Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak very briefly about two unrelated topics. First, a few days ago we passed a resolution here in this House designating July 3 as Cost of Government Day. This resolution noted that the average person now spends 50.4 percent of his or her income in taxes of all types, Federal, State and local, 50.4 percent. In other words, the average person now works until July 3 just to pay the cost of government at all levels. That is taking into account the taxes of all types, like income, Social Security, sales, property, excise, gas, all the different types of taxes, and then the taxes that we pay in the form of hidden taxes in the form of higher prices and so forth. Even worse, President Clinton's 1994 budget said the young people born that year would pay average lifetime tax rates of an incredible 82 percent. Paul Tsongas, the former Congressman and Senator from Massachusetts who was a liberal Democrat when he was in Congress wrote a column about that and he said that we were going to turn the young people into indentured servants for the government unless dramatic changes were made. I do not think we should allow that to happen, Mr. Speaker. But the reason I mention this tonight is this: I am not for increasing our tax burden at all. In fact, we need to strive to lower our tax burden. But I can say that what we need to do is lower the tax burden on the average people and on the people of middle and lower incomes and to do that and to balance it out, we need to drastically raise the taxes on those movie stars and athletes and CEOs who are making these multimillion-dollar salaries. I think that would be only fair. What really stirred me into this is hearing last week that one basketball player had signed a contract for 7 years for $123 million and then the Washington Post a few days ago printed what they called a Free Agent Tote Board and they have these other contracts for NBA players: 5 years for $55 million, 1 year for $30 million, 7 years for $98 million, 7 years for $105 million, 6 years for $24 million, 7 years for $42 million, 4 years for $28 million, on and on. They reported about one player for the Washington Bullets who was a substitute who did not even play well last year and he is holding out for $45 million for 7 years. Mr. Speaker, I would say that things have gotten totally out of whack. I remember telling my two sons last December when I heard that one baseball player had signed an $18 million 3-year contract that could they imagine how much was $6 million a year. In my district, an average person makes between 21 and $22,000 a year. A person making $25,000 a year would have to work 40 years to make $1 million. To make $6 million in 1 year, you would have to average $150,000 a year. This is ridiculous. This is sickening how much these athletes are being paid for playing a game 6 or 7 months out of the year. It has gotten totally ridiculous. I say that we should drastically lower the taxes on the lower- and middle-income people and raise them on these people that are getting these totally exorbitant, unjustified salaries. I realize it will not be done, but we should boycott the NBA and these other leagues and organizations that are paying these totally ridiculous salaries and totally undeserved. foreign affairs The other topic that I wanted to mention tonight, Mr. Speaker, and like I say, it is two totally unrelated things but it does pertain to the spending of government money. We have spent $4 billion so far in Haiti, and the Washington Post a few months ago reported on the front page that we have got our troops there picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes. We have spent billions more in Rwanda, Somalia, and now Bosnia where there is no vital United States interest and no threat to our national security. Last week Georgie Anne Geyer, the very respected foreign affairs columnist, wrote this about Bosnia. She said: For 4 years and 2 Presidents, the top military brass in Washington essentially lied about Serb capacities. They built a bunch of thugs and rustic mountain Serbs, dependent on that pitiful weaponry I saw, into super-Serbs. She told about seeing this weaponry. She said: There it stands, all the terror that American and European military men trembled before: old tanks, their sides packed with sand; antique mortars nearly falling off the mountainsides; artillery pieces out in the open, without even trees to hide them. One could be forgiven for thinking oneself back in World War I instead of the nuclear age. The military exaggerated the capabilities of Saddam Hussein. Now they have exaggerated the capabilities of their opponents in Bosnia, and I think back to the time when President Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex and I wonder if these things are being done to somehow justify higher and unjustified appropriations. I think if they are, that is very sad and very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, under the outstanding leadership of its chairman, Mr. Shuster, reported H.R. 3159 on May 9. The Aviation Subcommittee and the Railroad Subcommittee held a joint hearing on the needs and concerns of the National Transportation Safety Board on March 6. I must say that I have been very impressed with the work of the NTSB under the leadership of Chairman Jim Hall. The NTSB has responded extremely well to the recent airline tragedies involving ValuJet and TWA. The professionalism and dedication, in often very tough an demanding situations, should be heeded by several other Federal agencies and Departments. H.R. 3159, authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 for the National Transportation Safety. H.R. 3159 has six components that I will briefly outline. First, the typical NTSB reauthorization has been 3 years and this bill contains a 3-year reauthorization. Second, for this current fiscal year, the committee had authorized $45.1 million dollars, however the Appropriations Committee appropriated a level of $38.8 million. Let me say that the authorization levels in this bill are not those that were reported in the original bill. They have been adjusted to reflect what the House has recently approved in this year's Department of Transportation appropriations bill, H.R. 3675. So, this bill authorizes $42.4 million for fiscal year 1997, $44.46 million for fiscal year 1998, and $45.0 million for fiscal year 1999. The first year's authorization represents a 9.3 percent increase from the fiscal year 1996 appropriated level, and it provides an adequate increase in the remaining 2 years, which results in a 6.2 percent increase between 1997 and 1999. I think these levels will allow the NTSB to adequately perform its mission. Third, the bill extends the term of the NTSB chairman from 2-years to 4-years. NTSB argued that it has had rapid turnover in its chairmanship and that a 4-year term would promote leadership stability. Many other agency chairman have terms of 4 years or more so we are not doing anything out of the ordinary here. Fourth, we also have a provision in H.R. 3159 that would allow the NTSB to withhold foreign accident information. Currently, many foreign aviation authorities will not give accident information to the NTSB for fear that the Board will have to release it to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. As a result, Board employees must travel to foreign countries or embassies to review data. This is costly and inefficient. We correct this problem in our bill. Fifth, we also give the NTSB authority to withhold voluntarily provided safety information. At this time, the NTSB learns of safety problems only after there has been an accident. A major initiative in the aviation community is to try to spot trends or unsafe practices before they cause an accident. This initiative could be accomplished by voluntarily sharing data among airlines and with the Government. However, many are reluctant to do this because they fear possible repercussions if the information was released. Let me say that the Aviation Subcommittee recently held a hearing regarding protections for whistleblowers in the aviation industry. I think we will continue to look at this issue. Sixth, and finally, H.R. 3159 allows the NTSB to charge a reasonable fee for courses given to non-Board members. The NTSB conducts safety- related classes and this provision will allow them to recoup some of its cost for conducting these classes. So, we have a very fine bill which I feel very confident every Members of the House can support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, last week we passed a cost-of-government-day resolution noting that the average person now pays half of his or her income in taxes counting taxes of all types: Federal, State, and local. This is terrible and getting worse, Mr. Speaker. President Clinton's budget estimated in 1994 that young people born that year would pay average lifetime tax rates of an incredible 82 percent. So I am no fan of higher taxes, and we need to drastically simplify our Tax Code. Yet I have come here this morning, Mr. Speaker, because of reports that a basketball player has now signed a 7-year, $140 million contract. This is sickening. No one could ever really deserve or earn this much money. Most people will not earn this much, even one-tenth this much, in their entire careers, $20 million for playing basketball for 1 year. I oppose increasing our overall tax burden, Mr. Speaker, but we need to greatly lower our taxes on middle and lower income people and make it up by greatly increasing our taxes on these movie stars, on the athletes and CEO's who are earning such exorbitant and undeserved rates of pay.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Lyle and Mary Maples of Lenoir City, TN, upon the occasion of their golden wedding anniversary on July 27, 1996. In this day and age where family values are much discussed, I can think of no greater testament to life, love, honor, and family values than the commitment of a 50 year marriage. Lyle and Mary worked until retirement in Oak Ridge, TN. Lyle worked at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Mary worked for the Atomic Energy Commission. Their contributions to the ``golden days'' of Oak Ridge on projects of immense significance are appreciated by all Americans. Along the way, they built a home and raised a family. They have three children, Mary Ann, Jim and Bob. Mary Ann is a master educator at Lenoir City High School; Jim is a district manager at Goody's Corp. in Knoxville and Bob is a lobbyist in Washington, DC. Lyle and Mary are equally as proud of their grandchildren; three boys--Clay Stewart, Jesse and Joe Maples and two granddaughters--Mary Lee Stewart and Becca Maples. A family raised in Tennessee and working to better their community, State and Nation. Lyle and Mary are active members of their community and their church, Central United Methodist. Their good deeds and works are appreciated by civic leaders, friends, and neighbors. Mr. Speaker, I join Lyle and Mary's family, friends, and the Lenoir City community in recognizing this milestone and wish them many more years of life and love.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I would first like to start by expressing my very great sympathy for all of those who lost loved ones in this terrible explosion and crash of the TWA Flight 800. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Aviation, I can assure the previous speaker and all the Members of this body that we will be doing everything possible to look into this terrible tragedy and to take every step possible to make our aviation system and airport security the very highest priority in this country and do all that we possibly can to solve this horrible situation that has occurred. The U.S. aviation system is by far the safest in the world. We have had approximately 12,900 deaths in all U.S. aviation accidents combined since the Wright Brothers flight in 1903. Unfortunately, that many Americans are killed every 4 months on the highways of this Nation. But our goal is to have no fatalities whatsoever, and certainly we are going to be doing everything we possibly can to achieve that goal. Mr. Speaker, I previously requested this time to talk about another subject. I have previously mentioned on this floor my great concern about certain trends I see in regard to our economy and employment in this country. We had a trade deficit that cost us 3 million jobs last year alone, and that trade deficit is continuing at a rate of several billion dollars each month. Leading economists tell us that we lose, conservatively, 20,000 jobs per billion. We have had at least 1\1/2\ million jobs lost due to corporate downsizing in the last 3 years. One recent report on the network news said that unlike the eighties, people who lost their jobs in the nineties were having to take replacement jobs at much lower pay and after being out of work for a much longer period between jobs. We have several million college graduates who cannot find work in the fields for which they trained, with huge surpluses of lawyers, teachers, and now even doctors with the possible exception of in very rural areas. There is certainly nothing wrong with working as a waiter or waitress, but we are now ending up with the best educated waiters and waitresses in the world. Our unemployment problem is relatively low, but our underemployment problem is terrible. It is really sad when parents and grandparents bring their college graduate children and grandchildren to me because they can't find good jobs. And then we have many thousands of young people who have incurred large debts to gain these degrees, and oftentimes these are debts they are going to be unable to repay or at least have great difficulty in doing so. Robert Sammuelson, the columnist for Newsweek and the Washington Post, wrote a few days ago concerning our $34 billion in Federal student grants and subsidized loans: ``Arguably the easy availability of so much Government money is one reason that college costs and tuition have skyrocketed.'' In other words, it is entirely possible that the main reason college costs have gone up so much and so fast in recent years is because of the Federal Government. These tuition rates have gone up far faster than the