Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the House will soon approve more than $1 billion and a big increase for one of the most wasteful, least effective organizations in the entire Federal Government. This organization is the Job Corps, and it is presently spending more than $25,000 per year per Job Corps student. Yet the GAO has confirmed that very few Job Corps students, only about 4 percent, end up in jobs for which they were trained. For this $25,000 per year per student, we could give each of these young people a $1,000 a month allowance, send them to some expensive private school and still save money. They would probably think they had almost gone to heaven. This money will be approved because there are more than 110 Job Corps centers spread politically all over the country, and because most people mistakenly assume that this money is going to underprivileged young people. Yet the kids are not getting this money. The only ones really benefiting are wealthy government contractors and the bureaucrats who are running the program.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the full committee, for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 4057. Let me first say that I really appreciate the outstanding leadership provided by the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who has always provided strong leadership on issues pertaining to aviation. This bill before us is a product that enjoys support from both sides of the aisle. We have worked very closely with the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the fine gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and my good friend from Chicago, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), in crafting this very important legislation. As has been stated already, H.R. 4057 is a simple 1-year reauthorization of the Airport Improvement Program and the FAA's Operations and Facilities Equipment accounts. H.R. 4057 provides dedicated funding for airport security, and increases the number of military airports which can receive special AIP funds from 12 to 14, which was done at the request of several Members from the State of Florida. It also increases the noise set-aside from 31 percent of the discretionary funds to 33 percent, which will be a significant increase in our efforts to combat noise at airports. The bill makes runway incursion devices eligible for AIP funding and ensures that this is a higher priority. It establishes a Centennial Flight Commission, at the request of our friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walter Jones). It requires, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) has mentioned, collision avoidance systems for cargo aircraft, primarily at the urging and recommendation of the gentleman from Illinois, who has worked so very hard on that particular issue. It provides assistance for the Olympics and for the Special Olympics in Utah, transportation assistance, at the request of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Merrill Cook). It has whistle-blower protection for airline employees and FAA employees for the first time, an issue that our friends the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) have worked on very, very hard. It includes a deed restriction removal for the airport at Newport News, Virginia, at the request of one of our committee members, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman). It begins the elimination of the bogus parts problem, at the request of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). It has other provisions that I will not really go into at this time, but we did try to accommodate a great many Members who have made requests in this legislation. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) said, this is a must-pass bill because the authorization for the AIP program expires on September 30th of this year, and without this authorization, no airports will be able to receive needed safety and security funding. We have also included in this bill $5 million for the National Safe Skies Alliance, which will test and evaluate state-of-the-art security equipment, including explosive detection systems. The National Safe Skies Alliance will certainly produce results that eventually will improve the safety and security at airports all across this Nation. H.R. 4057 includes a provision that seeks to promote safety and quiet in and around our national parks by establishing a process for developing air tour management plans. And this is a significant part of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because we had groups from the environmental community and groups from the air tour community that started out very, very far apart, but they have compromised and worked together to come up with, I think, very innovative and far-reaching legislation that will ensure that the FAA has the sole authority to control airspace and that the National Park Service has the responsibility to manage the park resources, and that these two agencies under this legislation will work cooperatively in developing air tour management plans for our national parks. This legislation covers virtually every national park in the country except those in Alaska and the Grand Canyon, for which there will be special accommodations. Air tours over the Grand Canyon are already covered by a 1987 law, and if that should ever be repealed, the Grand Canyon would be covered by this legislation. I am proud to say that we have worked on a bipartisan basis both on the Subcommittee on Aviation and at the full committee level on all of these issues. Mr. Speaker, let me say in closing that I believe the Aviation Trust Fund should receive the same budget treatment that this Congress has overwhelmingly approved for the Highway Trust Fund. This is a matter that has been briefly touched upon by both the chairman and the gentleman from Illinois. The fact is that under the new aviation tax system, we are bringing in about $10 billion per year into the Aviation Trust Fund. Over a 5- year period, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that we will have a $40 billion cash surplus in the trust fund. Some experts predict that estimates for airport improvements across the country are about $10 billion per year, or $50 billion over that 5-year period. The $1.7 billion appropriated for the AIP program is not enough to meet those needs. Air passenger traffic and air cargo traffic are both shooting way up every year to record levels, and the $1.2 billion collected from the passenger facility charge each year does not go very far or far enough for these expensive projects. Although some members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure support increasing the passenger facility service charge, and I agree that airports certainly need more financial assistance, this bill does not raise the current $3 PFC. But I also believe we should wait until next year so we can all work together to fundamentally change the way in which our aviation system is funded. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has recommended that we make next year the ``year of aviation'' in our committee, and I certainly believe that we will do that and that we should do that. I believe the American people are paying their fair share of taxes into the aviation system, but I know that our government's budgeting process here is obviously very flawed and in need of change and is resulting in many shortcomings to those who are using our aviation system. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me salute the outstanding staff of the Subcommittee on Aviation, David Schaffer and Donna McLean. But I would like to take just a moment to salute my good friend Jim Coon, who has worked so hard on this legislation, and who will very shortly be leaving our subcommittee to move to a tremendous new opportunity with the Air Transport Association, and will terminate at that point a 16- year career on Capitol Hill, the last 10 of which Mr. Coon has been with me, first as my legislative director and then for almost 4 years now with the Subcommittee on Aviation. Jim Coon is one of the finest men I have ever known in my life and one of the hardest working, and he has done a tremendous job both for me personally in my office and for the last few years with the Subcommittee on Aviation. I can tell my colleagues that this Congress and I personally will miss Jim Coon, and I just want him to know how much I appreciate all that he has done for me, for this committee, and for this country.