Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, under my amendment they have 1 year, you are right, if it is a carrier by a class 3. If it is a carrier acquisition, a class 3 is mandatory for 6 years. They can form a nonrail subsidiary and then the ICC has the option of imposing whatever labor protection they want up to 6 years, but this is a concession on the part of labor.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Members of the committee for the hard work that they did on this very complicated piece of legislation. I think that all of us agree that the ICC has outlived its usefulness and that the transportation industry will be much better with the sunsetting of the ICC and the acquisition of the authority to regulate the remaining portions of regulation over at the Department of Transportation. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues may know, there are three classes of railroads in the United States today. Class 1 carriers have operating revenues in excess of $250 million. Class 2 carriers have operating revenues between $20 million and $250 million, and class 3 carriers have operating revenues of less than $20 million a year. The amendment that I am offering provides certainty regarding labor protection associated with the sale or merger of short-line railroads. It will benefit railway labor and short-line operators. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this amendment does not in any way affect labor protection in class 1 railroads. I would also like to point out that it is not our intention, and we made this very clear with legislative counsel, that we would exempt all railway labor protection in class 3 carriers. However, we do keep labor protection and we specify specifically what it should be for class 2 carriers. In addition to that, if a railway carrier would like to establish a nonrailway subsidiary and acquire a short-line railroad, they are exempt from this bill and they go to the ICC for imposition of labor protection, as is the existing law. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the ICC has the authority today on short-line acquisitions and mergers to impose up to 6 years labor protection. So my amendment is a very simple amendment that provides certainty. For example, if a class 3 railway acquires a line from any carrier or merges with another class 3 carrier, there is no labor protection. That is the same as is in the Chairman's bill. [[Page H 12298]] If a class 2 railway acquires a line from a class 1 or another class 2, labor protection will be limited to 1 year severance pay. Under existing law, the ICC has the authority to require 6 years protection. If a class 2 railway merges with a class 3 railway, labor protection will be limited to 1 year severance. Finally, in my amendment, a class 2 railroad and only a class 2 railroad would be prohibited from using a merger between a union and a nonunion railroad to avoid a collective bargaining agreement. Mr. Chairman, I think that labor has come very far in supporting this amendment, because under existing law, they have the opportunity to get 6 years protection. In many instances today, and in the last few years, as we have had a lot of acquisitions of short lines, railway labor has received zero benefit. At the same time, many class 2 carriers, and I know the association of class 2 carriers, are opposed to this amendment, but many class 2 carriers like the certainty of 1-year severance that is clear to them without any doubt. As as I stated, this amendment removes uncertainty regarding labor protection in the case of railway acquisitions and mergers. It is a fair and equitable solution for short-line operations and railroad employees, and I would like to stress once more, it does not affect labor protection for class 1 railroads and it exempts, it is our intent to exempt, labor protection for class 3 railways Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the October 16 issue of the Wall Street Journal reported that New Yorker Henry Sheinkoph would be a key strategist for President Clinton and the Democrats in the 1996 election. In this article Mr. Sheinkoph boasts, ``I subscribe to terror. Terror works because it makes people hate.'' Scare tactics are also being used by the national Democratic Party to obstruct our efforts to save and strengthen the Medicare system. The Democratic Party will not tell us that their part A tax has increased 23 times since the inception of this program. The part B premium has doubled in the last 8 years. Four months ago this Congress passed a long-awaited and needed tax reduction for the American people. While it was not a tax reduction for the wealthy, it did provide a tax reduction for working men and women with children. While we do not apologize for that tax reduction, we will not allow savings in the Medicare plan over the next 7 years to be used to pay for our tax reductions. This bill, the Republican bill, includes a lockbox provision which will establish a trust fund. All moneys saved under the plan will be appropriated to the trust fund. Money in the fund can only be used to provide care for the elderly, and cannot be used for any other purpose. The Republican Medicare plan provides comprehensive change for a long-term solution. The Democratic plan is a Band-Aid approach that cannot and will not provide a long term solution.