rate of inflation. We should restructure the Federal Student Loan Program so that the most favorable loans go to the students at schools that are decreasing or at least holding down the great increases in college tuition. We should not do something that might cause college costs to skyrocket even more. Now, while I am usually for increasing tax deductions, Mr. Sammuelson voiced his concern that a new tax deduction for college costs might encourage further increases. ``By making tuition more `affordable' the proposed new tax deductions might encourage further increases in college cost and tuition.'' It is a good thing to get a college degree, Mr. Speaker, but it is not much good to get one that is worthless on today's job market. Also it is not good to go head over heels in debt. I am just urging both parents and students to be more careful, to look before they leap, so to speak. Last week, the Osgood File, on CBS Radio--a very entertaining program, has a segment by Gil Gross, on this subject, in which he told about talking to a college dropout who said he just decided he didn't want to incur loan payments of $1,000 a month for as far as the eye could see. Mr. Gross said: The college dropout rate has hit an all-time high. One reason seems to be many students are not prepared by high schools to succeed in college, but another reason seems to be the cost. A college education has become incredibly expensive. When you consider that some of this money is wasted on things such as communications degrees, something that was invented so you could become a local TV anchor without actually having to know when the War of 1812 began, this is pretty amazing. It seems add that colleges where bright people congregate to solve problems can't seem to tackle this one. With all the new-fangled tools they have such as the internet and CD-ROMs, you'd think they could package a college education for far less than they do. I would like to place this Osgood File program in the Record at this point and urge my colleagues and everyone to do everything possible to hold down college fees and tuition and to urge young people to very carefully choose a field of study that has at least some decent prospects for a good future. The Osgood File July 12, 1996 I'm Gil Gross for the vacationing Charles Osgood on the CBS Radio Network. The college dropout rate has hit an all-time high. One reason seems to be many students are not prepared by high schools to succeed in college, but another reason seems to be the cost. A college education has become incredibly expensive. When you consider that some of this money is wasted on things such as communications degrees, something that was invented so you could become a local TV anchor without actually having to know when the War of 1812 began, this is pretty amazing. It seems odd that colleges where bright people congregate to solve problems can't seem to tackle this one. With all the new-fangled tools they have such as the internet and CD-ROMS, you'd think they could package a college education for far less than they do. What will happen if a little bit of knowledge continues to be an expensive thing? The answer after this: I was talking to a college dropout and was trying to convince him to go back because any chance he had for success depended on it. He was resolutely unconvinced. You can't afford not to get a college degree, I said. College graduates make much more than high school grads. He was having none of it. Do you know how much my 4 years of college would cost, he asked? About $100,000, and that doesn't even count four years of lost income. Yes, but 4 years of a low lost income, I said. And do you know how much debt, I'd be carrying, he asked? About $85,000, which means, he explained, I'd probably be paying almost a grand a month in loan payments as far as the eye can see, unless I'm in a field where I also need a graduate degree, a law degree or a medical degree in which case I have a decent chance of being out of debt when I'm 40, if I don't buy a house and if I don't have kids and if, saying I do have kids, the public schools are good enough that I don't have to consider private schools and then if the kids are bright enough to send them to college which will probably be $500,000 a year by then. Your point is what, I asked, though I already guessed. My point is I can't afford to go to college and be successful. I'd be broke the rest of my life! And you're satisfied with being a meter reader, he said its wonderful work. It involves math and I get to see what everyone's basement looks like. You realize what you've given up, I asked. Success comes at just too high a price, he said. Besides, he said, without a great job I don't get the credit rating to get head over heels in debt. No, he decided, the one thing you can say about failure is it's affordable. I looked at him, struggling to think of one more thing to say and then I did. Look, I said, ummm could I borrow five bucks from you 'til Monday? The Osgood file. I'm Gil Gross on the CBS Radio Network.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government should not be paying millions in taxpayers' funds to help defray the costs of corporate mergers in the defense industry. I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the following article from the Brookings Review: [From the Brookings Review, Summer 1996] Merger Mania (By Lawrence J. Korb) McDonnell Douglas, Martin Marietta, Ling-Temco-Vaught (LTV). As the telltale compound names signal, mergers and acquisitions have long been a staple of the U.S. defense industry. But since the Clinton administration took office in 1992, the number of mergers has increased dramatically. In 1991, military mergers were valued at some $300 million. By 1993, the value had climbed to $14.2 billion. It will top $20 billion in 1996. In 1993 Martin Marietta purchased General Electric's defense division and General Dynamics' space division. At about the same time Lockheed purchased General Dynamics' aircraft division, while Loral purchased LTV, Ford Aerospace, and Unisys. Then in 1994 Lockheed merged with Martin to become Lockheed Martin, and a year later Lockheed Martin purchased Loral to produce a $30 billion giant known as Lockheed Martin Loral, which now controls 40 percent of the Pentagon's procurement budget. During this same period, Northrop outbid Martin for the Grumman aircraft company, and the new company in turn bought the defense division of Westinghouse. On a somewhat smaller scale, Hughes bought General Dynamics' missile division and Raytheon purchase E-Systems. Among the true defense giants, only McDonnell Douglas has not yet made a major purchase. Spokesmen for the defense industry cite two reasons for this sudden rush of mergers. First, merger mania is sweeping U.S. industry generally. Second, with the end of the Cold War, defense spending has fallen so dramatically that excess capacity in the defense industry can be eliminated only through consolidation. As Norman Augustine of Lockheed Martin has observed, for the defense industry this is 1929. Superficially these reasons seem quite plausible. Merger mania has certainly hit many areas of American industry, such as banking and communications. In 1992 Chemical Bank merged with Manufacturers Hanover, and in 1995 they combined with Chase Manhattan to form a single company. In the past year, Time, which had merged with Warner Communications in 1990, purchased Turner Broadcasting; Capital Cities/ABC merged with Pacific Telesis; and Bell Atlantic merged with NYNEX. And defense spending has indeed fallen since the end of the Cold War. In current dollars, projected defense spending for fiscal year 1997 is about 40 percent below that of a decade ago, and procurement spending is about one-third what it was at its peak in the 1980s. But what industry spokesmen fail to note is that the decline in defense expenditures has been greatly exaggerated and that, unlike the private-sector restructuring, the government is subsidizing defense mergers. Remember the $600 toilet seats and the $500 hammers that had taxpayers up in arms during the mid-1980s? Today's subsidized mergers are going to make them look like bargains. The outrageously priced toilet seats and hammers were the result of defense companies taking advantage of a loophole in acquisition regulations. This time, the taxpayers are being fleeced at the hands of the Pentagon's civilian leadership, whose secret reinterpretation of the regulations has rained hundreds of millions of dollars upon the defense industry. To date the Pentagon has received 30 requests for reimbursement for restructuring. Lockheed Martin alone expects to receive at least $1 billion to complete its merger. How Did It Happen? In July 1993, John M. Deutch, then the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, responded to pressure on his boss, William Perry, from the chief executive officers of Martin Marietta, Lockheed, Loral, and Hughes by deciding to allow defense companies to bill the Pentagon for the costs of mergers and acquisitions. According to Deutch, who has since been promoted to deputy secretary of defense and then to director of Central Intelligence, the move was not a policy change but a clarification of existing policy. In Deutch's view, not only was the clarification necessary to promote the rational downsizing of the defense industry, it would also save taxpayers billions in the long run. Deutch is wrong on all three counts. This is a major policy change. It is not necessary. And it will not save money. A commonsense reading of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) would lead a reasonable person to conclude that organization costs are not allowable. The regulations state that since the government is not concerned with the form of the contractor's organization, such expenditures are not necessary for or allowable to government contracts. Indeed, during the Bush administration, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) rejected a request by the Hughes Aircraft Corporation to be reimbursed for $112 million in costs resulting from its acquisition of General Dynamics' missile division. As far back as the Nixon administration, during the post-Vietnam drawdown of defense spending, which was as severe as the current drawdown, the Defense Department rejected a similar request from General Dynamics. But on July 21, 1993, Deutch wrote a memorandum stating that restructuring costs are indeed allowable and thus reimbursable under federal procurement law. Because Deutch regarded the memo as merely a clarification of existing policy, he saw no need for a public announcement. Indeed, he did not discuss his ``clarification'' with the military services or Congress or even inform them of it. Congress found out about it accidentally nine months after the memo was written when Martin Marietta tried to recoup from the Pentagon about $60 million of the $208 million it paid for General Dynamics' space division. A somewhat astonished Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, remarked, ``Why pay Martin Marietta [60] million?'' Deutch's position that he was merely clarifying rather than making policy is not supported by anyone, even those who favor the change. The procurement experts in his own department disagreed vehemently. On June 17, 1993, the career professionals at DCMA told him that the history of the FAR argues against making the nonrecurring organization costs associated with restructuring costs allowable and noted that they had disallowed these costs in the past. The DCMA position was also supported by Don Yockey, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition in the Bush administration; the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), the trade association for aerospace companies; the American Bar Association's Section on Public Contract Law; and the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service. Yockey, who was Deutch's immediate predecessor as procurement czar and who is both a retired military officer and former defense industry executive, argued in a July 13, 1994, letter to the professional staff of the House Armed Services Committee that by definition, structure means organization, and that the FAR does not allow the reimbursement of organization costs. Indeed, it was Yockey himself who told DCMA to reject Hughes' request for reimbursement for its purchase of General Dynamics' missile division. In a September 28, 1993, letter to Eleanor Spector, the director of defense procurement, Leroy Haugh, vice president of procurement and finance of AIA, stated that the Deutch memo constituted a significant policy decision and an important policy change. Therefore, Haugh asked Spector to promptly publish notice of this policy change in the Federal Register and to consider amending the regulations. In a May 3, 1994, letter to Deutch, Donald J. Kinlin, the chair of the ABA Section on Public Contract law, urged Deutch to modify the FAR since at the time it did not reflect the changes made in Deutch's July 1993 memorandum. What is significant about the AIA and ABA positions is that both groups support Deutch's change. Finally in a June 8, 1994, memorandum John R. Luckey, legislative attorney for the Congressional Research Service, stated that while former amendment of the FAR could make restructuring costs allowable, the argument that they are allowable under the current regulations appears to contradict their plain meaning. In Luckey's opinion, Deutch's position is based on semantics, not legality. In short, the political leadership of the Clinton defense department made a significant policy change that as a minimum should have been published in the Federal Register and, as Secretary Perry later admitted, cleared in advance with Congress. the substance of the issue This end run around the administrative and legislative processes by the Pentagon is unprecedented, but even more important is whether the Defense Department and the taxpayers should be giving the defense industry a windfall by allowing a write-off of substantial parts of restructuring costs. For four reasons, the answer to that question should be an emphatic ``No.'' First, like Mark Twain's death, the decline of the defense industry in this country has been greatly exaggerated. As Pentagon and