Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, George Perry has dedicated 37 years of his life to school children in East Tennessee. His tremendous devotion to duty and service to others was recognized recently in an article I read in the Knoxville News-Sentinel. Because we need many more educators like George Perry, I wanted to call this article to the attention of my colleagues and to other readers of the Congressional Record. Principal is Staying Put, Thank-You (By Elizabeth A. Pooley) ``School Days, School Days, good old golden rule days . . .,'' sang Doreen ``Dody'' Perry to her children every year on the opening day of school. Little Georgie Perry heeded the wake-up call and proceeded to go to school, in one form or another, for the next 55 years--and he's still going. ``From a family that was so musically inclined, my mother couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. I guess you could say that I hold some kind of record among Knox County School administrators, 27 years in the same position. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I wouldn't care to be anywhere else,'' said George Perry, principal of Cedar Bluff Middle School in West Knoxville. With compassionate eyes, a spontaneous sense of humor and the ability to make everyone aware of their own identity and contribution, Perry oversees multiple projects and business- related concerns while speaking with the multitude who pop into the office for just a ``minute'' of his time. His desk phone is rarely silent and a crisis situation can present itself at any time. Perry appears much younger than his 60 years and only recently cut back on his 60-hour work week when he retired as part-time music director at Parkway Baptist Church. A practicing Christian since childhood, Perry well remembers when reading passages from the Bible was an accepted part of the school curriculum, a form of literature. ``Today we hear, you are entitled to your religion, but just don't mention it. The courts have made rules and we have to follow them. We can teach scientific theory and psychology. I do feel that the schools are getting a bum rap from evangelists who say we are Godless and atheistic. We have to follow the mandates and keep in mind that we are living in a more cosmopolitan world. The students these days come from all over the world with different religious backgrounds,'' said Perry. An educator of 37 years, Perry was born a Depression child. ``If there hadn't been a depression, we had our own private one going on at home,'' he said. Following graduation from Mars Hill College, Perry obtained his bachelor's degree in sociology and science from Carson- Newman. His work history began in 1958 as a cookware salesman in Morristown. An odd set of circumstances led him into teaching. ``I was passing by the music room at Morristown High School one day when I heard an announcement that there wouldn't be any class that day and all the students would be directed to study hall. I volunteered to conduct the class and was then asked to become a substitute teacher at the school for $8 a day. I quit my job selling pots and pans,'' said Perry. Following 10 years as assistant principal, Perry then went to Clinton High School as principal for one year. He took over as principal of Cedar Bluff Middle School in 1969. ``I don't dread coming to work. I can remember back in the 1960s when I was making $6,000 a year, I was offered a job in the insurance industry for $20,000 a year. I thought about it and realized I didn't want to sentence myself with a job I didn't like,'' said Perry. Perry believes that if a student can leave Cedar Bluff Middle School and be able to make responsible decisions and live with them, he/she is well educated. Too often he sees parents who are unwilling to accept that ``their'' child may have a problem in school. ``They are setting themselves up for problems down the road and crippling the child's ability to make correct decisions. I once had a student here in my office who told me his father could take care of me. We're very fortunate here; the vast majority of students don't cause any problems,'' said Perry. Perry's walls are full of awards, citations, certificates and a letter of appreciation from the late Danny Thomas, founder of St. Jude's Children's Hospital. In the letter, Thomas commends Perry and the students' record-setting fund- raising efforts. He refers to Perry as giving more of himself to children than just books and school work. ``You are teaching them the meaning of good deeds by personal example,'' Thomas writes. Married for 40 years to his wife, Doris, a secretary at Powell Elementary, Perry takes extreme pride in three children: Chuck, Georgeann and Melody. The Perrys have one grandchild, 15-year-old Matthew. Leaving his longtime position may be an option for Perry in another five years. Over the span of his teaching career he has accumulated 245 sick days, a year's sick leave which he has the option to apply toward an earlier retirement. In the meantime he will continue to enjoy his students, whom he says are old enough to reason with and still be cute. His personal/family life may be summed up by an office wall hanging: ``The best gift you can give your children is to love their mother.'' Perry's attitude regarding his career is best exemplified by the cross-stitched utterings of a frog near his desk: ``I'm So Happy, I Could Croak!''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the finest organizations in this Nation is the American Legion. I am very proud to be a life member of Post 2 in Knoxville, TN. The American Legion is primarily a patriotic organization. We all need to do more to promote patriotism. If you love another person you want to do everything possible to help that person become the best he or she can possibly be. In the same way, if we teach our young people to love this country, they will want to help our Nation become the best that it can be. The American Legion does many good things for the young people of the United States. One of the very best programs, though, is Boys State. Several members of Congress, including myself, participated in American Legion Boys State programs. I will never forget the friendships I made and the valuable lessons I learned at the Boys State week in Lebanon, TN, during the summer of 1964. Some of these memories came back to me as I read the article on Boys State in the current issue of the American Legion magazine. I would like to call this article to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. South Carolina's Recipe for Leadership On a scorching hot summer day in Columbia, S.C., more than 700 young men crowded the steps of the State House, where they were issued a challenge by South Carolina Governor David M. Beasley. ``I'm asking you to use the experience you've gained to go home and make a difference,'' Beasley urged them. ``You're the ones who will be expected to come up with creative ideas, and plan and take charge. It's a big responsibility, but I know you're up to it.'' This was no political puffery on Beasley's part. The boys belonged to The Department of South Carolina's Palmetto Boys State, which has a solid record of producing eminent alumni. They include U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley; Joseph P. Riley Jr., mayor of Charleston, S.C.; Tom Hartnett, former congressman for South Carolina; and Virgil Duffy, deputy director of labor for South Carolina. The American Legion Boys State program celebrated its 60th Anniversary in 1995. Each year, thousands of young men from high schools are selected for this one week of leadership training that culminates in the mock election of state officials. Two students from each state, except Hawaii, are selected for a national version of the program called Boys Nation held in Washington, D.C. (Hawaii is the only state that does not participate in either Boys State or Boys Nation.) ``Through Boys State, we can influence the lives of young people, and they are the future,'' says the Rev. Sinclair E. Lewis of Post 6, Columbia, S.C., who has spent 39 years working with the Palmetto program. Lewis credits Palmetto's unique leadership training and the closeness of the staff and counselors. ``Boys State teaches these young men how to make a difference without just complaining,'' says Baptist Minister Seth Buckley, another member of the Palmetto Boys State staff. ``I tell them that they are not just the leaders of the future, they can be the leaders now, in their communities.'' It was in 1963 that Legionnaire Gene Morehead of Post 1 Florence, SC, heard similar advice. Morehead went on to become a state judge in South Carolina's Family Court system. He has remained active in the program ever since. ``My involvement in Boys State made me realize I wanted to be a lawyer,'' says Morehead. ``This program is so important that I take a week of my vacation time each year to be here with these young people.'' Just like Morehead three decades ago, Craig Hardee of Aynor, S.C., a participant in this year's program, found in Boys State a blueprint for what he wants to do with his life. ``I learned a lot about government, and that has influenced my career decision,'' he says. ``Politics is now in my blood.'' Political lessons were certainly learned by this year's Palmetto Boys State governor, Will Emerson of Easley, S.C.: ``My biggest lesson on the road to being elected was if you do what people want done, then they will support you.'' Mark Peper of Charleston, S.C., was typical of the fair number of boys who approached the Boys State program with certain reservations. ``At first, I was pessimistic about how much the program could do for me,'' says Peper. ``But I learned quickly that being involved in Boys State turns you into a leader.'' The proof: Peper ended up being elected Palmetto Boys State's lieutenant governor. As Secretary of Education Richard Riley told the American Legion magazine: ``South Carolina Boys State taught me a lot about politics. I used those lessons to become Sheriff at Boys State and later, in my adult life, to become governor of my State.'' To find out more about Boys State, contact your local high- school guidance counselor or write to: Boys State, Americanism Division, The American Legion, P.O. Box 1055, Indianapolis, IN 46206.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the CBS radio news, a man from Tuzla was asked what it meant to him that the Americans were coming. He shouted back in a happy, accented voice that I won't try to imitate: ``Money--Only Money.'' A few days earlier, I had seen the deputy major of Tuzla say on one of our national networks that he expected the Americans to rebuild their infrastructure. At about that same time, the Bosnian leadership said they would need $25 billion in loans from the World Bank to rebuild their country. The biggest contributor to the World Bank: the United States of course. This is all in addition to the $600 million we promised in aid, up front at Dayton, and the billions we will spend on our own troops. As long as we are there, we can keep the peace, and I think and hope with very few casualties. But we will be borrowing billions to do it, and the American people, especially our children and grandchildren, will be paying for this for a very long time to come.