Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very modest, commonsense, much-needed and eminently fair proposal. This legislation is needed primarily because of something Senator Hatch referred to as the most arrogant abuse of power he had seen in his 20 years in the Congress. He was referring, of course, to the sneak attack by the Federal Government just before the last election to lock up 1.7 million acres in the State of Utah to produce what is called a national monument in the Escalante-Grand Staircase section of southern Utah. However, there are several reasons why this particular land grant has been questioned like no other in U.S. history. First, it was done with no public discussion or hearings of any type, no vote by the Congress, no vote by the Utah State Legislature, no vote by the people of Utah. In fact, the Governor of Utah testified that the first notice Utah public officials had was when they read about it 9 days beforehand in press reports. The second serious question is the secrecy, the coverup. Not only were high-ranking officials not notified, the documents the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cannon]) mentioned earlier, the administration documents, said that it cannot be emphasized enough, this is the administration talking, that public disclosure would have stopped the designation because such an outcry would have been created. It almost makes me wonder if we have people running our Government today who want to run things in the secret, shadowy way of the former Soviet Union or other dictatorships. Third, this 1.7 million acres contains the largest deposit of clean, low-sulfur coal in the world. Senator Hatch testified, and the gentleman from Utah, [Mr. Cannon] mentioned a moment ago that this coal alone is worth over $1 trillion. Who has the second largest deposit? The Lippo Group from Indonesia, who just happened to make some very large campaign contributions about the time this land was locked up. In one small rural county in Utah, this means the loss of 900 jobs. Not only does it mean jobs lost, but it means higher prices. It means higher prices for every individual and company which uses coal in this country. Environmental extremists, who almost always come from wealthy or upper income backgrounds, are really destroying jobs and driving up prices all over this country. Rich environmentalists who have enough money to be insulated from the harm they do are really hurting the poor and working people of this country. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to support this very fair proposal by the gentleman from Utah. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, the Nation has been outraged by the disclosures of IRS abuses of power expressed in last week's hearings in the other body. Yet very few people have really been shocked because almost everyone either has been mistreated by the IRS or has a close friend or relative who has been. Leaders of both parties have promised some type of legislation, possibly even before we break this year. But IRS browbeating of citizens is so bad that we need more than some quick fix, cosmetic type change. We need to change the entire system. The IRS' ability to mistreat people comes primarily from three sources: First, a Tax Code so complicated and confusing that no one understands it and not even the IRS itself; second, a Civil Service system that protects Federal employees so much that they can get away with almost anything; and, third, the fact that the Congress keeps giving the IRS huge increases in funding. Let me speak briefly to those points in reverse order. First, it is almost unbelievable, because almost everyone knows how bad the IRS is, how abusive it is, yet we are rewarding them with a $548 million increase in funding. This is in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, and the conference report on that bill is scheduled later this week. I voted against this bill the first time, primarily because of the IRS increase and because it also contained a congressional pay raise. I hope we will vote the bill down this week, if we can get enough Members to request a vote. This IRS increase is almost three times the rate of inflation and is totally unjustified, especially for an agency that just squandered billions, billions on a computer system that it admits will not work in the real world. Second, the Civil Service System that we have now really does nothing for good, dedicated employees but it serves as a protection for lazy, incompetent, rude, or abusive employees. There is really very little that can be done to a Federal employee no matter what he or she does or does not do, and, unfortunately, far too many take advantage of this. Federal employees cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds or wrongdoing, and thus nothing is done for huge mistakes that would cause quick termination in the private sector. About the only real violations that are acted on in the Federal bureaucracy today are violations of political correctness. Thus, the IRS makes a megabillion-dollar foulup on its computer system, but what happens? We give it a $548 million raise and no heads roll, as they should. Also, we sit around and see the IRS used as never before to get back at enemies, so 12 conservative think tanks are being audited while no liberal ones are and Paula Jones gets audited and the IRS goes merrily on its way. Third, the Tax Code is far too complicated and confusing. Many of the answers the IRS itself gives out are wrong. Honest people make honest mistakes on their returns and then are pursued like criminals by the IRS and zealous prosecutors trying to make names for themselves. We need to drastically simplify our Tax Code. We need a very simple flat tax or a national sales tax. Much about the flat tax appeals to me, but a national sales tax has one big advantage in that it would enable us to do away with almost all of the IRS. I voted for the most recent tax cut, the first since 1981. Yet one major disappointment for me was that it made our Tax Code even more complicated. I hope people all over this Nation will call or write Members of Congress and demand that we drastically simplify our Tax Code. I hope they will also tell their Members of the House and Senate to stop giving the IRS huge increases in funding. I hope they will tell their Representatives that we need to make major reforms of our civil service system so that IRS and other Federal employees cannot get away with rude, arrogant, abusive behavior any longer. And I hope we will finally start cutting Federal spending. We have had much false publicity about cuts, but Federal spending is still going way up every year. This is why Federal, State, and local taxes combined, plus regulatory costs, now take half of the average person's income. Big government breeds the types of abuses we are now hearing about by the IRS and many other Federal departments and agencies. The only long- lasting solution is to bring our government back home, closer to the people, and let the private sector and local governments solve most of our problems once again. In short, Madam Speaker, we need a government of, by and for the people instead of one that is of, by and for the bureaucrats.