industry officials endlessly point out, defense spending in general, and procurement spending in particular, have declined over the past decade. They note that between fiscal year 1985 and fiscal year 1995, the defense budget declined 30 percent in real terms and procurement spending fell 60 percent. But that comparison ignores the fact that between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1985, the defense budget grew 55 percent and the procurement budget grew a whopping 116 percent. Defense spending in real terms is still at about its Cold War average, and the defense budget for fiscal year 1996 was higher than it was for fiscal year 1980. In inflation- adjusted dollars, Bill Clinton spent about $30 billion more on defense in 1995 than Richard Nixon did in 1975 to confront Soviet Communist expansionism. Using fiscal year 1985, the height of the Reagan buildup, as a base year distorts the picture. It would be like comparing spending in the Korean and Vietnam wars to the level of World War II and concluding we did not spend enough in Korea and Vietnam. Moreover, procurement spending will rise 40 percent over the next five years, and the Pentagon is now soliciting bids for the $750 billion joint strike fighter program. Similarly, while defense employment has fallen 25 percent over the past eight years, it grew 30 percent in the five years before that. More people work in the defense sector now than at any time in the decade of the 1970s. Moreover, much of the decline in the defense industry is attributable to the reengineering or slimming down that is sweeping all American industries, even those with an increasing customer base. Finally, if one adds the $266 billion worth of U.S. arms sold around the world since 1990 (a scandal in itself) to the $300 billion in purchases by the Defense Department, American defense industry sales are still at historic highs. Defense is still a profitable business--which explains why defense stocks are still quite high despite the jeremiads of industry spokesmen. Over the past year Lockheed Martin stock has increased 48 percent in value. Northrop Grumman is up 50 percent and McDonnell Douglas a whopping 80 percent. Second, taxpayer subsidization is no more necessary today to promote acquisitions and mergers than it has even been. Just about every major defense company today is the product of a merger, some of them decades old. For example, General Dynamics acquired Chrysler's tank division in the early 1980s, and McDonnell acquired the Douglas Aircraft Company in the late 1960s. Even today in the supposed ``bull market,'' plenty of bidders vie for the available companies. Three years ago, several companies engaged in a fierce bidding war for LTV. And Northrop outbid Martin Marietta for Grumman. It is hard to believe that if taxpayer subsidies were not available, companies would not buy available assets if it made good business sense. If they paid a little less for their acquisitions, the taxpayers rather than the stockholders would benefit. In the bidding war for Grumman, both Martin and Northrop offered significantly more than market value, thus giving Grumman's shareholders a financial bonanza of $22 a share (a bonus of nearly 40 percent). Raytheon paid a share (a bonus of nearly 40 percent). Raytheon paid a similar premium to acquire E-Systems in April 1995. Should the government allow Northrop's and Raytheon's stockholders to reap a similar bonanza by subsidizing those sales? Over the past five years, William Anders, the former CEO of General Dynamics, made himself and his stockholders a fortune by selling parts of his company to Hughes, Martin, and Lockheed. Since 1991 General Dynamics' stock increased 550 percent and the company has stashed away $1 billion. Should we also help the stockholders and executives of the buying companies? Did defense companies offer the taxpayers a rebate during the boom years of the 1980s when their profits reached unprecedented levels? Third, the Defense Department has no business encouraging or shaping the restructuring of defense industry, or as Deutch puts it, ``promoting the rational downsizing of the defense industry.'' Who is to determine what is rational? A government bureaucrat or the market? While government shouldn't discourage restructuring, it should stay at arm's length. If the deal does not make good business sense, the company will not proceed, as Martin did not when the price for Grumman became too high. Moreover, might not these mergers create megacompanies that will reduce competition and may be very difficult for the political system to control? The Lockheed Martin Loral giant, for example, is larger than the Marine Corps. With facilities in nearly every state and 200,000 people on its payroll, its political clout is enormous. And it presents problems over and above its sheer size. For example, Loral sells high-tech components to McDonnell Douglas for its plane, which is competing with Lockheed Martin for the $750 billion joint strike fighter program. How can Loral be a partner in promoting the McDonnell Douglas plane against the Lockheed Martin entry? Fourth, past history indicates that these mergers end up costing rather than saving the government money. Both the General Accounting Office and the Department of Defense Inspector General have found no evidence to support contentions by Deutch and defense industry officials that previous mergers had saved the government money. Indeed, on May 24, 1994, the Inspector General found that the claim of Hughes Aircraft that its 1992 purchase of General Dynamics missile division saved the Pentagon $600 million was unverifiable. Moreover, under the Deutch clarification, contractors can be reimbursed now for savings that are only projected to occur in the distant future. And if these savings do not occur as projected, how will the Pentagon get its (our) money back? bring back the merger watchdogs Mergers always have been and always will be a feature of the U.S. defense industry. And the government has a role in those mergers. But that role--as exemplified by the successful 1992 Bush administration challenge of Alliant Techsystem's proposed acquisition of Olin Corporation's ammunition division--is to ensure that they preserve sufficient competition to enable the Pentagon to get the best price for the taxpayer. It is definitely not to increase company profits and limit competition by subsidizing the merger. Not only should the Defense Department abolish the new merger subsidy, it should follow the lead of its predecessors and scrutinize the anticompetitive aspects of all future mergers.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the finest men I have ever known, George D. Webster, a prominent Washington lawyer, recently passed away. Mr. Webster was originally from Rogersville, TN, which is not in but is very close to my district. He attended college in my district, at Maryville College, and then graduated from the Harvard Law School. While he achieved great success in the practice of law, he never forgot his roots in Tennessee. He maintained a farm in Hawkins County and was one of the strongest supporters of Maryville College. While he was a close friend to some of the most powerful and successful people in this Nation, he never lost the common touch. He was a kind and bighearted man who got along well with people from all walks of life. Mr. Webster was an extremely hard worker and was nationally recognized as an expert in tax law and the law of associations. He helped thousands of people in both big and small ways throughout his life and career. An active, loyal, and dedicated Republican, he was not a man who sat on the sidelines. He was interested and involved in the big issues and campaigns for many, many years, right up until his last few days. He was particularly close to former President Bush, Senator Dole, my late father, and me. He was a good citizen. He participated and contributed. He loved this country, and we would have a stronger Nation today if we had more people like George Webster. He was a strong family man who deeply loved his wife and children. To put it very simply, but very accurately, George Webster was a great person and great American in every way. Dr. David L. Hale, Sr., pastor of the Rogersville Presbyterian Church, delivered a very moving and appropriate eulogy at a service held in honor of the life of George Webster at All Saint's Episcopal Church in Chevy Chase on June 7. I would like to place this outstanding tribute in the Record at this point and call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. This very fine eulogy really captured the essence of George Webster, and I hope it inspires others to try to live their lives to the high standards by which he lived. George Drury Webster (February 8, 1921--June 3, 1996) (I wish to thank the family for the deep privilege and honor of being asked to participate today in this Service of Thanksgiving and remembrance of George Webster. They have all been so kind in seeing to my every need during my short stay in Washington. The room, board and personal chauffeuring have all been gratefully appreciated. I also wish to thank Father Richard Norman for his gracious spirit in helping me to prepare for our worship service in this beautiful All Saints' Episcopal Church. He has been most kind and helpful.) First of all, I wish to make a clarification about my name: I am not the David Hale of Whitewater infamy! I am from East Tennessee! In this service of worship we seek to find courage and strength from the reading of God's holy Word, from singing hymns of promise and hope, and praying that God will help us as we share together in our loss of George Webster. We will surely miss him. George Drury Webster was a special, unique, one-of-a-kind individual. And what a marvelous heritage he leaves for us to appreciate, emulate and nurture! Here was a man who believed in simple values, and transformed them into deep-seated convictions; convictions he held tenaciously and for which he fought most vigorously. There can be no doubt that George Webster fervently loved life, his work, his Country and State, his family and friends, and his God. This great Tennessean totally immersed himself in God's good fight of life and made the most of it. George pulled out all the stops! He genuinely enjoyed living in this grand age of challenge and opportunity. He was a vibrant, spirited, robust person, intense and impassioned. Such energy and drive as he exhibited are rarely seen. George was totally involved in every activity of his life. His zest and enthusiasm were contagious and inspired many of us. His work was exhilarating to him. Fiercely competitive, he never gave up. Being around George made the practice of law more exciting than a John Grisham novel! George Webster possessed a gifted mind, a keen intellect. He was one who excelled at debate; now--who here is unaware of that! And his lively wit was a delight to each of us. George had a way of being brief, succinct, perspicacious, blunt and to the point. His books are typical examples of that approach. George believed in education and trained his mind at the Rogersville, Tennessee, High School, Maryville College (Some people in East Tennessee pronounce it as ``Murraville'' College!), and Harvard Law School. Yes, George loved life, and brought all of his considerable skills and amazing experiences and opportunities to gain the most from it. George Webster loved his work. He was a hard worker who learned quickly. Excellence always beckoned to him and be pursued her relentlessly. He was completely dedicated to his calling and focused on his tasks with singular vision. He was tough, practical, and highly successful. He readily discovered how to use the American enterprise system to serve others and improve his family's life. George became a recognized expert on non-profit tax and trade association law, renowned nationally and internationally. He must have been one of the best organized administrators in history. Yet this truly great man never lost the human tough. George constantly reached out to others to give encouragement and a helping hand. He was a kind and generous man. George Webster deeply loved his Country, this great land of America, and was one of America's most loyal patriots. During W.W.II he served in the Navy in the Pacific Theater, where he was involved in some major battles. He left seminary training to go to Pearl Harbor. George relished being in the company of the great leaders of this Nation, and considered it a high honor and privilege to be able to advise and serve them. He rubbed shoulders with those in power and contributed immensely to the betterment of their leadership due to his expertise, friendship and zeal. But George never forgot his roots in Hawkins County and Rogersville, Tennessee. You have to understand such roots to learn how George got from point A to point B. His ancestry consisted of some rather rugged pioneers, also with deep convictions, who eventually pushed their way to the frontier points of this ``New World.'' By the way--he would have dearly loved to invite you to visit the many attractions of the State of Tennessee, especially during the grand Bicentennial celebration this year! George was a true Tennessee Volunteer and would want you to see what affected him so greatly. As was true of all of his many endeavors, George invested himself fully in the Republican Party which benefited inexpressibly from his enthusiasm, labors and contributions. He was highly supportive of candidates and incumbents from East Tennessee and other regions, and enjoyed entering them with various socials at his Bethesda home and on his beautiful farm in Tennessee. Many of you present could speak volumes of this beneficence on George's part. You, too, have been helped and inspired by this rare individual. George Webster was a proud family man. There is his immediate family: his beloved wife, Ann (``Tutti''), always loyal, supportive and by his side; the children: Aen, George and Beverly, Hugh and deLancey and all of the beautiful grandchildren. George had a special love and pride for each one. And I have grown to love and appreciate this expanding family. I have had the privilege of welcoming them to church, participating in a Baptism service, and visiting with