Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the student athletes of three Knox County high schools for their recent accomplishments during State Championships. The Farragut Admirals captured the State Title in Class AAA Baseball and Class AAA Boys Soccer while the Christian Academy of Knoxville Warriors won the Boys TSAA Class A-AA Soccer Title and the Webb School of Knoxville Girls Tennis Team took the State Title in Division II Singles and Double categories. I congratulate all the athletes who never gave up and worked tirelessly for these titles. I also congratulate the coaches and parents whose encouragement and instruction made their success possible.

Although no championship season can be easily summarized, I believe these impressive teams have earned specific mention here on the Floor of the House of Representatives.

For the previous three years, the Farragut High School Baseball team had ended their season as the State runners-up, but the 2003 season ended with more than just a well-deserved State AAA Championship. They also set a remarkable new State record with an unprecedented 48-1 season leaving them ranked 4th in the entire Nation. This is truly a remarkable program and I look forward to hearing of many future victories.

The Tennessee AAA Boys High School Soccer Championship game pitted two outstanding Knox County schools against each other when the Farragut Admirals faced off against the Bearden Bulldogs. The skill, intensity and determination of both teams were clearly evident throughout the game. It was Farragut, however, that in double overtime took the championship with a 3-1 victory. Both schools set a new standard for AAA Soccer in Knox County and I commend each of these fine athletes.

For the Christian Academy of Knoxville Boys Soccer team, earning the Tennessee Secondary School Association's (TSAA) State Championship title was a milestone in the school's athletic program and a testimony to each player's commitment to excellence. Their 1-0 victory over Chattanooga Christian School was the culmination of a hard fought season where the Warriors finished 17-2-3. This may have been the school's first State championship in soccer, but I am confident it will not be their last.

I also want to congratulate Webb School of Knoxville's State Division II tennis champions Whitney Chappell, Elizabeth Googe and Berkeley Brock for their victories. Whitney's Singles Championship match took over three hours and was a remarkable demonstration of both skill and stamina. Elizabeth and Berkeley defeated a doubles team from St. Mary's in just two sets, and showed the same level of excellence and determination as their Single's teammate Whitney. Each of these young ladies has raised an already high standard of excellence in athletics at Webb School.

Regardless of the sport, high school athletics provide a tremendous opportunity for our young people to learn and enhance their leadership abilities while also learning the value of teamwork. These young people, along with their peer athletes from other schools, will gain far more than trophies for their efforts. Their dedication to excellence will prepare them for every challenge they will face in the future and their commitment to both physical and mental excellence will serve them well their entire lives.

With or without championship victories, we congratulate every student athlete for their efforts to improve themselves. Every parent, teacher and coach is proud of these young people's hard work and commitment.

Finally, I also want to congratulate those students who commit themselves to excellence in areas off the athletic field. Regardless of the student's interest or skill, if he or she strives to reach beyond what is required, I am sure every Member of this body joins me in saying that we are proud of them and we wish them the absolute best in all they set out to achieve.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that Home and Garden Television (HGTV), one of the Nation's fastest growing networks, is headquartered in my hometown, Knoxville, Tennessee.

HGTV is a really outstanding cable channel with a wide variety of programs.

Unlike some of the trash that is shown on other networks, the programs on HGTV are positive and helpful and encourage people to improve their lives and their communities.

Joshua Green, Editor of the Washington Monthly, has written a humorous but very complimentary article about HGTV in the July/August issue of his magazine.

I would like to call this article to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record.

[From the Washington Monthly]

Home Sick; The Addictive Allure of Home and Garden Television

(By Joshua Green)

Over the past two years, as the rest of the economy has

gradually tanked, one sector has stubbornly resisted: the

housing market. Despite layoffs, the weak dollar, the

moribund stock market, and all other manner of economic

calamity, house prices are climbing faster than George W.

Bush's negative rating in Iraq. In fact, economists credit

the housing market's continuing strength with keeping the

country out of recession. Much like the ``wealth effect''

created by the late '90s stock boom, rising real-estate

prices have made Americans feel rich enough to keep on

spending amply, regardless of the overall economic climate.

So the booming housing market is surely welcome news to most

Americans--except those, like me, who

would like to actually buy a house and are extraordinarily

piqued about this. If there were a Murphy's Law of Economic

Collapse, it would hold that as jobs disappear and wages

plummet, the price of your dream house will skyrocket.

Most economists attribute this phenomenon to historically

low interest rates, which translate into extremely affordable

mortgages. I have a different theory. I blame HGTV--the Home

and Garden Television channel--one of the fastest-growing

stations on cable and a certifiable cult phenomenon among

many of my peers.

For the uninitiated, HGTV is one of those niche cable

stations we all heard so much about back in the early '90s

that sounded preposterous at the time--who'd watch round-the-

clock gardening, remodeling, and house-hunting tips?--but

seems perfectly reasonable today alongside the dozens of

specialty channels devoted to cooking, pets, sci-fi, soaps,

books, and--on my cable system--one click below the NASA

channel, which on weekends broadcasts continuous footage of

the earth rotating. (Really.) Since its 1994 launch, HGTV has

grown from a tiny startup to a cable colossus that reaches

nearly 80 million households in the United States alone,

broadcasts its programs to viewers as far away as Latvia and

Brunei, and is even available to U.S. service personnel in

175 countries and on board Navy ships. The idea of rugged

naval aviators, fresh from sorties over Iraq or Afghanistan,

choosing to unwind before Home and Garden Television's design

and decorating tips is testament to the strange power this

channel holds over its viewers.

the home-shopping network

At first blush, HGTV is a benign--even an edifying--form of

entertainment that's centered on a can-do ethos for the

current or expectant homeowner. Instead of patrician

decorating tips, HGTV shows like ``Weekend Warriors''

champion a Calvinist work ethic in which determined

homeowners charge headlong into demanding-but-reasonably-

priced projects that typically leave them spent, but never

broke, and with a spectacular new veranda or stunning

hardwood floors to show for their efforts. There are shows

about improving your home's appearance (``Curb Appeal''),

tending to your home's yard (``Landscapers' Challenge''),

decorating your home cheaply (``Design on a Dime'') or even

more cheaply (``Designing Cents''), home-centric extreme-

sports knockoffs (``Winter Gardener,'' ``Extreme Homes'') and

others, like ``Help Around the House,'' that extol the life-

enhancing practicalities of previously mundane tasks like

caulking or grout work.