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. First of all, I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] for his comments. I did not know he was going to get into the campaign financing. But I think all of the people of this country would prefer to have an administration in power that gives more influence to American citizens than it does to representatives of foreign campaign contributors. And I certainly agree with the comments of the gentleman on that. But I rise tonight especially to commend him for his concern about this horrendous national debt that we have. I went recently in Knoxville to the Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church. The minister, John Wood, prayed what I thought was a very interesting prayer. He prayed for those who had come there that day hurting in some way due to a family problem or a business problem or a health problem. But he then said he was praying most especially of all for those who had come in a complacent mood and did not think they needed any help and thus needed it perhaps most of all. I think in some ways that describes a little bit the condition of the country today, because some people think that because the stock market is temporarily high that things are better than they really are. But this $5\1/2\ trillion national debt puts us on very thin ice economically, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] has pointed out. Then, on top of that, we have these looming Federal pension obligations, Social Security as my colleague mentioned, the Federal pensions, the military pensions, horrendous obligations that in other countries, the only way that governments have been able to meet those obligations is by either drastically decreasing benefits or drastically inflating the money. Sometimes when I speak in high schools I tell some of the young people, ``I know when we say we have a $5\1/2\ trillion national debt that maybe your eyes glaze over and you think it does not have any effect on you. But it really does.'' Every leading economist says it is like a chain hanging around the neck of our economy, holding us back. Times are good now for some people, but they could and should be good for everybody. People making $5 and $6 an hour can be making $10 or $12 an hour if we did not have this horrible debt. We are getting ready, shortly after the turn of the century, to face some of the biggest problems that this country has ever faced. And if we do not start doing things like the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] is talking about, starting to pay this national debt back and getting Federal spending under control, as I pointed out in my 5-minute special order a few minutes ago, Federal spending, in spite of all the publicity about cuts, is still going way up every year. So I salute my colleague for the work he is doing in this regard. It is very, very important for the country, especially now while we still have a chance to do something about it.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Shuster, myself, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, and the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Lipinski, introduced H.R. 2036, the Aviation Insurance Reauthorization Act of 1997 on June 25th. This war risk insurance program was first authorized in 1951, and, over the years, has been improved upon during the reauthorization process. On May 1, 1997, the Aviation Subcommittee held a hearing to review the War Risk Insurance Program, which expires tomorrow. Of course, we rarely hear about this program until a conflict arises, like Vietnam, the gulf war, or Bosnia. This insurance program was an integral part of our Nation's military response in those cases. The reauthorization of this program is also very essential for a viable Civil Reserve Air Fleet Program which meets the Nation's security needs. The Department of Defense depends on the CRAF Program for over 90 percent of its passengers, 40 percent of its cargo, and nearly 100 percent of its air medical evacuation capability in wartime. These flights could not be operated without the insurance provided by this bill. So it is very important that we reauthorize this program in a timely manner. This bill was approved unanimously by the Aviation Subcommittee on July 10 and by the full Transportation & Infrastructure Committee on July 23. The bill incorporated many of the suggestions we heard from expert witnesses at our May hearing. Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to be guided by reasonable business practices of the commercial aviation insurance industry when determining the amount for which an aircraft should be insured. This change is intended to recognize that there may be instances in which an aircraft's market value is not the appropriate basis for determining the amount of insurance. The bill also states that the President's signature of the indemnification agreement between the DOT Secretary and the head of another U.S. Government agency will constitute the required finding under current law that the flight is necessary to carry out the foreign policy of the United States. Section 4 of the bill permits a war risk insurance policy to provide for binding arbitration of a dispute between the FAA and the commercial insurer over what part of a loss each is responsible. The provision on borrowing authority that was in the reported bill has been dropped because the administration objected to it. However, they did agree to develop in the coming months an alternative to the borrowing authority that would ensure that air carrier insurance claims could be paid in a timely manner. We look forward to working with them on that. And finally, the bill also now includes a very simple provision designed to fix a problem experienced by defense contractors who lease back their planes from the military in order to fly them in air shows or other similar demonstrations. Although this practice has been going on for many years, some in the FAA have interpreted the law in a way that would prevent this from occurring. This bill would allow these flight demonstrations, which are important to product development and company sales, to take place. I strongly use the House to support this legislation so that we can reauthorize this very essential program.