Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2843) to direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to reevaluate the equipment in medical kits carried on, and to make a decision regarding requiring automatic external defibrillators to be carried on, aircraft operated by air carriers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to close by once again thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), but also I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), who is a cosponsor of this legislation. I mentioned in my statement a few minutes ago the very moving and dramatic testimony that we heard from two family members, one of whom was her constituent. I can tell my colleagues that I do not believe we would be as far along on this legislation today, where we are at this moment, if it was not for the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly). And I appreciate her work. This is a good bill. This bill is going to lead to better medical equipment on airlines throughout this Nation. It is going to lead to better medical training for airline personnel. It is going to lead to the first ever Good Samaritan law in the skies so that passengers who have medical training can provide much-needed assistance during medical emergencies. When we add all of those things together, I think this is very important legislation. It is very good legislation. It is legislation that all Members of this Congress can point to with pride and support enthusiastically.

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 on H.R. 2843, the bill just passed.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said 2 or 3 years ago that we have been ``defining deviancy down, accepting as a part of life what we once found repugnant.'' How true that is, and it is especially true when it comes to what we have been accepting in motion pictures and even into our homes through television and now the Internet. That is why it was so pleasant to read the nationwide publicity about the vote last week by the Town Council of Tangier Island, Virginia. The Tangier Council voted 6 to 0 to not allow a Kevin Costner and Paul Newman movie to be filmed on the island. The council decided that there was just too much obscene language and too many scenes of an adult nature. We have been warping the minds of our young people, Mr. Speaker, with so much that is indecent that we have almost lost the ability to be shocked anymore. This Nation would be a far better place if we had more people standing up for what is right, decent and good, as the Tangier Council did last week.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, every day we hear all kinds of talk now about how we are going to spend the Federal surplus. Before everyone gets all giddy about all this extra cash, however, we had really better take a closer look. Alan Sloan, the Wall Street editor of Newsweek, recently wrote in the Washington Post, ``But get a grip. There is no surplus. If you do math the normal way, instead of Uncle Sam's way, there is nothing resembling a budget surplus on the horizon.'' Mr. Sloan wrote that all the talk about a surplus comes because we are using Federal budget accounting instead of real world accounting. As he pointed out, ``Virtually the entire difference between Federal math and real-world math involves Social Security's retirement and disability funds, whose surpluses are masking the deficit in the rest of the budget.'' If we were not using the Social Security and many other trust funds to offset or mask the size of the deficit, we would still have a huge deficit on top of an already horrendous $5.5 trillion national debt. Mr. Speaker, before we begin celebrating and spending our supposed, alleged surplus, we had better make sure that we really have one. We are very far from it right now.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the question of whether Puerto Rico will become our 51st State. Last year I was the only member of the Committee on Resources who voted against this bill on the final committee vote. I did not speak against this bill at the time or try to get anyone else to vote against it, primarily due to my great respect for and friendship with Chairman Young, the primary sponsor. Chairman Young and I agree on almost all issues, particularly on the need to open up a very small portion of Alaska to further oil production. After I cast this lone dissenting vote, I was asked to visit Puerto Rico by its government and some of its leading citizens, and in an attempt to be as fair as possible, I went there for a weekend visit 8 or 9 months ago. While there, I met some of the nicest people I have met anyplace in this world. I was greatly impressed with the beauty of the island and the great progress that is being made toward freedom and a strong economy and away from the shackles of socialism. I was impressed with the close ties and favorable feelings most Puerto Ricans have with and for the United States. I was told that Puerto Rico had sent more soldiers and sailors to the U.S. military than any other State per capita, and I really appreciate this. I had never thought much about this before I went there, but Puerto Rico is closer to Washington, D.C., and the Southeastern United States than are some of our Western States. I believe that Puerto Rico is fast on its way to becoming an island paradise. Some of it already is. Puerto Rico has a great future, if it continues moving even further toward a free market economy and lower taxes. The island is in a strategic location and could be a valuable asset to us militarily. However, in spite of all the many good things there are about Puerto Rico and its people, I do not believe Puerto Rico should become a State at this time. First and foremost to me, the American people do not support this expansion. In every poll or survey, the people of my district hold opinions almost identical to the national average. I have not received even one phone