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Scruggs, Inc., a leading Knoxville business, has recently received national recognition as the ``1998 Dealer of the Year'' by ``Foodservice Equipment and Supplies Magazine.'' Scruggs, Inc. is a 66-year-old, third generation restaurant equipment and design company in Knoxville, TN. Scruggs, Inc., founded in 1932, by Mr. Carlton Scruggs, now has over 55 employees and sales of over $15 million a year. In a time where many family businesses may be experiencing difficulties, it is wonderful to see this family business doing so well. The Scruggs family is one of east Tennessee's most respected families. I have known Mr. Jim Scruggs, who recently retired from the company, for many years. Now, the day-to-day operations are managed by his sons, Lee and Andrew. I congratulate the Scruggs family on this well-deserved honor, and I wish them continued success. I would like to call to the attention of all of my Colleagues and other readers of the Congressional Record the article from the ``Knoxville News Sentinel'' concerning this outstanding award. [From the Knoxville News Sentinel] ``Dealer of the Year''; Magazine Awards Knox Family Firm Scruggs Inc. (By Jerry Dean) Scruggs Inc., a 66-year-old Knoxville company which sells and services food service equipment, has come far since Earnest Carleton Scruggs of Sweetwater first bought such equipment on New York's Bowery for resale in Knoxville in 1932. Named Foodservice Equipment & Supplies magazine's 1998 ``Dealer of the Year`` in May, Scruggs was featured in the magazine's 50th anniversary issue, which noted its ``record of integrity, innovation and leadership.'' ``Exemplary customer service expresses the ruling philosophy of this company,'' said Publisher Sandra A. Smith. Scruggs Inc., now with 55 employees, operates a 60,000- square-foot warehouse and an 18,000-square-foot showroom at 3011 Industrial Parkway East, northwest of Western and Texas Avenues, east of Interstate 75 in Knoxville. Lee E. and Andrew D. Scruggs, brothers and latest of three generations to run the business, said 50 years by coincidence is how long their father, James Scruggs, has been associated with Scruggs Inc. Though retired, he remains a design consultant for its customers, including restaurants, soda fountains and grocers in East Tennessee. ``There's nothing magical about the firm's success,'' Lee Scruggs said. ``We merely try to do what we say we'll do. And to look after our customers well.'' James Scruggs began the business in 1948 and was joined in 1950 by elder brother E.C. Jr. and younger brother, Pat. James began by drawing floor plans, but after his elder brother's death, James learned sales and administration to assume leadership. In 1961, he helped found Equipment Distributors Inc., a buyers' group that helps all 22 of its area dealer-members prosper. Scruggs Inc., with $15 million in 1997 sales, maintains a tidy division of labors between brothers Lee, who administers the company, and Andrew, who directs sales. Lee, a UT graduate and former youth minister, joined Scruggs in 1980 as warehouse manager. Andrew, a Texas Christian University graduate, joined the firm in 1979 after working for a restaurant chain. Also working closely with the Scruggses are key employees like Ed Poore, the comptroller. The firm opened a Tri-Cities sales office-showroom in April and expects it to help boost sales to $25 million. Scruggs also operates a Nashville cash-and carry outlet. Scruggs Inc. sells and installs such equipment as cook tops, 10-burner ranges, freezers and such ``smallware'' as glassware and serving utensils. Its 5,000 customers include restaurants, hospitals, nursing homes and schools.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, we will soon pass some type of patients rights bill, and we need to do this. But it is really sad that it is necessary to do this. Prior to the mid-1960s, medical care in this country was of high quality and very low cost. The cost was low and flat for many, many years. Then the Federal Government got into medical care in a big way and costs exploded and we got things like HMOs. The government took what was then a very minor problem for a very few people and we turned it into a very major problem for everyone. Almost everyone, with the exception of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, could be wiped out by some type of major medical catastrophe. All the government has done is to do what it has always done best, make a very few filthy rich at the great expense to the very many. Look at nursing homes. Those few who were lucky enough to get into the nursing home business, those favored enough to get nursing home licenses, have gotten rich because of government restrictions on the number of nursing homes and the overregulation that always drives small operators out. The result: The cost of nursing home care is probably double or triple what it would be if the government had stayed out and had let the free market operate. Medical care is the only thing we are paying for through a third- party payer system. If we bought cars this way, a Yugo probably would have cost $300,000. When someone else is footing the bill, cost no longer matters and everyone wants the most expensive product or treatment available. Thank goodness most of us are not paying for food through a third-party paying system. A few years ago, I asked a hospital administrator in my district what would happen if the government got totally out of medical care. He told me that prices would go down 50 percent within days, and probably another 50 percent over the next 6 months. So, they would very quickly be 25 percent or less of what they are now. Obviously, though, we cannot dismantle this overpriced and unfair system that we have now. Too many doctors, hospitals, and medical businesses would scream to high heaven if we did. So what should we do? Realistically, all we can do is reform around the edges and hope the system does not become even worse and even more expensive. Medical savings accounts or medical vouchers would help some, because they would give people some incentive to shop around. But what I really want to do tonight is read a portion of a column from yesterday's Washington Post by James K. Glassman, who is consistently one of the very best commentators on the political scene today. Mr. Glassman wrote, ``Employers today foot most of the bills for health insurance, so they determine the policies their workers get. As costs soared in the 1980s, employers turned to HMOs and managed care, restricting their workers' choices. ``Health insurance policies aren't really 'insurance'; their purpose is to prepay medical costs that are predictable or inexpensive, like checkups and flu visits. This is like auto insurance paying for an oil change. But since Uncle Sam is footing a big part of the bill, it makes sense for health `insurance' to be all-inclusive, with low deductibles. ``Employees have little incentive to self-ration the care they get. Imagine a tax subsidy for food insurance, provided by your employer. You would naturally buy steak instead of chicken. Soon, however, the insurer would respond by limiting your steak-buying to once a month, or by forcing you to buy all your food at a specific grocery chain with no steak in its coolers. Given this restricted choice, you would probably rush to a politician to complain. ``The solution for health insurance is to end the tax subsidies, which currently cost the Treasury more than $100 billion a year. Instead, give that money back to individual Americans either through tax credits or rate reductions that would leave more money in their pockets. We should probably require everyone to have some type of catastrophic insurance (say, for expenses over $2,500), and the government should foot the bill for the poor through insurance vouchers (like food stamps). ``Then we would have a real market with far less paperwork and with people buying the sort of insurance they really want . . . not just what their employers force them to take. The final insult of the tax exclusion is that it mainly benefits those who need it least. The Lewin Group found that 64 percent of subsidies in 1996 went to families making $50,000 a year or more, while 11 percent went to those making less than $30,000. ``Instead of pandering to fear,'' Mr. Glassman wrote, ``politicians should level with voters. End the tax exclusion and let people buy their own health policies. Insurance companies, which benefit from billions in subsidies, might howl, but choices would broaden, costs would fall, and paperwork would be drastically reduced and the destructive cycle of excess, cutbacks in care, and political intervention would end.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill reauthorizes the War Risk Insurance program for 5 years. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure unanimously approved H.R. 4058 on June 25. This bill is very similar to legislation, S. 1193, which the House passed on November 12, 1997. S. 1193 provided a short extension of the program in order to give us time to develop an alternative to borrowing authority that would help ensure that air carrier insurance claims could be paid in a timely manner. The War Risk Insurance Program expires on December 31 of this year. Our borrowing authority proposal was opposed by the administration last year, so we worked with the administration and others in developing this alternative. H.R. 4058 would reauthorize the War Risk Insurance Program for 5 years until the year 2003. It also includes a provision that would allow an air carrier to be reimbursed almost immediately from its private insurance company should the Federal Government be unable to pay promptly because of some unforeseen circumstance or because the insurance fund had been depleted. In short, if the Federal Government does not pay promptly, the airline can get the prompt payment from its private insurance company. The insurance company's prompt payment would then eventually be reimbursed by the Federal Government. The War Risk Insurance Program is vitally important to this Nation and to our national defense. It was first authorized in 1951 and over the years has been improved upon during the reauthorization process. The subcommittee held a hearing on this program in May of last year and has made great progress on this program. The War Risk Insurance Program was used extensively during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm to ensure aircraft carrier and troops and supplies to the Middle East. Without this program, the military would have had to buy more aircraft for this purpose, which would have cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Instead, commercial aircraft, with the protection of war risk insurance, were willing to take on these dangerous missions. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, a needed bill, and I strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for assisting us on this legislation, and I have no other speakers at this time so I simply urge support for this very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4058.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4058) to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the aviation insurance program, and for other purposes.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4058, the bill just passed.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 1998. I am joined in the introduction of this legislation with a number of distinguished colleagues. These Members include the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bud Shuster from Pennsylvania, the Chairman of the Resources Committee, Don Young from Alaska, the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Bob Smith from Oregon, the Chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee, Jim Hansen from Utah, the Ranking Member of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, the Ranking Member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Lipinski, as well as Mr. Ensign and Mr. Gibbons from Nevada. Mr. Speaker, this very distinguished group of Members worked tirelessly to get us to this point today. This legislation represents an agreement which strikes a balance between air tour and environmental concerns, Native American interests, and jurisdictional areas between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service. The bill seeks to promote safety and quiet in national parks by establishing a process for developing air tour flight management in and around our national parks. This legislation ensures that the FAA has sole authority to control airspace over the United States and that the National Park Service has the responsibility to manage park resources. These two Agencies, under this legislation, will work cooperatively in developing air tour management plans for air tour operators and will both share the fundamental responsibility to ensure that air tours over national parks and tribal lands are conducted in a safe, efficient, and unintrusive manner. Mr. Speaker, let me also acknowledge Senator John McCain for his leadership on this issue. I know that Senator McCain has been active on this for several years, has chaired a number of Senate hearings, and is moving similar legislation in the other body. There has also been a number of oversight hearings here in the House. Mr. Oberstar, former Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee held a joint hearing with the National Park Subcommittee in July of 1994. Last year, Chairman Hansen and I held a field hearing in St. George, Utah. We heard from a number of very impressive witnesses representing different views and opinions. At that time, it appeared that it would be extremely difficult to be able to reach a consensus on how to handle air tours over our national parks. However, with resolve and determination, differences have been worked out and we have crafted legislation that is acceptable to all concerned. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the entire National Parks Overflights Working Group for their dedication and cooperation in the development of this legislation. This Working Group was selected by the Administration last year to develop a plan for instituting flight management over national parks. For more than a year, working group representatives of the air tour, environmental, and Native American communities--along with the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service negotiated. A number of meetings were held here in Washington as well as other parts of the Country. This group developed a basic framework for the management of air tours at national parks and recommended that Congress capture this approach in legislation. The Working Group consists of Mr. Charles Maynard from Sevierville, Tennessee and the Friends of the Great Smoky Mountains. Mr. Alan Steven from Twin Otter International located in North Las Vegas, Nevada. Mr. Chip Dennerlein from the National Parks and Conservation Association. Mr. Tom Chapman representing the interests of general aviation. Mr. Andy Cebula from the National Air Transportation Association. Mr. David Chevalier from Blue Hawaiian Helicopters. Mr. Richard Deertrack from Taos, New Mexico representing the Native American interests. And, Mr. Boyd Evison, former National Park Superintendent and Regional Director. Mr. Speaker, all of these gentlemen provided the expertise, insight, and wisdom that helped us develop this consensus legislation. This is an outstanding bill which will ensure that ground visitors and the elderly, disabled and time-constrained traveler may continue to enjoy the scenic beauty of our national parks for generations to come.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to two close friends of mine, one here in the Congress and one in my hometown of Knoxville. The first is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), one of the most popular Members of this body on both sides of the aisle. I pay tribute to the gentleman from Ohio tonight because of the bill that we just passed to reform the IRS. Newsweek Magazine recently had a cover story about the IRS, and on its front cover Newsweek described the IRS as ``lawless, abusive, and out of control.'' But for many years, and probably longer than anyone else presently in the Congress, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has been speaking out against IRS abuse of ordinary citizens. In addition, it was the gentleman from Ohio who originally authored the legislation to place the burden of proof in tax cases on the IRS rather than on the taxpayer. In other words, thanks primarily to the gentleman from Ohio, a taxpayer will not now be subjected to the very un-American injustice of being presumed guilty unless or until he proves himself innocent. Many people seem to be taking credit for this provision now, but I think the primary credit should go to our friend: Jim Traficant. Mr. Speaker, I think that about 85 to 90 percent of the American people want us to drastically simplify our tax laws. Mr. Speaker, we certainly should, but I doubt that we will any time in the near future. But at least we have passed this IRS reform today and the gentleman from Ohio deserves the most credit for the most significant part of it, and I salute the gentleman for this great accomplishment. In Tribute to Bill Hanks Mr. Speaker, next I would like to say a few words about a close friend of mine from home, Bill Hanks, who recently retired after a long and successful business career. William Franklin Hanks, Jr., was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, October 15, 1934. He grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina, where his parents, Sally and ``Tubby'' Hanks moved when he was a year old. Bill graduated from Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina, in 1957, where he played varsity basketball and was a member of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. It was at Furman that he met Beth Ballentine, a South Carolina girl who stole his heart; and they were married after his graduation. Bill coached basketball one year at Statesville, North Carolina High School. After 5 years in sales for the Weyerhaeuser Corporation, he joined the sales force of Package Products Company in Charlotte, resulting in his move to Knoxville in 1964. He has spent 34 years in sales and retired recently as national accounts manager for the Sonoco Corporation, which bought Package Products 3 years ago. Bill is known by his family and friends for his sense of humor, his loyalty and his dedication to God, his family, his work and his community. He has served the Eastminster Presbyterian church in Knoxville as an elder, deacon, Sunday School teacher, youth fellowship volunteer, stewardship and finance committees, always giving his time and talents unselfishly. Bill and Beth are extremely proud of their family: Linda Hanks Kapstein and husband, Dan, who have two sons, Zachary and Jacob, and live in Little Compton, Rhode Island; William F Hanks, III, his wife Patti and their three children, Chelsea, Will IV, and Heath, who reside in Plant City, Florida; Wallace Sidney Hanks and his wife, Traci, and daughter, Sidney Beth, live in Dalton, Georgia; and Lucille Rand Hanks who lives in Alexandria, and has been my office manager and has been with me since I first came to the Congress. Professional accomplishments by this man include membership in his company's Million Dollar Club and Winner's Circle for many years. In the Knoxville community, Bill Hanks has devoted many hours to coaching youth in city basketball leagues, Boys Club and church leagues, always teaching fundamentals and teamwork. Helping young people develop high moral standards and good work ethics while enjoying sports earned him the Mayor's Merit Award in 1975 in the field of athletics, for outstanding achievement in service to the City of Knoxville. Though Bill remains loyal with gifts to his Alma Mater, Furman University, he has ``adopted'' the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, and is an avid fan and supporter of ``Big Orange'' athletics. Now in retirement, Bill will continue as a broker in the packaging business; but he and Beth will divide their time between Knoxville and a home in Fripp Island, South Carolina, and will mainly enjoy spending time with their children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I can say without hesitation or reservation that this country is a better place because of great Americans like Congressman Jim Traficant and my friend, Bill Hanks.