Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and the improvements it makes in the operation of our State Department. I especially appreciate the chairman of the Committee on International Relations for yielding me this time, and for including a provision regarding diplomatic immunity in this bill. This provision is taken almost word for word from H.R. 1622, a bill introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and myself in the House and Senator Coverdell in the other body. This bill grew in part out of the tragic death of a 16-year-old girl in the Washington, DC area who was killed by a drunken driver who happened to be a diplomat from the Republic of Georgia. This diplomat could have escaped prosecution, as many others have, even when people have been killed, had diplomatic immunity not been waived. Foreign diplomats who commit felony offenses on U.S. soil should be prosecuted for those crimes. If U.S. diplomats commit felony offenses overseas, they should be prosecuted. Specifically, this 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, then that government will be encouraged to prosecute the criminal for the same offense in its own courts. This language will encourage the State Department to hold diplomats accountable for crimes committed in the United States. I welcome all people of all nationalities into this country, but at the same time, I do not think that diplomats should have the right to come here and kill or commit other serious crimes against U.S. citizens without expecting punishment. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and the other members of the Committee on International Relations for recognizing this problem and acting to correct it, and including this provision in the legislation. I urge passage of this bill, and I once again commend the chairman for the diligent way in which he has worked to try to accommodate all interests in this legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, a number of organizations provide volunteer medical services without charge to those who might not otherwise have access to medical care. I think all of these people should be commended for lending a helping hand to their fellow man. However, many of these organizations have been hampered in their efforts because the doctors must have a medical license in each State in which they volunteer their services. The State of Tennessee recognized this problem and addressed it by enacting legislation which will allow any licensed doctor to practice in the State as long as they are providing medical services to the poor at no cost. Unfortunately, the State of Tennessee is the only State in the Union to have this type of law. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a bill, House Concurrent Resolution 69, which encourages all States to pass similar legislation. I believe we need to reduce the rules and regulations which hinder the efforts of those who wish to help the less fortunate in our Country. House Concurrent Resolution 69 will do just that. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to House Concurrent Resolution 69 so that volunteer organizations can provide medical services to those in need.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shuster- Oberstar balanced budget substitute. The American people want, deserve, and need a strong national system of transportation. Almost everyone supports the interstate highway system. The only way to adequately maintain and improve our interstate highways and meet the needs of a growing population is to pass the Shuster substitute. There are no State lines in the air. The people want and deserve and need a strong and safe aviation system. Air passenger traffic is exploding now and is going way up over the next 10 years. The only way to improve our aviation system and make it as safe as it can and should be is to pass the Shuster-Oberstar substitute. We should not continue the deceptive practice begun by President Johnson: using the trust funds not for their intended purposes, but to offset the deficit and thus spend highway and aviation funds for foreign aid and everything else. I urge support for the Shuster balanced budget substitute.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, thousands of doctors of optometry will be convening in St. Louis, Missouri on June 11-15, 1997 to celebrate the Centennial Congress of the American Optometric Association [AOA]. During the proceedings of this annual convention, Dr. Michael D. Jones of Athens, TN, will be sworn in for the 1997-98 term as the association's 76th president. I would like to take a few moments to congratulate Dr. Jones on achieving this high honor and to commend him for his professional and civic achievement. Dr. Jones is a graduate of Southern College of Optometry in Memphis, TN, and has practiced optometry in Athens since 1971. He is a past president of the Tennessee Optometric Association and the Hiwassee Optometric Society. In 1992, Dr. Jones was honored as Tennessee's Optometrist of the Year. And, in 1993, he was named Optometrist of the South. In Athens, Dr. Jones has served as president of the Kiwanis Club, treasurer of the Jaycees, and on the boards of the United Fund and the YMCA. He also founded the community's Explorer Scouts program of the Boy Scouts of America. Dr. Jones was first elected to the AOA's board of trustees in 1992 and has served the board in a number of capacities. The AOA is the professional society for the Nation's 31,000 optometrists. As president, Dr. Jones will lead the association in working to improve vision care in the United States. Dr. Mike Jones has distinguished himself as an outstanding leader. I join his many friends and colleagues in offering him best wishes for a successful term as president of the AOA.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the average American today pays about 40 percent of his or her income in taxes when we count taxes of all types, Federal, State and local. Then the average person pays another 10 percent in regulatory costs passed on to them in the form of higher prices. This is why today the average family has one spouse working for the government and one spouse working for the family. Many people do not realize how much they are paying, about half of their income going to support the government. Today we are proposing in our budget an $85 billion tax cut. Some people have implied that this tax cut is just too much, yet this cut is spread over a 7-year period. During that time period, this amounts to a tax cut of less than 1 percent per year. I know we can afford this. The Federal Government wastes far more than 1 percent each year. I urge my colleagues to support this very needed tax relief for the families of America, a large part of which is a $500 per child tax credit. Let us support the families of America instead of wasting more through our Federal bureaucracy.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, as a Member from a so-called donor State, I rise in strong support of the STEP 21 program. This program would permit each State to receive a far more equitable return on what is paid into the Federal highway trust fund. My State, Tennessee, has received only 78 cents for every $1 we have contributed over the last few years. This is not fair, and it is not right. With the passage of STEP 21, each State will be assured of at least a 95 percent return on its contribution to the Federal highway trust fund. Not only will STEP 21 benefit Tennessee, but it will benefit the entire Nation by providing a consistent economic benefit for all States. In addition, STEP 21 lets the States decide where they want to spend their highway trust fund allocation. Tennesseans do not need Washington to dictate to them what they need and how to spend it. Every State has different needs, and every State is capable of providing for their own funding in this way, making the decisions. This proposal provides the flexibility, the STEP 21 proposal provides the flexibility to tailor transportation solutions to their particular circumstances by returning the decision-making to the State and local levels. Mayors, county executives, Governors, and other elected officials from around the country have endorsed the flexibility of STEP 21 because they would have the power to determine how transportation dollars are spent. One area of the present law which needs to be changed is the one dealing with the metric system. Last year I introduced H.R. 3617, which was a bill to amend the National Highway Designation Act relating to metric system highway requirements. Instead of reintroducing this bill, I am going to attempt to add the language of this to the current ISTEA legislation. This language would repeal the mandate that all Federal-aid highway design and construction be performed in metric. Under this legislation, the choice of whether to use the metric system in design and construction of Government projects would be left to the discretion of the States, as it should be. My proposal could conceivably save hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, just one medium-sized Tennessee contractor told me that it will cost his company alone more than $1 million to convert forms and equipment and train his employees to comply with these metric mandates. In addition, another company in my State told me that its cost of conversion would be a minimum of $3 million. When I asked the Congressional Research Service to see if there were any estimates on how much this conversion would cost across the Nation as a whole, the only answer they could come up with was that it could not be determined, but it would be in the billions. There are companies in every State which face many millions in similar costs if something is not done. Many small- and medium-sized businesses and even a few large American companies are being hard hit by the metric requirements, all for the convenience of a few extremely large multinational companies which do not really need our help. Some people say we must convert to the metric system of measurement because most of the world has done so. In my opinion, this is simply not a good enough reason to cost American taxpayers and consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. These requirements do not make our roads one bit better. Simply, the benefits of these metric requirements do not outweigh their costs. Removing this metric mandate will go a long way to help small business. We have never been afraid to be a special and unique Nation in the past, Mr. Speaker. So to say that we must go metric because most other nations have is just not a good reason, either. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support STEP 21. By doing so, they will be supporting fairness and equity in our highway funding system. I urge their support for STEP 21. I would also like to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] for their leadership on this issue. We need the STEP 21 legislation to put fairness and equity back into our highway funding system.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation which makes some very important changes to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. We need to do our very best in educating the young people in our country. In addition, I believe we especially need to help those with disabilities. I admire the people who work very closely with these children on a daily basis. In fact, I would say that these are the people who, along with the parents, are most concerned with how this program is operating. They feel that too much money has been wasted in legal fees. Instead, they would like to see much more of the funding go directly to helping these special students. I agree. A few years ago, I met with a school superintendent from my district, Allen Morgan, and one of his main concerns was the cost of legal fees associated with this program. As a result, on August 5, 1993, I introduced H.R. 2882, which would have reduced the amount of money school systems have to spend for attorney fees. Do you want the money spent on lawyers or on severely disabled students? Under the legislation I introduced, State and local education agencies would not have had to pay attorney fees for preliminary administrative hearings and negotiations. This would have saved many millions of dollars across the country. However, it would still have allowed parents who prevailed in a civil action to be reimbursed for legal expenses. I am pleased to know that the authors of this bill have included similar language in this legislation. The bill on the floor today will save direly needed funds for educating the disabled by reducing the amount of money spent on overly excessive attorney fees. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which will help get more money to the children who need it the most.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and to the readers of the Record a letter that was sent to me by one of my constituents, Bob Affel. Bob is the president of Sun Electric Co. in Knoxville, TN. As many of you may know, President Clinton recently created a huge controversy when he announced that his administration would be changing the Federal procurement policy. The proposed changes could be used to unfairly discriminate against businesses that operate without a union. In addition, the changes could cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Bob is uniquely aware, from a businessman's perspective, of exactly how the current regulations work. Since he has read through and tried to comply with these illogical bureaucratic requirements, his letter gives an excellent discussion of the issues surrounding President Clinton's latest proposal. In addition to Bob's comments, I would personally add that I have seen estimates that the proposed policy would end up raising the cost of Federal Government construction spending by $4.8 billion annually or reduce the amount of construction by 30 percent. With our Nation more than $5.5 trillion in debt, we should not be encouraging this sort of wasteful spending. I request that a copy of the attached letter be placed in the Record at this point. I hope that my colleagues will join me and Bob Affel in opposing President Clinton's unfair proposal. Sun Electric Co., Knoxville, TN, April 21, 1997. Representative John Duncan, Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Representative Duncan: We oppose the President's project labor agreement executive order. Listed below are some of our reasons. how public project labor agreements hurt open shop contractors Public project labor agreements exclude open shop contractors from the competition for public work. Labor unions often note that open shop contractors can also sign and work under such agreements but in doing so, the unions conveniently disregard the way the agreements actually work. The problem is rarely the wage rates or fringe benefits that the agreements mandate. The Davis-Bacon Act or one of its many counterparts already require open shop and all other contractors to pay prevailing wages and benefits to those working on most public projects. The problem is that the agreements permit open shop firms to use few if any of their current employees. The also require open shop firms to organize their work around the rigid lines that define each union's jurisdiction. Public project labor agreements can require open shop firms to use three or more employees to perform a task that a one multicraft worker would otherwise perform. Open shop contractors can work under public project labor agreements but not without greatly increasing their cost of performing the work. Thus, it is true but irrelevant that open shop firms are free to work under such agreements. What matters is that the agreements require open shop contractors to fundamentally change the way they do business that such firms cannot effectively compete. How Public Project Labor Agreements Hurt Union Contractors As a threshold matter, a public project labor agreement may well increase even a union contractor's cost of constructing a public facility. Such contractors may find that they have to employ the members of new and different unions. Many such contractors have agreement with only two or three unions, while public project labor agreements can involve as many as seventeen. More importantly, public project labor agreements disrupt local bargaining for area-wide agreements. They may require wage rates or fringe benefits that exceed the prevailing ones. They often establish new work rules or reinstate old work rules or set other costly or otherwise damaging precedents. Because they typically prohibit lockouts, such agreements may also encourage unions to strike other projects in the area. They certainly undermine the direct face-to-face negotiations that lie at the heart of collective bargaining, as both unions and contractors turn to owners for the concessions that they cannot get from each other. In sum, public project labor agreements substitute government bureaucrats for the industry's own negotiators. Whatever their intentions, such bureaucrats lack the experience to advance the construction industry's interests. They are schooled in neither construction nor labor- management relations. Quality and Freedom To the great extent that they limit the competition for public work, or otherwise increase the cost of improving our schools, hospitals, bridges and other public infrastructures, public project labor agreements threaten everyone's quality of life. They also threaten individual rights and freedoms. They typically include ``union security'' clauses that effectively mandate union membership denying construction workers the right to decide whether to join or otherwise support a labor union. A Dangerous Precedent Inevitably, public project labor agreements increase the cost of all construction, including the private work the manufacturers and other industries. The President's plan raises ominous questions about the government's role anywhere in the private sector. Having set the precedent, will the government presume to negotiate collective bargaining agreements for the aerospace and automobile industries? At what point will the federal government dictate the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between Intel and its employees? Conclusion While some federal agencies have long used project labor agreements, the proposed executive order takes the threat of such agreements to new and extremely troubling heights. For the reasons already noted, this executive order would have a negative impact on the entire construction industry, including the substantial segment that continues to work with and under collective bargaining agreements. Sincerely, Bob Affel, President, Sun Electric Company.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 680.