Richard Burr

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I think what the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Dickey, was about to say, the reason that himself, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Jim Leach, and myself, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Richard Burr, are here is to talk about a dear friend, to talk about somebody that touched the lives of not only the three of us, but who touched the lives of every person he met. Mr. Speaker, I did not grow up with Tom Rogers and I was not a peer of Tom Rogers. I was a friend of Tom Rogers. Tom Rogers never met a person, though, that was not a friend. Tom was a unique individual. Tom had a love for life, but he also became friends with every individual he met. Tom loved children. He was fascinated by children and the time they would spend with him as an individual confined to a wheelchair, but that was what was so great about Tom Rogers. Tom never saw himself confined to a wheelchair. He saw himself as an integral part of everybody's life, an integral part of his community, a family member, somebody who looked at what God had bestowed him with as only another challenge in life and not as a hurdle in life, and Tom was there to overcome that hurdle. You see, he was a historian. He was not only a successful broker. Tom was one that loved to read. I can imagine every night what Tom must have gone through just to be moved from a wheelchair to a bed. What would be so tiring for most of us was an everyday occurrence for Tom Rogers. Just the thought that with his mouth and with a wand he could operate a computer and run the finances of many people in the community and across this country who he represented is just an amazing feat in itself. I remember the story that, when Tom first went to the hospital, after polio, went into the ward where the iron lungs were and where many were stricken with polio, the first thing his mother said was that she was not going to let Tom Rogers die. Tom was also committed that he was not going to let polio change his life significantly, that he would be successful, he would win in the end. Tom was known for saying his greatest success was helping others see how lucky we all are, not just him. In this day and age all too often we hurry through life without stopping to realize the gifts that we have all been given. Well, Tom Rogers knew the gift he had been given and more. He knew how to use these gifts to enjoy his life and to help others see their importance. Though obstacles were in his way, Tom gained more knowledge and love of life than most of us dream about. Tom was successful in many ways. But he overcame every adversity, everything thrown at him, to truly teach so many so much. Tom Rogers had the ability to take a stranger and treat him like family. He had the ability to take family and make them think that they were the most special thing in the world. Tom Rogers gave us a vision to take risks and to go out on a limb, encouraged us to test our outer limits. By following Tom's way of life, we learned more about ourselves and we gained more than we ever thought possible. There are few people who are able to accomplish so much while still having an intense love of life. I can truly say that Thomas Wallace Rogers saw life in a hopeful light with sincere friends and true leaders. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to be here as a tribute to Thomas Wallace Will Rogers, a man that lived life to its fullest with every obstacle in his way and shared so much with so many across this country.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against the language in title VI of the Agricultural Appropriations Act for the Fiscal Year 1998 on page 56 of the bill, lines 18 through 24, based on the ground that this provision constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, in violation of rule XXI, clause 2 of the Rules of the House. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act, an act within the jurisdiction of the Committee of Commerce, authorizes the collection of user fees. However, this authority expires at the end of the fiscal year 1997. This provision of H.R. 2160 would authorize the collection and expenditure of these user fees beyond the year 1997. Therefore, I make a point of order against the language because it constitutes legislative language in an appropriations measure in violation of rule XXI, clause 2.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, what is this about? This is about real people and real lives and real communities all over this country. It is about small tobacco farmers that are part of that community. The sponsors of this bill would suggest to us that this will not affect the crop and it will not affect crop insurance. Secretary Glickman does not think that. He says that the Department of Agriculture opposes this amendment. He went on to say ``Crop insurance is an essential part of the producer's safety net envisioned by the administration's agricultural policy.'' The administration's agricultural policy. Well, I have to tell my colleagues, crop insurance allows farmers that sense of security that they will not be financially devastated when there is a Hurricane Fran or a Hurricane Bertha. Most crops in North Carolina were destroyed during those two hurricanes. What does the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] suggest we tell our tobacco farmers? Tough break? Well, that dog don't hunt. We should vote ``no'' on the Lowey amendment.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, due to a clerical error, I ask unanimous consent to remove the name of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] from my bill, H.R. 1060. Her name was mistakenly entered as a cosponsor instead of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Maloney].

