Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], a medical doctor. (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the distinguished chairman of our conference.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr]. (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are supposed to debate both my amendment and the Gilchrest amendment at the same time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will strike $65 million from the General Services Administration for the purchase of 100 acres of land and for the design and new construction, or at least the beginning thereof, of yet another building for the Food and Drug Administration. The Citizens for a Sound Economy have strongly endorsed this amendment in a letter that I sent to all of my colleagues yesterday. This amendment is also endorsed by the National Taxpayers Union. The Citizens Against Government Waste so strongly opposes this project that they have announced that they will score this amendment as a key vote for their 1995 congressional ratings. I serve, Mr. Chairman, on the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, and we did not authorize this building. It has never been in front of our subcommittee. The main point I want to emphasize is, this could turn out to be a very, very expensive project. Not only will this amendment save $65 million now, but it will also help stop what potentially could involve over $1 billion for a project in Maryland which has been referred to as a Taj Mahal complex. In 1990, the FDA requested appropriations for a new complex of buildings. The original cost estimates from the GSA and the FDA for these buildings was $1.3 billion. In response to great concern over lavish and excessive Federal construction, the GSA reduced this estimate to somewhere between $810 and $890 million. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we are starting down a very slippery slope here. In a few years we could well be reading articles about the billion dollar FDA boondoggle, and Members would wonder how in the world we ever got into such a thing. Well, this is the start. [[Page H 7201]] If we really want to save money, we need to put a stop to this project right now. The FDA already has 2.1 million total square feet of office space. The original plans for the new FDA complex of buildings called for 3.4 million square feet in size, a 1.3 million square footage increase, a 60-percent increase at a time when the entire Federal Government is supposed to be downsizing. Recognizing that so much change is going to take place at the FDA in the near future, and because this body viewed the original proposed FDA complex as excessive and wasteful, Congress wisely rescinded over $220 million from their plan to build this complex in the rescissions bill. Now we come to the floor today to debate $65 million for a new building toward a defunded complex that is wasteful and fiscally irresponsible at a time when Congress is trying to downsize the Federal Government. This is $65 million, Mr. Chairman, on top of the $64 million that was left in the rescissions bill to complete the construction of facilities for a brand new FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, also in Prince Georges County. We have already left in one $64 million, and now here we are with another $65 million. There have never been hearings held on this building in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. A prospectus has never been submitted to tell us how big the building will be, how much it will cost or even the exact location. This project can turn out to be a very, very expensive item. I strongly believe that any new construction should be gone over with a fine-toothed comb before it is approved, but it has not been done in this case. A series of hearings has been held in the Committee on Commerce addressing some of these very serious problems. Later this summer, the Committee on Commerce is planning to debate an FDA reform bill that should fundamentally reform the way this agency operates. I understand that our colleagues in the Senate are working on a legislative package to reform the agency, as well. The FDA's workload and mission could change substantially if FDA reform is enacted as expected. The taxpayer, though, could be stuck with some new and expensive buildings in Maryland, without an agency to fill them, if the agency is downsized and reformed and its mission is changed. At a time when the Federal Government is downsizing, you would think that all agencies would be decreasing their requests. This request should outrage every taxpayer in America. The FDA should be greatly reformed. It should be greatly downsized. It should stay where it is, certainly until a thorough review of the agency can be done. With the national debt approaching $5 trillion, Mr. Chairman, we should not be spending exorbitant amounts of money like this to build plush headquarters for FDA bureaucrats. I know, Mr. Chairman, that our gigantic unelected Federal bureaucracy is by far the most powerful branch of our Federal Government. They get most of what they want. In the end they will probably get all of these new buildings. But this is one time we should stand up for the taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, and we should stand up to the bureaucrats and we should say ``no'' for this proposed new construction. I urge passage of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have had groups from all over this Nation, such as the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, all come out strongly in favor of my amendment. I am pleased we have had speakers from all over this Nation speak in favor of my amendment. I have noticed that the only real speakers in favor of the project have been from Maryland, because I believe this is purely pork for Maryland. People would be shocked, Mr. Chairman, if they knew we were approving buildings that we do not have prospectuses for, we have not held hearings on, we do not know the total square footage, we do not know the exact cost, we do not even know the exact location. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], and I have great respect for my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], but this amendment is a strategy, a device, a subterfuge designed to ensure this building is built. My amendment would save $65 million. It would stop this project in its tracks. It would do something for a change for the taxpayers. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] said it would mean the building could never be built. That is not true. The building could be built when we can afford it. With a $5 trillion national debt, we cannot afford this building. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Gilchrest amendment and a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

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

Mr. DUNCAN. The gentleman does understand, as the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] pointed out a few minutes ago, that TVA power rates have not been subsidized since 1959, and then it was only to a very, very small extent.