Many HGTV shows feature a subtle, battle-of-the-sexes

leitmotif that adds to the intrigue, while reinforcing and

pandering to its audience's prejudices in a way that

surely boosts viewership. On the popular ``Designing for

the Sexes,'' most men are of the hapless variety, puzzled

as to why their wife is upset over the moose head they'd

like to mount over the dining room table; most women

display an alarming fondness for pink chenilles or French

country style of doilies. Viewers therefore identify

quickly, privately relieved to discover that their own

situation isn't nearly as outlandish as they'd first

imagined. They receive further encouragement from the

show's denouement, which invariably features a designer or

decorator of Christ-like patience who steps in to mollify

the warring factions by curbing even the tackiest excesses

and delivering a touch of class and taste that both can

live with. This men-are-from-Mars-women-are-from-Venus

format presents itself merely as decorating help. But the

effect upon the addled participants--and viewers, too--is

not unlike that of a good marriage counselor, convincing

couples that any problem can be overcome, I believe it is

no coincidence that HGTV is the one channel my fiancee and

I can agree on. It accomplishes a feat previously thought

to be impossible, bridging the chasm between ``Oprah'' and

``SportsCenter.''

Like any 24-hour-a-day cable station, not all of HGTV's

programming is what one would consider to be of Emmy Award-

winning caliber. I could do without a show called ``Simply

Quilts.'' Certain others likewise seem best suited to the wee

hours of the morning, such as ``Flea Market Finds with the

Kovels'' (which could have been titled ``Shopping for Junk

with Old People'') and ``Subterraneans,'' a recent promo for

which encouraged viewers to tune in and ``meet unique people

who make their home below the earth.''

But one show--the station's flagship--renders these others

mere trivialities. ``House Hunters'' is the source of my own

HGTV addiction and, the latest Nielsen ratings suggest, many

others' as well. It is HGTV's highest-rated show--and, I'm

convinced, the clue to the network's appeal.

The show's premise is a simple one. In each episode, a

friendly realtor helpfully accompanies a pair of prospective

homebuyers as they shop for a house or condominium. Cameras

follow them from room to room, allowing the viewer to examine

the various properties in what amounts to a vicarious trial

run for the potential homebuyer. The first time I tuned in, a

young newlywed couple wanted to move out of their cramped

apartment and buy their first home but clearly had no idea

what they were doing. These circumstances were reassuringly

similar to my own. I watched with growing appreciation as the

realtor listened patiently to their needs and then drove them

to one beautiful house after another. If a house was too

small, the realtor would smile and show them a larger one. If

a house lacked a pool, the realtor would find them one that

also had a jacuzzi. If a house was on a noisy street, the

realtor would show them one in an area so remote it probably

had not yet been mapped. And every visit was a leisurely,

pressure-free stroll that seemed not only easy, but fun.

The young couple soon found a perfect home, conferred

briefly with the realtor, and decided to place a bid on it.

``House Hunters'' cut to commercial. Despite having known

them for just 22 minutes or so, I was transfixed, and found

myself rooting vigorously for their bid to be accepted. When

the show returned, our prayers--theirs and mine--were

answered. As the couple sat emotionlessly in their worn

rental, the phone rang. It was their realtor, with good news!

I was privately impressed that HGTV had a camera crew on hand

to document this happy occasion. The show ended by flashing

forward several months to show the couple in joyously

possession of their new home. I stole a glance at my

fiancee--who looked exactly as she had at the end of

Titanic--and immediately began looking forward to my own

home-buying experience.

No Chase Like Home

It did not dawn on me until after I'd embarked on my own

search for a house how wildly fictional this portrayal had

been. But I quickly discovered that it was fundamentally

dishonest on several levels and bore no resemblance at all to

my own night-marish experience.

To begin with, ``House Hunters'' promotes the fantasy that

charming, spacious, reasonably priced homes are plentiful

and always available in even the most desirable

neighborhoods. Perhaps this is true in some distant corner

of North Dakota where sprawl and gentrification have not

yet driven up prices. but it is most certainly not the

case in Washington, D.C., where I live, or in any

surrounding suburb that I've been able to locate.

This shortage gives rise to another phenomenon that ``House

Hunters'' does not acknowledge--the ``open house.'' These are

the overly brief weekend showings in which sellers open their

homes to potential buyers--but which in today's hot real

estate market quickly come to resemble cattle calls of

anxious couples who strenuously avoid making eye contact with

you as they rush around sizing up the house and potential

competitors for it. Nor does ``House Hunters'' accurately

depict the mood and temperament of these people, who tend to

look wild-eyed and tormented and would probably arouse

concern among security personnel if transported to any other

setting. In the open houses I've experienced, the naifs who

appear on ``House Hunters'' would be tramped and devoured

like the herd weaklings in a pack of wildebeest on the

Discovery Channel.

After awhile, once we had acclimated to these laws of the

jungle, my fiancee and I found a cozy brick rowhouse that

seemed perfect. As we elbowed past the other prospective

buyers and walked from room to room, I felt that small shiver

of excitement I had seemed to detect when couples on ``House

Hunters'' had finally come upon the home they would buy. That

evening we filled out a mountain of paper-work at our

realtor's and submitted our bid. The next day I blew off work

and sat expectantly by the phone about to be educated in yet

another way in which ``House Hunters'' differs from reality.