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has overcome several obstacles to lead a fulfilling life. Tony Curtis Totten is a talented artist, a hard worker, and a well-respected citizen. He also has Usher's Syndrome, an inherited condition that causes both hearing loss and loss of peripheral vision. Despite this disability, Mr. Totten was recently named Employee of the Year by Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind. He has also been nominated for the Peter J. Salmon National Blind Employee of the Year award. I applaud Mr. Totten for his determination to succeed and his dedication to his work. I believe he is an excellent candidate for this honor. By day, Mr. Totten works to produce mattresses. He has been with Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind for 6 years. According to his coworkers, he has a good attitude about work, does whatever jobs he is asked to do, and is quick to help others when they need assistance. Tony is usually ``the first person in the department to go to work, and the last one to stop.'' By night, however, Mr. Totten is a gifted and devoted artist. Drawing is his passion, and he is able to create remarkable portraits from photographs. Art has been an important part of his life for many years. Tony has won art awards in the area, and one day hopes to operate his own graphic arts business. It is people like Tony Totten who exemplify the idea of the American dream. His initiative and display of personal responsibility inspires the people around him. Tony has already opened many doors that were previously closed to him and others with similar disabilities. For myself, for my colleagues in this House, and for our Nation, I say thank you Mr. Totten for showing us that nothing is impossible.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish a happy 60th birthday tomorrow to a great entrepreneur and humanitarian, Mr. Joe Louis Dudley, Sr. Joe was born the fifth of seven children on May 9, 1937 to Gilmer L. and Clara Yeates Dudley in Aurora, NC. In his 60 years, Joe overcame many obstacles to become the president and CEO of Dudley Products, Inc., one of the world's largest manufacturers and distributors of ethnic hair care products, and to serve as a role model for all youth wanting to succeed in their own business. As a child, Joe suffered from a speech impediment and was labeled mentally retarded, but through hard work and his mother's strong encouragement, he surpassed everyone's expectations. It was at North Carolina A & T University that Joe got his start in the beauty industry. He invested $10 in a Fuller products sales kit and made his way through college. During his summer vacation in 1960, he worked for Fuller in Brooklyn, NY where he met his wife, Eunice, who was also working her way through college. Upon graduation, they moved to New York where they worked for 5 years. In 1967, Joe and Eunice Dudley returned to North Carolina, and 2 years later, they opened their own business with beauty products they made in the family kitchen. Today, Dudley Products has grown to be one of the most successful businesses of its kind--making Joe Dudley a millionaire by the age of 40. He employs 475 people and markets his products in 40 States. Joe and Eunice also founded the Dudley Cosmetology University in Kernersville, NC. It currently operates 16 beauty schools including one here in Washington, DC. But, I am not here today to wish Joe Dudley a happy birthday just because he is a successful businessman. He has also dedicated himself to sharing his success with the community. He chaired the Direct Selling Association's Inner City Program which is designed to help inner city youths combat joblessness and also serves on the board of trustees of his alma mater North Carolina A & T University. He and his wife have been honored by the city of Kernersville, NC, as the First Citizens of the Year, and President Bush honored them with the 467th Point of Light for establishing the Dudley Fellows Program which, along with the Dudley Ladies Program, provides mentors to high school students. In addition, Joe's company awards 32 full scholarships annually to N.C. A & T University and Bennett College in Greensboro, NC. Joe, however, does not limit his giving nature to just North Carolina. In 1992, Dudley Products established the Resurrection to Beauty Fund to help cosmetologists rebuild businesses destroyed in the Los Angeles riot. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see why Joe Louis Dudley, Sr. deserves this special happy birthday wish on his 60th birthday. He has used his success to help others achieve the American dream who may not otherwise be able to make it. Through their support of educational programs, he and his wife continue to dedicate themselves to insuring that future generations have the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve great things for our community and our country. So, Joe Dudley, for your selflessness and dedication, we wish you a happy 60th birthday.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Government makes a mistake and, yes, even agencies make mistakes. But the test of effective government is how quickly an institution can correct their errors. In 1990, in a case of mistaken identity, the Environmental Protection Agency listed a chemical called ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, or EGBE, on its hazardous air pollutant list under the Clean Air Act amendments. This chemical is considered not harmful to the ozone and, according to scientific studies, does not harm the environment. The listing of this nontoxic substance will trigger regulations costing each can manufacturer about $5 million to comply, and the EPA's hands are tied. Currently the agency lacks the statutory authority to fix this problem. I introduced H.R. 659, which would delist the chemical and remedy this solution. We should never sacrifice jobs for regulations that are not backed by good science. Now, some extremists say the 71 Members who are cosponsors of this measure want to weaken the Clean Air Act and the Community Right to Know Act by delisting this nontoxic chemical. Quite frankly, this is not an environmental issue, but an authority issue. I urge my colleagues to get the facts and prevent lobbyists from clouding the issue before us.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding me this time. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in support of this legislation. Last week I had concerns on this legislation. Today I still have several concerns with this bill. I would like to address those concerns in a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], the chairman, that I am concerned about the effect the bill will have on pool mortgage insurance, insurance which covers a whole pool of mortgages as opposed to insurance on individual mortgages. If pool insurance was covered, would this not increase home ownership costs?

