Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, recently the Tennessee General Assembly sent me a resolution declaring the last Sunday in August as Family Day in Tennessee. They asked for my support to make this a National day. The parent/child relationship is one of the most important in our society. Children learn lessons at home which shape and guide their future. No one would dispute that a loving, supportive homelife would benefit any child. As the family deteriorates, so does American society. We can readily see that many of the problems our Country now faces have coincided with the breakdown of the family. As a father of four, I appreciate the importance this legislation places on the worth of the family. Unfortunately, Congress no longer considers legislation for commemorative days. While this rule will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in operating and staff time, it does not allow for the recognition of National days of importance, such as Tennessee's proposed National Family Day. Therefore, I ask that the Tennessee General Assembly's resolution be printed in the Congressional Record so that my colleagues may benefit from such an eloquent and worthwhile memorial. Senate Joint Resolution No. 97 A Resolution Memorializing the United States Congress to establish a day of national observance in honor of the American family. Whereas, One of the most trustworthy indicators of the health, strength and progress of a nation is the esteem in which the family is held; and Whereas, Family strength, unity and respect cannot be purchased or fabricated, but comes to us instead when families are together and realize that through interaction they know love, trust and hope; and Whereas, Life is special when we realize the worth of the family and its importance in all relationships; and Whereas, The family is the center of our affections and the foundation of our American society; and Whereas, No institution can take the family's place in giving meaning to human life and stability in our society; and Whereas, It is fitting that official recognition be given to the importance of strengthening family life; now, therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate of the ninety-ninth general assembly of the State of Tennessee, the House of Representatives concurring, That this General Assembly hereby memorializes the U.S. Congress to enact legislation establishing the last Sunday of August of each year as a day of national observance to be known as ``Family Day'' in order to focus attention and to confer honor upon the importance of the American family as the cornerstone of our society. Be it further resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Senate is directed to transmit enrolled copies of this resolution to the Honorable Bill Clinton, President of the United States, the Honorable Al Gore, Vice President of the United States, and to each member of the Tennessee delegation to the U.S. Congress.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its ladies auxiliary conduct the Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. This past year, more then 126,000 secondary school students participated in the contest competing for the 54 national scholarships totaling more than $109,000. This year's Tennessee winner is Rachel D. Killian, a junior at South- Doyle High School. Miss Killian is an active member of her student council, enjoys reading and drama, and belongs to Knoxville Youth in Government. She plans a career in television and radio journalism- communications. Miss Killian was sponsored by VEW Post 1733 and its ladies auxiliary in Knoxville, TN. I would ask that Miss Killian's essay, ``My Vision for America'' be entered into the Record. I believe we can all benefit from her insightful, patriotic remarks: My Vision for America This country was founded by people of great vision. Although they came from different countries and backgrounds, they had a common dream which brought them together--the dream of a land where they could have better lives. By working together, these strong pioneers made this dream of freedom and opportunity a fantastic reality we call ``America.'' During the past two hundred years, this vision of freedom has appealed to many trapped under oppressive governments. Thousands found their way to America each year, escaping from wars, hunger, political unrest and religious persecution. They found a haven in America. These immigrants are our ancestors. They are our relatives not necessarily by blood, but by a common heritage. They endured many pains and sacrifices to arrive here. Many had noting to hang on to but a dream. These early Americans were genuinely grateful for every opportunity they were given. They respected the government for all it provided and gladly participated in the duties of citizenship. Unlike the grateful citizens of the past, many Americans today insult the government and blame the system for every problem. They demand benefits, such as military protections, without accepting the burden of paying taxes. They often believe they are entitled to certain rights over others and have forgotten what it means to be tolerant of others' beliefs. Worst of all, they display a loss of confidence in the future of America and the capability of American leaders. These unpatriotic feelings are destroying the optimism, the honor and the pride we should have in America. Because there are people burning with anger instead of burning with pride, we have lost the sense of brotherhood which once flowed from sea to shining sea and united this country. My vision of America calls for a change in every American heart. We must remember the dreams of our immigrant ancestors and imitate some of their patriotic values such as love for each other, for our community and for our government. The men and women who created our nation did not expect others to rescue them from hardships. They were not complainers, but achievers, and their hard work brought America prosperity. In my dream we are more like our ancestors. We are people of vision pushing for what we know is right. We display tolerance and patience for other individuals, and we emphasize our similarities rather then our differences. We look at our collective ancestors and say, ``We are one, with one spirit. We are an American Family.'' In my vision, I see a ``new'' America with patriotic citizens who know and appreciate all the lyrics to the ``Star-Spangled Banner.'' I see citizens who talk about what's right with the country instead of what's wrong, where Uncle Sam is welcome at every dinner table and where citizens are proud to show they are Americans at times other than during the Olympics. I see a country that shares dreams and reaches for goals that will benefits everyone, not just a select few. I see Americans with changed attitudes toward each other and a land where every worker has a respected place and purpose--where every single person feels like an important part of one united spirit. There are ways that my vision for America could be achieved. First, American newpapers need to print more positive articles to improve the public morale. Second, to remind citizens of their many blessings, everyone needs to be informed of the lack of human rights in other countries. It is so easy to forget how lucky we are to be living in the United States. Finally, Americans must stop dividing into so many groups. Instead of being Democrat or Republican, upper class or blue collar, black or white, we should be American. If we are going to be strong as a country, and supportive of each other, then we must be united as a people. My vision for America in not a new one. Our ancestors held the same hopes for this country, but over the years their visions have been forgotten. If we could remember one thing from their success, then it should be that we must never stop believing in our visions for America. History has taught us that there are dreams that can come true.