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy said in 1961 we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we are only 6 percent of the world's population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy was right. Twice in the last few days I have spoken on this floor to say something that I want to emphasize once again: There is absolutely no threat whatsoever to our national security because of what is going on in Bosnia. Second, there is no vital United States interest in Bosnia, and we should never send young American soldiers to foreign battlefields or participate in any military adventure unless one of these conditions is unquestionably, unequivocally clear and certain. And there are many questions about, and much opposition to, our involvement in Bosnia. I know that the pack mentality of those in our very liberal national news media has produced a drumbeat to try to gain support for this very ill-advised operation, but I really believe that this has much more to do with political correctness than it does with anything else. It is simply not politically fashionable today to be labeled as an isolationist. Yet someone who is not an isolationist and who wants good relations with and close ties to other nations still should be strongly against sending transportation to Bosnia. First, Time magazine asked a few days ago on its cover the question: ``Is Bosnia worth dying for?'' It may be for Bosnians, but they should solve their own problems. It is not worth even one American life to temporarily stop this age-old conflict. Second, even if by some miracle, for which I hope, we have no casualties, we still should oppose this mission. We are $5 trillion in debt, Mr. Speaker, and almost everyone believes we will crash in a few years if we do not turn this around. Yet now we are going to spend billions we do not have in Bosnia, and we are going to, further, very seriously jeopardize the futures of our own children and grandchildren. I feel sorry for the people in Bosnia. Humanitarian aid, yes; military aid, no. We can prove world leadership in many other ways.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in 1961, President Kennedy said: We must face the fact that the U.S. is neither omnipotent nor omniscient--that we are only 6% of the world's population--that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94%--that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity--and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. President Kennedy was right then, and his words are good advice today. We should follow this advice in regard to the situation in Bosnia. Last week, the cover of Time magazine showed an American soldier and asked the question: ``Is Bosnia worth dying for?'' I believe the overwhelming majority of the American people would answer with an emphatic ``no.'' It should be for Bosnians because that is their homeland, but not for young Americans. This is a limited ethnic conflict that has been going on for hundreds of years, and will continue unless we pour many billions in to stop it. And as soon as we stop pouring in billions, the situation will go right back like it was. We should not send young American soldiers onto foreign battlefields unless there is a serious threat to our national security or unless there is a very real and very vital U.S. interest at stake. Neither of these is present in Bosnia. Yet now, the President, regardless of how the American people feel, regardless of how the Congress votes, is going to send 20,000 troops into Bosnia. We will then have another 20,000 in immediate nearby support in Croatia, the Adriatic Sea, and other places. I had one veteran who called me last night who said that he was always told in Vietnam that it took seven troops in the rear to support one in the field. We are making a tremendous commitment here. The worst thing is putting so many American lives at risk. Then there is the huge money involved. We are told right off the bat that this effort will cost a minimum of $1.6 billion for the troops in the field. We have promised another $600 million in direct foreign aid. That is an initial $2.2 billion and that is just the tip of the iceberg. I now am told that the Bosnian leadership says they will need $35 billion in loans or aid from the World Bank or other sources to rebuild their country. Most of this will end up coming from the United States. B.J. Cutler, the foreign affairs columnist for the Scripps-Howard newspaper chain, wrote several months ago: If guarding people from the savagery of their rulers is America's duty, it would be fighting all over the world, squandering lives and bankrupting itself. He was not writing about Bosnia, but his words are certainly applicable here. There are at least 15 or 16 small wars going on around the world at any time. Some people say many more than that. Why then are we trying to solve this insolvable problem. Well, I think in part it is because our national media focused on this one. But, I think the larger reason is that some people in high positions in this country are never satisfied with just running the United States. They want to make a place for themselves in history. They want to be described as, or thought of as, world leaders. That is why I believe there is such a class division on this. Many upper-crust liberal elitist types--many NPR devotees, are all for this--because they want to prove to everyone that they care about foreign policy and are concerned about world affairs. Horror of horrors, they certainly don't want to be associated with low-class, unintellectual isolationists. That would not be fashionable, that would not be politically correct. But, Mr. Speaker, even one American life is too many and all these billions it will cost is to high a price to pay just so a few people in our Government can display world leadership and show their superiority to their unenlightened fellow citizens. We should not get involved in this Bosnian quagmire. The potential dangers and costs are simply too high. The United States leads the world in humanitarian and charitable aid for those in other countries. No other nation is even a close second. Most Americans want to help out in international tragedies. We are already doing far more than our share. France, Germany, Sweden, Japan, and others are not even coming close. We have no reason to feel guilty. And, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, what I said at the beginning. We do not need to get involved militarily in Bosnia or anywhere else unless there is a real threat to our national security or a vital U.S. interest at stake. Neither of these is present in Bosnia.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation by the gentleman from Colorado, and I thank him for yielding me this time. President Kennedy said in 1961: We must fact the fact that the U.S. is neither omnipotent nor omniscient--that we are only 6% of the world's population--that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94%--that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity--and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. This statement by President Kennedy is even more true today, because we are now less than 5 percent of the world population and especially because we now have a $5 trillion national debt. We should never send young American men and women to fight and die on foreign battlefields unless there is a real threat to our national security or a vital U.S. interest at stake. Neither of these is present in Bosnia. B.J. Cutler, the Scripps-Howard foreign affairs columnist, recently wrote: ``if guarding people from the savagery of their rules is America's duty, it would be fighting all over the world, squandering lives and bankrupting itself.'' We cannot solve the situation in Bosnia even if we spend billions that we do not have and jeopardize our own future in the process.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief because I know the hour is late. I simply want to rise and commend the gentleman from Illinois, my good friend, Mr. Weller. I think he has shown great courage and leadership in bringing this amendment to the attention of his colleagues and to the attention of the American people. With all due respect to Mr. Weller, I doubt that this amendment can be passed, but that does not mean that it is a bad thing or it is not something that we should discuss. I think it is very limited in scope. [[Page H 13138]] I personally do not think that it violates freedom of press or the first amendment to the slightest degree. It does not regulate in any manner what someone can write or say, but I would approach this from a little different angle. I would say tonight that any respectable, any ethical journalist would voluntarily comply with this amendment. But so many journalists are quick to criticize but very slow to lead by example. The best example I know of this was a few years ago, some of us may remember, the Capitol Hill Press Club, their officers voted to require their membership to follow the same disclosure requirements that we as Members of Congress were required to follow. Their membership rose up in arms and by an 80 percent margin voted to impeach their leadership. There is a real double standard around here, and it is really time for it to end. Efforts like those of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] will help bring that to an end.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I will take the full 5 minutes, but I want to rise tonight to say that I believe that most people across this country realize that we are at a real turning point in the history of this Nation. I believe that most people realize that, if we do not bring Federal spending under control and put our fiscal house in order now, that we are going to face very severe economic problems in the near future. If we do not do this now, we will never do it unless probably it is too later to make any real difference. Mr. Speaker, in that regard we often hear speakers say that we are doing this for our children and grandchildren and certainly that is true, but I think it is also accurate to say that we are doing it for the people who are in the prime of their lives right now because we are going to have extremely difficult economic problems and financial problems in the next 6, or 8, or 10 years, if not sooner, if we do not act now. Mr. Speaker, already the President's own Medicare trustees have said that Medicare will be broke in about 6 years if we do not make major changes now., so that is why we passed a bill a few weeks ago allowing or giving huge increases in Medicare spending but which does slow the growth of Medicare to about twice the rate of inflation, instead of three or four times the rate, in which it does more to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. Even President Clinton said in his meeting with Speaker Gingrich in New Hampshire, one of the first things he said was that we have to slow the rate of growth in Medicare. One of the most fascinating things though, Mr. Speaker, that I saw, and I wanted to call this to the attention of my colleagues tonight, appeared in the Washington Post today. Now all of us know that the Washington Post at times acts or seems to act as the house organ for the Democratic Party, and so that is what made it so, I think, amazing, even that they wrote the lead editorial that they had today, and in that editorial the Washington Post said this. The budget deficit is the central problem of the Federal Government and one from which many of the country's other most difficult problems flow, and then the Post went on to say this: Bill Clinton and the congressional Democrats were handed an unusual chance this year to deal constructively with the effect of Medicare on the deficit, and they blew it. The chance came in the form of the congressional Republican plan to balance the budget over seven years. Some other aspects of that plan deserved to be resisted, but the Republican proposal to get at the deficit partly by confronting the cost of Medicare deserved support. The Democrats, led by the president, chose instead to present