Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. By any objective standard, the goals of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, not of NATO and the United States, have been achieved. We have not defeated evil or hatred in the Balkans. It will come back, as it always has. William Ratliff and David Openheimer, writing in the Washington Times, said, NATO's bombing 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 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. Now people are already telling us we will have to spend $30 billion to $50 billion over the next few years to rebuild what we have destroyed. This stupid, one-sided, cruel joke of a war was a foreign policy disaster that American taxpayers will be paying for in both military and economic terms for many years to come. It certainly cannot be called a victory in any shape, form or fashion. [From the Washington Times, June 14, 1999] Perilous Precedent in Kosovo (By William Ratliff and David Oppenheimer) The resolution that passed United Nations Security Council Thursday is a welcome if short-term escape from a catastrophe NATO created in unintended cooperation with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Some of the settlement can never be implemented and much of the collateral damage the war has caused will be difficult or impossible to reverse. Mr. Milosevic undoubtedly is a war criminal whose crimes have been widely reported. But NATO is seriously guilty as well. Indeed, NATO's conduct precipitated or committed far greater moral--not to mention political, economic, international relations--damage than it prevented. But already there are smug intimations of victory from the White House and nonsense like The Washington Post's editorial saying the Kosovo war proves the West ``would not stand for crimes against humanity.'' The hypocrisy of fighting a ``moral'' war that causes so many civilian casualties and global problems has not yet sunk in for Americans. Now NATO is dictating a political correct ``settlement''-- what Mr. Clinton calls ``multi-ethnic democracy'' and Kosovo autonomy within Yugoslavia--that is even more utopian than three months ago and guarantees more bitter warfare in the future. War critics are not ``isolationists'' or critical of the American military; they simply say NATO could not achieve its objective of stopping Mr. Milosevic at an acceptable cost to ourselves and others. The proof: NATO's stated objective was to protect the Kosovar Albanians, but it betrayed them. It gave Mr. Milosevic a cover to exponentially accelerate his repression and then in the June ``settlement'' fuzzed over the independence option that was given in the Rambouillet ultimatum. It is silly to suppose the Kosovo Liberation Army will agree to become a police force in a province of Yugoslavia. The Serb and NATO destruction of Kosovo left most of 1.5 million Kosovar Albanian refugees nothing to return to. Those most eager to return despite a terrible winter coming on are radicalized youngsters who now far more than before want to join the KLA to slaughter Serbs and seize the independence NATO now refuses to offer them. If war had been the only option, it should not have been led by yuppie politicians who understood nothing about history, politics and warfare. There is a long list of lessons on the fatally flawed military conduct of the war, beginning with gradual escalation. NATO's will or even capability to rebuild Kosovo and restore Kosovars to their destroyed homes will flag as Americans and Europeans are overwhelmed by problems of enforcement and as the billions of dollars add up at the expense of Social Security and other domestic projects. For months NATO regularly (if apologetically) inflicted casualties on all sorts of innocents, from Serbs and Kosovar Albanians to Chinese, in part because it attacked from 15,000 feet in the air. While no military seeks casualties, to refuse to risk even one person in order to drop flood to hundreds of thousands of refugees in the mountains is to undermine one's seriousness and moral credibility. Then there is the question, why Yugoslavia and not somewhere else where the crimes are equal or greater, as in Rwanda? Or the less remembered example of Cyprus, which next month ``celebrates the 25th anniversary of the Turkish invasion. Almost 200,000 Greek Cypriots were ``cleansed'' out of their homes in Northern Cyprus in 1974 by the Turkish army, but ``principled'' Washington for strategic reasons still in effect winks at Turkish occupation of more than a third of the island. Serbia has been devastated and will cost tens of billions to rebuild, and Mr. Milosevic is still there. NATO's bombing precipitated floods of refugees and other disasters that have destabilized the region in political, economic and other terms far beyond what Mr. Milosevic could ever have done on his own. The war has buttressed reactionaries from Russia and China to the United States. Since for most people NATO is America, this war has re- ignited 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. NATO's war will encourage arms (including nuclear) proliferation around the world among nations who fear NATO may invade them next. The Kosovo war may even encourage development of defensive alliances to guard against NATO attacks on those it considers ``moral deviants.'' americans must see that long before its end this war was no longer simply a campaign to eliminate the ``evil'' Mr. Milosevic. It became a tragic fiasco with all kinds of casualties from Pristina to Beijing. If Kosovo is seen as a ``victory,'' it will become a model for what British Prime Minister Tony Blair calls ``moral crusades'' to ``right wrongs'' around the world. The non- Western world--and many in the West as well--regard this as a dangerous and unworkable arrogance that like the Crusades centuries ago may have been at least partly moral in inspiration but in practice became fanatical, intolerant and massively destructive. If the moral crusades spread, the 21st century may have an even uglier human face than the 20th.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, fairly early on during the war in Yugoslavia I spoke on this floor and said it was obvious that Milosevic would cave and that President Clinton and his spin doctors would then try to declare a great victory. It was obvious that a country no bigger than Kentucky, with less than 4 percent of our population and an already weakened economy, and without any real ability even to fight back, could not hold out for long against the massive bombings and megabillions of the U.S. Defense Department. The only reason this stupid, one-sided cruel joke of a war lasted as long as it did was because it became, as one columnist said, and allied farce instead of an allied force, as the military called it. Jeffrey Gedmin, writing in the just published June 28 issue of the liberal New Republic Magazine, said this: If the deal between Yugoslavia and NATO over Kosovo sticks, expect the Clinton administration to claim vindication and to speak of a victory for American leadership via NATO. But Europe's own early post-mortem suggests that our allies might be drawing rather different conclusions. Privately, politically influential Europeans generally consider the U.S.-led operation in Kosovo to have been a fiasco. Calculations of an early victory proved disastrously wrong. The Kosovars, whom we started the fighting to protect, have been decimated. There were 90,000 refugees before the bombing began. Estimates of the homeless now exceed 1 million. Mr. Gedmin ended his article by calling it a pyrrhic victory, meaning really no victory at all. Columnist Robert Novak said the same thing. He wrote, But the truly pyrrhic nature of NATO's victory lies in longer-term implications. Serious students of foreign policy, far from eager to join in a champagne bash, were melancholy. U.S. relations with China have been undermined. The most dangerous elements in the Russian military have been emboldened. Most worrisome, the world now sees America with different eyes. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger said, ``We looked like the big bully to a lot of people around the world.'' Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson said that we are in danger of losing prestige and good will around the world. Under this administration, we have bombed people in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia, all apparently in an attempt to show that the President and the Secretary of State are great world leaders, and to make their mark in history. Paul Harvey called this war Monica's war, and many people believe all these bombings in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia, timed as they were, were at least in part done to try to make people forget things like the sordid Lewinsky affair and the President's sale of missile technology to the Chinese. Columnist Tony Snow said that this was the first war we have ever entered into in which we were the unambiguous aggressor and in which there was no vital U.S. interests at stake. In the process, the President turned NATO from a purely defensive force into an offensive one for the very first time, illegally many think, because it was against the NATO charter. He turned our Defense Department into a war department, as it was once called. He violated both our constitutional law and our statutory law, the War Powers Act. But then, some people do not care as long as the stock market remains high. Former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn said, however, ``I think we have to be more mature in handling these civil wars around the globe. We have got to develop other tools beyond military force to deal with what are nonvital interests, and I consider this,'' Senator Nunn said, ``to be a nonvital interest.'' These bombings have turned people who want to be our friends into enemies. These actions have increased anti-Americanism all over the world. We will have problems years from now because of all of this when the problems will be blamed on whomever is president at the time. In addition, this has cost us many, many billions, which could have been spent on so many better things. Our military would have plenty of money and no shortages if this administration had not so totally misused our military in so many ridiculously costly ways. Columnist Carol Thomas wrote, Only a president who knows more about making love than war would declare the puny and ineffective one-sided assault on the former Yugoslavia to be a victory. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced legislation which will amend the provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. I think that everyone will agree that reimbursement of training costs under the Trade Readjustment Act (TRA) is of critical importance to those individuals who have been negatively impacted by the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). I have seen firsthand companies relocating and jobs being lost because of this Act. Currently, an individual cannot be reimbursed by TRA funds for any training costs which have been incurred prior to the approval of the training program under the TRA. In fact, an individual in my District encountered this problem. My constituent was laid off due to job relocation and started school just days prior to the certification of the TRA petition. Since the TRA makes no provisions to retroactively approve training, the individual did not receive a reimbursement. His only other choice would have been to deny his training an entire semester which would have meant he would be out of work even longer. The legislation I introduced today would prevent this from occurring again by providing a retroactive 30-day period, preceding the date the Secretary approves the TRA petition, during which someone could be reimbursed for training expenses under the act. This is the only way for individuals who try to plan ahead and then find themselves in this type of situation to take advantage of the funds allocated under TRA. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this modest proposal.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Gary Schneider, one of the foremost experts on forestry at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, is retiring this year. Dr. Schneider has been an asset to the University for many years, having served as a Professor and Head of the Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries. Currently, he serves as the Associate Dean of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at UT. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Schneider has also served as a consultant for many organizations including, the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Agency for International Development and many others. Additionally, he has published several academic articles. Dr. Schneider has advanced the study of forestry and related fields during his tenure at the University of Tennessee, and I know that his leadership and expertise will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I know that I join with his friends, family and colleagues in congratulating Dr. Gary Schneider for an outstanding career at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde amendment. Senator Moynihan said a few years ago that we have been defining deviancy down, accepting as a part of life what we once found repugnant. How true this is, and unfortunately it is becoming more so every day. I remember several months ago coming home one Friday night and hearing Barbara Walters say she was about to show on 20/20 the most important program she had ever presented on television. With her long career, I wondered what this could be. What it turned out to be was a program warning parents about the warped, evil, sick things mainly of a violent or sexual nature available to children over the Internet and on videos and tapes and so forth. We should all do whatever we can, even in a small way, to slow this flood of this toxic mind warping, sick, evil, violent, and obscene material that is reaching our children today. This is one of the most important amendments we have ever had before us in this House, and it is time to say that enough is enough and that today we started a new and better direction. As a judge who dealt with constitutional issues for 7\1/2\ years before coming to Congress, I urge support for this very well-crafted amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has recently lost a great public servant. On Sunday, May 9th of this year, William ``Bill'' Pavlis passed away. Bill Pavlis was born in West Virginia and moved to Knoxville, Tennessee, where he lived for 60 years. He attended the old Knoxville High School and then went on to be one of our community's best citizens. Bill Pavlis was one of the most respected leaders in the Knoxville area. In 1972, he started a very successful specialty food distribution company in Knoxville. In 1980, Bill Pavlis entered public service as one of the very first members of the newly created Knox County Commission. He spent six years on that body and even served as its Chairman. In 1990, he was appointed to the Knoxville City Council to serve the remainder of the term of Councilman Milton Roberts. Mr. Speaker, Bill Pavlis was a great friend to all that knew him. He was always available to the citizens he represented. Above all, Bill Pavlis was a true family man. Bill and his beloved wife of 49 years, Jamie, raised a wonderful family. His sons, William A. Pavlis, Frank N. Pavlis, George S. Pavlis, and daughter, Christina Pavlis, comprise one of the finest families in East Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to have known such a fine man. I have included a copy of a Resolution adopted by the Knox County Commission, as well as a statement from Commissioner Leo Cooper and an editorial from the Knoxville News-Sentinel that honor the memory of William ``Bill'' Pavlis. I would like to call these to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Resolution Whereas, former businessman, Knox County Commissioner and Knoxville City Councilman William ``Bill'' Pavlis recently passed away at the age of seventy (70), after many years of service and leadership in the Knox County Community; and Whereas, Bill Pavlis was a native of Logan, West Virginia, where his parents had emigrated from Greece. He was to live in Knoxville for sixty (60) years, where he met his wife of forty-nine (49) years, Jamie, at Knoxville High School, where he was a football player. He founded a specialty food distribution business, A&B Distributing Company, Inc., in 1972, and the business has thrived since; and Whereas, Bill Pavlis was a notable leader in the community. He served as one of the first nineteen (19) Knox County Commissioners upon his election in 1980. In his six (6) years on this body, he served as Commission Chairman and as Finance Committee Chairman. During his entire tenure of service on the Knox County Commission, he missed only one (1) meeting. He is said to have been proudest, however, of his six years (6) as a member of the Knox County Pension Trust Fund Committee and of his chairmanship of the employees insurance committee. Mr. Pavlis also served as a Knoxville City Councilman, and was considered a strong and popular candidate