call, comment, letter or postcard in favor of this from my district. Every local contact has been against this. This is very important to me. Second, according to the Congressional Research Service, Tennessee would potentially be one of six or seven States to lose a House Member if Puerto Rico becomes a State. This would not have much effect on me because most of the growth in our State has been in and around Knoxville and Nashville, so my district will be about the same or even possibly shrink in size for the foreseeable future. However, it would definitely hurt our State if we lose the equivalent of 11 percent of our House delegation. Third, the GAO and others have estimated this could cost American taxpayers $3 to 5 billion a year in added costs to the Federal Government. We are not in nearly as strong a shape economically as some people think with the stock market at record levels. Also in about 8 to 10 years when the baby-boomers begin retiring, we are about to face some of the greatest costs we have ever seen in the history of this country. With national debt of $5.5 trillion right now and a debt almost quadruple that when you figure in future pension liabilities, we really cannot afford to do this until Puerto Rico strengthens its economy significantly. Fourth, when I went to Israel 3 or 4 years ago, our group met, among many others, with the woman who headed Israeli immigration. She told us they gave all immigrants to Israel up to 2 years of intensive language training if they needed it because Israel felt that it was very important to have a common, unifying national language. It is fine with me if everyone in this country learns Spanish or some other second language, but I think all U.S. citizens need to be truly, honestly fluent in English. We need a unifying national language. Look at the problems Canada has now with many in French-speaking Quebec wanting to split Canada in the middle. English is and should be our national language, even if some do not like it. I am told that a little over 20 percent of the people in Puerto Rico are fluent in English. I believe Puerto Rico should greatly emphasize the English language training if they want to become a part of our Union. Fifth and finally, some say only a little over half of Puerto Ricans want to become a State of the United States if they are given a truly free choice with fair definitions. I do not believe we should add any State unless an extremely high percentage, at least 75 percent or even more, want to become citizens. We certainly do not need to add a State where almost half of the people do not want it. Puerto Rico should vote first. They can hold a referendum without our permission. The Congress should not take a vote that as a practical matter we cannot get out of unless, and until we have a truly fair, accurate assessment of how many Puerto Ricans really want this. For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should maintain our present friendly, close relationship with Puerto Rico as a U.S. Territory.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, for many years Dr. Monroe D. Senter has been a highly respected member of the Knoxville community. A few days ago, Dr. Senter celebrated his 100th birthday. On this occasion, I would like to call his career and many accomplishments to the attention of my colleagues and readers of the Congressional Record. Dr. Senter was born on February 21, 1898, in Knoxville, Tennessee. I am told that as a young man he walked nearly ten miles each day to attend high school. He was president of his class, played football, and graduated as Valedictorian in 1919. Dr. Senter went on to study at Knoxville College and later earned his Masters Degree from the University of Minnesota. In 1966 he was conferred with an honorary Doctor of Laws Degree from Knoxville College. In his long career as an educator, Dr. Senter served as a teacher at College High School and Austin High School and was the Principal of Beardsley Junior High School for over 30 years. In addition, for two years he acted as Director of Education and Guidance for the U.S. Department of Education in Washington, D.C. Dr. Senter has been President of the Knoxville Education Association, the East Tennessee Education Association, the Tennessee Education Association, the Tennessee State Teachers Association, and the American Teachers Central Division. However, Dr. Senter's contributions are not only in the realm of education. He has been involved in a long list of community organizations including the Knoxville College Trustee Board, the Y.M.C.A., the National Urban League, the Kiwanis Club, and his church, the Lennon Seney United Methodist Church. The citizens of Knoxville certainly owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Senter for his many years of service and dedication to the community. The world would be a much better place if we had more men like Dr. Monroe Senter.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Land Preservation Tax Fairness Act. This legislation will cut taxes on income earned when an individual sells his or her land or development rights to a nonprofit organization with the purpose of preserving this land. This bill will make it more economically viable for a person to sell his or her land to an organization to keep it undeveloped rather than sell the property to someone who may develop it. I do not think all development is bad. However, I think we should reward people who are willing to pass up large sums of money so that their property can be preserved. Currently, individuals must pay taxes on any income they may receive when they sell their property or development rights to the government or nonprofit organization which will keep the land undeveloped. I think the legislation I have introduced will encourage more people to do this by reducing the amount of taxes they must pay on any income realized from such a sale. Reducing the pressure to build on currently undeveloped property, particularly