Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am not a chemist. I am not an expert in determining product safety. However, there seems to be conflicting reports about a situation brought to my attention by a constituent. I have serious concerns when the health of children is involved. If there is a possible health risk, then I believe that the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] needs to look very closely at this situation keeping the welfare of children in mind. In June 1994, my office was contacted by one of my constituents, Mael Kersavage, the president of Contemporary Beverages, Inc. Mr. Kersavage said that his company, based in Knoxville, TN, was a distributor of health-oriented beverages. Contemporary Beverages, in conjunction with another firm, developed a sparkling fruit juice beverage in order to offer schoolchildren a healthier alternative to sugar and caffeine laden soft drinks. Mr. Kersavage further states that both the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] allowed this beverage to be served in school cafeterias nationwide. The beverage was endorsed by the USDA as a beverage that could be served in schools during mealtimes. Since Mr. Kersavage served as a distributor for this product, in March 1994, he was contacted by an East Tennessee school system which complained that the beverages appeared to have a strange odor, cloudy appearance, and foreign objects floating in the bottles. After personally inspecting the beverages, Mr. Kersavage was extremely concerned that these contaminated beverages were being offered to schoolchildren. He instructed the school system and his company subdistributors to immediately discontinue dispensing the beverages. Mr. Kersavage learned that approximately 10,000 cases of the contaminated beverages had been distributed throughout the Southeast. He then contacted the FDA in June 1994. After persevering through the FDA's labyrinth of bureaucracy, which was exemplified by being continually transferred from one FDA office to another, he finally was able to present documentation with regard to the contaminated beverages. Mr. Kersavage requested that the FDA recall this product. However, the FDA told Mr. Kersavage that it was the responsibility of the manufacturer to recall the products. For more than a year, my office and Mr. Kersavage consistently contacted the FDA, and Mr. Kersavage provided evidentiary information, including samples of the contaminated product. I, as well as Mr. Kersavage, were concerned about any potential danger to schoolchildren consuming the beverages. I believe that the FDA should protect the health of our school children. Therefore, I think that when instances, such as the one I have described, are brought to the attention of the FDA it should take immediate and appropriate actions to ensure that products consumed by schoolchildren are safe, and the discretion to recall the product should not be left up to the manufacturer.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mrs. Cora Sweatt for being named as the 1996 Tennessee Mother of the Year. This indeed is a great honor and one which Mrs. Sweatt should be very proud to receive. I believe that if we are going to remain a strong country in years to come, we must strengthen the American family. Mothers are special individuals who sacrifice a great deal for their families and especially their children, and often times they are not recognized for their hard work and devotion. I am proud to see that my home State of Tennessee has taken the time to honor a woman like Mrs. Sweatt. She has had great success at balancing many critical responsibilities for the family and even has taken time from a very busy schedule to serve the community as well. I believe that true success is achieved by those who strive for excellency. I want to extend my congratulations to Cora Sweatt for receiving this honor. I request that a copy of the article that appeared in the Daily Post- Athenian on Friday, March 22, 1996 honoring Mrs. Sweatt as 1996 Tennessee Mother of the Year 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. Cora Sweatt Named Tennessee Mother of the Year (By Anissa Hicks) A local woman has achieved one of the highest honors in Tennessee. Cora Beasley Sweatt of Athens has been named the Tennessee Mother of the Year by the Tennessee Mothers Association of American Mothers, Inc. The selection was made from portfolios received by the Tennessee Mothers Association from organizations, churches and civic groups across the state in response to a statewide appeal for groups to nominate worthy mothers. Sweatt was named Athens' Mother of the Year during a Chamber of Commerce Banquet in January. The award was sponsored by the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce and the chamber sent information they compiled on Sweatt to the state. The people nominated for state Mother of the Year had to exemplify the qualities of the ideal mother, based on activities, character, and achievements and success in rearing her children, as evidence of a happy home with a loving husband by her side, reaffirming the importance of spirituality as a key to strengthening family life. From these portfolios of the life of the mother, a jury composed of leaders in religion, education, business, government and child rearing select the 1995 Tennessee Mother of the Year, who then represents Tennessee in Nebraska at the American Mothers Annual Conference in April. ``It's hard to believe I was chosen for this,'' Sweatt said. ``To say the least, I'm deeply honored and very happy. ``I'll do my best to represent the state of Tennessee as Mother of the Year,'' she said. ``I hope and pray I'll represent the state in a positive manner and carry out the purpose of American Mothers, Inc.'' Sweatt said she's looking forward to going to Nebraska at the end of April for the national conference. At the conference, the American Mother of the Year will be announced from all the portfolios of the mothers representing each state and from the appearance and personality of each mother there. Sweatt is the sixth Mother of the Year who has come from the Athens area. The only city in the state that has more is Memphis, said Peggy Arterburn, president and CEO of the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce. Athens and Knoxville now are tied at the same number. ``We are fortunate to have Mrs. Sweatt selected to join with five former Athens honorees, Mary Anne Long, Dixie Liner, Mary Jane Hewgley, Grace Webb and Jean Edgar,'' Arterburn said. A Tennessee Mothers Honor Luncheon will be held April 18 in Athens, hosted by the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce and First Baptist Church, honoring the new 1995 Mother of the Year and Merit Mothers also selected. The state chairman for the mother of the year committee will be at the luncheon, as well as Merit Mothers (runners- up), past mothers of the year, the state's Young Mother of the Year, and special friends of Sweatt's. The city, the state legislature and the governor's office will be presenting Sweatt with proclamations. ``This is a real honor for her and we want to make this special for her,'' Arterburn said. ``This is certainly an honor for the Athens Area Chamber of Commerce and also our community.'' Arterburn said each mother of the year is special and deserves recognition. ``We are very honored that we're always able to submit these great portfolios of local mothers,'' Arterburn said. ``There are very competitive nominations from other parts of the state and it is a great honor for us to say the state mother of the year is also the Athens mother of the year.'' It takes a lot of work on behalf of the Mother of the Year Committee, she said. There is also a lot of written materials the recipient has to get together for her portfolio that has to be submitted. ``There is a lot of work for a lot of people in order for this to happen,'' Arterburn said. ``But we're always willing to do the work when we have the positive results we've had.'' Sweatt expressed her appreciation to the Chamber of Commerce for its support. ``I'm so grateful we have an ever wonderful Chamber of Commerce,'' Sweatt said. ``They do so much hard work to provide us with the services they provide. ``I just want to thank all the people who've written letters of recommendation,'' she said, ``and I have to thank my friends and family for their support. I am indeed grateful to them.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I am introducing legislation today, along with the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], and others that addresses the issue of child pilots. One week ago today, 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff, her father and flight instructor were killed when attempting to set an age record that would have made Jessica the youngest pilot to fly across the United States. Mr. Speaker, I encourage parents to spend time with their children, teach them new things, and expose them to new ideas and challenges. Unfortunately, though, some parents become obsessed with pushing their children up the ladder of success or notoriety at too early an age, and often common sense is displaced by greed and recklessness. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will impose an age limit on any person attempting to set a record with an aircraft. This legislation will stop the type of ridiculous publicity stunts that needlessly killed Jessica last week. Had she been successful, next year we would have seen a 6- year-old or a 5-year-old trying to break this record. Twenty-three similar accidents have happened in the last few years involving child pilots. This legislation will not result in any cumbersome regulations, and I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, introduced by the very capable chairman of the Transportation Committee. I do not want to repeat many of the comments that have already been made here today. But let me say that this, Mr. Chairman, our Nation needs this legislation. No one disputes the fact that we need to spend more than we presently are to repair, maintain, upgrade, and improve our Nation's highway and aviation systems. I have been very fortunate to serve as the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee for 16 months now, so I will speak to the serious needs in our Nation's aviation and air traffic control system. Air passenger traffic is going to double in the next 10 years, from over 500 million a year now to almost 1 billion 10 years from now. I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this House, so I have been very frugal in what and how we spend the taxes that are sent here from hardworking Americans. Mr. Chairman, as it has been said earlier, this issue is a question of fairness to the taxpayer. It is a question of whether or not we should keep our commitment with the people who pay taxes, to this Federal Government, every single day of the year. Every time a person gets on a plane. He or she pays taxes. Every time a person puts gas in their car, he or she pays taxes. Many years ago, Congress established a policy, a pact, with the American people. If you pay these taxes, we here in Congress will turn around and spend them on repairing our highways and bridges and we will update our antiquated air traffic control equipment. Mr. Chairman, the aviation trust fund was established in 1970 to help bring our air traffic control system up to speed. But as we all have seen this has just not been the case. Last year, air traffic control centers suffered more blank radar scopes, dead radios, downed computers, and failed power systems than in any previous year. This 30-year-old equipment causes airplanes to be delayed and certainly shakes public confidence in the safety of flying. There have been air traffic computer failures at FAA centers near Chicago, Dallas, Cleveland, New York, Pittsburgh, Boston, Atlanta, Houston, Oakland, and Miami. In fact, just a few weeks ago the FAA issued a coast-to-coast grounding for aircraft going to Pittsburgh airport because of an outage. While these outages have been occurring more and more frequently, the aviation trust fund has taken in billions, at least $5 billion last year alone, not including the $1 billion in interest. At the end of the last fiscal year, the aviation trust fund has a cash balance of nearly $11 billion. This enormous balance has not accumulated because of any sound policy reason but rather as an accounting gimmick to help hide the size of the Federal budget deficit. Mr. Chairman, experts have testified before the Aviation Subcommittee that airport needs over the next 5 years will total $50 billion. The FAA expects that air travel will increase from over 500 million passengers today, to well over 800 million by the year 2005. This is a 56 percent increase in air travel. And, the FAA has reported that 23 airports across the Nation exceed 20,000 hours of delay per year. Unless significant capacity improvements are made, the FAA expects that by the year 2002, 33 airports will experience delays of 20,000 hours or more, costing millions of dollars annually. In 1995, the aviation trust fund took in $6 billion. The Administration has projected that the aviation trust fund, under current law, will take in $9.2 billion in 2002, a 46 percent increase. Mr. Chairman, I believe Americans are paying too much already in taxes today. Moreover, I have never voted for a tax increase since I have had the privilege of serving in this body. However, in my opinion, if we are not going to spend the taxes we collect for the purpose of which they were intended, then we should return the money to the people. We must take the transportation trust fund off-budget so that we can spend the aviation taxes to improve the safety of the air traffic control system. We must pass H.R. 842 today and not wait until a tragic aviation accident embarrasses Congress into taking action.

Mr. DUNCAN. To some extent, yes. That is correct, I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. DUNCAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. DUNCAN

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

Mr. DUNCAN. I just want to comment to the gentleman from Alabama, I certainly agree with the points he is making. I might make a couple of comments in addition. Any highway project at any time probably has been called pork by somebody. So we almost have a choice of doing no highway construction at all in the country or doing projects that possibly somebody, some small minority someplace, is going to call pork. But we have got to do this construction. All of this legislation we deal with, whatever subject it involves, it has to get specific in many different ways. But we run the risk if this amendment passes that if we get specific in highway legislation from now on, it would put this money back on budget and it would start being used for all these other things, foreign aid and everything else, instead of being used for highway construction and the purposes for which it was designated, which is what the American people want. So I rise in opposition and join the gentleman from Alabama in his opposition to this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Lawrence Paul Leibowitz, a longtime resident of the Second Congressional District of Tennessee, on his 50th birthday. Larry Leibowitz celebrates this joyous occasion surrounded by his loving family and friends. Mr. Leibowitz was born in 1946 in Knoxville, TN and has lived there his entire life. He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Tennessee and is also a graduate of the University of Tennessee Law School. Larry proudly served in the U.S. Army Reserve for 7 years. He married Kay Shamitz, has three children, and is blessed with the addition of his first granddaughter, Rebecca Asher. Larry has been a close personal friend of mine for over 20 years. The very first major jury trial that I tried as a young lawyer in criminal court in Knoxville was done with Larry as my cocounsel and mentor. I tried other cases over the years with Larry, and he tried many important cases in my court after I became judge, including one very difficult death penalty murder case in which he saved a young man from the electric chair. I have learned very much over the years from Larry Leibowitz, and I think that he is one of the finest men I know. Larry Leibowitz is also a leader in the Knoxville Jewish community and has served as the vice president and chairman of the board of Heska Amuna Synagogue. In addition, he has served as the vice president of the Knoxville Jewish Community Center. Larry is active in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Jewish Federation of Knoxville. Mr. Leibowitz is a member of the Master's Lodge 242 in Knoxville and is a 32d degree KCCH of Scottish Rite. He currently serves as counsel for the Knoxville Bar Association and is involved with the Knoxville Museum of Art and the East Tennessee Opera Guild. Politically active for many years, Larry chairs the 46th ward in Knoxville. Larry was recently appointed by Governor Sundquist to the Tennessee-Israel Friendship Subcommittee on Economic Development. As you can see, Lawrence Paul Leibowitz leads an active life and contributes much of his time to his family and community. Mr. Speaker, today, it gives me great pleasure to honor my friend who has served his community so well. I wish him many more happy and healthy years to come. Happy birthday, Larry.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill which includes a very important provision--the line-item veto. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], with whom I have worked so closely on this issue in the past, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when we pass this legislation, I think there is no one in this House who will deserve more credit for it than the gentleman from New York, Jerry Solomon. I congratulate him for his work on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, on the first day of every Congress since I was elected in 1988, I have introduced a line-item veto bill that is almost identical to the provision that we are considering now. While past Congresses have been unwilling to pass a line-item veto with real teeth in it, and in fact we passed one that the Wall Street Journal in 1993 called a voodoo line-item veto bill, I am pleased that today we are on the verge of approving a line-item veto that will truly be effective in reducing pork barrel spending. In fact, the other body overwhelmingly passed this provision yesterday by a vote of 69 to 31. Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. Forty-three of our Nation's Governors, both Democratic and Republican, already have the line-item veto and are using it to cut spending in their States and balance their budgets. It is time for Congress to give this same tool to the President, so that he can eliminate the most outrageous examples of wasteful and unnecessary spending without vetoing entire appropriation bills. The General Accounting Office estimated in 1992 that more than $70 billion of pork-barrel spending could have been cut between 1984 and 1989 if Presidents Reagan and Bush had had a line-item veto. The Cato Institute estimates that $5 to $10 billion a year could be saved with a line-item veto. In last year's State of the Union Address, President Clinton highlighted some of the most absurd examples of pork-barrel spending approved by the 103d Congress, and said ``If you give me the line-item veto, I will remove some of that unnecessary spending.