Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I find it very helpful. For those who think that we have cut taxes too much, a few years ago we had a $90 billion tax cut spread over 5 years because that was the most we could get through at that time. Some of the more liberal Members kicked and screamed about that, but that was spread over 5 years. That was a tax cut of slightly less than 1 percent of Federal revenues over that 5-year period. Now the average person pays about 40 percent of his or her income in taxes and another 10 percent in government regulatory costs, at a minimum. So today you have one spouse working to support the government while the other spouse works to support the family. I know the President said in Buffalo that he could not support a tax decrease because the American people would not spend it wisely. I can say I think they would spend it much more wisely than this wasteful, inefficient Federal Government that we have today.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin with the comments that I came to make tonight, I would like to say that I think the previous speaker has pointed out some very important things about the prescriptions of Ritalin in this country. I remember a few months ago reading in the Knoxville News-Sentinel that a retired DEA official, in fact I think he was second in command of the DEA at one time who now has retired to east Tennessee, he wrote an article pointing out that our medical community was prescribing Ritalin at over six times the rate of any other industrialized nation. I think there is a serious question as to whether or not that very serious drug, that very serious controlled substance has been overprescribed in this country, and I think we need to be very, very careful with that and make sure that it is not being used in cases where particularly small children and particularly small boys might simply be a little more active or rambunctious than some others. I do raise that cautionary note. Administration Proposed Spending

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I have introduced legislation that would create four new schools of government across the Country. These schools would be dedicated to the study of public policy and government. This bill has a number of original cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. In the last Congress, this legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House Calendar did not allow for the legislation to be brought to the floor. Each of these schools will be named after great Americans, members of both sides of the aisle, who have served the public in the United States Senate. While I admire and respect all of these gentlemen, I would like to primarily speak about one of them--Senator Howard Baker. Specifically, this legislation would create the Howard Baker School of Government at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. I believe this legislation is a fitting tribute to Senator Baker's extraordinary career and public service. Senator Baker was a Member of the U.S. Senate for 18 years where he served as Minority Leader as well as the Majority Leader. He also served as President Reagan's Chief of Staff. The White House Chief of Staff has to be the person who tells others ``no'' for the President. As a result, many people have left this job with unpopular reputations. However, Senator Baker left this job more popular than when he began it. I believe this is a real testament to the type of person he is. In fact, Senator Baker has often been called the Greatest Living Tennessean. I concur with these remarks. I would also add that he is one of the greatest statesmen in the history of the State of Tennessee. In addition, he has been recognized a great deal here in Washington. In fact, the Senate Majority Leader's office in the U.S. Capitol Building is named the Howard H. Baker, Jr. Room. This is a very fitting tribute to one of our Nation's greatest public servants. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have introduced legislation to name a federal courthouse in Knoxville, Tennessee, after Senator Baker. This will serve as a reminder to Tennesseans of the great work of Howard H. Baker, Jr. Senator Baker has a wonderful, loving wife--Senator Nancy Kassebaum. I think they make a great team, and they both continue to work to ensure that this Country is a better place for our children to live. In spite of all the success Senator Baker achieved in the White House, the Senate, and now his private law practice, he has not lost his humility. He now lives in Tennessee where he can be close to the people he represented for so many years. He continues to work to help others. Despite his national recognition he speaks at very, very small events if it is a worthwhile cause. As I stated earlier, I have great admiration for all of the gentlemen honored in this bill. However, I think this is an especially fitting tribute to the Greatest Living Tennessean--Senator Howard Baker. I urge my Colleagues to support this legislation which will honor four great Americans and at the same time provide additional learning opportunities for our young people.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the National Parks Air Tour Act of 1999. This bill is identical to provisions which passed the House by a voice vote during the 105th Congress. It was supported by the Friends of the Smokies, United Air Tour Association, Grand Canyon Airlines, National Air Transportation Association, and the National Parks and Conservation Association. The legislation represents an agreement which strikes a balance between air tour and environmental concerns, native American interests and jurisdictional areas between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service. It seeks to promote safety and quiet in national parks by establishing a process for developing air tour flight management in and around our national parks. It also ensures that the FAA has sole authority to control airspace over the United States and that the National Park Service has the responsibility to manage park resources. These two agencies would work cooperatively in developing air tour management plans for air tour operators and both would share the fundamental responsibility to ensure that air tours over national parks and tribal lands are conducted in a safe, efficient and unintrusive manner. Mr. Speaker, during the 105th Congress, there were a number of hearings on this issue both in the House and the Senate. At that time, it appeared that it would be extremely difficult to be able to reach a consensus on how to handle air tours over our national parks. However, with resolve and determination differences have been worked out, and we crafted legislation acceptable to all concerned. This is an outstanding bill which will ensure that ground visitors and the elderly, disabled, and time-constrained travelers may continue to enjoy the scenic beauty of our national parks for future generations to come.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I spoke on this floor in reference to the many, many promises the President made in his State of the Union speech and in the days just before and just after that speech. As Senator Everett Dirksen said many years ago, ``A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to some real money.'' It is probably the easiest thing in the world to spend other people's money. It is also one of the easiest things in the world to promise government money for everything to everybody. Yet as the National Taxpayers Union pointed out after the State of the Union speech, the promises contained therein would require $288.4 billion in increased spending in the first year alone. The next week, last week, Newsweek magazine published a chart showing that all these new promises would, if enacted, cause a $2.3 trillion shortfall over the next 15 years. On election day of 1994 when control of the Congress changed parties, the stock market, the Dow Jones average, was at 3800. It has now reached as high as 9600. One of the main reasons our economy has been so strong over these last 4 or 4\1/2\ years has been that we finally started bringing Federal spending under control. We are even, temporarily at least, having some surpluses. But let me point out how big a change this is. A few months after President Clinton took office, Alice Rivlin, his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, put out a shocking memo. She said that if we did not make major changes in spending, we would have yearly deficits of over $1 trillion a year by the year 2010 and between $4 and $5 trillion a year by the year 2030. If we had allowed that to happen, our entire economy would have crashed. No one would have been able to buy a car or a home. Our children of today would have seen their standard of living not even probably 5 or 10 percent of what it is when they are in the prime of their lives, if we had sat around and let the ridiculous and wasteful Federal spending that was going on continue. Sometimes it is far more compassionate to not spend money and instead leave more money with the families of America to spend on their children as they see fit. Today taxes and government spending are at all-time highs. There is a misimpression by some that government spending has been cut in recent years. Really all we have done is slow down the great increases that were going on. When I first came to the Congress, every department or agency was routinely receiving 12 and 15 and 18, even 20 percent increases in spending each year. Everyone knew that we could not continue spending at that rate, everyone knew that that would lead very soon to a major crash of our economy, and so we were able to get things under a little better control and decrease or cut these increases in spending down to about 3 percent a year, something that we have been able to live with. But today the average person, the average family, spends about 40 percent of his or her income in taxes and at least another 10 percent in government regulatory costs. A Member of the other body, Senator Fred Thompson from my State of Tennessee, ran some ads a couple of years ago which were so true. He said today one spouse works to support the government while the other spouse works to support the family. This is why we are talking about tax cuts. But if we allow all these promises and programs that have been made in recent weeks to be enacted, we will get back into trouble so quick it will make your head swim. We will get back just where we were a few years ago. We will not see these surpluses that are predicted for the years ahead. To enact bills that allow, as Newsweek said, a shortfall of $2.3 trillion over the next 15 years would just be unconscionable. And I want to place in the Record at this point a column on the State of the Union speech written by nationally syndicated columnist Charley Reese, which I think sums up far better than I have the situation that we