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes, but I want to rise in strong support for H.R. 961 and urge that it be passed without major modification. I would like to commend my outstanding chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for his outstanding and yeoman work that he has done in regard to this legislation. It is outstanding legislation, and it deserves the support of all of the Members of this body. H.R. 961, as reported out of our committee, will reduce Federal power and will give us cleaner water. It gives control of water resource management to those who have the biggest stake in maintaining these resources, while taking control from bureaucrats here in Washington. Even the Administrator of the EPA, Carol Browner, has said, ``We must allow for flexibility, innovation and common sense as States and communities look for ways to achieve the standards.'' That is what the committee-approved bill does, Mr. Chairman. It restores common sense to our clean water regulation. I have great respect for all of the authors of this substitute amendment. They are all good friends of mine. But I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment in the nature of a substitute would eliminate the flexibility that is needed and that Ms. Browner called for, in that it seeks to retain Federal command and control in pursuit of clean water. A one-size-fits-all approach to clean water regulation is no longer sound, if it ever was. The EPA bureaucrats and Army Corps of Engineers officials are simply not capable of making qualified, correct decisions for every State legislature, every city manager, every farmer, every land owner, every business owner in the Nation. H.R. 961, as reported, lifts that responsibility from them and gives it back to the people and their representatives at the local level. I do not need to repeat, Mr. Chairman, and would not have time to do so anyway, all the horror stories about EPA and Army Corps of Engineers regulations under our clean water laws at this time, one stupid, expensive, unfair decision after another. A few years ago one of the officials of the National Association of Home Builders told me that if our wetlands laws were strictly enforced, that it would close up over 60 percent of the developable land in this country. It would make the dream of home ownership just go out of sight from an economic standpoint for most young couples in this country. It has been mentioned before, but I think it bears repeating, that support for moving forward with H.R. 961 has come from a wide range of groups, including the National Governors' Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. The water pollution control administrators are people who work full time in this area, and I can assure my colleagues they would not support this legislation were it not good clean water legislation. This bill is also supported by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the American Public Works Association, the Clean Water Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses among many, many others. H.R. 961 was reported out of our committee by a strong bipartisan vote of 42 to 16. This bill deserves bipartisan support now. It will return common sense to our signatory efforts in regard to clean water. It will return flexibility. It will do away with many of the unfair bureaucratic burdensome decisions that have come out in recent years. Most importantly of all, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to emphasize this, if H.R. 961 passes as is, it will be the toughest clean water law in the world. This bill passing as is will be the toughest clean water bill in the world. It just does not go to some of the extremes that some people would have us do, some of the ridiculous extremes that some people would have us go. So let us vote for the toughest clean water law in the world. Let us vote for Chairman Shuster's bill, H.R. 961. I urge its passage.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, some of the colleges and universities in this Nation are performing a real disservice to our young people. They are encouraging them to get--or at least not discouraging them from getting--degrees in fields in which there is almost no hope for a good job. This is particularly true concerning many graduate programs-- especially in the field of law. My wife recently had her groceries carried out by a young man who had received a law degree but who could not find a job. Many law schools are perpetrating a fraud. They tell their students ``Yes, there are too many lawyers, but there will always be room for a few more good ones.'' Well, everyone thinks they will be the good one. Only after spending a small fortune and devoting several years of hard work to the task, do they receive a very rude awakening. most prestigious schools, or the very few who have good family connections, most find out they could make more money managing a McDonald's or driving a truck. We possibly should require colleges and universities to put warning labels on some of their degree programs such as ``There are currently almost no jobs available in this field'' or ``This degree will do you absolutely no good whatsoever in obtaining employment.'' If you think I am exaggerating, listen to these two letters in the April 24 issue of U.S. News & World Report: Thank you for including ``Gypsy Profs'' with your rankings of liberal arts programs. It should give pause to anyone misinformed enough to think a graduate degree will guarantee a chance to teach. Like those in your article, I have a Ph.D., which entitles me to drive 480 miles each week to teach five courses for two community colleges. Each semester is an employment uncertainty. But I love what I do--something not true of most people--and I don't see a great deal of employment security anywhere. I knew what I was getting when I entered graduate school. Still, I dearly wish that the future looked more promising. There's no dignity in being a mercenary teacher-for-hire; last week my father-in-law described me as ``unemployed'' at a family gathering. Michael J. Booker. Knoxville, TN.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the special order today by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is our National Day of Prayer, and there will be events, big and small, commemorating this all over the Nation. Every faith, every religion, believes prayer is a good thing. If we have any hope of overcoming evil things like we saw in Oklahoma City 2 weeks ago, we need to overcome evil with good--good things like prayer. I hope all Americans will participate in our National Day of Prayer tomorrow, at least in a small way. I do not say this in any holier- than-thou manner, because I have as many faults as anyone. But I do believe this Nation would be a better place if more people spent more time in prayer. The Old Testament tells us: If my people which are called by my name shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and heal their land. Almost all of us need some type of healing--physically, emotionally, spiritually. I hope everyone will support the National Day of Prayer tomorrow.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against term limits, and I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I realize that term limits are very popular, and that they will receive a very large vote in favor here today. I realize that in some ways I am tilting at windmills here. But I also know that very few people realize how much turnover is already occurring in this body. The people have elected 203 new Members in just the last 2 years. Let me repeat that: 203 Members--almost half the House--have begun their service just since January 1993. There were 110 freshmen elected 2 years ago--and 6 more in special elections in between--and 87 more freshmen in the last election. If ever there was a proposal that corrected a problem that does not exist, term limits must be that proposal. Of all the truly serious problems this country faces, turnover in the Congress is not one of them. Not only are we having record turnover in the Congress, that same thing is happening in the elective offices all across the Nation. So I emphasize once more--term limits correct a problem that does not exist. Second, term limits simply fly in the face of common sense. In no other area do we regard experience as a bad thing. Does it make sense to go to a great teacher, or nurse, or architect, or whatever, and say, ``We know you are doing a great job, but you have been here 6 years, or 8 years, so your time is up.'' Electing good new people to office makes sense. Re-electing people who are doing good jobs makes sense. Establishing arbitrary term limits--which everyone admits will force many outstanding people out of office--just does not make sense. Third, we would have lost some of the greatest service ever performed for this Nation if we had already had term limits. Senator Howard Baker from my State could not have served as the leader of the Senate--probably some of his greatest service to the country. Newt Gingrich could not now be Speaker, because he is in his 17th year of service. Roll Call, the