Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the bills that this rule brings to the floor, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. I primarily want to talk for a couple moments, though, about health care. In the mid 1990s, I went to a reception, and the doctor who delivered me came and brought my records. I asked him how much he charged back then. He said he charged $60 for 9 months of care and the delivery, if they could afford it. I recently read an article by a woman who wrote that you have to be over 50 now to remember a time when health care was affordable. And it used to be affordable, Mr. Speaker, for almost everybody. But then the Federal Government got into it. Several years ago, I asked the administrator of a hospital in Knoxville how much medical costs would go down if you could get the government out of health care. His estimate was that it would come down 50 percent overnight and another 50 percent over the next 6 months so that costs would then be only about 25 percent of what they are now. When the Federal Government got so heavily into health care, costs just exploded. A few people in companies got filthy rich, but almost everyone else got screwed. Now only a few billionaires can afford the costs of a major illness. We need to make health care affordable again. We can't do that by making it even more bureaucratic than it already is. The bill this rule brings to the floor is an attempt to give patients more control over their healthcare dollars and give the Federal Government less control and to stop making a very few rich off of the system because they know how to work the system. It is an effort to help bring down some of these ridiculous and exorbitant costs. We can't get the government out of health care entirely. But thank goodness we don't pay for other necessities, like food, clothing, and housing, like we do for medical care. Thank goodness there is still primarily a free market for other necessities. If we paid for food the same way we pay for medical care, we would see crazy prices for steaks and other types of food. Or if we paid for cars the same way we paid for medical care, most people wouldn't have even been able to afford a Yugo. We need to move in a new direction, a less bureaucratic direction, and a more affordable direction. This bill is an important first step in that better direction.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, Thomas ``Tank'' Strickland is one of the hardest working people I have ever known and a very patriotic American. He will retire soon from his position as city community relations director in Knoxville, Tennessee, where he has served for almost 20 years. He has also represented the city he loves so much for several years as an esteemed member of the Knox County Commission. A graduate of Austin-East High School and the University of Tennessee, Mr. Strickland's service to the community spans a lifetime and has come not just through government but also volunteer and philanthropy work. The community honored him for this devotion with the naming of Thomas ``Tank'' Strickland Park. Recently, he was also bestowed with the Jayne Thomas Grassroots Volunteer Recognition Award for community advocacy from the Community Action Partnership. This award is given only to those who have ``made a significant and outstanding contribution toward accomplishing the promise of Community Action'' and is ``devoted to changing people's lives.'' Mr. Strickland has devoted countless hours of his life to combating neighborhood violence and helping at-risk youth. He is seen in Knoxville as a symbol of integrity. Among other causes he champions are the Howard Circle of Friends, a senior day-care group, and the Interfaith Health Clinic for the working poor. Mr. Speaker, Thomas ``Tank'' Strickland has spent his entire life in service to the neighborhood where he grew up. I call his work and dedication to the attention of my Colleagues and other readers in hopes that he will inspire many, many more in the years to come.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of both bills that this rule will bring to the floor. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I find myself in very strong agreement with him on every point that he raised in his outstanding opening statement. In regard to the energy efficiency bill, Mr. Speaker, unemployment is a serious problem in this country, but we have much more underemployment. We have ended up with the best educated waiters and waitresses in the world, as many thousands of college graduates can't find good jobs. Our environmental rules and regulations and red tape have caused several million good jobs to go to other countries over the last 40 or 50 years. We need more good jobs in this country, Mr. Speaker, and this energy bill will help reduce this movement of jobs to other countries. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise primarily today to speak in favor of the Every Student Succeeds legislation. In 2001, I was one of just 45 Members of the House who voted against the No Child Left Behind Federal education law. Just 10 of those 45 remain in the House today: Republican Congressmen Sam Johnson, Walter Jones, Joe Pitts, Dana Rohrabacher, Jim Sensenbrenner, Pete Sessions, and myself; and Democrats John Conyers, Bobby Scott, and Maxine Waters. This turned out to be one of the most popular votes I ever cast, especially with teachers. I have spoken well over a thousand times in schools through the years, and I voted against the bill in 2001 because I felt the teachers, principals, and parents in east Tennessee had enough common sense and intelligence to run their own schools and classrooms and didn't need Washington bureaucrats telling them what to do. The No Child Left Behind law was a great overreaction to failed schools in some of our Nation's biggest cities, and it needs to be replaced. Today, I rise in support of the Every Student Succeeds Act so we can leave behind the No Child Left Behind law. As a previous speaker mentioned, the Wall Street Journal on Monday published an editorial calling this bill ``a bipartisan compromise'' that would be ``the largest devolution of Federal control . . . in a quarter-century.'' The paper pointed out that ``it's far better than the status quo which would continue if nothing passes,'' and described the bill as ``a rare opportunity for real reform.'' This bill should please many conservatives because it does away with the Common Core mandate. This legislation is an example of great work by my own Senator, constituent, and friend, Senator Lamar Alexander. This bill is just one of many reasons why Senator Alexander is one of the most respected Members of the other body, and I commend him for his efforts to improve our Nation's schools. I urge all of my colleagues to support these two bills that this rule brings to the floor.