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for his willingness to address the concerns of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] and my concerns with this legislation. I am hopeful that our colleagues that are involved in the completion of this legislation and the process will continue to refine it and to make it the best bill in the coming weeks that they possibly can.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. It is my understanding that in requiring new disclosure requirements concerning PMI, this bill could add costs to the private sector, especially mortgage servicers and lenders. This is of particular concern to me as well as my colleagues in the North Carolina delegation, because 44 percent of all private mortgage insurance is issued in my State.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Commerce which also has jurisdiction on this bill and as a cosponsor of the bill, I am pleased to speak in support of this very important legislation. H.R. 968 would permit the continuation of nurse aide training and the competency evaluation programs in certain nursing facilities. Under existing Federal law, a nursing facility may lose its ability to offer facility-based nurse aide training and competency evaluations for reasons that are unrelated to the quality of the program itself. This unintended consequence of the current law arises when a facility has unrelated operational deficiencies which are being corrected by the facility. As a result, nursing facilities, particularly those in rural communities, are prevented from conducting the training and evaluation that is an integral part in providing quality nursing care and preventing staff shortages. This legislation would revise the current law. The bill would permit the continuation of nurse aide training and competency evaluation programs in affected facilities under certain circumstances. In order for a facility to continue its training and evaluation programs, the State would have to, one, make a determination that no similar program is in existence within a reasonable distance of the facility; two, conduct oversight activities to ensure that an adequate environment exists for operating the program in the facility; and three, provide notice of such determination to the State long-term-care ombudsman. This noncontroversial measure was recently reported by the Committee on Commerce on March 12 by voice vote. In addition, the Committee on Ways and Means reported the legislation by voice vote on March 13. I am pleased to say that the bill also has the support of the administration and will have no budgetary impact on the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, the legislation sends an important message to the American people that Congress is listening, listening to their concerns about burdensome Federal regulations and taking action to address their concerns. H.R. 968 achieves this objective by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome regulations, a goal that Members on both sides of the aisle have endorsed. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 968.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today we take a giant step forward for working families. Today we will vote to give all parents the ability to choose between getting paid for their overtime or to take time off equal to the amount of money in overtime. I know today's working men and women find it increasingly difficult to balance work and family responsibilities. How many times have we as parents labored to strike a balance between attending a parent-teacher conference and being at our job? Or how many times were we forced to choose between a ball game or recital and our ability to bring home more money? The Working Families Flexibility Act, which I cosponsored, gives families the ability to strike the balance needed between work and family. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer the title of ``Dad'' to the title of ``Congressman.'' I urge my colleagues to join me and allow every parent to be called dad and mom. Support the Working Families Flexibility Act.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gen. Billy J. Boles for his long and distinguished service to his country in the U.S. Air Force. I always consider it a great privilege to have the opportunity to recognize the achievements of a member of the U.S. armed services. These Americans dedicate their lives to the protection and preservation of our freedom, and all too often, we neglect to adequately express our gratitude to them for the sacrifices they and their families gladly make for the sake of our Nation. I take particular joy in this occasion because General Boles is a native son of King, NC in my district. On April 1 of this year, General Boles ends a 35-year career replete with honors and distinctions that took him through posts in Mississippi, Texas, Washington, DC, and Vietnam. During the majority of his tenure, the Air Force assigned to him one of the most challenging and important duties in the armed services--recruiting and accessing Air Force personnel and training them to become the best pilots in the world. In a very real sense, the Air Force entrusted General Boles with its future. After receiving his Bachelor of Science degree at N.C. State University in 1961, General Boles completed his military training at the Squadron Officer School at Maxwell AFB in Alabama, the Armed Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA, and the National War College at Fort Lesley J. McNair here in Washington DC. He then went to his first post at Keesler AFB in Mississippi. In September 1962, he began his career as a military educator when he became an instructor and assistant course supervisor in the Personnel Officer Course at Greenville AFB in Mississippi. General Boles' service also includes two assignments in Vietnam. First, from July 1965 through October 1965 he served with the 6250th Combat Support Group and from October 1966 through June 1967 he served at the 7th Air Force Headquarters both