct a raid that would make the national news. This was not about law enforcement; this was about publicity. Now, after 6 years, we discover, as many people suspected all along, that the FBI has been lying about this sordid affair. We heard a few days ago that contrary to previous Justice Department statements, incendiary devices were placed by the Government into the Branch Davidians' home. Today, we are told even more incendiary devices were put in there, something called military star flares, highly flammable. The federal law enforcement people bombarded this home for many weeks, hour after hour, minute after minute, with extremely loud noises, extremely bright lights throughout the night. Then they moved in the tanks. Hundreds of officers, thousands and thousands of highly paid man- hours, hundred of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted in a massive overkill of people who were of no threat to anyone. Then the Government attempted to do a false public relations campaign about child abuse, of which there was no proof, and illegal weapons, also not proved. What makes all of this even worse is that the kooky leader, David Koresh, was frequently out of the Davidians' home alone and could have easily been arrested on many occasions if the ATF and others were not primarily interested in publicity in the first place. Eighty-six people killed, 24 children dead, in what many people now say was a raid done in an attempt to justify increased appropriations. Five or 6 years ago, Forbes Magazine had a lengthy cover story about the Justice Department. The story said that we had quadrupled the Justice Department funding since 1980 and that prosecutors and federal law enforcement people were falling all over themselves trying to find cases to prosecute. The article said they were resorting to going after honest business people who had unintentionally violated laws they did not even know were in existence, shades of the IRS. Several months ago, Newsweek Magazine had a cover story which said on its cover, ``The IRS, Lawless, Abusive, Out of Control.'' Well, the same thing could be said today of the Justice Department under Attorney General Reno and our federal law enforcement agencies. Today, our law enforcement dollar is out of whack. The highest paid law enforcement people are federal bureaucrats who sit here in Washington and never see a real criminal unless they are mugged on the way to their cars after work. The lowest paid law officers are the local police and sheriffs deputies, the people who are fighting the real crime, the street crime, the violent crime that people want fought. The tragedy at Waco, the deaths of the children, the lies about it since it happened, are all the outgrowth of a Federal Government that has grown too big for its own good, and certainly too powerful and too arrogant for the good of the people for whom these Government officials are supposed to be working. While I am discussing this, I should also mention the cold-blooded killing by the FBI of 13-year-old Sammy Weaver and his mother at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. This small boy was cowardly shot in the back and his mother was shot as she held her small baby in the doorway of her house. And no one is ever held accountable for all of these deaths and all of these lies, because today we do not have a Government of, by and for the people but instead have one that is of, by and for the bureaucrats, the unelected elite of this Nation. The only thing these people really care about is their money. What we should do, but will not, is to drastically cut the money for these agencies and give it instead to local law enforcement agencies or back to the hard-working citizens we took it from in the first place. It certainly, Mr. Speaker, will not satisfy anyone to have a whitewash investigation by establishment types handpicked by the Justice Department and approved by our very biased national media.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, last week the New York Times ran an editorial by Chairman Bud Shuster, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, concerning the Aviation Investment and Reform Act (AIR-21). I agree with Chairman Shuster 100 percent. Last year, Chairman Shuster unlocked the highways trust fund and ensured that highway taxes were spent on highways. Now, we are preparing to do the same thing this year with the aviation trust fund. I am proud to be a part of this effort to ensure that the taxes paid by aviation users will be spent only on aviation improvements. Unlocking the aviation trust fund will benefit the entire aviation community. I have attached a copy of Chairman Shuster's editorial that I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. [From the New York Times, July 17, 1999] Once, Conservatives Knew the Value of Transportation (By Bud Shuster) Abraham Lincoln called Senator Henry Clay ``my beau ideal,'' largely because he was dedicated to building America. Clay, whose nickname was ``Capital Improvements Harry,'' helped pass legislation to construct roads and inland waterways to tie America together. During the Civil War, Lincoln authorized the construction of the first transcontinental railroad. Teddy Roosevelt championed the Panama Canal, and Dwight Eisenhower created the Interstate System. Fiscally responsible Republicans, all. Fortunately, most modern-day conservatives still believe in building America. Witness the strong support last year from conservatives at all levels of government for the Transportation Equity Act, which unlocked Eisenhower's highway trust fund and allowed it to be used for its intended purpose of improving highways and transit systems. Unfortunately, some conservatives seem dedicated to breathing new life into Benjamin Disraeli's adage that ``it is much easier to be critical than to be correct.'' These critics have little inclination to deal in facts or face the reality of a growing America. They know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Some have called this ``Know-Nothing Conservatism.'' They criticize increased spending on transportation, but they do not differentiate between transportation trust-fund dollars and general tax dollars. They do not tell you that the trust fund receives money from an 18.3-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline and an 8 percent surcharge on airline tickets, all of which is designated solely to pay for our country's transportation needs. These conservative critics oppose investments by trying to discredit them. They call spending on public works in someone else's backyard a pork barrel project, but that is far from the truth. In the Transportation Equity Act, for example, only 5 percent of the money goes to Congressionally mandated projects. The rest goes to the Department of Transportation or to the states. This year, some conservatives are once again keeping their heads buried in the sand. The House overwhelmingly passed the Aviation Investment and Reform Act last month, by a vote of 316 to 110; 67 percent of Republicans--including the Speaker and the majority leader--approved this measure. But this didn't stop some conservative critics from immediately attacking the bill as ``busting the budget'' and ``fiscally irresponsible.'' Never mind that many Americans are furious over the decline in air service. Never mind that our antiquated air-traffic control system, which fails somewhere nearly every week, needs both reform and an infusion of capital investment. Never mind that the National Civil Aviation Review Commission established by our Republican Congress warns that ``the United States aviation system is headed toward gridlock shortly after the turn of the century'' and that ``it will result in a deterioration of aviation safety, harm the efficiency and growth of our domestic economy, and hurt our position in the global marketplace.'' Never mind that the money in the aviation trust fund will skyrocket to $90 billion within 10 years if we don't make the investment. Never mind that the aviation taxes would otherwise be used in smoke-and-mirrors budget gimmickry to help finance general tax cuts. Never mind the bill does not contain any projects earmarked for any specific Congressional districts. And never mind that some ``Know-Nothing'' conservatives in the media will attack this session for being a ``do nothing'' Congress. The one thing Congress is doing, over their objections, is building assets for the future of our country. Perhaps the next time they attack Government spending, they might reflect on an observation by the columnist George Will: ``Many of today's conservatives rallied 'round keeping control of the Panama Canal. But would such conservatives have built it in the first place?''