in areas that are in close proximity to either a national park or metropolitan area, is especially important. My bill will combat the negative effects on urban sprawl and protect the natural areas around our national treasures. Under current law, sellers can only deduct a small proportion of their original investment from any gain that they may make on this type of sale. However, this bill will allow individuals to deduct the entire amount of their original investment from any gain they may realize which will result in more people making an effort to preserve undeveloped land. Without this type of tax relief, only the wealthy farmers and landowners will be able to afford not to sell their property to developers. The Land Preservation Tax Fairness Act will provide this opportunity to a larger number of people and help preserve more farmland and natural areas for future generations. I hope my Colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation so that we can help protect the environment and reduce the tax burden on the American public.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I spoke many places in my district. I represent east Tennessee, which is a very conservative, patriotic, pro-military district. I have said before that I think a strong national defense is one of the most legitimate functions of our national government. But we should not try to turn the Department of Defense into the department of offense and do things like that. When I spoke, and I told the people of my district what I had said on the floor just a few days before, that we should not rush into war, I told them some of the things that I had said on the floor that I have said here today, I got nothing but applause, nothing but support. All of my calls and letters that I have gotten have been totally against us attacking what Tom Aspell, the CNN correspondent, said now is a defenseless country. I am not trying to get any sympathy for Saddam Hussein. I will say once again, you can say bad things against him. He is a megalomaniac. But the truth is even if we put every single person in this country in a military uniform, we could not 100 percent guarantee that there would not be some kook do something with a chemical or biological weapon of some sort. But we need to be a little more thoughtful in the way we handle some of these situations in the future and I think not be so eager to show that we are a macho nation and be so eager to go around and attack other countries. I do not think that is what the American people want us to do. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. DUNCAN. I wanted to take just a moment to say how much I appreciate many of the points that the gentleman is making, particularly in regard to the folly of much or many of our foreign interventions in recent years. I remember about 3 years ago reading on the front page of the Washington Post that we had our troops in Haiti picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes. Picking up garbage for Haitians and settling their domestic disputes should not be a mission of the American military. The Haitians should pick up their own garbage. Then a few weeks ago, I heard that we had our troops in Bosnia giving rabies shots to dogs. The Bosnians should give their own rabies shots to their dogs. That should not be a mission of the American military. This business of turning our American military into international social workers is something I think the overwhelming majority of Americans are strongly opposed to. The really sad thing is that we have spent many, many billions of hard-earned tax dollars in recent years in Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, now in Iraq, and I said on the floor of this House a couple of weeks ago, why the rush to war in Iraq, why the rush to war, why the eagerness to send young American men and women into harm's way. The American people were not clamoring for war then. They are even more so not clamoring for war now. Going to war should be the most reluctant decision that we make. We should go to war only when there is no other reasonable alternative. I saw George Stephanopoulos on television a few days ago and he said that even in World War II, we had some people who were opposed to World War II. But I can tell you the day after Pearl Harbor, the Senate voted 82-0 and the House voted 388-1 to go to war against Japan. But Japan had attacked us at that time. It was a totally different situation from the one we face in Iraq. You can say any bad thing that you want to about Saddam Hussein and I would agree with you. But I can also tell you that he was greatly weakened by the first Gulf War, he has been weakened even more by the sanctions since then. I heard one commentator say that even the Italian army could beat Saddam Hussein at this time. The threat is not there. For us to spend all these hundreds of millions of dollars deploying all our troops over there in the Middle East is a tremendous waste of money. It is not something that should be done. We should try to be friends with all nations in the world that will let us be friends. But that does not mean we need to keep sending billions and billions of dollars overseas. Much of this money and many of these interventions are creating great resentment toward us. I read recently that in regard to the International Monetary Fund that many of these countries, they feel like we are behind the International Monetary Fund interventions in Southeast Asia, and they are requiring some of these countries and peoples to do things that they do not want to do and really all they are doing is bailing out big banks and big multinational companies, and it is creating great resentment toward us. I will stop with just two other points. One is that Tony Snow said in a column a few days ago in regard to the situation in Iraq, we are about to achieve the worst of all possible worlds. We are about to alienate our European allies and our Arab allies and achieve nothing of military significance. President Kennedy in 1961 said: We must face the fact that the U.S. is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we are only 6 percent of the world's population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. That was President Kennedy in 1961. The only change is that now we are slightly less than 5 percent of the population of the world instead of the 6 percent that we were then. I think President Kennedy was exactly right. There cannot be an American solution to every world problem. Let us be friends with every country, but let us not try and impose our will and create great resentment toward this country. Let us have a foreign policy, a trade policy, an economic policy that puts this country and its taxpayers and its workers first, even if that is not politically correct or fashionable to say at any particular given time in history.