By this point I had become an avid fan of the show, but it

had still never occurred to me that each episode's happy

ending might not mirror reality. When my phone rang, I leapt

for it. It was my realtor, who informed me that we had not

gotten the house--that in fact 22 others had bid on it and

driven the sale price more than $100,000 above what

originally had been asked.

Soon after, I became well acquainted with the concept of

the escalation clause, the inspections waiver, the failed

bid, and generally competing like gladiators for any property

deemed livable and available. I also realized that ``House

Hunters'' is totally staged--the couple always gets the house

they want, and the show's producers are probably wise to

steer clear of markets like Washington, D.C., which would

terrify viewers anyway and kill their ratings. I angrily

swore off HGTV and the cheap fantasy it peddled, and

sheepishly sought out my copy of Home Buying for Dummies.

Rooting for the Home-buying team

Yet, strangely, life without HGTV did not improve--at least

not for the six days that I held out against watching it.

Houses remained overpriced, realtors unscrupulous, buyers

frenzied, and I was no closer to escaping my one-bedroom. I

found myself longing for familiar comforts. In the end, the

siren call of reasonably priced homes and pressure-free

bidding that always has a fairy-tale ending proved too

powerful to resist. I cracked a beer and submitted to the

evening's ``House Hunters.''

Only then did I truly understand the lure of HGTV--of what

it is that grips me, and my addict-friends, and all those

naval aviators overseas who are stressing about the

availability of three-bedroom colonials in neighborhoods with

decent schools. It's not the reality television that HGTV

pretends to be, but an escape from our own real-estate

reality into a soothing world where things are different and

better; a place to retreat to after those greedy sellers pass

on your bid, where one will always find sustenance and

encouragement; it's what excites people to keep marching out

and buying new homes.

My story has a happy ending, though not the type you're

likely to see on HGTV. Several weeks after our initial bid

fell through (it seemed like years) our excellent realtor

Vince--who, incidentally, could eat the realtors on ``House

Hunters'' for breakfast--found us the perfect home and

shrewdly snuck us in before the open house, preempting a

bidding war by submitting a take-it-or-leave-it offer that

cut out the competition. (I expect Vince will be surprised to

learn he's been nominated for a Congressional Medal of

Honor.)

Impending homeownership has brought with it complicated new

challenges, so I've turned to my wellspring of wisdom for

guidance. I now possess a master gardener's understanding of

landscaping, and I'm confident that I can parry most of the

feminine-looking accoutrements with which my fiancee seems

intent upon decorating our new home. In fact, there's only

one area where I've come up empty. I've searched in vain for

a show called ``Mortgage Hunters,'' but none seems to exist--

perhaps there are aspects of home buying that even HGTV can't

spin into fantasy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today after reading the eloquent and thoughtful remarks offered this morning to the House Resources Committee by Gerald Zackios, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. I commend Chairman Richard Pombo and Ranking Nick Rahall for their leadership in holding this hearing.

I would like to comment for the record on the importance of renewing the Compact of Free Association with the Marshall Islands as soon as possible. The Marshallese have long been a strong ally to the United States and our bilateral relationship must continue on its historically solid path. While the amended document negotiated in good faith by the Marshallese and the Departments of State and Interior is outstanding, I believe it still needs to be thoroughly reviewed and enhanced by Congress.

As Congress examines the negotiated agreement, it is imperative that serious consideration is given to the additional provisions that could enhance U.S. assistance to the Marshall Islands in the following areas: infrastructure development that will strengthen their economy, federal education programs--which the Marshallese rely on to better prepare their children for the future, disaster relief, adjusting our grant assistance for inflation and finally, providing for the future needs of the landowners of the Kwajalein Atoll, home of a key U.S. Army missile testing facility.

Mr. Speaker, I also hope at some appropriate point during the 108th Congress that we will give a full and proper hearing to the outstanding nuclear claims issues for which the Marshallese have petitioned the U.S. government.

In closing, the U.S. could not ask for a better partnership than that which we share with the Marshellese. Our careful, collective attention to the Compact and to the wishes of the Marshallese will pay dividends to both countries for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and the rule that brings it to the floor today. I especially support the provisions allowing the use of funds for alternative routes to state certification or traditional preparation for teachers. We need to give, Mr. Speaker, local school boards more freedom and flexibility in this area.

This would help solve what we sometimes hear as the ``teacher shortage'' in this country, but that is a government-created teacher shortage by every respect of the word. Right now, if a person with great education and experience in a field wanted to teach, he or she could not do so without a degree in education, except under very limited circumstances.

For example, a person with a Ph.D. in chemistry and 25 years of experience as a chemist could not teach high school chemistry in most public schools. The local school board would have to hire a young person with no experience and many fewer chemistry courses instead of the much-better-educated person who wanted to teach as a career change or to perform some community service.

Some small private colleges have had financial problems in recent years, but professors with long experience have not been able to move to the public schools. A person who taught English for 30 years in a small college and then decided he wanted to teach in a public school, even though he had long experience teaching, would not be able to move because he perhaps had a Ph.D. in English or some other field instead of a degree in education.

We should allow local school boards and school systems to consider an education degree as a plus when other factors are fairly equal. But school boards should also be allowed to hire people with advanced degrees and long experience and/or great success in a field as teachers at full pay, perhaps for some brief probationary period.

One respected member of the judiciary told me a couple of years ago he would like to retire early and teach school, but he would have to go through a year-long unpaid internship, which, with his age, education and experience, he simply did not need to do.

I remember reading in The Washington Post a year or two ago that one of the real experts in this field, Frederick W. Hess, a University of Virginia professor, called for a radical overhaul of teacher certification. He said if a person has a degree or degrees, can pass a difficult test in the subject and has no criminal records, local school principals are intelligent enough to hire good teachers.