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the national media has created some very false impressions about the tax cut legislation passed by the House. First, the tax cut amounts to less than 30 percent of the projected surpluses over the 10-year period of the bill. Second, in separate legislation, we have set aside more than 70 percent of the surpluses to help pay down the national debt and in a lockbox to meet future needs of Social Security and Medicare. Third, we added language that says that tax cuts will not kick in if the surpluses do not come in as projected. Fourth, this is a tax cut spread over 10 years, with the cuts during the first 5 years amounting to only 1\1/2\ percent of Federal revenues over that period. The tax cuts are very moderate, and the Republicans in the House have set aside more than 70 percent of the future surpluses for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, the average taxpayer pays almost 40 percent of his or her income in taxes now and another 10 percent in government regulatory costs that are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. One-half of everybody's income is too much. Let us give a little bit of it back.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the tax cut we will take up today is spread over 10 years. Some people say it is too big. Well, during the first 5 years, the cuts amount to about 1\1/2\ percent of total Federal revenues over that period, and the bill has about $2 billion of debt reduction, more than double the amount of tax cuts. Just this morning, I read a quote that is very appropriate as we take up our tax cut debt reduction bill today. In a book called the Coming Charitable Revolution are these words, quote, ``Governments afflict the people of the world with heavy taxation. With seeming generosity, they return to the subdued masses some of that money in social aid for which the populous will be humbly grateful, and by so doing will submit and conform, giving up a little at a time what little may be left of their freedom. Are we fools? Did our fathers fight in vain?'' The words of Claude Morency. Mr. Speaker, let us give the American people back a very small portion of their own money.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. This is a good bill. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing this bill to the floor and I thank him for yielding this time to me. This bill emphasizes local control and flexibility and will lead to many more improvements in education than if we stick with an old, outmoded, one-size-fits-all big government type of system. This bill would help ensure that more Federal education funds get into the classroom rather than into the black holes of Federal and State bureaucracies. But because of the need as just pointed out by the gentleman from Ohio about hiring teachers in the next few years, I particularly rise to urge support for an amendment that strengthens efforts toward alternative certification programs. This amendment was introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and myself. Under most State laws on certification, people like an Albert Einstein or a Winston Churchill would not be allowed to teach in our schools. People like Howard Baker and Alan Greenspan if they were willing and most Ph.D.'s could not teach in our public schools because they did not take a few education courses. It makes no sense, Mr. Chairman, to say that a college professor with many years of teaching experience and grade expertise in a field cannot teach in a public high school simply because he had not taken a few education courses. The Education Secretary of Pennsylvania, speaking of his own efforts to set up an alternative certification program said a few days ago: We also know there are talented, energetic Pennsylvanians who didn't enroll in these programs, yet have the skills and expertise to greatly enrich our classrooms. This program gives us a way to tap into these people: World-class scientists actually sharing their experience with Pennsylvania students; engineers teaching physics; private- sector statisticians teaching advanced mathematics in high school; retired executives teaching the fundamentals of business or economics; experienced college professors returning to the public school classroom. Local school boards, Mr. Chairman, should be allowed to consider a degree in education as a plus or positive factor in hiring teachers but they should not be prohibited from hiring people who have great knowledge, experience and success in a field just because they have not taken a few education courses.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this time. There was another article in the paper a few days ago that said Orange County, Virginia was having a hard time filling 12 teaching openings. Less than 7 weeks away from the opening of schools, they have not yet hired all the teachers they will need. David Baker, the Orange County Assistant Superintendent of Schools, noted that the problem was not a lack of applicants. He has received more resumes and applications than ever before. The problem is that over one-half of the applicants do not have teaching certificates. This is a nationwide problem, and one that is going to grow worse as more and more teachers retire in the next 7 or 8 years. Local school boards, Mr. Chairman, should be allowed to consider a degree in education as a plus or a positive factor in hiring teachers. But they should not be prohibited by some Federal mandate or State mandate from hiring people who have great knowledge, experience, and success in a field just because they have not taken a few education courses. Let us put the best teachers we possibly can in our classrooms, and let us pass this bill.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I certainly rise in strong support of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for their support. As I said during general debate, it makes no sense whatsoever to tell a person like an Alan Greenspan or a Howard Baker or some Ph.D. scientist or somebody who had achieved great success in some field that they could not teach in one of our schools if they were willing to do so at the culmination of their career just because they had not taken education courses. It makes no sense to tell a college professor who, maybe, had taught in some college for 20 years, because he wanted to move to a different area or because a small college had gone under that he could not teach in a public school because he had not had education courses when he had such great experience. An article a few days ago in the Washington Post had the headline, quote, Effectiveness of Teacher Certification Question. It said that a new study has shown that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the words it used, students do just as well in science under teachers with emergency or temporary certificates. The study found that students score significantly higher in math if taught by someone with a degree in math rather than one who specialized in education.