them at the farm on various occasions. (And thinking of George's love for both family and life, he would certainly be in favor of celebrating George's and Beverly's tenth wedding anniversary today.) There is the family from which George came: the rugged and bright Scotch-Irish, the Northern English Protestants and the Huguenot folk. There were Joseph and Mary Amis Rogers for whom Rogersville is named, and the whole line of military officers, educators, physicians and ministers. George was very proud of his ancestry. Then there is the vast, broad, extended family of George's. Who can number them all? There are those who helped in the Webster home; the ones who worked on the farm; and all of the many friends and colleagues he enjoyed at work, in organizations, church, clubs and social circles. Finally, George Webster loved his God. He was a man of faith, one who cut his religious teeth on the Presbyterian Catechism; who grew up in the Presbyterian faith and, in Maryland, loved and attended this beautiful All Saints' Episcopal Church. On occasion he would go back to the Rogersville farm and worship in town on Sundays in his home church. George's death leaves a huge void in our lives--especially those of the immediate family. Here was a truly remarkable man who walked among us. Overcome by disease, this tireless, loving, human being finally wore out. We are thankful to God that his suffering has ended. But his departure from this earth leaves us saddened and somewhat alone. We need comfort, strength, courage and hope for the facing of this moment and the hours, days and weeks ahead. We have read and heard several passages from God's written Word this morning, and God is the source of our comfort and consolation. From 1 Corinthians 15 we find Paul teaching us emphatically that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a reality, and that death can no longer sting with any finality, that there is an eternal life waiting for us. From Psalm 121 we are assured that God alone is the source of strength that counts in our hard and difficult times: ``Our help cometh from the Lord which made Heaven and earth.'' In Romans 8 we are promised that the love of God will never be separated from God's people in Jesus Christ. Not even death can remove us from the presence and love of God. Psalm 23 reassures us that God is like a compassionate shepherd who is constantly looking out for his sheep, and always sees to the best care of his flock. ``I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me. . . And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.'' In John 14 Jesus promises that there will be a place for us in His eternal home. And that He will come again to escort us to our new ``mansion.'' George has found his place there in Heaven already. Maybe it will help us to know in our moments of sadness, that someday we too will find our way there to our special eternal room, and rejoin George for a glorious and happy reunion in the presence of God.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, American soldiers and sailors should not be sent to foreign battlefields except under the command of American generals and admirals. Even then, they should not be sent unless there is a very clear vital U.S. interest or threat to our national security. Neither of these is present in Bosnia, Haiti, or some other recent foreign social work projects undertaken by our military. I would like to place in the Record the following article from the American Legion magazine pointing out U.S. military men and women take an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution not the United Nations. [From the American Legion, July 1996] Oath of Uncertainty (By Cliff Kincaid) I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States Against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, So help me God.--The oath of enlistment The future looked bright for 22-year-old Army Specialist Michael G. New. He had been decorated for his service in the Persian Gulf War and seemed to have a promising military career ahead of him. But that was before he was ordered to serve in a United Nations military unit, wearing a U.N. insignia on his shoulder and a U.N. cap on his head. When New refused--citing his oath as a soldier to the U.S. Constitution--he rekindled a firestorm of controversy about the meaning of the soldier's oath as well as the soldier's right to refuse orders he deems ethically or procedurally objectionable. It is a debate whose overtones take us back a half-century to arguments raised in the aftermath of Nazi atrocities. New himself was willing to accept a different assignment (under U.S. command in his own Army uniform) or even an honorable discharge. The Army chose to court-martial him. In a complex legal case that will continue to be argued in Congress and the courts, New received a bad-conduct discharge as well as a stigma that will follow him the rest of his life. From the beginning, the military oath has been considered a soldier's sacred connection to America's Founding Fathers and the Constitution. ``When taking the oath,'' says one Army pamphlet, ``you accept the same demands now that American soldiers and Army civilians have embodied since the Revolutionary war.'' The first Officer's oath was in fact established in 1776 by the Articles of War under the Continental Congress. It required the officer to ``renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience'' to King George the Third of Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution carried this patriotic impulse one step further, declaring in Article I, Section 9 that no U.S. official or officer ``shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince or foreign state.'' In a filing in the new court case, the Army conceded that the U.N. insignia and caps had not been approved by the Army and that a U.N. identification card ``is the only identity document required in the area of operation.'' Nonetheless, the Army's designated spokesperson on the New affair, Lt. Col. Bill Harkey, says this would not have amounted to serving under foreign command. ``The president [of the U.S.] never surrenders command of U.S. troops,'' maintains Harkey. He adds that ``nobody was asking [New] to shift his allegiance. Over his left breast pocket it still says, `U.S. Army.' '' Unconvinced, New continues to insist that serving the U.N. and wearing its symbols was a blatant violation of his oath. ``As an American soldier,'' he says, ``I was taught and believe that the Constitution is the fundamental law of America, and if there is any ambiguity or conflict with the U.N. or any treaty or international agreement or organization, that the U.S. Constitution would always prevail. My Army enlistment oath is to the Constitution. I cannot find any reference to the United Nations in that oath.'' As for the argument that New's disobeying of orders had the potential to disrupt military order and discipline, his lawyers, led by Marine Colonel Ron Ray (retired), point out that the oath says the orders have to be ``according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.'' The orders, in other words, must be lawful. This raises issues about the individual responsibility to choose between right and wrong that hark back to Nuremberg and the infamous ``I was just following orders'' defense. New's superiors suggested that he study the U.N. Charter, the governing document of the international organization. New did so--and concluded that it was ``incompatible'' with not only the U.S. Constitution but also the Declaration of Independence. The military judge in New's case elected to sidestep the matter of the Constitution and the deeper meaning of the oath, focusing instead on his the relatively simple issue of his refusal to live up to an agreement he had signed. As Army spokesperson Harkey puts it, ``The oath says, `I will obey the orders of the officers appointed above me. . . .' ``However, the military panel refused to send New to jail, a possible indication of sympathy for his plight. In the past, mostly in times of war, U.S. soldiers have temporarily served under foreign commanders or in U.N.- authorized operations; indeed, the Persian Gulf War was backed by the U.N. Security Council. The Congress has passed a U.N. Participation Act, authorizing military involvement with the U.N. under limited circumstances. The Clinton Administration has gone even further by issuing a secret pro-U.N. Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25) that has been withheld from Congress. In the public version of this document, entitled ``The Clinton Administration's Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations,'' the president pledges that he ``will never relinquish command of U.S. forces''--but he also reserves for himself the authority to place troops under ``operational control'' of a foreign or U.N. commander within the approval of Congress. Harkey emphasizes that operational control is not the same as being under foreign command--and he uses the Bosnia peacekeeping mission as a case in point. He says the U.S. Task Force commander reserves the right to act in the best interest of our troops and may in fact oppose a foreign commander's orders by going up the U.S. chain of command. In any case, it wasn't until the Clinton administration that U.S. soldiers started receiving orders to wear U.N. symbols on their uniforms. Part of the fallout from the New case has been the introduction of legislation in Congress to prohibit this practice. Aside from being ordered to wear the U.N. ``uniform''--the insignia on the sleeve and the blue cap--New was told to report to Brig. Gen. Juha Engstrom of the Finnish Army, the Commander of the U.N. Preventive Deployment forces in the former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia. Engstrom had said of his position, ``This is a very unique and historic opportunity. Before Macedonia, a non-American or non-NATO officer has never before had command of an American battalion abroad . . . .'' As of Jan. 11, 1996, official Department of Defense figures showed that a total of 69,847 U.S. forces were participating in, or acting in support of, U.N. operation or U.N. Security Council resolutions. This includes 37,000 troops in Korea. Though much effort is expended in official Washington circles to down-play the implications of such situations, there are times when the reality blares forth in dramatic fashion. When a U.S. helicopter was shot down by Korean communists in December 1994, the body of the American pilot, Chief Warrant Officer David Hilemon, was returned in a coffin draped with a blue U.N. flag, and was handed over to a U.N. honor guard. And in April 1994, after American personnel participating in a U.N. mission were downed over Iraq, Vice President Albert Gore stated that the casualties ``died in the service of the United Nations.'' That ideology has inspired a good deal of discomfort in the ranks. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Ernest G. ``Guy'' Cunningham has undertaken a controversial study of U.S. involvement in U.N. operations titled ``Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion.'' Cunningham asked a group of 300 Marines if they agreed or disagreed with the statement that, ``I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier.'' Fifty-seven percent disagreed.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, we can learn a great deal from small children. I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the following article from the ``American Legion Magazine''. These small children described in this article certainly know the difference between ``art'' and desecration of the American flag. Infamous Artists (By Joe Stuteville) Holland Cortright, a second-grader at Paradise Mountain Christian Academy near Phoenix, Ariz., may be too young to understand the artistic differences between a Van Gogh painting and a ``Where's Waldo?'' illustration--but she does know what she likes. When the Phoenix Art Museum this spring unveiled a special exhibit in which American flags were physically desecrated, Holland knew immediately what she didn't like. And she decided to do something about it: ``Dear Sirs, Don't treat our American flag like you are. Putting it in a toilet is disrespectful. When you step on the flag it's like stepping on the people who died for our country. . . Our country isn't going to be a country without our flag. We love our flag!!'' Eight-year-old Holland and several of her classmates at Paradise Mountain Christian Academy were upset by local news coverage of the exhibit, Old Glory: The American Flag In Contemporary Art. Teacher Shelley Clinite suggested they write the museum to express their feelings. The display to which Holland's letter refers had a flag stuffed into a toilet and was surrounded by jail bars. Another display invited visitors to walk across a flag spread on the floor and write their thoughts in a book. Yet a third flag had human hair and flesh woven into the fabric. The youngsters were joined in their outrage by American Legion family members from Phoenix and throughout the state, who urged the museum to raise the white flag on its controversial exhibit. Museum officials declined the request, adding that to do so would infringe upon the First Amendment rights of artists featured in the exhibit. ``We don't question any citizen's right to free speech or freedom of expression,'' says James Phillips, commander of The American Legion Department of Arizona. ``In fact, Legionnaires defend the basic rights and freedoms of all citizens as outlined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. But this particular exhibit was violent and offensive because it highlights obscenity, oppression and desecration of our flag.'' Arizona Post 1 member Pete Montoya and his son, Fabian, were among the thousands who visited the exhibit during the early days of its run. When they observed the flag on the floor--a veritable doormat for the disillusioned--they were moved to respond. Onlookers cheered when the father and son picked up the flag, carefully folded it and removed it. ``I didn't want anyone stepping on it,'' 11-year-old Fabian told reporters at the scene, Museum curators replaced the flag later that day. It was clear the museum had no intention of