Mr. DUNCAN. Initially, many years ago.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, but the gentleman does understand though that the TVA power programs are self-supporting and that taxpayers in Wisconsin and other parts of the country are not subsidizing the power programs of the TVA?

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the gentleman, he has been reading from a report by the GAO. But in a letter to Mr. Quillen, dated June 28, 1995, the GAO said this: Dear Mr. Quillen, your staff asked us to clarify whether the scope of our current review of the Tennessee Valley Authority included work on TVA's nonpower programs. Our review focused on TVA's power program. It did not examine TVA's nonpower programs. We are today discussing TVA's nonpower programs. We are not discussing TVA's power programs. That is the bulk of the TVA work, 98 percent of it. But the GAO report that the gentleman from Wisconsin has been reading from repeatedly today did not examine the nonpower programs that we are discussing here in this amendment today. So there is a pretty big distinction there that I think should be made clear to everyone who is listening.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let me say this. As has been pointed out by so many other speakers, TVA is already taking a 28-percent cut in the Federal appropriation. there are very few other agencies or departments in the Federal Government that are taking a hit or a cut of this size. And I yield to no one in my desire and determination to balance the Federal budget. But balancing the Federal budget and reducing Federal spending is one thing; totally eliminating the Federal appropriation is another thing, because very few people are trying, I think, to totally do away with the Federal Government. That is really based on what we are doing with regard to the TVA, if we eliminate this Federal apropriation. Let me say this, I want to spend most of my time talking about the Federal role here because there is a very important Federal role. TVA is primarily or at least in large part a benefit to citizens all over this country. The people of the Tennessee Valley benefit to a certain extent, but people all over this country benefit from TVA's activities. For instance, when the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers overflowed 2 years ago, TVA restrained the flow of the Tennessee River saving billions of dollars and an untold number of lives. In 1988, a drought stalled hundreds of barges, and TVA released water that helped keep the Mississippi flowing. The Mississippi, which flows from Minnesota down to New Orleans, again, saving millions, potentially even billions of dollars for shippers and for American consumers, American consumers who live all over the country. In 1994, 34,000 barges traveled the waterways managed by TVA, 34,000 barges. These barges carried goods and products intended to be used all across the country. In addition, the cheap cost of this type of transportation helped keep prices low for American consumers in every State in this country. A recent study by the Iowa Department of Transportation stated that it would take 58 tractor-trailers to carry what one barge carries. If TVA had not managed these waterways for the 34,000 barges which used them last year, we could have potentially had to have at least an additional 1.9 million tractor-trailers on our highways. By making these rivers navigable for barge transportation, TVA helps reduce air pollution, road damage and the potential for serious highway accidents. The amendment would also reduce TVA's ability to manage 11,000 miles of shoreline for which it currently has responsibility. Supervision of this land is not only critical for flood control but also to industrial development, recreation, and wildlife management. TVA operates 160 public recreation areas for boating, hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping. People from all over the United States visit and enjoy these facilities. Visitation to these recreational areas contributed $1.25 billion to the economy last year. Thus, in many ways, Mr. Chairman, TVA is a major asset to this country, in many different ways.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I will not take the full time. I simply wanted to rise to say this. I had not intended to speak, Mr. Chairman, and I think almost everyone knows I am one of the most conservative Members of this Congress, but the ARC is one of the most conservative agencies in the entire Federal Government. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out a few minutes ago, just 4 percent of this agency's budget are spent for administrative costs. This is one of the least bureaucratic, least top-heavy agencies in the entire Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I come from Tennessee, and I come from a district where very little is done by the ARC, but I do know of the good work that has been done throughout our region and throughout these entire 13 States by these agencies. I want to salute the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and particularly my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for his yeoman work on this particular amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of ARC and in strong opposition to this amendment. This agency is already taking a 50- percent cut in this bill. If every department and agency in the Federal Government was receiving a 50-percent cut, it would be amazing. We would