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Times reported last week that Carol Browner, head of the EPA, had led a junket to Paris at a cost of $60,000 to the American taxpayers. Of course, surely this was done to go to some very vital environmental meetings. Well, no. This trip was made so she and some of her friends could go to the World Cup soccer games, a $60,000 vacation at the expense of the taxpayers for Carol Browner, our environmental administrator. Five- thousand-dollar first class round trip airfares, $300-a-night hotel rooms and then, of course, as is so often the case with this administration, they cannot take these fancy trips without big campaign contributors. One guest on this trip was Hassan Nemazee, an Iranian American. Hassan Nemazee has contributed at least $125,000 to the Democratic National Committee in recent years and no telling how much to individual Democratic candidates or other committees. Democratic fund- raisers have now sold nights in the Lincoln bedroom, Commerce Department trips, even nuclear technology in return for campaign contributions. You have to wonder how much they will try to make out of the upcoming or the next Olympic games in Australia. On another and even more wasteful topic, a GAO report released last month said the cost of the space station has now gone up to $96 billion, over five times the original cost estimates. Today the publication Congress Daily says, ``Recent reports from the GAO and the Cost Assessments and Validation Task Force on the space station have left even its biggest supporters acknowledging that problems with costs and Russian participation need to be addressed.'' Also Congress Daily reports in the article today that the space station will likely be 2 years behind schedule, with each one month of delay costing $100 million. Congress Daily reports today that the space station will likely be 2 years behind schedule, with each month of delay costing $100 million for a program that is already over five times its original cost estimate. Each day, every day here in Washington we hear about horrible examples of waste, fraud and abuse. A few months ago it was reported that there was $23 billion, $23 billion with a ``B,'' in waste and fraud in the Medicare program, $23 billion. The entire State of Tennessee, our entire government in Tennessee does not spend that much in a year and a half for education and everything else that the State does. It does not spend as much as the Medicare program has wasted in just one year. We recently were told about the National Park Service spending $584,000 per home to build 18 houses, 18 houses for its employees in the Yosemite National Park. One of these homes cost $700,000; $584,000 for homes for employees of the National Park Service. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, what Federal bureaucrats can justify or rationalize for themselves. The American people should realize that any money they send here to Washington to our Federal Government will be spent in the least economical, least efficient, most wasteful way possible. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, what government officials and bureaucrats will do when they are spending other people's money.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Sportsmen's Memorial Act of 1998. This legislation will honor this Nation's sportsmen by initiating a process through which a memorial will be established in, or around, the District of Columbia. I think everyone will agree that the conservation of the Nation's fish and wildlife resources is of critical importance to all of our citizens. Many government agencies have been created to manage our natural resources. In addition, many national, state and local associations have been established to support conservation efforts. However, standing at the forefront of these collective efforts are sportsmen, whose financial support to the Nation's fish and wildlife conservation efforts number in the tens of billions of dollars. Sportsmen have been the financial and philosophical backbone of successful fish and wildlife management throughout the 20th century. The support of these individuals has allowed fish and wildlife managers to protect and restore millions of acres of habitat, engage in quality research on a multitude of fish and wildlife species, and actively manage our natural resources on a day-to-day basis. In addition, sportsmen, through their purchase of state hunting and fishing licenses, stamps, and tags, have contributed billions of dollars directly to wildlife agencies. This support has allowed fish and wildlife managers to achieve some of the greatest success stories. For all of these reasons, I believe it is appropriate that we honor these men and women with a memorial in the National Capital Region. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in honoring the sportsmen of this Country by cosponsoring the Sportsmen Memorial Act of 1998.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this legislation and the rule that brings it to the floor. A few months ago Newsweek magazine had on its cover, ``The IRS: Lawless, Abusive, Out of Control.'' Now, when any Federal agency, but especially one that affects so many Americans and is so intrusive as the Internal Revenue Service, is described by a major national magazine, a mainstream magazine like Newsweek, as being lawless, abusive and out of control, things have gotten to a pretty sad state. We can do much better, Mr. Speaker. We should do much better, if we are going to do the job that the American people want us to do. Almost every poll shows that 85 to 90 percent of the people want us to drastically reform, drastically simplify the Tax Code. There is no good reason why we should have a Tax Code nearly as complicated, convoluted and confusing as the one we have. Mr. Speaker, we have a Tax Code that is something like 91,000 pages of rules and regulations on top of the code itself, involving five or six million words. Almost no one understands it. All of us have seen articles showing that about 40-something percent, or almost half of the advice that the IRS itself gives out is wrong. And almost everyone in this country has violated some tax law at some point in his or her life, unintentionally, unknowingly, and all it would take would be for an overzealous prosecutor or some power crazed IRS agent to come after them to cause them to go through all sorts of misery and heartache and go to tremendous expense. So we need to do what the American people want us to do. We need to drastically simplify this Tax Code. We need to throw out the code that we have got and simply start over and come up with a code that is simple and fair to the American people and do the job that they sent us here to do and give this government of this country back to the citizens once again. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and I urge its passage.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the General Aviation Industry is one of the most important industries in our Nation. Since the Wright Brothers' first flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, aviation has played a crucial rule in the livelihood of our Nation. In the United States, business aviation and U.S. air carriers are experiencing record growth and are expected to carry over 1 billion passengers a year early in the next decade. Aviation is an essential ingredient in the economic success of our Nation. The role of aviation can be seen each and every day at over 13,000 airports and landing facilities here in the United States. It is here that the men and women of the aviation industry strive to make the United States the world's leader in aviation. The month of June has been designated as ``Learn To Fly Month''. I hope that more people will take an interest in aviation. In order to maintain our position as the world's leader in aviation, the United States must recognize the importance of highly qualified and well- trained pilots. These pilots are a key ingredient in the success of the United States Aviation Industry and help to maintain the best aviation infrastructure in the world. I place the following proclamation by Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater proclaiming June as Learn To Fly Month, in the Record and call it to the attention of my colleagues. The Secretary of Transportation, Washington, DC, June 9, 1998. Whereas aviation is a vital link of our nation's transportation system and economy; Whereas the growth, safety, and efficiency of aviation requires highly qualified pilots; Whereas in 1996, fewer people undertook flight training than anytime since the Korean War, and the overall U.S. pilot population declined to the lowest number in over 20 years; Whereas the United States Military is training fewer pilots than anytime in recent history; Whereas the United States airlines and business aviation are experiencing record growth and are expected to carryover 1 billion passengers a year early in the next decade; Whereas the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 has stimulated the rebirth of light general aviation aircraft manufacturing in the United States; Whereas general aviation is playing an increasingly important role in the nation's air transportation system serving over 13,000 airports and landing facilities; Whereas the experience of flight offers the opportunity for personal challenge and self fulfillment in professional and personal endeavors; Whereas GA Team 2000 has been formed by over 120 companies and associations representing all facets of the civil aviation industry with the specific purpose of stimulating more student pilots; Whereas over 1600 flight training institutions and schools are participating in this national effort; Therefore in special recognition of rebuilding America's pilot population, I Rodney Slater, Secretary of Transportation, do hereby proclaim June 1998 as Learn to Fly Month with the recognition that highly qualified and well trained pilots are an essential ingredient of our nation's aviation infrastructure. Rodney E. Slater.