will get back into if we are not careful: [From the Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 28, 1999] Don't Buy Into Lies on Top of Lies About a Nonexistent Surplus (By Charley Reese) The first thing to keep in mind when evaluating Bill Clinton's laundry list of promises, made in his state of the Union speech, is that Mr. Clinton is a proven liar. As any misled wife can tell you, the practical problem in dealing with a liar is deciding when, if ever, he is telling the truth and when he is lying. Lying is far more serious than liars would have you believe. Two main lies underlie his speech. One is the lie that Social Security needs saving. Well, only from politicians. The current tax brings in more than enough money to keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent, but Congress and presidents use the surplus to offset deficits in other places in order to promulgate the second lie--that the budget has a surplus. Both Republicans and Democrats are co-conspirators in this con job. So, starting with two lies, Clinton then proceeds to spend a nonexistent surplus stretching 15 years into the future. Even if this year's surplus were real, there is no way to predict that the surpluses will continue for 15 years into the future. That is pure fantasy. Clinton's promising this and promising that, all financed by a nonexistent future surplus, is a perfect example of demagoguery. Furthermore, everything Clinton proposed, except spending more on defense (again with the mythical surplus money), is unconstitutional. Yes, I know that nobody pays any attention to the Constitution except lawyers trying to get around the democratic process. But, nevertheless, if you will just read the document, you will notice that nowhere is the federal government authorized to get involved in local land planning, health care (long- or short-term), child care, urban sprawl, education or discouraging kids from smoking tobacco. (God knows they've done a poor job of discouraging them from smoking dope). It's dismaying that more people can't see through this thinly disguised con game Washington politicians are playing. They do polls. They find out what folks are worrying about. They promise to fix it. They pretend they can fix it, despite a deplorable record of failure ($5 trillion and the feds lost the War on Poverty; $40 billion and they lost the war on drugs). They pretend they can do it at no cost. This year, they will all be spending the mythical surpluses, which, like psychics, they know will come in the future. All this amounts to is blatant vote-buying, as corrupt as if they were standing outside the voting booths, stuffing $20 bills into people's pockets. It amounts to robbing Jane to buy the vote of Betsy. Why should one working mother, who pays for her own child care, be taxed to provide free child care to someone else? The low-life, unprincipled politicians have turned government in America largely into a racket, and it appears that many Americans have become so corrupt themselves that they don't care as long as they get a piece of the booty. Well, from the point of view of a paid observer, watching a society collapse is probably more interesting than watching one that is running smoothly, but nevertheless I don't recommend it. I don't know of any greater civic sin a people can commit then taking this great country, created and preserved at such a great price in blood, sweat and tears, and tossing it away just because Americans have become too damned lazy, timid, greedy and irresponsible to preserve it for posterity. Despite what you hear, the state of this union isn't very good.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), our outstanding chairman, for yielding me this time. As has been explained, this bill, H.R. 98, will reauthorize the war risk insurance program through December of the year 2003. We rarely hear about this important program, Madam Speaker, until a conflict arises such as the Gulf War or Bosnia, or when its authorization expires. However, the war risk insurance program is essential to the safety and security needs of our Nation. No airline will provide air service if its planes are not insured. Commercial insurance policies contain a provision stating that aircraft will not be covered if the aircraft flies into a war zone. The war risk insurance program provides insurance for commercial airlines to provide flights to high-risk areas. These flights are usually requested by our government agencies for services such as ferrying troops and supplies. With this insurance, commercial airlines are willing to take on these dangerous missions. Without this insurance, a key piece of our national security program is missing. The program is due to expire in March of this year. It is essential that we authorize this program to protect our Nation in times of need. This program has covered thousands and thousands of flights into war zones, and it is very, very necessary. In addition, Madam Speaker, we have a technical provision that has been added to this bill at the request of our friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). This technical correction corrects deficiencies in the Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act. This act was passed last Congress to establish a commission to assist in the commemoration of the centennial of powered flight and the achievements of the Wright Brothers. The added provision simply clarifies certain provisions of the bill, such as conflicts of interest, appointment of members, and defines certain nonprimary purposes of the commission. Due to the nature of this provision and the importance of the war risk insurance program, I strongly support this bill, and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, one of the main reasons the economy has been so strong over the last few years is that following the 1994 elections, we finally started bringing Federal spending under control. Alice Rivlin, who was the President's budget director, put out a memo in 1993 saying that if we did not make changes, we would have deficits of over $1 trillion a year by the year 2010 and $4 trillion to $5 trillion a year by 2030. If we had allowed that to happen, our economy would have crashed. Now we are actually seeing surpluses. But it is politically popular and very easy to promise everything to everybody. The National Taxpayers' Union said the President's State of the Union address would require a $288.4 billion increase in spending in the first year alone. Last week Newsweek magazine published a chart showing we would have a shortfall of $2.3 trillion in the next 15 years if we enacted all of these programs. If we do this, Madam Speaker, we will very quickly be in serious trouble in our economy once again. We must not let it happen.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and just a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that Newsweek magazine said a little over a week ago that if we enacted everything that the President has promised in the last few days, we would have a $2.3 trillion shortfall in the next 15 years and totally really wreck our good economy. But I mentioned a column that I want to include in the Record by nationally syndicated columnist Charley Reese, and I want to read a portion of that column at this time. He said after the State of the Union in his column: So, starting with two lies, the President then proceeds to spend a nonexistent surplus stretching 15 years into the future. Even if this year's surplus were real, there is no way to predict that the surpluses will continue for 15 years into the future. That is pure fantasy. The President's promising this and promising that, all financed by a nonexistent future surplus, is a perfect example of demagoguery. Furthermore, everything he proposed, except spending more on defense, is unconstitutional. Yes, I know that nobody pays any attention to the Constitution except lawyers trying to get around it, and so forth. But he continues in this column, Mr. Reese does. He says: It's dismaying that more people can't see through this thinly disguised con game Washington politicians are playing. All this amounts to is blatant vote-buying, as corrupt as if they were standing outside the voting booths, stuffing $20 bills into people's pockets. It amounts to robbing Jane to buy the vote of Betsy. I tell you, as I said a minute ago, if we do what the children and what the families of this country need, we will hold back on this and not go into all of this ridiculous and wasteful spending, so that our good economic times can continue. But it will be so easy to end these good times if we fall off and go along with all of these high sounding and wonderful promises that have been made over the last few days.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman, for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, last year, as has been pointed out by some of the previous speakers, a comprehensive FAA reauthorization package, H.R. 4057, passed the House and a companion bill was passed in the Senate. Unfortunately, conference negotiations broke down and only a short- term six-month extension for the airport improvement program was passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. This bill, H.R. 99, would extend the FAA's airport improvement program and fund the FAA's operations and facilities equipment programs through the end of fiscal year 1999. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has already explained the great importance of these programs, especially at a time of such rapid growth in both commercial passenger traffic and air cargo traffic. Last year, we carried for the first time in history with not a single fatality, a single commercial air fatality, 615 million passengers. This year, that figure is scheduled to go up to 660 million and, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) pointed out, to over a billion at some point in the very near future, certainly within the next decade. With the passage of this bill, $10.3 billion for the FAA's program would be authorized for 1999. Also at the request of the House Committee on Ways and Means, we have added a provision to extend the general expenditure authority for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. We are also planning to introduce a long-term comprehensive reauthorization bill, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has pointed out, in conjunction with our attempt to take the trust fund off budget in H.R. 111. In the comprehensive bill, we will attempt to take care of many of the requests we receive each year from Members concerning airport and aviation needs. However, since AIP funding will expire as of March 31st, it is very important to pass H.R. 99 to extend this funding at least through the end of year, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I have always believed that national defense is one of the most and at times the most important and most legitimate function of our national government. I have strongly supported our military, although at times I have also supported some cost-saving measures in defense spending. I voted for the Gulf War several years ago because Saddam Hussein had moved against another country, Kuwait, and was threatening others. He had what was considered to be the strongest military in the Middle East, although we now know that we vastly overestimated his strength. There were fears then that he might try to take over the entire region if he was not stopped. A few months ago I voted for the $100 million U.S. contribution to try to remove him. From what I have read, Saddam Hussein appears to be a horrible megalomaniac, a terrible dictator who has killed people to stay in power, and I would agree with anything bad that one could say about him. But I believe that Robert Novak, the nationally syndicated columnist and TV commentator, is right when he calls our action against Iraq ``a phony, political war.'' Iraq's military strength was almost wiped out by the Gulf War eight years ago. Our sanctions since that time have ruined what was left of Iraq's economy. Our latest bombings have been against an extremely weak, almost defenseless nation, and in fact, against a military the size and strength of ours, Iraq is defenseless. We are doing this to a country that made no overt action against us, and in fact did not even threaten to. There is no threat to our national security. There is no vital U.S. interest at stake or that is even threatened. Iraq is not even a paper tiger today. Some of our leaders have tried their best to make Iraq sound threatening by repeatedly talking about weapons of mass destruction, yet in several years of inspections by U.N. inspectors, no weapons of mass destruction were found. Besides, many nations, including us and our leading allies, have weapons of mass destruction. We cannot go bomb every nation that has some weapon of mass destruction. We have spent over $2 billion on the Iraqi deployment over the last few months and are still spending huge amounts; many, many millions each day. This is a surrealistic war. Most Americans do not even feel like we are at war. The news from Iraq is not even making the front pages. All we are doing is wasting billions of dollars and making enemies all over the world. We are repeatedly involving ourselves in ethnic, religious and historical conflicts, some of which have been going on for centuries and which will go on long after we pull out, if we ever do. All we are doing is wasting billions of dollars and making enemies all over the world. We have turned our military into international social workers. A few years ago the front page of the Washington Post carried a story that said we had our troops in Haiti picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes. Last year on this floor I heard another Member say we had our troops in Bosnia giving rabies shots to dogs. Most Americans believe the Haitians should pick up their own garbage and that the Bosnians should give their own rabies shots. By the way, the President originally promised we would be out of Bosnia by the end of 1996. Yes, 1996. This is February of 1999, and we are still there. Now we are preparing to send troops to Kosovo. We sent troops to Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq and now Kosovo, and billions and billions of dollars taken from low and middle-income Americans to finance all of this. Anyone who even dares to oppose any foreign intervention that the elites dream up is sarcastically, or at least unkindly, referred to as an isolationist. The interventionists will not discuss these issues on the merits without name-calling. But it is not isolationist to believe that we should try to be friends to all nations. We end up making more enemies than friends when we take sides in every international dispute that pops up. We cannot serve as the world's policeman. We cannot force our will on everyone. If we try, sometimes we will choose the wrong side. Just a few years ago we considered Iraq to be an ally against Iran. Even today our leaders tell us that the Iraqi people are not our enemies, but we are fast turning them into enemies. Scott Ritter, the U.N. Inspector, resigned in protest in December, saying that we had rigged the UNSCOM report in order to justify our bombing. In August, after the President's ``apology'' flopped, we bombed the Sudan and Afghanistan. We rushed into that bombing so fast that only one of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was informed. Paul Harvey and others have later reported that we had bombed a medicine factory, and we gained nothing from those bombings. We just, once again, wasted huge amounts of money and made more enemies. Why are we doing all this? Is it to make our national leaders appear to be world statesmen? Is it to assure them a place in history? Is it to give the military justification for more funding? Is it a military desperately in search of a mission? We don't need all this bombing. Going to war should be the most reluctant decision we ever made. We should do so only as a very last resort, when all other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. Finally, Madam Speaker, while very few people seem to care about the Constitution anymore, it is unconstitutional to drop bombs on and go to war against another Nation without a declaration of war by Congress.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have often said that in my district, the colors orange and white are almost as patriotic as red, white, and blue. That is because orange and white represents the official colors of the University of Tennessee and the Tennessee Volunteers football team, now the undisputed NCAA national football champion. Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago the Tennessee Vols completed a perfect 13-0 season and earned their first national championship in 47 years. Under the eye of the great coach Phillip Fulmer, the winningest active coach in the NCAA, who has now won about 85 percent of his games as the head coach, the Vols captured their second consecutive SEC championship. To top it all off, Coach Fulmer was named both the SEC and National Football Coach of the Year. Many other people also have helped make this past season more memorable than ever. The Vols defense, led by defensive coordinator John Chavis, held 7 opponents to 14 points or less and 8 to under 100 yards rushing this season. The Vol defense ended the 1998 season ranked 6th nationally in rushing defense, and had one of the best overall defenses in the Nation. The Vol offense, led by now departed offensive coordinator David Cutcliffe, who took the top spot at the University of Mississippi, powered through opponents all season long. The new offensive coordinator is not new to aggressive and successful play. Coach Randy Sanders, who took over the offensive reins during the Fiesta Bowl, was previously the quarterbacks and running backs coach at UT. Coach Sanders' first game saw his offense perform exceptionally well against the tough Florida State defense. The Volunteer offense had a tremendous season indeed, averaging over 211 yards rushing per game, leading the SEC and ranking among the top nationally. Mr. Speaker, who else could assemble such a great coaching talent and staff but the greatest athletic director in the Nation, Doug Dickey? Coach Dickey has had amazing success in his career at UT. As head football coach from 1964 through '69, Coach Dickey put the UT football program back on the map, winning two SEC championships and leading the Vols to high national rankings in several bowl game appearances. For the last 13 years Coach Dickey has been a true leader in the field of college athletics, and has built the University of Tennessee into a sports powerhouse in the NCAA. Additionally, his efforts to build scholarship fundraising have led to an increase in UT's level of giving from $800,000 to more than $9 million annually to the athletic department. Mr. Speaker, the people I have mentioned thus far have contributed a great amount to the success of the UT football program, but they alone could not have done it without a host of great Volunteer athletes. The Volunteer football squad achieved a perfect season last year, and joined the 1951 Volunteers as the only other national championship team in Tennessee football history. The championship team was led by four captains, all of whom brought outstanding leadership and exciting action to the Volunteer team. All American linebacker and co-Captain Al Wilson was the emotional leader of the Vol defensive team, and perhaps in the biggest game of the season Al Wilson broke the single game individual ``caused fumble'' record in a match-up against Florida. Co-Captain and placekicker Jeff Hall had an amazing season, earning the SEC all-time scoring record with 371 points in his career. He also had a game-winning field goal at the buzzer, to win the season opener against Syracuse. More importantly, Jeff hall was named an academic All-American and SEC player. Co-Captain Shawn Bryson and Mercedes Hamilton helped the Vol offense dominate opponents throughout the season. Both players started every game, and provided much needed support to the offensive effort. Bryson, who started every game as fullback, rushed in one game for over 200 yards on 21 carries with four touchdowns. Mercedes Hamilton, who started every game as offensive right guard, was a key blocker who helped lead the Vol offensive running game. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, most quarterbacks would rather not have had to follow a player like Peyton Manning. However, Tee Martin, the fantastic leader of the Tennessee offense, rose to the challenge. Under enormous pressure, Martin posted a tremendous season, completing an NCAA record 24 consecutive passes in a 2-game period against Alabama and South Carolina. His favorite receiver, Peerless Price, was another Vol who certainly lived unto his name Peerless. He led the Vols with 61 catches for over 900 yards in 1998, and finished his career ranked third on UT's all- time list for receptions and receiving yards, and also had a 100-yard kickoff return against Alabama. Mr. Speaker, there were many key players and others that made this season a very special one for the Vols. As I said before, the Fiesta Bowl gave the Vols their second national title in 47 years. The 1951 Volunteers, led by the Great Coach, General Robert Neyland, was the last Tennessee team to win the National championship. Some of the greatest names in Tennessee football history came from that very team. Names like: Jim Haslam, Col. Gene Moeller, Gordon Polofsky, Bill ``Moose'' Barbish, Herky Payne, Tex Davis, Boomer Boring, Any Myers, Pat Shires, Doug Atkins, Andy Kozar, Bob Davis, Bill Addonizio, John Michels, and Don Bordinger all shaped the history of Tennessee football and put the volunteers on the map of NCAA football powerhouses. I know that the players of the 1951 team are extremely proud of the players and coaches of the 1998 Volunteers. Finally Mr. Speaker, this year brought an end to the most outstanding college football radio show in the history of the game. The ``Voice of the Vols'' John Ward and his partner Bill Anderson stepped down after the Fiesta Bowl on January 4th. For over 30 years, Ward and Anderson have given Tennessee football fans around the world chill bumps, calling every game with a heartfelt passion that is second to none in college football. The two are the longest-running broadcast pair in Division 1-A college football. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the newly crowned NCAA National Champion Tennessee Volunteers and everyone who has contributed to their perfect season. Go Vols!