themselves as Medicare's great protectors. They have shamelessly used the issue, demagogued on it, because they think that's where the votes are and the way to derail the Republican proposals generally. The president was still doing it this week. In addition I have a couple of other things I would like to call some attention to that also appeared today. Dan Thomasson, who is the vice president for Scripps-Howard, an editor of the Scripps-Howard news service, wrote [[Page H 13140]] this, and I think this is very accurate, and once again Mr. Thomasson is not known as any conservative or Republican columnist. In fact he is considered, I think, very moderate, and he said that, and in fact he frequently says things that criticize both the Republicans and the Democrats, and he said this. He said: ``The so-called Republican revolution is being undermined by a political ineptness hard to match in modern history. The result could be a derailing of the best opportunity in three decades to win control over runaway entitlements and to put some sense back in the congressional spending process.'' But he goes on to say this, Mr. Speaker, and I think these words are so important for many people to hear. He said: ``For 30 of the 40 years Democrats controlled Congress before last year's GOP takeover, the majority displayed a constitutional inability to deal with the building budgetary crisis. Any effort to stabilize Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, pensions and welfare was not only rebuffed; it was labeled as mean-spirited and used to defeat its proponents. So politically volatile were these issues that few members of Congress from either party would dare to whisper publicly what everyone knew: that unless something was done to control the costs of these huge programs, our economic future was in grave jeopardy.'' Mr. Speaker, I think those words are so very important as we consider the debate that we are going through at this time. Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say about this later on. I see that my time has expired.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to briefly make a couple of points, and I do not think I will take all the 5 minutes, but I wanted to read just the first part of an amazing story that was in the Washington Post just this morning. The Washington Post is certainly no conservative publication, it is no Republican newspaper. In fact, its political policies are considered to be very liberal, and yet this morning they had a news analysis by two of their staff writers, and the headlines said this: Balanced Budget Plan is Real Issue. Let me repeat that, that the Washington Post said this morning, ``Balanced Budget Plan is Real Issue,'' and then the story says this for the news analysis: For all the vitriol, all the finger-pointing and all the carefully staged, photogenic events, the current bickering between the White House and Capitol Hill has very little to do with the actual bills in question. The real issue is not Medicare premiums, temporary approval to spend government money or even the government debt limit--it is the coming confrontation over the Republicans' plan to balance the budget by 2002. For congressional Republican leaders--especially those in the House--the goal is getting the president to the table to negotiate a deal on their terms to wipe out the deficit in seven years. Now this is from the Washington Post, and they say the real issue is the balanced budget. Our Republican leaders went to the White House last night with no preconditions. The only thing they have said, they said they will be willing to negotiate anything except they want the budget to be balanced within 7 years. Most of the people around this country think that we really should be able to do it much faster than that, and I can tell you that I think almost anyone with ordinary common sense and average intelligence probably could come here and balance the budget much faster than 7 years, but with all the competing interests involved, that seems to be the best that we can do. But I am sure there are many people across the country tonight who are sitting there thinking, ``Well, yes, the balanced budget would be good, but would it really make a difference to me?'' and I say to them that, yes, it would because almost every leading economist in this country tells us that this $5 trillion national debt we have is like a gigantic chain hanging around the neck of our economy. It is holding us back. Mr. Speaker, times are good now for some people, but they could and should be good for everyone if we had handled our fiscal affairs in a better way and we were not so deeply, deeply in debt. People making $5 and $6 an hour could and should be making $10 or $12 an hour. In addition to that, while we do not have much of an unemployment problem, Mr. Speaker, we have a tremendous underemployment problem. We have many college graduates who cannot find jobs except in fast-food restaurants and jobs like that, and that should not be, Mr. Speaker, and things could be so much better if we would get our fiscal house in order and try to balance our budget, and the downside of it is, if we do not, we are headed for some major economic problems in the years ahead. Mr. Speaker, we frequently say that what we are talking about doing, that it is for our children and grandchildren, and, yes, it certainly is. But it is also for the people who are in the prime of their life right at this time because we are headed for very serious problems, not in the distant future, but in the near future. The President's own trustees over Medicare have said, they said in their report issued in April, that the Medicare system was going to be broke in 6 or 7 years if we do not do something. A few months ago the Office of Management and Budget, the President's own Office of Management and Budget, put out a memo that said that by the year 2010, if we do not change things, we will have annual yearly deficit losses each year of over a trillion dollars a year, and by the year 2030, Mr. Speaker, have over $5 trillion a year. Mr. Speaker, if we have losses, yearly losses, of $5 trillion, we would absolutely destroy the standard of living of our children and grandchildren. They could not buy a tenth of what we buy today. In 1994, last year, Paul Tsongas, the former Senator from Massachusetts who was a liberal Democrat when he was in the House and Senate, he wrote an article for the Christian Science Monitor, and he said that the young people of today will pay average lifetime tax rates of an incredible 82 percent if we do not make some changes. Is this what we want to do to our children and grandchildren, make them become, as he put it, indentured servants for the Government? I do not think there is anybody out there who wants us to do that. James K. Glassman wrote a few days ago in the Washington Post a column entitled ``The No-Cut Budget.'' He pointed out that under our budget that we passed in both the House and Senate, the so-called Republican budgets, there are no cuts, that each year Federal spending goes up about 3 percent. It increases about $50 or $60 billion every year. Medicare, we have gotten into that, and that is the second big point I want to make. We did not cut Medicare. We have not cut Medicare. In fact what we have passed is to give huge increases in Medicare spending. In my own State of Tennessee Medicare spending goes up from a little over $5,000 a year to over $7,000 a year at the end of this time. We need to get this message out, Mr. Speaker, because the American people are being fooled by lies, distortions, and propaganda at this time, and I certainly hope they do not fall for it.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, this House voted last week and the week before for a huge increase in spending on Medicare. I repeat--we voted for and passed legislation providing for a huge increase in Medicare. In fact, federal spending overall will go up by many billions every year under the budgets passed by both the House and the Senate. James K. Glasman, the Washington Post columnist, referred to it as the ``no- cut budget.'' These budgets simply attempt to slow the growth in federal spending to about 3 percent a year. When you are spending in the range of $1.6 trillion to more than $2 trillion during the 7 years of this plan, a 3 percent increase is $50 to $60 billion a year. That is billion with a B--and even one billion dollars is a lot of money--and these budgets--the Republican budgets--will increase Federal spending $50 to $60 billion every year. We voted for a huge increase in spending on Medicare--about 7\1/2\ percent a year--more than twice the rate of inflation. Yet all we hear about are cuts--cuts--cuts. We are told that these mega-billion dollar increases are draconian cuts. Why--well the main reason is that the Federal bureaucrats who got 15 to 20 percent increases routinely for so many years really feel that 2 or 3 percent increases are cuts. The first Reagan budget--fiscal 1982--was $581 billion. We almost triple that figure now--an almost 300 percent increase in just 15 years. I don't think anyone believes that we can sit back and let Federal spending keep exploding like it has without having a major economic crash a few years down the road. Yet the American people are being misled when they are being told about all these so called cuts. A very false impression is being created. In fact, I have been in and around politics since I was a small boy, and I do not believe I have ever seen the lies, the distortions, the propaganda, that we have now. Let me give just a couple of examples. Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior, has become the most blatantly political Secretary in the history of the Department. He has been going all over the country attacking Republicans even at one time using extremist rhetoric comparing us to the Japanese and their sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. He came to my area of east Tennessee and said Republicans were gutting the national parks, and he has been quoted as saying that there is some sort of Republican hit list to close as many as 200 parks. What are the facts. Well, last week, National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy admitted under oath that he knew of no such list and no plan to close any parks. Because of Secretary Babbitt, and because of an incomplete job by reporters, people in my area think the Great Smoky Mountains have been cut. Well, the truth is that spending on the Great Smokies has gone up from $6.5 to $10.3 million in the last 10 years--and increases of 64 percent, about twice the rate of inflation over that period. Another increase, a little over 2 percent is scheduled for this fiscal year. Now I wish we could get more, but the point is that there have been no cuts, and in fact, national park spending has gone way up over the past 10 or 15 years. Another example--and there are hundreds--former Speaker Foley said on the PBS national news Friday night that Republicans had cut the earned income tax credit. Once again--not so. The earned income tax credit cost this country $1.3 billion in 1975; $2.5 billion in 1985. Then it began exploding. We are now spending $23 billion each year on this program, and it goes to over $27 billion under the Republican budget--once again--no cut, and in fact a several billion dollar increase. Another example--spending on student loans go up from $24 to $36 billion--yet some are calling this a cut. Most of this outcry about cuts is coming from bureaucrats or fat cat Federal contractors who are having to justify their spending or show the results for the first time in many years--if ever. And it turns out that most of this spending is doing little good for the intended beneficiaries and instead is really benefiting only bureaucrats or government contractors. One example, and once again--there are hundreds--the Job Corps Program--again a program that is not--repeat--not being cut. Counting all costs, we are now spending $25,000 per year per Job Corps student. If we told one of these students that we were spending this much on them, they would be shocked. Fifty percent drop out in the first 6 months. Seven months is the average stay. Only 12 percent end up in jobs for which they were trained. We could give each of these students a $1,000-a-month allowance, send them to an expensive private school and still save money. They would probably think they had died and gone to heaven. Who really benefits from this billion plus program--once again the bureaucrats and few politically connected Federal contractors. There are two points here Madam Speaker. One is Federal spending is not being cut, and for one specific program--Medicare--we have voted to give it huge increases. The second point, when you hear about cuts, ask two questions. Who is screaming about the cuts--it is almost always some bureaucrat who is working for the program or some contractor who is making money off of it. The second question--ask them specifically how much they got under the first Reagan budget 15 years ago and how much will they get during this fiscal year. With very few exceptions, you will find that almost every Federal department, agency, or program has received huge increases since that time. Ask questions--don't be deceived.