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, almost every week, Frank Cagle writes a thoughtful, intelligent, even courageous column for the Knoxville News Sentinel. In his column of December 2nd, he wrote: ``Some of us don't think it's a bad thing that people who are here illegally and are not citizens cannot vote.'' I admire Frank Cagle for his willingness to speak out on matters of national importance, and I would like to call to the attention of my Colleagues and other readers this and other columns he has written for the Knoxville News Sentinel. Rumors of the GOP's Death Exaggerated Last week Hillary Clinton announced she would no longer use the term ``illegal immigrants.'' I can understand a Clinton's aversion to the word illegal, but it will be hard for a president to get control of the border if she doesn't recognize that unauthorized entry into the country is against the law. During the Democratic debate she refused to say the words ``Islamic terrorism.'' It's hard to see how a commander in chief can win a war against our enemies when she's too timid to call them what they are. I spent Thanksgiving with a houseful of young adults. They are all voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary. What do they do in the general when Clinton is the Democratic nominee? I suspect they will stay home. If the Democrats think they will turn out the young people who voted for President Barack Obama to vote for Hillary, they are delusional. I keep reading about how the Republicans are doomed. Republicans can't govern. Demographics will make the Republicans a minority party in the future. Did you notice the recent election in Kentucky? Obama has done to the Kentucky Democratic Party what he has done to the Tennessee Democratic Party--damaged it almost beyond repair. A tea party guy, behind in all the polls, defeated a popular Democrat by 10 points. And Democrats down ballot got hammered. Tennessee Republicans have a supermajority in the Legislature, the governor, two U.S. Senators and seven of nine Congressmen. Tennessee and Kentucky are not alone. Since Obama has been president, the Democrats have lost over 900 seats in state legislatures, 11 governorships, 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats. Tell me again about the demise of the Republican Party. Democrats believe that if the Republicans nominate Donald Trump, then Clinton is the next president. Why? Who is closer to the majority opinion of the American people? Trump's bellicosity on immigrants, his anti-Muslim rants and calling for bombing the (you know what) out of ISIS? Or Clinton, who can't bring herself to even identify the perpetrators? The dire predictions about the Republicans becoming a minority party because of the growing Hispanic vote? If you don't grant amnesty and make all illegal immigrants citizens, they can't vote. Some of us don't think it's a bad thing that people who are here illegally and are not citizens cannot vote. Go down to the courthouse sometime and watch legal immigrants being sworn in as citizens. Talk to them about the hoops they jumped through in order to become a citizen. Then ask them how they feel about people who want to jump the line. Americans are tired of political correctness. In the words of the crazy anchor from the movie ``Network,'' they are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore. It's the kind of attitude that fuels the Trump phenomenon. With the fading of Jeb Bush, the establishment seems to be turning to Marco Rubio to stop Trump. The author of an amnesty bill. Good luck with that.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I wish today to honor a man that many in my District know by only one name. Ted Ousley--or simply ``Gunner'' as he is known to his many fans--is one of the most popular people in my District and a longtime personality with WIVK radio in Knoxville, Tennessee. Each weekday from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. ``Your Cowboy Pal'' Gunner entertains listeners with his unique brand of East Tennessee charm, humor, and grace. He loves his job, and you can tell when listening to his show. He once said that he was ``living his dream'' by being on the air with WIVK. In 2003 and 2004, Gunner was voted the Best DJ by Metro Pulse readers and was a finalist for the Marconi Air Personality of the Year. But Gunner is not just known for his entertainment. He is also a tireless champion of Veterans. Following the September 11th terror attacks in 2001, Gunner started a segment on his show called ``Voices from the Front'' where he would connect families over the phone with their loved ones serving in the wars. It was hugely popular and emotional for him and his listeners. In 2004, he traveled to Iraq, and upon his return led an effort to bring to the United States for treatment an 8-year-old suffering from a severe form of Spina Bifida. In 2009, Gunner received the first annual Civilian Warrior Award for his work with the 844th Engineer Battalion. East Tennessee is one of the most patriotic places in this Country. Each year, Gunner helps lead the Veterans Day parade in Knoxville, which is attended by many thousands of people. In addition to his service to Veterans, Gunner finds the time to run two East Tennessee farms and serve on the Board of Directors of the East Tennessee Alzheimer's Association. Mr. Speaker, Ted ``Gunner'' Ousley embodies the Volunteer spirit of East Tennessee. His humility and dedication to those who serve will forever hold a place in our hearts, and I thank him for his dedication to this Country and wish him success as he continues to entertain us each day. I also call his work with Veterans to the attention of my Colleagues and other readers in hopes that he will be an inspiration to many more.