for mayor; and Whereas, Commissioner Pavlis, with a reputation of straightforwardness and honesty, also participated in countless civic and spiritual organizations and events. He attended two (2) churches, the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd, with his wife Jamie, and the St. George Greek Orthodox Church. As a resident of Fountain City, where he was deeply loved, he contributed toward the construction of a gazebo in Fountain City Park. Always there to help, he often provided assistance to his employees at A&B Distributing; and Whereas, Bill Pavlis leaves behind a wonderful family, itself carrying on the legacy of community service exemplified by the Commissioner. His wife Jamie was the first woman appointed to the Knox County Jury Commission. He also leaves behind four children, Christina ``Tina'' Pavlis, William A. Pavlis, Frank ``Nick'' Pavlis, also a Knoxville City Councilman, and George ``Sam'' Pavlis. Now therefore be it Resolved by the Commission of Knox County as follows: The Knox County Commission wishes to express its condolences to the family and many friends of William ``Bill'' Pavlis, upon the passing of its fellow Commissioner and great friend. Be it further resolved, That if any notifications are to be made to effectuate this Resolution, then the County Clerk is hereby requested to forward a copy of this Resolution to the proper authority. Be it further resolved, That this Resolution is to take effect from and after its passage, as provided by the Charter of Knox County, Tennessee, the public welfare requiring it.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to briefly touch on some things that the manager's amendment does. We have attempted to clarify that if the Aviation Trust Fund is moved off budget, it is removed from the discretionary budget caps. We have had added a provision clarifying language for the use of noise standards in the national parks overflights bill. This has been a very contentious issue, and I am glad we have been able to reach a compromise on this. We have adjusted the slot restriction provisions to allow for regional jet exemptions early with a total phase-out for 2002 for Chicago and 2007 in New York. This will ensure that smaller airlines will have the opportunity to compete with larger airlines and open up flights to many underserved areas. We have included the provision for the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) that would allow AIP funds to be spent for noise mitigation if more than 50 percent of the noise is caused by military aircraft. Currently the FAA does not allow AIP funds to be spent for noise mitigation if more than 50 percent of the noise is caused by military aircraft. In addition, we have required that FAA notify Congress if it fails to meet its rulemaking deadlines. This is good public policy and will allow us to monitor the Agency's adherence to its stated goals. We have also added the provision allowing for the banning of a passenger from flying if the Secretary determines that a ban is in order. Unruly passengers have become a significant issue on flights, and this provision gives the Transportation Department the ability to deal effectively with the issue. We have increased the State Block Grant Program from 9 to 10 States on a request from the Utah delegation. We have required that the National Academy of Sciences undertake a study on AWOS and the reliability of it when no human oversight is used. This is at the request of Mr. Thompson. We have also requested that the FAA implement a mechanic training program at the request of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). This will ensure proper training for aircraft mechanics. Finally, we have added a provision to direct the FAA to consider revisions to its regulations regarding airport fire and safety needs. This will ensure that airport safety needs are evaluated and updated if necessary. In short, this amendment makes changes to the bill to try and meet some of the concerns people have voiced, and it grants many requests from Members. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this manager's amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his work on this issue. Mr. Chairman, the sale of the Blue Ash Airport will allow an important general aviation facility, which currently bases over 140 aircraft, to remain open for an additional 20 years. General aviation airports are closing at the alarming rate of 1 a week, so the gentleman's efforts on this issue are timely and very important. The Subcommittee on Aviation, which I chair, held a hearing on this problem just last week. While we want to allow the sale of Blue Ash, it should be noted that Federal dollars have gone into the facility, and it is important that some proceeds of the sale be directed toward the improvement of other aviation facilities, such as Lunken Field, a general aviation airport in the area. Between now and the conference, I would urge all the participants to come together and develop a division of the sale proceeds along these lines. We may alter the language in conference to provide the FAA with some further guarantees that Blue Ash will in fact remain open for another 20 years.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. I want to, first of all, say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) have already made statements about the need for this legislation and the reasons behind it. So I want to add just a few things. But first, I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of our committee, for his leadership on this bill, and my good friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), of the full committee and the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for their leadership and hard work on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, this is indeed historic legislation, because we are poised to take the Aviation Trust Fund off budget, produce a more honest budget for the American taxpayers, and take the first steps toward ensuring that our aviation system remains as one of the safest and most efficient in the world. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) noted, the Speaker of the House has strongly endorsed this bill, and the National Chamber of Commerce has strongly endorsed this bill. This is a good bill that all Members can support. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, or AIR 21, as it has been referred to, is a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration program through the year 2004. AIR 21 is no ordinary bill. AIR 21 ensures that aviation taxes will be spent for aviation infrastructure improvements. Last year, the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), led the effort, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) just noted, to unlock the Highway Trust Funds and ensure that highway taxes are spent on highways. Now we are attempting to and should 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, and it will also benefit even those who do not fly, because our entire economy is made stronger if we continually improve our aviation system. Aviation activity is growing at a startling rate. In 1998, airlines flew over 640 million passengers. That is an increase of more than 25 percent from just 5 years ago. As this chart shows, current forecasts predict almost 1 billion employment sometime in the next 10 years, probably much sooner than that. At that growth rate, 10 new airports the size of Dallas-Fort Worth or Atlanta Hartsfield or Chicago/O'Hare, our largest airports, 10 of these large airports would be needed to adequately absorb these passengers. In addition, air cargo traffic is rising even faster. It rose over 50 percent over the past 5 years and is expected to grow at an average of 8 or 9 percent over the next 10 years. With all of this growth, aviation delays are high and expected to increase in the future. The Air Transport Association estimates the delays caused by infrastructure problems cost the airlines $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year. Without proper investment into aviation infrastructure, our Nation's already stressed aviation system could be pushed to the breaking point. AIR 21 acts to ensure that proper investment is available to fund improvements to our aviation system. By 2004, the bill raises the level of FAA operations to over $7 billion, the airport improvement program to over $4 billion, and facilities and equipment to $3 billion. The increase in AIP funding will triple the entitlement dollars for primary airports, triple the minimum entitlement for small airports, and fund an entitlement for general aviation