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today in the Subcommittee on National Parks we heard testimony which should be disturbing to all Americans. In fact, we heard Senator Orrin Hatch testify that in 20 years in the Senate, he had never seen such an arrogant abuse of power. He was referring 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. This monument would be in the Escalante-Grand Staircase section of southern Utah. However, there are several reasons why this particular land grab 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, the Utah State legislature, or the people of Utah. In fact, the Governor of Utah testified at our hearing that the first notice any Utah public official had was when they read about it 9 days beforehand in the Washington Post. This raises the second serious question, the secrecy, the coverup. Not only were high ranking officials not notified, but Senator Bennett testified that he now has administration documents which say that it cannot be emphasized enough that public disclosure would have stopped the designation because such an outcry would have been created. It almost makes you 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 the coal alone is worth over $1 trillion. Who has the second largest deposit? The Lippo Group from Indonesia, who just happened to make some large campaign contributions to the Democrats 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 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. Unfortunately, many in the environmental movement have become the new radicals, the new socialists of this day. They are advocating an unprecedented expansion of Federal power and, in many cases, are achieving it to the great detriment of all but a few elitists at the top. This national monument in Utah is just another of many examples. The size of this power play is enormous; 1.7 million acres is three times the size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most heavily visited national park in this country. Why should people in other parts of the country be concerned about this? Well, it will have a tremendous ripple effect in our overall economy. Why should people all over this country be concerned? Well, because of the secrecy, the political wheeling and dealing, the arrogance, the extremism of this whole thing. But, perhaps even more importantly, if they do this in one place, they will do it in another. If they get away with this in Utah, they will do it in your State too. If people do not speak out, it will happen again and again and again. Already the Federal Government owns about 30 percent of the land in this Nation. State and local governments and quasi-governmental agencies own another 20 percent. So many restrictions are being placed on Federal land, and now even on private land, that this is now becoming a very serious problem. Parents and grandparents wonder why their college-graduate children and grandchildren cannot find good jobs. We are ending up with the best educated waiters and waitresses in the world. One big reason is that some of these extremists do not want us to dig for any coal, drill for any oil, or cut any trees. If we do not get a little moderation and balance back into our environmental policies, we will absolutely destroy our standard of living. Unfortunately, we cannot turn our entire Nation into a giant tourist attraction. Tourism is an industry filled with minimum wage jobs. Do we really want a nation made up of rich environmentalists, well-paid government bureaucrats, and almost everybody else working for minimum wage or very-low-paying jobs? This Utah land grab is based on a 91-year-old law called the Antiquities Act. Supporters say apple pie and motherhood, things like this law have stood the test of time, and that it was used to protect and set aside the Grand Canyon and other great national treasures. Well, we have an entirely different situation today than we had 90 years ago or even 20 or 30 years ago. The amount of land owned or controlled by Government has exploded in recent years. We have almost 10 times as much land in wilderness areas as just a little over 20 years ago. If this is still to be a free country a few years from now, if we are going to preserve this Nation as a Democratic republic where the people have control and where major government actions are not done in secret, then the Utah land deal should be reversed.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Like so many Federal programs, Congress was given a low-ball figure at the first and was told in 1984 that this program would cost only $8 billion. Now the General Accounting Office, not our figures but the figures from the General Accounting Office tell us that the cost will be at least $94 billion. Some estimates of the ultimate cost when all expenses are figured in are much, much higher. James J. Kilpatrick, nationally syndicated columnist, said: This is ``pure folly and that the cost itself has now gone into orbit.'' This project will ultimately be the most expensive single project ever funded by the Federal Government, and that is really saying something. An editorial in the Washington Post in 1991, when the cost estimates were much lower than now, said this ``The diversion of $30 billion would be a sad thing even if the Federal Government had money to burn. Money for the space station will have to be squeezed out of other research of value to society and to science, including space science.'' Mr. Chairman, we do not have money to burn. We need to support this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, everybody in Tennessee is proud of our national champions, the Lady Vols basketball team. But, I am also proud of another basketball team in my district, the McMinn Central Chargerettes. The Chargerettes were the runner-up in the State girls basketball tournament. These young ladies are to be commended for their performance, hard work, and enthusiasm. The following is an article that appeared in the Daily Post-Athenian which I would like to share with my fellow colleagues and other readers of the Record. [From the Daily Post-Athenian, Mar. 12, 1997] Chargerettes Won Through Hard Work High fives and hearty congratulations are in order for the McMinn Central Chargerettes for their valiant effort in the state girls basketball tournament. It had been 25 years since the Central girls team had made it into the playoffs and the 1997 Chargerettes made the most of their history-making performance, coming in as the runner- up in one of the toughest divisions in girls basketball play in Tennessee. Coach Johnny Morgan's team started out the year with the goal of simply playing one game at a time and striving to improve with every contest. That simple philosophy worked as the Chargerettes seemed to just get better each week as they worked on the fundamentals of the game and never let ambition cloud their vision. One by one their opponents learned the Chargerettes were a team to be wary of because they were able to make the most of each player's abilities. It was a team approach to the game that got them where they wanted to be. It was the players' unselfish attitude that made the Chargerettes a formidable team other schools couldn't contend with when the chips were on the line. They worked hard, winning didn't just happen for the Chargerettes. The glory came at the end of the games when they were ahead on the scoreboard but it all began with the long hours of practice filled with hours of learning the game and their own strengths and weaknesses. They worked to make the most of their strengths and to overcome their weaknesses and that's what made them winners. The Chargerettes deserve the praise and accolades heaped upon them when they returned home from the hard-fought battles in state tournament. They earned the right to be proud of their accomplishments. But the praise that meant the most came from Coach Morgan, who knows more than anyone else how much these young women worked over the course of the season. ``I do know this is probably the best overall team I've had in my 19 years as a head coach,'' he said. ``Especially in taking each game one at a time and I know how hard they work to make themselves better--how much they want to be successful.'' The goods news for the Chargerettes is bad news for the teams they'll face next year as the team will return basically intact when the season opens. We know they'll continue to work hard to maintain the winning tradition they've established. Our congratulations echo those of the community. We're proud of your devotion to excellence and sportsmanship.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, very soon the other body will vote to confirm Alexis Herman as Secretary of Labor. I am sure that the Senators will vote almost unanimously for her because no one has been asking the tough questions that need to be asked about this nomination, yet the liberal magazine, The New Republic, has a scorching article about Ms. Herman in its current issue. The New Republic would ordinarily be one of the strongest supporters for someone like Ms. Herman, but listen to what The New Republic has to say about her. ``It would not be quite accurate to say that Herman's political career has been tainted by cronyism. Her political career is cronyism. For Herman, it seems government has meant little more than a way to enrich herself and her friends.'' The President should reconsider this nomination in light of all of the reports in The New Republic, The Washington Times, and other publications concerning questionable financial dealings. It appears that Ms. Herman has spent her career doing political wheeling and dealing at great expense to the American taxpayer. Let me mention just two examples. Ms. Herman was paid $600,000 simply for advising on hiring minority firms for construction of the Federal Triangle project in Washington, DC. Six hundred thousand dollars is an unbelievably exorbitant fee for this type of work. Then the project was criticized for its very poor job in hiring minority firms, the very thing for which Ms. Herman was being paid. The Senate should have subpoenaed Ms. Herman and her records and questioned her in great detail about exactly what she did to get all of this money. This project, with interest, financing and all of the sweetheart deals, is going to cost $2 billion, according to the GAO, and be the most expensive Federal building project in history. Then there is the Market Square project, also in Washington, DC. According to The Washington Times, Ms. Herman was reportedly given a 1- percent ownership primarily because of her connections to Washington, DC Mayor Marion Barry. This 1-percent interest may now be worth as much as $500,000, which she got to be a minority partner, even though she never invested any of her own money. There are other examples, Mr. Speaker, and every Member of the other body should read this article in the current issue of The New Republic before they vote to confirm Ms. Herman. The title of the article is ``Dishonest Labor.'' I will be sending every Member of the other body a copy of this article tomorrow. I have no illusions, Mr. Speaker. I know she will be overwhelmingly confirmed, but the Senate should not confirm someone who has gotten rich for very little work or investment at great expense to the taxpayer. No one should be put in charge of a major department of the Federal Government who has such a cavalier disregard for the taxpayer. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that when she is confirmed that she stops all of this cronyism and political and financial wheeling and dealing while she is in office. Also, I hope the national news media will stay on guard and closely question every single contract the Department of Labor enters into under her leadership. Is she going to give all the contracts to her friends and pals and political buddies? I close, Mr. Speaker, by repeating the words from The New Republic, not my words, but theirs. ``It would not be quite accurate to say that Herman's political career has been tainted by cronyism. Her political career is cronyism. For Herman, it seems government has meant little more than a way to enrich herself and her friends.'' Not my words, Mr. Speaker, but those of The New Republic. Surely we can do better for one of the highest offices in our land. [From The New Republic, April 28, 1997] Dishonest Labor (By Jonathan Chait) Richard Shelby has distinguished himself in the United States Senate mainly by his passionate and oft-professed hatred for the Clinton administration. Indeed, he has made a career out of Clinton-hating, once proclaiming gleefully that his animosity for the president formed the basis of his popularity in his home state of Alabama. In February 1993, before other Democrats had even polished off the leftover champagne from Clinton's inauguration, Shelby attacked the White House for raising taxes. Clinton retaliated by moving ninety NASA jobs out of Alabama. The relationship went downhill from there. Just after the 1994 elections, Shelby shed his last Democratic vestiges and joined the Republican Party. Like Strom Thurmond and other Dixiecrat-turned- Republicans, Shelby took to the GOP faith with more fervor than most lifetime believers. As a reward, his new party handed him the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee, from which Shelby resumed his antipathetic ways: over the last two months he almost single-handedly harangued Anthony Lake into forsaking his nomination for CIA director. On March 19, still basking in the afterglow of Lake's demise, Shelby spoke before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, which had gathered to decide the fate of another controversial Clinton nominee, Labor Secretary- designate Alexis Herman. On this occasion, however, Shelby came to praise, not bury, a Clinton nominee. In proud, almost pious tones, he introduced Herman as if she were a conservative convert. ``She's worked in the vineyards,'' he declared. ``She's worked in the Democratic Party. She's worked in the White House. She has earned her way the hard way: by hard work.'' Shelby wasn't the only senator cooing. Other, normally belligerent Republicans burbled equal goodwill. Their few forays into the known areas of controversy regarding Herman were so polite as to be almost apologetic. The four-and-a-half-hour love-in ended in smiles and mutual praise, the prelude to an expected overwhelming confirmation by the Senate. How striking is the contrast between Herman's cruise to confirmation and the experiences of other Clinton appointees. Nomination struggles have plagued Clinton from the beginning, Lake's ordeal providing only the most recent example. To be sure, the Senate has given a bye to a few Clinton nominees. But those exceptions, like Madeleine Albright or William Cohen, arrived with impressive resumes, untainted by scandal. Herman, by marked contrast, is perhaps the least qualified-- and certainly the most scandal-plagued--nominee that Clinton has put forth over the course of his presidency. Her harmonious confirmation is not merely curious, but perverse: the intellectual and ethical debasements that ought to have disqualified Herman are the very things that have saved her. It would not be quite accurate to say that Herman's political career has been tainted by cronyism. Her political career is cronyism. For Herman, it seems, government has meant little more than a way to enrich herself and her friends. Herman's Washington career dates back to the Carter administration, where she headed the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor. There she linked up with Little Rock civil rights pioneer and Clinton friend Ernest Green, who ran the department's Employment and Training Administration (and who is currently playing a supporting role in the Clinton fundraising scandals). Following the 1980 presidential election, the department frantically shoveled millions of dollars in grant money out the door before the Reagan administration could take over. The largest grants went to two sources: a training program that employed Green and Herman before their Labor tenure, and a youth training program run by Jesse Jackson, a close Herman friend. In 1981, Green and Herman formed a diversity consulting firm, Green- Herman & Associates Inc., which got a quick boost from Jackson. In those years, the reverend frequently threatened boycotts of companies he deemed insufficiently diverse. When Jackson's targets sued for peace, according to media accounts, he recommended that they hire Green-Herman & Associates. The diversity consulting business proved lucrative for Green & Herman. Corporations hire diversity consultants mainly to avoid lawsuits. Thus, the two enjoyed a particular advantage: as consultants, they could sell advice on complying with the affirmative action laws that, as government officials, they had enforced. One way to comply with those laws, it turned out, was to give Alexis Herman a great deal of money. Bob Mendelsohn, a real-estate developer who had met Herman while he was working for the Interior Department under Carter, quickly figured this out. In 1986, he gave her a 3.34 percent stake in his venture to build a complex of offices and condominiums in downtown Washington. Herman sold part of her holding and recently valued the rest at somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million, a strong return for an investment of zero dollars. Mendelsohn handed out similar deals to two other limited partners, bringing the minority ownership to 10 percent, in order to comply with federal affirmative action guidelines. Mendelsohn could have bestowed this windfall upon any number of more needy black Washingtonians. But Herman had something that escaped her less fortunate cohabitants: a tight relationship with Washington Mayor Marion Barry, who held considerable sway over which firms received building contracts in the district. Mendelsohn later insisted that Herman's clout played no part in his decision. In 1989, Herman became chief of staff at the Democratic National Committee, working directly under another mentor, Ron Brown, then party chair, later secretary of Commerce. Her firm, now A.H. Herman & Associates (Green had gone into investment banking), remained under her control. The next year Mendelsohn hired her firm to help him win an even bigger contract. For $600,000, A.H. Herman designed Mendelsohn's affirmative action plan. Mendelsohn won the fiercely contested contract, although his company had been underbid by hundreds of millions of dollars and had given what one knowledgeable insider described as a vastly inferior proposal. Mendelsohn claims that Herman's post at the DNC played no role in either his decision to hire her or the government's decision to award the contract to Mendelsohn. Later, the Mendelsohn-Herman building deal came under fire in Congress--because, ironically, some congressmen thought its affirmative action program was not aggressive enough. According to numerous press accounts at the time, Herman took her DNC clout to the Hill to lobby for continued funding, a move widely criticized as a conflict of interest. Herman recently wrote to the Senate Labor Committee that she has ``no recollection of lobbying either Members of Congress or their staffs.'' Her spokesman, Joe Lockhart, has denied outright that she lobbied for Mendelsohn. But, according to a 1990 article in The Washington Business Journal, ``sources at the House Government Operations Committee'' maintained that Herman ``did not hesitate to appear at meetings between legislative aides and the Delta Team [Mendelsohn's group].'' The article reported