newspaper that covers the Congress, pointed out Monday that Great Britain would have been deprived of the service of Winston Churchill during World War II. Fourth, term limits were specifically considered and rejected by our Founding Fathers. I am one of the most conservative Members of this House. I know that most conservatives support term limits. But there is nothing conservative about term limits. These are very radical proposals. They would change over 200 years of constitutional history and precedent. More importantly, they are very undemocratic--with a small ``d''. They really take away another right of our people--the right to vote for whomever they please. Fifth, and finally, term limits will strengthen the power of the unelected--the bureaucrats, the lobbyists, the committee staffs. We already have a Government that is of, by, and for the bureaucrats, instead of one that is of, by, and for the people. Term limits will make this situation worse. Term limits have risen as an outcry against a big, wasteful, intrusive, bureaucratic Government. The people have the intelligence and good sense to know who is voting for big Government and who is not. The best way to bring about effective change is the old-fashioned way--through our electoral process that has served this country so well for so many years. The worst possible thing to do now, during a time of great change anyway, is to try out some radical, arbitrary gimmick like term limits, which corrects a problem that does not exist.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will vote on what former Senator Howard Baker has called a bad idea whose time has apparently come. That idea, of course is term limits. Term limits will pass this body with a very large margin, although maybe not the two-thirds vote necessary. However, I know from private conversations and believe that there are quite a few members of this body who publicly are for this very bad idea but who privately are hoping that the legislation does not receive the two-thirds vote necessary. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that if ever there was an idea or something that corrects a problem that does not exist, that idea is term limits. Two hundred and three new members have been elected in just the last 2 years. Let me repeat that: 203 Members, almost half of this body, have been elected in just the last 2 years. We had 110 freshmen elected 2 years ago. There were six Members, three of whom left to move into the President's cabinet and three others left for better jobs, and then 87 new Members were elected at the start of this Congress. So that is 203 new Members in just the last 2 years. This is the greatest turnover in the history of this Congress and in the history of this Nation, and that same turnover, very high rates of turnover, are occurring in elective offices all across this country. I mentioned Senator Howard Baker a moment ago, a man who is really one of my heroes and for whom I have the greatest respect. If we had had term limits in effect, we would not have had Senator Baker's greatest service to this country. We would not have had his service during the years he was minority leader and then majority leader of the U.S. Senate. We would not have had the service of Senator Everett Dirksen during his greatest service, or our own Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who is in his 17th year. He would not be in the House if we had the term limits we would be talking about tomorrow. Roll Call, the newspaper that covers Capitol Hill, pointed out Great Britain would not had the service of Winston Churchill during World War II. His greatest moments of public service would not have taken place if term limits had been in effect in Great Britain. Term limits do not make sense. It makes no sense whatsoever to go to a great teacher and say that we know you are a great teacher and you are doing a wonderful job, but you have been here 6 or 8 or 12 years and we feel we should have new blood, or to do that same thing to a great nurse or a great engineer. If term limits should not be applied to other fields, they should not be applied to elected officials either. We already have term limits, the terms to which we are elected. We are elected to 2 year terms in this body, 6 years in the Senate. The voters can get rid of us very easily. Every other year we face the voters. Term limits are very undemocratic. They take away a little bit more control the people have over their own Government. They take away the right of the people to vote for whomever they want. I think it is part of this trend that these very liberal elitists have said for years ``Take the politics out of this, take the politics out of that,'' and that sounds good on the surface. But if you take the politics out of everything, you take away the control of the people over their own Government, and term limits is just another part of that very dangerous trend. Term limits will strengthen the power of the unelected in this country. They will strengthen the bureaucracy, the lobbyists, the committee staffs. Already we have a Government of, by and for the bureaucrats, instead of one that is of, by and for the people. We need to reestablish the control of the people over their own Government, and term limits will do just the opposite. We need to solve the real problems of this country. Mr. Speaker, turnover in the Congress and in other elected offices is not one of those major problems that we face in this country today. I am one of the most conservative Members of this body, but I can tell you that term limits are not a conservative idea. Our Founding Fathers specifically rejected them, and even conservatives like the Libertarian columnist Lewellyn Rockwell and others are now saying term limits are a very, very bad idea. In fact I think they are a very radical idea, and I think they should be rejected, although I know that they are very popular because many people do not realize how much turnover there is and how much change is going on in this place and in other offices around the country. In no other field do we think that experience is a bad thing. People want an experienced surgeon when they go into have surgery, they want an experienced lawyer and so forth. So we need experience in public office as well. Some people had the mistaken impression that Dan Rostenkowski was a typical Member. He was not typical. I realize that term limits are popular and they are going to pass, but I think, as I said, that they correct a problem that does not exist, and I do not think they will solve the real problems that face this country.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not serve on the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, but the Republicans on that committee voted a few days ago to increase spending on the School Lunch Program from $6.7 to $7.8 billion over the next 5 years. I repeat: the Republicans voted to increase spending on school lunches. Yet headlines all over this country said, ``Republicans vote to end School Lunch Program.'' Now, millions of Americans have a totally false impression that Republicans have killed the School Lunch Program. Federal program and turn it into a State program. This was done so that more money could be spent on food for kids and less on bureaucrats in Washington. Most Governors have said they could take 80 percent of the money and probably operate almost any Federal program more efficiently and effectively. However, in this instance, the Committee did not say take the School Lunch Program over with just 80 percent of the money--it said take 100 percent of the money with a built-in raise of 4.5 percent each year. This is almost 50 percent more than what inflation has been since the Reagan years. Yet some liberals saw a chance to use a political sledgehammer here, and beat us over the head with it, and with help from a supportive national media, they are creating a totally false impression. I have always supported the School Lunch Program, and I can assure you there is not one member here, Democrat or Republican, who wants to take food away from any hungry children. I do not serve on the Committee that is trying to change this program, but I do know that what the Committee is trying to do is make things better for children, not worse. The School Lunch Program has gotten tremendous bi-partisan support in the past because it has worked relatively well. But anything can be made better. And if there is a way to spend more on children and less on bureaucrats, then we should try it. Too many