at Tan Son Nhut Air Base in South Vietnam. General Boles' career then took him through several important positions including Director of Personnel Programs at the U.S. Air Force Headquarters here in Washington, DC from June 1987 through June 1988 and Vice Commander of the Air Education and Training Command Headquarters at Randolph AFB in Texas from April 1995 through June 1995. On July 1, 1995, the Air Force promoted Billy Boles to general and made him Commander of the Air Education and Training Command Headquarters where he has served ever since. His command consists of 13 bases, 43,000 active duty members, and 14,000 civilians and includes two numbered Air Forces, Air University, Air Force Recruiting Service, and Wilford Hall Medical Center. In addition to the tremendous responsibilities General Boles fulfilled over his career, he also found time for his family which includes his wife, Kay, and their son, David, who also serves in the Air Force as a lieutenant. Over his 35 years in the Air Force, General Boles earned many major awards and decorations including the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, the Air Force Organizational Excellence Award with four oak leaf clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with service star, and the Vietnam Service Medal with four service stars. All of his life, General Boles dedicated himself to excellence in every task he undertook. Born to a tobacco farming family in the Mount Olive Church community of King, NC in Stokes County on July 27, 1938, young Billy Boles grew up in an environment that stressed hard work and dedication. By age 14, he grew his first tobacco crop on his own. While working hard on the farm, he also found time to participate in scouting through his membership in Boy Scout Troop 102. Religion also played an important role in his career, and he became a member of Mount Olive Baptist Church by baptism on October 10, 1948. During his school years, Billy Boles never rejected an opportunity to work or to learn. He attended North Carolina Boys State at UNC Chapel Hill in 1955, and in addition to going to school and farming, he worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a tobacco acreage measurer. At King High School, Bill Boles' activities included Glee Club, Junior Marshall, Vice President junior and senior year, and salutatorian. Originally planning to work for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. after graduation, encouragement from teachers and friends prompted him to apply to and attend N.C. State University where he enrolled in the ROTC program that launched him on his distinguished military career. While I feel a small amount of sorrow that the young men and women in our Armed Forces will lose a great leader like General Boles, I also feel confident that his great accomplishments as an educator and trainer have helped ensure the future of the Air Force for years to come. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my personal gratitude to Gen. Billy Boles for the great sacrifices and service he gave to his country over his long and distinguished career. Finally, on behalf of my colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives as well as a grateful nation, General Boles, we say thank you.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging Establishment Act of behalf of myself and my colleagues Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Flake, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Borski, Mr. Coble, Mr. Heineman, Mr. Payne of Virginia, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Smith of Texas. As millions of Americans know from personal experience, new developments in medical imaging have revolutionized patient care in the past quarter century. The field is no longer limited to x-rays. Sophisticated new technologies such as computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], positron emission tomography [PET], and ultrasound allow physicians to diagnose and treat disease in ways that would have seemed impossible just a generation ago. Mammography, for example, has improved the odds enormously for patients through early detection. And now, image-based biopsy methods have made it possible to diagnose many suspicious lumps in women without resorting to expensive and painful surgery. For children, imaging has meant a dramatic reduction in the need for surgery. In the past, for example, a child brought into a hospital after an automobile accident would often undergo exploratory surgery if internal injuries were suspected. Today, a CT scan immediately after admission to the emergency room often eliminates the need for surgery at all. This not only avoids an expensive and potentially dangerous procedure; it also eliminates unnecessary pain and lengthy recovery periods. The achievements of medical imaging are remarkable. And the potential for the future is equally dramatic. Imaging research promises breakthroughs in the early detection of such diseases as prostate and colon cancer, as well as the identification of individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease. Imaging research is also developing the foundation for the surgical techniques of the 21st century. Virtual reality neurosurgery, robotic surgery, and a whole array of image-guided procedures are revolutionizing surgical practice. Developments in imaging are also making it possible to deliver better medical services to patients in rural regions and other underserved areas. Through teleradiology, experts in hospitals hundreds or even thousands of miles from patients can read images and make accurate diagnoses. Americans can reap impressive benefits from future innovations in imaging. But these developments could be delayed significantly, or even lost, if we do not make a renewed commitment to image researching at the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is the premier biomedical institution in the world, but it is not organized to optimize research in this crucial field. The NIH is organized in Institutes, to support