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands today an article taken from yesterday's Wall Street Journal entitled ``Clinton Recruits Campaign Team of Nasty Boys.'' I would like to just read the first paragraph: Gearing up for 1996, President Clinton is fielding a motley crew of reelection strategists with reputations for shrewdness and ruthless tactics. A mainstay on his team, New Yorker Henry Sheilkoph, readily boasts, ``I subscribe to terror.'' Last year, in speaking to a convention of political consultants, Mr. Sheilkoph told a gathering that terror works in political campaigns because it is so easy to make people hate. What a sad commentary that is on the political system in America that political strategists would deliberately be trying to terrorize and scare people in America, and the efforts to terrorize have already started in the area of Medicare. As you know Medicare will be bankrupt by the year 2002, according to the President's own board of trustees, and we are committed to preserving that plan, to make it a better plan than it is today. Under the Republican plan, we are going to be spending $355 billion more over the next 6 years, 7 years, on Medicare than were spent in the past 7 years. But more important than that, if you work in a major corporation today or if you work in the Federal Government today, or if you are in the U.S. Congress today, you have options to choose your health care from five or six different plans. But if you are a senior citizen in America today, you have one option, a fee-for-service option. Some suburban areas and urban areas, you have an HMO that you can participate in. But we are going to provide senior citizens with additional options. If they want to keep the system they have today, they can do so. If they want to go to an HMO, they can do so. If they want to go to provider service networks, they can do so. If they want to be into a medical savings account, paid for by the Government, they can do so. So I would urge the President, I would urge those Members of the Democratic Party who are trying to use this issue to scare the American people, to come forward and be honest and say, ``Yes, this is going to be a better system.'' We do not need nasty boys, so to speak, running political campaigns in America.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, over the past 40 years the National Democratic Party has shown without question they sincerely believe that higher taxes, more government, and more regulation can best solve the problems of the American people. In 1993, the Clinton administration, with help from the Democrats on that side of the aisle, passed one of the largest tax increases in the history of this country. Earlier this year we passed a small tax reduction, which has been characterized as a tax for the wealthy. [[Page H 9597]] I would like to go over a few of those provisions for you. If you are an American family and you have children today we are going to give you $500 per child tax credit. We are going to restore $145 to remove the tax penalty for married couples in this country. We are going to restore IRA's to help savings in this country. We are going to allow small businessmen and women around this country to deduct up to $35,000 of their investments each year to provide more jobs and a stronger economy. We are going to provide a refundable tax credit of up to $5,000 for people who adopt children. Is this a tax break for wealthy Americans? No, it is for the working men and women of this country.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, yesterday we were treated to a tremendous display of partisan rhetoric on the floor of this House. Madam Speaker, most of yesterday, liberals took to the floor and accused Republicans of being extremists, mean-spirited, and shameful. The experiment in big government that was started in the 1960's has failed. It is over. We will not keep pouring hard-earned tax dollars of the American people down a huge sinkhole of debt just to support a bloated, ineffective government. Madam Speaker, the American people want a balanced budget, they want to eliminate duplicative and wasteful programs, and they want, in short, to transform government to be effective and provide the needs that the American people demand. Madam Speaker, we are going to keep our promise on this side of the aisle to reduce the size and cost of government and to create effective programs that work.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, one of the most egregious wrongs imposed on taxpayers during the past 40 years has been a policy which gives tax money to various lobby groups that advocate special programs for particular groups. The Istook-McIntosh Federal grant reform amendment to the Labor Appropriation bill would put a halt to taxpayers' money going to support political advocacy groups they may not want to support. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said, ``To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' The Government should not use taxpayers' money to strengthen special interest groups which do not reflect the views of most Americans. This is wrong, and I urge support of the Istook- McIntosh Federal grant reform amendment to the Labor-Education appropriation bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about protecting the environment, because we are all concerned about protecting the environment of this great country. But this is a debate about the aggressive tactics of EPA relating to new regulations and enforcement of those regulations with little regard to the cost or the benefit of the regulation. Wenever I go back to western Kentucky in my district and visit with small farmers, coal operators, businessmen, large and small, all of them plead to get EPA off their back and for EPA to be more balanced in its approach. Last July, EPA proposed additional standards to control emissions of air pollutants for refineries. The industry went in and tried to work with them to reach an agreed regulation and standard at a reasonable cost. EPA was not satisfied and decided to proceed with maximum achievable control technologies. I want to talk for a moment about the facts of that technology. First of all it is based on emissions data that is 15 years old. It will cost the refineries in this country between $77 million and $110 million a year. EPA's own regulatory impact analysis characterized the benefits of this technology as minimal. Even the Department of Energy is saying, if you introduce these new standards, the benefits will be minimal. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and adopt a more reasonable approach for EPA.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention a recent op-ed piece which appeared in the Washington Times and which I believe deserves attention. Alexander Haig writes from the point of view of both a former Secretary of State and NATO's former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. I hope my colleagues will take time to read this valuable piece and carefully consider its message. [From the Washington Times, June 25, 1995] Undervaluation of a key strategic asset Years ago, a Turkish general was quoted as saying that the trouble with being allied to the Americans was that you never knew when they would stab themselves in the back. This half- serious observation expressed the U.S.-Turkish relationship well. It was solid overall but subject to inexplicable actions, often on Washington's part, that simply negated America's own self-interest. That is in fact what we are doing once again today. American aid to Turkey has been steadily reduced. Much of it is no longer grant aid at all but loans that since 1994 have been financed at market interest rates. For 1995, even this package has been subjected to restriction, including attempts to tie it to Cyprus, various human rights issues and Turkey's relationship with Armenia. The generally punitive approach of these amendments reflect American politics at their worst--totally bereft of any consideration of our own strategic interests. A familiar complaint about our relationship with Turkey is that it should be re-examined in light of the end of the Cold War. The implication, of course, is to devalue the alliance as no longer so necessary in the absence of a Soviet threat. The alliance should be re-examined but the critics will be disappointed. A strong U.S.-Turkish partnership remains fundamental to American interests. First, Turkey's geographical position puts it in a bad neighborhood that is still vital to U.S. security. This was illustrated dramatically by the Persian Gulf war. There should be no doubt that without Turkey's help in closing Iraq's pipelines, allowing use of North Atlantic Treaty Organization air bases and general political support we could not have defeated Saddam Hussein. Turkey was and is fundamental to an anti-Saddam coalition. Second, the outcome of the war, as we know, was not to create a new Gulf security order, much less a new world order. Instead we have seen four years of broken-back warfare against Saddam's regime. For this Turkey has paid a very large economic price exacted through disrupted trade and oil flows. The consequences for the Kurdish-populated regions of Turkey and Iraq have been even more troublesome. Operation Provide Comfort, run from Turkey, has averted the worst for the northern Kurds but not established security or peace. Instead the PKK, an authentic terrorist movement helped by such human rights activists as the Assad regime in Syria, among others, has found save haven in northern Iraq. Turkey's recent military incursion was intended to settle this issue or at least to diminish the problem. But whatever the outcome this is indisputable: The failure of American policy to settle with Saddam has been borne very heavily by Turkey. To this trouble must be added another. The newly independent states of the former Soviet-run Central Asia see new economic and political relationships with such countries as Turkey and Iran as the best route to secure their future. The oil and gas of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan must flow through these countries or be controlled again by Russian hands on the tap. Whatever the potential today the Caucasus is torn by war, the Chechnya slaughter; the Russian-manipulated civil war in Georgia; and the Russian-influenced contest between Armenia and Azerbijan. Seen from Ankara, the once-promising prospect of a less dangerous Central Asia has dissolved into bloodshed and a revival of Russian ambitions. The Turks must view with great alarm, and so should we, the idea that the Russians will be allowed to station large forces there in violation of the conventional arms-reduction treaty (CFE) about to come into force. It is inexplicable that at the recent Moscow summit President Clinton supported