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I saw Tim Russert of Meet the Press, and he was talking about the same subject. He asked, why all the smoke? Why all the cover- up? He asked what is the truth, Mr. President? I was a criminal court judge for seven and a half years prior to coming to Congress. I tried the felony criminal cases. Offenses like subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice are very serious offenses. If anyone lied under oath in a major case, even at the deposition stage, that is very serious. The American people have a right to know the truth. Yet, today, we learn that the White House is now hiding behind executive privilege. They do not want the Secret Service to testify. They do not want top officials at the White House to testify. Even the President's own press secretary says this is all going to be very hard to explain and that the people may have a hard time accepting some of what may come out. Judge Starr is doing exactly what he is required by law to do. He has already gotten more convictions than any independent counsel in history, including convictions of some of the President's closest friends like Webster Hubbell, formerly the Number 2 man at the Justice Department, and Jim Guy Tucker, the former Governor of Arkansas. Judge Starr was the Solicitor General of the United States. He represented the Federal Government before the Supreme Court. He was a judge of the Federal Court of Appeals. He was one of the most respected lawyers and judges in this Nation until he started going after the President. If we had a conservative President in office, most of the media and most liberals would be attacking Mr. Starr for not being aggressive enough, yet Ms. McCree, in her interview, asked Mr. Ginsburg if Mr. Starr should be sued. Sued for what? For doing his job? Bernard Goldberg of CBS Television, in a column in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago, said the very liberal bias of the national news media is now so obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. This from a veteran news man like Bernard Goldberg. Mr. Speaker, I think the thing that concerns me the most out of this whole situation is the message that we are sending to our young people. We seem to be saying that everyone is having affairs and that everything is all right and that there is not a real difference between right and wrong anymore. I can tell my colleagues that there is still a difference between right and wrong and not everyone out there is having an affair. I can say that it is interesting to me that women rate a very high percentage of men as having affairs. But if the same women were asked: Do you think your fathers ever had affairs or your husbands, that percentage drops way down. And I think the truth is I know millions of people have had affairs, but far fewer than many people seem to think. We need to send a better message to the young people of this country.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today on Good Morning America, I saw the most biased, most slanted, least objective interview I have ever watched. The interview was conducted by a woman named Lisa McCree, and she was interviewing Monica Lewinsky's lawyer, William Ginsberg. Before I went to law school, I got my undergraduate degree in journalism. While this does not make me an expert, it does cause me to notice words or expressions that others perhaps may overlook. Seldom have I seen any commentator make his or her view so obvious to color an interview while trying to at least give an appearance of objectivity. I do not have the transcript, so I cannot quote word for word, but Ms. McCree's most obvious bias was in regard to Kenneth Starr, the Independent Counsel. Her every word, every nuance, every expression indicated that Judge Starr, in her opinion, had exceeded his authority, was unethical, and just a generally horrible person. Ms. McCree made it very clear that she seems to think that Judge Starr is almost the devil incarnate. Then when it came to Monica Lewinsky, she kept referring to her by her first name, Monica this and Monica that, and once referred to her as this girl, wondering if Mr. Starr was going to prosecute this girl. Well, first, Ms. Lewinsky is 24 years old. I used to be a criminal court judge trying the felony criminal cases all across this Nation. Many, perhaps even most, defendants in adult criminal courts are 24 years of age or younger. Secondly, the polls tells us that a large majority of the people believe that the President had an affair with Ms. Lewinsky starting when she was 21. Thus, if Mr. Starr is trying to take advantage of Ms. Lewinsky, millions of Americans apparently believe the President took advantage of her in a much worse way when she was even younger than that. I switched stations after this interview by Ms. McCree, and I saw Tim Russert. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago Newsweek Magazine had on its cover these words: ``The IRS: Lawless, Abusive, Out of Control.'' Now, these are not my words. This was Newsweek Magazine, a very mainstream publication. When Newsweek Magazine describes any Federal Agency as lawless, abusive, and out of control, things have gotten pretty bad. But when it is the IRS, an agency that touches all of us so personally, this is an especially horrendous situation. About 85 to 90 percent of the people want us to drastically simplify the Tax Code. There is no good reason why we should have a tax law that is so hopelessly complicated and convoluted and confusing. Yet will we do it? Well, Madam Speaker, do not hold your breath. The IRS would lose much of its power and some extremely big businesses would lose some of their tax breaks. Very powerful interests are fighting tax simplification, so we will probably do little more than just cosmetic changes around the edges.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in the last 4 years, Peyton Manning, quarterback for the University of Tennessee, has earned a reputation not only as one of the finest college athletes in the country, but also as an individual of exceptional integrity and character. Tomorrow, the Amateur Athletic Union will present the Sullivan Award to Peyton Manning, recognizing him as the most outstanding amateur athlete in the country. This prestigious award recognizes not only athletic ability, but also exceptional leadership, moral character and sportsmanship. In his time as starting quarterback at University of Tennessee, Peyton Manning has become the SEC's all time leading passer and has broken a total of 42 NCAA SEC and Tennessee records. However, Peyton Manning's accomplishments go far beyond the football field. He graduated near the top of his class in only 3 years, and he is well known for his leadership and service to his school and the community. Last spring, Peyton Manning passed up the opportunity to make millions of dollars by turning pro, instead choosing to stay at the University of Tennessee to continue his education and finish his fourth year of college eligibility. Peyton Manning certainly deserves the Sullivan Award, and I commend the Amateur Athletic Union on their selection of Peyton Manning as their athlete of the year. No one is more deserving of this award.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, President Bush sent the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others to brief House Members prior to and during the previous Gulf War. This has not been done this time. Most Members of this body know only what they have read or heard in news reports. Why this rush to war? Why all this eagerness to send young American men and women into harm's way? The case has not been made. I am certainly not defending Saddam Hussein. I voted for the last Gulf War and many have forgotten how close that vote was. But last time Hussein had moved on another country and was threatening others. Many nations, including our own, have weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and otherwise. Has there been any overt action or indication that Hussein is getting ready to use his? We have not been told. The American people are not clamoring for war, Mr. Speaker. War should be the most reluctant decision we make, and then only when there is no other reasonable choice. As ABC's Forrest Sawyer asked on Nightline last night, Are we about to do more harm than good?

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago, USA Today, in its lead editorial, strongly endorsed the Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act. This bill, H.R. 715, is one that I introduced, which now has 65 cosponsors, divided almost equally between Republicans and Democrats. As USA Today said, ``As long as campus courts operate in secret, students committing crimes get a privacy right denied to the rest of adults.'' That is what this bill is all about. It is about opening up the records of crimes being committed at campuses. A college or university that does not have a crime problem should have no objections to this bill. But parents and students should be allowed to know if certain colleges are lax about law enforcement. Many colleges prefer to discipline student criminals in secret campus courts. They use a warped interpretation of Federal privacy laws to treat these crimes as private academic records that may not be released to the public. No one has any business knowing about a student's grades or financial aid records, but it is wrong, however, when the definition of privacy is used to protect rapists and murderers. USA Today summed it up best by concluding ``It is a sad state of affairs when an act of Congress is necessary for the Education Department to protect students' safety.'' I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 715, a bipartisan bill that will change the definition of privacy to exclude campus criminal activity.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue. I rise in support of H.R. 2625 and urge my colleagues to support it as well. Obviously, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and others have mentioned, President Reagan was one of the most popular and most well-respected leaders this Nation has ever produced. As all of us know, he accomplished many great things during his Presidency. Washington, D.C., is a city that symbolizes freedom and democracy for every American, for many people all over the world. Renaming the Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan National Airport is a fitting tribute to this great American, a man with a vision and a man who has done so much for this Nation and for the world. In the 2 decades before President Reagan took office, Americans suffered oppressively increasing rates of taxation, inflation, unemployment and interest rates. It was Ronald Reagan who led this Nation out of its economic problems, reducing runaway inflation and interest rates to the lowest levels in many years and creating prosperity for millions of citizens across this country. Mr. Chairman, President Reagan got this Nation back on track. His initiatives led to great improvements in all sectors of our economy, including the aviation industry. Air passenger traffic increased dramatically throughout the Reagan years, and airlines had some of their best years as well, both as a result of deregulation and the strong economy. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is a fitting tribute because flying, aviation, airports, flight in general in the final analysis are about freedom. They enable people to expand their horizons and accomplish things that otherwise would not have been possible. They give people the freedom and the ability to go places and do things that make all of our lives better. In the same way Ronald Reagan's life, his philosophy, his beliefs, his actions, if they could be described in one word, that word would be freedom. He fought to protect and preserve freedom here at home and to expand freedom for people all over this world. In the great Battle Hymn of the Republic it says, in the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea with a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me. As he died to make men holy, let us live to make men free. Ronald Reagan did that. He lived for freedom. He did so much for so many, naming this airport after him is a small way to say thank you for all that he did. I rise in support of H.R. 2625 and urge my colleagues to support it as well. Obviously, as you and others have mentioned Mr. Chairman, President Reagan was one of the most popular and well respected leaders this Nation has ever seen. As all of us know, he accomplished many great things during his presidency. Washington, DC is a city that symbolizes freedom and democracy for every American and for many people all over the world. Renaming the Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan National Airport is a fitting tribute to this great man--a man with vision and a man who has done so much for this Nation and for the world. In the two decades before President Reagan took office, Americans suffered oppressively increased taxation, inflation, unemployment, and interest rates. It was Ronald Reagan who lead this Nation out of its economic problems; reducing runaway inflation and interest rates to the lowest levels in years and creating prosperity for many citizens across the Country. Mr. Chairman, to be direct, President Reagan got this Nation back on track. His initiatives led to great improvements in all sectors of our economy, including the aviation industry. Air passenger traffic increased dramatically throughout the Reagan years. And airlines had some of their best years as well. Both a result of deregulation and a strong economy.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 338, I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the late Honorable Sonny Bono.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is similar to legislation, H.R. 2036 which the House considered, but did not vote, on September 29. S. 1193 reauthorizes the War Risk Insurance Program until December 31, 1998 and supersedes language in the Department of Defense Authorization bill regarding this program. This shorter extension of the program is a compromise worked out with the other body and with the administration in order to develop an alternative to a borrowing authority provision that was in the original House reported bill. The Administration has agreed to develop in the coming months an alternative to the borrowing authority that would ensure that air carrier insurance claims could be paid in a timely manner. And we look forward to working with them on that. Mr. Speaker, the war risk insurance program was first authorized in 1951, and, over the years, has been improved upon during the reauthorization process. On May 1 of this year, the Aviation Subcommittee held a hearing to review this very important program, which expired on September 30 of this year. Of course, we rarely hear about this program until a conflict arises, like Vietnam, the gulf war, or Bosnia. This insurance program was an integral part of our Nation's military response in those cases. The Reauthorization of this program is also very essential for a viable Civil Reserve Air Fleet program which meets the Nation's security needs. The Department of Defense depends on the CRAF program for over 90% of its passengers, 40% of its cargo, and nearly 100% of its air medical evacuation capability in wartime. These flights could not be operated without the insurance provided by this bill. So it is very important that we reauthorize this program as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to be guided by reasonable business practices of the commercial aviation insurance industry when determining the amount for which an aircraft should be insured. This change is intended to recognize that there may be instances in which an aircraft's market value is not the appropriate basis for determining the amount of insurance. The bill also states that the President's signature of the indemnification agreement between the DOT Secretary and the head of another U.S. government agency will constitute the required finding under current law that the flight is necessary to carry out the foreign policy of the United States. Section 4 of the bill permits a war risk insurance policy to provide for binding arbitration of a dispute between the FAA and the commercial insurer over what part of a loss each is responsible. And finally, the bill includes a very simple provision designed to fix a problem experienced by defense contractors who lease back their planes from the military in order to fly them in air shows or other similar demonstrations. Although this practice has been going on for many years, some in the FAA have interpreted the law in a way that would prevent this from occurring. This bill would allow these flight demonstrations, which are important to product development and company sales, to take place. I strongly urge the House to support this legislation so that we can reauthorize this very essential program.