Very highly qualified applicants, Mr. Speaker, should not be rejected just because they never took an education course. Our local principals and our local school boards have enough intelligence and sense to hire good teachers, and we should not put restrictions or hindrances in their way.

We need to get the best-qualified people we possibly can teaching the children of this Nation, and the best way we can do that is to give these local principals and local school boards more freedom and flexibility in who they are able to hire.

Mr. Speaker, I commend all of the people involved with this legislation and especially for putting in the part that allows these funds to be used for alternative routes to certification for traditional routes of preparation for teachers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the true heroes of Tennessee's Second Congressional District. For forty years Mrs. Jane Lakin has changed the lives of thousands in the Knoxville community through her dedicated service as an elementary school teacher at both the Alice Bell and Spring Hill schools. Having seriously considered a career in teaching myself and having taught briefly at T.C. Williams School in Northern Virginia, I can say without hesitation that this career is one of the most challenging and rewarding any person can undertake.

Each Member of this body understands the vital role teachers play in shaping the lives of our youth and I believe every teacher is to be commended. However, to dedicate forty years of one's life to improving and enhancing the education of children is truly exceptional.

During Mrs. Lakin's career America has experienced tremendous change. While the Nation grieved the tragedy of President Kennedy's assassination and witnessed the triumphant raising of our Flag on the Moon, Mrs. Lakin walked each morning into a classroom and changed a student's life. As America grew through the turmoil of Viet Nam and later hailed our victory of the Cold War, Mrs. Lakin taught our children, one class at a time, the value and joy of learning. The world has changed and our Country has grown during the past 40 years, but Mrs. Lakin's love of educating the young men and women of Knoxville has never wavered.

On behalf of the entire Second Congressional District, I want to thank Mrs. Lakin for her tireless work and her consistent encouragement of her students. Whether or not these students ever have the opportunity to tell her, she has changed their lives for the better and we are all in her debt.

The Knoxville News Sentinel recently published an article on Mrs. Lakin and her retirement. I would like to include this article in its entirety in the Congressional Record. I hope that women and men teaching today will look to Mrs. Lakin's example as an inspiration and a confirmation of the tremendous value they bring to our Country.

[From the Knoxville News Sentinel, June 9, 2003]

Spring Hill Teacher Retires After 40 Years

(By Ed Marcum)

There's an odd thing about working with your former fourth-

grade teacher, said Jackie Pena, who teaches kindergartners

at Spring Hill Elementary School. Even after you have grown

up, it's hard to forget that you once sat at a little desk in

her classroom. Pena said that's why it was hard for her to

think of Jane Lakin as just another one of the teachers at

Spring Hill.

``The hardest thing was to get used to not calling her Mrs.

Lakin,'' Pena said. Lee Ann Parker, who was a classmate of

Pena's in the fourth grade, agreed. Parker, the music teacher

at Spring Hill, said it felt funny to call Lakin by her first

name. ``You just don't say that to your teacher,'' she said.

Lakin has retired after 40 years' teaching in the Alice

Bell/Spring Hill community. ``Forty years and six months,''

Lakin said to be precise.

Irene Patterson, guidance counselor at Spring Hill, got to

work closely with Lakin over the years.

``A lot of seasoned teachers get set in their ways, but she

was always willing to try something new,'' Patterson said.

``And she did a lot of things for children that no one knew

about.''

``She would come into my office and say, `Irene, I noticed

that such-and-such student is wearing her big sister's worn-

out shoes, so I've bought her a pair.' ''

The student would get a new pair of shoes anonymously.

Patterson said Lakin brought in such gifts a number of times.

Pena remembers that Lakin was always eager to help new

teachers.

``She has always made people feel welcome and has been a

mentor to new teachers,'' Pena said.

Lakin, who lives in Ritta, moved to Knoxville in 1962 from

Chattanooga, where she had taught for a year. She found a

position at Alice Bell Elementary and taught there until

1991, when that school was consolidated into Spring Hill

Elementary.

Lakin said when you spend your whole career teaching in the

same general neighborhood, you end up teaching the children

of the children you have taught, and you run into former

students most every time you go to the grocery store.

``I never really meant to stay here 40 years, but it just

worked out that way,'' she said. Teaching has changed since

1962, Lakin said. Teachers had more flexibility then.

``In those days, the things you taught were mostly by your

own design. Now someone tells you what to teach,'' she said.

Lakin said she and other teachers stayed on the lookout for

ideas to try out in the classroom. She said she became a

``pack rat,'' always scrounging thrift stores or yard sales

for craft items, plastic boxes or any materials that might

come in handy in class. She said plastic boxes are essential

for storing supplies.

``Teachers ought to buy stock in plastic boxes,'' Lakin

said.

There are so many classroom requirements now that a

teacher's time in the classroom is much more regimented,

Lakin said.

``You just feel like you can't do something unless it will

be on a test. There's no time for fun things,'' she said.

Pena and Parker said some of their fondest memories were of

Lakin bringing in books and reading them to the class. She is

a good dramatic reader, they said.

Lakin and her husband, Nelson Lakin, own a farm in Ritta,

and Patterson said she will always remember the roses that

Lakin grew there and brought to the school office. Lakin said

some of her favorite memories are of the years her students

made trees for the Fantasy of Trees holiday celebration.

``Of course, they hated to give up the tree, once we

finished,'' Lakin said. ``We would usually have to make two

of everything so the students would have ornaments to take

home with them.''

Then there were the occasional bizarre moments, like the

time a boy brought a skunk to school for show-and-tell.

``It got loose and ran all over the school,'' she said.

``Luckily, its scent gland had been removed.'' Eventually the

skunk was apprehended.

Lakin remembers when Pena and Parker were in her class.

They were both good students, Lakin said, although Pena

sometimes talked when she wasn't supposed to. Lakin said that

on at least one occasion she had to have a word with Parker.