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Harry Moskos, the Editor of the Knoxville News-Sentinel and a very good friend of mine, wrote an editorial today about the 25th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of the Republic of Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, today, in fact, marks the 25th anniversary of this tragic date for people of Hellenic descent all over the world. On July 20, 1974, Turkey, a member of NATO, attacked the Mediterranean island. Just recently, as we are all well aware, a Country was being ethnically cleansed, and the U.S. and other NATO powers rushed in to help them. That Country, Kosovo, was the object of several thousand NATO bombs. President Clinton authorized the air strikes in large part due to the ethnic cleansing that was taking place there. Mr. Speaker, what about the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1974 in Cyprus? Why did the United States and other countries sit back while Turkey, a member of NATO, committed atrocities in the northern portion of Cyprus? Why has the United States of America turned a blind eye to what Turkey has been doing over the years? These are questions that deserve to be answered so that Greek people throughout the world know this Country really supports them. Mr. Speaker, 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 Record. [From the Knoxville News-Sentinel, July 20, 1999] 25 Years of Occupation: U.S. Should End Its Tolerance for Turkey's Illegal Hold on Cyprus Today marks the 25th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of the Republic of Cyprus. Since then, Turkey has illegally occupied the northern third of the island nation, roughly the size of Connecticut, despite United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for a return to a single sovereignty. This anniversary is particularly poignant because, as U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware observes, it has been ``an entire quarter-century since the Greek inhabitants of northern Cyprus were ethnically cleansed from their homes by the Turkish army.'' The attack by the Turkish army on July 20, 1974, was a clear-cut case of international aggression by one state against another, and tragically, it was committed by a NATO member. That is the same NATO that is undertaking missions to reverse ethnic cleansing in Kosovo but allows one of its members to continue to commit this crime with impunity. The framework for a negotiated settlement to resolve the Cyprus issue, including demilitarization of the island, can be found in two resolutions adopted last December by the United Nations Security Council. The resolutions seek a settlement based on a single sovereignty and a single citizenship, with Cyprus' independence and territorial integrity safeguarded. While images of ethnic cleansing remained vivid in our thoughts from witnessing the recent atrocities of Kosovo, most Americans have long forgotten that 200,000 Greek Cypriots were evicted from their homes by the Turkish army during July and August of 1974. These atrocities, documented by the European Commission of Human Rights, show that 1,618 people, including four Americans, disappeared. To this date, their fate has not been ascertained. Thousands were expelled from their homes, and untold women fell victim to rape. Sound familiar? The sad difference is that the world community practices selected intolerance when addressing wrongs. NATO's actions in Kosovo centered on the premise of respect for human rights, including the return of refugees to their homes. Cyprus today remains forcibly divided. Although compromises have been offered, Turkey has failed to respond and, in effect, keeps moving the goal posts when efforts to end this stalemate are proposed. The Cyprus problem is one of aggression caused by Turkey, which now has a standing army in Cyprus that exceeds 35,000 troops armed with hundreds of tanks and other sophisticated weapons supported by American dollars. The United Nations has characterized the Turkish-occupied area of Cyprus as one of the most densely militarized zones in the world. More stability is needed in the world today. A major way to help achieve the stability is to resolve the issue in Cyprus, an island nation well on its way to becoming a full member of the European Union. Serb forces, under international pressure, have left Kosovo, and an international force is there to safeguard the return of the refugees. No less should be done for Cyprus. Turkish occupation troops should be withdrawn, the National Guard disbanded and an international force established to assure compliance. In Kosovo, NATO took military action to challenge aggression. In Cyprus, it has looked the other way. Turkey, as a member of NATO and a European Union aspirant, must be held to the highest standards of compliance with international law. This is not a call for military action to reverse Turkey's hold on Cyprus. It is a call for the United States to end its toleration of Turkey's illegal behavior. The tragedy of just observing this 25th anniversary should be reason enough to spark the United States to get involved decisively to resolve the problem of Cyprus through forceful negotiation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full time, but let me just read from one report concerning our growth in the national forests. Tree growth in national forests exceeds current harvest by over 600 percent. National forests are growing more than 23 billion board feet of wood annually while 6 billion board feet die each year from insects, disease, fire, and other causes. Less than 3 billion board feet is harvested each year. Mr. Chairman, that is an important figure. I know if some people went into some of the schools where the children are not hearing the full story but are told that we are cutting 2.5 billion or 3 billion board feet of wood in our national forests each year they would probably think that is a horrible thing. But they are not told that there is 23 billion board feet of new growth each year and less than 3 billion are going to be cut. In the early 1980s, the Congress passed what was thought of then as an environmental law, that we would not exceed cutting 80 percent of the new growth in our national forests. Now we are cutting less than one-seventh of the new growth in our national forests. We are not even cutting half of the amount of wood that is dying in the national forests each year. Mr. Chairman, if we want to build homes, if we want to have newspapers and magazines and every paper product imaginable, we have got to cut some trees. If we want to have healthy forests, we have got to cut some trees, and this amendment goes to an extreme position. This is really a very radical amendment to reduce this any further. And the National Association of Home Builders has produced a very strong letter against this amendment yesterday. I repeat, if we are going to have a good economy, if we are going to have the type of life that people want to have and the good standard of living that we have, we have got to cut a few trees. We have approximately 200 million acres in national forests and 500 million acres in private forests. But to go from 23 billion board feet of new growth and cut less than 3 billion board feet is getting pretty ridiculous. Very few people in this Congress have voted for more amendments to save money than I have, and I used to vote for amendments like this. But this is going too far, and we need to defeat this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlelady from New Jersey for all of her hard work on this legislation and her efforts on this amendment. I would also like to discuss another accounting related matter. I have been informed by a constituent that the Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASB) may propose a rule eliminating an accounting practice known as ``pooling''. Pooling is an accounting method used when two companies merge to become one. In a pooling, the acquiring and acquired companies simply combine their financial statements. I believe it is important that this issue be discussed publicly before any final rule is implemented. In addition, it is my understanding that in the past the Federal Accounting Standards Board has not always sought adequate input from the accounting or banking communities on proposed changes in regulations. I would like to thank the chairwoman for her efforts on the pending amendment. I would also appreciate it if she would keep this in mind when the conference committee meets so that we include language either in this bill or future legislation to ensure that this process is an open and fair one. I thank the gentlelady for her time and attention to this matter.