revisions in these force levels in the name of stability; in virtually every instance, Russian military action has made things worse not better. Finally, there is the frightening consequence of continued mismanagement of the Bosnian crises by the United Nations and NATO, and especially the U.S. failure to act clearheadedly in this crisis, which risks the continuation of essential secular leadership in Ankara. A worst case outcome of Bosnia could well broaden the conflict in a way that might result in Turkey's involvement, with unforeseeable consequences for Western interests. Against this geopolitical backdrop, the paragons of human rights have railed against Turkey's democracy--and Prime Minister Tansu Cillar has admitted that Turkish democracy is a less-than-perfect mechanism with plenty of rough edges. We must all be alarmed at the growth of anti-Western sentiment disguised as a return to Islam. In Turkey, as in many other countries, the end of the Cold War has given rise to a struggle for national identity. But whose side shall we take? That of the less-than-perfect democrats or that of the authentic anti-democrats? At this critical juncture, those who support cuts in assistance or in support for Turkey are willfully blind to U.S. strategic interests. The Turks are a hardy people; they will survive as best they can. But this is not the time for America to stab its own interests in the back. The stakes are too high. In the absence of an effective U.S.-Turkish partnership, the entire U.S. position in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East will be the biggest loser. The winners will be neither pro-Western nor those interested in human rights. It is high time that we recovered from strategic amnesia.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion this evening about the tobacco industry, and when you talk about the tobacco industry, what you are talking about is 126,000 small farmers around this country who have grown tobacco legally in America since really the founding of this country in Jamestown. Really what this amendment is about, this administration has made a conscious effort to try to destroy the tobacco industry. It is a legal crop and there are many things in our society that we do not like. We do not like to see bad things happen to children or women or anybody else. My mother-in-law, for example, smoked until she was 94 years old, and we know that smoking does cause cancer in some instances, and other times it does not cause cancer. But it is an individual decision. It is not something that the Government should be dictating. This amendment, this Durbin amendment, is a discriminatory amendment against small tobacco farmers who have the right to grow a legal crop, and I think it would be a serious mistake to adopt the amendment, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment. Back in 1963, President Kennedy initiated a project of TVA called the Land Between the Lakes. And there were 2,500 families and children and mothers and fathers moved out of that property, not because they wanted to leave their farms, but because the Government instituted eminent domain authority and forcibly removed them from the property. So they left. Under the Klug amendment today, they are going to zero fund this project, as well as others of TVA. This project has nothing to do with electric utilities or anything else, but it is one of the largest wildlife preserves in the United States. Today at LBL you can find endangered red wolves, bald and golden eagles, coyotes, black vultures, redtail hawks, and there is no provision on what is going to happen to this land, 170,000 acres of it. There is a herd of buffalo on this property. Two million visitors a year visit this property, and they come from all over the United States. When you make the argument that this is something different or the Federal Government should not be involved in it, we have national parks throughout this country that people visit all the time. This is 170,000 acres of wildlife preserve that this Government made a conscious decision that they wanted, and they moved 2,500 people off of the property, forced them off. So I say that we are trying to redefine the role of Government, and we can do that, but we need some time. They are reducing the TVA budget this year by 28 percent, but we are not asking many agencies of Government to go to zero funding. We need time, and we can reach that time and make arrangements. With that, I vigorously urge you to oppose the Klug amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I represent the First District of Kentucky, which includes the Land Between the Lakes. LBL is a 170,000-acre national recreation and environmental education area managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority. LBL supports a $400 million regional tourism industry and provides high-quality recreation and environmental opportunities to over 2 million visitors a year. Mr. Chairman, TVA has been working to create a new public and private partnership to increase the rate of return from LBL. User fees are being collected from the public, and the need for Federal subsidies is expected to decrease as management builds more efficiencies into the LBL system. As reported by the Committee on Appropriations, the recommended Federal contribution to LBL is $3.1 million, a reduction of $3 million from the budget request of $6.1 million. Although I appreciate the serious budgetary constraints under which the committee is operating, I fear that this reduced level of funding will frustrate TVA's ability to manage a smooth transition to LBL self-sufficiency. In the past, TVA has used stewardship account funds to support functions of LBL. To the extent that TVA is able to realize reductions, savings, or efficiencies, I presume the committee will allow TVA the flexibility to allocate available resources so that stewardship funds could be used from LBL if necessary. I would just like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman and ask him if he agrees with that understanding.