be operating with a surplus. As the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] pointed out a few minutes ago, throughout this country, every region, every State has money that is being spent by the Federal Government in some project or by some agency. As the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] pointed out, the central Utah project, has had over $1 billion spent on it. This is just $142 million, and is very small in comparison to many, many projects we could name throughout this entire country. I rise and urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support one of the finest and most conservative agencies in the entire Federal Government, an agency that is working to bring the Federal Government home to the people, not spending money here in Washington, but spending it out in the country to help some of our poorest citizens in this Nation. I think it is a fine organization and it deserves the support of this entire body.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the small businesses regulatory bill of rights. This country's small businesses are drowning in a sea of paperwork. Recently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] released a list of its most frequently cited violations. The top three on the list were directly related to paperwork, and they alone accounted for over 10,000 citations in 1994. Additionally, the Small Business Roundtable reports that in 1993 the actual costs of businesses to comply with Federal regulations were $581 billion. Small businesses cannot afford the accounting departments, chemists, and lawyers that it takes to comply with the ever-increasing and confusing regulations issued by the Federal Government. Last year, the Federal Government added over 68,000 pages of rules and regulations to the millions already on the books. In fact, the regulatory process has become so complex that the Federal Register now teaches classes just so individuals can better understand the rulemaking journal. The economy of this Nation is based on small businesses. Ninety-five percent of all the businesses in this country are classified as small businesses. They represent the American Dream. Individuals risk life savings in order to pursue the American Dream only to see it destroyed by Federal bureaucrats. I believe that the small business regulatory bill of rights will help our small businesses thrive once again. This bill requires Federal agencies to develop a no-fault program to assist small businesses with compliance. It also requires agencies to give owners 60 days to correct violations before assessing fines. Small business men and women will no longer be treated like criminals by Federal regulators. This legislation will make agencies notify owners of their rights during inspections. This bill will also prevent agencies from harassing small business owners by exempting them from inspections for 6 months once they have been found in compliance with regulations. We all want a safe working environment for Americans. The question is how do we best provide this environment without generating regulations that destroy thousands of jobs and impede the ability of a business to earn even small profits. I think everyone would agree that a safe working environment is of no use if the regulations that establish it are so severe that they prohibit a business from being successful and staying open. I think this country could boom once again if we could get our Federal Government under control and let the free enterprise system work as it was designed to do. I look forward to this Congress passing the small business regulatory bill of rights in an effort to help this Nation's small businesses grow.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]. I think it is a very fair and reasonable amendment. I rise in support of this amendment not as any criticism of the gentleman from Alabama, because I think that he has done everything within his power to make this bill as fair to everyone as possible and to cut it as low as possible, but the last speaker mentioned that he thinks that a public opinion poll would show that very few people would support an extension of NATO. I would say to you that I think a very small percentage, a very few of the American citizens, an overwhelming majority of the American citizens would not support us even spending $300 million in aid to the States of the former Soviet Union, and that is, of course, the amount that would be left to do in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado. We should have no reason to feel guilty about that figure of $300 million, because we have sent billions over there just the last few years. In fact, 4 years ago Leslie Gelb, the foreign affairs editor of the New York Times, estimated that the combined Western aid to the former States of the Soviet Union had totaled $60 billion, most of it coming from the United States. Two years ago this Congress voted to send $12 billion to the States of the former Soviet Union through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Then in addition to that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] mentioned a few moments ago that 2 years ago we sent $2.1 billion in direct aid to the States of the former Soviet Union. I think it was $830 million last year. If we reduced it to $300 million this year we would still have done many times more than any other country in this entire world. As the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] has