either closing or toning down the exhibit. So Legionnaires and other flag- loving citizens decided to exercise their own First Amendment rights. At high noon on April 28, an estimated 2,500 people gathered outside the museum to express their love and respect for the U.S. Flag and the ideals it represents. The occasion was an excellent forum to explain publicly why a constitutional amendment is the only legal means by which the flag can be protected from physical abuse. ``We stand firmly with the people of Arizona and across this great land who find this display of hateful disrespect for the flag truly objectionable,'' said retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, board chairman of the Citizens Flag Alliance, Inc. (CFA). The Medal of Honor recipient of the Vietnam War was invited to make remarks at the gathering, along with Arizona Legion leaders and other CFA activists. ``Most Americans find this exhibit a slam against the basic values and respect for institutions most hold dear,'' he said. The youngsters from Ms. Clinite's second-grade class were among those in attendance at the Phoenix rally. In an area not known for its rainfall, misty eyes were common as the kids recited the Pledge. ``It is heartwarming to know citizens from every walk of life, every age, creed and color consider the American flag a symbol to be cherished, protected and respected,'' Phillips said after the rally. Nor was all of the attention confined to Phoenix. Many in Kentucky, Minnesota, Massachusetts and New Jersey opened up their newspapers that Sunday and saw advertisements about the museum exhibit. The ads contained information about how their congressional lawmakers voted on the proposed flag amendment in 1995. Senators Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., and John Kerry, D-Mass., joined with 33 of their Senate colleagues to defeat the amendment last December. Bob Torricelli, D-N.J., was among the 120 House members who voted against a similar amendment in June 1995, but that chamber still passed the amendment by the required two-thirds vote. The advertisement included a toll-free telephone number for readers to call and comment about the exhibit or discuss how their lawmakers voted. More than 75 percent of the callers said they support the amendment and requested more information. The Phoenix exhibit opened in mid-March and was set to close in mid-June, a few days after Flag Day.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] and the ranking member of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. I seriously doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal Government needs another study. But if one is needed, then we should let the groups and the companies which are for and against this fund these studies. In addition, we can hold hearings on this without requiring the taxpayers to fund any new studies. I know there are good and well-intentioned people on both sides of this issue, but this question has already been much studied since this rule was first imposed during the Eisenhower administration. As has been pointed out, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Hall recently wrote that this study, ``may replace or delay other safety studies scheduled for accomplishment during fiscal year 1997.'' The Federal Aviation Administration, as a result of its studies and its one-level-of-safety initiative, concluded just this past December that the age 60 rule should not be changed and, moreover, the FAA has recently applied the age 60 rule to commuter pilots. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment and I urge its support.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It would add unnecessary delays and added costs to almost every highway project across the country. More importantly, it would go very much against one of the leading recommendations of the most recent White House Conference on Small Business, which adopted as one of its main planks this statement: At the Federal, State, and local levels, laws, regulations, and policies should prohibit direct government-created competition in which government organizations perform commercial services. That hits right at the heart of this amendment. This amendment goes against that leading recommendation. It would be very harmful to small business, it would be very costly to the taxpayer, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thought the following recent article from the Asheville Citizen Times about the formation of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park might be of great interest to some of my colleagues and many readers of the Record. Mass Eviction Unique to Smokies (By Clarke Morrison) As a birthday gift on an August day in 1970, Glenn Cardwell drove his 85-year-old father back in time to a place that had been their home. The sight of the beautiful cove, absent the farmsteads and families that once dotted the rolling landscape, prompted a pained recollection of the forced exodus that cleared the way for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. ``He said the thing he hated most was losing our neighbors,'' Cardwell said of his father, Bill, who died a few months after the visit. ``You can buy a farm anywhere, but tearing up your community does something to your spirit.'' The Cardwells lived at the mouth of Greenbriar Cove near the park's northern boundary, and so were among the last to have their land condemned by the government. They watched as friends and relations moved on. ``They went different directions where the winds of interest were blowing,'' said Cardwell, a supervisory park ranger who will retire in September. ``Some to Virginia, some to Georgia . . . Ten families went to New Mexico. My sadness was watching them leaving us. I remember a lot of them hugging my mother and father and crying.'' This mass eviction distinguishes the Smokies, home to farms and communities for more than 100 years, from all but a few national parks. For other major parks such as Yellowstone, Congress merely carved them out of lands already owned by the government. And for the most part, these were places where no one wanted to live anyway. But land in the mountains of Western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee was owned by hundreds of small farmers and several large timber and paper companies. The Smokies was the first national park to be created totally from privately owned land. Quite understandably, the farmers didn't want to be pushed out of the family homesteads where they had lived and tilled the soil for decades, and the companies were reluctant to abandon their timber reserves, miles of railroad tracks, systems of logging equipment and villages of employee housing. There were an estimated 1,200 to 1,400 families that had to be moved out, said Tom Robbins, a park ranger and historian who gives programs at the Oconaluftee Visitors Center near Cherokee. ``Obviously there were hard feelings all the way around, and still are,'' he said. ``People were uprooted. ``Some people tried to look at it from a positive standpoint, particularly those who had farms that were sort of played out. But plenty of people had no desire to sell, but had no choice. It was particularly hard on some of the older people. They figured that was where they were going to die and be buried.'' seeds of the park The idea of a public land preserve in the Southern Appalachians started in the late 1800s, and by the early 20th century the federal government was under pressure to make the concept a reality. The strongest supporters were based in Asheville and Knoxville, Tenn., and the two groups were competitors over the location of the park. Finally they put aside their differences and agreed it should be in the heart of the Smokies, halfway between the two cities. The movement was spurred in large part not by conservationists, backpackers or fishermen, but by motorists. Members of newly formed auto clubs wanted good roads through beautiful scenery on which they could drive their cars. legislation approved In May of 1926, President Calvin Coolidge signed a bill that provided for the creation of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Virginia's Shenandoah National Park. The legislation allowed the U.S. Department of the Interior to assume responsibility for a park in the Smokies as soon as 150,000 acres of land had been bought. But the government was not allowed to buy land for national parks, so boosters had to turn their attention to raising money. In the late 1920s the legislatures of North Carolina and Tennessee each appropriated $2 million for land purchases, while individuals and groups contributed another $1 million. But by 1928, the price of the land had doubled and the fund-raising campaign came to a halt. Finally the needed funds were in hand when a major foundation endowed by John D. Rockefeller pledged $5 million. However, even with the money in hand, actually acquiring the land proved a tedious task. There were some 6,600 tracts that had to be surveyed, appraised and their price haggled over. Many times, the land had to be condemned in court. It was tough for many to leave their homes and their ways of life. Some, particularly if they were too old or sick to move, were allowed to remain under lifetime leases. Others were granted shorter leases, but they could not cut timber, hunt or trap. The park's first superintendent arrived in 1931. Three years later North Carolina and Tennessee transferred deeds for about 300,000 acres to the federal government, and Congress authorized the development of park facilities. Standing at the Rockefeller Monument at Newfound Gap on the North Carolina-Tennessee line in September 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt formally dedicated the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. the park's development By then, much of the early work to develop the park had been accomplished by the Civilian Conservation Corps, an agency formed during the Depression to provide work for the legions of unemployment. At its peak in the late '30s, the CCC had more than 4,300 young men building roads, trails, stone bridges and fire towers, the park's first campgrounds, as well as the Oconaluftee Visitor Center on the North Carolina side and the park headquarters in Tennessee. ``There wouldn't have been any early development of the park without the CCC,'' Robbins said. Work on the park stopped in the early 1940s when America entered World War II, and the National Park Service's budget was cut drastically. Robbins said the Smokies and the country's other parks saw no significant funding until the mid-'50s when Congress infused the agency with new money for a major, 10-year recovery program. And the Smokies benefited. It was during that time that the observation tower on Clingmans Dome and the Sugarlands Visitor Center were constructed. Campgrounds and other facilities were renovated. Since then, it's been a matter of maintenance. Little new has been built in the park over the past 30 years, and the old structures become more worn and in need of repair with each passing year.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege to attend a ceremony in Blount County, TN during which Coach Galen Johnson, Jr. was recognized a one of the leading high school basketball coaches in the country. Coach Johnson made Porter High School a State basketball power for over a quarter of a century. He had a phenomenal record of success over the years. His overall record consisted of 735 victories, averaging more than 30 wins per season. Settling for nothing less than 100 percent from his players, Coach Johnson led Porter High to three State championships in 1959, 1963, and 1967. In addition to these championships, his teams were in contention for several other titles as well. I request that a copy of the State of Tennessee House Joint Resolution No. 543, a resolution to congratulate Coach Galen Johnson, be placed in the Record at this point so that I can call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Tennessee House Joint Resolution No. 543 A Resolution to honor and congratulate Coach Galen Johnson, Jr. on the Porter Elementary School gymnasium being named in his honor. Whereas, the Tennessee General Assembly was pleased to learn that one of the greatest high school coaches of all time, Galen Johnson, who made Porter High School a state power for a quarter of a century, will be specially recognized by having the Porter Elementary School (which used to be Porter High School) gymnasium named in his honor; and Whereas, his phenomenal record of consistent success as a High School Basketball Coach from 1955 to 1979 has rarely been equaled; and Whereas, his teams compiled an exemplary overall record of 735 victories and 167 losses, an enviable winning percentage of .815; and Whereas, his teams won an average of 28 games per season and won 20 or more games for 24 consecutive years, a national record; and Whereas, his Porter High School teams won three State Championships in 1959, 1963 and 1967, finished State runner- up twice in 1969 and 1978 and third in the State twice in 1964 and 1971; and Whereas, Coach Johnson guided teams to the State Tournament an incredible 18 to 21 years; and Whereas, he took teams to the regional tournament 23 of 24 years and placed either first or second in 20 of those 23 years; and Whereas, his teams never finished lower than second place in the district; and Whereas, Coach Johnson was chosen District Coach of the Year seven times; and Whereas, he coached 18 All-State players, including two who were later named AAU All-Americans; and Whereas, Coach Johnson spent 45 Years as an Active Coach, including his last four as an Assistant Coach at Maryville College; and Whereas, in 1990 Coach Johnson received the highest honor that a Tennessee Coach can receive when he was named a member of the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame; and Whereas, team members, students, parents, fans, sports writers and even opponents have lauded his numerous significant contributions to the Porter High School athletic program and to high school basketball in general, using a long list of appropriate adjectives including ``great'', ``mentor'', ``character builder'', ``one of a kind'', ``determined'', ``expert'', ``professional'', ``outstanding'', ``adept'', ``hard worker'', ``awesome'', ``extraordinary'', ``role model'', ``winner'', ``one of our best and brightest'', ``tremendous poise under pressure'', ``dedicated'', ``diligent'', ``rare'' and ``acclaimed''; and Whereas, it is fitting that we pause in our deliberations to honor and congratulate Coach Galen Johnson and commend him for his service; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of the ninety- ninth general assembly of the State of Tennessee, the Senate concurring, That we honor and congratulate Coach Galen Johnson on the Porter Elementary School Gymnasium being named in his honor and wish him well in his future endeavors; be it further Resolved, That an appropriate copy of this resolution be prepared for presentation with this final clause from such copy.