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, this coming Sunday, September 21, will be the 80th birthday of a truly outstanding American, my constituent, Jacob George Hudson. Mr. Hudson is affectionately known by all of his friends and neighbors as ``Shag.'' He has been one of the leaders in Loudon County and throughout the State of Tennessee for many years. Shag Hudson served for 28 years on the Loudon County Commission, from 1954 to 1982. During this time, he performed marriages for over 3,000 couples. He was also well known as a fighter for low taxes and as one who tried to make sure that the citizens got their moneys' worth for their tax dollars. Mr. Hudson has proudly operated a farm in the Greenback community for the past 65 years, raising beef cattle and working as a self-employed cattle broker. He served with great distinction for 5 years as a member of the State Committee of Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service from 1987 to 1992. He began serving the Merchants and Farmers Bank in 1973 and presently serves as a director of Union Planter Bank. He has been a member of Greenback Masonic Lodge for 49 years, and he is a master mason. He has been a member of the Loudon County Farm Bureau since 1944, and he has been a member and director of the Loudon County Livestock Association since 1970. He also serves as a director of Tellico Area Services System, and he has been church treasurer, elder, and deacon at First Presbyterian Church of Greenback. Shag Hudson's greatest pride and joy is not in his community service, however, as great as that has been. Rather, it is in his family. He has been married to his wife, Willie Dixon, for over 56 years. They are the proud parents of two children, a daughter, Brenda Powell and son, Ronald Hudson. His son-in-law is John Powell and daughter-in-law, Judy Hudson. He is even prouder of his grandchildren, Scott and Eric Powell and Kelly, Kent, and Leigh Hudson. I wanted to inform my colleagues and other readers of the Record about the life and career of Shag Hudson. This country would be a far better place if we had more citizens like Jacob George Hudson, and on behalf of a greatful nation, I want to wish him a very happy 80th birthday, and best wishes for many more.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the National Park Fee Equity Act. This legislation will allow those national parks which cannot charge an entrance fee to keep all other fees which are collected for activities within that park. There are units of the park system which cannot collect fees because when these parks were created deed restricts were placed on the land donated to the Federal Government. Last Congress, this body recognized the need to keep more of the money in the parks rather than sending it back to Washington. This was accomplished when we created the Fee Demonstration Program. This program allows parks to keep 80 percent of the user fees, above what was taken in during 1994, in the park where they are collected. Unfortunately, there are some parks which cannot charge entrance fees. The fact that these parks cannot charge an entrance fee hampers their ability to collect funds for park improvements. Therefore, I think it is only fair that all other fees collected in these parks remain there to help protect and improve them. One such park, the Great Smoky Mountains, is the most visited park in the United States. However, since it cannot charge an entrance fee, it does not get to keep as much money as other parks do for improvements to campgrounds, trails, buildings, and other facilities there. I believe that we need to do everything we can to help our Nation's parks. Currently, the National Park System has a maintenance and construction backlog estimated to be between 4 and 6 billion dollars. The bill I have introduced is a step toward addressing this problem. Mr. Speaker, this is a very modest proposal in terms of the Federal budget. However, this money will go a long way in helping us preserve these parks for enjoyment of future generations. I urge my colleagues to support the National Park Fee Equity Act.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that a fine young woman from my district, Shelly Moore, has been chosen Miss Teen USA. This is a tremendous accomplishment and I want to congratulate Ms. Moore and wish her the very best as she serves as the main representative for young people all over the Nation. I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Congressional Record an article and editorial from the Knoxville News Sentinel. [From the Knoxville News Sentinel, Aug. 22, 1997] New Miss Teen USA Wants To Use Title To Be Strong Role Model (By Nicole Pascoe) Knox County teenager Shelly Moore said Thursday she is still on cloud nine after winning the 15th annual Miss Teen USA pageant, held at South Padre Island, Texas. The 1997 South-Doyle graduate, daughter of Garland and Tammy Rhoden, was crowned Wednesday night and is taking home about $150,000 in cash and prizes. Moore, interviewed by phone while packing to return to Knoxville, said the experience was both exciting and unforgettable. ``It was a wonderful experience. I still can't believe I'm Miss Teen USA,'' she said. ``I was just an average girl yesterday, and in my mind I still am, but it's very exciting.'' Moore, 18, said as part of her title she will do a good deal of public speaking and traveling, mainly back and forth to Los Angeles. ``I just want to be a good role model,'' said Moore. JoAnna Lochen, Moore's cheerleading coach and a home economics teacher at South-Doyle, thinks Moore will have no trouble upholding her title. ``She's steps above anybody and she's a real strong leader. She has a very strong moral upbringing and belief in God,'' she said. Lochen said she wasn't surprised that Moore was crowned Miss Teen USA. ``She is who she says she is. She looks as beautiful in sweats with her hair pulled back as she did at the pageant,'' said Lochen. Moore entered her first pageant one year ago. She claimed the title of Miss North Tennessee, and that led her to the state pageant, in which she also placed first. Moore plans to enter the University of Tennessee for the second semester and will major in broadcasting. When asked at the pageant whom she would like to interview, she replied former University of Florida quarterback Danny Wuerffel, last year's Heisman trophy winner and now a backup quarterback with the New Orleans Saints.