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I appreciate the hard work that the committee has done and commend the chairman for trying to balance the needs of the public versus the resources that we are working with. I appreciate your working with TVA and allowing them some flexibility on these funds.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which will amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to equalize the opportunity to raise campaign funds to incumbents and challengers. In Federal elections, under current law, political action committees can contribute $5,000 in a primary, $5,000 in a general election, while individuals can only contribute $1,000 in a primary and $1,000 in a general election. Last year PAC's gave $126 million to incumbents and only $16 million to challengers, and PAC's historically have given 90 percent of their money to incumbents and very little amounts of money to challengers. My legislation lowers the amount political action committees can contribute from $5,000 to $3,000, and raises the amount that individuals can contribute from $1,000 to $3,000. Earlier this year, term limits failed in this body, and I have long said we do not need term limits if we have meaningful campaign finance reform. I urge Members to support this legislation, which will level the playing field and make campaigns more competitive.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is threatening to veto the Republican rescission bill. This rescission bill will actually pay for emergency spending by cutting money out of the current year's budget. Responsible, commonsense action like this was seldom adopted when liberals controlled Congress. The rescission bill provides $6.7 billion in disaster assistance to victims in 40 States, including victims in Oklahoma City, flood victims in Missouri and Kentucky, and earthquake victims in California. These victims need assistance, but the President is trying to stop the money by playing politics. We know he is upset because we reduced funding for his AmeriCorps. But, Mr. President, don't veto this bill. It provides relief money and it is paid for. Be a compassionate President and don't make the victims of these disasters wait any longer for help.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, this debate, as much as any debate on this House floor, epitomizes the difference in the philosophy of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and, when I say Democratic Party, I do not include all Democrats because we know that many Democrats are very much concerned about the deficit. But for 30 years, since the Great Society, the Democratic Party has had no concern about Federal deficits in America, and during that time many programs, good programs, have provided benefits for people in our great country. But as may colleagues know, as times approaches to old problems, and today we have a $4.7 trillion debt in America, $200-and-some billion dollars a year just to pay the interest, and I say to my colleagues, ``When you take the entitlements, and you take the interest on the debt, it's by the year 1997 those two items alone will exceed the total tax revenues of this country.'' So we have to take care of the problem in two ways. First of all, we have to adopt a tax policy, and that is what this tax bill does. It provides tax breaks for business men and women, small business men and women, to create new jobs and economic expansion in this country. Two, it provides tax credits for men and women with children so that they can get a tax break, and then further, Mr. Chairman, it provides a backbone and a basis for the first step in solving this deficit, and that is a tax policy that will create new jobs just like the tax reduction of Ronald Reagan and, yes, John Kennedy. Now the second thing that we have to do, and we plan to do it, is we are going to control this deficit because, unlike the Democratic Party for the last 30 years, we are going to do something about the deficit, and that is the second part of our plan.