that Mendelsohn had ``said he had asked Herman to go to the Hill to address concerns about minority participation in the project because she had written the plan.'' Mendelsohn now denies having asked Herman to lobby and insists the 1990 article ``got a lot of things wrong.'' Despite the alleged conflict of interest, Herman's political stock continued to rise. With Ron Brown devoting much of his time to fund-raising, Herman ran the day-to-day operations of the 1992 convention. It was not unrewarded labor. A U.S. News & World Report story the following year reported that she enjoyed frequent limousine service--over $6,000 worth during one two-week stretch alone--and $3,500- per-month rent, all on the party's dime. In late 1993, after becoming White House director of public liaison, Herman sold her firm to longtime friend Vanessa Weaver. Then, while working at the Office of Public Liaison, Herman recommended--as she later admitted in a written response to the Senate Labor Committee--that both Weaver and Weaver's sister be included on a trade mission to Mexico. The sisters were so included, and later donated $25,000 apiece to the DNC. But the business relationship between Herman and the Weaver sisters apparently goes back even further. According to payroll documents, the DNC paid Weaver $15,000 in consulting fees during the 1992 convention run by Herman. Neither several former convention staffers nor Lockhart were able to say, when asked, what precisely Weaver did to earn her money. According to the 1992 DNC Employee Handbook, Herman had responsibility for reviewing all contracts, meaning that, at minimum, she approved hiring Weaver. Why does this matter? Because it appears to contradict her written responses to questions posed by the Senate Labor Committee. When asked if she had ``extend[ed] any courtesy or provide[d] any benefit'' to Weaver before or after the selling of A.H. Herman & Associates, Herman replied that she had not. Lockhart, questions, argued that it didn't matter if Herman had misstated the truth to the Senate. ``If you contract someone and they do the work,'' he said, ``I don't see how that's a benefit.'' Herman declined, through Lockhart, to be interviewed prior to confirmation. Herman won the nomination for secretary of Labor from Clinton at least in part for the same reason she got her first big deal from Mendelssohn: the president needed to fill a quota. Ron Brown's unexpected death in April 1996, and the departure of Hazel O'Leary and Mike Espy, had left the Clinton Cabinet with just one African American, and no black women. But, as in her building deal, Herman and more than her sex and race going for her. She benefited, once against, from political cronyism. In this instance, her old friend and consulting ally Jesse Jackson lobbied Clinton to pick her. Herman's nomination represents a marked ideological shit in the administration's economic thinking. During the first term, Labor Secretary Robert Reich's liberalism counterbalanced the moderate Wall Street impulses of Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Reich's influence stemmed from both his academic heft and from his long-standing relationship with Clinton. Herman, with neither, could not dream of challenging Rubin. ``It's like the New York Yankees against `Farm Team To Be Determined.' '' laughs an administration official. Its seat at the table sacrificed for the sake of diversity, organized labor went through the classic stages of grievous loss. First, denial. Labor leaders, refusing to accept the finality of Clinton's choice, preferred former Pennsylvania Senator Harris Wofford as an alternative. When Wofford didn't fly, labor threw its support, in quick succession, behind Esteban Edward Torres and Alan Wheat, both minorities with pro-union records in Congress. These progressively more humiliating failures hastened the second stage: anger. ``The not-for-attribution comments of labor leaders I talked to the day of Herman's appointment ranged from rage to--well, rage,'' wrote liberal columnist Harold Meyerson in The Sacramento Bee. The third stage: bargaining. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney met with Jackson and Clinton. Though none could confirm it, several labor officials privately expressed a belief that the administration had granted Sweeney more say in staffing lower-level jobs at Labor. This led, at last, to: acceptance. ``Once it became clear that the administration chose Herman, there was no point in opposing her,'' sighs one labor official. AFL-CIO officials now maintain, somewhat ahistorically, that their support for Wofford are based on a big misunderstanding: they would have picked Herman first if only they had known she wanted the job. With the Democratic coalition in line, Herman's fate now rested with the Senate. Nominally, her key hurdle was the Senate Labor Committee, chaired by Jim Jeffords of Vermont. In reality, it was up to Majority Leader Trent Lott, who initially resisted granting the chairmanship to the moderate Jeffords. Jeffords won the chair, which he had earned by seniority, only by agreeing to defer to the leadership's wishes on any important matters. In February, Lott bottled up Herman's nomination in order to force Democrats to allow a vote on a ``comp time'' bill that would permit employers to substitute extra vacations for overtime pay. Seeking a pretext for delaying Herman's hearings, Lott ruminated publicly over her role in organizing White House coffee sessions with potential donors. Many of those donors were black. When a reporter questioned McCurry about this, he pounced: ``I can't believe the majority leader would suggest she's disqualified from serving as secretary of Labor because she attempted to encourage African Americans to participate in the political life of this nation.'' Lott, who had suggested nothing of the sort, fumed. But the White House had Lott where it wanted him. The Herman nomination became a civil rights issue. They had thrust Lott into his nightmare role of George Wallace, blocking the doorway of the Labor Department. African American and feminist organizations rushed to the White House to attack Republican delays. Even the AFL-CIO chimed in, demanding ``immediate hearings on the nomination of this African American woman.'' Republicans, it turns out, were all too happy to oblige. And here lies the true perversity of Herman's nomination: Congress, in the position of helping to select its foe, wants a pathetic Labor secretary. The previous one, Reich, helped Clinton push through a higher minimum wage, which most Republicans consider the low point of their last Congress. Reich's successor will be charged with fighting Republican efforts to pass legislation limiting unions' powers to negotiate in the workplace and organize politically. Therefore, the worse the secretary, the more scandal-plagued and the less policy-focused, the better. Herman's lack of qualifications became, ironically, her strongest qualification. ``She will be an ineffective Labor secretary,'' explains a conservative activist who works closely with Senate Republicans. ``There's just a general view that `What damage can she do us? If we put somebody else in there who's effective, it'll be a much bigger headache.' '' Indeed, Republicans are happy to support Herman's sort of liberalism because it restricts government largesse to ever fewer, ever less-deserving beneficiaries. It costs much less to enrich a tiny coterie of well-connected African Americans than to improve ordinary black lives. Clinton's relegation of Reich's chair to a quota slot is itself an act of Hermanism. The Labor Department won't do much for the working poor, but it will at least do well by Alexis Herman.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution; and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time. I am pleased to be one of the original cosponsors of this bill. A little over 2 years ago, President Clinton's budget, in a footnote that was often mentioned by Ross Perot, said the young people born that year would pay average lifetime tax rates of 82 percent. Paul Tsongas a well-respected member of the other party who served for 10 years in the House and Senate, wrote a column about this and he called it an incredible 82 percent; and he said that we were in danger of turning the young people into indentured servants for the Government, and he predicted that in a very few years we would have a war between the generations. Already today the average person pays almost half of his or her income in taxes and in paying the cost of regulations. Very few people really realize how much they are paying. But when you add up sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, Social Security taxes, it is a tremendous sum; income taxes become a small part of the whole burden. Unfortunately, for too many people, too many people believe that if the Government sends them back a small refund, it is doing them some kind of a favor. As many people have pointed out, today it takes two incomes to do what one did just a few years ago. Today one spouse basically works to support the Government, while the other spouse works to support the family. Mr. Speaker, the people of this country can spend their own money better than than the bureaucrats can spend it for them. The easiest thing in the world to do, Mr. Speaker, is to spend other people's money. We need to make it harder for Government to take so much money from the people. The Government at all levels, but particularly at the Federal level, is becoming increasingly arrogant and coercive. We need to take this coercive society that we have created today and turn it into a great and free society once again. We can do this if we leave to the people the power, the freedom to have more control over their own money. We need to require a two-thirds majority vote to pass a tax increase. Very few people in this country think that taxes are too low. Those who want to see the 82 percent tax rate predicted in President Clinton's budget just 2 years ago should vote against this legislation. Those who want to hold down taxes should vote for this resolution.