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, while we were on our district work period in August, radio station WGAP of Maryville, TN, celebrated a great milestone--its 50th anniversary. Local radio stations are very important to this Nation. They not only help our citizens stay informed, but they also help promote the local economy and support the general well-being and cohesiveness of a community. WGAP has certainly done this, and has provided great community service to the citizens of Maryville and throughout Blount County. In a day when many people do not stay with one company for very long and loyalty is not regarded as highly as it once was, I especially want to call attention to and commend the career of Carl Wells. Mr. Wells has been with WGAP from the very first day and has certainly been instrumental in keeping this station on the air and successful over the years. Not many small businesses are able to survive for this many years, and I want to congratulate station owner Steve Corbitt and all of those who have worked for this outstanding radio station over the years. Walker Johnson wrote a very interesting and informative article about a small part of the history of this station for the August 15, 1997, Knoxville News Sentinel. I would like to call this article to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. [From the Knoxville News Sentinel, Aug 15, 1997] WGAP Proud of Its Sports Heritage (By Walker Johnson) Maryville's WGAP turned 50 years old Aug. 13. To get a true historical perspective of the station, I talked with a group of men who had been connected with WGAP from the beginning. When I asked them about the station's sports history, they all told the same story. WGAP was the first member of the Vol Network. Steve Corbitt, third owner of the station, said that when Lindsey Nelson and University of Tennessee Coach Robert Neyland formed the Vol radio network, the Knoxville flagship station was WKGN, but due to a certain sponsor, WGAP was to be included in the first broadcast. The first sponsor on the Vol Network was Aluminum Company of America, and the execs there told Nelson the Maryville station had to be included in the broadcast or they would not sponsor the games. Over the next five decades, WGAP carried the Vols, Maryville College football, the Brooklyn Dodgers, NASCAR and high school sports. The local sports announcer positions have been held by Tom Lyons, Ken Kribbs, Pete Williams, Steve Corbitt and Maryville's mayor, ``Skeeter'' Shields. Glen Morton is currently doing local play-by-play. The fuel that has kept WGAP running over the past 50 years had been their wide and loyal client base. Carl Wells started with the station on Day One and is still selling advertising. Wells told me he has about 20 clients on his list, and he tries to touch base with most of them every day. My father, Charles W. Johnson, held the title of the longest-running client of the station until he retired in the late 1970s. Dad's show fired up at 6:45 every morning, and the theme song was Eddy Arnold's ``Cattle Call.'' If you are not familiar with the tune, let me inform you: It starts cold with Eddy yodeling. I cannot begin to describe the mental state that can be induced by a clock radio awakening someone from a sound sleep to the sound of a long, high, drifting yodel. I knew the show was working when my first-grade teacher, Mrs. Timmons, asked her class to stand and introduce themselves. When I stood up and proudly said, ``Walker Johnson, and my daddy has the J&K Super Stores,'' that yodel drifted up from the back row. Carl was my dad's account executive. Today the title of longest-running account in held by Maryville Furniture, and Carl is also their link to the station. A strictly unconfirmed report places Carl's age at 81; if that is true he holds seniority over every broadcast account executive I've ever known. There is a absolutely no way I can begin to cover the entire history of WGAP in two short columns. An entire book could be written about the Sunday live broadcasts when preachers and singers would lift the roof off the station. Another chapter could tell of the station's involvement with Blount County's ``Hillbilly Homecoming'' and how WGAP provided emcees to introduce such acts as the Lennon Sisters, Pat Boone, Red Foley and Patsy Cline. And somewhere in that book there might be a tiny paragraph about a fine-looking 22-year-old announcer who was discovered by the station through the help of his father, who just happened to be their oldest advertiser. WGAP is a classic example of the need to preserve our broadcast heritage before the memories and the pioneers all fade away. I promised you last week I would tell about the cherry- bombing of the Blount County Courthouse. I'll give you the Cliffs Notes version. When the station was across from the courthouse, a certain current station owner and a former Blount County politico and pizza proprietor came to the realization that the Blount County jail was well within slingshot range. Late one evening a fine and accurate sling was procured, along with a number of cherry bombs. Yardage was carefully calculated, windage checked, and repeated launchings commenced. Heavily armed officers charged out of the jail doors, looking for the gun battle that must be taking place in the street. The launch team quickly faded back into the shadows of WGAP, and to this day, their identity is a deeply guarded secret. Quick Takes WMYU's morning co-host is leaving the station. Dean Scott told me he is running two businesses, and he just ran out of time for radio. Scott said his last day on the air will be Aug. 22. Account executive Jamie Lewis has also resigned from WMYU; she will be the sales manager for Praise 96.3 WJBZ. My 102 Boomsday activities will not include the My 102 Boomsday 5K race on Saturday, Aug. 30. Promotions Director Mary Deschamps said the station has expanded the program to such an extent on the day of the show that they will no longer do the race.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on H.R. 2005, the bill just considered.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, every year 54,000 Americans lose a foot or a leg to diabetes. As terrible as this is, one thing that makes this statistic especially heartbreaking is that many thousands of these amputations could have been prevented were it not for Federal redtape. Two-thirds of all amputations in diabetic patients are precipitated by traumatic foot ulceration, which could have been prevented with proper care and modern medical products that are already available. However, Federal bureaucrats at the Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, are restricting FDA-approved dressings which have been proven to heal these types of wounds. If this is not a scandal, I do not know what is, people who are having amputations thanks to our own Federal bureaucracy. Just think how wonderful it will be if we could prevent up to two- thirds of these 54,000 diabetic amputations each year. Sadly, it seems that the Medicare system sometimes gives little or no incentives to doctors, nursing