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the most respected living Tennessean is former Senator Howard Baker. He had a very distinguished career in the Senate, having served 18 years. He also served 2 years as President Ronald Reagan's Chief of Staff. He is a very successful lawyer in private practice in both Knoxville, TN, and Washington, DC. Mr. Speaker, recently Senator Baker was asked to give the commencement address at the University of Virginia. I have attached a copy of his remarks that I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. ``WHAT WILL BE'' It is a great honor to have been asked to be here today for what may be the most important day of your lives thus far. I congratulate you on your academic success. I commend the administration and faculty of this great university for educating you so splendidly. And I rejoice with your parents in their newly found economic freedom. Recognizing that I am all that stands between you and your diplomas, I promise first of all to follow Winston Churchill's famous advice on public speaking: ``Be sincere. Be brief. Be seated.'' In thinking about these remarks, two books I read recently came to mind--one about the past and the other about the future. Robert Lacey's The Year 1000 tells about life in England at the turn of the last millennium. In those ancient days, life was different. It was a silent world, free of the noise of machinery or media and pungent with the aromas of nature. People worked hard, with their hands, and solved riddles for amusement. Theirs was a world of small villages and few people, and last names were just beginning to be used to distinguish one John or Elizabeth from another. They spoke Englisc, a precursor to our own English language, which had already proven its remarkable adaptability, simplicity and poetry. (In this age of Jerry Springer, it is interesting to note that there were no curse words in Englisc. One could swear to something but not at anyone.) They put hot lances on sores, and they used leeeches to draw disease from their bodies in deadly torrents of blood. Their scholarship consisted of copying the ancient texts of Greece and Rome. They clung to some of the pagan superstitions of their recent ancestors, but they had converted thoroughly to Christianity, and they kept faith with the one true church in Rome. They knew they were living at the end of the first millennium, and this knowledge filled them with dread. This had nothing to do with Y1K computer glitches. The people of tenth-century ``Engla-lond'' were sure that the Devil was about to be released upon the earth after a thousand years of confinement, as the Bible's Book of Revelation foretold. They worried, more generally, about the future itself. A tenth-century Old English poem, entitled ``The Fortunes of Men,'' offers a variety of possible fates but leaves open the question of how each life will evolve. For the young men and women at the end of the 10th century, as of the 20th, the question of ``what will be'' dominated all others. And just as the first millennium was about to pass, there appeared on the scene a remarkable invention. It was the abacus, the tenth century's version of a computer, and it would change everything in the next thousand years. The centrality of such ingenious tools to human progress is the thesis of another book that came to mind in preparation for today. It is a remarkable little volume called The Sun, The Genome and The Internet, in which the author, Freeman J. Dyson of Princeton, argues that three new practical tools will yield similarly extraordinary changes in the life you will live in decades to come. Dr. Dyson suggests that solar power perhaps, will finally end our dependence on the thermodynamic cycle. He predicts that the mapping of the human genome, now well underway, will yield medical knowledge and practices so sophisticated as to make our present-day surgeries seem as barbaric as leeching and hot lances seem to us today. And he sees in the Internet the ultimate democracy of knowledge, spreading inexorably to the remotest village on Earth with stunning consequences for us all. If what Dyson foresees is true, you may look back fifty years from now on your world of 1999 as impossibly quaint and primitive, at least technologically. But if he is wrong, you may long for the world you see around you on this golden Virginia day. What will be? Will you save the world from environmental degradation, or will global warming wash you away? Will you thrive in a professional world that rewards enterprise and courage, or will you be ground down in a working world that consumes all your time and steals your soul? Will you live in a social world that truly values the content of one's character over the color of one's skin, or will you be mired in an unhappy world of grievance and anger? Will you live in a political world that prizes civility and common achievement, or in a world where the quest for ideological purity or partisan advantage renders public service intolerable? Will you live in a moral world that recognizes and honors clear standards of right and wrong, or in the swamp of situational ethics? Or will you, like every generation before you, muddle through between these extremes as best you can? The temptation will be strong in your lives to be mesmerized by the extraordinary things that will happen in your external world. Most of you will live a very long time. If the demographers and scientists are right, many of you will live to be a 100 years old. In the span of my life, we have gone from Lindbergh's solo flight across the Atlantic to putting men on the moon. We have gone from crude crystal radio sets to television to the internet. We have gone from summers filled with fear of contracting polio to the eradication of that scourge and many other diseases from the face of the earth. Your generation will do a great deal more. You may ultimately consider space travel routine. Colonies on the moon are will within your reach. And there will be much more progress, many more practical tools, in your time than any generation, more than can even be imagined. But I would urge you not to neglect the internal like--the life of the mind, the heart, the soul--that is the ultimate standard for measuring human progress. Each of you has an opportunity--and, I would suggest, a responsibility--to improve our culture, expand our knowledge, enrich our economy, strengthen our family, care for the outcast, comfort the afflicted, and fulfill the promise of humanity touched with divinity. By these measures, we find ourselves today in some ways exactly where we were at the beginning of this century, if not this millennium. Now, as in the early 1900s, we are worried about Serbia. Now, as then, we are concerned about senseless acts of violence. Now, as with the people in the English village in the year 1000, we are helpless against the awesome force of nature. Progress is inevitable, but problems, particularly problems between people--can be stubborn, intractable things. On this wonderful spring day, you will be excused for only seeing clear blue skies and limitless possibilities. As it happens, this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of my own graduation from the University of Tennessee, in the State next door. In those years, I suffered defeat and frustration in generous measure before success began to smile on me. The world in which I lived experienced economic depression, a world war, a Cold War, racial hatred and violence, terrorism and all manner of evils on its way to the prosperity, peach and social progress that embrace you today. In my lifetime, it has often seemed as though the devil really was let loose on the world, and our job was to chain him up again. My point is this: hopeful as you are today, as full of promise and potential and learning and achievement as you are today, life has a way of mocking your hopes and frustrating your dreams. The secret to success in life is not giving up when this happens, as it inevitably will. The great glory of the American people is not that we have prospered without challenge, but that we have prospered through challenge. That is your heritage, and this is the sturdy foundation on which you stand today. You are promising young men and women who have made your parents, your siblings your friends, and even the faculty of this great university enormously proud of you. An extraordinary new world beckons you, and a few ancient miseries still beg you for relief. You are like Mr. Jefferson's Crops of Discovery, a small intrepid band venturing into the unknown, as well prepared as you can be but with no reliable map to guide you through the undiscovered country that is the future. Congratulations, and may you live of success, service, and grace. God bless you all.