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish we did not need such things as a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto to bring our Federal spending under control. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Speaker, Congress has proven time and again that it does not have the will to cut spending on its own. That is why this legislation is so very necessary today. If the Congress does not really want to cut spending, it will have to say so, and say so publicly. Mr. Speaker, with a national debt of over $5 trillion, we simply cannot afford to withhold this important tool from the President any longer. Former Senator Paul Tsongas, writing in the Christian Science Monitor a few months ago, said that if present trends continue, the young people of today will face average lifetime tax rates of an incredible 82 percent. We must do something about this to give a good economic future to our children and grandchildren. This will not solve our problems by itself, but it will be a big step in the right direction. I urge passage of this very important legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation on which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and many others have worked so hard. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it is true that we are a nation of immigrants, and we are all proud of that. Immigration has been a good thing for this country. But too much of any good thing can become harmful, even destructive. This is what is happening in our country today in regard to immigration. We are not controlling our borders and we are seeing many harmful effects from that. One example is that today 25 percent of the inmates in our Federal prisons are foreign born, most of them illegal immigrants. This is a tremendous expense to our taxpayers. Dr. Donald Huddle of Rice University, who has studied this issue perhaps as much or more than anyone, has estimated that immigrants now cost us at least $51 billion more each year than they contribute, $51 billion. With a national debt of over $5 trillion and our economy on such thin ice, this is a problem that threatens to overwhelm us. This legislation simply responds to the very strong desire of the people we represent as any democratic legislative body should do. A recent nationwide Roper Poll with an extremely high sampling found that 83 percent of the American people want immigration greatly decreased. The same poll found that only 10 percent felt we should do less in removing illegal immigrants from our country. A columnist for the liberal magazine, the New York Republic, wrote recently that ``Sooner or later, Americans must face reality. It is going to be painful. It is on the Statue of Liberty, `Give me your huddled masses.' The trouble is the huddled masses need jobs.'' Perhaps the most important thing this bill does, Mr. Chairman, is that it cuts off all sorts of welfare, Medicare and Medicaid benefits to illegal immigrants. Coming here legally to seek opportunity is one thing and can still be done by hundreds of thousands under this bill every year. But coming here illegally to gain welfare benefits is something else altogether and something which the American people want stopped. We are a nation of immigrants, but much more importantly we are a nation of laws. To immigrate here illegally is plain and simply wrong. One last point, Mr. Chairman: If this bill passes to make our immigration policy more fair and reasonable, we will still be allowing more immigrants in. We will still have more immigration than any other nation in this world. If allowing in the highest number of immigrants of any country in the world is not good enough, then nothing we can do will ever really satisfy the people who oppose this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I understand that extremely big business is against this bill but the American people are for it, and we should be too. We should pass this legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, during the last 3 years, more than 1\1/2\ million people have lost their jobs due to major corporate downsizing, 1\1/2\ million. This was before AT&T announced a reduction of 40,000 jobs, and Ford Motor Co., 6,000 jobs, and on and on. Nor does it count many thousands of employees who have lost their jobs in very small businesses which have closed due to NAFTA, GATT, and other weak trade policies. We had a trade deficit of $153 billion last year, Mr. Speaker. Most economists say that we lose at least 20,000 jobs for each $1 billion. That means we lost over 3 million jobs last year due to imports, 3 million jobs lost to other countries. We simply cannot keep letting this happen every year. We do not want a trade war, Mr. Speaker, but we seem to be in one now and we seem to be losing. We have thousands and thousands of college graduates who cannot find jobs in the fields for which they trained, so they are taking jobs as waiters and waitresses. And certainly this is honorable employment but not what they had hoped and dreamed and worked for. Or they are going to law school or medical school, fields in which there are already huge surpluses. Our unemployment rate is relatively low. We wish it was lower. But while unemployment is fairly low, our underemployment rate is terrible. If we are ever going to do anything about this horrendous under employment, we have to turn this Nation around. We have to show more concern for our own people. We should not be against anybody, but at the same time we need to put our own people and our own Nation first, even if we get called names by the liberal elitists and others who worry about being politically correct more than they worry about anything else. Over riding all of these other problems, Mr. Speaker, is our national debt over $5 trillion. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the reason we are not more concerned about this national debt is that many people do not fully realize how harmful it is to them. Almost every economist tells us that this national debt is really holding this country back economically and that it puts our economy on a very shaky footing. Times are good now for some people, Mr. Speaker, but they could and should be good for everyone. People making $5 or $6 an hour could be making $15 or $20 an hour, or more, if our Federal Government was under control from a spending, taxing, and particularly from a regulatory standpoint. President Clinton, when he was campaigning in 1992, said he could balance the budget in 5 years. Now, in 1996, he reluctantly says 7 years from now is the best we can do. And the truth is that almost no one believes we will really do it even then. The American people should be upset by this. They should be angry. But far too many think everything is all right because the stock market is booming. But could this be the lull before the storm? It will be unless we start doing what is right. The right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, is to balance our budget this year, not 7 years from now. The right thing to do is to lower taxes on working families. The average person pays half of his or her income in taxes now, counting taxes of all types: Federal, State and local, sales, property, income, gas, excise, Social Security, and on and on. The right thing to do is to drastically downsize our Government and decrease its costs. Right now only Government bureaucrats and fat cat Government contractors are benefiting. The few are benefiting at the expense of the many. The right thing to do is to let our own people keep more of their own money so more families could stay together. The kindest, most compassionate thing we could do for our children is to create another high-sounding Government program, but the kindest, most compassionate thing to do would be to let parents keep more of their own money so they can do more good things for their own children. The question is, do we want to spend the money on the bureaucrats and their unbelievable administrative costs, or do we want to spend the money on our children? Even our crime rate, Mr. Speaker, would go down if we could downsize our Government and decrease its cost. I spent 7\1/2\ years as a criminal court judge before coming to Congress. Every study, every single one, shows that almost all felony crimes are committed by men who come from father-absent households. Most marriages; one recent study said 59 percent of all marriages break up over finances. In 1950 the Federal Government took 2 percent in taxes from the average family. State and local governments took a similar amount. Today the Federal Government takes almost 25 percent, and State and local governments a similar amount. Is it any wonder then, Mr. Speaker, that families do not have what they need to stay together and that our crime rate and many other problems grow worse? We can do much better, Mr. Speaker, much better, and almost all our problems would be much less serious if we get our Government under control and let the people take control of this Nation once again.