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, as many people here in Washington know, I am a tremendous fan of the University of Tennessee Athletic Teams. For more than thirty years, John Ward has been known throughout the Nation as the ``Voice of the Vols.'' During that time Mr. Ward has made millions of fans feel like they were sitting in the stands even though they were only able to listen over the radio. He has been acclaimed with a reputation as one of the finest sports announcers in the history of this Nation. Even more importantly, he has become one of the most respected and admired men in East Tennessee and has been a true friend to many many people throughout our part of the Country. John Ward has now announced his retirement as the footfall and basketball broadcaster for the Tennessee Volunteers after one more season. When he leaves he will certainly be missed by countless numbers of Tennessee sports fans and will be almost impossible to replace. I would like to offer my congratulations to John Ward on a job well done and wish him the best for the future. I would like to call to the attention of all my colleagues and other readers of the Congressional Record several articles and editorials from the Knoxville News Sentinel. A Legend Steps Down John Ward, Bill Anderson will end long broadcasting stint next year At the University of Tennessee, student-athletes come and go with regularity. Less frequently, the school changes presidents, vice presidents, deans, coaches and even athletic directors. And life goes on. What has not changed in the past 30-plus years at UT is the person broadcasting football and basketball games, John Ward. When Ward steps down as the ``Voice of the Vols'' after the 1998 football season and the '98-99 basketball season, life will go on but will be very different. Bill Anderson, the former UT football player who has been the color commentator and sidekick to Ward's play-by-play announcing, also will bow out next year. They are the longest-running broadcast pair in Division 1-A college football. Ward, who has broadcast UT football games for 30 years and Vols basketball games for 34 years, called a press conference last Wednesday to announce that he will retire following one more season behind the microphone. Succinctly he said, ``It's time.'' Edwin Huster, Vol Network general manager, promises a national search by the university, the athletic department and the network for Ward's replacement. The new broadcast team likely will be named by May of next year. But how does UT or the network replace an institution? University President Joe Johnson said he would prefer the headache of picking head coaches, athletic directors or chancellors to finding a successor to Ward. As much as Ward's longevity and steady voice at the mike, he will be remembered for the detail, the fairness and, most of all, the colorful way he announced UT's games. Ah, yes, the color. How does one improve on, ``Give him six''? Or dragging out the last five yards of a long touchdown romp as though the runner suddenly lapsed into slow motion: ``He's at the five, the four, the three, the two, the one . . .''? Or, with field goals, expanding the word ``good'' to about 10 syllables? In basketball, Ward might not have patented the term ``bottom,'' but can anyone deliver it any better? And who can forget the basketball glory days of ``Ernie G. of Tennessee'' or ``Bernard KING of the Volunteers'' from the mid-1970s? Such are the things of legend, and, in the world of college football and basketball broadcasting, Ward's legendary status is assured. We wish him and Anderson the best in retirement. Meanwhile, thanks for giving us one more year.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to first of all commend my friends the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for their very hard work on this bill. This is a very moderate and reasoned and sensible approach to a problem that is, unfortunately, growing very rapidly around the world. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor, and I am also pleased that such a wide array of religious organizations have endorsed this bill. Many immigrants came to our country over 200 years ago to practice religion as they chose and be free from religious persecution. And if we just look above the Speaker's rostrum, we see the words ``in God we trust.'' This serves as a reminder of how important religion has been and is to this Nation. Religious freedom is one of the most basic of all human rights, one of the most basic human rights that any individual can have. This legislation does not apply to simply one religion or just one religion, it applies to them all. No matter what a person's faith or beliefs, people around the world should be able to worship as they wish, free from fear of abduction and enslavement, imprisonment, murder, rape, torture and so forth. And believe me, that is occurring around this world, those types of things, even as we speak. I first became interested in this after reading a portion of Nina Shea's recent book called ``The Lion's Den.'' In that book Nina Shea said this, quote: Millions of American Christians pray in their churches each week, oblivious to the fact that Christians in many parts of the world suffer brutal torture, arrest, imprisonment, and even death, their homes and communities laid waste, for no other reason than that they are Christians. The shocking untold story of our time is that more Christians have died in this century simply for being Christians than in the first 19 centuries after the birth of Christ. Mr. Chairman, I think this is deplorable. In addition, I read a recent interview by Michael Horowitz, a leader in speaking out against this persecution. Mr. Horowitz, who happens to be Jewish, says in a recent interview, ``I am speaking out on behalf of persecuted Christians precisely because I am a Jew in the most deeply rooted sense. I see eerie parallels,'' Mr. Horowitz said, ``between the way the elites of the world are dealing with Christians who have become the scapegoats of choice for thug regimes around the world and the way the elites dealt with the Jews when Hitler came to power. ``Another parallel is the tongue-tied silence of the Christian community in the face of persecution. A similar silence was evident in the years leading to the Holocaust. Silence, anybody's silence in the face of persecution, is deadly. So for me'', Mr. Horowitz said, ``sparking our campaign for awareness in action is the most important thing I expect to do. What thugs did to Jews, they are now doing to Christians. Christians are become the Jews of the 21st Century.'' All faiths, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, people from all walks of life have joined in support of this very important bill. This is good legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago at a hearing of the Committee on Resources, the Inspector General of the Interior Department reported some shocking findings. He said that the National Park Service had built 19 employee houses at the Yosemite National Park at an average cost of $584,000. One of the homes cost $700,000. Now, I know the Federal bureaucracy can rationalize or justify almost anything, and I know that because the national parks are so popular, the Park Service feels it is above criticism and can do just about anything it wants. However, Federal employees already have pay and pensions and hours that are far better than just about everyone except for movie stars and athletes. To build Park Service employees $584,000 homes on top of what they are already getting is ridiculous. The really sad part, though, is that very few are shocked about this. We have just come to expect things like this from an agency that last year spent almost $400,000 on a fancy two-hole outhouse. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has proved that it cannot do anything in an economical manner.