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a business in my District for its outstanding customer service. Recently, Century 21 Robinson Realty, Inc. was honored by the Century 21 Real Estate Corporation with its Quality Service Pinnacle Award. The Pinnacle Award is given only to those Century 21 offices that deliver the best in consistent quality service at the highest level. Century 21 Robinson Realty, Inc. certainly fits this criteria. Additionally, on June 29, 1999, the Daily Post-Athenian announced that Century 21 Robinson Realty was named as the ``Best Real Estate Firm'' in its ``People's Choice'' survey. This survey was placed in the DPA for readers to choose their favorite in a number of different categories. Charles Robinson, founder and principal broker of Robinson Realty, has been involved in the real estate industry for over 30 years. He is a respected businessman in the Athens community and has helped countless families realize the ``American Dream'' of homeownership. Robinson Realty affiliated with the Century 21 Real Estate Corporation in 1977, and has been recognized with numerous awards over the years. Mr. Speaker, Century 21 Robinson Realty, Inc. is truly a family business. Charles and Linda Robinson work together with their son, General Manager Mike Robinson and daughter, Office Coordinator Paula Robinson Scarbrough. The Robinson family in Athens is synonymous with the real estate business. I am especially proud customer service is the number one priority at Century 21 Robinson Realty. For the past six years, Robinson Realty has earned the prestigious Quality Service Award. This fact says a great deal about the professional real estate agents that make up Robinson Realty. Robinson Realty has combined real estate experience totalling almost 200 years. There are not many businesses that can offer their customers so much experience. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Robinson Family on this important occasion. I would also like to congratulate the professional agents that make up the Robinson Realty ``Gold Team.'' They are: Barbara Reed, Peggy Hallenberg, Charlie Simpson, LuAnne Vaughan, Diana Girand, Phyllis Maxwell-Day, Alma Sliger, Emma Lee Tennyson, Judy Keen, Sarah Pointer, LaVerne Tuell and Vickie Peeler. Charles Robinson would be the first to tell you that without these professionals, Robinson Realty would not be successful. I am proud to have such a fine business as a part of my District. Mr. Speaker, I have included a copy of a story that ran in the Daily Post-Athenian that honors Century 21 Robinson Realty and would like to call it to the attention of my fellow members and other readers of the Record. Local Real Estate Firm Honored By Century 21 Century 21 Real Estate Corporation, franchiser of the world's largest residential real estate organization, has announced that Century 21 Robinson Realty, Inc., is the recipient of the Quality Service Pinnacle Award. The Quality Service Pinnacle Award recognizes Century 21 offices that deliver the best in consistent quality service at the highest level. To qualify, an office must earn a Quality Service Award in the current year, return a minimum of 50 completed Quality Service surveys during the past two years and meet or exceed the minimum Quality Service Index on the number of surveys returned during the last two years. ``We are thrilled to recognize the work of Century 21 Robinson Realty, Inc., for this significant achievement,'' said Van Davis, senior vice president, Franchise and Field Services, Century 21 Real Estate Corporation. The Century 21 system commended the dedication, professionalism and commitment to quality service exemplified by Century 21 Robinson Realty, Inc., a news release stated. Also recognized at the annual awards banquet were several sales associates for their yearly sales commission totals in the Top Producer category. This year's winners were Diana Girand, Peggy Hallenberg, Judy Keen and Charlie Simpson. The Century 21 Robinson Realty office was also awarded the Top Producing office in the Chattanooga marketing area for units sold and commissions received. Century 21 Robinson Realty, Inc., has more than 30 years of experience in the real estate industry and has been affiliated with the Century 21 system for 23 years.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to briefly mention three unrelated topics of national importance. First, the headlines this morning say that we will now have a surplus that is $1 trillion larger than we thought it was going to be over the next 15 years. This is the direct result of the Congress changing hands after the 1994 elections and becoming much more fiscally conservative. We should all be pleased about this. I remember in late 1993 or early 1994 when Alice Rivlin, who was then the President's director of the Office of Management and Budget, put out a shocking memo. She predicted then that we would have deficits, yearly losses, of over $1 trillion by the year 2010, and between $4 trillion and $5 trillion a year by 2030 if major changes were not made. If we had allowed that to happen, our economy would have been devastated. Our children, who would have then been in the primes of their lives by 2030, would not have been able to buy homes or cars or almost anything else, as is the case today in many countries around the world. So we have made remarkable fiscal progress over the last 4 or 5 years. A word of caution is necessary. We are still almost $6 trillion in debt. This still leaves us on very thin ice economically, but making good progress. Yet from what everyone up here is saying, people are starting to promise everything to everybody. I simply rise tonight to say that I hope we will not spend this money before we get it. The best economists in the world cannot tell us with absolute certainty where the stock market and the economy will be 1 or 2 years from now. Yet, we are already gleefully celebrating and making major spending plans based on money we hope to get 15 years from now. We will get it if we remain fiscally conservative, but I say again, very simply, let us not spend it before we get it. If we do, we will do much more harm than good. Secondly, at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health this afternoon, it was brought out once again that we are now growing about 23 billion board feet of new trees and timber each year in our national forests. Yet we are allowing only 3 billion board feet, or only one-seventh of the new growth, to be cut. There is about 6 billion board feet of dead or dying trees and timber in the national forests. In other words, we are allowing trees to be cut at only half the number that are dead or dying. In addition, it was brought out that there are 500 million acres of forest land in the United States which are not in the national forests. This is an amount of land equal to about 900 Great Smoky Mountain National Parks. People look at a map of this country on one small page in a book and they simply do not realize how big this Nation is. Yet there are environmental extremists who just do not want us to cut any trees. If we are going to have healthy forests, we have to cut some trees. If we are going to have reasonably priced homes, books, toilet paper, newspapers, magazines, we have to cut some trees. And as shocking as it may to some who have heard only one side of propaganda from these environmental extremists, when we are growing 23 billion board feet each year in our national forests and cutting only 3 billion. We should cut much more so that our forests can be healthier and so that prices can be lower on almost everything. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to read on the front page of yesterday's Washington Times that many States are now moving away from the metric system. I am pleased that we gave the States some flexibility on this in last year's highway bill. This was something the Federal Government and a few powerful liberal elitists tried to force on us, but the American people never accepted the metric system. Unfortunately, this has cost our government at all levels and business many billions of dollars. There was never a good reason to go to the metric system in this country. We have made this very expensive effort only because it would be helpful to a few large multinational corporations and because some people unfortunately think that anything that is done in most of the rest of the world should automatically be done here. Yet for most of this Nation's history, Americans were not afraid to be a little bit different, a little bit unique, a little bit special. I hope the Federal Government and all the State governments will be responsive to our own citizens for once and end this expensive and elitist effort to force an unnecessary metric system down on us. Let me add, Mr. Speaker, one other thing, just because of the vote, the defeat, we had on this national day of prayer bill that we just had in this body. William Raspberry, the great columnist for The Washington Post, wrote several years ago, he said, is it not just possible that anti-religious bias masquerading as religious neutrality has cost this Nation far more than we have been willing to acknowledge? A very good statement by William Raspberry, a very good question for all Americans to ask: 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?