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the worst agencies in the entire Federal Government is the Food and Drug Administration. It is arrogant. It is abusive. It is bureaucratic. If people in this country wonder why medicine costs them so much, they need look no further than the FDA. The bureaucratic rules and regulations and red-tape of the Food and Drug Administration sometimes cause needed safe drugs to be held off the market in this country for years, and sometimes it takes companies many, many millions of dollars to get approval and, as I say, only after years of paperwork and red-tape. There are many safe lifesaving drugs and medical devices kept off the market in this country for years while they are being safely used, saving lives in countries around the world. I remember a couple of years ago reading a front page article in the Wall Street Journal about a device, a medical device used to detect breast cancer, that had been held off the market for years because this small company in Illinois did not bow down to the FDA sufficiently and they had gotten approval in every other country in the world in which they had sought approval, most of the time within just a few weeks. One doctor was quoted saying that this had caused thousands and thousands of women to die from breast cancer because of the bureaucratic delays and dilatory and unfair tactics of the Food and Drug Administration. So that is one reason why I read with such great interest a half page ad that was run yesterday in the Washington Times by a man named Jeffrey N. South of Arnold, MD. He had written a letter, an open letter to his Congressman, and he said this. This letter speaks adequately for itself, and I would like to read as much of it as time permits. It says: March 4, 1996. Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest, U.S. Congressman, Annapolis, MD. Dear Congressman Gilchrest: I have been a citizen of Maryland for most of my life and, until now, have never been moved to address any concern to my Congressman. I have witnessed something recently that deserves your attention. On Monday, February 26, 1996, I attended a Food and Drug Administration Advisory Panel hearing in Gaithersburg, MD. A company called Biocontrol Technology, Inc. of Pittsburgh was presenting a medical device for the Panel's recommendation to the FDA for approval to market. This medical device reads blood glucose levels non-intrusively via light energy. I am not a diabetic but I was exposed to the horrors of what it must be like to be diabetic for the first time in my life. I observed for the entire day a parade of dozens of those diabetics who cared enough to come to the Washington area to testify on behalf of being able to use this new technology towards improving the quality of their lives. Evidently insulin dependent diabetics must perform painful finger prick blood extraction tests numerous times a day in order to determine when they may need insulin. I was amazed to learn that this is such an unpleasant process that over 40% (American Diabetes Association Estimates) of diabetics choose to avoid this painful testing procedure at great risk to their lives. I noticed that their fingers looked like raw hamburger from years of sticking their fingers and extracting blood. This medical device would end all of this. I was amused by a diabetic woman who passed finger sticks to all the FDA Panel members as she gave her testimony challenging each member to experience the pain of just one prick and to imagine doing it many times a day for their entire life. And to imagine being a very young diabetic child that must do this. After ten minutes or so into her testimony she had noticed that not one Panel member had mustered the nerve to perform the stick on their own finger. The entire room of some three hundred plus broke into a laughter of disgust. Most of the day was composed of various questions and discussion between the panel members and the scientists and technicians of Biocontrol Technology. I was absolutely shocked and dismayed that the FDA had delegated decision making authority to this body which openly displayed and admitted to very limited, if any, knowledge of the science behind this new technology. Several of the panelists never even received, much less reviewed, any of the vital supporting material that Biocontrol Technology had provided the FDA over two years ago! It wasn't any wonder that, guess what?!--they could not reach a decision to make this technology available to the diabetic public. As all of this day unfolded I watched the faces of the public and the technology developers to observe that they too were extremely disillusioned and frustrated as they witnessed this government body embarrass itself with its' incompetence and aloofness. What a pathetic display it was of a bureaucratic process meandering in utter confusion. On top of all this, a panel spokesperson disclosed that the FDA can and does exercise wavers for panel members that may have financial or other conflicts with companies whose products are under review. There were several on this panel that did disclose such conflicts and were still permitted to participate. Can you imagine!!! I know now why health care costs have soared over the past several decades. Most medical technology developers have to spend millions upon millions of dollars over years waiting for this meandering, incompetent, and perhaps corrupt government process to wave its' magic wand. I have enjoyed a healthy and carefree life and can only be thankful that I do not have to depend on such a system. I can only feel extreme sorrow for those who are not healthy and must fight a dreaded disease and wait for the workings of a federal agency the likes of which I witnessed. So very sad for those that forge on knowing that technology exists that could be of great value to them but they must gamble years of their life away waiting for some inept government agency. I often hear some say that government is an evil entity and think of those that say it to be extreme. Now I think that they are far more insightful than most of us care to admit. Jeffrey N. South. Mr. Speaker, in this country today, if some individual came up with a cure for cancer, he probably could not get it to market unless he sold out to one of the big drug giants. This agency is very harmful to small business, and very harmful to the health of the American citizens.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, shortly before Christmas, all in the same week, we received the news that three separate plants in my district were closing. The two largest employers in Tellico Plains, in Monroe County, TN, announced that they were moving, one to Honduras, one to Mexico. The largest employer in Etowah, in McMinn County, TN, Morgan Manufacturing Co., a blue jeans manufacturer, announced that it was going into bankruptcy, due primarily to NAFTA. Tellico Plains is a town of about 1,000 people. Etowah is a town of about 4,000. These are beautiful, wonderful places to live, but jobs are not easy to come by. These three companies meant a loss of about 1,000 jobs within roughly a 25-mile radius, and these were devastating blows to both these communities. I got Gov. Don Sundquist and his economic development commissioner to go to both places with me, and we are trying to get some help for these people. But, I wonder how much we can do when there seem to be more companies moving out than moving in, and downsizing seems to be the trend of the day. Then shortly after the first of the year, I discovered that two small textile companies in my hometown of Knoxville were closing due to NAFTA. In this same period I read that Hershey has moved most of its production from Pennsylvania to Mexico, that Fruit of the Loom closed a United States plant and opened a new one in Mexico, and on and on. And of course, AT&T announced that they were downsizing, getting rid of 40,000 employees. Yesterday, Ford announced a cut of 6,000. Altogether, at least 1 to 5 million jobs lost in just the last 3 years to corporate downsizing, and on and on. You have to wonder, Mr. Speaker, where we are headed. Already, most college graduates cannot find good jobs--so they are headed to law school and medical school, both fields with huge surpluses, just to postpone the inevitable. Our unemployment rate, while too high, is not bad, but our underemployment rate is terrible. And yet, we seem to be giving our own country away, through NAFTA, GAAT, the World Bank, foreign aid, our mega-billion dollar military adventures in Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, and now Bosnia. Billions and billions and billions to other countries while our own people head for the unemployment office or have to settle for jobs in fast food restaurants. In the last few weeks, we have been told that last year was the worst ever for the United States from a balance of payments standpoint. We ran a record $111 billion trade deficit. Economists conservatively estimate that we lose 20,000 jobs for each 1 billion, so this means that we lost at least 2,200,000 jobs due to foreign imports this past year. People say don't start a trade war, Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't want one, but it looks like we are already in one and that we are losing. Senator Dole said in South Carolina a few days ago that he would not vote for NAFTA now without some changes in it. This is why many of us are cosponsoring the NAFTA Accountability Act, which says that we need to take another look at NAFTA. Many people now believe that the Congress was given misleading or incorrect information about the Mexican economy, in part at least possibly because the Treasury Secretary had made millions getting his clients to invest in Mexican bonds. At any rate, facts and conditions change, and we need to take another look at NAFTA. We should have free trade, but we shouldn't enter into bad trade deals in order to get trade, especially when all these other nations need our markets far more than we need theirs. I would like to place in the Record an article from the February issue of Chronicles Magazine by E. Christian Kopff, a professor at the University of Colorado. He said an article in Foreign Affairs Magazine in 1994 by Alan Tonelson ``proved that the prosperity of the American automobile, machine-tool, and computer-chip industries in the 1980's, while our television and VCR industries were disappearing, was due to protectionist treaties negotiated under President Reagan. The phenomenal prosperity of the Reagan years rested on protectionism. The Bush-Clinton years undermined that prosperity.'' Then, Professor Kopff wrote: ``In 1993, Goldsmith predicted that multilateral free trade treaties yoking together such unequal partners as the United States and Mexico would cause unemployment in the United States while devastating the Mexican economy. Of prophets and treaties it is true that by their fruits ye shall know them. The December 10, 1994, Economist loudly mocked Ross Perot's prediction of a ``giant sucking sound'' of jobs being drawn into Mexico an quoted outgoing U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Lloyd Bentsen, that NAFTA was ``a win-win situation.'' On December 20, 1994, the Mexican peso collapsed. From the United States perspective, this magnified the advantage of Mexican labor costs. In 1992, excluding transshipments, the United States had a $5.7 billion trade surplus with Mexico. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimated that by the end of 1995 that will have turned into a $20 billion trade deficit. Add to that $25 billion deterioration in our balance of trade the $50 billion bailout loan engineered by Secretary Rubin and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. In Mexico, inflation is estimated at 50 percent, the peso has lost half of its value, but salaries have risen only 20 percent. Unemployment for the poor and bankruptcies for the middle class are at record highs. The Mayans are in open revolt, and the average Mexican is close to despair. ``NAFTA is a typical case of mutual poisoning,'' writes Goldsmith. Michel Camdessus of the International Monetary Fund warned of a world catastrophe. Goldsmith notes, ``Submarines are built with watertight compartments, so that a leak in one area will not spread and sink the whole vessel. Now that we have globalized the world's economy, the protective compartments no longer exist.'' The demoralization of First World nations and the ravaging of the Third World are accomplished for the benefit of international corporations. Goldsmith's summary is as clear as it is chilling: ``Some can still remember the old adage: `What is good for General Motors is good for America.' But that was in the days when the corporate economy and the national economy had the same purpose. Now there are two distinct economies. Not only do they have different interests, but those interests are conflicting. As corporations switch production to the areas with the cheapest labor and then import the products made abroad, they destroy jobs at home and increase the Nation's trade deficit.''

Mr. DUNCAN

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

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of our full committee for yielding me this time. And let me pay a special tribute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for his outstanding leadership in helping move this legislation through our committee and to the floor today, and particularly for the really tremendous job he is doing as chairman of our full committee. H.R. 2276 is an outstanding bill that enjoys widespread bipartisan support here in the House. It will help bring long overdue and needed reforms to the Federal Aviation Administration. I want to also thank my ranking member, the ranking member of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski]. I do not think anyone could have a kinder ranking member than I do on our subcommittee, and we have really worked well together. I want to also though mention for a few moments the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], because I do not think that anyone in the entire Congress knows aviation issues better than the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. He serves as chairman of this subcommittee for many years, and he has really worked well with me in so many different ways, and I thank him for all of that and for this strong support of this legislation. It would not be right though to go any further without mentioning our colleague from Iowa, Mr. Jim Ross Lightfoot. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] really wrote the bulk, or a large portion of this bill, and his activities in regard to this legislation have also been tremendously meaningful in carrying this legislation forward. Last year, the Subcommittee on Aviation held several days of hearings on various proposals to restructure our Nation's air traffic control system. From these hearings, it became very clear that a consensus of members as well as the aviation community supported a independent FAA. This process of which I am very proud has enabled us to develop an outstanding bill that has been endorsed by more than 30 leading aviation groups. No other legislation in regard to aviation has ever had this kind of support. This bill has been endorsed by the Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association, the National Air Traffic Controllers' Association, the General Aviation Manufacturers' Association, the National Business Aircraft Association, the National Air Transportation Association, and many, many others. I believe this legislation could be the most dramatic change in aviation since at least the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and perhaps since the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. I think we have a bill that the American people can and will support strongly. I want the Members to know that this legislation is supported probably by every facet of the aviation community, business, labor, and all others. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2276 enjoys support from those representing general aviation, aircraft manufacturers, our Nation's small aircraft owners, the FAA air traffic controllers and many, many others. Also, as the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] just pointed out, every living FAA former administrator, except for one who has not taken a position, supports this legislation. Since airline deregulation in 1978, air passenger traffic has doubled and is now over 500 million per year. According to several aviation experts, traffic is expected to top at least 800 million and maybe even a billion by the year 2002. The 10 largest U.S. airlines conduct almost 15,000 flights per day at airports all across this country. If you add in commuter, military and general aviation, there are over 107,000 flights every day. Unfortunately the FAA's existing structure does not give it the flexibility to cope with even the existing situation let alone future growth. The FAA's cumbersome procurement process brought on by years of bureaucratic inertia have resulted in aging computers and 30-year-old, air traffic control equipment that constantly breaks down. Their antiquated equipment causes airplanes to be delayed and certainly shakes public confidence in the safety of flying. In fact, air traffic computers have failed and continue to fail at centers all across this country. Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, this legislation creates a new agency. It simply removes the FAA from the cumbersome bureaucracy and interference of the department of Transportation. This agency will create a board that will also include three members, but will include also the Secretaries of Transportation and Defense. The board would select a chief executive officer to manage FAA's day-to-day operations. For too long, the FAA's management structure has been stymied by outdated rules and big government policies that have not allowed for innovative management styles used by successful companies in the private sector. Today nearly every Federal independent agency, almost 30, are managed by boards. The only exceptions are law enforcement-type agencies. Basically, Mr. Speaker, just to sum up, this legislation will really bring the FAA into the 21st century. It is very needed. Almost everyone who has looked at this agrees with this legislation. I am very proud of the product of our subcommittee and our full committee, and I urge the support by our members.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the main provision was to take the off budget proposal out. We have another insertion there that would allow any savings from the FAA from their appropriation to be used, half to go to bonuses for FAA employees and half to be applied to the deficit. This was simply a way to try to encourage some savings by a Federal agency as a way to help in a small way the deficit. But I can assure the gentleman we meant in no way to try to sneak this through or pull anything over on the Committee on Appropriations. I can assure the gentleman that we will work with the gentleman to remove any objections that either the gentleman from Virginia or the Committee on Appropriations would have in regard to this particular provision.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago it was announced that AT&T was laying off 40,000 employees. Then, several days ago, it was reported that Robert Allen, the head of AT&T, had made over $16 million last year. Mr. Speaker, this is almost obscene. There is no way that Mr. Allen could really have earned $16 million for 1 year of work. And to take this much money at the same time that thousands in his company are losing their jobs is really too cruel for words. This excessive and exorbitant compensation was criticized even a columnist in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Also yesterday, most publications reported that average compensation for CEO's at 35 of our largest corporations averaged $4.3 million and had gone up 23 percent since the year before. I have said many times that the average person pays almost half of his or her income in taxes, counting taxes of all types, Federal, State, and local. I do not favor higher taxes, but we need to give tax relief to middle-income people, and one way to help pay for it would be to raise the taxes on all these CEO's and athletes and others making over $1 million a year.