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to a medical association that most of us know very little about, but rely on every day when we walk into a hospital or medical clinic for diagnosis of an injury or treatment for cancer. This society has existed for 75 years with most of us taking for granted the fine professionals who are committed to the safety of patients receiving x rays, ultrasound, and radiopharmaceuticals. Therefore, it seems befitting in this centennial year of the discovery of the x ray that we pay tribute to these radiologic technologists, therapists, and sonographers. 1995 commemorates the 100th anniversary of the discovery of the x ray by Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen and celebrates the 75th year of the oldest radiologic technologist society in the world. Roentgen's discovery revolutionized medicine allowing doctors to view the inner workings of the human body like never before. The American Society of Radiologic Technologists was the first to establish professional standards for radiologic technologists performing x rays, emphasizing quality techniques and radiation protection for both patient and technologist. With more than 200,000 radiologic technology professionals nationwide, the American Society of Radiologic Technologists is on the forefront in promoting patient safety and technologist education. Society founder, Ed Jerman, brought together 13 technologists in 1920 to form an association that would advance the profession and the technologists working in radiologic technology. His dedication to professionalism and service remains the foundation of the society. Technologists, therapists, and sonographers operate the equipment and deal directly with patients to produce the images that physicians use to diagnose and develop treatment plans. Radiologic technologists' skill and professionalism in performing exams influences the quality of patient health care from excellent images, to accurate diagnosis and treatment, to effective follow up. For 75 years the ASRT has responded to the issues challenging radiologic technologists and the profession. Ed Jerman was the first to standardize radiographic techniques in the 1920's. The ASRT helped establish uniform educational and accreditation standards in the 1950's. The testimony of the ASRT's leaders assisted in the passage of the Consumer-Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act in 1981. Today, the society continues to promote radiation safety by supporting licensure at the State level and continuing education for all radiologic technologists. The ASRT's dedication to high standards in safety and education acknowledges the vital role of radiologic technology professionals as members of today's health care team. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I pay tribute to such a hard-working, dedicated group of professionals represented by the American Society of Radiologic Technologists.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the National Parks Check-Off Act. The National Parks Check-off Act will amend the Internal Revenue Code to require that Federal income tax forms contain a line which will allow taxpayers to donate one or more dollars to the National Park Service. This legislation will provide more money for the care of our National Parks at no cost to the Federal Government. A recent study released by the National Parks and Conservation Association indicated that nearly 8 out of every 10 people surveyed would be willing to increase their tax contribution by $1 to benefit the National Park System. A similar checkoff for presidential campaigns raised over $71 million in 1994 alone. I believe that our National Parks are far more popular than presidential campaigns. Therefore, I believe we could raise hundreds of millions of dollars for our National Parks through this type of checkoff on income-tax forms. Recently, James Duffus, from the Government Accounting Office, testified at a joint hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Parks, Historical Preservation and Recreation and the House Subcommittee on Parks, Forests and Public Lands. During his testimony, he stated: ``Since substantial increases in appropriations are very unlikely in today's tight budget climate, difficult choices need to be made on the future of the national parks.'' I believe there is at least one easy choice that can be made which will provide our parks with additional funding--the choice to allow taxpayers the opportunity to donate money for the care of our National Parks. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation which will help us improve the quality of our National Parks.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow a courageous young man named Michael New is to be arraigned for a court martial. Mr. New's offense is that he refused to wear the blue uniform of the United Nations on a peacekeeping mission to Macedonia. He has not refused to go overseas on the peacekeeping mission as ordered. He simply has taken the position that his oath upon entering military service was to the United States--not the United Nations--and he wanted to wear his U.S. Army uniform. Obviously, this young man loves America, and he has taken a very patriotic stand. Most Americans believe that the young men and women in our Armed Forces should not be sent overseas except under the command of American generals and admirals. The Members of Congress who are the most concerned with the treatment of Mr. New are generally the Members who are among the strongest supporters of the U.S. military. Our Armed Forces are going to squander a great deal of public and congressional support if they continue to prosecute Michael New. They could easily have found other duty for someone who was making a reasonable, principled, and patriotic objection as was Mr. New.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly discuss several items which are directly or indirectly related to the budget reconciliation presently before us. First, let me say that no one has cornered the market on compassion. No one has a monopoly on virtue. Yet some around here seem to believe that they have. Every time any budget cut is proposed, we are told that it is mean spirited, or that it shows a lack of compassion. Yet what really lacks compassion is for the Federal Government to take so much money from families that they don't have enough money left to support their children in the way they should. This is what is happening in this country today where the average person has to pay half of his or her income now in taxes when you count taxes of all types, Federal, State, and local--sales, property, income, gas, Social Security, and so forth. What really shows a lack of compassion is an unwillingness to cut anything so that we can get federal spending under control. What really shows a lack of compassion is to continue running up large deficits so that we absolutely destroy the economic futures of our children. What really shows a lack of compassion is to tell the people of this country, through votes on this floor, that bureaucrats can spend their hard-earned money for them better than they can themselves. And let me say something else--almost every leading economist tells us that our $5 trillion national debt really holds this country back economically. Times are good for some now. But they could and should be good for everyone. People who are making $5 to $6 an hour could and should be making $10 or $12 an hour. It sure isn't compassionate to let our national debt get even higher so that the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing. The choice is simple. Are we going to side with overpaid and underworked bureaucrats, or are we going to side with the average people who are footing the bill. Second, I could live with a lower tax cut than $245 billion. But let's put this in perspective. This is not an all-at-once cut. It is spread over 7 years. This cut comes out to less than 2 percent--less than 2 percent--of Federal spending over this period. This follows a 15-year period during which Federal spending has gone up almost 300 percent. The first Reagan budget was $581 billion. We're spending almost triple that now. Federal spending has gone up 300 percent in the last 15 years--is it asking too much to give back less than 2 percent? Seventy percent of this tax cut goes to people making less than $50,000 a year. Do we ever think about that? Most Republicans support flat tax which totally excludes people making less than $26,000 or couples making less than $38,000 from Federal income taxes altogether. Do you ever think about that? Who is really for lower income people-- someone who wants to keep their taxes high like now, or someone who wants to greatly reduce their taxes. Third, last week we passed a Medicare bill that provides for a huge increase in Medicare spending. In Tennessee, we now spend approximately $5,000 per year on the average recipient of Medicare. This will go up to over $7,000, an increase of $2,000 over the next 7 years. This bill provides for an increase in Medicare spending at twice the rate of inflation. And this is called a cut. There is no disagreement that Medicare is going broke. The President's own trustees tell us this. Is it compassionate to sit around and let it go under. Is it right just to fix it until after the next election. The Medicare bill we passed may not be perfect. But it is sure not a cut; it is a huge increase. Fourth, we will spend $4 billion in Haiti by the time our troops pull out next February. Now, the President wants to send 20,000 to 25,000 troops to Bosnia. We are already paying almost one third of the so-called peacekeeping costs there now. We will end up spending billions in Bosnia, too, if we are not careful, and the situation in these places is going to go right back the way it was as soon as we stop pouring our billions and billions into those places. We should not send young American men and women to fight and die on foreign battlefields, Mr. Speaker, unless there is a vital U.S. interest present, or unless there is a real threat to our national security. Neither of these is present in Bosnia. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that when I got home last Thursday night, I read in the USA Today that Allen Greenspan is planning through the Federal Reserve Board to spend billions to prop up the Japanese financial system. We should not be doing that, Mr. Speaker. Our obligation should be to the American taxpayers, and not to the big Japanese banks. They would not bail us out if we got in financial trouble, and we should not be bailing out their big banks with billions of our dollars at this time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, last month I was invited to the University of Tennessee Hospital where I was given a tour and briefing concerning a new medical technology, Positron Emission Tomography, or PET for short. I should say that this is the latest advance in medical technology for humans and does not apply to pet animals. PET technology is the latest advance in diagnosing diseases such as breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, heart disease, and epilepsy. I have introduced H.R. 2194, the Medicare PET Coverage Act of 1995, because it is time that the average American has access to both this technology and the benefits from cost savings that PET scans provide. My bill would expand PET from research into widespread clinical use by permitting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for PET scan procedures. Despite the fact that CHAMPUS and private insurers like Blue Cross/ Blue Shield already reimburse for this safe, cost effective procedure, Medicare and Medicaid do not. PET scan technology is a diagnostic procedure that doctors can use without surgery to determine the rate of growth of a tumor and tell if it is malignant or benign. This knowledge saves patients from unnecessary surgery and even eliminates the need for many biopsies. Over its 20-year history and some 1 million PET scans, the technique has demonstrated the ability to reduce the number, cost, physical pain, and mortality of expensive surgical procedures. This results not only in improved care, but also reduced health care delivery costs. For example, in the case of breast cancer, most patients undergo an expensive and painful surgery to evaluate the tumors. This procedure often requires hospitalization and anesthesia and can lead to complications. PET scans allow doctors to screen out the 75 percent of patients who can be treated by partial mastectomy and thereby avoid surgery. Almost 74,000 women per year would be spared the risk and the cost associated with this surgery. Similarly, lung cancer patients would avoid 10,000 surgeries and 17,000 biopsies each year with the use of PET scans. With today's rising health care costs, we need to push those technologies which provide cost savings into the mainstream of medical practice. Data collected from peer review studies shows that PET technology offers the potential to reduce national health care costs by a net of $5 billion a year. Approximately $1 billion of these savings would be in Medicare alone. I would like to commend my colleague, Mr. Thomas of California, for his efforts to include PET scans in the Medicare Preservation Act we will vote on tomorrow. His language clarifies the scope of coverage and amount of payment under the Medicare program. This would ensure that cutting-edge and cost-saving technologies like PET are reimbursable. This language is an important step in enabling Americans who rely on Medicare to benefit from innovative new technologies while at the same time generating considerable savings to the Federal Government. As important for me as the cost savings is the fact that the largest manufacturer of PET scan equipment in the world, CTI, is located in my district in east Tennessee. The technology and personnel that founded the company came from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory just outside of Knoxville, TN. The savings from PET technology could start today. One million PET scan studies have been performed with no known negative reactions. Patients have avoided unnecessary surgery because of PET. Again, I say we are not talking about animal pets, but a medical breakthrough called Positron Emission Tomography. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has not made a decision on reimbursement while the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] drags its feet in making a decision on whether and how to regulate PET--something that States have already been doing. For over 7 years, the developers of PET scans have complied with HCFA and FDA procedures and requests only to have the rules changed and inquiries about progress met with minimal response. While there has been some recent movement on the part of the FDA, the fact remains that we have no consistent regulatory plan that applies industry-wide to all uses of PET. Mr. Thomas' language will help move PET, and other technologies like it, out of this needless bureaucratic standstill. Under this language, HCFA can no longer prevent Americans who rely on Medicare from [[Page E 1982]] the benefits of PET scan technology. It will no longer be able to keep the Federal Government from realizing the savings that PET scans can generate. A hallmark of our health care system is the ability to constantly improve patient treatment by introducing new technology. Better technology often means a more intelligent approach to the diagnosis and treatment of illness. This often translates into better care at a lower cost. To the person who can avoid surgery, the access to PET is an immediate health concern. For the taxpayer or individual insurance consumer, reimbursement can help relieve the burden of rising costs. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement of PET technology provides access to a medical benefit that Americans should not be denied 1 more day. Mr. Speaker, PET scans can save lives, discovering things that other types of medical scanning miss. It will not be long before people will be demanding this technology. We should not deny its benefits to our senior citizens because of bureaucratic delays or unfair medical rules.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues an article written by my constituent, Alzheimer's activist George Rehnquist of Knoxville, TN. Mr. Rehnquist is a retired Tennessee Valley Authority engineer and founder of the Families for Alzheimer's Rights Association. One of the most wasteful, bureaucratic agencies in the Federal Government today is the FDA. They have delayed approval for medicines for sometimes up to years to the detriment of the health of American citizens. Mr. Rehnquist's personal experience with drug research brings awareness to the needless deaths caused by FDA's senseless delay of approval on vital medicines. I agree that Congress should no longer tolerate this practice. Alzheimer's Patients Need FDA Reform (By George D. Rehnquist) If officials of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had to take care of an Alzheimer's patient 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, month after month and year after year, the medicine my wife needed would have been approved in record time. As it was, the FDA tied the medicine up in red tape until tens of thousands of Alzheimer's patients who could have been helped by the medicine had died. Congress is considering legislation to reform this agency to make it more responsive to the needs of patients. Hopefully, Congress will stop FDA from playing God with the lives of terminally-ill patients. My wife, Lucille, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1981, but her symptoms began before that, in 1970. She was in her early fifties when she began to get lost on shopping outings. She had to stop playing bridge, because she couldn't remember what cards had been played. She also had to leave her secretarial job at the Tennessee Valley Authority because the work was getting too confusing for her, and she complained that she felt like she was in a continuous daze. When we got the Alzheimer's diagnosis--at Duke University Medical Center--I was shattered. There was no medicine, no cure. They told me she might not know me in a year, and that I wouldn't be able to take care of her--I'd have to put her in a nursing home. Determined to help my wife, I took early retirement so I could take care of her in our home. I also read everything I could about the disease, and called up people who were doing research. When I read a report that Dr. William K. Summers was having some success with an experimental intravenous drug called THA, or tetrahydroaminoacridine. I contacted him immediately. Dr. Summers agreed to treat Lucille, and we flew to California. After four days of treatment, the change was miraculous, Lucille came out of her daze and even baked brownies for Dr. Summers. When she took a orientation test, she got 9 out of 12 answers correct--compared to only one out of 12 before treatment with the drug. She could drive and do housework. ``I'm back to my old self again!'' she rejoiced. Because Lucille couldn't stay in the hospital to continue intravenous treatment, I tried to get the drug in pill form. That was my first battle with the FDA. Dr. Summers had been trying to get permission to treat people with oral THA for several years, but had no success. After two years of pleading with and cajoling the FDA, interventions by my Congressman, and, finally, a letter to President Reagan, the permission came through for Dr. Summers to give Lucille THA in pill form under a ``compassionate IND (investigational new drug)''. Lucille was the first patient to get THA in pill form. She continued to improve and we had five good years together before the disease progressed to the point where she had to enter a nursing home. THA is a palliative--not a cure--for Alzheimer's. But for Alzheimer's patients and their families, THA is the only thing that offers any hope at all. THA gave Lucille and me more than five good years together. That should be all the evidence of effectiveness FDA needs. Patients with terminal diseases should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not a drug works. Once Lucille entered a nursing home, she had to stop taking the drug. The reason: the nursing home could not give her a drug that hadn't been approved by the FDA. She declined steadily. Meanwhile--after an article by Dr. Summers was published in The New England Journal of Medicine--the medical community and the families of Alzheimer's patients clamored for the FDA to approve THA. But the FDA kept throwing blockades. The agency bashed Dr. Summers' research and cited danger of liver damage (which was benign and reversible). The agency also claimed that the medicine wasn't effective, although the families of patients who had been helped by it knew better. Finally, after six years of hearings and red tape, the FDA approved the medicine in late 1993. If the agency had acted more quickly, it could have helped many people and saved millions of dollars by enabling families to take care of Alzheimer's patients at home instead of in nursing homes. THA, now known by the brand-name Cognex, is now available by prescription and should help many patients have a better quality of life. It is not a cure, but I am concerned that when a cure is finally developed it, too, will get tied up in red tape. The way drug development and regulation works now, it takes nearly 15 years between the time a drug is developed and the time it is available at the pharmacy. Sick people-- particularly people with Alzheimer's disease--can't wait that long. For the sake of people waiting for cures for this and other diseases, Congress must act now to change the way the FDA operates. In my struggle with the FDA, I have found rude bureaucrats who were arbitrary and capacious. I believe this come from wielding absolute power for too long. I believe that the power of FDA must be reduced, not expanded as President Clinton now desires.