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Professor W.E. Nash, a great Tennessean, recently passed away at the amazing age of 108. Professor Nash was a longtime teacher and principal in Athens, TN. He was a dignified and honorable man who embodied all the old virtues that seem sometimes to be in short supply today. Professor Nash was one of the most respected citizens of McMinn County, TN and was loved by many people. He was a community leader for more than seven decades and was active throughout his life in the Republican Party. I request that a copy of the article about the life of W.E. Nash which appeared in the Athens Daily Post-Athenian be placed in the Record at this point. I would like to call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. [From the Daily Post-Athenian, Apr. 29, 1996] Professor Nash Dies at 108 W.E. Nash, who rose from humble beginnings in Virginia to become an education and community leader in Athens for more than seven decades, died Friday at his home. He was 108. Nash, known as ``Professor Nash'' throughout his distinguished career, served 28 years as the principal at the county's school for black students, J.L. Cook School, retired in 1953 at the age of 66. Among his numerous awards were membership in the Community Builders Hall of Fame and the receiving of an honorary doctorate degree from Tennessee Wesleyan College. He was also the first recipient of the E. Harper Johnson Community Relations Award from the Tennessee Education Association. Local leaders hailed Nash's commitment to education and his influence. Vant Hardaway, supervisor of attendance and transportation for the Athens City Schools, said Nash's influence extended beyond the immediate Athens area because Cook School included students from as far away as North Carolina. Nash's commitment to education and values continue to have effect today, he said. ``It's a great loss to so many people because he affected so many lives,'' Hardaway said. Residents in the area still refer to the discipline and the values they learned from men like Professor Nash and others, Hardaway said. Even in later years when Nash was unable to be active physically, Hardaway said leaders still looked to him for guidance. ``He still would give advice and counsel,'' Hardaway said. `He lived through a real merger of cultures, not just in Athens but definitely in Athens.'' J. Neal Ensminger, editor emeritus of The Daily Post- Athenian, said the Athens area owes a debt of gratitude to Nash. ``This community doesn't realize how much it owes to Professor Nash,'' Ensminger said, praising Nash for being a ``stalwart citizen in education and public affairs.'' Nash, a native of Lunenburg County, VA., told The Daily Post-Athenian in an 1985 interview he recalled leaving a plantation at the age of 4 where his grandmother had worked as a slave cook and had stayed on after the Civil War. He kept his baby sister until he was 8-year-olds, then worked until he was 17. In 1904, he was making 50 cents a day hauling supplies in a mule-drawn wagon when he passed by Blackstone Academy the day the white students were leaving for Christmas vacation. ``They were coming down this walk that led from the school house,'' Nash recalled in the 1985 interview with Fran Ellers, a DPA staff writer at the time. ``They had horns they were blowing--they were just having a good time, to tell you the truth. . . . I said, ``That looks good. I'd like to be into something like that.'' Nash was referred to the all-black Thyne Institute in Chase City, Va., where a student could work his way through school. At the age of 17, he walked 23 miles to Thyne and entered the first grade. Nash graduated in 10 years and had his application in hand to become a Pullman porter when he was called home to care for his ailing mother. The black residents of his hometown organized a private school and paid Nash to become the teacher. Later, he won a scholarship from Knoxville College, where he also ran the work program in the afternoons and served as night watchman from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m. It was at Knoxville where he met his future wife, a registered nurse named Willa Mae Pearson. After graduating in 1922 at the age of 34, Nash came to Athens to lead the black Athens Academy, funded by the United Presbyterian Mission Board in Pennsylvania. The academy burned down in 1925 and Nash was considering other job offers, but community leaders asked him to stay and he agreed. Construction of the county-funded J.L. Cook School began in 1926, and the school opened Nov. 12 that year with Nash as the principal. The school begin with 150 students, and eight years later the enrollment was at 375 students from McMinn and surrounding counties, including some from as far away as North Carolina. Nash worked at recruiting students, adding courses and developing an ``on-the-job training'' program. He also set up a type of employment office through the school, and during the Great Depression he gave the test that qualified Athens men to participate in the Works Progress Administration job corps. Nash recalled in the 1985 interview that although black schools weren't high on the McMinn County Court's priority list, he had a friend, Judge E.B. Madison, who supported his efforts. ``I would say, `Judge, now we need badly two more rooms,' '' Nash said. ``He said, `Well, how much are you going for?' '' Nash would tell him, and Madison would write a resolution and sign it. Nash, then, would take the resolution from judge to judge until he got nine signatures to secure the approval for the addition. After retiring as Cook's principal in 1953, he remained active in the community. He was an elder of First United Presbyterian Church, a member of Boaz Masonic Lodge No. 318 and a board member emeritus of Cedine Bible College. In 1985, he headed the list of local dignitaries invited to sit on the platform at the McMinn County Courthouse during President Ronald Reagan's visit to Athens. He was featured in numerous newspaper articles throughout the region and also received recognition on national television programs. Nash was preceded in death by his wife. Local survivors include his niece, Zelma McClure, and his nephew, Walter Nash, both of Athens. Funeral services will be held Tuesday at 3 p.m. at First United Presbyterian Church in Athens with the Rev. Charles Johnson officiating. M.D. Dotson and Sons Funeral Home in Athens is in charge of the arrangements. Complete funeral arrangements are included on Page 2. In the 1985 interview with The DPA, Nash recalled the influence of his mentor, Booker T. Washington, and the ``Let down your bucket where you are'' speech delivered in Atlanta, Ga., in 1895. Nash said he took Washington's advice to heart because he could have left Athens many times. ``But there's good water here,'' he said. ``Real good water.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Dr. James G. McCluskey for his 37 years of service as pastor of Wallace Memorial Baptist Church in Knoxville, TN. His leadership and service has truly blessed Wallace Memorial Baptist Church. Today Wallace Memorial is one of the largest churches in the east Tennessee area with over 3,000 members. It is devoted to its missions outreach which was inspired by Dr. Bill Wallace, after whom the church was named. Dr. McCluskey joined Wallace Memorial as its pastor in 1959 when there were approximately 45 members. At that point, he had held several different high level positions with many agencies and ministries. He had served as the president of the Tennessee Baptist Convention, the Tennessee Baptist Pastor's Conference, the Tennessee Baptist Youth Evangelistic Conference, the Ridgecrest Baptist Assembly, and senior teacher for Evangelism Explosion International. Additionally, he had traveled to several foreign countries on mission work. Most importantly, his love for Christ and his mission to share that love with others has guided Wallace Memorial as the church's membership and programs have grown over the years. Dr. McCluskey has said that the inspiration of his own growth has been ``a wonderful wife and family who sustained and were encouraged. She has been the most stabilizing and encouraging. The church will miss her more than they miss me.'' Several church members are sad to see the McCluskey family leave. Theresa Wilson described it best when saying: For the 14 years that I've been a member of Wallace Memorial Baptist Church and have known Jim and Lib, their ministry has been an example of putting Christ first and self last. Their leadership has always been full of energy and enthusiasm for the Lord and his church. We will sorely miss Jim and Lib and we are thankful for their years of service. Rev. Jim McCluskey recently told the Knoxville News Sentinel: ``The Church is not built on me, but on Christ. The best is yet to be. Move onward, upward and forward and give new leadership the same following they gave me.'' I request that a copy of the article that recently appeared in the Knoxville News Sentinel be placed in the Record at this point so that I can call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Move Onward, Upward (By Bill Maples) Wallace Memorial Baptist Church at 701 Merchant Drive is a huge edifice. Its auditorium seats hundreds. It has a reputation for its far-reaching mission outreach and for its Christmas and Easter programs. It has 3,162 members. But its members are feeling a painful sense of loss this weekend. Dr. James G. McCluskey, its pastor for 37 years, is preaching his last sermon on Sunday. He is retiring. ``There are other things I want to do but not in a full- time pastorate,'' he says. He mentions consulting, teaching, substitute preaching. Then, too, there are children and grandchildren he and wife, Elizabeth, want to visit more, and some traveling they want to do. Dr. Roy T. Edgemon, director of discipleship and family in the development division of the Baptist Sunday School Board, will serve as interim pastor. The church is having a reception at the church Sunday, April 14, from 2 to 4 p.m. The public is invited. It has been a colorful voyage. Wallace Memorial has grown from 45 members when it was founded in 1952 to more than 3,000 members today. What made it grow so rapidly? ``Wallace Memorial was well-born,'' McCluskey says. ``It was started by Arlington Baptist Church in a growing community. It has had good lay leaders and good followers.'' Asked what has been the strength of his own growth, McCluskey says, ``A wonderful wife and family who sustained and were encouraging. She has been the most stabilizing and encouraging. The church will miss her more than they will miss me.'' Before they were married April 2, 1953, she was Elizabeth Ann Peters of Knoxville. Known to members as ``Lib,'' she is a consultant in working with children with the Sunday School Department of the Tennessee and Southern Baptist Conventions. She has been a trustee with East Tennessee Baptist Hospital since 1989 and is president of the advisory board of the Carson-Newman College of Nursing. The couple has four children and eight grandchildren. One son and one son-in-law are ministers. Jim McCluskey, as he prefers to be called, grew up in Chattanooga and earned his bachelor's degree from Carson- Newman in 1952. He went on to earn the master of divinity and master of religious education degrees from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the doctor of ministry degree from Luther Rice Seminary. He has held two other pastorates, in Squiresville and Lawrenceburg, Ky. He came to Wallace Memorial in 1959. He has held various high-level board and advisory positions with at least two dozen ministries and agencies during his career, including president of the Tennessee Baptist Convention; denominational speaker at the Tennessee Baptist Convention, Tennessee Baptist Pastors' Conference, Tennessee Baptist Youth Evangelistic Conference, Ridgecrest Baptist Assembly; and senior clinic teacher for Evangelism Explosion International. He has traveled to several foreign countries on mission work. Wallace Memorial has always emphasized mission work. It has sent forth 42 persons from among its members as spiritual leaders--ministers, ministers of music, teachers and laypeople involved in spiritual missions. It has sent more than 101 mission teams to foreign and American locations on mission and mercy trips. These included emergency disaster teams sent to hurricane locations. Its annual mission giving is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One impetus for this enthusiasm is the inspiration for the church's name--Bill Wallace, a native of Knoxville who died a Christian missionary martyr in China in 1951. When his body was returned to the U.S., he was buried in Greenwood Cemetery. The funeral was held at Wallace Memorial. A room containing Wallace's memorabilia has been set aside by the church. Many members have come forward with a farewell word for the McCluskeys. Typical is that of Theresa Wilson: ``For the 14 years that I've been a member at Wallace Memorial Baptist Church and have known Jim and Lib, their ministry has been an example of putting Christ first and self last. Their leadership has always been full of energy and enthusiasm for the Lord and his church. ``Jim and Lib have truly made Wallace Memorial feel like a large family through their loving and caring attitudes. Wallace Memorial as a church family has been truly honored to have been under the leadership of Jim McCluskey as our senior pastor for the past 37 years. We will sorely miss Jim and Lib and we are thankful for their years of service.'' What message does Jim McCluskey leave with the church? ``That the church is not built on me, but on Christ. The best is yet to be. Move onward, upward and forward and give new leadership the same following they gave me.'' What message would he give to a starting church? ``Focus on meeting people's needs.'' What message would he give a starting preacher? ``Spend as much time preparing yourself as you do preparing a sermon.