mentioned, much of this money, most of this money, is going to overpriced, overpaid consultants. He got this figure of $800 a day for a typical consultant from a story which ran in the Wall Street Journal last year, and that story ran under a headline, quote, ``U.S. Aid is Quite a Windfall for U.S. Consultants,'' and some consultants are receiving as much as 90 percent of certain aid contracts. And listen to this. The article said that there is, ``dancing in the streets'' by consultants but hardly any of the money is getting through to the average Russian. The story reported criticism because of waste and meager results. That same story quoted one expert as saying that, ``The aid benefits Russians minimally, if at all,'' and that he expects ``a scandal down the road that is going to upset the taxpayers.'' A few years ago, 3 or 4 years ago, Henry Kissinger wrote an article for the Washington Post that said unfortunately most of our aid to Russia is going down a black hole. We need to stop pouring money down that black hole. Our first obligation is to the U.S. taxpayers. We are still almost $5 trillion in debt. We are still losing almost a billion dollars a day. We are spending money that we do not have; $300 million in aid to the States of the former Soviet union is plenty. I urge support for this amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the front page of the New York Times reported that some members of the Federal Reserve Board ``have publicly expressed concern that the economy is now in considerably worse shape than they had expected.'' Two days ago, Washington Post columnist James K. Glassman wrote: ``Don't look now, but the recession may already have started.'' Mr. Glassman wrote that the White House is going to try to convince voters that this is a Gingrich recession, but then he says this: Such a charge, of course, is nonsense, and it's hypocritical coming from a President whose budget plan isn't so different from that of his adversaries. Are we in a recession now? Well, the economy lost 101,000 jobs in May. Single family housing starts are at a 2-year low. Unsold inventories have, in the words of the New York Times, risen sharply. According to Bridgewater Associates, a respected Connecticut firm that measures the economy, retail sales are wretched and second quarter GDP growth is about minus 0.5 percent. I have spoken at least twice on this Floor about our tremendous problem of underemployment. If you talk to any of these college graduates who can only find work in fast food outlets or restaurants, if they can find jobs at all, then you would know what I mean. I am sure they would say we are in a recession. Like all recessions, though, the average consumer will not notice the full effects of this one until several months after it starts. Thus most people will not notice this one, according to most economists, until very late this year, but really more probably a few months into 1996. What is the cause of this new recession, or if not a recession, at least this severe slowdown? Well, I think most people would agree that our obscene national debt of almost $5 trillion and our continuing deficits, or losses, of almost $1 billion a day, are the main problems. Congressman Armey, a PhD economist, says the fault lies with the huge tax increase passed by President Clinton and the Democratic Congress in 1993. Lending credence to this view is John Mueller, chief economist for Lehrman Bell Mueller Cannon, Inc. The columnist Glassman says Mueller believes there is a lag time of 2 years between actions of the Federal Reserve Board and their effects. There is also a similar lag time with most major legislation passed by the Congress, too. Anyone who blames a recession or economic slowdown in the next year or so on Republicans in Congress is either forgetting or ignoring the obvious. First, most of the real changes passed by the House have not been passed by the Senate or have not been signed by the President. Most of the actions by the House have not even yet taken effect or actually gone into law. Second, despite all the publicity about so-called spending cuts, none of these will go into effect until the next fiscal year begins in October. Even then, the cuts do not exceed the growth in some programs, and thus overall Federal spending continues to go up and will do so every year under the most conservative budget that has been proposed. Obviously our economy is on thin ice. So, what should we do? First, we need to drastically reduce the Federal regulatory burden. The most conservative estimates are that Federal regulations now cost our economy approximately $500 billion each year. Second, we need to bring Federal spending under control, cut our losses completely, and even start paying off our national debt is the only way to really help the economy, and that is with uninflated dollars. It is ridiculous that we cannot even balance our budget until seven years from now, at the least. If we balanced the budget right now, we would still be spending over $1\1/2\ trillion by just our Federal Government this year. We would not have a lean government, we would still have a fat, sassy government. A strong, active, vibrant government is what we should have for that kind of spending. Third, we need to overhaul, and greatly simplify and reform our federal tax code. We should greatly downsize and decrease the power and cost of the IRS. It is just crazy that our Federal tax laws are so complicated and convoluted. I am