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, right after the Columbine shootings I mentioned as one of the many causes of some of these problems the fact that many of our high schools are simply too big. We have done a good job in getting class sizes down, but we made a bad mistake going from small neighborhood or community-based high schools to centralized, consolidated mega-sized high schools. Columbine had almost 2,000 students. Most young people can handle this, but some feel they have to resort to weird or sometimes even dangerous behavior to get noticed or get attention in a school where they are little more than a number. In a small school, a young person has a better chance of making a team or being a leader in a club or a cheerleader or being elected to the student council or standing out in some positive way. I wish we did not have to have a high school of more than 500 students. Young people will be much better off going to a smaller school even if they had to go into an older building or where fewer courses were offered. Bill Kauffman, writing in the new issue of Chronicles Magazine has some very interesting comments concerning the need for smaller schools and the shootings in Colorado, and this is a very lengthy quote, but I think it is worth listening to. Writing about our mobile and anonymous society he said, ``Harris was an Army brat, spawn of a bizarre subculture that prizes rootlessness and places transience next to godliness. He grew up on a series of Socialist reservations. The family's final move was from Plattsburgh, New York, to Littleton, 2,000 miles distant. There he became just another brick in the wall of the inhumanly large Columbine High, whose 1,950 students were connected by a web so attenuated that dozens might fall through the cracks without the principal even knowing their names. ``Impersonal education factories like Columbine were a domestic innovation of the Cold War. The consolidation of small and rural schools into centralized warehouses was given its greatest push by Harvard President James B. Conant, who, subsidized by the Carnegie Corporation, produced a series of postwar reports arguing for the `elimination of the small high school.' Mr. Kaufman continued, ``According to Conant, defenders of human- scale education were still living in a dream world which knew neither nuclear weapons nor Soviet imperialism. They believe they can live and prosper in an isolated, insulated United States.'' Conant, the barbarian, triumphed: The number of school districts plummeted from 83,000 in 1950 to 18,000 in 1970. Mr. Kaufman said, ``Brutish kids will always make fun of others, but in a small school, parents or other adults have a fighting chance to enforce at least a minimal code of respect. And children in small, settled communities grow up with each other; by high school they almost certainly will have been to each other's homes and birthday parties and been on each other's ball clubs. Each student is essential to the small rural or neighborhood school; sports teams and the school play and a handful of clubs, 4-H rather than a model U.N., depend upon widespread participation. In a stable, which is to say blessedly immobile, community, kids know one another, and while to know Eric and Dylan may not have been to love them, the ties of human sympathy and lifelong friendship with at least some of their classmates might have braked the homicidal slide.'' So, Mr. Speaker, I would say again, we need to go back to smaller high schools, even if in older buildings or even with fewer courses. Let me mention one other thing, Mr. Speaker. Insight Magazine, a publication of the Washington Times, had a cover story a few days ago which said, almost all of these school shootings over the last 2 or 3 years have been done by young people who were taking or had recently taken very strong, mood-altering drugs such as Ritalin or Prozac. I remember another article in the Knoxville News-Sentinel, which said we were prescribing Ritalin in the United States at six times the rate of any other industrialized Nation. This article quoted a former top official of the DEA who said Ritalin had the same properties as cocaine and some of the strongest illegal narcotics. One study I heard about said Ritalin was most often taken by young boys who had both parents working full time. I know some of this may be necessary, but I question whether we need it at six times the rate of other industrialized nations. Some of it may be essential, but some of these children may be just boys crying out for more attention. We certainly should not be turning our children into drug addicts. To sum up, Mr. Speaker, we need smaller schools and fewer drugs and more time and attention for our children.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, this week, Knoxville is losing a wonderful spiritual and community leader who has devoted many years to our community. After serving thirteen years, Rabbi Howard Simon is retiring from the oldest Jewish Congregation in East Tennessee, Temple Beth El, founded in 1864. Rabbi Simon received his Bachelor of Hebrew Letters degree from Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion in 1960, a masters of Hebrew Letters along with his rabbinic ordination in 1963 and a doctor of divinity in 1988. Rabbi Simon has served on the board of directors of the United Way, Leadership Knoxville, the Knox County Mental Health Association and the executive committee of the Knoxville Jewish Federation. He is also a member of the Knoxville Ministerial Alliance and the ministerial board for East Tennessee Children's Hospital. Rabbi Simon has also been honored by the National Conference of Christians and Jews for his dedication and service to the community. Before coming to Temple Beth El, Rabbi Simon served as rabbi at Har Sinai Temple in Baltimore; Beth Israel Congregation in Atlantic City, N.J., and K.K. Bene Israel Rockdale Temple in Cincinnati, Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Simon has been a tremendous spiritual leader in our Nation, but I would like to highlight one of his accomplishments that I am especially proud of. Rabbi Simon had a huge impact on the creation of the Interfaith Health Clinic in Knoxville. This clinic provides medical services for those who otherwise would not be able to afford proper medical care. I believe this says a tremendous amount about Rabbi Howard Simon. Mr. Speaker, I know that I join with all Americans in thanking Rabbi Simon for his service to Temple Beth El and the Knoxville community for the past thirteen years. I have included a copy of a story written in the Knoxville News-Sentinel honoring Rabbi Simon that I would like to call to the attention of my fellow members and other readers of the Record. [From the Knoxville News-Sentinel, June 12, 1999] Time for New Chapter to Begin--Rabbi Howard Simon looks ahead to retirement (By Jeannine F. Hunter) Rabbi Howard Alan Simon greets people as if they shared many moments of tears and cheers together. He embraces one with a firm grip and an engaging smile. To him, they are family. For 13 years, he served as spiritual leader at Temple Beth El, East Tennessee's oldest Jewish congregation. The Jewish Reform congregation was established in 1864 and became a member of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations 11 years later. Members are like siblings, calling upon one another and adhering to Simon's open door policy. ``And people waltz in all the time, which is nice,'' he said, in his nearly empty office. ``We've shared so much together.'' Friday, June 25, marks the beginning of Simon's last weekend at the temple. He will retire from the temple, ending his 36-year rabbinic career. During a recent visit, Simon and his wife, retired educator Rona Simon, discussed Simon's rabbinate, their philosophy on teaching and humanity, and their retirement plans. As the pair talked about their time at Temple Beth El, they smiled frequently. ``The people have been so warm. We have a loving, warm