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most respected men in Tennessee, Jim Haslam, chairman of the Pilot Oil Corporation, recently sent me a copy of ``A Father's Letter to Santa.'' This letter was sent to Mr. Haslam by Kevin O'Neill, the head basketball coach of the University of Tennessee. This piece was originally written by David Chartrand, a columnist for the Olathe, KS, Daily News. I hope that all of my colleagues and many readers of the Record from all across the country will take time to read this and pass it on to others: A Father's Letter to Santa Dear Santa: My five-year-old boy scribbled out his Christmas list. It's there by the fireplace. The Coke and M&Ms are from him, in case you're hungry. You know five-year- olds these days. The Cheezits are from me. Santa, if you don't mind, I thought I'd go ahead and leave my list, too. It's long, but do what you can. It's all I want for Christmas. christmas list from his father Santa, let my little boy grow up still believing that he has the funniest dad in the neighborhood. Give him many close friends, both boys and girls. May they fill his days with adventure, security and dirty fingernails. Leave his mom and me some magic dust that will keep him just the size he is now. We'd just as soon he stayed five years old three feet, four inches. If he must grow up, make sure he still wants to sit on my lap at bedtime and read ``The Frog and the Toad.'' If you can help it, Santa, never let him be sent into war. His mother and I love our country, but we love our five-year- old boy more. While you're at it, give our world leaders a copy of the ``The Killer Angels,'' Michael Shaara's retelling of the Battle of Gettysburg. May it remind them that too many moms and dads have wept at Christmas for soldiers who died in battles that needn't have been fought. Let our house always be filled with slamming doors and toilet seats, which are the official sounds of little boys. Break it to him gently, Santa, that his dad won't always be able to carry him to bed at night or brush his teeth for him. Teach him courage in the face of such change. Let him understand that no matter how nice you are to everyone, the world will sometimes break your heart. As you know, Santa, a child's feelings are fragile as moth wings. Let him become a piano player, a soccer star or a priest. Or all three. Anything but a tax-and-spend Democrat. Give him a hunger for books, music and geography. May he be the first kid in Kindergarten to be able to find Madagascar on a map. The kid's a born artist, Santa, so send more crayons. May our kitchen window and refrigerator doors be ever plastered with his sketches of surreal rainbows and horse with big ears. Through the years steer him oh so carefully to that little girl destined to be his bride. Let his mother and me still be around when he walks her down the aisle. If there's a just God, let her daddy be obscenely rich. Grant him a heart that will cherish what his parents did right and forgive us for the mistakes we surely will have made over a lifetime of raising him. Let him not hold it against us that he was born with my chin and his mother's ears. Time will teach him that these are God's ways of girding him for life's adversities. Hold him steady on the day that he learns the truth about you and the Easter Bunny. May he take the news better than I did. While you're flying around the heavens, Santa, make sure God has heard our prayer for this child: Lead my little boy not into temptation; deliver him from evil. Be careful out there, Santa. And close the flue on your way up.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, there are two causes for the exorbitant, excessive cost of healthcare in this country--the Federal Government and large insurance companies. If it were not for the involvement of these two entities, medical care would cost only a tiny fraction of what it does. If we paid for anything else through a third-party payor system, costs would skyrocket. That is why I read with great interest the opening comments of a recent feature article about Dr. Corrie Blair in the Knoxville News- Sentinel. I also would like to call attention to a similar story in today's Wall Street Journal entitled ``A Magnificent Misfit'' by W.E. Gutman. I wish we had more old-fashioned doctors like Dr. Blair and Dr. Gutman. [From the Knoxville News-Sentinel] Loudon Woman has Been Practicing Medicine for More Than 54 Years (By Don Williams) ``I'm one of a dying breed,'' says Dr. Corrie Blair. ``I don't like government medicine, I don't like insurance medicine. I don't like pharmacists telling you how to practice medicine.'' If Blair seems set in her ways, she has reason to be. She is 80 years old, although with her clear brown eyes and brown hair, she doesn't look it. She started practicing medicine when common sense directed how to treat common colds. In this age of HMOs, TennCare and other programs brought in by big business and government, the bureaucrats and politicians have laid down a thick stratum of regulation on what used to be an uncluttered profession. When Blair entered medicine more than 54 years ago, so- called innovations, such as preventive medicine, boiled down to using good common sense. These organizations and things they're doing now are all based on economics rather than treating the patient,'' says Blair in a clear, high voice. There was a time, however, a time when . . . Blair was a child when the bridge was put across the Tennessee River in Loudon, cutting her family out of the ferry business. Her family's ownership of choice real estate made life easy for her. Maybe too easy. It could be that's one reason she chose medicine. For a young lady in the 1930s, training to be a doctor was far from easy. Blair made good grades in Loudon County High School, but while the boys were studying biology and algebra, she was studying ``domestic science'' with the other girls. ``The only thing they thought we could do was get married or teach school, but when I got out there was no one I wanted to marry who wanted to marry me, so I went to college.'' She attended two years at Agnes Scott College in Decatur, Ga., taking her first real science course there as a sophomore. ``I like science better than anything, so I thought, I'll study more science and be a doctor.'' She returned to Tennessee and entered the University of Tennessee pre-med program. ``It wasn't too popular for women to do,'' she says, and her family and friends needed convincing that she was serious. Her first cousin, Dr. Blair Harrison, was chief of staff at Knoxville General Hospital, and he offered to let her take nurse's training to test her mettle. ``After that was over, I told them, why yes, I still want to be a doctor, and I applied to the UT College of Medicine in Memphis. Back then there were no dormitories and we lived in houses with residents. My family thought it would be OK. There was another girl in my class, and we went all the way through together.'' It was while in Memphis that she met Dr. William Thomas McPeake. ``He was an old country boy, and I was an old country girl. We were staying at the same boarding house, and every evening we would get together on the front porch. I'd go for a walk and he'd go with me. He was working his way through.'' McPeake graduated ahead of Blair, but stayed in Memphis to intern until she graduated in 1941. When he was called up for military training in Pennsylvania, Blair went to Philadelphia to serve her medical internship. There, on Jan. 25, 1942, they were married. When McPeake shipped out to North Africa for service under Gen. George S. Patton, he left behind a pregnant wife. ``Our daughter, Molly, was 3 years old when he got back,'' she remembers. She was the first of four children. Molly Peeler is a physician at Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center. William T. McPeake is an orthopedic specialist, practicing mostly at St. Mary's. Sara Louise Gilkey, now a lawyer in Lynchburg, Va., married a doctor. Ed Blair McPeake operates the family farm, raising cattle in Loudon. The children were all born in Loudon, and it was there where McPeake rejoined his wife after the war. ``I told him this is the garden spot of the world, and this is where I want to live.'' By the time he returned, Blair had cobbled together a family practice. Together they made house calls, mostly in a Jeep, like those McPeake knew in the Army. ``We used to deliver all the babies. We'd carry a little ether into the home and knock 'em out if they needed it. We'd spend the night with them and charge about $25. If they didn't have the money, sometimes they'd give us something. If they were killing hogs, they'd give you some part of it, or maybe a chicken. ``We had real good luck. The Lord took care of us.'' The pair bought a little house downtown, where they conducted their practice. Later they built the modern Loudon Health Care Clinic, of concrete and steel, and moved the little house out to their farm. Blair, who kept her maiden name rather than face a mountain of paperwork to change it on licenses, certificates and other forms, was ahead of her time. ``I was the first in our hospital (the old Charles H. Bacon Hospital, now Fort Sanders Loudon Medical Center) to let a man come in for the delivery of his baby. It worked out well. I've had husbands jumping up and down when the baby came out. ``One of the old things, which is good, is stressing preventive care. I've stressed it all my life. We told people they shouldn't smoke. We had tobacco allotments on the farm, but quit growing it. We got to feeling guilty.'' McPeake died three years ago, and despite hands, swollen at times from arthritis, Blair still wears her wedding rings on a chain around her neck. People in town call her Dr. Corrie, and she has a personal relationship with literally thousands of them. ``I think it's real important for doctors to know their patients. In these new programs they just rush you through like a herd of cattle. They don't talk to you. They don't listen to you.'' Blair still listens, even though specialists have taken away many of her patients. She quit delivering babies, for instance, shortly after babies she had delivered began having babies of their own. These days, more often than not, find her visiting area nursing homes, a practice she enjoys. Asked when she plans to retire, she says resolutely, ``When something comes along and knocks me over. Of course, these new medical programs might put me out of business. If that happens, I'll find something else I like to do, but not any better.