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2405 the bill just considered.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, there has been so much talk lately about the proposed $245 billion tax cut that some key facts are being overlooked or lost in all the political rhetoric. First, this is not an all-at-once cut. It is spread over 7 years. This comes out to $35 billion per year. This amounts to slightly less than 2 percent of Federal spending over this period. Federal spending has gone up almost 300 percent since 1980. The first Reagan budget was $581 billion. We are at a figure almost triple that now, and will be at more than triple that during this 7-year budget period; in other words, a 300 percent increase in Federal spending in the last 15 years, while inflation during that time has averaged about 3 percent a year, or roughly 45 to 50 percent over that period. Federal spending, in other words, Mr. Speaker, has increased at a rate roughly six times the rate of inflation over this period. Surely it is not asking too much for Federal bureaucrats to give back 2 percent a year when they have had such whopping increases, and an almost 300 percent increase over the last 15 years. Federal taxes now take almost half of the average person's income. We are talking about the average person here, not the wealthy, but almost half of the average person's income when you consider taxes of all types: Federal, State, local, sales, property, income, gas, excise, Social Security, and so forth. When you consider the indirect taxes that we all pay in the form of higher prices because corporations do not pay any taxes, they have to pass their taxes on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for shirts, tires, shoes, food or everything that we buy. Second, most of this proposed tax increase, over 70 percent, would go to people making less than $50,000 per year. Somehow we never hear about that. Third, one of our leaders, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], has proposed a flat tax which would totally exclude all income under $38,000 for a married couple and $26,000 for a single person. In other words, most of the people I represent would be totally excluded from Federal income taxes. They would still have to pay other taxes, but what this really means is that the position of most Republicans is that we would exclude lower income people from Federal income taxes altogether. Somehow, we never hear about that either. Now, I voted for the $245 billion tax cut, this 2 percent tax cut. But I also happen to be one of 10 Republicans who voted for a so-called compromise budget which would have put off any tax cut until we get the budget balanced. I am willing to accept less, but we should not exaggerate this $245 billion tax cut all out of proportion just for partisan political purposes. We should not constantly call this a tax cut for the wealthy, when by far the majority of it goes to middle and lower income citizens. Our very biased national media is reporting this tax cut in a very biased, very unfair manner. I believe the people of this country know better how to spend their money, far better how to spend their own money, than the bureaucrats in Washington do. I know, too, that even with this proposed 2 percent tax cut, the Federal Government would still be spending over $1.6 trillion, rising to almost $2 trillion over this next 7 years, even if we pass this very modest 2 percent tax cut. The choice is simple: Are we going to side with the ordinary, hard working people and give them back 2 percent of their money, or are we going to side with the bureaucrats and say you really do not have to tighten your belts. You have had just a 300 percent increase over the last 15 years, but apparently that is not enough. Despite the lies, despite the demagoguery, despite the distortions, despite all the propaganda, I believe the people still want us to cut spending and cut taxes and give some of their money, their hard earned money, back to them.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago Ann McFedders, of the Scripps-Howard newspaper chain, wrote this: ``Americans are right to be disgusted with government right now. Events of recent days are alarming. They should be a warning to all politicians, police officials, and anyone hired by government.'' That woman has walked the straight and narrow, do not take short cuts, do not rationalize. She said, ``It is time to rethink the role of government.'' She was writing primarily about the horrible events at Waco and Ruby Ridge, But let me read her words again. ``Americans are right to be disgusted with government right now. Events of recent days are alarming.'' She said, ``It is time to rethink the role of government.'' William Raspberry, the very fine syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, wrote several months ago about some travels he had made around the country. He said, what were the people saying to him as he went around the Nation. He said this: It sounds very much like it doesn't work. Government doesn't work. It costs more and becomes more intrusive with each passing year, but hardly anywhere can it be said that it is performing better. The trash cans get bigger, the refuse separation rules more onerous, but the streets and alleys aren't any cleaner. Criminal justice costs keep going up, but the neighborhoods aren't safer. Schools become increasingly expensive, and increasingly ineffective. Government doesn't work. Those are the words of William Raspberry. These are not the words of any conservative Republicans. I grew up in a political family, and I have been following governing and politics closely since my early teenage years. I do not believe; in fact, I am certain that I have never seen a time where there has been so much dissatisfaction, disgust, disappointment, disenchantment, frustration, resentment, even anger, toward government, in general, and toward the Federal Government, in particular, as there is today. As a conservative Republican, I have two reactions to this. First, I am sorry that things have gotten to the point that they have that so many people feel this way. But secondly, I also must tell you that in a way, I believe this is a good sign for our future. If government can solve all of our problems, the Soviet Union would have been heaven on Earth. Instead, every place where the people have allowed the government or their governments to get too big, they have ended up suffering and living under horrible conditions. So perhaps it is a good sign that so many people in such a clear, strong majority no longer believe in big government or no longer believe that government can solve all of our problems. Why are people so angry toward government today? Well, I believe it is because the Federal Government has become one that is of, by and for the bureaucrats instead of one that is of, by and for the people. Too often today our public service has become public high living, high salaries, high pensions, plush offices, short hours. Most importantly, and perhaps worst of all, unaccountability for huge and very costly mistakes. Our servants have become our rulers. The people are really fed up today. They are disgusted with the waste, the lavish spending, the arrogance. Paul Greg Roberts, another nationally syndicated columnist, wrote this recently. He said: Six months after the inauguration of the new Republican Congress, it has become apparent that the most important issues facing the country are not economic. Without a doubt, high taxes, profligate government spending and welfare dependency are problems sorely in need of the attention focused on them. But the real question is whether Congress can reclaim the law from unelected bureaucrats and judges. He also said this: In the 20th century, there has been a coup against self- rule by bureaucrats and judges. Federal bureaucrats have usurped statutory law with regulations that lack legislative basis. I think these words of Paul Greg Roberts are right. He went on in this column to say: In the coming months we will discover whether the Republican Congress can do something that the Democratic Congress failed to do for 40 years: Hold government accountable to the people. This, not the size of the Federal budget, is the ultimate test of whether it matters which party controls Congress. He said: The problem in America is not that the budget is out of control, but that the government is. [[Page H 9650]] There are so many examples that I could give of the fact that the government has come under the control of bureaucrats. One of the best came up recently in regard to the National Reconnaissance Office. It came out last year that they had spent $310 million building a new building that nobody knew about, a 1 million square foot building, $310 a square foot. I would simply say this. It is time that we give the government of this country back to the people of this country and remind the Federal bureaucracy that they are working for us, and not us for them.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, there has been so much political criticism of the proposed $245 billion tax cut--but what are the facts? [[Page H 9368]] First, this tax cut is spread over 7 years and averages about $35 billion a year. This is just 2 percent of Federal spending over that period. Federal spending has risen almost 300 percent over the last 15 years. Do you really think we cannot give just 2 percent back? Second, some of this tax cut will go to upper income citizens--but most of it will go to lower and middle income people. Somehow, we never hear about that. Third, Dick Armey, our Republican majority leader, has introduced a flat tax proposal that totally excludes from Federal income taxes the first $26,000 of income for a single person and the first $38,000 for a married couple. This would do a whole lot more for poor people than all the political rhetoric coming from those who do not want to cut taxes at all. The people of this Nation need some of their money back--the bureaucrats have taken too much for far too long.