told that we waste at least $200 billion a year in time lost and expense incurred in IRS compliance costs, keeping records, filling out forms, and so forth. Finally, we need to lower taxes at all levels. The average person-- not the wealthy, but the average--pays about half of his or her income in taxes of all types, Federal, State, and local, sales, property, income, excise, Social Security, and so forth. The least efficient, least economical way to spend money is to have Government do it, because there is no real incentive or pressure on Government employees to work hard and/or save money, as there is in the private sector. Money left in the private sector creates 2 to 2\1/2\ times as many jobs as does money turned over to Government. Times are good now for some people. But they could and should be good for everyone. Our country could be booming beyond belief--people could be doing two or three times as good as they are--if we would do the four things I just mentioned: first, deregulate our economy; second, balance our budget and start paying off the national debt; third, greatly simplify our tax code and basically eliminate the IRS; and fourth, lower the tax burden on our people, at all levels, so they can spend their own money wisely instead of having bureaucrats do it wastefully. We could be booming, Mr. Speaker, but because real change has not yet taken place, there are many signs that we are headed into a recession that has been produced by our own Federal Government.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues an editorial from the June 4, 1995, Los Angeles Times written by James P. Driscoll. Mr. Driscoll, an AIDS activist, is currently vice president of Direct Action for Treatment in San Francisco. He has been working with my constituent, Alzheimer's activist George Rehnquist, to pressure the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] to approve tacrine, the first drug for treating Alzheimer's disease. 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. Driscoll's perspective on drug research, ``FDA's Caution is Killing People,'' 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. [From the Los Angeles Times, June 4, 1995] FDA's ``Caution'' Is Killing People (By James P. Driscoll) During the 1950s, drug approval in the United States was a relatively quick and simple process. Then came thalidomide. European regulators had approved this tranquilizer without realizing that it could affect a fetus, and several hundred birth defects resulted worldwide. Capitalizing on the tragedy, liberals in Congress expanded the Food and Drug Administration's powers and altered its priorities. After amendments in 1962, a peculiar system of drug approval emerged. With each passing year, that system grew more dilatory, more unbalanced and more costly to patients. FDA's top priority became--and remains--prevention of new thalidomides. Much of our gross national product is spent on prevention: national defense, vaccination, policing, flood control, sanitation, auto safety, cholesterol tests, anti-terrorist measures and burglar alarms. Our prevention needs are boundless, but resources are limited and must be allocated wisely. Too much allocated to a minor prevention need will leave major needs neglected. Ideally, the greatest good for the greatest number should determine priorities. In reality, narrow self-interest often prevails. Thus, defense contractors build new weapons the country doesn't need. Farmers get subsidies to grow surplus crops. And FDA churns out burdensome regulations that delay drug approval and actually harm patients. To better understand FDA's narrow priority, we need to see it in light of the kinds of problems that beset drug regulators. The least common problems are the thalidomides, drugs approved before their safety hazards are known. Even with the pre-1962 FDA, this kind of problem never was a threat comparable to food poisoning or plane crashes. But since Congress blamed FDA for mistaken approvals, the agency made preventing new thalidomides its top priority. Through scare tactics and deception, FDA sold the public on this priority. Congress and the public are beginning to realize that they have been unwitting parties to a deal made in hell. To prevent a minor threat to public health, FDA created a major health tragedy: needless deaths and suffering caused by delaying useful medicines. Rational priorities would seek a balance that minimizes the total deaths caused by both mistaken approvals and delays. Rationality and balance are hard. Delay is easy and deals made in hell are tempting. A recent FDA delay resulted in 3,500 deaths--those kidney cancer patients who, by the FDA's own figures, would have been saved if the drug Interleukin 2 had been approved here as quickly as it was in Europe. These kidney cancer deaths exceed the number of babies deformed by thalidomide. And Interleukin 2 is only the tip of the iceberg. Delays in approving heart drugs, cancer drugs, AIDS drugs and life- saving devices have contributed to tens of thousands of deaths. Congress has tolerated FDA delay because its dangers are difficult to prove. Individual patients usually don't know about the unapproved drug or device that could save their lives. Patients who suffer the worst loss from FDA delay cannot protest from their graves. Fearing retaliation, drug companies avoid blaming FDA for delays. Few people grasp the complexities of drug development. Few politicians bother to evaluate carefully either FDA's