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, when the school lunch program was started back in 1946, the research that I have done indicates that the program cost about $70 million that year, and the projections indicate that by the year 2000 the food programs in the United States will be approaching $7 billion. Now, when you talk about hunger in America, I want to emphasize this evening that those of us on this side of the aisle are just as concerned about the welfare of children throughout America as those people on the other side of the aisle. They certainly do not have any sole discretion about and concern for the needs of children around this country. But when you have a program, and I might also add that in addition to this school lunch program, there are thousands of programs out there to provide help to American citizens, and that is part of the problem, because you cannot solve a $4.7 trillion deficit problem in America without coming up with new approaches and new solutions to very difficult problems. Now, all of us would like to do everything that we can do to eliminate hunger in this country. We would like to eliminate disease in this country. We would like to eliminate child abuse completely in this country. All of us agree to that. But we have a significant problem. How do we continue to provide the money for all of the thousands of programs out there, whether they are child care programs, breakfast programs, lunch programs, after school programs, child abuse programs, or whatever they may be? So the challenge that we have is to come up with innovative solutions to provide the maximum benefit for children throughout America at the lowest now proposing. We are trying to send this money back to the State and say, bureaucrats in Washington are not close to the problem. The people in the State may be more innovative. Some governors around this State have shown in the last 10 years that they can come up with innovative programs to make a real difference in saving dollars and providing more benefits for the recipients, and that is what we are looking for in this block grant on this school lunch program. Now, many speakers have already indicated today that our program provides 4.5 percent more nationally for this program each year over the next few years. But I want to, as we have talked about this program in very general ways, we have not been specific enough on how the program really works. And I want to take a moment this afternoon to talk about that. First of all, in a school lunch program in America today, there are three basic programs. First of all, there are those children who receive free lunches, free breakfast and free snacks, and they receive it because they are somewhere between 135 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level, and they should receive free food because they are not going to get a nutritious meal anywhere else and our program is going to see to it that they continue to receive it. Then the second group of students, in my home State of Kentucky, the average meal at lunch time on the school lunch program costs $1.60 approximately. And this second group, they pay 40 cents for that lunch. Now, the Federal Government each month writes the local school board or school nutrition program a check. For those students who paid zero for their lunch, the Federal Government writes a check for $1.60 for every meal served, and by the way, 25 million meals are served around this country everyday. And for those students who paid 40 cents, the government writes a check each month for $1.20 to the local school program. Now, there is another group of students and those are students who belong to their parents, may be doctors, may be lawyers, may be businessmen, coal operators, coal miners, but they can afford to pay for their lunch and they pay $1.20, still 40 cents below the cost of the lunch. And then on top of this--the Federal Government writing a check for the balance between 40 cents and $1.20, we also sent an additional 17 cents for all meals served. So all I am saying is that we can provide a program where the wealthy children in this country pay their full share and we can benefit more poorer children, provide better nourishment, more nutrition, and I think that the entire country will benefit from this innovative approach to the school lunch program.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, prior to being elected to the U.S. Congress, my wife and I visited in the home of Tansu Ciller, now the prime minister of Turkey. Turkey has been a strategic ally of the United States for many years, particularly in our efforts to contain Soviet communism, and of course Turkey was an indispensable ally to the United States during the Persian Gulf war. Today the country of Turkey is at a crossroads. A Kurdish insurrection is raging in the southeast. An Islamic fundamentalist movement is spreading throughout Istanbul and Ankara. In the Islamic world there are two models of government; one is the Khomeni model in Iran, and the other is Turkey, the only country among 52 Moslem countries that is secular and democratic. Turkey's most immediate problem is economic. In 1993, the Turkish lira began to engage in a sharp fall. Since then, investment has slowed down and inflation has reached an annual rate of 150 percent. To help solve these economic problems, it is essential for Turkey's long-term stability that it be admitted to the European Union. The Clinton administration has acknowledged that they have not paid enough attention to this issue, and they are stepping up their activities. Today, southern Europe is one of the most volatile areas in the world, and it is time for the U.S. Government to step up diplomatic activities to assure admittance of our longtime ally, Turkey, into the European Union. If Turkey is not admitted, it will add fuel to the popular conviction that the West is rejecting Turkey out of religious bias. Turkey and its people should be granted membership in the European world that they be admitted. It will help them economically, and they have been a longtime valuable ally of America. I hope that the President will follow through on his efforts to step up his diplomatic activities in that regard.