research related to specific diseases or body organ systems. Imaging, however, is not specific to any one disease or organ. It has applications in virtually every area. For that reason, imaging research is conducted at most of the Institutes at NIH, but it is not a priority at any Institute. Instead, it is dispersed throughout the Institutes, producing uncoordinated decisionmaking and resource allocation. The same is true on a larger scale beyond the NIH. A number of Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the intelligence agencies support imaging research programs. There is, however, no central coordination or direction for this research. We can fix this problem. We can provide the needed oversight and direction for imaging research at NIH and throughout the Federal Government. We can ensure that taxpayer dollars expended on imaging research produce a greater return. And we can do all of this without additional spending. The bill we are introducing today creates an organization at NIH to oversee and direct imaging research. But it does not add further layers of bureaucracy. On the contrary, the bill allows the Director of NIH to use existing administrative structures, existing personnel, and existing facilities for the new Institute. In addition, this bill does not further dilute our increasingly scarce health care resources. Rather than require larger appropriations or create a whole new program with increased overhead, this bill consolidates the imaging research programs that are already in place to ensure more effective decision-making and investment of resources. It also creates a center to coordinate imaging research throughout the Federal Government. In short, this bill provides an opportunity to improve health care for our citizens and improve efficiency at the same time. It will help us meet both the formidable scientific and budgetary challenges we face. I fully recognize that there is not sufficient time remaining in the current Congress for the House to act on this legislation. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to raise this issue now. We will be considering legislation to reauthorize the NIH in the next Congress, and we need to focus on imaging research as we continue the debate on the future of biomedical research in this Nation. I hope that the introduction of this bill now will contribute to that debate, as well as to the construction of a more effective national research program.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, your last comment strikes me as something that we all heard before we got here. That was a Congress that said to the American people, I cannot answer that today, but I will get back with you later. The fact is that Mr. Gutknecht from Minnesota said earlier that the freshman class brought a new mindset to Washington. In fact, he was partially right. I think the correct answer is the American people sent a new mindset to Washington. In fact, why we see the situations of outside interests in California and 38 other districts around the country of large special interests and why they have an interest in that district is, in fact, the breakup of power in Washington, that there are people that feel that for 40 years they have built an empire that in 2 short years is beginning to crumble. They will go to any lengths and spend any amount and say anything to change the trend of the American people taking back over their Congress. The reality is that, in fact, the most changes have happened in this 2-year period than probably in the 2-year period in the history of this institution. I, for one, have been proud to be a part of it.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I referred to the fact earlier that I found when I got to Washington that they add and subtract differently here. Inside the beltway an increase of 3 percent a year is in fact a cut because it is less than somebody wanted. In fact, anything less than what you want in Washington is considered a cut. I think that raises a question. The question gets back to what the gentleman from Minnesota raised earlier. That is, is it radical to believe that a family knows better how to spend their money than the Federal Government? I think that in fact the answer is, to this town it is radical to believe that Members would give up the power of more money, the power of more decisionmaking capabilities, more regulations, the perks of the office and that in fact it is inconsistent with much of the history of this institution. In fact, in 2 short years we were able to turn that around.

Mr. BURR. It is supported by the chart. And the reality of it is this was not a contract that had a political face. It did not have partisan leanings. When laid out and debated on the House floor, which every item was, 58 percent of the Democrats agreed with the common sense initiatives of the Contract With America. The realities are that when you look at the American people and you ask them about the importance of the issues that we discussed, we debated, and eventually we passed many of them, the reality is that the majority of Americans are in agreement with us. So maybe if in fact we are extremist or radical, so is America. But I think we knew before we came that the American families were fed up with business as usual in Washington. And I think when you look back on the record, our good friend from Minnesota pointed out very clearly that on the first day, a historical event happened: Congress went to work. And as we stand here tonight, I do not think that we have had a break since then, it seems like. But the reality is we have accomplished a lot, not only with the contract, but with very important environmental legislation, with health care reform, with issues and legislation that no other Congress in the past 6 to 8 years has been able to move through this body. In fact, the accomplishments of this Congress I think will be historical. Not by the standards of the Contract With America, but by the standards of what this country needed and the right policy that we promoted.