priorities or the human cost of regulatory delays. Consequently, we've lacked effective congressional oversight on FDA. Without oversight, rational policy perishes, deceit flourishes and demagoguery can triumph. Enter David A. Kessler, FDA's answer to J. Edgar Hoover. Kessler's FDA boldly sets its own priorities. It does not shrink from half-truths or scare tactics. It pursues retaliation and selective enforcement without remorse. It has made drug safety and efficacy testing a worse bargain than the Pentagon's $600 toilet seats. Fortunately, recent House and Senate hearings indicate that FDA abuses are finally arousing congressional watchdogs. Congress should no longer tolerate the FDA's perversion of its mission. To prevent a few mistaken approvals, FDA sacrifices countless patients to approval delay, slows the pace of medical progress and drives health-care costs through the roof and jobs out of the country. It's time for Congress to put patients above bureaucrats and hold the FDA strictly accountable for the human cost of regulatory delays.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Spence of the full committee, and all the managers of the bill on both sides for their efforts. My amendment is simply a common sense, pro small business amendment. It enacts in the Department of Defense a bill In introduced earlier this year, H.R. 28, the Freedom from Government Competition Act. The Government should be helping small businesses survive and grow-- not trying to put them out of business by competing against them. My amendment simply says that the Department of Defense should not provide any produce or service that can be obtained by the private sector. This carries out a policy that, since the Eisenhower administration in 1955, has said ``the Federal Government will not start or carry on any commercial activity to provide a service or product for its own use if such product or service can be procured from private enterprise through ordinary business channels.'' Every administration, Republican and Democrat, for the past 40 years, has endorsed this policy, but unfortunately, they have never implemented it. In fact, I hear estimates that as many as 1 million Federal employees are now doing commercial activities that could and should be done by private businesses. Recently, a report released by the Commission on the Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces, known as the White Commission, stated that in the Department of Defense ``at least 250,000 civilian employees are performing commercial-type activities that do not need to be performed by governmental personnel.'' The Commission went on to say that they ``recommend that the Government in general, and the Department of Defense in particular, return to the basic principle that the Government should not compete with its citizens.'' That principle is what we are trying to put into law with this amendment. This amendment is the right thing to do. More than $3 billion per year could be saved without cutting services or hurting national defense. It is needed because the experience of the past 40 years has shown that without specific instructions from Congress, agencies will not take this action on their own. The amendment requires the Secretary to review commercial activities now being performed by DOD and make a report to Congress by April 15 of next year. The report will include a schedule for moving commercial activities to the private sector, or give reasons why certain activities should not be performed outside the Department of Defense. When we look for ways to cut the size of Government, we should look first at those activities which can be done by the private sector. It is particularly appropriate that we adopt this amendment this week, since some 2,000 small business owners are meeting here in Washington for the White House Conference on Small Business. When this meeting of America's small business men and women last met in 1986, one of their top issues was the importance of contracting out. Now, almost a decade later, contracting out is still one of their top priorities. There is no reason why the Federal Government should operate golf courses and recreational facilities when those services can be done by private business. There is no reason for Federal employees to design roads and buildings when there are architecture-engineer firms that can do this work. There is no reason for agencies to operate motor pools when maintenance of cars can be done by private contractors. There is no reason for taxpayers to pay the salaries of Federal employees to operate cafeterias, perform janitorial services, paint, print, do electrical work, operate testing labs, and engage in scores of other activities that can be done by the small businesses. This amendment will begin to eliminate government competition with private businesses and create a government that works better and costs less. It is time to give back DOD's commercial activities to the private sector. It is the right thing to do. It is what America's small businesses need to survive. It is what we are doing with this common sense amendment today. I urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues on this en bloc amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on June 2, I was privileged to attend the signing ceremony for a bill to increase the penalties in the cases of vehicular homicide in the State of Tennessee. This ceremony took place at the South Knox county home of the late