federal programs today benefit primarily the bureaucrats who work for the program and really do very little for the intended beneficiaries. This is true even in programs designed to help children. Every program up here has some beautiful motherhood and apple pie title, but you have to look below the surface, and below the headlines, to find the true story. If we want to help bureaucrats, we will continue, and even increase, all our current federal programs, and even create new ones. If we really want to help children, though, we will downsize government and decrease its cost, and give parents the freedom to spend more of their own money on their own children. Apparently, though, with many liberals, if the choice is between giving money to bureaucrats or leaving more with parents and children, they will side with the bureaucrats every time. There were two other main objections to the changes the Committee made in the School Lunch Program. One was to the lack of national standards on nutrition, and one was to the fact that the Governors were given leeway as to 20 percent of the money as long as it was spent on other child welfare programs. These were included because almost everyone today realizes that one- size-fits-all dictation from Washington is not working and has been harmful to even our best programs. I am convinced that the wonderful people that we have running our school lunch program in East Tennessee do not need bureaucrats in Washington telling them what they can and cannot serve. As to the 20 percent flexibility for Governors, this was done because some States need to spend more percentagewise on school lunches than others. But if this is a great concern, I certainly would support changes making sure all this money is spent for its intended purpose, which is school lunches. I suppose the big point to be made here is that Republicans love children just as much as Democrats do. Despite what some pious, holier-than-thou liberals would have people believe, no one has a monopoly on virtue--no one has cornered the market on compassion. All of us are trying to do as much as possible for children. No one has voted to kill the School Lunch Program. Many people around the country no longer think of the Federal Government as God. They know that some programs can be better run from the State level, or even by local governments. And above all, they want less of their money being spent on bureaucrats and paperwork, and more being spent on children.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank both gentlemen for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the President's bailout of Mexico and in strong support of this resolution. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I especially want to commend the work of the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, our first obligation should be to the American taxpayers, not to the taxpayers of Mexico. Mr. Speaker, Lawrence Kudlow, the economics editor for National Review, wrote recently: Voters who want smaller and more frugal government at home, with a new emphasis on personal responsibility, expect no less in our policy dealings abroad. Broken Mexican promises on trade, money, and free market reforms should not be rewarded with a big government bailout. Sound money and sound fiscal policies are the only lasting answers. Mr. Speaker, A.M. Rosenthal, the New York Times columnist, who would, I am sure, classify himself as a political liberal, said: Could it be that the Administration had so enthusiastically promoted Mexico that it would have been terribly embarrassing--an election coming up and all--to disclose that Mexico suddenly could not go on backing up its pesos and bonds unless the United States offered heavy loans to bail out investors? This mess was created by the cowardice of bureaucrats and the mistakes of investors, theirs and ours. Americans would be foolish--I am being exquisitely polite today--if they agreed to any loan before they found out which American and Mexican investors would be the big beneficiaries. I say let us stand up for the taxpayers of this country and not bail out the billionaires on Wall Street and in Mexico.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment by the gentleman from Washington, and I thank him for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I did not know the gentleman was going to offer this amendment, and I had not originally intended to speak. But I can tell you that we have been driving small business out of existence in this country at a very alarming rate, and it has been primarily due to all the rules and regulations and redtape from the Federal Government. This bill does not remove any regulations, it simply puts a moratorium on for a few months, and this amendment is designed to help the smallest of our businesses, the ones who need help the most. I was a lawyer and a judge before I came to Congress, and yet I can tell you that there are so many millions of laws, rules, and regulations on the books in this country, that they have not designed a computer to keep up with all of them, much less a human being. Many people in business are violating laws every day that they did not know were in existence. Phillip Howard has written a recent book called ``The Death of Common Sense'' about this ocean of regulations that we have. What we really need, Mr. Chairman, is fewer laws and more common sense in this country, and this amendment helps that process.

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me say this. The gentleman from Mississippi is a good friend of mine. I yield to no one or take second place to no one in concern for aviation safety and concern for human life. All of us are extremely concerned about human life, and I can assure the gentleman that the Aviation Subcommittee is going to do everything possible to ensure that commuter airlines and regional airlines are brought up to the same standards that apply to all other airlines. I understand that this very matter was discussed last night and there is nothing in this bill that would prohibit that from taking place.

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

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] for yielding me the time. I rise in opposition to this amendment, particularly as it applies to aviation. I know that this amendment is well-intentioned, but as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has just so ably pointed out, it is simply not needed. The FAA has not requested this exemption. The National Transportation Safety Board has not requested it. I have the privilege of serving as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. Not one person has come to our subcommittee nor has anyone written to us urging this exemption. No hearings have been held on this. The bill already has exclusions, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has just pointed out, which provide for changes in our knowledge about safety needs and requirements if that becomes necessary. If some startling shortcoming on the part of an airline is discovered that causes a threat to passenger safety, a regulation can be promulgated that is excluded from this bill. If some new technological advancement is made that would improve air safety, a regulation requiring it can be written under this bill. All this bill does is try to put a halt to regulatory overkill. Safety is the number one concern of all of us who have anything to do with the aviation industry. But too much of a good thing can be harmful. If we overregulate the airlines, prices go up and more people are forced onto our already overcrowded highways. Our streets are much more dangerous than our highways. Thus, if we overregulate even in regard to safety, we can end up killing people. We have the best of aviation safety in the world. Can it get better? Sure. But the key is not more regulation and red tape. It is knowledge, skill and training and incentive and pressure to work harder and do a better job. Like so many things here in Washington, this amendment sounds good on the surface but when you look further, it is simply not necessary and it could cause more harm than good. I urge defect of this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I rise in support of this amendment. A few months ago the front page of the Washington Post said we had our troops in Haiti picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes. Those should not be the mission of the American military, yet those are the kinds of things we are doing in these peacekeeping operations. I