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief because I understand the managers of this amendment have agreed to accept it. I appreciate their graciousness in that regard very much but I also want to say that I appreciate Mr. Smith's work on this and the work of many others. This amendment, I think, would have received widespread support on both sides of the aisle. I have been told that there are already some 32 companies that have filed approximately 2 billion dollars' worth of claims under this program and I think that if we had not been careful that this would very quickly turn into one of the largest boondoggles in the entire Federal Government. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] both made reference to the $92 million in bonuses that were paid out in one merger, approximately a third of those paid by the taxpayers. One man received a bonus of $9.2 million. I do not believe there is any way that he could have really earned that type of bonus. I think this is a program that really would horrify most taxpayers if they realized that it was going on and is something that we have never done and would not even consider, I don't believe, for 99.9 percent of the small businesses in this country. I am pleased that this amendment is going to be accepted, and I hope it survives in conference.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I intend to get into something else, but just on what the gentlewoman from Ohio has just mentioned, let me say this: Some people think because the stock market is at record highs that that means that everything is OK, but I think we need to ask ourselves, are we really in the lull before the storm? Because in the last 3 years, 1.5 million people have lost their jobs due to corporate downsizing, and as one of the national newscasts reported a few days ago, almost all of the people, unlike in the eighties, almost all of the people who lost their jobs in the nineties have stayed out of work on average about twice as long as in the eighties and they have had to take jobs at far less pay than the ones they lost. In addition to that, we had a $153 billion trade deficit last year, and every leading economist will tell us that conservatively we lose 20,000 jobs per billion dollars. So that means we lost over 3 million jobs due to poor trade policies just in the last year. And then, even more importantly than that, Mr. Speaker, our unemployment rate is relatively low but our underemployment rate is terrible. We have millions of college graduates who cannot find jobs in the fields for which they were trained, and we are ending up with the best educated waiters and waitresses in the entire world. We need to work on these things if we are going to straighten this country out and make it a land of opportunity again, as if should be. liberal bias of national media Mr. Speaker, tonight I wanted to get into the very liberal bias of the national news media. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, the superintendent of the Prince Georges County, MD school system revoked an invitation to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to speak at a graduation ceremony. Another high-ranking Prince Georges official called this action the ``epitome of intolerance and bigotry.'' She was certainly correct. Today, in the U.S.A. Today newspaper, columnist Richard Benedetto, has written an outstanding column about this and about the very unfair way in which the liberal national news media treats conservatives. In fact, this liberal bias, this double standard, is so obvious that longtime CBS correspondent Bernard Goldbert, wrote recently that ``the old argument that the networks, and other media elites have a liberal bias, is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore.'' In fact, the Freedom Forum and U.S.A. Today recently conducted a poll of Washington reporters and Bureau chiefs and found that only 2 percent classified themselves as conservatives. At any rate, back to today's column by Mr. Benedetto. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record. [From the U.S.A. Today, June 10, 1996] Media Silent on Right's Rights (By Richard Benedetto) Picture this: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is invited to speak at an awards ceremony at a suburban Washington, D.C., school. A member of the school board who is also a member of the Christian Coalition objects because Ginsburg supports abortion rights. The board member threatens demonstrations. The school superintendent, seeking to avoid a messy scene, withdraws the invitation. Of course, this never happened. But imagine it did. Women's groups would have been outraged. The American Civil Liberties Union would have denounced it as an egregious breach of free speech. The hue and cry in the media would have made it a national cause celebre. Liberal politicians would have been incensed. A similar incident did occur last month, except the Supreme Court justice was not Ginsburg--it was Clarence Thomas, a conservative and the only black member of the nation's highest court. Remarkably absent from the debate were the free-speech groups that usually rush to the defense of those being prevented from legitimately expressing their views, no matter how controversial. Black and civil rights groups also took a pass. And the national news media largely ignored or played down the story. It's the kind of thing that provides ammunition to anyone who believes the media are in the clutches of liberals. In this case, the complaint wouldn't be that a liberal bias crept into how the story was reported, but that it influenced how the story was played--or not played. Why hasn't more attention been paid? Maybe it's because Thomas doesn't hold the ``right'' opinions. In the lexicon of political correctness, support of abortion rights is good; opposition to affirmative action is bad. And for those with the temerity to go against the grain, the laws of free speech and rules of civility apparently don't apply. One of the few national columnists to defend Thomas was Richard Cohen of The Washington Post. While he doesn't subscribe to all the jurist's views, he argued Thomas has a right to be heard. ``The black inner city has gone to hell in a handbasket while (Thomas' critics) have been leading the African-American community,'' Cohen said. ``If they are so sure that their path is the correct one, they should spend less time vilifying Clarence Thomas and more time engaging in a battle of ideas.'' The invitation for Thomas to speak at the school followed a student field trip to the Supreme Court. There, Thomas was the only justice to invite the students into his chambers. For 90 minutes he patiently spoke and answered questions. The invitation was extended by the PTA as a thank you. Thomas, unlike the other justices, routinely visits with students when they tour the court. These days we walk around wondering why our young people seem to be in the grip of a moral and spiritual crisis. When public officials, community leaders and news media demonstrate such double standards, the reasons why should be clearer.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the original sponsor of the request to name the Veterans' Hospital in Johnson City, TN, after our colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]. I am very grateful to the outstanding chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for including this provision in his legislation which we are taking up today. It is primarily due to the gentleman from Arizona, Chairman Stump, that this action has moved through the process so expeditiously. Congressman Jimmy Quillen was first elected to the House in 1962. He served for 8 years prior to that in the Tennessee State house. For 42 years, he has been elected, every 2 years, to a legislative office by the people of upper east Tennessee. He has never lost an election, primarily because he served his people well, and he never got too big for his britches or let his position go to his head. He has now achieved the record for the longest continuous service of any Tennessean ever to serve in Congress. Congressman Quillen is certainly a living legend. He came up the hard way, 1 of 10 children, in what was considered poverty even many years ago. As he has said, he was poor, but did not know it, because he came from a good and loving family. He has achieved great success, both in business and in politics. At one time he was the youngest newspaper publisher in the State of Tennessee, and he started one of the most successful insurance agencies in our State. Jimmy Quillen served this Nation with honor in the U.S. Navy. He has always had a special place in his heart for our country's veterans, and he has fought hard to protect and support the Veterans' Hospital in Johnson City. On a personal note, for almost 32 of the 34 years, Jimmy Quillen has been in Congress, he has served alongside someone named Duncan, first my father, and now me. He was one of my father's closest friends, and they worked together for almost 24 years. I am now in my 8th year in the House, and during that time, as several people have noticed, Jimmy Quillen has treated me almost like a son. He has been so kind and helpful to me, as he has been to countless thousands in his district and throughout this Nation. I can think of no honor more well-deserved, no honor more fitting and appropriate, than to name the Veterans' Hospital at Johnson City after a truly great American, Congressman James H. Quillen. Mr. Speaker, while I am up, I would like to also commend the gentleman from Arizona, Chairman Stump, as the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for naming the medical facility in Jackson, MS, after another great American Congressman, the gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery, one of the finest and one of the most popular Members in this Congress. He has achieved a record that not many people could match in his 30 years of service in this Congress. Another close friend of our family, Congressman Sonny Montgomery, is one of the finest men that any of us could ever meet, and I am pleased that that facility will be named after Congressman Montgomery.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, Dr. Billy Graham received a well-deserved Congressional Medal of Honor here in the Capitol. In his acceptance speech, he said that our Nation had ``confused liberty with license'' and that we are now ``a society poised on the brink of self-destruction.'' I am a little more optimistic than Dr. Graham, but unfortunately, almost no one would say that he had no reason or justification for his statements. Let me quickly note three recent incidents which would cause Dr. Graham further concern. First, a Federal judge ruled yesterday that a rural Mississippi school had violated the Constitution by allowing prayers over the intercom and classes about the Bible. Second, the top legal adviser for the Governor of Florida said a school prayer bill was illegal because ``we are officially now mandated to be a country with no formal recognition of God.'' Third, a Maryland school superintendent revoked an invitation to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas because he happens to be both black and conservative. Another high official in Prince George's County, where this occurred, called it ``the epitome of intolerance and bigotry.'' These things would not have happened in this country just a few years ago. We should think very seriously about the warning by Dr. Billy Graham.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr. Aaron Pickering for being named as the first place winner in the 1996 Voice of Democracy program and recipient of the Selman Memorial Scholarship Award. This indeed is a great honor and one which Aaron should be very proud to receive. The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary sponsor the Voice of Democracy audio-essay scholarship competition. The program is now in its 49th year and requires high school student entrants to write and record a 3- to 5-minute essay on an announced patriotic theme. ``Answering America's Call'' is this year's theme, and over 116,000 student participated in the program nationwide. It is an honor for the second district and the entire State of Tennessee to be the home of the first-place winner, Aaron Pickering. Aaron is a senior at Halls High School. He is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Pickering. Aaron is an exceptional young man. In addition to receiving the Selman Scholarship Award, he has received numerous awards and honors for his endeavors. America needs more young men like Aaron to strengthen our Nation and secure its future. He is a well-rounded young man who has a bright future ahead of him. I request that a copy of Aaron's winning essay ``Answering America's Call'' be placed in the Record at this point so that I can call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. Answering America's Call (By Aaron Pickering) It's not often that a simple story changes your view of democracy, but I would like to relate one to you that did just that for me. One day in a social studies class a few years ago we were discussing the upcoming student government elections. Some of the students who had been elected to office the previous year began to complain about how the student body treats SGA members. The general consensus seemed to be that students who did not vote in SGA elections did not have the right to complain when things went wrong. That concept seemed fair to me, after all, I always voted in the elections and never openly complained about anything SGA was doing. Amidst all this commotion, my teacher stood up. We all expected him to join in on the attack. We were all in for a shock. He