``I think Lee Ann was the more mischievous,'' Lakin said.

``She had a club, and she was charging everyone on the

playground to belong to it.''

Both women chuckled, and Parker rolled her eyes.

``It only cost a nickel,'' she said.

``It had to be disbanded,'' Lakin said.

Lakin said she will miss the classroom, but she looks

forward to having more time for gardening and maybe doing a

little traveling.

``I might do some volunteer work, too,'' she said.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that every day we read about a young American soldier being killed in Iraq. Three were killed in a 24- hour period from Sunday to Monday. In its November 25 issue, ``Fortune'' magazine, long before the war started, said an American occupation would be ``prolonged and expensive'' and that it ``could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists.''

Unfortunately, this prediction has turned out to be deadly accurate. This past Saturday, the top of the front page of The Washington Post had a headline reading ``Attacks By Iraqi's Growing Bolder.'' The next day a young American soldier was shot in the head at point blank range as he stood in line to buy a soft drink.

A few days ago, the leading Shiite cleric, the most respected figure of the largest population group in Iraq, demanded that the U.S. get out and leave Iraq to the Iraqis. It is so politically correct today and sounds so fashionable and intellectual to say that the U.S. will have to be in Iraq for several years and that it will not be easy and that we must be prepared for the sacrifice and the difficulties ahead.

Well, someone should ask why. Saddam Hussein was a very evil man, a tyrant, a dictator; but his total military budget was only about two- tenths of 1 percent of ours. He was no threat to us, as this 3-week battle, with almost no resistance, proved. Our military did a great job, as we all knew they would. Now we should bring them home.

President Eisenhower, as everyone knows, was a retired Army general, a graduate of West Point. He loved the military. Yet he warned us as strongly as he possibly could against what he call the military industrial complex. Pressured by this complex, we have now spent over $100 billion on the operation in Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office originally estimated that a 3-month war followed by a 5-year occupation would cost us at least $272 billion. Most estimate that we will stay in Iraq for 5 to 10 years, at a cost of 200 to $300 billion, or more. And because we already face a $400 billion deficit for this year, and hundreds of billions more in the years ahead, we will have to borrow the money to do all this. Once again, we should ask: Why?

Already we have had demonstrations by Iraqi soldiers demanding back pay, and similar demands from Iraqi retirees. Why should Americans taxpayers borrow hundreds of billions to pay the Iraqi military or Iraqi retirees to rebuild Iraq? We are jeopardizing the futures of our children and grandchildren. I believe our Founding Fathers would be shocked if they knew what we were doing today.

I remember reading a few years ago in The Washington Post that we had our troops in Haiti picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes. Later I read that we had our troops in Bosnia building latrines and giving rabies shots to Bosnian dogs. I have nothing against the people in either Haiti or Bosnia, but they should pick up their own garbage and build their own toilets.

Now we are told that the military will build or rebuild 6,000 schools in Iraq and give free basic health care to any Iraqis who need it. We will stay in Iraq for many years, at great expense to U.S. citizens, because several large multinational companies will benefit from large contracts there. We will stay there because all the pressures and money and power and glory within the Department of Defense, the State Department, the National Security Council, and our intelligence agencies are to continue to do more and more in other countries.

These people are not seen as world statesmen and men and women of action unless we get involved in every dispute around the world. They never debate or discuss the merits of all this; they just label all opponents of an interventionist foreign policy as isolationist. However, whenever anyone uses this term, they are simply resorting to mindless name-calling.

Now I suppose we are going into the chaos in Liberia, as we have Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Lord knows where next.

What we really need are more Calvin Coolidges, more people in government who believe in a humble foreign policy. None of these countries were any threat to us. Should we now change the name of the Defense Department to the Department of Foreign Aid or the Department of International Social Work?

I believe in and have always supported a strong national defense, but I do not believe in massive foreign aid. Most of our foreign adventures are creating great resentment toward the U.S. around the world.

The Iraqi people may have hated Saddam Hussein, but they do not want Americans or our puppets running their country either. They have humongous oil wealth. Let them rebuild their own country. The only Iraqis who want us to stay there are the ones we are paying or who believe they can get money from us in the future.

Our first obligation should be to America citizens, and the lives of American soldiers should be precious to us. Let us bring our troops home before more and more of them are murdered. We can be friends with the Iraqi people without making our soldiers sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Federal Government is so big and bureaucratic that it cannot do anything in an economical or efficient way. In fact, we read and hear about so many examples of waste of Federal money that we too often take it for granted or shrug our shoulders about it.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported recently that the Defense Department ``couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes.'' Listen to what this story said:

``Though defense has long been notorious for waste, recent government reports suggest the Pentagon's money management woes have reached astronomical proportions. A study by the Defense Department's Inspector General found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. A GAO report found defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S. Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks and 36 Javelin missile command launch units.''

This story, Mr. Speaker, was not based on reports from some antidefense group. It came from studies done by the Defense Department's own Inspector General and the General Accounting Office of the Congress. This comes on the heels of the Congress overwhelmingly voting for the biggest increase in defense spending ever. And now the Defense Department wants another mega-billion increase and a mega- billion supplemental appropriation, all taking place after we downsized the military by about 1 million troops and closed several bases. All of us want to support the military, but surely we cannot just sit around and allow such horrendous waste to continue.