support the amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, almost everyone today agrees that our health care system requires some reform and that encouraging more young people to choose a career in medicine, particularly primary care medicine, is a critical element of that reform. One family physician in my district, Dr. Fred Hurst, is proving that we can pursue this goal without relying on the heavy hand of the Federal Government to set quotas for various medical specialties. Last year, Dr. Hurst started a program called FuturDOCS, which enables talented high school students interested in medicine to get first-hand experience working with patients at St. Mary's Medical Center in Knoxville. These students have the opportunity to observe and participate in various different types of treatments, from prenatal care to helping heart attack victims recover to complicated surgeries. This unique experience not only provides them with valuable insight into a potential future career, but also benefits the patients at St. Mary's, who clearly enjoy having them around. FuturDOCS has been such an unqualified success that numerous other hospitals, both in Tennessee and across the country, are designing similar programs of their own. In my view, FuturDOCS is a perfect example of what enterprising individuals who care enough to make a difference can do without turning to the Federal Government to solve all of our problems for us. I commend to my colleagues and other readers of the Record the following article describing the FuturDOCS program, which appeared in the Knoxville News-Sentinel's Sunday magazine on Christmas Day. So You Want To Be a Doctor (By Michael Ryan) When I was in high school, I wanted to be a doctor,'' Fred Hurst told me. ``But nobody in my family had ever been a physician, and I lived in a small town about 40 miles from Knoxville.'' Hurst wanted to learn more about what a doctor does, but he was stymied. ``To gain entry to the local hospital, I had to join the Future Nurses' Club,'' he recalled. ``I decided then that, if I ever had the chance, I would start a program to interest young people in primary care.'' Encouraged by his parents, Hurst went to college, then medical school. Last year, at age 46, Dr. Hurst fulfilled the commitment he'd made as a youth. The need, as he saw it, was obvious: Only about one-third of the doctors in America today are primary-care physicians; almost two-thirds are specialists. The federal government and the American Medical Association agree that at least half of our physicians should be primary-care doctors. But four-fifths of today's medical students are planning to specialize, which will make the imbalance even worse. ``We had to show young people that they can have a gratifying future in service to their fellow humans--and handle 95 percent of the ailments of their patients--as primary-care physicians,''' said Hurst His solution was FutrDOCS, a program that brings talented high school juniors and seniors into St. Mary's Medical Center in Knoxille, where he is chief of staff. They see what doctors actually do and later serve in summer internships, where they ``shadow'' primary-care physicians in all of the many tasks doctors perform. Last year, Trang Nguyen, 18, helped administer a sonogram at St. Mary's after Annette Neubert, a pregnant patient who is also a nurse, encouraged her to try her hand at the painless, risk-free procedure. Nguyen handled the sophisticated equipment as if she had performed the procedure before. ``Can you find the baby's head?'' asked Dr. Paula Peeden, 36, an obstetrician/gynecologist. The student expertly located the tiny head moving back and forth deep within Neubert's womb. ``Have you chosen a name yet?'' Nguyen asked with an easy bedside manner. ``Courtney,'' Neubert said with a smile. Since FutrDOCS began last year, 125 students have completed the program. This year, about 70 Knoxville-area students took part. Each participating high school nominates four outstanding students, based on their academic record, their interest in pursuing a career in medicine and their desire to help people. FutrDOCS is funded solely by St. Mary's Medical Center. I went to St. Mary's on a day when eight FutrDOCS were visiting. I was surprised to learn that these young people saw all sides of the medical practice--its failures and limits as well as its successes. They accompanied Dr. Hurst on his rounds, meeting a heart-attack victim headed for full recovery but also seeing a man who had been left semi- comatose and incoherent by a stroke, beyond the help of modern medicine. In an operating room, they watched surgeons struggle to repair the body of a drunk driver with a damaged kidney, pelvis, bladder and spleen, ``Medicine isn't always glamorous,'' FutrDOC Emily Herbert, 17, a senior at Karns High School in Knoxville, told me after that experience. ``But ultimately it's about helping people.'' The patients seem to enjoy having the teenagers around. ``Without a doubt,'' said Dr. Hurst, ``the patients are thrilled to be visited by and see the concern of these students.'' Diane Holloway, the surgical nursing supervisor at St. Mary's, also thinks highly of FutrDOCS--even though it obliges her to shoehorn visitors into her crowded operating rooms. ``It's good for them to get this kind of experience early,'' she said. Students in the program also learn what doctors think. The group sat down for a meeting with Dr. Douglas Leahy, 46, an internist who began his medical career the hard way--as an orderly at St. Mary's 30 years ago. Doctors make a decent income, but there are a lot of things you can make a lot of more money in,'' he told the students. ``Medicine is an opportunity to be a part of people's lives. You can make their lives better. I think that's what drives most doctors.'' FutrDOCS offers students a chance to see what they, as tomorrow's physicians, might want to do with their own careers. ``It helped me to focus,'' said Mark Buckingham, 18, now a freshman at Notre Dame. For Trang Nguyen, FutrDOCS provided insight into a long-cherished dream. ``I came to this country when I was 5, from Vietnam,'' she said. ``It was my parents' dream that I become a doctor, and that was a challenge to me. This has helped me discover that I really want to be a pediatrician. I just love kids,'' Nguyen, now 19, is a freshman at the University of Tennessee. Fred Hurst has received at least 100 inquiries about the program from more than 35 states. Next year, 15 additional schools in suburban and rural areas of Tennessee will join FutrDOCS. Institutions in New York and Pennsylvania, as well as several Tennessee medical centers, may start their own programs. ``My goal is to expand this program throughout the nation,'' said Dr. Hurst. Early in my visit, Bryce Bowling, a FutrDOC, approached me to say how terrific he thought the program was. Bowling, 18, is now a freshman at the University of Tennessee. ``My dad has had two surgeries on his heart,'' he told me. ``I owe a debt to medicine. Doctors saved his life.'' That, I realized, was the greatest thing FutrDOCS has to offer young people: It shows them a way to give something back.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Orton amendment but in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 2. As I mentioned on the floor yesterday, I have introduced line-item veto legislation almost identical to H.R. 2 on the first day of every Congress since I was elected in 1988. I think it is fair to say that there are not many Members of this House who support giving the President true line-item veto authority more strongly than I do. But Mr. Chairman, this amendment is aimed very specifically at the aviation trust fund and the highway trust fund, which were created with the understanding that the money they contained would be used exclusively for aviation and highway projects. The ultimate goal of this amendment appears to be to get at the money in these trust funds so that it can be used for nontransportation purposes, which violates the very concept of a trust fund. I strongly believe that these funds should be off-budget and should be used for the purpose for which they were created, namely to fund various airport and highway improvement projects and to strengthen our overall transportation system. When these trust funds were originally established, it was made clear that the money they contained would be set aside for such projects. If we are going to turn around and violate that pledge, then we should just be honest and stop referring to them as trust funds