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today is the National Day of Prayer. This Nation and each of us individually would be far better off if we all spent more time in prayer. There are very few people in this country who would disagree with that. Certainly our Founding Fathers believed in prayer. Most of them came here in large part to get freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Yet, beyond a belief in prayer, many other issues of faith are very contentious. But there is more common ground than the vocal minority sometimes would have us believe. Three or four years ago, William Raspberry, the great Washington Post columnist, wrote a really outstanding column on some of these issues. He asked a very important question, Mr. Speaker, when he wrote, ``Is it not just possible that antireligious bias, masquerading as religious neutrality, is costing this Nation far more than we have been willing to acknowledge?'' Let me repeat that quote from William Raspberry, ``Is it not just possible that antireligious bias, masquerading as religious neutrality, is costing this Nation far more than we have been willing to acknowledge?'' In this same column, Mr. Raspberry then told of a Jewish talk show host who had said that for those who thought there was no place for God in the public life of this Nation, he wished they would ask themselves this question: If they were walking late one night in the roughest section of one of our Nation's largest cities and they heard footsteps approaching rapidly from behind and they turned and saw four strapping, well-built young men, would they not be relieved to know that these young men were just returning from a Bible study? We open up every session of the House and Senate with prayer; and we have rabbis, priests, ministers from all faiths and there has never been a problem about it. Yet, for some reason, we do not allow our schoolchildren the same privilege. And the problems of the schools have grown much worse over the last 25 or 30 years. A really fine column on religious tolerance, Mr. Speaker, was written a few weeks ago by nationally syndicated columnist Charley Reese. I would like to read this column into the Record at this point. This is what Mr. Reese wrote: Want to know the definition of a stone-cold bigot? It is anybody who is offended by the sight and sound of someone practicing, expressing, or proclaiming his religious faith. Such people are not only bigots, they are the south end of a horse traveling north. Their intolerance is exceeded only by their ignorance of the Constitution. The first amendment forbids the establishment of an official church or religion. Period. Nothing else. To establish an official church or religion would require legislation so designating it, and taxes and appropriations to subsidize it. That's all Thomas Jefferson meant when he said there was a wall of separation between church and state. Mr. Reese continued: But when a private individual or a public official prays in a school or any other public place, he is not establishing an official church. For someone to say that the mere sight of a Christian proclaiming his faith in a public place is offensive is to indict himself as a vicious bigot and an inconsiderate, self-centered boor. These boors apparently have no conception of civility and respect for others. They act as if religious faith were an infectious disease. One of the most touching sights I saw Mr. Reese continued, . . . in the Middle East was a poor man, a Muslim, in shabby clothes, kneeling on a newspaper, the only prayer rug he could afford, on the tarmac of the airport in Amman, Jordan, and saying his evening prayers. His example of simple faith in his God touched my heart. Truthfully, I cannot conceive how any decent human being could say that such a sight is offensive. People who find other people's religion offensive are demonstrating their hatred, not their interest in liberty. The only way a free society can work is for everyone to respect everyone else. There is no respect when someone says, `Your religion is offensive to me, so keep it out of my sight.' That is hate speech. Nor is it being disrespectful to practice your own religion or to pray as your particular religion teaches you to pray. Mr. Reese said, I don't know about you, but I've had a bellyful of rude, self-centered people. It's time to teach some people in this country some simple manners. Good manners are based on reciprocity. Respect for respect. Tolerance for tolerance. There are some people who use Orwellian doublespeak and practice bigotry while proclaiming their support for tolerance. We should expose such people for what they are, bigots. If you are a nonbeliever and are present when believers are praying, don't pray. But out of respect and courtesy for them as human beings, do not be rude or make ugly remarks about them. Respect people as people, even if they practice a different religion. And respect their religion. Mr. Reese concluded this column by saying, I am fed up with seeing religious people browbeaten and insulted by bullies packing lawyers. We have too many mean- spirited tails trying to wag our dog in this country. It may be time to bob some tails. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a great column by Charley Reese, and I include the column for the Record: Respect People Regardless of Religion (By Charlie Reese) March 30.--Want to know the definition of a stone-cold bigot? It's anybody who is ``offended'' by the sight and sound of someone practicing, expressing or proclaiming his religious faith. Such people are not only bigots, they are the south end of a horse traveling north. Their intolerance is exceeded only by their ignorance of the Constitution. The first amendment forbids the establishment of an official church or religion. Period. Nothing else. To establish an official church or religion would require legislation so designating it, and taxes and appropriations to subsidize it. That's all Thomas Jefferson meant when he said there was a wall of separation between church and state. You would have to be an idiot to conclude otherwise because the same people who wrote and passed the First Amendment also provided for tax-paid chaplains to pray in Congress. The problem the founders of the country dealt with is nonexistent today in America. It was the common practice of governments in their day to adopt a church and tax everyone to subsidize it. The practice had been brought from Europe to the colonies. But when a private individual or a public official prays in a school or any other public place, he is not establishing an official church. For someone to say that the mere sight of a Christian proclaiming his faith in a public place is ``offensive'' is to indict himself as a vicious bigot and an inconsiderate, self-centered boor. These boors apparently have no conception of civility and respect for others. They act as if religious faith were an infectious disease. One of the most touching sights I saw in the Middle East was a poor man, a Muslim, in shabby clothes, kneeling on a newspaper (the only prayer rug he could afford) of the tarmac of the airport in Amman, Jordan, and saying his evening prayers. His example of simple faith in his God touched my heart. He was as oblivious to the crowd of people and soldiers as he was to the cold wind and hard tarmac. He had a beautiful expression on his grizzled face. Clearly, there was man communing with a God he loved, and God must surely love such a man. Truthfully, I cannot conceive how any decent human being could say that such a sight is ``offensive.'' People who find other people's religion offensive are demonstrating their hatred, not their interest in liberty. The only way a free society can work is for everyone to respect everyone else. There is no respect when someone says, ``Your religion is offensive to me, so keep it out of my sight.'' That is hate speech. Nor is it being disrespectful to practice your own religion or to pray as your particular religion teaches you to pray. I don't know about you, but I've had a bellyful of rude, self-centered people. It's time to teach some people in this country some simple manners. Good manners are based on reciprocity. Respect for respect. Tolerance for tolerance. There are some people who use Orwellian doublespeak and practice bigotry while proclaiming their support for tolerance. We should expose such people for what they are--bigots. If you are a nonbeliever and are present when believers are praying, don't pray. But out of respect and courtesy for them as human beings, don't be rude or make ugly remarks about them. Respect people, as people, even if they practice a different religion. And respect their religion. I'm fed up with seeing religious people browbeaten and insulted by bullies packing lawyers. We have too many mean- spirited tails trying to wag our dog in this country. It may be time to bob some tails.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Foley Amendment which would amend the federal academic privacy laws to exclude criminal actions. I think that most people would think that matters like grades and financial aid records should be private matters between a student and his or her parents and their college or university. These records should not be released to the public. However, I think it is wrong that some students and colleges use these privacy laws to hide criminal acts. This amendment is based on provisions of my bill H.R. 715, the Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act. Both USA Today and the New Republic have supported my bill in full length stories. Both publications especially liked this bill because it amended the academic privacy laws. They do not think that federal law should be used to protest murderers and rapists. At this time, the Department of Education is suing Miami University of Ohio to prevent them from obeying a Ohio Supreme Court ruling which ordered such criminal records to be released. USA Today summarized the issue of federal law being used to protect and hide criminal activity: The government argues that university criminal records constitute `academic records' and therefore should be as private as student grades. This outrage is just the [Education] Department's latest attempt to protect colleges' reputations as the expense of student safety. . . . The Education Department is supporting a last-ditch effort by some universities to bury information about campus crimes. Students involved in criminal acts are commonly encouraged to use a college's private disciplinary board instead of the public criminal justice system. USA Today concluded: . . . it's a sad state of affairs when an act of Congress is necessary for the Education Department to protect students' safety. I have been concerned about this issue for a long time and have been happy to work with Congressman Foley on this issue. I believe that this amendment will do a lot to make our campuses safer places by making students, their parents, and the general public aware of the dangers that exist on many college campuses.