Then there is the case, Mr. Speaker, of Eric Rudolph. The FBI spent untold millions and had hundreds of agents involved over several years in this manhunt. The FBI should be embarrassed that Rudolph was finally found by a rookie local small-town police officer who had only been on the force for about 9 months. And he found him in Rudolph's home area. We give far too much of our law enforcement dollar to Federal agencies which make only a very tiny fraction of the arrests, probably less than 1 percent. What we need to do is give far more of our law enforcement money to local police and sheriff's departments. They are the officers who are fighting the real crime, the street crime that people want fought.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, talk about waste, we have spent hundreds of billions, with a B, on our intelligence agencies over the last 10 or 15 years. We spend more on intelligence than all the rest of the world combined. We will vote to authorize even more spending on intelligence tomorrow. Yet during this time our intelligence agencies missed the coming down of the Berlin Wall; they missed, failed to predict, the breakup of the Soviet Union; they missed on 9/11. Worst of all, they missed or exaggerated on Iraq. Even the Weekly Standard, probably the most pro-war publication in America today said, ``The failure to discover stocks of WMD material in post-Saddam Iraq raises legitimate questions about the quality of U.S. and allied intelligence.''

Columnist Josh Marshall, writing in The Hill newspaper asked: ``Did we have bad intelligence? Did political appointees dismiss good, but less threatening intelligence? Or was damning intelligence actually cooked up for political purposes? Those are all legitimate questions. But when Congress starts trying to get at the answers, we should be open to the more complex but in its own way no less disturbing possibility that at least some of the main proponents of this war were so consumed by their goal to crush Saddam and so driven by ideology that they fooled themselves as much as anyone else.''

These are good, legitimate and very important questions. Another good question: Why did the National Security Agency find out ``about the attacks of 9/11 by watching CNN,'' as reported by intelligence expert and author James Bamford?

This is an agency that we built a plush supertechnical $320 million building for a few years ago at a cost of $320 a square foot. Probably the most important question of all, why are we getting so little and so much of that for all these hundreds of billions of taxpayer money?

The standard response of all Federal departments and agencies when they are criticized is that they were underfunded. If they had just been given more money, this or that problem would not have occurred. These agencies, if anything, are overfunded, far more money than any company in the private sector. Our intelligence committees are filled with good people; but no one seeks to serve, much less is appointed, to the intelligence committees unless they are strong supporters of the intelligence community. Once they are on the committee, they are heavily courted by the intelligence agencies. So it will be very difficult for a member of these committees in either body to ask the really tough questions that need to be asked. But, Mr. Speaker, I hope for the sake of our own taxpayers and for the future of national security of this Nation that someone on one of the intelligence committees will start asking the hard questions and demanding the truthful answers that our citizens deserve.

Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents has written a poem that showcases our Nation's flag in a glorifying manner. Mr. Victor Miller of Madisonville, Tennessee is the author of a poem titled ``Soliloquy.'' Mr. Miller is the son of Jeanette Miller, who passed this poem along to me. Our Country's morale and heritage is strong today because of patriots like Victor Miller. I would like to call ``Soliloquy'' to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record.

Soliloquy

Imagine as a flag

on all folks passing by

with edifying waves

influencing their lives.

Esteemed a lofty reign

& honored to belong

all would offer tribute

in oaths, salute or songs!

Recognition could abound

for victories secured

defending liberties

despite many injured.

A patriotic stance

of opportunities

advocating, freedoms

by land, the air & sea!

In each of fifty stars

& else where when observed

the glory of your stripes

would valiantly be served!

Halleluah!!!!

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this legislation, which has been entitled Flight 100. It is a very important bill for our entire Nation. It is important even for those who never fly because a strong aviation system is so vital to our entire economy.

I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), whose knowledge of the aviation system we all admire so much, and our great chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), for this bill.

As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) mentioned, I had the privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on Aviation for 6 years; but I cannot tell you how much I admire and respect the work that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has done. No one could have done a better job as chairman of that subcommittee. And I certainly appreciate all the work he has done because that subcommittee has to deal with some very difficult and contentious issues at times, and that has been particularly so over the last couple of years.

This bill continues what I think was very good work that we did in the AIR 21 legislation that I had the privilege to work on while I was chairman of the subcommittee. I especially want to mention, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) did, the environmental streamlining provisions, because we have had so many hearings that said projects were costing three times as much as they should and taking an average of 10 years to complete because of convoluted and confusing environmental rules.

I know the main runway at the Atlanta airport took 14 years from conception to completion, but only 99 days of actual construction.

I appreciate the provisions in regard to general aviation which is so important to this Nation's economy, and small and medium-sized airports, because that is vital to areas like mine.

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for the provisions concerning Midway Island and making that eligible for AIP funding because that is something that means so much to so many veterans.

Finally, to the National Safe Skies Alliance, which has done so much work on aviation safety and security. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, a front-page story today in the Washington Post says, ``Iraqi political leaders lashed out today at a plan by the top U.S. civilian administrator here to appoint an interim advisory council.'' The headline says, ``Iraqis Assail U.S. Plans.''

The front page of the Washington Times has a story today saying, ``Unemployed Iraqi soldiers swarmed U.S. occupation headquarters yesterday demanding back pay and emergency payments of $50 each and avowing vengeance if they didn't get their way.''

We are in a real mess in Iraq. Since when did it become the obligation of U.S. taxpayers to pay the salaries of the Iraqi military? When in history has a victorious army had to start paying the salaries of the defeated army? We have already given the retired people on pensions in Iraq emergency payments, handing out two crisp $20 bills to each, and probably more by now. Since when did it become the obligation of U.S. taxpayers to pay the pensions of Iraqi retirees? Those who support foreign aid found out many years ago that it was very unpopular so they just started putting our foreign aid and overseas spending into every Federal department and agency. The supporters of foreign aid very misleadingly say foreign aid is only about 1 percent of the Federal budget. What they do not say is that we are spending several hundreds of billions of dollars through every Federal department and agency.

I am very pro-military and pro-national defense. However, in many ways today we are turning the Defense Department into the biggest foreign aid agency there is. We were told a few weeks ago that the military is going to build or rebuild 6,000 schools in Iraq and set up a free basic health care plan for all Iraqi citizens. I heard one Member jokingly say that he was going to suggest changing the name of a small town in Wisconsin to the name Iraq so that town could qualify for the huge money that is about to be spent. We are told that the U.S. will spend $200 to $300 billion rebuilding Iraq over the next 10 years. This means $20 to $30 billion each year in a country where the gross domestic product last year was less than $60 billion.