homes, or hospitals to help their patients get better quickly because as long as they are treating patients they are getting payments from the Government. There are better ways to treat patients, Mr. Speaker, especially diabetic patients. To get more specific, Mr. Speaker, there is a product approved by the FDA which has been shown through repeat success to have healed repeatedly diabetic ulcerations and to have eliminated the need for amputations. This product is called Multidex. HCFA, however, is restricting the use of Multidex through bureaucratic redtape and needless Government road blocks. The way they are restricting the use of Multidex is by routinely denying reimbursement to providers who use it on patients. If ever there was an effective way to stop the use of a medicine or a medical product, this is it. This is because most of the patients who have these amputations are senior citizens who are on Medicare. Between the ages of 65 and 74, nearly 17 percent of the U.S. white population, 25 percent of African-Americans, and more than 33 percent of Hispanic- Americans have diabetes. Each year we are spending $1.5 billion on diabetic amputations. Within 3 years of a major amputation 30 to 50 percent of diabetic patients will die, yet many thousands of these amputations could be prevented with proper care, and this product Multidex, which is being restricted by HCFA, is the most effective treatment available today for these diabetic ulcerations. I would like to show four pictures, Mr. Speaker, which demonstrate the effectiveness of Multidex, and I apologize for the graphic nature of these pictures, and while these pictures all show the same foot at different stages, and these are the same case, huge numbers of pictures and tests and data have been presented to HCFA from many, many other cases showing similar results. This first photograph shows the foot of a 75-year-old diabetic patient with a massive ulcer of the right foot. It is a stage four wound with heavy infection, gangrene, and amputation of the left toe. The second photograph shows the same foot 19 days after treatment with Multidex has begun. The infection has cleared, and the healing has begun. The third photograph shows the same foot 25 days after the treatment with Multidex has begun. It is obvious that the treatments are working. The final photograph shows the same foot at the time of discharge. Without Multidex or some similar product this foot would probably never have healed. The foot might have had to have been amputated if Multidex had not been used. This is obviously a situation where the system has broken and needs fixing. Clearly helping the body to heal itself is a much better choice than amputation from both a quality-of-life point of view and a cost- of-Medicare point of view. If any part of the Federal Government needs reinventing, Mr. Speaker, it is Medicare. Here is a vital Government service where artificial barriers need to be broken down and effective products like Multidex need to get to these desperately ill patients. I call on HCFA to stop restricting the use of Multidex by denying reimbursement when it is used. It is a scandal of major proportions to think that thousands of senior citizens might have to have amputations in the next few months because of this bureaucratic redtape.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, before coming to Congress I spent 7\1/2\ years as a circuit court judge in Tennessee. I tried the felony criminal cases, the murders, the rapes, the armed robberies, burglaries, drug cases, the attempted murder of James Earl Ray, many serious cases. I have several years of experience with our criminal justice system. Yet never have I seen such a partisan political use of our legal system as is presently going on. The worst is the action being taken against the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the chairman. His committee subpoenaed records from the Justice Department on July 8. Then his campaign records were subpoenaed just 3 days later. Blatant political retribution just because he was trying to do his job. The Justice Department should not be used as a tool for partisan political purposes. Attorney General Reno should be embarrassed by this politicization of her department, and she should not allow to it proceed any further. The White House enemies list from many years ago was just talk and did not come close to the partisan political use of our legal system that is being done against the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] today, or, I might add, the political IRS audits of the Heritage Foundation and 11 other conservative think tanks while no similar action is being taken against liberal think tanks.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced on June 20 by our very distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], along with 40 bipartisan colleagues. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] introduced this legislation in response to the TWA 800 tragedy last year. Let me just add that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] has been reelected time and time again because he really cares about his constituents and tries to help them in every way that he can. This legislation is another example of that because many young people from his district died tragically in the TWA 800 crash. But this legislation will help people all over this Nation, and it could help families years from now if, God forbid, we have another similar crash in the ocean. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is designed simply to clarify that application of the Death on the High Seas Act to aviation accidents. This issue arises because the Supreme Court last year decided in the case of Zuckerman versus Korean Airlines that the Death on the High Seas Act applies to lawsuits that arise out of an aircraft crash in the ocean more than 3 miles from land. The effect of this decision is to treat families differently depending on whether their relative died in an aircraft that crashed into the ocean or one that crashed on land. I think it is fair to say almost no one in the aviation or legal communities believed this Death on the High Seas Act would apply to the TWA crash until the recent decision in the Zuckerman case. However, as a matter of simple fairness and equity, a 1920 maritime shipping law should not apply to the victims of the TWA crash, and this is the injustice that this legislation will correct if we pass this bill. As of now, if we do not enact the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], if a plane crashes into the ocean, the Death on the High Seas Act applies. This act denies families the ability to seek compensation in a court of law for the loss of companionship of a loved one, their relatives' pain and suffering, or punitive damages. Basically, they are limited to recovering only lost wages. Thanks to the Zuckerman decision and this law, it means that parents will receive almost no compensation in the death of a child. On the other hand, if a plane crashes on land, State tort laws apply. These would permit the award of nonpecuniary damages such as loss of companionship and pain and suffering. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2005 amends the Federal Aviation Act so the Death on the High Seas Act does not apply to airline crashes. It would accomplish this by specifically stating that the Death on the High Seas Act is one of the navigation and shipping laws that do not apply to aircraft. With this legislation, we will ensure that all families will be treated the same, regardless of whether a plane crashes into the ocean or onto land. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] for his very swift response in introducing this legislation, which will help a number of constituents in his district, and others across the Nation who were devastated by the loss of their loved ones in the TWA Flight 800 tragedy. Let me also thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for his outstanding leadership on this legislation, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], and especially my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. This is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] again for his very kind remarks. I do not know of any other subcommittee in the entire Congress where the chairman and the ranking member have a better relationship than do the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] and I, and I know that I treasure that relationship personally. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], author of this important legislation. (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2005) to amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the application of the act popularly known as the Death on the High Seas Act to aviation incidents, as amended.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by just saying that not only will this bill make changes that most people thought were in effect already, but it will correct potentially a great injustice that would have been done to the families of these victims of the TWA Flight 800 crash and change a law that should have been changed many years ago. This will potentially help families for many years to come. This is good legislation. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] said, I likewise would like to urge our colleagues to pass this legislation overwhelmingly.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, something is wrong. How can it be that a House committee serves a subpoena on a Federal agency one day and 3 days later that same agency subpoenas the campaign records of that committee's chairman? Talk about politicizing the Justice Department. Yes, it is curious but that is exactly what happened 2 weeks ago. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] sent a subpoena about campaign fundraising to the Justice Department on July 8. Bingo. On July 11, an FBI agent walks into his Indianapolis campaign office with a subpoena for all ``Burton for Congress'' records. We are not the only ones to think this is strange. Even Dan Rather on CBS News raised it on his program. This is not what good government should be about, Mr. Speaker. It should not be a game of tit for tat. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] should not have to face a political prosecution or persecution just because he is trying to do his job. The Attorney General should not politicize our system of justice in this way.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, John Paul Jones, the great American naval officer, once said, ``Don't give up the ship.'' But unfortunately, it looks like that is exactly what the United States is doing. Foreign- flag cruise lines are abusing American taxpayers by not paying taxes on billions of dollars of business from Americans and are slowly driving our domestic ships out of business. Now, these same foreign-flag cruise lines are calling for repeal of the Passenger Services Act. This repeal would be horrible for the domestic cruise line industry. It could result in the loss of thousands of American jobs and millions, if not billions, of dollars in tax revenues. The Passenger Services Act requires that all passenger vessels in the United States and the U.S. trade must be 100 percent American. They must be built and registered in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens and crewed by American seamen. If a vessel servicing a U.S. port fails to meet these standards, it must stop at a foreign port before it brings its passengers back home. Mr. Speaker, almost every cruise line operating out of the United States today skirts the requirements of the Passenger Services Act by registering its ships in foreign countries like Panama and Liberia and docking in foreign ports before coming to America. As a result, these foreign cruise vessels can use poorly-trained, low-paid, Third World crews even though 90 percent of the passengers on their ships are Americans. Instead of repealing the Passenger Services Act, we should be talking about a very different question: Should foreign-flag cruise ships be allowed to unfairly compete with U.S. flag vessels? I realize that we live in a world economy, and I certainly do not oppose free trade. Our trade with other nations has produced many jobs for Americans, and I have nothing whatsoever against people from other nations. But I also believe very strongly that our trade laws should be fair, and quite simply, Mr. Speaker, in the vacation cruise line industry the current trade rules are not fair to domestic or American cruise lines. For example, foreign-flag operators generate billions of dollars in revenue from American travelers, but pay no U.S. corporate income tax. Let me repeat that. Foreign-flag operators generate billions of dollars in revenue from American travelers, but pay no U.S. corporate taxes. Currently, the largest cruise line in the world reported nearly $2 billion in revenues in 1995, primarily from North American vacationers. How much U.S. corporate income tax did Carnival pay on those earnings? Zero. That is right, zero on $2 billion in revenues. What about labor costs? Foreign-flag cruise lines employ Third World labor and pay Third World wages. In the process they avoid immigration and labor laws that their U.S. competitors must obey. In addition, foreign operators benefit from foreign government subsidies designed to encourage capital investment overseas and provide employment for their citizens. The real issue at stake