airports up to $200,000. Mr. Chairman, this bill does more or will do more for small and medium-sized airports than any bill in the history of the Congress. This infusion of money into airport infrastructure, this very needed infusion will ensure that our Nation continues to have the safest, most efficient air service in the world, and certainly that is a goal that I believe everyone in this Congress knows is necessary and that everyone in this Congress supports. One of the most important benefits of this new funding will be the tremendous improvement in airport infrastructure at small and midsized communities. First, to provide funding to these communities to obtain increased air service, this bill authorizes a $25 million program, and all of the communities that are underserved across this Nation need to support this bill because of that. In addition, the money provided in this program can be used to assist underserved airports in obtaining jet air service, and then in marketing that service to increase passenger usage. This money would be used by small airports that are currently served by turboprop aircraft to bring jet service to their communities. Secondly, the bill will improve competition by establishing a regional air service incentive program. This assistance program would seek to improve regional jet service to small communities by granting them Federal credit assistance. Mr. Chairman, this is indeed historic legislation, because we are poised to take the Aviation Trust Fund off-budget, produce a more honest budget for American taxpayers and take the first step toward ensuring that our aviation system remains one of the safest and most efficient in the world. As Chairman Shuster noted, the Speaker of the House has strongly endorsed this bill. The National Chamber of Commerce has strongly endorsed this legislation. This is a good bill. H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (or AIR 21) is a bill to reauthorize Federal Aviation Administration programs through the year 2004. AIR 21 is no ordinary bill. AIR 21 ensures that aviation taxes will be spent for aviation infrastructure improvements. Last year, Chairman Shuster led the effort that unlocked the highway Trust Fund and ensured that highway taxes were spent on highways. Now, we are attempting to and should 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, and even those who do not fly because our entire economy is made stronger if we continually improve our aviation system. Aviation activity is growing at a startling rate. In 1998 airlines flew over 640 million passengers. That is an increase of more than 25% from just five years ago. As this chart shows, current forecasts predict almost 1 billion enplanements in the next 10 years. At that growth rate, 10 new airports the size of Dallas/Ft. Worth, Atlanta Hartsfield or Chicago/O'Hare would be needed to adequately absorb these passengers. In addition, air cargo volume rose 50% over the last 5 years and is expected to grow 83% by 2008. With all of this growth, aviation delays are high and expected to increase in the future. The Air Transport Association estimates that delays caused by infrastructure problems cost the airlines $2\1/2\ to $3 billion a year. Without proper investment into aviation infrastructure, our nation's already stressed aviation system could be pushed to the breaking point. AIR 21 acts to ensure that proper investment is available to fund improvements to our aviation system. By 2004, the bill raises the level of FAA operations to over $7 billion, the Airport Improvement Program to over $4 billion, Facilities and Equipment to $3 billion. The increase in AIP funding will triple the entitlement dollars for primary airports, triple the minimum entitlement for small airports from $500,000 to $1.5 million, and fund an entitlement for GA airports up to $200,000. This infusion of money into airport infrastructure will ensure that our nation continues to have the safest, most efficient air service in the world. One of the most important benefits of this new funding will be the tremendous improvement in airport infrastructure at small and mid-size communities. First, to provide funding to these communities to obtain increased air service, this bill authorizes a $25 million program. This money would provide assistance to a small or mid-sized community by making money available to an air carrier that serves that community. The money would subsidize the carrier's operations for up to 3 years if the Secretary of Transportation determines that the community is not receiving sufficient air carrier service. This assistance would come in the form of loan guarantees, secured loans, and lines of credit for commuter air carriers that promise to purchase regional jets and use them to serve a community for a minimum of three years. Most regional jets have lower operating costs, higher passenger capacity, and can fly further than many of the turbo prop planes that they are beginning to replace. Jet service would greatly increase the travel choices for people living in small communities to major hub airports. These funding programs will allow small airports to enhance competition of low costs through regional jet service to ensure lower fares. This bill makes tremendous strides in ensuring that smaller communities that are often overlooked or ignored by air carriers for financial reasons, gain a foothold to attract more, and better, air service for their residents. We are also lifting slot restrictions at the New York and Chicago airports for regional jet service to small and nonhub airports effective March 1, 2000. This will open service to these airports and improve competition. DOT has said that elimination of slots is not a safety issue. Therefore, we can increase air service and competition to many destinations currently dominated by one carrier or destinations with inadequate air service. In addition, AIR 21 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. 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. This bill makes tremendous strides in meeting aviation needs and improving aviation infrastructure. It ensures that communities that are often overlooked or ignored by air carriers for financial reasons, can attract more, and better, air service for their residents. It also acts to enhance competition, safety and provide lower cost and better air service to all passengers. This bill is the result of a lot of hard work. But there is still a lot of hard work in front of us. There are opponents to this bill who object to taking the trust fund off-budget. These same opponents object to the General Fund component of this bill. The FAA's budget has had a General Fund component since its inception. The general fund contribution represents payment for a variety of FAA services, including services to military and other government aircraft, which use our airspace but do not pay taxes, as well as general safety and security services that benefit society as a whole by promoting economic growth. This general fund payment has been affirmed by the congressionally authorized National Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC). This Commission NCARC stated that ``the cost of safety regulation and certification should be borne by a general fund contribution as these activities are consistent with the government's traditional role of providing for the general welfare of the citizens and are clearly in the broad public interest.'' A similar conclusion was reached by the White House Commission on Aviation Security. The Commission concluded that the federal government should consider aviation security to be a national security issue and that the government should commit to providing substantial funding to reduce the threats posed by terrorist attacks on civil aviation. We are freezing the General Fund contribution in AIR 21 at the 1998 enacted level. As shown in this historical chart, this will result in a general fund share of approximately 23% from 2001-2004, well beneath the average general fund component of 39%. This percentage is also well below the general fund share to other safety regulatory agency budgets. On average, these agencies (FDA, OSHA, and EPA) all receive about 80% or more of their budgets from the general fund. Comparatively, the FAA general fund contribution is a bargain. If the General Fund component were eliminated, general taxpayers would not be paying their fair share for FAA services that benefit society as a whole. Moreover, eliminating the General Fund component while maintaining the AIR 21 proposed funding levels would deplete the Trust Fund by 2003. I urge you to vote against any amendment that contemplates cutting the general fund component of the FAA budget. If we allow AIR 21 to stand on its own, it will do great things for aviation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Shuster, Congressman Oberstar and Congressman Lipinski for all of their strong leadership efforts in crafting this legislation. AIR 21 has been a bipartisan project and has resulted in a bipartisan product that I truly believe is good for aviation. There are no earmarks in this bill, there is only the promise of safety and efficiency in our nation's aviation infrastructure in the years to come. That should be enough for all of us. I urge you to support H.R. 1000.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, before I make my brief comments, I would like to engage the chairman in a brief colloquy and ask the chairman simply this: Our good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) said that if this bill passes, Mr. Chairman, that there would be no money left for tax cuts. And my understanding is that there would still be over $700 billion left for tax cuts over the next 10 years or so. What are the correct figures on that?