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these articles of impeachment because of the very serious allegations of felonies contained in them. I spent 7\1/2\ years as a criminal court judge trying felony criminal cases prior to coming to Congress. Many experts have pointed out that the role of the House is really that of a grand jury. A grand jury is required to indict any time there is a reasonable possibility that a crime has been committed. Like a grand jury, I believe the House has no choice but to impeach when we have a report, an official report of felony offenses having been committed. Jerome Siefman, the former Democratic chief counsel of the Committee on the Judiciary, wrote recently that in his view, ``There is now more than substantial evidence to consider that the President has committed impeachable offenses, and that the Congress has a moral, ethical, and constitutional responsibility to vote to impeach in this situation.'' As a speaker earlier this morning mentioned, the Justice Department during this administration has prosecuted 700 people for perjury type offenses. One of our leading syndicated columnists summed up by asking, are we people of the Constitution? Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these Articles of Impeachment because of the very serious allegations of felonies contained in them. Before coming to Congress, I spent 7\1/2\ years as a criminal court judge trying felony criminal cases. Unfortunately, I believe some Members of Congress are forgetting, ignoring, or perhaps do not understand the proper role of the House in an impeachment proceeding. Also, I had lunch with former Senator Howard Baker this week, and he said many people are missing a very key difference between the impeachment proceedings today and at the time of the Watergate hearings. Senator Baker said those who wishfully talk about the bipartisan nature of Watergate are forgetting or overlooking the fact that many Republicans came forward then and put aside their partisanship even though it went against a President of their own party. Today, not only are almost all Democratic Members siding with the President, they are adopting his strategy of attacking his attackers in a very partisan, very aggressive manner. Republicans have been criticized by many on the national media for being partisan. However, in reality, we should take lessons from the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee on how to be partisan. We cannot hold a candle to the other party when it comes to partisanship. Democrats, almost in lockstep fashion, are saying they find the President's behavior reprehensive, But . . . This ``but'' is about as big as ``but'' can be and essentially means the President should once again get away with things no once else could get away with. As to the House's proper role in an impeachment, it is really that of a grand jury. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee: The roles of the House and Senate roughly resemble the classic grand jury and petit jury models. Under the Constitution, the House functions much like a grand jury. Like a grand jury, the House does not rule on the merits of impeachment allegations, a function given exclusively to the Senate. The Washington Times wrote: The Constitutional system of impeachment gives the House the role of grand jury. The only decision to make is whether the bulk of unproven information presents a prima facie case that needs to be tried by the Senate. The Atlanta Constitution stated that: The U.S. Constitution makes the House of Representatives a grand jury and the Senate a trial court for impeachment proceedings, but it does not spell out how each body should handle its responsibilities. I do not think the grand jury system is fair, and I believe it should be changed or eliminated. However, unless or until the law is changed, a grand jury is required to indict someone if there is any reasonable possibility that a crime has been committed. Our Founding Fathers envisioned that even some misdemeanors might require impeachment. Does anyone really believe they would have said we should ignore or overlook felonies? We now have a report from the independent counsel, appointed by the President's own Attorney General, saying that the President has committed felony offenses. Jerome Ziefman wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal: As a lifelong Democrat and chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry, I believe I have a personal responsibility to speak out about the current impeachment crisis. And I believe my fellow Democrats on today's Judiciary Committee have a moral, ethical, and constitutional responsibility to vote to impeach President Clinton. Like most traditional Democrats--like most Americans--I have grave reservations about Mr. Clinton's morality and ethics. In my view there is now more than substantial evidence to consider our President a felon who has committed impeachable offenses. As one of our leading syndicated columnists summed up: Are we people of the Constitution? Are we a nation of laws? Do Americans believe that perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to a federal grand jury--all felonies for a private citizen are not felonies when done by a president? Is a president above the laws that bind other men? Senator Baker also told me at our lunch that the Senate could conclude this matter in one day if they really wanted to. I hope that if the House votes to impeach, the Senate moves quickly and that the President and his lawyers and supporters do not use the stall and delay tactics that have dragged this matter on too far already.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to place a statement in the Record in support of this resolution but in strong agreement with the previous speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have always tried to support our men and women in the military, and I support this Resolution. I supported the original Gulf War, but I must say that I think the situation is very different today. Eight years ago, Saddam Hussein had what some described then as the largest, most-powerful military in the Middle East. He was moving into Kuwait, and most analysts felt that if he was not stopped, he would try to take over the entire Middle East. Today, after major losses in the Gulf War and 8 years of sanctions, Iraq essentially is a defenseless nation in comparison to the U.S. We have not been told of any overt military action by Iraq, or even of any threatened action, against us on anyone else. Several nations, including us and some of our strongest allies, have weapons of mass destruction and chemical and biological weapons. We cannot bomb every nation that has such weapons. We have always prided ourselves as being a peace-loving nation. War should be our most reluctant action. We should go to war only as a last resort--only if there is no reasonable alternative. And we should go to war only if there is a serious threat to our national security or there is a vital U.S. interest at stake. In this instance, as in the bombing a few weeks ago of Sudan and Afghanistan, we have been far too eager to go to war. We are now bombing innocent men, women, and children who have done nothing to us and have not even threatened us, simply because they are ruled by a mad dictator. Saddam Hussein is without doubt a horrible tyrant and I would agree with anything bad that is said about him. But this bombing now is the wrong thing to do, and it is the wrong time to do it. In the long run, it will do far more harm than good. This Resolution, however, expresses support for our troops in combat and supports the removal of Saddam Hussein. Both of these are things that all Americans can support even if they have questions about the policy and its timing.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I would like first to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and other members of the committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor today, which is almost identical to a bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and myself introduced in the House early last year. I would also like to thank Senator Coverdell, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for introducing the same legislation in the Senate. This language, the language in this bill, will encourage the State Department to hold diplomats accountable for crimes committed in the United States, and it is the first time that we have had legislation that will attempt to accomplish this. Specifically, the bill urges the State Department to pursue waivers of diplomatic immunity when foreign diplomats commit serious crimes in the United States. In addition, if a foreign government of a diplomat who commits a crime will not agree to waive immunity, that government will be encouraged to prosecute the criminal for the same offense in their own courts. Madam Speaker, this problem was brought to the forefront last year in Washington when a 16 year old girl was killed by a diplomat who was driving while drunk. This diplomat could have avoided prosecution under diplomatic immunity. I believe this case and others have shown us that we need to take a serious look at how the current system operates. In fact, it has been reported that there has been on average one death a year over the last 10 years in which a diplomat has been involved when the perpetrator was not charged. We need to make foreign representatives in this country know that they will be held accountable when they commit terrible crimes. I welcome all people, all of us welcome all people of all nationalities into this country, but, at the same time, I do not think diplomats should have the right to come here and kill or commit other serious crimes against U.S. citizens without expecting punishment. Again, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the other members of the Committee on International Relations for recognizing this problem and for moving on this legislation to attempt to correct this problem.