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the Knoxville YWCA last week held its annual Tribute to Women Program. The featured speaker was former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, who has already become a very active member of the East Tennessee community in the relatively short period of time that she has been married to former Senator Howard Baker. Six of the most outstanding women in the Knoxville area were chosen as special honorees this year. IO would like to congratulate them for the great work they have done over the years, and I would like to call to the attention of all of my colleagues and other readers of the Congressional Record the editorial covering this program in the Knoxville News Sentinel. Worthy of Recognition Honorees in annual Tribute to Women are leaders in their fields, community Women are an instrumental part of any community, and the YWCA recognizes this in its annual Tribute to Women. This year's banquet, held last week at the Hyatt Regency, honored women in six categories for their outstanding contributions. The categories are arts, business and government, education, human services, science and technology and volunteer community service. We add our congratulations to each of the honorees: Julie Warren Martin in the arts category, an artist, who has become a significant part of the Knoxville arts community through her work as a professional and her commitment to champion the arts through community leadership. Dr. Cheryl Kershaw in education, a part-time adjunct professor at the University of Tennessee and a consultant with individual schools and school systems as a partner in her firm, Educational Resources. Hildegard M. Schuller in human services, a distinguished professor of comparative pathology at the UT College of Veterinary Medicine. A central component of her research has been how smoking affects the placenta in pregnant women and how it affects children. Dr. Carolyn T. Hunasker in science and technology, a member of the Environmental Sciences Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She has conducted research in environmental impact assessment, water quality characterization and modeling and landscape ecology. Margaret Bemhower Manrod in volunteer community service, who has dedicated much of life to volunteer work. She is a co-founder of the East Tennessee Coalition on Breast and Cervical Cancer, which was the model for the state Department of Health's coalition. Lillian G. Bean in business and government, clerk of the Knox County Circuit, Sessions and Juvenile courts. She has been elected to the position five times. All of these women are leaders--in their fields, in our community. Nancy Kassebaum Baker, a former Republican senator from Kansas now married to former Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker Jr., was a good choice for a speaker. She speaks from experience when she talks about women's contributions. As she said at the event, ``I think that (the tribute) shows women are in the forefront in improving the quality of life in one's community.'' We join with the YWCA in commending these six honorees and in recognizing the accomplishments and contributions of all women.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would simply at this point like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] for the cooperation and the friendship and the bipartisan way in which he has conducted all of his activities and has represented his side on all aviation matters. I have been told by several people that he and I have about the best relationship of any chairman and ranking Member in the Congress. I do not know whether that is true or not, but if it is not true, it is close anyway. I just wanted to say that for the record. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 2476, as amended.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Aviation unanimously approved H.R. 2476, as amended, on Thursday, October 23, and the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved the bill on October 29. This legislation was introduced by the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] shortly after the terrible Air Korea disaster which recently occurred on Guam. Both the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], the ranking member of the subcommittee, and I, are original cosponsors of the bill. It essentially mirrors legislation in the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act, H.R. 3823, which the Subcommittee on Aviation unanimously approved and the House overwhelmingly supported by a vote of 401 to 4 last year. This legislation was eventually incorporated into the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act which the President signed in October of last year. H.R. 2476 would require foreign airlines that have permits to fly in the United States to file family assistance plans with the Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board. These assistance plans would be activated when a foreign carrier crashes on U.S. soil. The plans must include provisions such as the establishment of a toll-free telephone number for families, the efficient notification of passengers' families before public notice is given, the return of victims' possessions to family members, unless they are needed for the investigation, and many other similar provisions which all U.S. carriers must comply with now. H.R. 2476 will surely help the families who have lost loved ones in these tragic air disasters by providing the needed support and coordination necessary to assist in these unfortunate events. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Senate Committee on Commerce has already acted on similar legislation. This bill has the support of both the Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board. Again, I believe this is an outstanding bill, a bill that is very much needed, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.