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is a very important point. And I am glad the chairman has made it that, even if this bill passes without this amendment, there would still be over $700 billion remaining for the tax cuts that many Members of our conference want. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment really guts this bill and would not allow us even to keep the status quo, and would certainly not allow us to meet the needs that the expanded use of our aviation system is demanding. The FAA has many national defense functions. In addition to national defense, the FAA also provides general government services, such as safety regulation certification, and inspection. As I mentioned earlier today, everyone benefits from a good aviation system, even people who do not fly but who use goods that are transported on planes, and people who want our economy to grow and prosper and remain strong. There is no reason why aviation users should pay for these items that benefit our country as a whole. The general fund must continue to contribute to the FAA's budget in order to pay for these very important functions. Furthermore, this amendment would continue the practice of using the Aviation Trust Fund to mask the Federal deficit or inflate the on- budget surplus. If this amendment passes, the amount of funding available for airport improvements would be drastically reduced, possibly by as much as 55 percent. The airline passengers, shippers, and general aviation pilots are now paying about $10 billion per year into the Aviation Trust Fund, with no assurance that the money could be spent under current budget rules. This chart shows that if historic trends continue, the balance in the trust fund will skyrocket to over $90 billion by the year 2009. Since small and medium-size communities rely most heavily on the Federal program for airport funding, they will bear the brunt of the cuts that would be imposed by this amendment. Our constituents in these areas, in these small and medium-size areas, continue to experience the highest fares and the most diminished air service. Without the additional funding available through AIR 21, small airports will not be able to build the capacity needed to accommodate more air carriers and improve air service. I urge opposition to this amendment. According to a study by GAO, as much as 30% of the country is worse off today than before deregulation. This will get worse, not better, if we do not move the Aviation Trust Fund off-budget. If you believe that the Trust Fund should be unlocked so that aviation taxes are spent for aviation purposes--so that the trust fund is truly a trust fund--and to help your local communities, vote ``No'' on this amendment. This bill does not touch any other program--it simply means aviation money is spent for aviation purposes.

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

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the American people need to ask many questions about our relationship with China. Why did the President approve the sale of missile technology to the Chinese against the objection of his own Defense Department, his own State Department and his own Justice Department? Was it because of the millions of dollars of campaign contributions from the Chinese military and top executives of the Hughes Electronics Corporation? Why over the last 5 years have there been 3,567 requests for wiretaps and search warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and only one turned down, and that one involving Mr. Lee and the spying at Los Alamos? There are many other questions exactly like these. The American people deserve some answers. The Cox report says the Chinese espionage goes on even to this day. Things are going on today that have never happened before in the history of this Nation, Mr. Speaker, and the American people deserve to know why.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say this, Air 21 already provides the largest ever increase in noise mitigation measures and funding. However, this amendment goes too far, and would end up eliminating service to and from many cities, and ultimately would drive up the cost of air fares all over the Nation. Hush-kitted aircraft already meet the very strict FAA stage 3 requirements. Hush-kitted aircraft are just as quiet as any aircraft currently available. These hush kit measures have been approved by the FAA as acceptable means to meet the quieter, more restrictive stage 3 requirements. Hush kits are manufactured in the U.S., and hush-kitted aircraft are mainly U.S. aircraft. Restricting their operation for noise operations would be at odds with the FAA's finding that this technology satisfies the very highest noise requirements. It would also adversely affect U.S. manufacturers of hush kits and the value of U.S. hush-kitted planes. Finally, in February the House passed H.R. 661, threatening sanctions against the European Union if it implemented restrictive noise measures that would adversely affect hush-kitted aircraft. It would be totally inconsistent, Mr. Chairman, for this House to threaten the Europeans if they did this, and then come in and do it ourselves for some of our domestic flights. This measure proposed by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is at odds with the spirit of H.R. 61, and would adversely affect U.S. manufacturers of hush kits and hush-kitted aircraft. I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would continue the practice of unnecessarily limiting the number of flights to and from O'Hare, Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Reagan National Airports. This is an anticonsumer amendment, an anticompetition, anti-free enterprise amendment. The slot rule has unfairly prevented new service by new entrant carriers at these airports. New entrants are unable to secure enough slots during desirable peak periods to provide viable service. Furthermore, established air carriers are discouraged from serving small communities since it is most profitable to allocate their precious slots to routes that carry the most passengers. In some cases, airlines use the slot rule to protect their market dominance. At LaGuardia, carriers use smaller prop planes in jet slots to meet their usage requirements. This prevents the FAA from revoking their slots and giving them to competitors. According to the DOT study that has been mentioned already here, the elimination of the slots will reduce airfare and encourage new service. Consumer benefits would total at least $1.3 billion annually. According to this study, airfares on flights through LaGuardia, Reagan National, and O'Hare would drop an average of 5 percent. This amendment, however, will go in the opposite direction, lead to higher fares, less service, and lose the $1.3 billion in consumer benefits the DOT study found are possible. The DOT found that the airports in New York and Chicago could easily accommodate many new flights every day. Planes, Mr. Chairman, are much quieter now than 30 years ago when slots were first imposed. Small and medium-sized communities would benefit most from these additional flights, receiving the access they need to these major markets. Contrary to some claims, lifting the restrictions will not adversely affect safety. The FAA has assured us on this. In fact, the administration's own FAA reauthorization bill also contained provisions to eliminate slot restrictions. Many large airlines do not use all of their slots that they presently have, and lifting slot restrictions would, I think, not lead to any noticeable increase in the actual number of flights. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1401.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure be permitted to file a supplemental report to report number 106-167, which accompanied the bill (H.R. 1000) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes. The supplemental report contains the CBO cost estimate for the bill.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill by the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Resources, and the rule that brings this bill to the floor. This bill does not prohibit or stop the United States from including land in an international land reserve. All it says is that there must first be congressional approval so that the private property rights of neighboring landowners can be protected. What this bill is attempting to do is to allow a little more public input into this process and give the people a tiny bit of say about actions that can have tremendous impact on their land. It really boils down to whether we still have a government of, by, and for the people, or has it become one of, by, and for unelected bureaucrats and elitists who want to control other people's land. Jeane Kirkpatrick, our former ambassador to the United Nations, wrote to the Committee on Resources these words, ``In U.N. organizations, there is no accountability. U.N. bureaucrats are far removed from the American voters. What recourse does an American voter have when U.N. bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq or Libya, all of which are parties to this treaty, have made a decision that unjustly damages his or her property rights that lie near a national park?'' Professor Jeremy Rabkin of the Department of Government of Cornell University testified in support of this bill, saying, ``The underlying problem is that international regulatory schemes now reach more deeply into the internal affairs of sovereign nations and have therefore begun to threaten internal systems of government,'' adding that ``such ventures are in some ways as much a threat to the stability of international law as they are to our own system of government at home.'' Professor Rabkin said we need this bill, not to slow this dangerous trend toward taking government further away from the people, but also, ``as a means of reasserting our own constitutional traditions.'' Professor Detlev Vagts of the Harvard Law School said international involvement in local and private land use decisions, ``pose an import problem'' in their ``tendency to shift powers and responsibilities from national and subnational units, with active, reachable legislative bodies to remote international bureaucracies.'' I realize that some opponents of this bill do not want to debate this on the merits, so they resort to childish sarcasm and try to make this bill seem less than serious by making fun of it. But this bill deserves the support of all those who really believe in private property and limited government and the freedom that is protected by those two great traditions on which this Nation was built. Private property is not only one of the key components of our prosperity. It is one of the main things that set us apart from the former Soviet Union and other socialist Nations. Today almost one-third of our land is owned by the Federal Government, and another 20 percent is owned by State and local governments and quasi-governmental units. Governments at all levels are rapidly taking over additional land. Perhaps even more of a threat to freedom are the restrictions being placed by government on land still in private ownership. We heard testimony from Steven Lindsey whose family has operated a ranch on Turkey Creek in rural Arizona since the 1860s. He was shocked to find out one day that a 60-acre private wetland on his property was now controlled by the international RAMSAR Convention agreement in addition to all the endangered species and other regulations he was already under. Under Ramsar, Mr. Lindsey said, ``My rights as a private property owner are threatened and the Ramsar language can be used to violate my property rights and deprive me of the use of my land.'' He added these words, Mr. Speaker: ``The same government that promised my great, great grandfather and my great grandfather the land through the Homestead Act and pursuit of happiness is now the same government that is helping destroy these dreams.'' Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, a serious bill; and people who truly believe in freedom, rather than big brother repressive government, should support it enthusiastically.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer/ Sanford amendment. I do not believe that we should be sending billions of dollars into space when we have so many more urgent problems here on Earth. On top of that, our Country is over $5.6 trillion in debt. When NASA proposed the space station back in 1984, the project was to cost a total of $8 billion. Since 1984, the space station has been redesigned many times and the cost estimates have skyrocketed. Mr. Chairman, what does this mean for the taxpayers? Well, it means they will be sinking billions and billions more of their hard earned money into this space station rat hole. We have all heard many times that space is the final frontier. I believe the space station is a frivolous frontier. It is yet another example of how the federal government cannot do anything in an economical or efficient manner. Instead, many fat-cat government contractorsare getting rich at the expense of the taxpayers. I recently spoke on this floor about another failed space venture, the Air Force's Titan IV program. There have been three failures in a row for this program at a cost of over $3 billion. If we took all of this wasted money and put it towards some of our ailing programs such as Social Security, I believe our Country would be much better off. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, this Country has paid Russia, our partner, hundreds of millions of dollars to participate. What have we gotten from Russia in return? Well, we've got increased costs because of Russian schedule delays. Mr. Chairman, the United States has enough of its own delays. We don't need Russia's help with that. When this project was being debated in the early 1990's, a coalition of 14 leading scientific groups came out against the space station saying that they were especially disturbed that the escalating costs in subsequent years would drain money from other important scientific projects. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 1993, NASA said the International Space Station would cost $17.4 billion in research and development through the end of construction and it would spend no more than $2.1 billion a year on the program. Today, NASA's estimate for research and development is between $23 and $26 billion, depending on whether construction is completed in 2004 or October 2005. Mr. Chairman, this is pitiful. I know of no business that could stay in operation with these types of overruns. We have far too many more important programs here on Earth to justify sending all of these billions into space. I would urge a yes vote on the Roemer/Sanford amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today, the Tennessee Valley Authority is losing a great leader. After a successful eight-year term on the TVA Board, William ``Bill'' Kennoy is stepping down. Bill Kennoy was appointed to the TVA Board by President George Bush and was sworn in on May 31, 1991. Over the past eight years, William Kennoy has contributed a great deal to the citizens of the Tennessee Valley. His competent leadership helped to secure the refinancing of TVA's $3.2 billion debt. Additionally, he was instrumental in preserving the Land Between the Lakes Recreational Area. All who know Bill Kennoy agree that he is a compassionate leader who has served the public well over his term as a TVA Director. He is the longest-serving member of TVA's current Board of Directors. Bill Kennoy even led TVA during transition period between the previous and current Boards. Before coming to TVA, Bill Kennoy led Kennoy Engineers, Inc., an environmental firm in Lexington, Kentucky. He brought over 25 years of experience to the Board as a professional engineer and business executive. In fact, he will now return to private life and again be involved in the engineering business. Mr. Speaker, Bill Kennoy has contributed a great deal to this Nation, but I would like to highlight one of his accomplishments that I am especially