immediately started into a story. Once he had a class in which a girl named Jennifer, the SGA president, was invited into as a special speaker. Jennifer was an outstanding student. She had won the election by a landslide. When the class began she gave an impressive speech about her many ambitions and hopes for student government that year. The class gave her a powerful round of applause. Jennifer basked in the glory for a few moments and then she headed for the door. My teacher stopped her and turned to the class, ``Does anyone have a question for their new president?'' The class just sat there with blank stares. My teacher asked again, ``doesn't anyone have a question for their new president?'' A hand slowly rose in the back of the room. It belonged to a young man named Ralph. Everyone stared in amazement; Ralph never said anything in class, he just sat back there, asleep all the time. Ralph stood up and asked Jennifer what SGA was going to do about the horrible lines in the lunchroom. Ralph explained how he had only 30 minutes at lunch and he had to spend 20 of those waiting in line to get his food. Jennifer responded with a simple ``we're working on it.'' Ralph wasn't satisfied. He went on to propose a system where different classes would go to lunch on a staggered schedule to prevent congestion in the lines. At this point Jennifer was furious. She yelled at Ralph, ``What right do you have to complain about anything, Ralph? You never do anything, you just sit back there and sleep. You didn't vote in the election, so you don't have any say in what we do!'' My teacher rang in, ``Oh yes he does. Jennifer, I'm disappointed in you. You are the president of the entire student body; you represent them--all of them--in the student government. It doesn't matter if Ralph voted in the election or not, you are his president and he has every right to complain about problems and offer you his opinion on how they can be fixed.'' Jennifer stormed out of the room in anger. A few months later Ralph's plan for an improved lunch schedule was implemented and the next year Ralph was elected president of the student body. My entire class sat in silence. I had never thought of it that way; all of this time I had been content to simply vote. But now I realized that voting is only a small part of our duty as citizens. This situation took place in a simple high school government but as I have grown older and can now vote in real local, state and federal elections, the message of the story has never been more important. We elect officials who represent us and they need to know what we are thinking. It is their duty to listen to us and use our opinions to guide their actions. It's a basic concept of representative democracy; we can't have a government of, by, and for the people unless we, the people actively participate in the process. Ralph answered America's call. He stood up and made his opinion known. He shaped the policy of his school. More of us need to take a lesson from Ralph. We can't simply vote and then sit back until the next election. We have to be in contact with our representatives and let them know what we think. Our elected officials are public servants and their job is just that--to serve the public. But they can't serve us unless they know what we want them to do. We must speak up. That is America's call--a call that it makes on each and every citizen, a call that if left unanswered would cause our nation to cease to exist. It will be a glorious day when every American can say that he or she plays an active role in government; it is only then that the American system will reach its full potential--it is only then that America's call will be answered.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2740.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, last night on the national news it was reported that Americans who have lost their jobs in the 1990s have had to stay out of work much longer than those who lost jobs in the 1980s. In addition, those who have lost jobs in the 1990s have almost always ended up having to take jobs paying much less than the ones they lost, paying much less than the ones they lost. One and one-half million people have lost good jobs due to corporate downsizing in the last 3 years. We lost 3 million jobs last year due to our trade deficit with other countries. Our unemployment rate is relatively low, but our underemployment rate is terrible. Most college graduates cannot find jobs in their degree fields, and we are ending up with the best educated waiters and waitresses in the world, yet our Federal Government continues to overtax and even worse overreguate our economy. Today Government regulations and redtape are making it extremely difficult for small businesses and small farms to survive. We hear about economic insecurity, but many have been lulled into a false sense of complacency, primarily because the stock market is high.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Lamar Alexander has written a very insightful article for the Weekly Standard about what he learned during his run for the Presidency. Our electoral process would be better if every American would read this article. I would like to call this piece to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. [From the Weekly Standard, Mar. 25, 1996] What I Learned About How We Pick a President (By Lamar Alexander) While my wounds are fresh, let me offer several ways to fix how we nominate presidents. First, for those who only see it on Inside Politics, let me describe what running for president really feels like (especially when you have just lost). It is like scaling a cliff for three years in the dark to earn the privilege of shooting one NBA-range three-point shot, i.e., the New Hampshire primary. It is like walking above Niagara Falls on a swaying tightrope as the wind blows and the crowd shouts, ``FALL!'' This by itself is one reason to salute Bob Dole for making his way so well through such an obstacle course. Now, to fix the process (although I should proclaim up front and loudly that it is the candidate who must accept responsibility for losing, not the process): Report on those who are actually running for president. It sometimes seemed that 90 percent of the political news during 1995 was about numerous Americans, estimable as they may have been, who had no intention of running or who couldn't win even if they did. Ban the phrase ``the motley crew.'' Referring to those of us actually running, this phrase usually begins to appear after several months of stories about those who aren't running. Isn't it time after 200-plus years of presidential elections to realize that any American looks better rocking on the porch than he (or she) does trudging through the mud buck-naked with spotlights turned on (another way to describe participation in the current presidential nominating process)? Raise the limits on individual giving to campaigns from $1,000 to $5,000. The well-intentioned $1,000 limit, placed into the federal law after Watergate, was meant to reduce the influence of money in politics. As with many federal laws, it has done just the opposite. For example, to raise $10 million in 1995 for my campaign, I attended 250 fund-raising events. This took about 70 percent of my time. I became unusually well acquainted with a great many good Americans capable of giving $1,000 (who probably represent a cross section of one percent of all the people in the country). Wouldn't I have been a better candidate--and the country better off had I been elected--if I had spent more time traveling around America and visiting our allies abroad? (I actually did this during 1994, when I was not meeting nice people who could give $1,000.) Remove the state spending limits. This is step two in the crusade to deal with the phenomenon of the zillionaire in politics. Think of it this way: Say the fifth-grade teacher organizes a contest for class president with water pistols as the weapon of choice; then some kid arrives with a machine gun. Either take away the new kid's machine gun (Bill Bradley suggests a constitutional amendment to limit what individuals can spend on their own campaigns) or give the rest of the fifth graders the freedom to raise and spend enough money to buy their own machine guns. In one week just before the New Hampshire primary, Steve Forbes bought 700 ads on one Boston television station in one week, most of them negative adverting against Dole (plus a few gentler ads against me). Forbes, let us remember, spent almost no time raising his money and had no limits on what he spent per state. The rest of us did. If New Hampshire is most of the ballgame in the presidential primaries, why shouldn't we be permitted to defend ourselves even if we use up all the money the government allows us to spend during the entire campaign? Deregulate the election process. The Federal Election Commission is full of competent people trying to do their jobs (several of whom are about to audit my campaign, which, if everything works out perfectly, will only take only about three years. I am not kidding). The campaigns are grossly overregulated. of the $10 million our campaign raised during 1995, about $1 million went for accountants and lawyers for compliance with the federal rules. Is it really necessary, for example, for the federal government to decide that a candidate's campaign T-shirts need not bear the ``Paid for by . . .'' disclaimer? Fewer rules and full disclosure should be the bywords here. Start the coverage earlier. From the moment the networks began to cover the campaign (this year it was not until late January), you could feel the lift. As a candidate, you can also feel the collapse. I cannot help but think that there are ways--even many months out--to relate the day's news about, say, the failure of the Hartford school system's private-management contract to what the presidential candidates say about how schools should be run. Spread it out. At a breakfast in Washington in November, I said this to my friends in the news media: ``If you guys were sportswriters, you would arrive during the last quarter of the Final Four championship game and claim you had covered the entire basketball season.'' You can imagine how many friends I made with this statement, but I was right. By my count, the news media covered the presidential race aggressively for just 21 days, from the Iowa caucus on February 10 until the South Carolina primary on March 2. Most of what went before consisted of asking people like me, ``Why are you behind Bob Dole 72-3 in the polls?'' at a time when everyone knew Dole and no one had ever heard of me. After South Carolina, the most frequently asked question was, ``When are you going to get out?'' So, most of us did. Let us hope the national political writers never decide to become umpires. The World Series wouldn't last more than one inning. Now, in defense of the media, it is hard to cover a 21-day wild rollercoaster ride, which is what the nominating process has become: 38 primaries in 25 days. Let's change this: Let Iowa and New Hampshire go it alone in February. Then, require all the other states to hold their primaries on the second Tuesday of March, April, or May. This would give winners a chance to capitalize on successes, voters a chance to digest new faces, and candidates a chance to actually meet voters. What do you think would have happened this year if after the surprising New Hampshire primary (Buchanan winning, Dole stumbling, me surging, Forbes falling) there had been three weeks to campaign before a March 12 primary in a bunch of states? Then another month until another set of primaries? Lots more interesting--and lots more conductive to sound judgment by the voters, too. Create a new C-SPAN channel to cover the country outside Washington. Chief executives from outside Washington sometimes make the best chief executives in the country. Why not a cable channel devoted entirely to Michigan governor John Engler's charter schools, San Antonio county executive Cyndi Krier's crime program, Milwaukee's school-choice program? Give these leaders as much C-SPAN face-time as members of Congress. This will give the public more exposure to state and local politicians who might then have a better chance of winning national office. Let the candidates speak more often for themselves. Praise the media here. C-SPAN's Road to the White House on Sunday nights set the pace. I was astonished how many told me they saw C-SPAN's 50-minute coverage in July of my walk across New Hampshire. The New York Times printed excerpts from candidates' speeches, even some very long excerpts. The networks all showed unedited stump speeches of the major candidates. Find the good and praise it. These were always the words of my friend the late Alex Haley. I can find the good easily about this process, even with its flaws. During the last year I walked across New Hampshire meeting several hundred people a day, spent 80 days in Iowa in maybe 200 meetings that ranged from 20 to 300 people, and had at least 50 meetings in Florida with the delegates to the Presidency III straw poll. During most of these meetings I was little known and unencumbered by news media. At least the news media presence was so small it did not disrupt the flow of the session. I remember wishing time after time that anybody who had any sense of cynicism about our presidential selection process could be with me, as a fly on the wall--because they could not be cynical after hearing and seeing and feeling what I saw. The audience always listened carefully. Their questions went straight to the heart of what kind of country we could have, of our jobs, our schools, our neighborhoods, and our families. In meeting after meeting, I came away certain that this is a nation hungry for a vision contest, not one willing to tolerate a trivial presidential election. There is a great market in the American electorate for a full-fledged discussion about what kind of country we can have in the year 2000 and beyond. The reason to make certain we have a properly functioning presidential nominating process is that the presidency itself is our most important institution as we go into the new century, and the debate about who should be that president is our most useful national discussion.