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and for the underlying bill, H.R. 6, which this rule brings to the floor, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. I especially want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time; and also I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for including provisions in the bill in H.R. 6 which are similar to my bill, H.R. 715, the Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act. I would briefly like to discuss H.R. 715, much of which has been incorporated into H.R. 6. This legislation, H.R. 715, currently has 71 cosponsors almost equally split between both parties. H.R. 715 is a genuinely bipartisan bill. No college or university that has a safe campus should have any problems with the campus security provisions in H.R. 6, but for those institutions that do have crime problems, students and their parents should have a right to know about these dangers before they enroll. I became concerned about this issue after meeting with several families whose children had been murdered on college campuses. These families never dreamed that they should have to worry about the physical safety of their children on college campuses. The issue of campus crime last attracted the interest of many in the national media in the past year. Both CBS and ABC have devoted extensive time to this problem. Several leading publications have also covered this story. In fact, both the New Republic and USA Today have favorably written about my legislation, H.R. 715. After reading many of these articles and hearing these reports, it became painfully obvious to me that many colleges are doing a poor job in giving students and their parents an accurate picture of the dangers that lurk on some college campuses. On February 9, USA Today strongly endorsed H.R. 715 by stating, quote, in 1990, Congress passed a law requiring colleges to collect annual campus crime statistics, but the Education Department blocked the law's full implementation by threatening to withhold Federal funds from colleges opening their police logs. USA Today then hit the nail on the head by concluding, quote, it is a sad state of affairs when an act of Congress is necessary for the Education Department to protect student safety. I think, Mr. Speaker, that most of us look fondly on our college days, from the appealing image of ivy-lined brick buildings, the excitement of interacting with professors and, of course, making new friends who last for a lifetime. At least, that is what my colleagues and I probably remember. However, in the 1990s, unfortunately, the reality is far different. On many campuses, rapes, robberies and even murders are becoming far too common. Students now have reason to fear for their safety on some campuses. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that H.R. 6 contains campus security provisions that are modeled on H.R. 715. The campus security provisions of H.R. 6 require colleges and universities to maintain a daily log of all crimes committed and make those logs available for public inspection within 48 hours. Many States already require colleges and universities to make their police logs public. These provisions in H.R. 6 are a matter of fairness to those institutions which are making good-faith efforts to inform the public of the dangers on their campuses. The need for accurate police logs is crucial so that accurate crime statistics can be compiled. The public must be able to make informed decisions about where to attend college. While I would have liked to have seen more provisions from H.R. 715 included in H.R. 6, I believe that the provisions that are included will go a long way in improving the public's awareness of the dangers that, unfortunately, lurk on some of our college campuses. I appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in this regard, and I urge support for H.R. 6.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this bill. I particularly want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for his hard work on this bill. It is a real tribute to his perseverance and his dedication to and love for his country. I want to also commend the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for his work. A misimpression is being conveyed on this bill. Many people seem to think that all of this spending is being done in 1 year. This is a 6- year bill. When we divide 6 into the total involved here, it comes out to slightly less than 2 percent of Federal spending over this period. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, slightly less than 2 percent of Federal spending over this 6-year period. I believe we can poll any group in this country and well over 90 percent of the people in this country would agree that 2 percent is not too much for Federal Government to spend on our Nation's highways, roads, bridges, and transit needs. This is a very conservative bill, Mr. Speaker. It is one that all Members can and should support.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Tennessee Lady Vols on once again becoming the national champions of women's collegiate basketball. This is an unprecedented third national championship in a row for Coach Pat Head Summitt and her staff and players. Led by a young woman who has already been described as the greatest women's basketball player ever, Chamique Holdsclaw, the Lady Vols went 39 and 0 on the way to the national championship. Coach Pat Head Summitt has now won an unbelievable six national championships and is considered one of the top basketball coaches of all time, male or female. The dedication, the determination, the discipline of these young women is truly amazing. This is my hometown team, representing one of my alma maters, so I am especially proud of this outstanding group, but they have made all of Tennessee very proud, indeed. Coach Pat Head Summitt, her assistants, Mickie DeMoss, Holly Warlick, Al Brown, and the Tennessee Lady Vols are great representatives for the sport of basketball and for this Nation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, as I was driving to the airport last Friday, I heard on the CBS News part of a statement by the national head of the YMCA. He said, because of all the broken homes and other factors, children are being deprived of time, love, and attention like never before in our history. He was speaking out because of the horrendous tragedy in Arkansas. Then I switched stations and heard Dr. Laura Schlesinger, the radio psychologist, read something written by a third grader about his heroes, his parents. He emphasized, and Dr. Laura emphasized by reading it twice and stressing the word, ``time.'' Then in Sunday's Knoxville News Sentinel was an article by Mike Barnicle of the Boston Globe. The headline said, ``How much time do we really spend with our children?'' Mr. Barnicle wrote, ``It's not the guns. It's not TV. It's not movies featuring enormous amounts of gratuitous violence.'' He said, ``We can indulge ourselves in all of the semantic or psychological contortions available. We can assemble commissions, tie yellow ribbons around trees, shed tears, utter prayers, listen to speeches, read editorials, and we are still left with the apparent stone-cold fact that these multiple homicides were committed allegedly by two boys. One is 11, the other 13.'' Mike Barnicle continued by pointing out that, ``Today we communicate by e-mail, cell phones, laptops, the Internet, websites, and home pages. Yet we don't know what a 13-year-old is doing in his spare time.'' He ended his article in this way: Accountability rarely makes its way to the conversation table because so many parents are busy, too preoccupied with the moment to realize that the true priority--the most difficult task, as well as their greatest achievement, potentially--is staring them in the face with a . . . look that says, ``Talk to me, man.'' For 7\1/2\ years before I came to Congress, I was a criminal court judge trying primarily the felony cases. The first day I was Judge, I was told that 98 percent of the defendants in felony cases came from broken homes. I went through thousands of cases and read over and over again, ``Defendant's father left home when defendant was 2 and never returned. Defendant's father left home to get a pack of cigarettes and never came back.'' Then 3 or 4 years ago, I read an article about two leading criminologists who had studied 11,000 felony cases from around the country; and they said, the biggest single factor in serious crime, nothing else was even close, was father-absent households. Then I read that the 13-year-old boy in Arkansas, probably