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, we are all reading the reports about economic troubles all over the world. We are also being told that these problems are already starting to affect the economy here in this country. Yet at the same time a small group of people who are averaging over $2\1/2\ million a year are getting ready to go on strike. I am talking of course about the NBA. Today professional sports has become filled with greedy players and greedy owners, and nowhere is this more obvious than in pro basketball. Last year one of my sons told me that one little-known player had signed a 6-year, $123 million contract, 20\1/2\ million dollars a year. I told my son that the sports world has simply gone berserk. I hope the NBA players and owners cannot work out their differences. I hope the whole season is lost. If they do play, I wish people would just refuse to watch and instead go to college or high school games. I remember a couple of years ago hearing about a major league baseball player signing for 3 years for $6 million a year. The average person in this country today makes less than $25,000 a year. If a person worked for 40 years at 25,000 a year, he would make $1 million for his whole career. If he was way above average, making 50,000 a year, he would make $2 million over a 40 year career. A person would have to average $150,000 a year for 40 years to make $6 million. These pro sports salaries are simply out of whack. I do not support giving government more money because so much of it is wasted, and turning money over to government is the least efficient way to spend money and the least efficient way to create jobs that you could find. But with these ridiculous salaries as high as they are now and especially if they continue to escalate, then we should lower the taxes on middle-income people and make it up by raising the taxes on these athletes and movie stars who are making millions of dollars a year. Mr. Speaker, if we are about to hit some hard economic times, then we need to try even harder to see that we use our money and spend our money in the wisest ways possible. We need to give people more incentives to save and more incentives to invest especially in companies that create manufacturing and industrial jobs, good paying jobs. We need to stop giving tax breaks and spending huge sums of public money for pro sports companies so they can raise the salaries of athletes who are already being paid obscene amounts already. While I am discussing inefficient, unfair ways of spending public money, I should mention that unfortunately we are about to give many billions more to the International Monetary Fund in this end-of-the- year omnibus appropriations bill. We will be doing this against the advice of people like George Schultz, the former Treasury Secretary; Jack Kemp, a former leader in this body; James K, Glassman, the Washington Post financial columnist and many others. Mr. Glassman wrote this past Tuesday that: The IMF bears responsibility for Asia's troubles. With the U.S. Treasury in 1995, it delivered unprecedented sums to bail out banks and investors who made reckless loans to Mexico. That rescue then encouraged investors to make riskier extensions of credit to Asia, Russia and Latin America. That led to over capacity and to the current crisis. In other words, we are taking billions from lower and middle income Americans to send to foreign countries to bail out rich investors, banks and multinational companies for bad investments overseas and in some cases to help keep factories going in other nations which are taking jobs from American workers. Our Founding Fathers never would have believed this. We are told we have to do this because if we do not, other countries will not be able to buy as many American products, and some American workers will lose their jobs. What we would really be doing though is sending billions of American tax dollars to other countries so that we can get a portion of it back. Already our balance of payments deficit, our trade deficit is at record levels. We will lose about 3 million jobs to other countries because of a trade imbalance this year alone. If we kept all of these billions here instead of giving it to the IMF, some multi-national companies and international bankers and investors might be hurt. But this money would not disappear if we simply kept it here. More of it would then go to the benefit of American workers and small American businesses that do not do much or any business overseas. Mr. Speaker, as I have said on this floor before, we need to start putting our own workers and our own businesses first once again. We need to start putting America first once again, even if it is not politically correct or fashionable with liberal elitists to do so.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I feel that there are segments of the healthcare community that are under-represented on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). Specifically, there is a notable lack of input and expertise from the medical supply industry. These manufacturers must overcome technological and clinical challenges during the development, production, and distribution of medical supplies. I believe that the insight derived from this market experience supports the appointment of someone from the medical supply industry to the MedPAC. I am told that 25 to 30 percent of the current cost of Medicare involves medical supplies. Since MedPAC will review and make recommendations to the Congress concerning Medicare payment policies, I think it is clearly prudent to have this segment of the healthcare industry represented in any future appointments. Also, if MedPAC is to make recommendations on procurement issues, including the impact and cost of competitive-bidding for effective medical products, it is appropriate to ensure that someone from the medical supply industry serve as a MedPAC commissioner. Although I do not wish to amend the bill to require representation of any specific industry, I do want to recommend that consideration be given to the appointment to MedPAC of a recognized professional from the medical supply industry.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very bipartisan bill which improves parks and public lands in 36 States, and includes requests from over 70 Members. I first would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) for his hard work and leadership in crafting this legislation. There is no man in this Congress who is more fair or kinder than the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Jim Hansen), or more well respected on both sides of the aisle. I would like to briefly discuss two provisions of this bill which would emphasize why I believe my colleagues should support H.R. 4570. First, this bill includes a provision of legislation I introduced which would allow national parks which cannot collect entrance fees to keep all other fees on site for park improvements. For instance, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which is the most visited national park in the country, keeps roughly $800,000 of all the other fees collected in the park. In comparison, the Grand Canyon National Park, under the Fee Demonstration Program, has been allowed to keep over $10 million a year. Under this bill, the Great Smokies will be allowed to keep all of the fees collected since it cannot, due to deed restrictions, collect an entrance fee. This would mean roughly $250,000 each year for this most visited national park. This provision is supported by organizations like the Friends of the Smokies and the Sierra Club. This provision has just passed the Senate outline. The second provision of this bill I want to alert my colleagues to is one which will lead to the designation of the Midway Atoll as a national memorial. H.R. 4570 includes language of a bill I introduced which will require a study of the Midway Atoll in order to designate it as a national memorial. As we know, the Battle of Midway was a pivotal battle in the Pacific during World War II. I believe we should take this important step towards honoring our veterans who fought for our freedom in this battle. The Midway Study Act is supported by the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Association of Naval Aviation, the Battle of the Coral Sea Association, the Midway Memorial Foundation. This is good legislation, and this legislation contains very many bipartisan measures which every Member of this body should support.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in January of 1965, my father was sworn into Congress. My brother and I and my mother's father, Jacob Swisher, got to stand on the Floor alongside him because there was so much room on the Republican side. The 1964 elections had seen big Republican losses, and the Democrats ended up with a 295 to 140 majority in the House. Among the very small band of freshmen Republicans elected to the 89th Congress were my father, John Duncan, and the man who was soon to become his best friend in the House, Dr. Tim Lee Carter. Dr. Carter represented a Kentucky District that joined in part the Tennessee District represented by my father. Early in their service, they went on a trip with Congressman Bill Stanton of Ohio to Vietnam, other parts of Southeast Asia, and India. They went at their own expense. The were men from the same region, who represented similar kinds of people--people who were patriotic, particularly in times of war, but who did not believe in wasteful big government and who basically wanted the government to leave them alone. Both my father and Dr. Carter attended the University of Tennessee, although not together. Dr. Carter graduated from the UT Medical School in Memphis, while my father was a lawyer who did his undergraduate work at UT in Knoxville. I remember that Dr. Carter was very typical of most family doctors of that era--kind, helpful, dignified. But, he also was a no-nonsense man who received nationwide publicity at the 1972 Republican National Convention in Miami when he punched out a radical young hippie who was very arrogantly harassing Dr. Carter and the people with him. He was a man who served this Nation with great honor and integrity. I am very pleased that we are going to name this Post Office building after Dr. Tim Lee Carter. He was a great American, and this is a very well-deserved tribute.