[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 16, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H5384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WANT TO HELP PEOPLE, AND VOTING FOR LESS 
         GOVERNMENT IS FREQUENTLY THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, it is totally false to say that one party 
cares more about the environment or children or senior citizens than 
the other party. I do not understand why we have to constantly attack 
each other or question each other's motives to express our views.
  Neither party has a monopoly on virtue. Neither party has cornered 
the market on compassion. I know I am going to state some things that 
should be obvious but that are often questioned around here.
  Republicans love children just as much as Democrats do. Republicans 
want a clean environment just as much as Democrats do. Republicans have 
just as much compassion and sympathy for the disabled and senior 
citizens as Democrats do. Republicans support education just as 
strongly as Democrats do, and vice versa. I repeat, no one has cornered 
the market on compassion. No one has a monopoly on virtue.
  We do have differences of opinion. We have different philosophies and 
beliefs about the best ways to help people. But all of us, both 
Democrat and Republican, want to help people. We all want to make this 
Nation a better place in which to live.
  Republicans believe that big government hurts children by taking so 
much money away from parents and spending it instead on bureaucrats, 
fat cat government contractors, and administrative costs. Republicans 
have looked all over the world and have seen that big government 
benefits the few, the elite, those who work for or have connections 
with the government. Republicans believe government means a minute, 
elite class and a huge underclass, and that conversely, a small 
government means a huge middle class.
  Look at the former Soviet Union, where the leaders of the Communist 
Party had their limousines and dachas by the sea and special stores in 
which to shop, while almost everybody else led a starvation existence. 
Look at the United States in 1950 where the average person paid 2 to 4 
percent in taxes to the Federal Government and another 2 to 4 percent 
to State and local governments. We had a huge middle class and a much 
smaller difference between the rich and the poor. Now almost 50 years 
later, Government has exploded and the average person pays almost half 
of his or her income in taxes when we count taxes of all types, 
Federal, State, and local.
  What has happened? Many middle-income people are finding it harder 
and harder to keep ahead. Personal bankruptcies hit an alltime record 
of 1.1 million last year. The gap between the rich and the poor is 
growing wider and wider.
  Also, where many mothers formerly had their choice of staying home 
with their children if they wished, today, with half of the average 
family's income going in various forms of taxes, one spouse has to work 
to support the Government while the other spouse works to support the 
family.
  My point, Mr. Speaker, is simply this: Sometimes the best way to help 
children and families is not through another Government program which 
has a good apple-pie-and-motherhood title but which really helps only a 
few bureaucrats and Government contractors.
  The Job Corps is a prime example. Today we spend $25,000 per Job 
Corps student. This would shock most of these students, because almost 
all of this money is going to bureaucrats and contractors. We could 
take each Job Corps student and give them a $1,300 allowance and send 
them even to an expensive private school and still save money. This is 
how ridiculously expensive this and many other Federal programs have 
become.
  My time is limited, Mr. Speaker, but let me mention the environment. 
The worst pollution in the world has occurred in the Socialist and 
Communist countries. Big government is bad for the environment. Only in 
a free market system can we generate the funds necessary to do the good 
things for the environment that all of us, both Democrat and 
Republican, want done. Also, people take better care of their own 
property than they do someone else's. Private property is not only good 
for the environment, it is essential.
  John Stossel of ABC News had a special on television a couple of 
years ago in which he pointed out that to clean our air to the almost 
impossible standard demanded by some groups would cost so much that it 
could throw millions of people into poverty. He presented a study which 
showed that we might add one day to the life of the average person by 
getting tougher on clean air, but that poverty decreases lifespans by 
7\1/2\ years.
  Is it compassionate, Mr. Speaker, to vote for some bill because it 
does some microscopic good for the environment if in the process it 
destroys millions of jobs, drives up prices, and hurts the poor and 
working people? Is it compassionate to go overboard on the environment 
if it throws possibly millions into poverty?
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is this: that both parties want 
to help people and make this Nation better. Sometimes we do that by 
voting for government programs. Today, with our huge out-of-control 
Federal Government, more frequently we help people by voting for less 
government.

                          ____________________