Our military did a great job in Iraq, as we all knew they would. But we spent over $100 billion to defeat a country whose total military budget was only $1.4 billion, about two-tenths of 1 percent of ours. Saddam Hussein was a very evil man, but Iraq was never any real threat to us, as this 3-week war proved. Now we are in a real mess.

Fortune Magazine, in its November 25 issue a few months before the war started, had an article entitled ``Iraq, We Win, What Then?'' That article said, ``A military victory could turn into a strategic defeat. A prolonged, expensive American-led occupation could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists. All of that could have immediate and negative consequences for the global economy.'' That is exactly what is happening today.

I heard one American general say on the news recently that the American military was not designed to be a police force. Yet that is exactly what we are doing in Iraq today. James Webb, a hero in Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote before the war: ``The issue before us is not whether the U.S. should end the regime of Saddam Hussein but whether we as a Nation are prepared to occupy a territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.'' He was one of many, many conservatives against this war.

Charley Reese, the very popular conservative columnist, wrote a column March 24 entitled ``Congratulations'' for becoming ``the proud mamas and papas of 22 million Iraqis'' since we will be providing them with so much. He then wrote:

``I have long been against taxing Americans to solve problems in foreign countries. It seems to me to be a simple proposition. Until an American politician can honestly say that all Americans are healthy and prosperous, that all children attend a clean, well-equipped school, that our entire infrastructure is up to speed, that all of our public health and environmental problems have been solved, then American tax dollars ought to be spent in the United States. I've read the Constitution I don't know how many times, but I never found anywhere in it that Congress can tax Americans and give the money to foreigners, but Congress does it, anyway.''

Are true conservatives now for massive foreign aid? I do not think so. Are true conservatives for huge deficit spending? I do not think so. Are true conservatives for world government and the U.S. becoming the world's policeman? I do not think so. Yet we will spend all these many billions in Iraq because a few big multinational companies will make sure we do and because some government officials feel more important if they are placed in charge of other countries.

Charley Reese also wrote in that same column:

``We, of course, will get stuck with the bill and it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Some of the politicians' corporate cronies are already being promised lucrative contracts. There's always a profit to be made from war. You and I won't make it; the soldiers, sailors and airmen won't make it. No, as consumers we pay the price in treasure and blood and grief; the big corporations reap the profit.''

In yesterday's Washington Post, a story said that some of the same Iraqis who are smiling at U.S. soldiers are harshly criticizing U.S. rule when the soldiers are not around. The Iraqi people hated Hussein, but the only ones who want us around are the ones we are paying.

We should get out of Iraq, Mr. Speaker, the sooner the better and not put more American lives at risk. We should let Iraqis use their humongous oil wealth to rebuild their own country.

Mr. Speaker, it is really very simple: there is waste in the private sector, just like there is waste in the public sector; but the waste in the business world pales in comparison to the waste in government. Thus, every dollar we can keep in the private sector creates more jobs and lowers more prices. We get more bang for the buck, so to speak, from every dollar kept in private hands.

Who benefits the most from having more jobs and lower prices? The poor and lower-income and working people of this country. This has been proven time and again all over the world. Small government means a good economy. Too much government means a starvation economy where the middle class gets wiped out.

Mr. Speaker, that is what this tax cut is all about. If people really want to help the lower-income and working people of this country, they will support the President's tax cut initiative.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Evelyn Billingsley was the head custodian at Blue Grass Elementary School in Knoxville, Tennessee. On May 19, 2003, she arrived at her final day of work in a white, stretch limousine.

A red carpet led the way into the halls of the school Mrs. Billingsley had swept, mopped and waxed for more than two decades. A crowd of adoring fans lined the carpet and sang, ``When you leave, we'll be so blue. Miss Evelyn, we love you.'' After 23 years of service, Mrs. Billingsley has retired.

Affectionately called Miss Evelyn by her Blue Grass Elementary family, this hardworking lady is described by students and teachers alike as the glue that held the school together. I am told it was rare not to find Miss Evelyn in the school, even on weekends or snowdays.

Evelyn Billingsley never became rich or famous from the work she did, but she has touched the lives of countless people, and she will not only be remembered fondly at Blue Grass Elementary School, but she will be deeply missed. I have no doubt she has offered the children there lessons in life and love as she roamed the halls and cleaned the classrooms.

Knoxville, Tennessee, is a better place because of her, and I believe this Nation is, as well.

I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the article which ran on May 20, 2003, in the Knoxville News-Sentinel concerning this outstanding American.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Madam Speaker, I rise today to briefly mention two very unrelated topics, but two things very important to the national scene. The front page of The Washington Post a few days ago had this headline: ``Nonprofit Sells Scenic Acreage to Allies at a Loss. Buyers Gain Tax Breaks with Few Curbs on Land Use.'' And I would like for the Members to listen to the first few paragraphs of this story from the front page of The Washington Post. It says: ``On New York's Shelter Island, the Nature Conservancy 3 years ago bought an undeveloped, 10-acre tract overlooking the Mashomack Preserve, an oasis of hardwoods and tidal pools located just a stone's skip from the exclusive Hamptons. Cost to the charity: $2.1 million.'' That is what the Nature Conservancy purchased this land for.

``Seven weeks later it resold the land, with some development restrictions, to James Dougherty, former chairman of the charity's regional chapter, and his wife, Nancy, a trustee of the conservancy's preserve. Cost to the Doughertys: $500,000.

``The transaction follows a pattern seen in conservancy land deals across the Nation. Time and again the nonprofit has bought raw land and resold it at a loss to a trustee or supporter.''