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, The New Yorker Magazine has just reported that the White House planned bombing raids on Afghanistan and the Sudan without involving four Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Even worse, since these were supposedly terrorist targets, FBI Director Louis Freeh was also left out. Worse than that, The New Yorker said that the White House told Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Shelton about the raids, but specifically told him not to brief the other four chiefs of the military and not to consult with the Defense Intelligence Agency. Perhaps worst of all, Attorney General Janet Reno was ignored when she questioned whether our intelligence was good enough to support these raids, according to this Associated Press report. I did hear a Paul Harvey newscast a couple of days after these raids saying that our intelligence was bad and that we had bombed, among other things, a medicine factory. I know if another nation bombed a medicine factory here, we would be extremely angry, and rightly so. I do not understand why our intelligence is continually so weak, when we spend so many billions of dollars more than any other nation each and every year on this. I am sad to say that I, along with almost every Member of Congress, supported these raids when they first occurred. I, along with almost all of my colleagues, said that we have to take the strongest possible reasonable action against terrorists who are killing innocent people. I did say at the time that I was assuming that our intelligence was good, because I just found it impossible to believe that we would rush to war without being very, very certain that we were targeting the actual terrorists. I know that there were many people who felt that these bombing raids were done to try to draw attention from the President's troubles. However, I did not believe then that anyone would do anything so horrible, and this article is still no proof that that occurred. But the article does indicate a rush to judgment, an eagerness to go to war that should never happen in this country, a Nation that has already prided itself on its efforts to promote peace and freedom around the world. We should involve ourselves in war and/or take warlike actions only as a very last resort, and only if there is simply no other reasonable choice. We should conduct bombing raids on others only with extreme reluctance and only when forced to do so. The article in the New Yorker Magazine raises the most serious questions possible about these raids, and if this article is false or inaccurate, then the administration should immediately refute it. We have involved ourselves in recent years in civil wars in Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, and now I suppose Kosovo, and we have spent many, many millions of taxpayers dollars in the process. As I have mentioned before, according to The Washington Post, we had our troops in Haiti picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes. I heard another Member say on this floor that we had our troops in Bosnia, among other things, giving rabies shots to dogs. The great majority of Americans believe that the Haitians should pick up their own garbage and the Bosnians should give their own rabies shots. President Kennedy said in 1961 that we have to realize that with just 6 percent of the world's population, we cannot right every wrong and there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. Today we are less than 5 percent of the world's population. We should be very careful about rushing to war in Kosovo. Jonathan Clarke, a former member of the British Diplomatic Service, now with the Cato Institute, wrote in last Friday's Los Angeles Times, ``Some of Milosevic's democratic opponents . . . visited Washington last month to warn that bombing would play into Milosevic's hands and undermine their efforts. They made little progress. The `CNN factor' is too strong, they were told on Capitol Hill. ``This gives the game away. NATO's plans are directed less at resolving the Kosovo crisis than at making the about-to-be expanded alliance look relevant. As Defense Secretary William Cohen said . . . `NATO's credibility is on the line.' In effect,'' Mr. Clarke continued, ``we are witnessing a NATO job search and the results are entirely counterproductive. NATO's potential involvement has radicalized all sides in Kosovo . . . In Belgrade, bombing will strengthen the hard men around Milosevic and sound the death knell of the brave Serbs who dare to oppose him.'' Mr. Speaker, we should never rush into war, nor should we turn our soldiers into international social workers. We need a strong military for national defense and only for national defense. Mr. Speaker, I submit the Los Angeles Times article for inclusion in the Record: [From the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 2, 1998] Military Intervention Would Make It Worse (By Jonathan Clarke) In July 1913, the chancellor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire received a written warning from his foreign minister not to try to solve the Serbian question by ``force of arms.'' He ignored the advice. A year later, Austria declared war against Serbia. Four years after that, its empire went out of business. Today, NATO, another multiethnic, multilanguage organization with an identity crisis, is riding a wave of popular revulsion over new atrocities toward military intervention in Kosovo. ``Preparations are in full swing,'' announced a NATO spokesman, making the proposed hostilities sound like a homecoming dance, blissfully oblivious to history's warnings. This is typical of the modern style of diplomacy. Former Sen. Bob Dole, a tireless advocate of American military involvement in the region, dismisses history because it makes things ``complicated.'' This approach--willful ignorance of local conditions abetted by a canonical belief in the victory-delivering capability of military might--was favored by the top brass in Vietnam. It produced disaster there. Whether NATO can make it work better in Kosovo remains to be seen. Kosovo is fearsomely complicated. This is not merely an excuse offered by opponents of military intervention, but a statement of the obvious fact that rational analysis should precede major decisions. Unless Western policy can resolve the Balkans' inherent complications, intervention risks making matters much worse, especially for the Kosovo Albanian refugees. Some of the contradictions seem almost technical. For example, bombing is likely to fuel the fires of Kosovo's independence, a goal that the U.S. does not support. Further, NATO intervention in Kosovo directly contradicts the premise of multiethnic principles of the Dayton accords, which veto special treatment on ethnic grounds. A much more serious objection, however, is that bombing directly serves Slobodan Milosevic, whom Congress earlier this year called ``Europe's longest serving communist dictator.'' What country, when under attack from outside, does not rally to its leader? Look at Saddam Hussein. For Milosevic, the bombs cannot fall too soon. Likewise, he hopes Western sanctions will continue indefinitely. By turning daily life into a struggle for survival, they sap the energies of decent-minded people who might oppose him. Some of Milosevic's democratic opponents, Bishop Artemije Radosavijevic of Kosovo and former Belgrade Mayor Nebojsa Covic, visited Washington last month to warn that bombing would mine their efforts. They made little progress. The ``CNN factor'' is too strong, they were told on Capitol Hill. This gives the game away. NATO's plans are directed less at resolving the Kosovo crisis than at making the about-to-be- expanded alliance look relevant. As Defense Secretary William Cohen said at the Sept. 25 NATO conclave, ``NATO's credibility is on the line.'' In effect, we are witnessing a NATO job search. And the results are entirely counterproductive. NATO's potential involvement has radicalized all sides in Kosovo, as was vividly illustrated by last week's attempted assassination of Sabri Hamiti, a pro-negotiation moderate close to the Kosovo Albanian leadership. In Belgrade, bombing will strengthen the hard men around Milosevic and sound the death knell of the brave Serbs who dare to oppose him. Earlier this month, NATO leaders counseled Iran against armed intervention in Afghanistan. NATO is administering similarly cautious advice in other conflicts such as Nagorno- Karabakh and Congo. What is so different about the Balkans? Is it to do with the relative value placed on European as opposed to Asian and African lives? This is not a prescription for inaction. Following the NATO meeting, Cohen went onto the inaugural session of the Southeast European Defense Ministerial. Taking place in the less glamorous but arguably more purposeful surroundings of Skopje, this grouping includes key countries with a real stake in the Balkans, including Italy, Greece, Albania and Turkey. They should be given the lead in delivering immediate humanitarian aid and undertaking the painstaking, low-profile mediation that might achieve a lasting settlement. This would also free NATO to concentrate on its prime mission of strategic defense. This is where NATO's credibility resides, not in TV-driven adventurism.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 314. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time. This legislation is now called the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act. It is, I think, a bipartisan and I believe a very noncontroversial bill. In fact, the administration issued a statement on Friday saying, quote, this bill is consistent with administration efforts to reform Federal procurement and ensure that the taxpayers receive the best value. This bill was introduced by my good friend Senator Thomas in the Senate, and I introduced the companion, H.R. 716, which was cosponsored by 69 Members of this body. The legislation passed in the Senate unanimously. It passed by unanimous consent. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his very hard work on this legislation and the positive contributions he has made and also the contributions by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the chairman. S. 314 is supported, Mr. Speaker, by the Administration and by over 100 organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Small Business Legislative Council and many, many others. This legislation will help eliminate some government competition with small businesses. When the last White House Conference on Small Businesses met, it listed government competition as one of its very top concerns. S. 314 will address this problem. It requires that each Federal agency annually compile a list of commercial activities currently being performed by Federal employees and to submit this list to the Office of Management and Budget. It then gives Federal agencies the authority to contract out to private sector sources the commercial activities which are currently performed by Federal employees. This bill would not require the Federal Government to contract out everything. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. It would not require or force the Federal Government to contract everything out, or anything, really. Only when the private sector can show it can provide a good or service more cost effectively and efficiently would a function be contracted out. This will ensure that the taxpayers receive the very best service from their government at the lowest possible cost. For many years the Federal Government has been providing commercial goods and services which are available in the private sector. This is not a new problem. In fact, since the Eisenhower administration in 1955, it has been U.S. policy that ``the Federal Government will not start or carry on any commercial activity to provide a service or product for its own use if such product or service can be procured from private enterprise through ordinary business channels.'' I think every administration since the Eisenhower administration has agreed with or issued statements similar to that issued in 1955 by the Eisenhower administration. Yet every day in almost every congressional district, big government agencies are competing with small businesses. It is difficult enough for small businesses to survive against ordinary competition. But when they have to take on the Federal Government, too, it is simply too much. In 1987, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 1.4 million Federal employees were engaged in so-called commercial activities. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that if we contracted out these commercial activities to private industry, we could save taxpayers at least $9 billion a year. I have seen other estimates that this legislation could result in saving as much as $40 billion a year. This bill will require that Federal agencies get out of private industry and stick to performing those functions that only government can do well. At the same time it will allow our great private enterprise system to do those things it does best, providing commercial goods and services in a competitive environment. S. 314 is a very modest proposal. It does not require the government to contract everything out. I realize that the government performs a number of functions that only the government should do. In fact, this legislation specifically exempts those functions which are inherently governmental in nature. If the government can do something cheaper and better than the private sector, then it will be allowed to continue to do it under this legislation. This is a small step, Mr. Speaker, in the overall big picture. However, this legislation will be a significant step in helping our small businesses to survive. Before I conclude, I would like to once again thank Senator Craig Thomas, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). I want them to know that I appreciate their efforts on this legislation. I urge support for this noncontroversial legislation which will help shrink the size of the Federal Government, encourage growth in the private sector and save taxpayers potentially billions of dollars.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the headline in Aviation Week magazine last week said, ``NASA plans $660 million station bailout for Russia.'' The subhead said, ``Payments would be part of $1.2 billion U.S. fix. Completion slips to 2005.'' It seems that our Federal Government cannot do anything in an economical or efficient manner. The station I am speaking of is of course the Space Station, and the original full cost estimate in 1984 was $8 billion. This is another old Washington trick. Drastically low-ball the estimate on the front end. However, no one should be fooled by this any more. It is now estimated that total costs of the Space Station will reach as high as $180 billion, more than 20 times the original cost estimates. Now NASA wants six shuttle flights per year at a cost of $477 million per flight and no telling what else. But billions in cost overruns, years of additional delays, and now $660 million to bail out the Russians, it is all simply too much for a project that is draining huge amounts from other more worthwhile, cost-effective research. Then, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve has apparently just encouraged and presided over another bailout, one of the largest private bailouts. Due to pressure from regulators, several large banks and investment firms came up with $3.5 billion last week to bail out a hedge fund called Long-Term Capital. This is probably the worst case or best example of crony capitalism ever. The partners of this firm include a former Federal Reserve vice chairman and others that Business Week referred to as a ``dream team.'' But this dream team used $100 billion in borrowed money and made one bad investment after another. Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said, ``Why should the weight of the Federal Government be brought to bear to help a private investor?'' The answer is that it should not. James K. Glassman, the Washington Post columnist, wrote, ``But in America today, there's a double standard. A rule that applies to welfare mothers doesn't apply to politically connected corporations, rich speculators and irresponsible nations. Over and over, when powerful people and institutions get into trouble, the government bails them out.'' But, Mr. Speaker, the American people are getting sick and tired of all this. Billions and billions to Russia and other countries. Billions and billions on a very questionable Space Station. Billions and billions to try to stop civil wars in Haiti, Ruwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, and now I suppose Kosovo. I remember reading three or four years ago on the front page of the Washington Post that we had our troops in Haiti settling domestic disputes and picking up garbage. And I remember a few months ago on this floor when another Member said in Bosnia we had our troops giving rabies shots to dogs. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Haitians should settle their own domestic disputes and pick up their own garbage, and the Bosnians should give their own rabies shots; money taken from hard-working Americans to pour down one black hole after another. Mr. Speaker, many people feel we may be on the verge of a recession or at least an economic downturn in this country. The stock market has gone down over 400 points in just the last two days. We would not be on nearly as shaky economic grounds if liberal big spenders had not caused us to be over $5.6 trillion in debt at just the Federal level, and then if we had instead followed other very conservative fiscal, monetary, taxing, and regulatory policies. However, we are on shaky grounds, very thin ice economically, due to very liberal policies of all types, including bad trade deals that favored large multinational corporations at the expense of small and medium-sized American businesses and American workers. Now we are losing 3 million jobs a year due to our balance of payments deficits, 3 million jobs to other countries. Our unemployment is not yet low, but our underemployment is terrible. We have been replacing good, high-paying manufacturing jobs with minimum wage employment and tourism and restaurants. Many college graduates cannot find employment in the fields in which they trained. We are ending up with the best educated waiters and waitresses in the world. Mr. Speaker, we need trade and economic and foreign policies that put this country and its workers first once again. We need to put America first even if it is not politically correct or fashionable to say so. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [From the Washington Post, September 29, 1998] Reckless Bailouts (By James K. Glassman) The principle behind welfare reform was simple: If you pay people when they don't work, then they don't have an incentive to get a job. The 1996 law cut them off, and since then, millions have left the public dole. Economists call the principle behind welfare reform ``moral hazard.'' When people are insured, or protected against the consequences of destructive actions, they are more likely to take those destructive actions. Thus, of able-bodied welfare mothers know they'll get monthly checks, they're less likely to work. But in America today, there's a double standard. A rule that applied to welfare mothers doesn't apply to politically connected corporations, rich speculators and irresponsible nations. Over and over, when powerful people and institutions get into trouble, the government bails them out. The latest example is a Greenwich, Conn., hedge fund called Long-Term Capital, Ltd. (LTC), which was founded by John Meriwether, a ``master of the universe'' at Salomon Brothers, along with two Nobel Prize winners, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman and other partners whom Business Week called the ``dream team.'' Using as much as $100 billion in borrowed money, Long-Term Capital made some disastrously stupid investments and teetered last week on the brink of failure. What should happen to a firm that makes terrible bets on esoteric markets? It should go bust, of course. Its partners and investors should suffer swift and onerous losses--at the very least as a signal to others to stay away from risky investments in the future. Instead, Long-Term Capital is being rescued--not with government money (thank heaven for small favors) but through not-so-subtle pressure placed by government regulators on banks and investment firms to cough up $3.5 billion. It's a classic case of moral hazard run wild. Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, was justifiably outraged: ``Why should the weight of the federal government be brought to bear to help a private investor?'' Good question. The rescuers were brought together last week by the New York Fed at the same time that Alan Greenspan was hinting in Congress that the Fed would cut interest rates. The Fed's ``official sponsorship'' (Volcker's term) of the rescue was the result, said a Fed spokesman, of its ``concerns about the good working of the marketplace, large risk exposure and the potential for a disruption of payments.'' In other words, the failure of Long-Term Capital posed a systemic risk; it could set off a cascade of other failures, leading to a sharp decline in bond and stock prices and perhaps bankruptcies. I am skeptical the effects would be so dire. Yes, some bonds might plummet, but that hurts current owners of those bonds. Other investors could benefit by being able to buy at the lower prices. Why should the Fed prevent them? The truth is that no one knows what would have happened in the short-term if LTC had been allowed to fail. In the longer term, the effects are only too obvious: The rescue will encourage more irresponsible risk-taking by investors, just as the International Monetary Fund's bail out of Mexico encouraged investors to make inappropriately risky investments in emerging markets in Asia, leading to more IMF bailouts and a new moral-hazard cycle. Perhaps the Fed did dampen systemic risk in the LTC case, but as Caroline Baum of Bloomberg Business News reported Friday, ``Traders seem to be taking a different message away from the whole affair. They see an increase in moral hazard, with lenders making increasingly risky bets with the knowledge that someone will bail them out, as the doctrine of `too big to fail' spread from financial institutions to corporations to countries to private investors.'' But we don't need to look to Mexico or Greenwich for examples to moral hazard run wild. Look to Capitol Hill, where a bill is now racing through Congress that would bail out companies that made imprudent bids for wireless telephone licenses. The firms bid too high in a 1996 FCC auction. At the very least, it seems, they should lose the $1.3 billion they put up in down payments. But, instead, the House Commerce Committee on Thursday unanimously approved a deal that lets them renege on their bid obligations and get full refunds on what they've already paid the government. Not only is that bailout grossly unfair, it will also encourage reckless behavior in future auctions. And, speaking of reckless behavior: There's a parallel to be drawn between moral hazard in the LTC, wireless and IMF cases and moral hazard in the current scandal involving President Clinton. Americans worry, for instance, that impeaching and convicting Clinton could hurt the economy and our world standing. This is a legitimate concern--but I'm more afraid of moral hazard. If we let powerful people get away with doing bad things, they will not only do them again, but encourage others to follow their example.