proud of. William Kennoy founded the ``Weekend Academy'' for inner-city youth in Knoxville, Chattanooga, Memphis, and Nashville, Tennessee. The Weekend Academy is a mentoring program that encourages youth to pursue careers in business districts near their homes. I believe this says a tremendous amount about Bill Kennoy. Mr. Speaker, I know that I join with all Americans in thanking William Kennoy for his service to our Nation over the past eight years. I have included a copy of an editorial written in the Knoxville News- Sentinel honoring William Kennoy that I would like to call to the attention of my fellow members and other readers of the Record. [From the Knoxville News-Sentinel, May 18, 1999] Service Rendered The Tennessee Valley Authority will say good-bye to one of its three board members today, and all in the valley should pause for a salute to William Kennoy. A Republican nominated to the TVA board by President Bush, Kennoy ends his eight-year term and will return to private life and his chosen profession of engineering. His departure will leave the board with only one member until two replacements are appointed. That was a situation in which Kennoy found himself in 1993, the year current chairman Craven Crowell and recently departed member Johnny Hayes were appointed to the board. Kennoy's relationship with the federal utility he later would help manage began long before his appointment to the board. Kennoy's father was a TVA engineer working on the Guntersville Dam in north Alabama. Kennoy said his appointment was ``an opportunity to pay TVA back for what it has done for me.'' It speaks well for Kennoy that he regards as his signal accomplishment at TVA the launching of ``Weekend Academy,'' a mentoring program for children living near downtown in Knoxville, Chattanooga, Nashville and Memphis. The program attempts to help inner-city children achieve success and encourage them to pursue careers in business districts near their homes. Kennoy also cites among his accomplishments the refinancing of TVA's $3.2 billion debt, improving agency contracts and preserving the Land Between the Lakes Recreation Area. Kennoy's deliberate, calm style that led him to work out disagreements behind the scenes instead of allowing meetings to degenerate into unnecessary bickering might well be another accomplishment. This trait drew praise from a former board member, U.S. Rep. Bob Clement, a Nashville Democrat: ``You don't see him raise his voice. Bill is very smart, deliberate and compassionate.'' Clearly TVA is better for Kennoy's leadership. As Kennoy steps down today, we thank him for his service on TVA's board and wish him the best for the future.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the citizens of East Tennessee are losing a true statesman. After 32 years of successful service, Stanley ``Skeeter'' Shields is retiring from his post as Mayor of the City of Maryville, Tennessee. Few people in the entire Nation have served one community for so long and with such dedication. A lifelong member of the Blount County community, Skeeter Shields has spent his career making life better for the citizens of Maryville and indeed all of Blount County. After graduating from Maryville High School, he attended Maryville College and went on to graduate from the University of Tennessee. Mayor Shields has a beautiful family. He and his wife, Mary Frances, have two wonderful children and three grandchildren. Those who know Skeeter know that he is a true family man. Skeeter Shields has been a devout member of the First United Methodist Church for many years. In fact, he has taught Sunday school for 44 years and is the past Chairman of the Church Board. Mayor Shields is a model public servant. He was a member of the Maryville School board for 12 years, helping to improve the lives of young people through the education process. He was elected to the Maryville City Council in 1955, and in 1967 he was elected Mayor. He has served in that position ever since. During his tenure, Mayor Shields demonstrated the true potential of a public servant. He was instrumental in getting several large industries to establish facilities in the Maryville area. Additionally, he helped develop a regional wastewater treatment plant, three public parks, two fire station facilities, as well as many other things that have greatly benefitted the citizens of Maryville. Throughout the last 32 years, Mayor Shields has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for members of the Maryville and Blount County communities. I know that I join with everyone in East Tennessee in thanking Mayor Stanley ``Skeeter'' Shields for his outstanding service to this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I have included a copy of a Resolution adopted by the Tennessee General Assembly honoring Mayor Shields that I would like to call to the attention of my fellow Members and other readers of the Record. A Resolution To Honor Stanley Shields, Mayor of Maryville, on the Occasion of His Retirement Whereas, it is fitting that the members of this legislative body should recognize those citizens who in their years of work have performed with extraordinary dedication and unprecedented devotion; and Whereas, Stanley Shields is one such outstanding person who has served with alacrity and acuity as the Mayor of Maryville, Tennessee for 32 outstanding years; and Whereas, Mayor Shields exemplifies the spirit and dedication that is characteristic of a great Tennessean; and Whereas, he is a graduate of Maryville High School, attended Maryville College and graduated from the University of Tennessee in 1938; and Whereas, Mayor Shields was a member of the Maryville School Board from 1952 to 1964, serving astutely as chairman for four years; and Whereas, his career in city government began in 1955 when he was elected as a member of the Maryville City Council. He was elected Mayor in 1967 and has served with distinction in that important position ever since; and Whereas, during Mayor Shields' tenure, the city of Maryville has seen numerous improvements and great progress, including the development of a regional wastewater treatment plant; three public parks; two fire station facilities; a new library facility; an industrial park; Broadway Towers, a high rise elderly housing complex; and Maryville's Foothills Mall; and Whereas, Mayor Shields' has also been instrumental in securing the location of several large industries in Maryville, including Denso Manufacturing and Ruby Tuesday Inc; and Whereas, his illustrious service to his fellow citizens was appropriately recognized when he was selected Tennessee Mayor of the Year by the Tennessee Municipal League in 1979; and Whereas, he has continued to serve adroitly the community in addition to his duties as mayor, as evidenced by his service on the Maryville Planning Commission, Recreation and Parks Commission, East Development District Board, Governor's Board, Maryville Rotary Club and Metropolitan Planning Organization for Knox and Blount counties; and Whereas, throughout all his endeavors, Mayor Shields has shown his unwavering commitment to improving the quality of life for the citizenry of Maryville and Blount County; and Whereas, he is most appreciative of the love and support he received from his wife, Mary Frances, their children, Steve and Karen, and grandchildren, Stephanie, Steve and Whitney; and Whereas, Mayor Shields has evinced his devout faith as a member of the First United Methodist Church, where he has taught Sunday school for 44 years and is the past chairman of the church board; and Whereas, the good people of Maryville are most grateful for Mayor Shield's devoted service and the sterling legacy he has built from Shields Stadium to the Greenbelt; now, therefore, be it Resolved by Senate of the One Hundred First General Assembly of the State of Tennessee (the House of Representatives concurring), That we extend to Mayor Stanley Shields of Maryville our best wishes for a happy and fulfilling retirement and continued success in his future endeavors. Be it further Resolved, That an appropriate copy of this resolution be prepared for presentation with this final clause omitted from such copy.