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to a great American, my friend, Bob Griffitts. Bob turns 50 today, and in some ways, I am sure that he does not want a lot of attention called toward this occasion. Bob has never been one to seek attention or publicity or credit at any time. But this should be a special day in his life, and he deserves a lot more credit and praise than he ever receives. Bob Griffitts is my district director and longtime closest personal friend. He spends his days quietly helping the constituents of the second district and over the last 8\1/2\ years has helped thousands in ways big and small. He works nights, weekends, and holidays and never really leaves the job behind. People would be shocked if they followed him around for a few weeks and saw how many hours he puts in. Bob serves the people of east Tennessee at a personal financial sacrifice. Before taking his present job, he was a very successful realtor and appraiser. He handled many commercial real estate deals for groups of doctors and other investors. He had many leading companies as clients of his appraisal business. Throughout his career, both in business and politics, he has always inspired a great feeling of trust and confidence in all those with whom he has dealt. There is not a dishonest or unethical bone in Bob Griffitts' body. Always giving of himself to others, Bob has almost never asked anything for himself. He has served this Nation well, through our great free enterprise system, in government, and through two other very important ways as well. First, while he almost never mentions it and no, very few people know it, Bob is a veteran of the frontlines of some of the toughest fighting which went on in Vietnam. He was and is a courageous, patriotic man who deeply loves this country. Hardened in numerous wartime battles, he is the kind of man you want beside you when times get tough. He would be embarrassed to be described in this manner, but to me he is a true American hero. Secondly, and most important of all, he is a devoted family man. He has had a long and happy marriage to his wife, Barbara, and his loyalty and friendship to me is without question a distant second to his love for and devotion to her. There is, though another woman in Bob's life, and no man has ever loved a daughter more than Bob loves his Deena. Deena has grown into a beautiful young woman, a recent graduate of the University of Tennessee and now getting off to a great start in a career with one of Knoxville's most respected insurance firms. Deena has never let her dad down and has made him a proud and happy father for many years. To sum up, Mr. Speaker, Bob Griffitts is the kind of man who has made this country great. He is not rich or famous, but he is well-known and greatly respected in his beloved east Tennessee. He deserves very much to be considered as one of our Nation's finest citizens. On this special milestone in his life, I would like say happy birthday and best wishes for many, many more. I could never repay Bob for all he has done for me, or thank him nearly enough. But I will close by saying that I am very proud to call him my friend.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, when the White House Conference on Small Business met in 1995, it listed unfair government competition with small businesses as one of its top concerns and most serious problems. This is not a new problem. In fact, during the Eisenhower administration in 1955, the administration felt it necessary to adopt as official U.S. policy the following statement: 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. Yet every day in almost every congressional district, big government agencies are competing with small businesses. This is why I have introduced H.R. 716, the Freedom from Government Competition Act. This legislation is supported very strongly by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Coalition for Fair Competition, and numerous other professional associations, too many to list at this time. In addition, H.R. 716 already has more than 20 cosponsors from both parties and Senator Craig Thomas has introduced a companion bill in the Senate. This legislation 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 free enterprise system to do those things it does best, providing commercial goods and services in a competitive environment. Under the Freedom From Government Competition Act, Federal agencies will be required to identify those Government activities that can be performed more cost effectively and efficiently by the private sector. After these areas are identified, the private sector will have the opportunity to compete for providing those goods and services. 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 those commercial activities to private industry, we could save taxpayers at least $9 billion a year. In addition to saving taxpayers money, the Freedom From Government Competition Act will help spur the growth of private businesses. This, in turn, will increase our tax base. In other words, we can reduce Federal spending and increase the revenues taken in by the Federal Government at the same time without raising taxes. With a debt of almost $5.5 trillion, this is the kind of legislation we need to actively pursue. H.R. 716 is a modest proposal. It does not require the Government to contract out everything. 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. If the Government can do something cheaper and better than the private sector, then it will be allowed to continue to do so under this legislation. Nonetheless, all too often Government agencies are involved in activities that it cannot do well. In the end, this winds up hurting small businesses costing taxpayers hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars and hurts the economic growth of our private sector. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we should pin a medal on anyone who can survive in small business today. Everything we do in big government seems only to benefit extremely big business. I have nothing against big business. However, big businesses seem to get almost all of the tax breaks, the big government contracts, the favorable regulatory rulings and all sorts of incentives such as free land or other inducements. We do very little for small businesses, and this is why so many of them are going under or are in a real struggle to survive. This is one thing we can do for small businesses. This is a small step in the whole scheme of things. However, this legislation will go a long way toward helping our small businesses survive. Mr. Speaker, if the Government were the answer to all of our problems, then the Soviet Union would have been heaven on Earth. But our Founding Fathers felt that most problems could be solved through the private sector and that Government should only do those things that the people could not do for themselves. The Freedom From Government Competition Act will return this great country to the type of governing system that our Founding Fathers envisioned. I hope my colleagues will help me stop big government agencies from competing with small businesses and join me in supporting the Freedom From Government Competition Act.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order and present my 5-minute remarks at this time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and to the readers of the Record a resolution passed by the Knoxville City Council. This resolution, R-384-96, endorses a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. R-384-96 was sponsored by City Councilman Gary Underwood and forwarded to my attention by the mayor of Knoxville, Victor Ashe. This resolution is yet another example of the widespread support for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The reasons and clearly thought out practical examples expressed in R-384-96 are held by hundreds of thousands of Americans across our Nation. For many years our national Government was dominated by those with a very liberal mindset, and there was little serious interest in attempting to balance our budget. In fact, we have not balanced it since 1969, and huge annual deficits have resulted in a $5 trillion national debt today. If we do not put a stop to this madness, we will absolutely destroy the standard of living of our children and grandchildren. While I wish we did not need a balanced budget amendment, I agree with the Knoxville city council that if one is not enacted, we may never balance the budget. Historically, we simply have not done a good job in limiting Federal programs and reducing waste. There are 435 Members in the House who have their own funding priorities, another 100 Senators who have their own, and of course, the President also has his funding preferences. It becomes very difficult to reach an agreement on the budget if we do not set absolute caps which place funding limitations on Federal spending. This issue is once again being debated in the 105th Congress, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 1, which would provide an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget. Our Federal deficit is one of the most serious concerns facing our Nation. If we bring Government spending under control and deregulate our economy, it could boom for many years to come. Times are good now for some people, but they could and should be good for almost everyone. We could really reduce the gap between the rich and the poor if we could decrease the power and cost of our government at all levels, but especially at the Federal level. I request that a copy of the attached resolution passed by the Knoxville city council be placed in the Record at this point. I hope that my colleagues will join the Knoxville city council and me in supporting House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. Resolution A resolution of the Council of the City of Knoxville urging the U.S. Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. Whereas, the City of Knoxville, Knox County, and the State of Tennessee balance their budgets annually; and Whereas, Knoxville families must balance their budgets; and Whereas, a balanced federal budget would reduce interest rates, thereby helping home owners and buyers; and Whereas, Congress should set an example for the citizens who elect them by being fiscally responsible; and Whereas, last year the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment failed by only one vote in the United States Senate; and Whereas, Congress appears incapable of balancing our national budget without a constitutional requirement; and Whereas, this proposed constitutional amendment is supported by Congressman John Duncan, Congressman Zack Wamp, Congressman Van Hilleary, and by Senator Bill Frist and Senator Fred Thompson. Now therefore be it resolved by the Council of the City of Knoxville: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Knoxville urges in the strongest possible terms that Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Section 2: The City Recorder for the City of Knoxville is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Tennessee members of the U.S. Congress. Section 3: This Resolution shall take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the reinstatement of the 10 percent ticket tax. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for his leadership on this issue. Chairman Archer is chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, has never supported an increase in taxes, and neither have I. We have the safest and most efficient aviation system in the world, but it is growing by leaps and bounds due to great increases in both air passenger and air cargo traffic. We simply cannot operate a safe, efficient, rapidly growing system for free. We have to spend money on it, and this means either some type of tax or some type of user fee or some combination of both. Speaker Gingrich has asked the Subcommittee on Aviation, which I chair, to look into a user fee system. We have already held 2 days of hearings on this and have heard from many outstanding witnesses, but we are still a long way from reaching any type of consensus on this. In the meantime while we consider user fees or other types of taxes, we need to reinstate the 10 percent ticket tax. Aviation is one of the few major fields in which the United States still leads the world, but we need to support Chairman Archer and take this very necessary step today to make sure that we maintain a safe and efficient aviation system. I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the Committee on Ways and Means and reinstate this tax. This is not a tax increase and we need to take this step at this time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have reintroduced the National Parks Checkoff Act today. The National Parks Checkoff Act will amend the Internal Revenue Code to require the IRS to place a line on income tax forms which will allow taxpayers to donate one or more dollars toward the care of our national parks. This legislation will provide more money for the care of our national parks at no cost to the Federal Government. I introduced this bill during the 104th Congress, and I heard from a number of people and organizations from around the country who supported this legislation. In addition, this bill had bipartisan support and it was also backed by the National Parks and Conservation Association, the American Hiking Society, the National Tour Association, American Outdoors and other organizations. A study released by the National Parks and Conservation Association indicated that nearly 8 out every 10 people surveyed would be willing to increase their tax contribution by $1 to benefit the National Park System. A similar checkoff for Presidential campaigns has raised over $200 million in the last 3 years. I believe that our national parks are far more popular than Presidential campaigns. Therefore, I think we could raise hundreds of millions of dollars for our national parks through this type of checkoff on income tax forms. I believe there is at least one easy choice that can be made which will provide our parks with additional funding--the choice to allow taxpayers the opportunity to donate money for the care of our national parks. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation which will help us improve the quality of our national parks.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Charles Schumer and I have introduced today the Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act of 1997. This bill will close some of the loopholes that have allowed many colleges and universities to not report many instances of criminal activity on their campuses. Last year, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 470, which expressed the sense of the Congress that the Department of Education was not adequately monitoring and enforcing compliance with the current campus security law. This resolution passed the House by a vote of 413 to 0 on September 11, 1996. The Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act will supplement the Campus Security Act of 1990. Specifically, it will instruct colleges and universities, which receive Federal funding, to make available to their students in a timely fashion information on all crimes reported to campus police departments, security agencies, and other campus officials to whom crimes are reported. Such crime logs would be open to public inspection on a daily basis. Similar laws are already in effect in seven States: Tennessee, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, California, West Virginia, and Minnesota. The Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act will also change Federal educational privacy laws that have shielded students who have been charged with criminal acts because of a definition that considers such charges as part of an individual student's private academic record. The current law lists only a few crimes that are required to be reported annually and these crimes are to be determined at the discretion of college administrators. Some college administrations do not comply with the spirit of the law because they would simply like to avoid bad publicity. The Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act of 1997 will allow students and their parents to have a greater awareness of patterns of crimes that occur on campuses all too frequently. The bill will also make it possible to have independent confirmation of the accuracy of the annual statistics that colleges submit. I believe that this bill will help make colleges and universities much safer places.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I certainly have the greatest respect for the Member who just finished speaking and, in fact, respect him about as much as anybody in this body, but I do disagree with him on this issue. If ever there was a solution for a problem that does not exist, it is term limits for Members of Congress. First of all, more than half of this House has served just since January of 1993, 4 years or less. One-third has served 2 years or less. There is greater turnover in elective office today than at almost any time in the history of this country. Second, unlike Federal judges, bureaucrats, and members of the military, the terms of Members of Congress are already limited. We face the voters every other year. We are given only a 2-year term in the House. If the voters do not like what we are doing, they can easily kick us out. Elections are the best term limits ever invented. In fact, it is slightly arrogant for someone to say, I am going to limit myself only to 6 or 12 or some other number of years in office. That decision is only up to the voters, and that is the way it should be. Actually, if term limits are needed, they are needed more for unelected people than for those who regularly have to be approved by the voters already. Many people say the real power lies in the bureaucracy anyway. Third, term limits are unconstitutional. They were specifically considered by our Founding Fathers and specifically rejected, for a whole host of good reasons. Fourth, term limits are undemocratic, with a small d. They would prohibit voters from voting for a candidate who might otherwise be their first choice. They would prohibit good people from running for office. They would take away freedoms that we have always held dear in this Nation. Fifth, term limits would increase the power of unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists. They would become the real experts, and very few Members of Congress would be able to develop experience and expertise about important matters on which they were expected to legislate. Six, term limits would hurt small, less populous States. A