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great concern about an article which appeared in Sunday's Washington Post. Since I read articles in most newspapers with great skepticism, I hope that facts set out in this article are not true. According to the article in the Washington Post, a prominent Democratic Congressman at a recent Washington dinner party enthusiastically discussed what he referred to as ``The Project''--a coordinated, calculated effort designed to politically destroy Speaker Newt Gingrich. A week later, another Member of the Democratic Party, in a keynote address to a party convention in Boca Raton, disclosed that the House Democratic leadership had embarked on a day-by-day plan to investigate the House Speaker, harass the Speaker, and drive him from office. According to the article, members of the Democratic leadership in the House meet on a weekly basis for this purpose. Mr. Gephardt is represented at the meetings and the White House is also kept informed. The Democratic National Committee also publishes a weekly ``Newt Gram'' trashing the Speaker. Two senior liberal Democratic Members of Congress--not a part of ``The Project''; that is, Newt bashing--said ``Our party attacks Gingrich because we don't have anything else to say.'' If it is true, what a tragedy--the National Democratic Party and its leaders deliberately working on ``The Project'' to destroy another political leader. Our great Nation faces many serious issues crying out for a solution. It is almost incomprehensible that a handful of Democratic leaders would be consumed with such a destructive compulsion for revenge. It is not surprising that in so many issues we have debated on this floor during the last month that a handful of Democrats have used similar tactics to polarize America. Pitting the poor versus the middle class--and the middle class versus wealthy members of our society--in effect using scare tactics. We are all Americans and we must develop solutions that will benefit our entire society not just one part of our society. The American people not only deserve but demand that Members of Congress devote their time and energy trying to solve very serious national issues instead of trying to destroy another political leader because they do not agree with his political philosophy. The election box is the proper place to decide philosophical differences, not some sinister plan referred to as ``The Project.''

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, since January 4 this House has taken important steps to restore the credibility of this institution to the American people, and it is the American people who pay and provide the tax dollars for this Government to operate. Here is what we have done in less than 1 month: We have enacted eight major reforms in the way Congress does business. We have passed a balanced budget amendment. We have passed legislation to end unfunded mandates to State and local governments. And today we move toward passage of a long-awaited line-item veto to eliminate waste and abuse in the Federal Government, and we are working hard, making important changes to continue this effort. But more important, we are keeping our word with the American people, and that is what they expect.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the American people are looking to the 104th Congress more than any Congress in recent memory with hope and anticipation that we begin to solve the serious issues facing our Nation. Hard-working Americans from across the country have come to Washington to discuss tax relief for families, term limits, and unfunded mandates. Members of Congress have also traveled throughout their districts, their respective districts, talking about crime and welfare reform, a balanced budget amendment, and a tax policy that creates more jobs and better salaries. But, Mr. Speaker, each day on C-SPAN we listen to some--not all, not even the majority, but some Members of the Democratic Party--and all we hear are attacks on our Speaker, attacks on what he teaches in his college course, attacks on what he writes, attacks on what he believes. If these senior Members of the opposing party spent more time working on substantive legislation and less time attacking our Speaker, this would be a better Congress.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I became a Member of the 104th Congress to develop a sincere way of changing Congress as we have known it throughout these years. Part of that change includes shrinking the bureaucracy within Congress itself. In 1950 this body functioned with 93 committees and subcommittees. Today there are 185 committees and subcommittees, twice as many as in 1950. Between 1945 and 1993 the number of committee staff grew from 159 employees to 2,231, an increase of more than 1,300 percent. The American people demand that Congress lead the way in reducing the size of Government. The people of the First Congressional District in Kentucky and all over this country want an efficient and responsive Government. But good government does not necessarily have to mean big government. That is why I stand here today to support reform proposals to reduce committee staff by one-third, to eliminate three standing committees and 25 subcommittees. I urge Members' support.