And what this article tells about, it tells about similar deals in Massachusetts, Kentucky, and other places across the country where the Nature Conservancy has bought land at a huge cost, $2.1 million in this case, and resold it to a member of their board or a strong supporter at a great loss, $500,000, for instance, in this $2.1 million deal, some of the most beautiful land in this Nation. People across this country need to know that the Nature Conservancy is doing these types of sweetheart deals for its board members and other favored people around the country.

The other unrelated topic, Madam Speaker, another very important concern of mine is the fact that we keep on sending so many jobs to other countries. Just before the break, I spoke about another story from The Washington Post which told that one of the biggest exports we have in this country now is with the white collar or technical-type jobs, and it told that over the next decade we are going to lose at least 3 million or more white collar or technical jobs to places like India, China, and other countries.

The gurus or the supporters of high tech told us for years that we did not need to worry about losing the factory jobs and the lower-wage jobs to other countries, that we would be a service economy or that we would have the more educated type of jobs. Now we are losing those at a very alarming pace. And when I graduated from college, people could get good jobs with bachelor's degrees. Now young people are being forced to go to graduate school and sometimes are not even finding jobs when they have master's degrees or Ph.D. degrees, and that is why we find so many people in graduate school or even with graduate degrees working as waiters and waitresses around the country. And if we do not stop this, we are going to have a real problem in this country.

And Paul Craig Roberts, who is a nationally syndicated columnist, one of our most respected columnists and was a former assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, a very conservative Republican, he wrote a few days ago, he said in the last 27 months: ``The U.S. economy has lost 2.6 million private sector jobs. Much of this loss is from the fall in profits and subsequent downsizing after the high-tech bust. Some lost jobs, however, are from a new development: America's export of high-wage jobs to low-wage countries.

``The collapse of the Soviet Union, China's `capitalist road,' and privatizations in formerly socialist economies made it reasonably safe for U.S. firms to locate capital and technology abroad to employ foreign labor to produce for the U.S. market. The main incentive to take production offshore is the availability of labor at wages far below the U.S. rate.

``Foreign labor can be hired at a fraction of U.S. cost, because the standard of living is much lower in China, India, and other Asian countries. These countries have a labor supply that is large relative to demand, making it possible to employ people at wages considerably less than the value of their contribution to output.''

And it goes on in this column, Madam Speaker, and says: ``Thus the very process that helps U.S. firms become more profitable and price competitive worsens the U.S. trade deficit, lowers U.S. employment and GDP growth and puts pressure on the value of the dollar.

``The growing ability of U.S. employers to substitute cheaper foreign labor for U.S. labor is putting pressure on U.S. wages and salaries. On April 26 The New York Times reported that real earnings of those in the top 10 percent fell 1.4 percent over the last year. The real weekly pay for the median worker fell 1.5 percent.

``Another indication of the pressure on U.S. employment is the growing number of discouraged job seekers who have dropped out of the labor force. The 6 percent unemployment rate does not include those too discouraged to seek jobs.''

If we do not start putting American workers first once again, Madam Speaker, we are going to have a real problem in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of East Tennessee's finest citizens on his recent retirement as Assistant Adjutant General for the Tennessee Air National Guard. Major General Fred Forster has served his community, State and Nation in a manner that can only be described as remarkable. I know each Member of this Body joins me today in thanking him for a job well done and wishing him the absolute best in all his future endeavors.

I have said many times that the men and women who wear the uniform of this great Country's military are following one of America's highest callings. Each person who serves this Nation is to be commended and thanked. There are those however who stand out even amongst this crowded field of heroes.

General Fred Forster is such a man. He has himself described a leader as someone willing to act and act consistently. I have had the privilege of knowing Fred Forster for many years and can say that he is such a man. His ability to lead large numbers of military personnel is matched only by his genuine concern for the individual. General Forster offers those around him a unique glimpse into what it truly means to be a leader of men.

General Forster has been awarded numerous medals and decorations for his military service including the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal and the Meritorious Service Medal to name only three. I do not believe, however, that if he were here with us today he would say these are the best measures of his service. I believe that General Forster would say that his career should be measured by the simple fact that he gave his very best to his Country and to those under his command.

Fred Forster joined the United States Air Force in 1968 after graduating from the University of the South at Sewanee with a degree in English. He began his military career during one of our Nation's most turbulent military conflicts. Following completion of his own pilot training, Fred served as an instructor pilot. He later served as an Air Operations Plans Officer in Thailand. In each responsibility he was given he quickly proved his leadership abilities and profound dedication to our Country's military men and women.

Following the Vietnam War and completion of his Masters degree General Forster joined the Tennessee Air National Guard in 1976. He again demonstrated natural leadership and commitment to those under his command. In 1987 he was assigned command of the 134th Air Refueling Group at the McGhee-Tyson Airbase in Blount County, Tennessee.

For the next ten years, then-Colonel Forster led the 134th as it grew to its current designation as an Air Refueling Wing. The men and women of the 134th were called to active duty during the Persian Gulf War and flew under Colonel Forster's command as part of the 1713th Air Refueling Wing. During the conflict the 1713th played a critical role in supporting the countless combat missions that led to the liberation of Kuwait.

On July 15, 2002, Forster was promoted to Assistant Adjutant General for the Tennessee Air National Guard and in this capacity served as the second highest ranking officer in the State's Air Guard. In addition to his recent work with the Tennessee Air National Guard, General Forster continues to serve as the President and CEO of the Blount County Chamber of Commerce where he has offered his service and leadership to the betterment of the community around him. Although he has now retired as Assistant Adjutant General, I am confident he will continue to offer himself to the service of Blount County and the State of Tennessee.

Through both his professional and personal example, General Forster has set a standard of excellence few will fully reach but each of us would be better for trying. I want to personally thank General Forster for his service and congratulate him on his recent retirement. I also want to thank him for his friendship.