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I will say briefly that I feel this is a very reasonable amendment, a very moderate amendment, and in fact, I would make an argument that it is a very conservative amendment. As most people in this House know, I think I have one of the highest percentages of voting with the majority of my party in the years since I have been here. I know that not many on my side of the aisle will be voting for this amendment, but I am very pleased that many or several leading conservative organizations have voiced support for this, including very strong support from the Citizens for a Sound Economy, because this is a conservative amendment, because it would save a substantial amount of taxpayers' money. Many of us saw on the front page of the U.S.A. Today a few days ago that our national debt has now reached over $5 trillion. Alice Rivlin, who is the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, put out a memo a few months ago and said we will have yearly losses of over $1 trillion a year by the year 2010, and over $5 trillion a year by the year 2030, if we do not make major changes now. This is one area that can be reduced without harmful effect, because even if this amendment goes through, we can still have a very strong, even a lavish intelligence operation in this country. I favor a strong intelligence operation, but surely to goodness we can have a good, strong intelligence operation with all the many billions that would be left, even if this amendment passed. If this amendment passes, and it is a cut of 10 percent of a little over half of our intelligence operation in this country, if this amendment passes we will still be spending more than twice the annual budget of the entire State of Tennessee for all that it does; and Tennessee, with a little over 5 million people, is exactly typical, and almost exactly average, in all areas of spending compared to other States, all the other States in this country, so we can still have a very active intelligence operation. Let me tell the Members what some of this money is being spent for. Last year it was reported on the front page of the Washington Post that the National Reconnaissance Office was building a secret building out here in Virginia, spending $310 million for a 1-million-square-foot building. That is $310 a square foot, about three times the amount that State governments spend on beautiful buildings all over this country. They are spending in these lavish, ridiculous ways because they are not being held back or not being held accountable in the way that they should be for taxpayer money. These agencies, our intelligence agencies, unfortunately did not predict [[Page H 8651]] the coming down of the Berlin Wall, they did not predict the breakup of the Soviet Union. They are doing these esoteric studies and benefiting and helping no one, really, other than the bureaucrats who work for these agencies. Therefore, I think it is time to step back and take another look at some of these agencies, and reduce their spending at the very time that we are downsizing the military. Many people, most people that I represent, would feel that we should really downsize the intelligence operations even more, and perhaps downsize the military of this country a little bit less, so I think this is a very fair, reasonable, amendment, and I urge its support.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, as some people here know, I spent 7\1/2\ years as a criminal court judge in Tennessee trying felony criminal cases, the burglaries, the rapes, the armed robberies, the murder cases, the drug cases, the most serious cases. As everyone can imagine, I saw many very sad things during those years. However, one of the saddest cases involved what was then, and may still be, the biggest drug case every to hit the city of Knoxville. Four young people brought 72,000 hits of LSD from California and were arrested in a raid at the Hilton Hotel. One of the four was a very beautiful young woman, just 1 month past her 18th birthday. She testified that she started with marijuana in the 7th grade, and because she handled that with no problem, she went on to cocaine in the 9th grade and heroin in the 10th grade. She then left home and started following a band called the Grateful Dead. She became part of a subculture called the Deadheads. They used her for a couple of years or so until she ran out of money in California and started living on the beach and having to beg for money and beg for food. Then she got involved in selling drugs. She came to Knoxville, got caught and had to spend 12 years of a nonprobatable sentence in the Tennessee Penitentiary for Women. After she was arrested, she found out she was pregnant, and she had twins which were delivered while she was incarcerated and had to be turned over to the State of Connecticut where she was originally from. I became horrified from what I heard from those young people about how their lives were ruined when they became attracted to this band, the Grateful Dead, and became part of this horrible subculture called the Deadheads. So you can imagine how interested I was when I picked up Sunday's Washington Post and read on the front page of the Outlook section of a column, an article, a lengthy article entitled ``UnGrateful Deadheads, My Long, Strange Trip Through a Tie-Dyed Hell,'' by Carolyn Ruff. I wanted to read just a portion of this article because there may be some people here tonight or some parents who are listening whose young people are attracted to things like this. I do this sort of as hopefully a warning for these young people to get some help. Carolyn Ruff wrote this: She jumped from a window of a seedy motel on Market Street in San Francisco. From a room full of Deadheads she considered to be her family, she climbed out onto the ledge and then took one more step forward. No one made any attempt to stop her. I was on the street below and to this day remain thankful I was looking the other way. I don't even remember her name anymore. I suspect few remember her at all. We met at a Grateful Dead show in North Carolina. It was the end of the Dead's fall tour of 1989, I had just completed my first full tour and she had finished what would be her last. She was a bright, beautiful runaway from a loveless home in Pittsburgh. Like many of the hundreds on the tour, she was attracted to the scene around the Grateful Dead as much as the band itself. In the Deadheads, she thought she saw family. When we saw each other again a few months later in Miami, I was shocked by her mental deterioration. She rambled gravely about how her closest friends had stolen her clothes and her money. She shamefully recounted having sex with men in exchange for food and drugs. She had lice in her hair. She was hungry, lonely, miserable. Another Deadhead suggested that she medicate with acid to cleanse the dark thoughts from her head, and then swim in the ocean to rinse the black film on her soul. This home remedy failed and a young life was lost within months of our meeting. I continue to read from this column from the Washington Post, as Carolyn Ruff put it this past Sunday: Contrary to the image laid out by the Deadheads themselves, life on tour these days is far from peace, love and smiles. Capitalism, greed and betrayal would be more apt descriptions. In my seven years as a devoted Deadhead including two spent touring the country, I came to take for granted that people would steal from a friend's backpack and rationalize their actions. I saw friends sleep with other friends' partners. I saw young women sexually assaulted after being unwittingly dosed with acid. I saw someone give a friend's dog acid just to watch it lose it mind. I saw people stranded in a strange city because their friends were impatient to hit the road. I saw people trash their friends motel rooms, knowing that they would not be held responsible for the damage. With no legal system within the Deadhead culture, these injustices go unchallenged. I do not have time, tonight, Mr. Speaker, to read this entire article. But I do commend the Washington Post for writing this and Carolyn Ruff for bringing this horrible subculture of the Deadheads to the attention of so many people. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article to which I referred. [From the Washington Post, July 30, 1995] The Ungrateful Deadheads my long, strange trip through a tie-dyed hell (By Carolyn Ruff) She jumped from a window of a seedy motel on market Street in San Francisco. From a room full of Deadheads she considered to be her family, she climbed out onto the ledge and then took one more step forward. No one made any attempt to stop her. I was on the street below and to this day remain thankful I was looking the other way. I don't even remember her name anymore. I suspect few remember her at all. We met at a Grateful Dead show in North Carolina. It was the end of the Dead's fall tour in 1989. I had just completed my first full tour and she had finished what would be her last. She was a bright, beautiful runaway from a loveless home in Pittsburgh. Like many of the hundreds on the tour, she was attracted to the scene around the Grateful Dead as much as the band itself. In the Deadheads, she thought she saw family. When we saw each other again a few months later in Miami, I was shocked by her mental deterioration. She rambled gravely about how her closest friends had stolen her clothes and her money. She shamefully recounted having sex with men in exchange for food and drugs. She had lice in her hair. She was hungry, lonely, miserable. Another Deadhead suggested that she medicate with acid to cleanse the dark thoughts from her head, and then swim in the ocean to rinse the black film on her soul. This home remedy failed and a young life was lost within months of our meeting. That indecent occurred five years ago, but recent headlines surrounding the Grateful Dead have taken me back to that time and to my own days on tour. As the itinerant band celebrates an astonishing 30 years on tour, it has been dogged by misfortune--lightning struck fans earlier this summer at RFK Stadium in Washington, several dozen people were arrested outside a Dead concert in Albany and for the first time in three decades, a scheduled concert was canceled in Indiana for fear of crowd violence. None of this can be directly attributed to the band itself, but the incidents are nonetheless beginning to expose a darker, more malevolent side of the Grateful Dead milieu. Contrary to the image laid out by the Deadheads themselves, life on tour these days is far from peace, love and smiles. Capitalism, greed and betrayal would be more apt descriptions. Today's Deadheads wear the tie-dyed costumes of a past generation but aren't propelled by the same sense of moral rebellion. If bygone Deadheads were protesting war and social strife, today's seem only to be dissenters from real-world monotony. Unfortunately, like many of my generation's discontents, they are cynical, savy and unhappy with their lives. In my seven years as a devoted Deadhead--including two spent touring the country--I came to take for granted that people would steal from a friend's backpack and rationalize their actions. I saw friends sleep with other friends' partners. I saw young women sexually assaulted after being unwittingly dosed with acid. I saw someone give a friend's dog acid just to watch it lose its mind. I saw people stranded in a strange city because their friends were impatient to hit the road. I saw people trash their friends' motel rooms, knowing that they would not be held responsible for the damage. With no legal system within the Deadhead culture, these injustices go unchallenged. Thankfully, violent acts of retribution have been few, but who knows if it will someday come to that? The common reaction when this sort of incident occurs is to get a bit meaner, shrewder and make a plan to do it back to someone else. Eventually. I came to dislike the music of the Dead because of the association I made between the band and its followers. It would be unfair to imply that all of those on tour engage in such loathsome behavior. There are many who revel in the shows and demonstrate respect not just for their fellow Tourheads but for the cities they visit. Their sole desire is to immerse themselves in the music and peacefully co-exist with others who feel the same. But the dominant culture is not so sanguine. In an attempt to escape the society they so disdain, the Deadheads have created a world underpinned by the same materialism and greed. Whether it be overpricing their wares or selling crack and ecstasy, the looming specter of capitalism rules supreme, and it is every bit as ruthless as that of the American mainstream. Newcomers naive enough to think otherwise quickly have their misconceptions dispelled. I met quite a few 14- and 15- year-old kids who came to tour without a penny and thought they could turn to other Deadheads for support. Somehow, they thought money didn't hold the same relevance that it does elsewhere. But unless you're a Trustfund