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, some people want us to censor the tapes of the President's Grand Jury testimony. We should not be in the business of censoring things for partisan political purposes. The same people who want us to censor the President's tapes would scream to high heavens if we had refused to release the Nixon tapes. As U.S.A. Today, the Washington post, and many publications and columnists have pointed out, these difficulties were not brought on by enemies of the administration. We should not do anything to cover up perjury. We should not censor these tapes.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in a few days we will be asked to vote for the annual Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I have voted for this bill every year because it contains some very good programs. However, one of its programs has become one of the most wasteful and inefficient in the entire Federal Government and should either do much, much better or be abolished. Yet this agency, because on the surface it appears to be one for young people, seems to believe it should be immune from criticism and simply get one increase after another. I am speaking of the Job Corps. Today, it costs over $26,000 per year per Job Corps student, according to the GAO. We could give each Job Corps student an allowance of $1,000 a month, send them to some expensive private school and still save money. If we did, these young people would probably think they had gone to heaven or hit some type of lottery. These Job Corps students would probably be shocked if we told them we were spending $26,000 per year on them, because the people who get the big bucks out of this are the fat cat contractors and the bureaucrats who run the program. Programs like the Job Corps are really, in the end, harmful to young people, because they just take more money from parents and children and give it instead to bureaucrats and contractors. And we are not talking about small change here. This year's proposed appropriation is $1.246 billion, an increase of $61 million over last year, $1.246 billion for one of the most wasteful, least effective programs in the entire Federal Government. According to a 1995 GAO report, the Job Corps is the most expensive program that the Labor Department administers, spending on average four times as much per student as the JTPA. In fact, the Workforce and Career Development Act of 1996, which passed the House by a vote of 345 to 79, included report language calling for five Job Corps centers to be closed by September 30, 1997, and five more to be closed by September of 2000. Yet the number of Job Corps centers has actually gone up since 1996 from 112 to 118. This is because the Federal bureaucracy really tries in every way possible to do what it wants regardless of what the majority of the Congress votes for. This might be all right if the Federal bureaucracy did not waste so much money, but the taxpayers are really being ripped off by many Federal programs and especially this wasteful Job Corps program. The GAO reported in testimony before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight this past July 29 that only 14 percent of program participants completed the requirements of their vocational training. An earlier report found that only 4 percent end up in jobs for which they were trained, unless one does, as the Job Corps has at times done, and grossly distorts and exaggerates the figures and counts as a success about any former student who has gotten any type of job. The GAO found that the Department of Labor considered a student to have obtained a job which matched their training if a student was trained as a heavy equipment operator, but got a job as a ticket seller. The Department of Labor also considered it a match if a student was trained as an auto mechanic and obtained a job attaching wristbands to watches. Mr. Speaker, the Job Corps itself admits that the average length of stay of a Job Corps student is only 6 months. Mark Wilson of the Heritage Foundation has pointed out that it costs more to send someone to the Job Corps for 1 year than to a regular public school for 4 years. It now costs more for a student to go to the Job Corps for 1 year than to go to Yale, Vanderbilt, Emory, and many other of the most expensive and finest colleges and universities in the Nation. So I repeat, Mr. Speaker, $26,000 per year per Job Corps student is simply too much, especially since it is producing such extremely poor results. As I said a moment ago, we could give each Job Corps student a $1,000 a month allowance, send them to some expensive private school, and still save money, and these students would just not believe it. And yet we are giving this money to fat cat government contractors and bureaucrats, who are the real beneficiaries of this program. We should really do something good for the students and the young people of this country by doing away with the Job Corps program or cutting back drastically on it. And yet, because there are 118 Job Corps centers around the country, I know that that cannot be done unless we start the education process and let people know how poor and wasteful this program really is. I hope we can at least start the process of doing that tonight.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, Mr. Robert Koehl, brought to my attention the following article, ``Bill of No Rights,'' by Jon Jenson. This column expresses in a very plain, down-to-earth, articulate way the feelings of millions of American citizens. I would like to call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Bill of No Rights Note: Submitted by a reader, the following document deserves consideration in these victim-oriented times. We the people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore justice, preserve domestic tranquility, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common-sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional, victim-wanna-bes and grievance gurus. We hold these truths to be self-evident: That a whole lot of people are dreadfully confused by the Bill of Rights, and could benefit from a ``Bill of No Rights.'' ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything. ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom for everyone--not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but always remember the world is full of offensive idiots. ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy. ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help those in need, but many are growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, health care is not a high priority. ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if others want to see you fry in the electric chair. ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of your neighbors, don't be surprised if others get together and lock you away. ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments. However, Americans do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of their time and resources squabbling with each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat. ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. Everyone wants you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training available to you, and to make yourself useful and productive. ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness, which--by the way--is a lot easier if you are not encumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those who are confused by the original Bill of Rights.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have much time, but I just want to say I spent 7\1/2\ years as a criminal court judge in Tennessee prior to coming to Congress, trying primarily felony criminal cases, and I rise in strong opposition to the Hutchinson amendment and in strong support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade). Our Government has become far too big and far too powerful, and too many individual citizens are being run roughshod by prosecutors that are totally out of control. We need to defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think I am the only Member of this Congress who has ever sentenced anyone to the electric chair. I believe in being very tough on crime, and I especially have been a strong supporter of local law enforcement--the people on the front lines who are fighting the real crime, the violent crime that everyone is so concerned about. But I remember in late 1993 reading an article in Forbes magazine, one of the most conservative magazines in the Nation. This article said that we had quadrupled the Justice Department just since 1980 and that Federal prosecutors were falling all over themselves trying to find cases to prosecute. We have had far too many cases where overzealous prosecutors have presented high profile defendants just so that prosecutor could make a name for himself. I remember the totally unjustified case against President Reagan's Secretary of Labor, Ray Donovan, in which, after he was acquitted, made the famous statement, ``Where do I go to get my reputation back?'' Our Federal Government has become far too big--it is far too powerful. We all have heard how, particularly the IRS is running roughshod over individual citizens. Newsweek magazine recently had on its cover--the IRS Lawless, Abusive; Out of Control. Unfortunately while there are good federal prosecutors, there are far too many who are, like the IRS, lawless, abusive, and out-of-control. Almost no one, except extremely wealthy people, can take on the Federal Government. To require Federal prosecutors to have to follow the same ethical rules as other lawyers is a very minimal step in the right direction and toward helping to preserve at least a semblance of freedom in this Nation.