in the proposed repeal of the Passenger Services Act is who gets the American vacation dollars; a U.S. or a foreign business? No one would dream of letting Toyota, Sony, or some other foreign corporation set up shop within our boundaries and escape U.S. taxes, immigration and labor laws, but this is exactly what we are allowing in the vacation cruise line industry. The U.S. passenger vessel industry deserves our support. There are some 3,600 passenger carrying vessels in the U.S. fleet, 20 or more of which are in overnight service. These U.S. passenger vessels employ thousands of Americans and make a significant economic contribution to their local communities. In addition, the owners of these vessels obey U.S. laws, pay U.S. taxes, and employ Americans. Instead of repealing the Passenger Services Act, we should be exploring ways to increase the viability and the strength of the American cruise line industry. I would propose that we put an end to our practice of subsidizing foreign cruise lines. Mr. Speaker, Americans are sick and tired of paying over half of their income in taxes and then letting big foreign corporations get tax breaks and other preferential treatment. The truth is that the foreign cruise lines have powerful lobbyists who have been able to get their ships favorable treatment for many years, but the American people deserve a change, they deserve better. It is not going to be easy to fix all of our problems and close tax loopholes like this one. Opponents will throw up every roadblock they can, but the duty of the Congress is clear.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon of Monday next.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, July 21, 1997, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, for morning hour debates.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, it is totally false to say that one party cares more about the environment or children or senior citizens than the other party. I do not understand why we have to constantly attack each other or question each other's motives to express our views. Neither party has a monopoly on virtue. Neither party has cornered the market on compassion. I know I am going to state some things that should be obvious but that are often questioned around here. Republicans love children just as much as Democrats do. Republicans want a clean environment just as much as Democrats do. Republicans have just as much compassion and sympathy for the disabled and senior citizens as Democrats do. Republicans support education just as strongly as Democrats do, and vice versa. I repeat, no one has cornered the market on compassion. No one has a monopoly on virtue. We do have differences of opinion. We have different philosophies and beliefs about the best ways to help people. But all of us, both Democrat and Republican, want to help people. We all want to make this Nation a better place in which to live. Republicans believe that big government hurts children by taking so much money away from parents and spending it instead on bureaucrats, fat cat government contractors, and administrative costs. Republicans have looked all over the world and have seen that big government benefits the few, the elite, those who work for or have connections with the government. Republicans believe government means a minute, elite class and a huge underclass, and that conversely, a small government means a huge middle class. Look at the former Soviet Union, where the leaders of the Communist Party had their limousines and dachas by the sea and special stores in which to shop, while almost everybody else led a starvation existence. Look at the United States in 1950 where the average person paid 2 to 4 percent in taxes to the Federal Government and another 2 to 4 percent to State and local governments. We had a huge middle class and a much smaller difference between the rich and the poor. Now almost 50 years later, Government has exploded and the average person pays almost half of his or her income in taxes when we count taxes of all types, Federal, State, and local. What has happened? Many middle-income people are finding it harder and harder to keep ahead. Personal bankruptcies hit an alltime record of 1.1 million last year. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider and wider. Also, where many mothers formerly had their choice of staying home with their children if they wished, today, with half of the average family's income going in various forms of taxes, one spouse has to work to support the Government while the other spouse works to support the family. My point, Mr. Speaker, is simply this: Sometimes the best way to help children and families is not through another Government program which has a good apple-pie-and-motherhood title but which really helps only a few bureaucrats and Government contractors. The Job Corps is a prime example. Today we spend $25,000 per Job Corps student. This would shock most of these students, because almost all of this money is going to bureaucrats and contractors. We could take each Job Corps student and give them a $1,300 allowance and send them even to an expensive private school and still save money. This is how ridiculously expensive this and many other Federal programs have become. My time is limited, Mr. Speaker, but let me mention the environment. The worst pollution in the world has occurred in the Socialist and Communist countries. Big government is bad for the environment. Only in a free market system can we generate the funds necessary to do the good things for the environment that all of us, both Democrat and Republican, want done. Also, people take better care of their own property than they do someone else's. Private property is not only good for the environment, it is essential. John Stossel of ABC News had a special on television a couple of years ago in which he pointed out that to clean our air to the almost impossible standard demanded by some groups would cost so much that it could throw millions of people into poverty. He presented a study which showed that we might add one day to the life of the average person by getting tougher on clean air, but that poverty decreases lifespans by 7\1/2\ years. Is it compassionate, Mr. Speaker, to vote for some bill because it does some microscopic good for the environment if in the process it destroys millions of jobs, drives up prices, and hurts the poor and working people? Is it compassionate to go overboard on the environment if it throws possibly millions into poverty? Finally, Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is this: that both parties want to help people and make this Nation better. Sometimes we do that by voting for government programs. Today, with our huge out-of-control Federal Government, more frequently we help people by voting for less government.