the leader, was the son of parents who divorced when he was 9; and his father lives in Minnesota. I know there are exceptions to every rule. I know that many wonderful people come from broken homes. I know there are hundreds of thousands of single mothers who are doing miraculous, even heroic, jobs raising their children. I also know that divorce hurts children; and many of them are hurt deeply, far worse than we realize, and scarred for life. So many fathers are slowly going out of the lives of their children. This hurts both boys and girls, but girls, who so often stay with their mothers, seem to be able to handle it better. We have a very serious epidemic in this Nation of small boys growing up without a good male role model. I know sometimes divorce is inevitable. It is the only choice. But I also believe that one of the greatest blessings you can give any child is two loving parents. Government cannot solve this problem alone. We need more men who will get active with the Boy Scouts and Sunday school and organizations that work with young boys, but government can help. We need school systems which will make a greater effort to hire male teachers at the elementary level. A very small percentage of elementary teachers are male right now. But the biggest way government could help, Mr. Speaker, is by lowering its budget and increasing the family's budget. The biggest factor in most divorces is strong, even bitter disagreements over money. In 1950, the Federal, State and local governments took about 3 or 4 percent each from the average family. Today, the government at all levels takes almost 40 percent in taxes and another 10 percent in government regulatory costs. One spouse has to work to support the government while the other works to support the family. If the government at all levels took less from the average family, there would be far fewer families that would split up due to the millions of arguments over family finances. There is nothing we can do to end all divorce or end all crime, but if we could greatly downsize government and decrease its cost, we would greatly strengthen the family. If we could substantially decrease the government's budget, we could increase the family's budget. Many more families would stay together; and parents, whether single or married, could do far more for their children. It is no accident that when government was much smaller and took far less of our incomes, there was far less divorce and far fewer broken homes than today. I think it is obvious that serious crime would go way down if we made government much smaller and let families keep more of what they earn. Unfortunately, we will see even more serious crimes committed by children if we continue to see broken homes at the rate of the past several years. One last thing, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that acts of violence and other very serious problems have become much more frequent since prayer and Bible-reading were taken out of the schools. There has been much national publicity given to the study that showed the most serious problems in schools in the 1940s were things like chewing gum and talking in class, while today teachers have to deal with guns, knives, drugs, violence, and so forth. I know that most children, on most days probably did not listen when we had prayer and Bible reading in the schools. But you never knew when some child might have come to school hurting in some way because of a problem at home or something else and who might have been helped by a prayer or a particular Bible verse. Also, it sent a daily message to our children that there was some chance of help when our problems got too big. Now, and for many years, children do not and have not received that message. Once again, it would not solve all problems if we put prayer and Bible reading back in the schools, but it would help, and it would do much more good than harm.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, anyone who still believes big government works or that the Federal Government can do anything in an economical way should just read the daily newspaper almost any day. Today it is the Forest Service. According to the Government Accounting Office, the Forest Service has lost $215 million. It has simply vanished. They cannot account for it. Can you imagine that? It would really take some doing to lose $215 million, but somehow the Forest Service has managed to do it. A report being released today compiled from GAO reports describes the Forest Service as ``an agency in complete shambles.'' Yet at a hearing which begins in just a few minutes, the Forest Service will be requesting a $43 million increase in its budget. This agency in shambles has gotten huge increases in funding over the last decade and now it wants even more. Maybe the Forest Service can lose more than $215 million next year. Mr. Speaker, we need to help every family in America by decreasing the government's budget and increasing the family's budget.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Aviation and the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure unanimously approved the Aviation Medical Assistance Act, H.R. 2843, on March 5 and March 11 respectively. Medical equipment aboard commercial aircraft have not been reviewed in over 13 years, until the Subcommittee on Aviation held a hearing last year. We heard from several expert witnesses in aviation medical equipment, including the FAA air surgeon, Dr. Jon Jordan, Dr. Russell Rayman from the Aerospace Medical Association, Dr. David McKenas from American Airlines, and several other well informed and knowledgeable witnesses. We heard very dramatic and moving testimony from family members who had loved ones who had died after experiencing medical problems during plane trips. From this testimony we basically heard three overriding things: One, we need to improve our medical equipment on aircraft; two, there is no reliable data on the number of in-flight medical emergencies; and three, a Good Samaritan provision should be incorporated into any bill. Before I go on, let me say that I am very encouraged by the increasing number of U.S. airlines that have voluntarily placed or have begun to place defibrillators and other improved medical equipment on board their aircraft. American Airlines, Delta, United, Alaska Air and American Trans Air should all be commended for their efforts to provide passengers with the best possible care and the best medical equipment available. In fact, it is my understanding that these defibrillators have already saved the lives of at least two passengers just within the last few months. And I should point out that in 1997, 640 million people flew in the United States, and the FAA predicts that almost 1 billion passengers will fly commercially in the United States by the year 2007. These enormous increases in passenger traffic will almost undoubtedly lead to an increase in the number of in-flight medical emergencies. There are those who prefer to see these defibrillators mandated by the FAA. I must admit that we gave this some thought, mainly because the American Heart Association tells us that more than 1,000 Americans suffer from sudden cardiac arrest each day, and this is bound to increase with the aging of the American population. We went back and reviewed testimony from our witnesses who expressed concerns about the lack of reliable data on medical emergencies and a concern about what sizes or types of aircraft could accommodate these medical devices. So this is basically why we are here today with H.R. 2843, which I have sometimes referred to as the Good Samaritan in the Skies bill. H.R. 2843 has four components. First, it requires the FAA, not later than 1 year after enactment of the bill, to reevaluate regulations regarding the equipment required to be carried in medical kits and first-aid training, medical emergency training required by flight attendants. Secondly, it requires air carriers to submit reports to the FAA on the number of deaths on board aircraft, age of the person, and whether or not the aircraft was diverted as a result of the death or incident. Third, it also requires the FAA, based upon data gathered over the year period, to determine whether or not automatic external defibrillators should be required on commercial passenger airplanes and at airports. Fourth, and finally, and I think very importantly, the bill limits liability for an air carrier, should the flight attendant or crew in good faith believe that the passenger rendering assistance is a medically qualified individual such as a doctor, nurse, or paramedic. It also limits liability for the passenger rendering assistance unless he or she is found guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct. This legislation will enable the needed information to be properly gathered and analyzed so that the FAA can make a proper and informed decision on what types of additional equipment should be required for air passenger carriers. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, that every Member of the House can support. And I urge its passage. Lastly, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. He is truly a man with a good and kind heart. He really tries to help people. I have heard it said, and I believe it to be true, that no committee or subcommittee in this Congress has a chairman and ranking member who get along and work together better than the gentleman from Illinois and I do. I thank him for his support on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.