at all. Mr. Chairman, the money that is in these trust funds comes from fees that are paid by the users of our Nation's airlines and highways. I believe that this money should continue to be used for the types of improvement projects that we have promised these users it will be used for. At a time when use of our airlines is increasing rapidly each year and use of our highways is at an all time high and still climbing, it does not make sense to make an end run around these funds. If this amendment is approved, we will end up hurting our transportation system at the very time that we should be doing everything we can to make it stronger. Mr. Chairman, there is almost no one in this House who is more fiscally conservative than I am or who has voted to cut spending more often than I have. But I must oppose this targeted attack on our aviation and highway trust funds and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Orton amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to once again voice my opposition to the Mexican bailout, and especially to the way in which it is being done. I have frequently said that today we have a Federal Government that is of, by, and for the bureaucrats, instead of one that is of, by, and for the people. But even I did not realize how little control the people of this Nation now have over their own National Government. Once again we see the arrogance, the elitism, the public be damned, Big Brother knows best attitude of the powerful people who run this Government. Because of the overwhelming opposition of the American people to this Mexican bailout, the President did what has been described as an end run around Congress. Apparently, he found that the votes were not there, even though the politically correct vote, the ``anything to gain the approval of the national media vote'' would have been to be for this bailout. So the President and the big financial powers decided to come up with a plan that did not require congressional approval. This means that our Government is sending billions to Mexico even though everyone knows the vast majority of our people are opposed to it. This is the most undemocratic--with a small ``d''--thing I have seen during my slightly over 6 years in Congress. It flies in the face of the will of the American people. Big Government liberals have long had the belief or philosophy that Government knows best--that the people really don't know how to run their own lives or spend their own money. This latest action--sending this money to Mexico--is just another example of big government spending the people's money in a way that most Americans do not want. And boy are we talking money here-- billions, with a ``b.'' A few weeks ago, through the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, we provided $9 billion of an $18 billion package to prop up the peso. That wasn't enough. Now, the President has announced he is taking $20 billion from the Exchange Stabilization Fund, even though this money was designed to stabilize our own currency and even though it has never before been used to prop up the money of a foreign country. Also, we are using $20 billion of the $25 billion in this fund, thus placing our own money in a less secure status. In addition, Mexico will receive $17.8 billion from the International Monetary Fund, the largest loan in the Fund's 50-year history. Who is the largest contributor to the IMF? The U.S. taxpayer of course. Then we are sending $10 billion more from the Bank for International Settlements. Billions and billions and billions--and all this at a time when the Heritage Foundation says Mexico already owes us over $70 billion that they cannot now and probably never will repay. The big Wall Street and International investors bought Mexican bonds paying 25 and 30 percent interest rates. They certainly did not share their profits with U.S. taxpayers, but now they want us to protect them from losses for their foolish risks. Even a liberal like A.M. Rosenthal, the New York Times columnist, has come out strongly against this deal. Last Friday, he wrote: Could it be that the administration had so enthusiastically promoted Mexico that it would have been terribly embarrasing--an election coming up and all--to disclose that Mexico ``suddenly'' could not go on backing up its pesos and bonds unless the United States offered heavy loans to bail out investors? And then he wrote, while we were still talking about just $40 billion in loan guarantees--instead of the more lavish deal we now have: Economic aid is often justified, but not 40 billion dollars to a country whose mess was created by the cowardice of bureaucrats and the mistakes of investors, theirs and ours. Americans would be foolish--I am being exquisitely polite today--if they agreed to any loan before they found out which American and Mexican investors would be the big beneficiaries. Once again, Mr. Speaker, our Federal Government has shown that only the rich, the powerful, the wealthy, and those who work for the Government truly benefit from Big Government. left holding the bag--this time for a wasteful Government in Mexico, whose economy has been ruined by years of socialism. We probably cannot stop this now, but we would if we were truly listening to the citizens we are supposed to be representing.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this line item veto legislation. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], with whom I have worked so closely on this issue in the past, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, when we pass this legislation a little later, I think there is no one in this House who will deserve more credit for it than the gentleman from New York, Gerry Solomon. I congratulate him for his work on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, on the first day of every Congress since I was elected in 1988, I have introduced a line item veto considering now, H.R. 2. While past Congresses have been unwilling to pass a line item veto with real teeth in it, and in fact we passed one that the Wall Street Journal in 1993 called a voodoo line item veto bill, I am pleased that today we are on the verge of approving a line item veto bill that will truly be effective in reducing pork barrel spending. Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. Forty-three of our Nation's Governors, both Democrat and Republican, already have the line item veto and are using it to cut spending in their States and balance their budgets. It is time for Congress to give this same tool to the President, so that he can eliminate the most outrageous examples of wasteful and unnecessary spending without vetoing entire appropriation bills. The General Accounting Office estimated in 1992 that more than $70 billion of pork barrel spending could have been cut between 1984 and 1989 if Presidents Reagan and Bush had had a line item veto. The Cato Institute estimates that $5 to $10 billion a year could be saved with the line item veto. Just last week in his State of the Union address, President Clinton highlighted some of the most absurd examples of pork barrel spending approved by the 103d Congress, and said ``If you give me the line item veto, I will remove some of that unnecessary spending.'' Mr. Chairman, I wish we did not need such things as a balanced budget amendment and a line item veto to bring our Federal spending under control. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Chairman, Congress has proven time and again that it does not have the will to cut spending on its own. That is why legislation such as H.R. 2 is so very necessary today. If the Congress does not really want to cut spending, it will have to say so and say so publicly. Mr. Chairman, with a national debt of over $4.7 trillion, we simply cannot afford to withhold this important tool from the President any longer. Former Senator Paul Tsongas, writing in the Christian Science Monitor a few months ago, said that if present trends continue, the young people of today will face average lifetime tax rates of an incredible 82 percent. We must do something about this to give a good economic future to our children and grandchildren. This will not solve our problems by itself, but it will be a big step in the right direction. I urge passage of this very important legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most wasteful, inefficient agencies in the entire Federal Government is the Food and Drug Administration. In their bureaucratic and arrogant way, they have held medicines and medical devices off the U.S. market, sometimes for years, to the detriment of the health of American citizens. By their rules, regulations, and redtape, they have driven up the price of drugs and have helped the big drug giants by making it extremely difficult or almost impossible for small businesses to compete in the field. Now, however, they want to do something which should outrage every taxpayer in the Nation. At a time when we are supposed to be downsizing the Federal Government, the FDA wants to build a Taj Mahal complex of buildings in Maryland for a new headquarters. Part of this project is to be in Montgomery County and part in Prince Georges County. However, the important point is not the location. It is the cost. The original cost estimate for these buildings was almost $1 billion dollars. However, because the FDA has become concerned about the appearance of this exorbitant and excessive spending at a time when most people want frugality in Government, they have lowered their estimated cost, all the way down to $875 million. Even if this project comes in on budget, which I seriously doubt, it would still be at a cost of a whopping $257 a square foot. State governments are building beautiful buildings for half this cost. And is the FDA doing everything possible to hold down costs? Well, since the money is not coming out of their own pockets, they chose the most expensive site they looked at and some of the most expensive land in this Nation. The original cost estimate for the Prince Georges facility was $290 a square foot. The Montgomery County complex is to be several buildings interconnected, in a college campus-like setting, on a 530-acre tract of land--530 acres when they could build a beautiful headquarters on an acre or less. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the FDA should be greatly reformed. It should be greatly downsized. It should stay where it is now. Perhaps the most phenomenal thing of all is the size of this project--3.4 million square feet--to house only 6,500 employees. This comes out to approximately 750 square feet per employee. Most Members of Congress have approximately 1,000 square feet to house 9 or 10 employees, or about one-seventh of what the FDA wants. Moreover, FDA's current offices and laboratories occupy 2.1 million square feet of office space. The new FDA complex will be 3.4 million square feet in size. This is one million, three hundred thousand square feet more than what they have now--a 60 percent increase--at a time when the Federal Government is supposed to be downsizing. With a national debt of more than $4.7 trillion, we should not be spending almost $1 billion to build plush new quarters for FDA bureaucrats. The bureaucrats want to live like kings while taxpayers foot the bill. I am pleased that today, the Citizens for a Sound Economy came out strongly against this project. I know we have a Government that is of, by, and for the bureaucrats instead of one that is of, by, and for the people, but, Mr. Speaker, this is one I hope we can win for the taxpayers.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today's newspapers report that the International Monetary Fund is about to make a $7.6 billion loan, the largest in its 50-year history, to Mexico. By far the largest contributor to the IMF is the United States. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago it was announced that the Clinton administration had agreed to put up $9 billion of an $18 billion loan package for Mexico. All this was and is being done without a vote by Congress. This is all separate from and in addition to $40 billion in loan guarantees the President wants Congress to now approve. Mr. Speaker, A.M. Rosenthal, the New York Times columnist, says today, ``It is not common sense to lend $40 billion more to a country whose leaders have so botched things up to be handled by the same American officials who participated in tamping down the economic truth'' about Mexico's economy. The Times also reports that Mexican officials are strongly denying they will agree to any tougher conditions to fight illegal immigration or drug trafficking to the United States. Apparently, though, our financial powers are going to pour billions into Mexico, using taxpayer dollars, even though there is no grassroots support. In fact, there is overwhelming opposition by the American people.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, former Senator Paul Tsongas wrote in the Christian Science Monitor a few months ago these very important words: If you think sending a chunk of your hard-earned income to the Internal Revenue Service was tough this year, imagine the responses of future taxpayers who will face average lifetime tax rates of an incredible 82 percent. Confronted with the burdens of a monstrous national debt, an aging population, and runaway federal entitlement programs, tomorrow's Americans will be turned into a generation of indentured servants. They won't stand for it. Without action today, we are likely to see generational political wars by the end of the decade. We need to heed those words of former Senator Tsongas. That is why we need a balanced budget amendment. That is what this is all about. It is to give our children and grandchildren some hope for a good standard of living and for an economic future as bright as ours has been. Madam Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record the complete article by former Senator Paul Tsongas, as follows: [From the Christian Science Monitor] Just When You Thought The Deficit Was Under Control--The Fine Print in Clinton's Budget Paints a Gloomy Picture (By Paul Tsongas and Jonathan Karl) If you think sending a chunk of your hard-earned income to the Internal Revenue Service was tough this year, imagine the responses of future taxpayers who will face average lifetime tax rates of an incredible 82 percent. Confronted with the burdens of a monstrous national debt, an aging population, and runaway federal entitlement programs, tomorrow's Americans will be turned into a generation of indentured servants. They won't stand for it. Without action today, we are likely to see generational political wars by the end of the decade. It's a mess created by bipartisan fiscal irresponsibility in Washington. And far from addressing the problem, the politicians are insisting the deficit is ``last year's issue.'' The bad news can be found buried deep within President Clinton's 2,000-page, four-volume budget for 1995, which was recently passed by Congress.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the American people do not want us to vote for a $40 billion bailout for Mexico. We should listen to William Seidman, former head of the FDIC, who wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, that a market judgment mistake was made by investors and lenders who did not properly evaluate the situation. Mr. Seidman asked: ``Why should anyone be bailed out by the U.S. Government . . . for a business mistake?'' He said Mexico was like a kid in a candy store and simply did too much short term borrowing. But, if we place too many conditions on Mexico, as we should to protect United States taxpayers, it will cause tremendous resentment among average Mexican citizens. Lawrence Kudlow, the economics editor for National Review summed it up best: * * * if the GOP goes along with the extravagant and unsound plan put forward by the Clinton administration, it should get ready for electoral backlash. Voters who want smaller and more frugal government at home, with a new emphasis on personal responsibility, expect no less in our policy dealings abroad. Broken Mexican promises on trade, money and free-market reforms should not be rewarded with a big government bailout. Sound money and sound fiscal policies are the only lasting answers.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill and urge its passage. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this very important legislation. Every year since I have been in Washington, our outgoing Governor from Tennessee, [[Page H354]] Governor McWherter, has visited with members of the Tennessee delegation and has said, Please, no more unfunded mandates. Governor McWherter is a Democrat and a good friend of mine, but this is not a partisan issue. This legislation has broad bipartisan support. Unfunded mandates are costing our State and local governments billions of dollars every year. In fact, a recent Price Waterhouse study for the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated that just 10 selected mandates will cost our Nation's cities $54 billion over just the next 5 years. My own hometown of Knoxville currently spends millions of its budget complying with Federal mandates, many millions. Mayor Daley of Chicago held a press conference about a year ago which was reported in the Washington Post and the lead paragraph estimated that unfunded mandates were costing State and local governments hundreds of billions of dollars a year and Mayor Daley said that unfunded mandates were costing his city of Chicago alone $160 million a year. The State of California is forced to spend $8 billion a year annually as a result of unfunded Federal mandates. In the meantime, local priorities like education and fighting crime are being forced to take a back seat to this other legislation. And local taxes are going up to pay for the cost of these mandates. According to the Republican Governors Association, Congress has passed a total of 72 unfunded or insufficiently funded mandates just since 1986. At the same time overall Federal aid to States has declined from $47 billion in 1980 to $19.8 billion in 1990.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, January 15, 1995, will mark a historic anniversary in the history of our Nation and one which could not occur at a more appropriate time. It was on January 15, 1955, that President Dwight Eisenhower issued a policy that: 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. That policy is still on the books today in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. However, this policy has been regularly avoided during the past 40 years. The Congressional Budget Office reported in 1987 that some 1.4 million Federal employees are engaged in occupations that are commercial in nature. The Grace Commission recommended contracting out and estimated that $4.6 billion a year could be saved by using private contractors to perform the commercial activities currently accomplished in-house by Federal employees. Even this administration's National Performance Review recommended that A-76 be strengthen and enforced. The issue of government competition with the private sector has become so pervasive that the most recent White House Conference on Small Business adopted as one of its leading planks: Government at all levels has failed to protect small business from damaging levels of unfair competition. At the federal, state and local levels, therefore, laws, regulations and policies should . . . prohibit direct, government created competition in which government organizations perform commercial services . . . New laws at all levels, particularly at the federal level, should require strict government reliance on the private sector for performance of commercial-type functions. When cost comparisons are necessary to accomplish conversion to private sector performance, laws must include provision for fair and equal cost comparisons. Funds controlled by a government entity must not be used to establish or conduct a commercial activity on U.S. property. The issue is again at the top of the agenda of America's small business owners, having been adopted as a plank in several of the State meetings leading to the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business that will convene in Washington, DC, in June. During the 102d and 103d Congress, I introduced legislation known as the Freedom from Government Competition Act. This bill would provide a legislative mandate for implementation of the 1955 Eisenhower policy. It would require OMB to conduct an inventory of commercial activities performed by Federal agencies using Government employees and establish a process for contracting those activities to the private sector over a 5-year period. During the course of my research on this matter, I have become aware of a particularly glaring example of the insidious nature of Government intrusion into an area that rightfully should be performed by the private sector. That is the field of surveying and mapping. The Federal Government annually spends approximately $1 billion on surveying and activities, but in fiscal year 1993 only $69 million or 6.9 percent was contracted to the private sector while there are some 6,000 surveying firms and 250 mapping firms in the United States. You can go into any county seat in Tennessee or any other town in the Nation and you will find a private professional surveyor's firm within a 5-minute walk of the courthouse ready, willing, and able to do this work. Not only do Federal agencies fail to contract a meaningful amount of their surveying and mapping requirements, but they market their services to other Federal agencies and to State, local, and foreign governments, in direct and unfair competition with the private sector. It just doesn't make since for the U.S. Government to have this capability when it is available from the private sector. I am convinced the more than 99 percent of the surveying and mapping firms that are indeed small business, as well as the larger firms, can save tax dollars and help us reduce the Federal deficit by working under contract with Federal agencies, and that the surveying and mapping firms in Tennessee and the other States can do as good if not better job of surveying and mapping our land than the Government. The surveying and mapping community is a perfect example of overzealous Government growth in an activity that can and should be performed by the private sector. The old chain and transit methods of surveying have been replaced by Global Positioning System [GPS] satellite receivers, analytical computer mapping systems, and other technologies. It is frustrating to small business men and women that their markets, both domestic and foreign, are limited by the predatory activities of Federal agencies and that their tax dollars are supporting purchases of this same equipment by these agencies. While there has been considerable discussion of privatization, an end to State-dominated economies in favor of market oriented economies, individual initiative, and other virtues that led Eastern Europe to discard socialism in favor of capitalism, Washington has not practiced here at home what we are preaching in fledgling democratic nations. When a Government agency competes with private firms it stifles growth in private industry by dominating certain markets; diverts needed personnel, particularly in technical occupations, from private sector employment; thwarts efforts by U.S. firms to export their services; and erodes the tax base by securing work that would otherwise be accomplished by tax paying entities. Not only have the advantages of privatization and private sector utilization been recognized on the international scene, but these cities, and counties. In a recent report, ``Listening to America'', the Republican National Committee's National Policy Forum, said: In reducing the size and scope of government, it is time for Washington to learn from the lessons of the state and local governments. In Indianapolis, Jersey City, Dallas, Charlotte and Philadelphia, city governments under Democrat as well as Republican administration are turning to privatization to do more with less. In some cases, governments are getting out of the business of doing things they never should have done in the first place In other cases, private companies compete with public employees to provide service at the highest quality and the lowest cost. * * * The federal government can learn much from the new breed of mayors and governors who are responding to the call from their friends and neighbors to put government back in the hands of the people who found it, to rethink the role of government; to get out of business it doesn't belong in * * * We in Congress have failed in our oversight responsibilities and permitted this buildup of in-house Government capabilities in commercial activities to occur. No matter how well intended these capabilities were when created or how popular they are now, we must put a stop to this unfair and costly practice. I urge all my colleagues to use the 40th anniversary of President Eisenhower's policy to help focus America's attention on this important issue. I invite all Americans to join with me on January 15 to recognize the benefits of relying on our great enterprise system to assist in developing those Government services that can be performed at higher quality and lower cost than the Government itself. Let us use this occasion to dedicate ourselves to redefining Government by focusing the public sector on those activities only it can perform and relying on the private sector for those activities it does best.