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say about the budget debate: First, the overwhelming majority of the American people do not believe it is radical or extreme, in any way, to require the Federal Government to balance its budget in 7 years; and second, if this was a Republican President in office, the national media would be pointing out every day and in fact harping on the fact that the President has still not submitted a balanced budget plan some 6 or 7 weeks after he promised to do so. Apparently he is keeping the Government shut down because he sees partisan political advantage in doing so. Now on the something else, also related to the budget, and that is the spending of billions and billions of our tax dollars in Rwanda, Haiti, Somalia, and now Bosnia. Anyone who opposed all this waste has been insulted with the description of isolationist, even if that description was totally inaccurate and even if they wanted trade and friendly relations with all nations. It is just not politically correct or fashionable today to be an isolationist. That is why I read with such great interest a syndicated column this past Tuesday by Charley Reese, which I include for the Record. Mr. Reese does not live inside the beltway, and he frequently writes with such great commonsense that he is about as plain spoken and politically incorrect as you can get these days. Time will not permit me to read all of his column, but I would like to read most of it. These are words you do not often hear in Washington, at least in polite company. The column previously referred to is as follows: [From The Sentinel, Jan. 2, 1996] (By Charley Reese) Those of us who oppose squandering American flesh and treasure in foreign places where we have no national interests are called isolationists by the internationalists. That's OK. It is intended as an insult, as when Alan Ladd called Jack Palance a ``low-down lying Yankee dog'' in Shane. We Americans understand that because the internationalists are too embarrassed (or afraid of prosecution) to tell the truth, they have no choice but to resort to name-calling and wind-bagging to rationalize these misadventures. Wind-bagging is when you toss out a lot of undefinable words and phrases such as ``saving America's soul,'' ``maintaining American leadership,'' ``preserving stability,'' or ``moral obligation.'' It would be embarrassing indeed if the internationalists were forced to explain why they have a moral obligation to intervene in a foreign civil war while they feel no moral obligation at all to tell the American people the truth, rebuild their infrastructure or balance their budget. . . . Washington said ``It is our policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.'' America prospered under that policy and could prosper under it again. Why do Americans have to defend 300 million Europeans from 150 million bankrupt Russians? That's the question Pat Buchanan asks, and it's a question Americans ought to ask of every internationalist politician. Why do Americans have to enforce peace in Bosnia? Why do Americans have to finance peace treaties in the Middle East? Why do Americans have to rebuild Bosnia when (a) we didn't tear it up, and (b) our own cities need rebuilding? Medal of Honor winner and Marine Gen. Smedley Butler, who became an isolationist, said, ``I spent 33 years [in the Marines] * * * most of my time being a high-class muscleman for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.'' What we isolationists are in favor of are: peace, friendly relations with all countries, trade, independence and respect for the independence of others, American prosperity, American liberty and American security. We are also in favor of sound war-making capability to defend America, and no place else.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today some in the national media and some for partisan political purposes are accusing House Republicans of being extremists or radicals. If ever there was an inside the beltway line, this has to be it. Out in the country, the overwhelming majority of the people do not see anything radical or extreme about trying to balance the budget in 7 years. Most people wonder why we cannot do it sooner than that. Most families have to balance their budgets every year. And then there are the so-called cuts. James K. Glassman, the Washington Post columnist who is not partial to either party, has called the Republican budget the ``No-Cut Budget.'' Federal spending has almost tripled in the last 15 years. One agency that we have supposedly gutted is the EPA, yet their spending has doubled in the last 10 years. Very few people out in the country, in the private sector, have had their salaries doubled or tripled in the last 10 or 15 years. So when people hear these crocodile tears coming out of Washington, or they read some misleading report about a cut, they should ask what that agency was getting 10 years ago, all years of very low inflation. And they should remember that Federal spending goes way up every year under the 7-year budget passed by the House.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, this past Friday night, ``Nightline'' had a special program entitled ``Mr. Longley Goes to Washington.'' This program was about our colleague, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley], and the very strong commitment by him and the other House Republican freshmen to balance our budget. Mr. Longley said at one point that if we do not get our fiscal house in order, ``we are going to have a crash that will make the Great Depression look like a party at the beach.'' I thought his was a very strong but very appropriate and accurate way of describing the situation we are in now. There is hardly anyone today, on either side who disagrees with the goal of balancing our budget. We simply cannot go on like we have without causing very serious economic problems. Yet some people just pay lip service to this goal. They say, yes, we need to balance the budget, but-- And it is this ``but'' that has gotten us $5 trillion into debt--so deeply into debt that many people think we will never get out without greatly inflating our money. I take the floor at this time, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure there are many people who think--well it would be good to balance the budget, but it really does not make that much difference to them. Let me try to explain why this does make a difference, and a very big difference to everyone, even those making minimum wage, and those receiving food stamps or other Federal benefits, and students, and everyone else. First, as Mr. Longley said, we could very easily have a major economic crash in a few years if we do not straighten this mess out. That may be hard to believe when the stock market is at record highs, but the stock market was at record highs just before the Great Depression of the 1930's. Second, times are good now for some, but they could and should be good for everyone. People making $5 or $6 an hour could and should be making two or three times what they are if we did not have a national debt of $5 trillion holding us back economically. Third, anyone who is receiving any type of Federal check should be insisting that we balance this budget. If we don't, it won't be long at all before we will no longer be able to meet our obligations to veterans, Social Security recipients, Federal retirees, and others. Fourth, buried in the fine print of our last budget, and something that was picked up and written about by former Senator Paul Tsongas, is the fact that young people of today will have to pay average lifetime tax rates of an incredible 82 percent if we don't get things under control. If we keep going like we have been, we will absolutely destroy the standard of living of our children and grandchildren. They won't be able to buy a tenth of what we do now. Fifth, no one--young or old, should be misled into believing that balancing the budget in 7 years requires anything radical or extreme. All we seem to hear about are cuts--cuts--cuts. But the Washington Post columnist James K. Glasman called the Republican budget the ``No Cut Budget.'' All we are trying to do is to slow spending increases down to about 3 percent each year, about where inflation has been for the last 10 to 12 years. Federal spending right now is almost three times what the first Reagan budget was--an almost 300 percent increase in 15 years. Almost no private businesses are spending three times what they were 15 years ago. Very few employees