congregation,'' Rona Simon said. Howard Simon agreed. Simon will be replaced by Rabbi Beth L. Schwartz, the temple's first woman rabbi. Schwartz is a newly ordained graduate of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, where Simon also was ordained. Her work experience includes being an academic adviser at George Mason University; a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of Education; a senior business analyst for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. in McLean, Va., and a book buyer. Schwartz assumes leadership of Temple Beth El on July 1. She is married to Larry Washington, and they have two adult children. ``I told the congregation I feel the best years at Temple Beth El are ahead of them,'' Simon said. ``It's difficult to leave. It has been wonderful for us.'' After 10 years as director of education at the temple, Rona Simon retired in 1998. In May, she retired from her private practice as an educational consultant, specializing in learning disabilities. The temple's school grew from 36 to 120 children during their tenure. ``The focus of my attention the first few years of being here was our religious school, seeing it grow in numbers and enhancing its curriculum,'' he said. Howard Simon said another goal of his administration was to create a familial atmosphere so that the membership interacted with each other in a variety of ways. Outreach and adult education were also emphasized. ``We learned more and more people want the temple, and they want it to be a focal point of their lives,'' Simon said. Simon, the only rabbi in his family, said his experiences at his home temple in Colorado and subsequent leadership roles at a youth camp influenced him. ``Teaching the kids Judaism, I loved the interaction we had with the children,'' he said, adding in college he initially wanted to study law. Throughout his rabbinate he has met officials from former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He was among the first religious leaders to spearhead the creation of Knoxville's Interfaith Health Clinic in 1991. He has served as chairman of the clinic's board of directors. He cited it as one of his most important endeavors. ''I am proud to have been a part of the group that brought this into being,'' he said. When commenting about service, Simon used a Hebrew term which means ``repair the world,'' a Judaic belief. ''We're supposed to, as individuals, try to make the world a better place,'' he said. ``Part of my rabbinic is to be committed to the community we live in. We do not live in a vacuum. Fortunately I had a congregation that agreed with that and supported me.'' Simon, a humanitarian and scholar, also is an author. He has a book of poetry, ``Back from the Abyss: Thoughts on Life and Death'' and looks forward to completing other works, one on his experiences as a rabbi in New Jersey, before and after gambling was legalized in Atlantic City. One book may be about retirement: How to plan for it and how to respond to the emotions it may evoke. ``You need to be active,'' he said. ``Also you need to have a realization that retirement is not a lowering of your self- esteem but an opening of a new chapter in your life.'' Rona Simon added, ``It's a new beginning.'' In their new beginning, the Simons will reduce but not eliminate all of their civic commitments. They want to spend more time with each other, their children and three grandchildren. A few of their road trips will be to away Lady Vols basketball games. When the Lady Vols basketball team's schedule is released, the Simons, who are perennial ticket holders, have a planning meeting. ``She tells me to block those nights out so I try not to have meetings,'' says Simon. ``At this point, the ideal job for me would be the team's chaplain.'' He laughed. ``They have done so much for Knoxville and are excellent role models,'' Rona Simon said. ``They are role models not because they win but because they inspire young people and are committed to various causes.'' A special Shabbat service, prepared by Simon, on June 25 will be followed by a special oneg Shabbat to honor Simon at the temple. On Saturday, June 26, there will be a program beginning at 7:30 p.m. that will also celebrate the 80th birthday of temple member Millie Gelber. At 6:30 p.m. Sunday, June 27, there will be a special dinner honoring Simon's 36 years of service to Reform Judaism and his 13 years at the temple. It will be at the Hyatt and will feature a toast and a roast of Simon by his relatives and friends. At a glance: Rabbi Howard Simon Born in Davenport, Iowa, and moved to Denver, Colo. He graduated from Colorado University in 1958. Bachelor of Hebrew Letters degree from Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion in 1960; master of Hebrew Letters and rabbinic ordination both in 1963; and doctor of divinity in 1968. Temple Beth El is Simon's fourth congregation. Also served as rabbi at Har Sinai Temple in Baltimore; Beth Israel Congregation in Atlantic City, N.J.; and K.K. Bene Israel Rockdale Temple in Cincinnati. Samuel Neustadter Memorial Award for Service to the state of Israel, 1977. Rabbinic Services Award from the Council of Jewish Federation, 1989. Participated in study mission to Poland and to the Soviet Union. Was scholar in residence at the Sam and Esther Rosen Institute in Knoxville; adjunct professor at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion from 1981-86; taught at Xavier College and Hiwassee College. National affiliations: Union of American Hebrew Congregations' Committee on Judaism and Health and its Committee on Cults and Missionary Movements; National Rabbinic Cabinet of United Jewish Appeal. Local affiliations: Board of directors for the Interfaith Health Clinic, the United Way, Leadership Knoxville; the Knox County Mental Health Association; executive committee of the Knoxville Jewish Federation. In 1996, became a UT Chancellor's Associate, one of several Knoxville-area community leaders who advised Chancellor Bill Snyder and his staff on community issues. Members of Knoxville Ministerial Alliance, the Knox County Steering Committee for the Tennessee Bicentennial Celebration, the Metropolitan Drug Commission's Faith Committee and the ministerial board for East Tennessee Children's Hospital. Chair of Leadership Knoxville Class of 2000's selection committee. Awards include National Conference of Christians and Jews, now known as the National Conference for Community and Justice and the American Organization for Rehabilitation through Training Federation based in Israel.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order and state that I have no objection to this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, one of my constituents, Ernest Chase, of Englewood, Tennessee, has just sent me a cartoon showing two students standing outside of Columbine High School. The drawing shows a young girl saying, ``Why didn't God stop the shooting?'' A young boy then replies, ``How could he? He's not allowed in school anymore.'' I know that God is everywhere and omnipresent. So I realize the cartoon is not theologically correct. However, it does make a very important point. I know that this Congress will not put prayer and Bible reading back in the schools, but I believe we should. The problems of our children and our schools have grown much worse since we took prayer and Bible reading out. I know that when we had prayer and Bible reading in the schools, most kids did not pay attention and were probably thinking about other things. But one could never know which young people had come to school hurting that morning, due to a family squabble, a health problem, loss of a loved one, or something else. One could never know when a student who was hurting inside might be comforted or helped, even if in a small way, by some prayer or some Bible verse. I know that some people say that prayer and Bible reading are the responsibilities of the family and the home, and I agree with that. But I also think it is a responsibility of the schools and society to teach and encourage good morals and values and ethics. As a popular phrase today says, character counts, and this should be taught in the schools. George Washington once said, ``You cannot have good government without morality. You cannot have morality without religion; and you cannot have religion without God.'' We open up every session of this House and the Senate with prayer, and this has never been a problem. We have Catholic Priests, Protestant Ministers, Jewish Rabbis, and others lead us in prayer, and I do not think there has ever been a complaint. But we do not allow our schools to have the same privilege. Some people say or think we cannot have prayer in public schools because one cannot mix church and State. Well, these words and even this idea are not mentioned in the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers came here to get freedom of religion, not freedom from religion; and there is a big, big difference. In 1952, our U.S. Supreme Court 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.'' Let me repeat that. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1952, in 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.'' Yet, this is exactly what government has done over the last 35 or 40 years. William Raspberry, the great columnist of the Washington Post, wrote a few years ago, ``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?'' That is such a good question. Let me repeat it. William Raspberry said, ``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?'' He then told of something that Dennis Prager, a Jewish talk show host, once said on one of his shows. He said, ``if you were walking down the street of one of our Nation's largest cities late one night, in a high crime area, and you heard footsteps approaching rapidly from behind, and you turned and saw four well-built young men coming toward you, would you not feel relieved to learn that these young men were coming home from a Bible study.'' Today, most public high schools believe they cannot even allow nondenominational prayers at high school graduations. We have come too far down the wrong road, and we need to do better, much better for the sake of our children. Prayer and Bible reading helped many children and never hurt anyone. It sent a message, even to young people who may not have been helped at the time, that there was a higher power to turn to when times got tough, as they do for all of us. To those who say we should not try to impose morality on others, listen to the words of Judge Robert Bork in his book ``Slouching Towards Gomorrah'': ``Modern liberals try to frighten Americans by saying that religious conservatives `want to impose their morality on others.' That is palpable foolishness. All participants in politics want to `impose' on others as much of their morality as possible, and no group is more insistent than liberals.'' If we do not instill good morals and values and ethics of the Bible, then we will, by default, be teaching the bad morals found in our modern day obscene and violent movies, video games, the Internet, and in Godless classrooms. We need to restore prayer and Bible reading to the schools of this Nation. It certainly would not solve all of our problems, but it would help.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, our ``victory'' in Yugoslavia has given us the right to spend $30 to $50 billion over the next several years to rebuild what our bombs destroyed. And, of course, our troops will get to stay there for years, at tremendous expense to our taxpayers. Already General Clarke is saying he needs thousands more of our soldiers. And what did we achieve? Columnist Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe said, ``The Yugoslav war, fought so as to minimize NATO's casualties, maximized the suffering of the people it was meant to help.'' Columnist Linda Bowles said, ``Almost all the ethnic cleansing occurred after the effort to rescue them began. More than 1 million refugees were driven from their homes. Perhaps the greatest price we will pay is to live in a world in which more nations and people hate, fear, and distrust America than at any other time in our history.'' Columnist Charles Krauthammer said by the President's own standard, ``The war was lost, irretrievably, catastrophically lost, in the first week.'' Mr. Speaker, the President is on a victory tour, but I do not see many Americans celebrating. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the complete article I referred to above by Charles Krauthammer: [From the Boston Globe, June 11, 1999] Defining Victory Down (By Charles Krauthammer) The papers are signed. The troops are moving in. Victory. Victory? On the eve of the Kosovo war, the president of the United States declares the objective: ``To protect thousands of innocent people in Kosovo from a mounting military offensive.'' This would be done in one of two ways. We would deter Serbia from ``ethnically cleansing'' Kosovo or, failing that, we would physically--militarily--destroy Serbia's ability to do so. By Clinton's own standard, the war was lost--irretrievably, catastrophically lost--in the first week. NATO launched a campaign at once anemic and tentative, a campaign of bombing empty buildings. Slobodan Milosevic responded with the most massive ethnic cleansing in Europe since World War II. Now 11 weeks and a million refugees later, there is an agreement that permits a return to the status quo ante. Well, not quite: It will be a partial and imperfect return, given that many Kosovars are dead and many will not want to return. Moreover, what they are returning to is not Kosovo, but a wasteland that was Kosovo. This is not victory. This is defining victory down. It did not have to be this way. After all, Milosevic finally agreed to a partial undoing of his ethnic cleansing only when NATO attacks on his civilian infrastructure became intolerable. Why, then, did we not turn out the lights in Belgrade on Day One? Two weeks into the war, I wrote, noting the obvious, that ``the only possible way out of this war short of abject defeat'' was an air campaign of ``seriousness''--hitting ``power plants, fuel depots, bridges,'' the kind of war that actually kills combatants and inevitably civilians but that so debilitates the enemy nation as to bring it to a halt--and to the negotiating table. Historians will puzzle over why Clinton and Blair and Schroeder and the rest did not do this until after Kosovo had been wiped nearly clean of Albanians. But it is no puzzle: Clinton thought that military minimalism--so congenial to the ex- and current pacifists in his coalition--was a win-win proposition for him. Either Milosevic would fold in the face of a demonstration war or, if he did not, Clinton could do exactly what he had done after his little pre-impeachment three-day war on Iraq: take to TV, offer a gaudy list of targets hit, declare victory and go home. What he had not counted on was Milosevic's public exposure of such a fraud. In Iraq, Clinton could pinprick and declare victory because there were no cameras to record his failure-- nuclear and chemical weapons are being developed by Saddam unmolested, but for now unseen. In Kosovo, on the other hand, a million refugees parade before the cameras of the world. Not even Clinton could spin his way out of that defeat by calling it victory. So the air war went on, finally got serious, and now we have something that is being called victory. But the supposed instrument of Serb surrender, the U.N. Security Council resolution codifying the cease-fire conditions, is riddled with ambiguities. The central point throughout the conflict has always been who will run Kosovo after Serb forces leave. The governing Security Council resolution authorizes an international security presence with ``substantial'' NATO participation. The command structure is not spelled out, and the Russians insist that their troops will not be under NATO command. If they are not, will they have their own occupation zone that will effectively partition Kosovo? More muddle: Serbia is allowed a presence at the re-entry points for the refugees. Will that scare away the refugees? We don't know. And who is going to ``demilitarize'' the Kosovo Liberation Army? I am not objecting to these compromises--they are the necessary accommodations to end an extraordinarily ill- conceived war. What I do object to is spinning it into a triumph. If this is such a triumph, does anyone imagine that we will ever repeat such an adventure? And the final irony: Even if all the ambiguities are answered in NATO's favor, even if the Yugoslavs comply with every detail of the military agreement signed with NATO on Wednesday, what are we left with? The prize for victory: The United States and its allies are permitted to interpose their soldiers between mortal enemies in a continuing Balkan guerrilla war. For years.