Mr. BURR. The gentleman has a good point, and I have always learned that math is calculated differently in Washington than it is in the rest of the country. But by North Carolina arithmetic, he hit on 7 of the 10 points of the contract that he highlighted as successes of this administration. I believe that in fact 58 percent on average of the Democrats in the House of Representatives supported Contract items.

Mr. BURR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Ehrlich's comments remind me of a story shortly after finishing the Contract, when a journalist came up to me and said, ``Congressman, many people in this country consider you to be extremist and radical. What do you think about that?'' I think Roger was in the room with me when the question was asked. I leaned across the table, and I said to this journalist, ``If you think I am radical and extremist, you ought to see the people that elected me.'' And the reality is when we talk about the mind set change in Washington, what we are a reflection of is the people who sent us here. They sent us with a very clear message. And I am like Bob: The label of ``extremist'' and ``radical,'' that does not worry me, because I still carry the Contract. And I challenge any person who wants to debate policy to look at the Contract and tell me what is extreme, what is radical? What would you not attempt to achieve for the American people and/or families across this country? Because the reality is maybe we did not name this right. Maybe it should have been ``The Common Sense Contract With America,'' because in fact that is what it reflects. As our dear colleague from California discussed, the reality is that this was not too tough to come up with. The reality is that these 10 points were probably items that all 87 Republican and Democrat freshmen came here with a conviction and a commitment stronger than anybody here to accomplish this task, to bring common sense to Washington.

Mr. BURR. Mr. speaker, I would simply say in closing that I know that my colleagues agree when I say that character does matter, that conviction does matter, that commitment does matter, that where there is, quite honestly, character, there is courage, that where there is conviction, there is hope, and where there is commitment, there are results. And if I could sum up this freshman class in the 104th Congress, it would be that we have been courageous, that we have maintained a sense of hope for the future and hope for this country and hope for the families and that, in fact, we should be judged based upon the results, the results of 2 years, not a year and a half, like some want to judge us, but the full 2 years and the impact that we have made on changing how we represent the American people. I am proud of the change, and I look forward to serving with each one of you in the 105th Congress so that we can continue with the progress that we made in the 104th Congress.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on behalf of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, Fred Heineman, who, unfortunately, is not here because of intestinal surgery. Congressman Heineman has dedicated the last 6 months to working on this issue. I really regret that he cannot be here to speak on his own bill. As all of us know, speed is a highly addictive, illegal drug which may cause brain damage in long-term users. It can cause users to go into deep depressions and violent rages. In fact, in Arizona, Phoenix specifically, local police attribute a 40-percent increase in homicides directly with an increase in methamphetamine production. As a former police chief, let me assure my colleagues, Fred Heineman understands the relationship between drugs and crime. It is time that Congress addresses this issue in a real way. One of the obstacles that law enforcement faces in dealing with methamphetamine production is that two of our most common cold, flu, and allergy drugs can be used to make speed. Congressman Heineman's bill meets this challenge head-on. It protects consumers' rights to buy cold and allergy medicine off the shelf, while at the same time increasing the penalties for manufacture, sale, and distribution of speed, making them equivalent to the penalties for crack cocaine. Fred Heineman worked closely with the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Clinton administration, and the pharmaceutical manufacturers on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this has broad bipartisan support and I urge my colleagues in Congressman Heineman's absence, support this bill, stop the production of speed in this country, and save the future generation of our children. With this legislation, we can do that.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, America is losing the war against drugs. As a father of two young children, I understand the fear felt by every parent as they send their kids off to school each morning. Over the past several years, this administration--through its irresponsible actions and indifferent words--has created a world where drug use is not only blatantly ignored but is often the source of careless chuckles and thoughtless jokes. This is not the environment I want my children to grow up in--drug use is not funny. But worse than the rhetoric is the record. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Speaker. President Clinton has eliminated drug agent after drug agent. The number of people prosecuted for Federal drug charges has dropped and programs have been cut. I ask you, how many times have you heard the President of the United States tell your children to ``Just say `no'?'' President Clinton's abandonment of strict, effective drug policy has led our young people down a disturbing road of skyrocketing drug use. Jokes on MTV are not acceptable and reckless disregard from the bully pulpit is inexcusable.