State like California, with 52 Members, would be able to get far more than its share. Many smaller States gain at least some protection and some benefits if they are represented by Members with some seniority. Seventh, term limits would cause even more money to be spent on elections. Most people want less money to be spent on election campaigns, not more. Now, some incumbents who are doing a good job and doing what their constituents want do not have to spend huge amounts to be reelected, nor do they have huge amounts spent against them. Term limits would cause big money to play an even greater role in elected politics. Eighth, and perhaps most important of all, we would never consider applying term limits to any other field. We would never go to a great teacher or doctor or engineer or scientist and say, we know you are doing a great job, but even though we cannot prove it, we have this feeling that we need new blood every 6 years or 8 years or 12 years or whatever, so you have to go do something else. Workers in any other field would scream to high heaven if arbitrary time limits were applied to them, except possibly after a full career. I would say to anyone listening to these words, or who later reads these words: Would you want term limits applied to you? Ninth, term limits would have cut short the careers of some of our greatest legislators. People like Howard Baker, Everett Dirksen, Sam Rayburn, Robert Taft, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, George Norris, Robert LaFollette, and many, many others have achieved some of their greatest service after they would have been term-limited out by the proposals that we will vote on tomorrow, and several did not become even well known nationally until their later years in office, after they would have been forced out of office by the proposals we will vote on tomorrow. John Kennedy in this country and Winston Churchill in Great Britain would have been term-limited out before gaining national office under these proposals. Finally, last but certainly not least, term limits are being pushed primarily for political reasons, not because they are needed or are good public policy. There is a great deal of hypocrisy, demagoguery and outright political posturing on this issue. Many elected officials pushing term limits are doing so just as a way to gain higher office. If an officeholder says he believes in a 6-year term limit, ask him if he will leave public office and never run for another public office after 6 years. If he really believed in term limits, he would return to the private sector and not just use advocacy of term limits as a way to gain higher office. If you really want to see someone squirm, Mr. Speaker, ask your State legislator or any officeholder supporting term limits, will you limit yourself to 6 years in public office or are you just promoting this so you can run for higher office? Mr. Speaker, I have been told that Mexico is the only Nation that presently has term limits for its national legislators. I do not think many people would hold Mexico up as the best example of good government for us to follow. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of this talk, term limits solve a problem that does not exist. We should let the voters decide, and not just arbitrarily limit their choices.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Tennessee has lost one of its leading citizens and a truly great American, Loy Smith. Loy passed away on Sunday after suffering a heart attack while working with one of his great loves, his horses. He was 68. Loy was a longtime close friend of both my late father and me and one of our strongest supporters. He served for 14 years as a State Representative from our home district in the Tennessee House of Representatives. He rose to the rank of House Republican leader from 1978 to 1980. He then voluntarily left elective office to devote more time to his family and his many business interests. He remained active in politics, however, always interested in good government and in doing his part. He served as Knox County Republican chairman from 1990 to 1992 and was one of the finest leaders our party ever had. Loy was active in many other aspects of community life, too. He was a deacon of the Thorngrove Christian Church and was a past president of the Carter Optimist Club. He was a member of the Knoxville Elks Lodge, the Odd Fellows, the Thorngrove Community Club, the Volunteer Carriage Club, the Sons of the Revolution and the Pascal Carter Memorial Park Association. His first love was his family, and he is survived by his wife Lonna Rhea, his children, daughter Scottie and sons, David, Jim, and Jeff, and several in-laws, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews. After his family, his strongest feelings were bound up with the Republican Party. He was a very loyal Republican and very conservative in his philosophy. He believed very strongly in the things that made this Nation great, and he especially believed in our great free enterprise system. He was a vice president of and worked for the John Bailey Insurance Co. for 40 years. He also founded with his sons the Southeast Equipment Co. and was the owner of other businesses such as the Kay's Ice Cream Shops chain. The Tennessee State legislature adopted a resolution Monday praising Loy Smith as, quote, ``a man of great wisdom and compassion, earning the universal respect and admiration of his peers.'' State Senator Ben Atchley, a longtime friend and associate of Loy's, said this: ``Loy had a strong sense of the situation. He had the wisdom of understanding and of understanding the end result. He could get to the bottom line in a hurry, and he was a strong force in Republican politics.'' Loy was a graduate of Carter High School. He volunteered to serve as a paratrooper in the U.S. Army and then received a business degree from the University of Tennessee. He was a patriotic man who loved this country. More importantly, Loy Smith was simply a good man who helped countless numbers of people. He was not famous nationally, I suppose, but he was the type of man who has made this Nation the great Nation that it is today. He did not live his life on the sidelines. He was in the arena in every possible way, and he truly made his mark. Loy Smith will be missed most especially by his family and also by me and many, many others, I would say perhaps thousands of others. If this Nation had more people like Loy Smith, it would be a much better and kinder and stronger place. He lived his life to the fullest, and he served his country well.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA] for accomplishing their goal of a decade of service without an increase in electric-power rates. TVA was established as a Federal agency by the U.S. Congress in 1933. TVA is one of the Nation's largest electric-power producers, a regional development agency, and a national environmental laboratory. It also manages the Tennessee River, the Nation's fifth-largest river system. TVA serves more than 7 million people in an 80,000 square mile region in the Southeastern United States. This area includes most of Tennessee and parts of six other States: Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. TVA's power system pays its own way by selling electricity to its customers throughout the Valley. It uses no tax dollars. A three member Board of Directors manages TVA. As you may know, the directors of TCA are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Craven Crowell is the Chairman of TVA, and William H. Kennoy and Johnny H. Hayes are Directors. ``Electric Light & Power'' magazine ranked TVA as the largest power producer in the United States and the twelfth lowest in production costs. Although electricity prices have increased, TVA has cut costs and decreased operating expenses. I am proud of the thousands of TVA employees in the Second District of Tennessee, and I know that their dedicated service to the Tennessee Valley Region is a key part of TVA's continued success. I would like to call TVA's accomplishment to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize Congressman Harold Ford for his many years of service to our Nation. Congressman Ford has served the people of the Ninth District of Tennessee for 22 years and prior to that time served 4 years in the Tennessee State Legislature. It has been a privilege for me to work with him on behalf of the citizens of Tennessee. Our State has always had a congressional delegation which works in a bipartisan manner on matters of importance to Tennessee. Congressman Ford has spent his congressional career serving on the most important committee in the Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means. He is now fifth in seniority on that committee and has played a leading role in its work. He is recognized as a national leader and expert on child welfare because of his past service as chairman and present service as ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources. During his legislative career, Congressman Ford has achieved a well- deserved reputation for service to his constituents. His top priority has been to try to keep the Federal Government close and accessible to the people of his district. He has helped thousands of people over the years, and I am sure he will continue to work hard for the citizens of Memphis in the years ahead. Although he has served in the House for 22 years now, he is still a young man, and I am sure that he has many good and active years ahead. I would like to congratulate Harold Ford on the occasion of his retirement from Congress and wish him the very best.