Deadhead, sustained by the family fortune, everyone needs a scheme. Selling veggie sandwiches is one option, as is hawking jewelry or clothing. To make these business go, some Deadheads trek to Central America between tours to buy the Guatemalan jewelry and garb so popular among Dead followers. Others make their own products to sell. And with a steady flow of suburban kids who have the cash to spend on a $5 tofu burger and a $20 T-shirt, these entrepreneurs have an ideal location at Dead shows. But these business ventures take a level of initiative and planning beyond what most Tourheads are willing to expend. More typically, people make just enough money to cover food, lodging, their concert ticket and enough gas to get to the next city. If you are not good at selling or at least scamming, you will not make it on tour. Many Deadheads, while professing distrust and disdain for the government, make it by accepting food stamps and other public hand-outs. A walk down the streets of Berkeley or San Francisco, a popular hub of between-tour activity, is evidence enough that many Tourheads are also adept at panhandling, although this is not a profitable choice for survival. The drug trade is also an easy and rather lucrative route to sustenance. With perseverance, one can usually find suppliers of acid, mushrooms or ecstasy to resell, and the rising popularity of crack and heroin on tour is opening up new markets. There is the nuisance of undercover agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration, to say nothing of fellow Deadhead narcs, but this can add an element of excitement to a new career--which for today's Deadheads is a tonic in itself. My initiation to the Grateful Dead came in 1986 and coincided with the band's resurgence back then. I was in college and had been more interested in the Clash and Flipper than wearing bells on my shoes and tie-dyeing every white shirt I owned. But after going to a few shows I grew enchanted, with the band and with the hordes of colorfully attired people who seemed like happy children at recess. I worked every conceivable retail job to finance my indulgence, choosing positions where there was little commitment. With the money I had saved and the cushion of a few credit cards, I was able to traverse the country with relative financial security. It also helped that I had family that, though preferring I settle down and get a job, made clear that I could rely on them if things got desperate. It might have been different had I joined the tour earlier. One retired Tourhead who requests anonymity for fear of losing a respectable job says the late 1980s ushered in a more amoral environment. ``The demise of the Dead scene began in 1987 when going to shows became like going to some sort of pop scene,'' says this ex-Deadhead who himself was eventually scared away by the violence. He blames alcohol abuse for what he sees as an increased incidence of fighting, show-crashing and other disruptive behavior. Today's version of tour is a mockery of what the original Dead followers created. There is an attempt to form family units, but too often they aren't bound together by loyalty and trust. The members travel together, bunk together and, theoretically, provide the love and support that one might bestow on a relative. And, to a degree, there is a sense of sharing: In spurts of generosity, one person or a few will support the others by buying the gas or paying for the motel room. But typically this generosity is born of necessity-- everybody else is broke. Rarely do the relationships that develop transcend each person's own selfishness. Usually, the break occurs over money--someone feels they've been cut out of a drug deal, or grows tired of supporting a parasitic family member. To survive on tour, it helps to have emotions encased in steel. Courtesy is not mandatory and verbal assaults, rude comments and sexist remarks are common in the course of a motel room conversation. People refer to each other freely as ``sister'' or ``brother'' but there was rarely the accompanying intimacy. Practically everyone goes by a nickname--Woodstock, Scooter, Zeus, Rainbow, Jinx. Often, I never knew people's real first names, and rarely did I know their last. There was a degree of secrecy which supposedly stemmed from a paranoia of the law, but sometimes I wondered whether going by a fake name among friends was just a way of preventing anyone from getting too close. So what's the beauty of it all? The question for many on tour is probably: What's the alternative? ``There is this core group of Tourheads who have dropped out of society and their only alternative is to follow the Dead,'' says Jill, another former Deadhead. These people live for tour to resume each season, but quickly grow disgusted. They boast of making enough money from the present tour to buy that land in Oregon and settle down. But more typically their money is blown on lavish hotel rooms, expensive meals, beer and drugs. Strung out and broke, they're left scrambling for someone to support them until tour begins again. And so a cycle evolves: Many may want to try a new life but have become ensnared in the tour culture. Financially, they know no other way to make money other than selling wares on tour. Socially, whether they truly like them or not, the people on tour are the only friends they have. Alienated and fearful of what the real world is about, they settle into what they know best: The Dead. Every time there is a scare that the Dead may stop touring, I find myself worrying about the lost souls who know nothing else but the parallel world of the Grateful Dead. Many are talented and have skills adaptable to the mainstream. It's those who use the Dead simply as an escape who will have difficulty adjusting to life without tour. Sadly, I cannot picture their future. They will surely endure the loss of the Dead's live performances, but can they handle the end of tour? That possibility seems ever more zeal with the current malaise surrounding the band. As the amount of violence and police confrontation has grown, so have concerns about how to curtail it. A group calling itself Save Our Scene has formed in an attempt to quash disruptive behavior. And through newsletters and the Internet, band members have practically begged their fans to clean up their act. If they don't, the Dead will stop touring' or so they threaten. In an open letter passed out to Deadheads at a recent St. Louis show and later posted on the Internet, the Dead told fans that ``over the past 30 years we've come up with the fewest possible rules to make the difficult act of bringing tons of people together work well--and a few thousand so- called Dead Heads ignore these simple rules and screw it up for you, us and everybody.'' Arguably, it is not the Tourheads who are responsible for the bad behavior, but local kids who view the parking lot at a Dead show as an invitation to party with complete abandon. Tourheads can blame the less devoted concert-goers, but it is these ``outsiders'' who buy the goods that sustain the Tourheads lifestyle. And it is the Tourheads who have created the atmosphere that is so appealing to revelers in the first place. The Dead went on to say, ``If you don't have a ticket, don't come. This is real. This is a music concert, not a free-for-all party.'' To me, the issue of blame isn't really relevant. The real question is: How long did anyone think the party could last?

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment being offered by Mr. Andrews. This amendment would eliminate funding for the military airport program. This program sets aside only 2.5 percent of airport improvement program funds for military airports. Converting military bases to civilian use saves the taxpayers money. The $37 million we would spend next year to help convert military bases to civilian airports would increase airport capacity and help reduce congestion and delays. It is much cheaper than building new airports such as the one at Denver that cost more than $4 billion. I am aware that GAO criticized the management of the military airport program in a report last year. However, as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I am prepared to eliminate the military airport program as part of the AIP reauthorization if necessary. But the subcommittee needs an opportunity to examine this worthy program in light of the GAO report, legislative changes made in response to that report, and recent developments. Eliminating the program now in this bill would be premature. Therefore, I urge the defeat of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record: American Association of Airport Executives, King Street, Alexandria, VA July 24, 1995. Hon. John J. Duncan Jr., Chairman, House Aviation Subcommittee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the thousands of men and women who manage and operate our nation's airports, I am writing to express our opposition to amendments to H.R. 2002 to be offered by Representative Andrews (D-NJ) to lower the funding level for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and limit funding for the Military Airport Program. The Airport Improvement Program has suffered dramatic funding reductions over the past several years. This amendment would cut yet another $37 million from the program and would represent a step backward. Any proposed changes to the Military Airport Program are more properly considered in the context of next year's reauthorization of the Airport Improvement Program, not in H.R. 2002. Please oppose the Andrews amendments to lower the AIP and/ or Military Airport Program funding levels currently contained in H.R. 2002. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. Sincerely, Charles M. Barclay, President.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment would cut approximately $130 million from the FAA's facilities and equipment prior-year accounts. The facilities and equipment account funds crucial safety equipment such as aviation radars, air traffic control equipment, and weather detection equipment. This amendment reaches back to prior-year funds and blindly grabs money--the the amendment doesn't state where the funding cuts are coming from. Will a radar get cut? Will a terminal Doppler Radar be cut? This amendment gives away Congress' power to determine where American tax dollars are to be spent and hands it over to bureaucrats who decide what radar in what city should be cut. This amendment would significantly delay or even cancel the delivery of aviation safety equipment at hundreds of U.S. airports all across the country. FAA has been criticized repeatedly about its inability to develop and delivery aviation equipment quickly. I am currently working with Congressman Lightfoot and Congressman Oberstar on a bill to reform FAA which would improve the way FAA acquires equipment. This amendment undermines that effort. It is important to remember that this amendment would cut FAA facilities and equipment funds which are supported 100 percent by the aviation trust fund. In other words, the gentleman's amendment would take away the opportunity to spend aviation taxes on aviation programs and instead spends funds on inner-city transit subsidies. This is wrong. These aviation taxes are placed in a trust fund, over $5 billion each year, for the sole purpose of aviation improvements at airports all over this Nation. Aviation users expect the taxes to support aviation projects which are badly needed. The fact is that this amendment does not save any money. It merely shifts money from important aviation safety projects to transit subsidies. I strongly oppose the Foglietta amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''