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that NATO expansion is going to cost U.S. taxpayers at least $4.7 billion. Some estimates are much higher, with many analysts suggesting that $15 to $20 billion over the next few years is more accurate. And these estimates were made before it was announced a few days ago that France is not going to pay its share of expansion costs. All of this really to obligate us to more Bosnia-type situations in the future. Already we have spent many billions over and above our regular foreign aid in Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, and other places where there was absolutely no threat to United States security. If you oppose NATO expansion you are called names like ``isolationist,'' but name-calling is simply a way to avoid the merits or lack thereof. Let us be friends with every nation, but this does not mean we should have to pay the bills for every nation. With a $5.5 trillion debt, we simply cannot afford to do this. As columnist Amos Perlmutter said in yesterday's Washington Times, the debate on NATO expansion should ``alert the American people to the futility, the dangers, and the high cost of this experience designed to establish the President as a great foreign policy leader at the expense of the national interest.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, as members of the House of Representatives, we each hold dear to us a number of founding principles which make our democracy truly exceptional. One of these principles I am sure we all cherish is sensible, responsible, and coordinated government. It has been a long-standing, established practice in the aviation industry to deduct as current expenses the costs of FAA-mandated aircraft safety inspections, maintenance, and repairs. Recently, however, the IRS has sought to drastically reverse this policy. This reversal forces the cost of major FAA-mandated safety inspections, maintenance, and repairs to be capitalized, rather than being immediately expensed. This action unfairly penalizes airlines for complying with the FAA's mandated safety regulations. Further, the IRS has not submitted this change to Congress as proposed regulation, nor as a proposed regulation change. If it had, these actions would be open to public scrutiny, interagency coordination and congressional review. Changing tax-policy on airline safety-related activities should be consistent with, not contradict, the actions of the FAA. It is bad public policy to create a tax penalty on the safety-related efforts that others within the administration are trying to encourage. In addition, the IRS, by avoiding the regulatory rulemaking and legislative process, is denying the public, other affected agencies, and, to some degree, even Congress participation in this aviation safety policy matter.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to mention three very important but unrelated topics. One is the vote yesterday to grant most-favored-nation status to China. Last year 141 Members voted against MFN status for China. Yesterday 173 voted against this status. This is an issue that is not going to go away and the opposition will continue to grow if the Chinese do not make major reforms and start doing better in relation to human rights. The Chinese should not take yesterday's vote as some type of endorsement of their very repressive policies. This is particularly true in relation to the horrible persecution of millions of Christians going on in China right now. Michael Horowitz, a leader in speaking out against this persecution and who happens to be Jewish, said in a recent interview with Chuck Colson the following. He said, ``I am speaking out on behalf of persecuted Christians precisely because I am a Jew in the most deeply rooted sense. I see eerie parallels between the way the elites of the world are dealing with Christians--who have become the scapegoats of choice for the thug regimes around the world--and the way the elites dealt with the Jews when Hitler came to power. Another parallel is the tongue-tied silence of the Christian community in the face of this persecution. A similar silence was evident in the years leading to the Holocaust. Silence, anybody's silence, in the face of persecution is deadly. So for me,'' Mr. Horowitz said, ``sparking our campaign for awareness and action is the most important thing I expect to do. What thugs did to Jews, they are doing now to Christians. I put it to you, Chuck,'' Mr. Horowitz said, ``Christians are becoming the Jews of the 21st century.'' Also, the Chinese must start treating us more fairly in regard to trade. We have a trade deficit with China now at 40 to $50 billion, depending on whose estimate is used. Economists say conservatively that we lose 20,000 jobs per $1 billion. This means we may be losing as many as 1 million American jobs this year to China and we are losing even more to Japan. We cannot continue these huge trade deficits and resulting huge job losses, Mr. Speaker, for much longer without doing great harm and irreparable harm to this Nation. Already while our unemployment rate is very low, our underemployment rate is terrible. As I have said before, we are ending up with the best educated waiters and waitresses in the world precisely because we are sending so many good jobs to other countries. Secondly, and briefly, Mr. Speaker, it was unconscionable to require us to vote for $2 billion more for Bosnia on the so-called flood relief bill. We sent far more to Bosnia than we did to North Dakota. There is no threat to our national security in Bosnia. There is no vital U.S. interest there. We cannot settle these centuries-old ethnic conflicts even if we pour our entire treasury into Bosnia. We need to put our own people first. We do not need our soldiers and sailors doing international social work. We need to bring our troops home now. I was very disappointed that yesterday we voted down the Hilleary amendment to bring our troops home by December 31. The President originally promised we would have our troops out after one year at the most and that was many months ago. Third, Mr. Speaker, and lastly, the Hill newspaper reported today that no Members were willing to publicly support the Southern Baptists in their boycott of the Disney Company. Well, I know this boycott will not be successful against this extremely rich corporation. However, I for one, and I am a Presbyterian, not a Baptist, admire and respect the Southern Baptists for standing up for their beliefs and for trying to do what they and millions of people believe is morally right. We need much less sex and violence on television and in our movies and the Disney Corporation is not upholding family values as it once did.