in the private sector are receiving salaries three times higher than they were 15 years ago. And that brings us one more very important point, Mr. Speaker. The middle class is being wiped out, and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing rapidly. Why? Because of big government, that's why. Our Federal Government has become too big, and very few have received the benefits from this, at the expense of the very many. Federal bureaucrats have benefited, because they pay and retirement benefits have gone way up. Federal contractors have benefited, because they have been allowed to reap exorbitant profits, because even with exorbitant profits, they can still do things more cheaply and efficiently than our Federal bureaucracy can. Extremely big business has benefited because they get most of the big Federal contracts, most of the favorable regulatory rulings, and favorable tax breaks. Federal rules and regulations have a much greater impact and a much more harmful effect on small business than on large ones. In fact, big government has forced many small business out of existence or into merging with other larger companies. Thus, the big get bigger, and the small go by the wayside. This is not a conspiracy, but simply an inevitable consequence of big government. The only really fair system, Mr. Speaker, the only system where an average person without great capital or great political influence really has a chance, is a true free enterprise, free market system. What we have today is a free enterprise system that has been greatly and unfairly distorted by a big government that favors big, well- connected companies. If we are going to save this Nation from fiscal disaster--if we are going to give someone without great wealth or political connections, a real chance, once again, we have got to get our Federal Government under control. And we do not have much time left--we must do it now, before it is simply too late.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on two unrelated but very important national issues. The first is wasteful and ridiculously expensive travel by Federal employees, particularly by certain Cabinet members who should be setting a better example. Even members of the President's own Party, such as Senator Reid of Nevada, have called for Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary's resignation. She has been galavanting all over the world at horrendous expense to the taxpayer. She has been chartering private jets, when she could easily have flown commercially, and she has consistently been staying in the most expensive hotels in the world. She spent $2.6 million on just four of these trips--$845,000 for a trip to China, $500,000 for a trip to Pakistan, $560,000 for a trip to South Africa, and $720,000 for a trip to India. No wonder we can't balance the budget. This is a terrible abuse of taxpayer dollars, but then the easiest thing in the world to do is to spend other people's money. Another Cabinet Secretary who has been wasting taxpayer funds on travel is Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. He has been traveling all over the United States to make political attacks on the Republican budget. Almost all of his trips should have been paid for by the Democratic National Committee since he has been so blatantly partisan in his statements and press conferences. And then the trip that really takes the cake is the one 400 Federal employees took to Disney World last month. The Washington Post said that taxpayers paid ``hundreds of thousands of dollars so about 400 Federal employees could go to Disney World and stay at a four-star hotel.'' No wonder we have a five trillion dollar national debt. The Associated Press said these employees were from the National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. These bureaucrats had training sessions on such topics as ``The Power of Magic in Shaping History,'' and ``Goofy (and Educational) Nature Songs.'' These agencies, plus almost all other Federal offices are screaming today about cuts and shortages of funds. Well, there is no shortage of money if they can send employees on a trip like this. In fact, it appears that they have such a surplus of funds that they cannot even use good sense in how their money is spent. Of course, the truth is that almost all Federal agencies are still getting increases. And the best question to ask is what were they getting 10 years ago. Over that period, inflation has averaged only about 3 percent a year. Their spending should have gone up by about \1/3\ at the most, but almost all these Federal departments and agencies have increased spending at two or three or four times the rate of inflation. The Head Start Program, for one, has gone up 300 percent in the last 10 years about 10 times the rate of inflation. The budget for the EPA for 1995 is twice-double-what it was in 1985-a 100 percent increase. We have allowed our Federal Government to get so big that it is simply out of control. That is why you have abuses of the taxpayer like these. Also, we have a civil service system that is so overly protective that Federal bureaucrats know that they can get away with almost anything. Instead of letting Federal spending increase, but at a slower rate, as we do in the Republican budget, we should really be cutting a few things so the people can keep more of their money. The second topic I wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker, is the NAFTA Accountability Act. This act would require that we take another look at NAFTA to see if it is causing more harm than good. Apparently, in an effort to sell NAFTA 2 years ago, we were given misleading or incomplete information about the Mexican economy. Just a few days ago in my district in Tennessee, the two largest employers in Tellico Plains announced that they were leaving, one going to Mexico, one to Honduras. At almost the same time, the largest employer in Etowah, TN announced that it was going into bankruptcy in large part due to NAFTA. These three companies will mean almost 900 people in my district will lose their jobs. For these two small towns, the impact is devastating. Now I do not know if the company moving to Honduras is using funds from the Caribbean Basin Initiative but ``60 Minutes'' and others have reported that we are making loans to American companies to set up branches in Central America and the Caribbean. Through NAFTA and GATT, and all the money we contribute to the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, and things like the African Development Bank, and the Export-Import Bank, and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, all the money we spend overseas, through the State Department, the Commerce Department, the Defense Department, we seem to be giving our country away. Then when you add in our direct foreign aid program to all these other giveaways and loans to foreign countries, and then the billions we have spent for nation-building in Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti, and now Bosnia, in addition to the multibillion bailout of Mexico. I repeat Mr. Speaker. We seem to be giving away our own country and selling out our own people.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2547, a bill to designate the courthouse at 800 Market Street in Knoxville, TN, the Howard H. Baker, Jr. United States Courthouse. I am proud to be the sponsor of this bill, along with the other Members of the Tennessee delegation, and commend and thank Chairman Gilchrest. This legislation is a fitting tribute to Senator Baker's extraordinary career and public service. As you know, similar legislation to construct a new courthouse became public law in the 103d Congress. However, rather than build a new courthouse, GSA has decided, at my urging, to save the taxpayers money and move into an existing building. Therefore, it is necessary to rename the building, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Senator Baker was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1966. He was the first Republican ever popularly elected to the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, and he won reelection in 1972 and 1978. Senator Baker served as minority leader of the Senate from 1977 to 1981 and majority leader from 1981 to 1985 when he chose to retire. In 1987, then President Reagan asked Senator Baker to serve as Chief of Staff to the President, at a time when the administration needed steady and seasoned leadership during the Iran-Contra controversy. In 1982, Senator Baker received the Jefferson Award for Greatest Public Service Performed by an Elected or Appointed Official. In 1984, Senator Baker received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Since leaving Public Service, Senator Baker has been elected to numerous boards of directors of U.S. corporations. He is the recipient of honorary degrees from Yale, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Bradley, Pepperdine, and Centre College. He is currently a partner in the law firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman and Caldwell. I am sorry to say Senator Baker's wife, Joy, passed away recently after a long and courageous battle with cancer. Mr. Chairman, I simply would say that Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr. is one of the greatest statesmen in the history of the State of Tennessee. He has been recognized a great deal here in Washington, having the former rooms of the Library of Congress named after him. But he has not received that same recognition in Tennessee. Naming this Federal building after him will be a very fitting tribute to a very great American. I urge my colleagues to support this bill in honor of my good friend and fellow Tennessean, Howard H. Baker, Jr.