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, a good friend of mine, Idus ``Babe'' Conner, was honored for his service to the citizens of Lenoir City and Loudon County, Tennessee. For the last 21 years, Babe Conner has been an active member of the Lenoir City Council. Babe is, no doubt, one of the most respected leaders in Loudon County and indeed throughout East Tennessee. Before Mr. Conner was elected to the City Council, he served as a Loudon County Commissioner for 20 years. He even spent time as a Justice of the Peace, marrying many couples without charging a fee for his services. Mr. Speaker, above all of this, Babe Conner is a family man. In 1946, he married Juanita Jennings and enjoyed 51 years of marriage until her death in 1997. That marriage produced a beautiful family. Babe and Juanita have one son and one daughter and four grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Babe Conner is also a God-fearing man who has served in many leadership positions in the First Presbyterian Church since its formation on October 13, 1957. He has even served as an Elder longer than any other church member. Mr. Conner is truly an outstanding role model for our children today. Mr. Speaker, I know that I join with the citizens of Loudon County and Lenoir City in congratulating Idus ``Babe'' Conner for his service and devotion to the citizens of East Tennessee. I am proud to call him a friend, and I wish him well in the years to come. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Idus ``Babe'' Conner for his service to the citizens of East Tennessee and the rest of our thankful Nation. I have included a copy of a Lenoir City Resolution honoring Babe Conner that I would like to call to the attention of my fellow members and other readers of the Record. Whereas, the governing body of the City of Lenoir City has adopted a policy of recognizing and honoring outstanding individuals living in Lenoir City, Tennessee, and Whereas, Idus ``Babe'' Conner will celebrate his 80th birthday on April 1999, being born in the year of our Lord 1919; and Whereas, Idus ``Babe'' Conner was married in 1946 to Juanita Jennings and was devoted husband to her for 51 years until she went to be with our Lord in 1997; and Whereas, Idus ``Babe'' is the proud father of one son, Gary, and one daughter, Susan, and the grandfather of two grandsons, Richard and Cory, and two granddaughters, Angela, and Hannah, whom he loves dearly; and Whereas, Idus ``Babe'' was born upstairs in a house on Kingston Street and has lived in Lenoir City all of his life. He was educated in the school of Lenoir City, where he participated in all sports activities. Upon graduating from high school, he enlisted in the Air Force, where he served four and a half years in Ground Forces; and Whereas, Idus ``Babe'' Connor became a Justice of the Peace in 1960. He married between 75 and 100 couples during his tenure without charging for the service. If a donation was given, he gave it back to the bride. He loves to tell humorous stories about the couples he encountered who were seeking his services to get married. In 1978 Conner was elected to the City Council, from which he will retire this month. He has been a strong supporter of our school system, both supporting the Lenoir City School system as well as sponsoring the motion to construct the present Loudon High School during his tenure as County Commissioner. We shall always be grateful for his sincere dedication and service to the citizens of Lenoir City; and Whereas, Idus ``Babe'' Conner retired from Martin Marietta in 1983 after over 33 years of continuous service; and Whereas, Idus ``Babe'' Conner has been a Presbyterian all of his life and has been a pillar in the First Presbyterian Church since its formation October 13, 1957. He was the church's first choir director and song leader and has served as Sunday school teacher and Deacon. He has served as Elder longer than any other church member. Now, therefore, I Charles T. Eblen, Mayor of the City of Lenoir City, Tennessee, do hereby PROCLAIM that Idus ``Babe'' Conner be recognized and singularly honored April 19, 1999 on Idus ``Babe'' Conner Day in Lenoir City, Tennessee. Be it further proclaimed that a copy of this proclamation, signed by the Mayor, attested by the City Recorder, and bearing the great seal of the City be presented to Idus ``Babe'' Conner.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, many people have felt right from the start that the President and Secretary of State made a horrible mistake in starting the bombing of Yugoslavia. The President and Secretary Albright have made this horrible mistake even worse by escalating the bombing so much. Now Yugoslavia has been bombed far more than in World War II when it was bombed by both sides. This war has been and is so unpopular that I read last week that the main White House spin doctor had gone over to try to help improve NATO's public relations. We certainly did not have to have White House spin doctors to convince us to go to war after Pearl Harbor. At that time, only one Member of Congress voted against the U.S. entering World War II, but at that time the people were solidly behind the war effort because we and our allies had been attacked. In Yugoslavia, for the first time ever, the U.S. has become an aggressor nation. Our foreign policy has been turned upside down. Tony Snow, the columnist-commentator, wrote last Friday: ``Three features distinguish the war in Kosovo from every other in American history. This is the first in which we have been the unambiguous aggressor; the first in which we've had no discernible national interest at stake; and the first in which we have let others act as our sovereign.'' Paul Harvey, in his Friday newscast, said someday this will be called ``Monica's War,'' meaning many people believe the President was in part attempting to improve his image as a world statesman after the embarrassment of the impeachment scandal. Now the party line coming out of the White House is simply to label anyone who opposes the war as doing so because of hatred for the President. Well, while I strongly disagree with the President over all these bombings, I do not hate him or even feel any personal animosity toward him. But anyone who uses this hatred argument is simply trying to avoid discussing the case on its merits or lack thereof. They are appealing to emotion and prejudice and resorting to name calling when they accuse people of opposing the war simply because of hatred for the President. It is so obvious that an argumentative ploy like that is simply an attempt to avoid discussing the merits of the war. We bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan just 3 days after the President's apology about the Lewinsky scandal was such a flop. We started bombing Iraq on the afternoon before the House was scheduled to begin impeachment proceedings. When bad publicity started coming out about the Chinese espionage, on the eve of the Chinese Premier's visit, we started bombing Yugoslavia. We should not be so eager to bomb people. We should only go to war when absolutely forced to and when our national security is threatened or our very vital national interest is at stake. Neither is present in Yugoslavia. The U.S., using NATO for a political cover, has now done over $50 billion worth of damage to Yugoslavia, a very small country with less than 4 percent of our population. It is obvious that Milosevic cannot hold out much longer, but we have already spent billions which we are taking from Social Security, and we will have to spend many billions more on this stupid war before it is all through, all to make a bad situation much worse than it was before we started. We are creating enemies all over the world, giving up our reputation as a peace-loving nation by attacking a country that had not attacked us nor had even threatened to do so. And apparently this was done mainly to help improve the President's legacy and because NATO was desperately seeking a new mission. Very soon this war will be settled, I hope, and then the President and his spin doctors will declare a great victory. But, in reality, it will take us many years to recover from the damage that we are doing to ourselves and our country, both financially and diplomatically. Don Feder, the nationally syndicated columnist of the Boston Harold, summed it up this way: President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright set the stage for the catastrophe in Kosovo. If there were a Nobel Prize for ineptitude in diplomacy, they would be its joint recipients. He continued: The military will be so exhausted by doing social work with bombs and troops that resources won't be there to defend the United States when our vital interests are at stake. When China confronts us in Asia, we can tell our allies there that we have spent all of our missiles in the Balkans. He wrote this before we bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Finally, Mr. Feder, wrote this: Kosovo was an avoidable tragedy. Clinton and Albright should toast marshmallows over the flames of Kosovo. They lit the fire.