Katie Spangler. Mrs. Spangler was killed by a drunk driver as she was stringing Christmas tree lights in her yard in December 1993. Just before this bill was signed by Governor Don Sundquist, who had made it part of his crime package, Mrs. Spangler's daughter, Linda, made one of the most beautiful and moving statements I have ever heard. Her words touched me deeply, and I wish that everyone in this country would read them and think about what she had to say, especially as it relates to the nationwide tragedy of drunk drivers who kill people. I would like to recall the statement of Linda Spangler to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Congressional Record. Today my family and I with utmost humility would like to express to Governor Sundquist what an honor it is to welcome him to our home. Words fail us as we attempt to convey to our Governor our deep appreciation for signing a new vehicular homicide and DUI bill into law and arranging for funding for such a desperately needed law. In an attempt to signify what this means to our family I would like to say that our mother, Katie Spangler was a Christian. My family and I are Christians. We believe that God is sovereign. At the time of mother's death each of us children began to question God as to why our mother had to die at the hands of a drunken driver. We agonized over the question ``why'' because we knew that God could have let mother die naturally, die in her sleep--a peaceful death. Because God had promised in his word that He would protect us ``Lest we cast our foot upon a stone,'' yet He had allowed our mother to die in such a horrifying way. What we had experienced would shatter the faith of the strongest Christian. Well meaning Christians would tell us that we must not question God as to why. We felt this was not scriptural as the Bible says that Jesus while dying on the cross for our sins said My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me. God understands when we ask why from a broken heart. God continued to love us even though we questioned Him. He held us in the palm of His hand, gave us strength for each day, guided us in decisions that needed to be made, gave us rest when there was no rest. God's grace was indeed sufficient for us. Finally we concluded that we may never know why but that God does not make mistakes and that in His own way God would turn this horrible tragedy into something good. We then entered into the criminal justice system for the first time seeking justice for the wrongful death of our mother. The person who killed our mother was given the maximum sentence of 6 years with 1 year in jail, 5 years probation. Our faith in the judicial system was at that moment destroyed. There was a public outcry of protest against the sentencing. Petitions were signed and brought to us. People were very angry. We could not let their cries of outrage go unheard so we channeled these petitions to our representative, Wayne Ritchie, to whom we would like to say, Mr. Ritchie, you are the epitome of what it means to be a representative of the people, one who cares what the people in his district are interested in. Good luck to you always. As a young person and a new Christian I sat through a sermon about testing the 2 spirits, the Holy Spirit and the evil spirit. I did not understand this sermon and I asked my mother to explain to me. She said that if I were trying to make a decision about one thing or another that the first thought I would have would be a positive thought, and that immediately I would have a second thought that would be negative. She said my first thought would be the Holy Spirit and the second thought would be the devil. She said I should always abide by my first thought. My family and I feel that you, Governor Sundquist, along with all of those who voted to pass this legislation, and Mr. Wayne Ritchie, have listened to your ``first thought.'' In so doing no greater compliment could be paid to you than to know that God has used you as an instrument for turning a tragedy into something good and for us as a family it used our mother's untimely death to have far reaching effects for the citizens of Tennessee and perhaps these new laws will prevent any other families from going through such agony and loss of a loved one. Governor Sundquist, you and your administration are to be commended for your stand against crime. It is our prayer that God will give you the courage and the wisdom to make Tennessee a safer place in which to live for its citizens. For the first time in 17 months some of our faith has been restored in the judicial system and we realize ``Why'' God took our mother in such a tragic way and are truly humbled that God could use mother and this family for His purpose. We hope you get to meet our mother someday in heaven after Christ says to you ``Well done, thou good and faithful servant.'' These words are so feeble to express our deepest gratitude to you, Governor Sundquist, but please know they come from our heart. May God bless you and watch over you. We wish you Godspeed.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, let me commend to you the following article written by a constituent of mine, Mr. John Mark Hancock. Citing House Speaker Newt Gingrich, House majority leader Dick Armey, and Senator Phil Gramm as examples, this insightful commentary discusses the important role former college and university professors are playing in defining the 104th Congress. College Professors in Charge of Our Government (By John Mark Hancock) One of the ironic and perhaps overlooked facts about the sweeping Republican victory in last November's elections is that former college professors are actually taking control of our federal government. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and Senator Phil Gramm, a frontrunner for the 1996 GOP Presidential nomination, are all former teachers from various universities. Since academia has long been the province of self- righteous, bleeding hearts, and the centers of most of our liberal thought, and even Marxist views, on government and social policy, it is especially gratifying to conservatives that these new leaders have come from that realm. It must be galling to the majority of college professors to know that the architects and engineers of the Republican ``Contract With America'' are from their domain, one they have long sought to preserve as a bastion of liberal ideology. The ivory towers of America's colleges and universities have for too long now been dominated by leftist views. These professors have promoted such themes as Keynesian economic theory, big government social policies, gay ``rights'', prisoner's ``rights'', animal ``rights'', and studies which glorified Communism, by imparting such ideas to their students in class and in their policies of hiring others of their number, despite a decided trend in the opposite direction on a worldwide scale, with the breakup of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is therefore especially satisfying to those of us who have received a great deal of higher education to find that the dream does indeed rise to the top. Our nation's voters have found that the voice of the conservative Christian minority on campuses nationwide is actually the voice of the overall majority of Americans. As a former member of Young Americans for Freedom and the College Republicans during my student days in the 1970's, it was hard for me to find professors who agreed with what has become the mainstream philosophy of people who are fed up with government's intrusion into their lives. Having served as president of the graduate student body at my school in 1979-81, it was disconcerting to find so many professors wanting to preserve the status quo on campus. Perhaps this pervasive liberal attitude is to be expected from institutions that thrive on government monies and assistance for their very livelihood. Without huge taxpayer funded mandates, colleges and universities would be unable to help minorities, assist students in paying fees, pay premium salaries to certain professors, achieve research contracts, and perpetuate bloated bureaucracies that are top-heavy with useless administrators. Cutbacks in government will inevitably mean that our educational institutions will suffer. But, maybe that's not so bad if it weeds out some of the deadwood that some schools have been harboring for too long. The views they hold are the main hindrances and stumbling blocks to us bringing about a better America, one in which government gets out of our lives and pocketbooks, and off of our land. America was founded as a nation of independent ideas and rugged individualism. It has become a nation dominated by the government that was intended to serve the people, rather than having the people serve its ends. It is long past time for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction. We have long been a people known for plain speaking and straight talking. The failed policies of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society programs have finally come home to roost. Their net result is a country that is bankrupt, financially, morally, and spiritually. Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Phil Gramm are shining examples of political leaders who are teaching us all in their academic style, polished in their years as professors, that dependency on government leads to a lack of self-esteem and a country that perpetuates a permanent underclass. They will lead us out of the abyss we have created by deluding ourselves into thinking government is the answer to all of our problems. As Abraham Lincoln once said, ``You can't help the poor by weakening the rich.'' How true.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the American people are getting sick and tired of our leaders taking this Nation on military adventures around the world and wasting billions in the process. I am talking about spending billions in Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, and other places, and now Bosnia. There is no vital United States interest in Bosnia. There is no threat to our security there. We should not send young American men and women to fight in foreign countries unless there is a definite and strong U.S. interest in doing so or there is a real threat to our national security. All Americans support sending some humanitarian aid to help out when international tragedies occur. But, we cannot continue to try to solve every world problem. We will bankrupt our own Nation if we are not careful. We certainly should not be getting into all sorts of international situations just so our Presidents can prove they are world leaders or make names for themselves in history. We should be friends with any nation that will let us, but we need to stop trying to buy friendships. We need to use more common sense, Mr. Speaker, and stop letting people all over this world take advantage of us and especially of our very limited national resources.