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, today is the 10th anniversary of the Bria Fund for Feline Infectious Peritonitis. The Bria Fund is a worthy organization created on November 18, 2005, by two of my constituents, Susan Gingrich and James Shurskis, who worked together with the Winn Feline Foundation. Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP) is a disease that is considered to be the predominant cause of death for young cats under the age of two, but it can affect cats of any age, including senior cats. FIP remains a terminal disease, with no effective vaccine to prevent it, or treatment to cure it. Despite these ongoing obstacles, the work of the Bria Fund has resulted in new interest and research into the little known disease of FIP. Since 2005, the Fund has supported 16 FIP research projects, leading to important knowledge in multiple aspects of FIP. The information gained about the FIP virus has led to improvements in testing, diagnosis, and treatment, and better understanding of caring for cats with FIP. This is an exciting time for FIP research. Despite the lack of a definitive cure, better testing and treatment methods are helping some cats live well despite having FIP. There are also more opportunities for veterinary professionals to learn about FIP in their continuing education programs. Ms. Gingrich and Mr. Shurskis were inspired by personal experiences to establish the Bria Fund. In early 2005, they lost their nine month old Blue Lynx Point Birman kitten Bria to suspected FIP. They had never heard of FIP before Bria developed it. They soon learned that little was known about this disease, that there were no clinical trials involving FIP, and no treatment for it, except for steroid prescriptions to somewhat ease the pain and suffering of cats with the disease. After Bria's passing, they were determined to do everything they could to spare future cat owners from the experiences they and Bria had to endure. The Gingrich family is well known for its love of animals. Ms. Gingrich's sisters, Candace Gingrich and Roberta Gingrich Brown, worked hard with their sister to establish the Bria Fund. Her brother, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, encouraged the organization he created, the Center for Health Transformation, to provide a generous contribution to the Fund. The Gingrich's could not have picked a more worthy ally in the Winn Feline Foundation. The WFF was established by the Cat Fancier's Association, Inc., to support health-related research benefiting cats. To date, Winn has funded over $5 million in health research for cats at more than 30 partner institutions worldwide. Since the WFF was established in 1968 feline medicine has become a major veterinary specialty. Cats are no longer viewed as small dogs. Today, cat owners expect and receive state-of-the-art medical care. As the Bria Fund celebrates its 10th anniversary, I encourage my colleagues to pause for a moment in honor of National Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP) Awareness, Research, and Education Day and think of all the pets and pet owners in this Nation, especially cats such as Bria.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 20, printed in part A of House Report 114-326, be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend Chairman Graves. Nobody could have done a better job on this bill than he has done. I also want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio because they have placed just about everything that I have requested into this bill, including accepting an amendment yesterday. I will repeat something that I said during general debate yesterday: I am so pleased that after we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the last 15 years in a vain attempt to rebuild the Middle East, now we are finally going to pass a major bill to rebuild this country and provide hundreds of thousands of jobs all across this Nation. I rise today, Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota to offer an amendment that is basically very technical in nature, but it is one that is very, very important to many thousands of the smallest companies in the trucking industry. I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for including in the base bill some of the language from a bill that I introduced that deals with this situation. This amendment expands that by clarifying the requirements that a freight broker must meet before hiring a motor carrier for the delivery of goods. Currently, the bill requires a broker to check to ensure that the motor carrier is first registered with and authorized by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to operate as a licensed motor carrier; secondly, has the minimum insurance required by Federal law; and, third, has the satisfactory safety fitness determination by the FMCSA. All of these things make for a safer trucking industry in this country. Our amendment inserts ``or be unrated'' in the third requirement. Currently, there are thousands of small trucking operations which have yet to be audited or rated by the FMCSA. By adding the words ``or be unrated,'' we ensure that these small companies are not precluded from being in the pool of eligible motor carriers that can be used for shipping goods. According to the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association, OOIDA, without this amendment, we will be creating an incentive not to use small carriers, putting hundreds of thousands of truck drivers out of business due to no fault of their own. Without this change, we will hurt small mom-and-pop trucking businesses and drive up the cost of shipping goods for everyone. The second part of our amendment adds a fourth requirement that must be checked by the brokers. This fourth condition requires a broker to check to make sure that a motor carrier has not been issued an out-of- service order to prohibit a carrier from conducting operations. Once again, this makes for a safer trucking industry in this country. If we do not make this amendment part of the bill, thousands of small companies and mom-and-pop operators who have never had a wreck or had a violation would lose business just because FMCSA does not have the sufficient time or staff to officially rate them. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I will just say this amendment ensures that we have only safe trucks on the road and that thousands of small businesses are not hurt in the process. However, I have received assurances from both Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio that they want to do something about this. I think everybody on both sides of the aisle in this Congress really wants to try to help the smallest businesses in almost any industry, and they have told me that they will really try to do something about this in conference. With that assurance and at their request, I am withdrawing this amendment and hope that we can improve the bill as it goes on through conference. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment at this point.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. In my 27 years in this Congress, I can think of very few Members who are better orators, greater speakers than the gentleman from Georgia; and I appreciate his giving me this time. I rise in support of this rule. Later today, Congressman Paulsen of Minnesota and I will be offering an amendment that, I think, is very technical in nature; but it is designed to help the smallest businesses in the trucking industry. I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for including some provisions from a bill that I introduced in the base text that establishes hiring practices that a freight broker must follow. My and Mr. Paulsen's amendment clarifies the requirements that a freight broker must meet before hiring a motor carrier for the delivery of goods. This bill will require a broker to check to ensure that a motor carrier is first registered with, and authorized by, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to operate as a licensed motor carrier; and, secondly, that it has the minimum insurance required by Federal law; and, third, it has the satisfactory safety fitness determination by the FMCSA. My amendment inserts ``or be unrated'' in the third requirement. Currently, there are thousands of small trucking companies which have yet to be audited by the FMCSA. By adding the words ``or be unrated,'' we ensure that these very small companies will not be precluded from being in the pool of eligible motor carriers that can be used for shipping goods. Without this modest change, thousands of very small, very safe trucking companies will be eliminated from the pool of eligible motor carriers just because the FMCSA has not had time or staff levels enough to rate them. Without this amendment, thousands of small companies that have never had a wreck or a violation will be hurt. So, without this change, we will hurt small businesses and drive up the cost of shipping goods for everyone. This is an amendment for the little guy, the mom-and-pop operators. There is a second part to this amendment that address a fourth requirement that must be checked by the brokers. This fourth condition requires a broker to check to make sure that a motor carrier has not been issued an out-of-service order to prohibit a carrier from conducting operations. To conclude, I will just say my and Mr. Paulsen's amendment ensures that we have only safe trucks on the road and that thousands of small businesses are not hurt in the process. This amendment is supported by the Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association, the Transportation Intermediaries Association, various other associations, the International Warehouse Logistics Association, and on and on. I would urge my colleagues to look into this amendment and hopefully support it later today when we bring it to the floor.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate that support from the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio. I urge passage of this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chairman, my amendment requires the Department of Transportation to conduct a study on the operations of a double-decker motorcoach equipped with a luggage carrier on the rear of the vehicle. The Department of Transportation will be required to report its findings back to the Congress 60 days after the enactment of the bill. Federal law does not limit the length of buses but provides that States cannot limit buses to less than 45 feet. A majority, but not all, States adopted laws providing for a 45-foot maximum limit for buses years ago when all intercity buses were no longer than that length. However, the 45-foot limits in these States effectively precludes the attachment of a luggage carrier, known commonly as a luggage box, to the back of modern double-decker intercity motorcoaches of the sort now used by several intercity bus companies because the luggage boxes extend the bus by about 2 feet and several inches over the 45-foot limit. Luggage boxes have been in use, Madam Chairwoman, for many years in Europe, where they are used by over 600 bus operators. They are also currently in use in Florida and Georgia, neither of which State has a 45-foot bus length limit. Even with the luggage box, these buses are much shorter than most truck-trailer combinations. Further, an intensive study undertaken by two respected ex-NHTSA engineers last year has confirmed that the luggage box poses no hazard to the bus, its passengers, or highway safety. In fact, no Federal or State vehicle safety agency has raised any objection to the use of the luggage box. While there is no evidence that the use of these luggage boxes is unsafe, I do think we would benefit from an independent study by the Department of Transportation so everyone will be completely assured that there is no safety risk involved in these luggage boxes at all. I hope my colleagues will support this very minor amendment to have the Department of Transportation conduct this study. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate and thank Chairman Shuster for his great leadership of our committee and especially his hard work on this legislation. I also want to thank my friend, Ranking Member DeFazio, for his great work on this bill. I rise, Mr. Chairman, in strong support of this very important legislation, this major legislation, that will reauthorize our highway and transit programs. We have spent megabillions rebuilding the Middle East over the last 15 years, and I am so pleased that we are now doing major legislation to help rebuild America. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including a number of provisions in this bill that I have requested and I think are very important. First, I want to thank them for the environmental streamlining provisions that we have worked on for so long on our committee to try to speed up major projects and bring down their costs so that we can do more good things for this country. Secondly, I am very pleased that many of the recommendations from the special panels on freight transportation and on public-private partnerships, the panels that the chairman just mentioned that he gave me the privilege of chairing, were included in this bill. Third, I am pleased that this bill extends the current provisions of law that prevent the use of Federal funds for red light cameras. Many local governments have used these cameras simply as revenue measures without actually making any improvements in safety. Fourth, this bill directs the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to conduct a study on the waiting times for skills testing for truck drivers after going through truck driving courses. In some States, these wait times have become very long, and most graduates cannot afford to wait a long time to take these tests. We already have a shortage of truck drivers. This part of the legislation will help improve or do something about that shortage that the trucking companies have so much difficulty with at this time finding adequate personnel. Finally, this bill includes provisions of legislation that I have introduced that clarifies hiring standards for freight brokers. I will have a technical amendment to this section later to make sure that small trucking companies are not hurt and that they also will be helped by this provision. I simply want to close by saying that I support this legislation which will improve the safety of our highways, create thousands of jobs in this country, and help reduce congestion all across this Nation.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, Dr. J. Randall O'Brien is one of the most respected educators in the Nation. He took over the reins of Carson-Newman University at a real low point in the school's history. In fact, just a few years ago, the University had such difficult financial problems that some people thought it could go under. Under Dr. O'Brien's leadership, the University has undergone a major turnaround, increasing its enrollment, adding new programs, and becoming the most forward-looking smaller university in the Nation. Dr. O'Brien recently wrote a lead column for the Knoxville News Sentinel concerning the proposed new college scorecard put forth by the White House and Department of Education. Because this issue has ramifications for colleges and universities all across the Nation, I would like to call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers. J. Randall O'Brien: Scorecard for Colleges Unfair and Damaging There are are so many fatal flaws in President Barack Obama's recently unveiled New College Scorecard it is difficult to know where to begin our nation's imperative critique. For starters, how shocking it is to see that our educational leaders housed within the U.S. Department of Education could prove so inept in collecting, interpreting and providing our president reliable data. College educators fully agree with current public opinion that evaluation and reform of higher education is overdue. To be sure, college accessibility, affordability and accountability are critical issues that rightfully belong on our nation's agenda. Assessment, however, formulated on the basis of incomplete questioning and misleading data may prove far more damaging than having no published assessment at all. The New College Scorecard notes the annual cost of attending each college, the graduation rate of the school and the average starting salary of its graduates. However, the scorecard includes only data of federal student-loan borrowers. All other students are excluded from the report. Moreover, the starting salary numbers fail to take into consideration the geographical region hosting the institution. A New York or California salary, for example, would be expected to be significantly higher than an Appalachian one. Should not per capita wealth and cost of living in the institution's region be noted? In addition, no consideration is given to the correlation of salary and field of study. Teachers, social workers and ministers, for instance, do not expect to earn salaries commensurate to business graduates in metropolitan areas. Do we wish to undermine and imperil the vitally important work of our nation's service sector, and its college providers, by placing value on salary alone? Do we really wish to discourage the graduation of relatively low-income teachers? Moreover, should not a premium be placed on a broad-based liberal arts education, and the intellectual (and holistic) transformation of the student, which prepares the student remarkably well for any job, including corporate, legal, political, church, community, scientific and educational leadership? Dare we risk reducing the college experience to little more than participation in an elite job training program? Lastly, despite the White House's insistence on access to higher education for all, the new scorecard fails to acknowledge accessibility of lower socio-economic students to each college. Research clearly shows the correlation in retention and graduation rates to a student's socioeconomic status, family finances and support, and proper academic preparation and encouragement. Should we not value accessibility and accurately factor in its consequences? I fear the Department of Education, with encouragement from the White House, will seek to employ the New College Scorecard in determining the amount of financial aid for which a student would be eligible at each college. Students attending one school may qualify for 100 percent of available federal grants, while students attending another school may qualify for only 75 percent. This, I fear, would have the unintended consequence of closing hundreds of colleges, which are vital to regional economic well-being and to the attainment of our nation's educational needs and goals. I regret to say I find the New College Scorecard, however well-intended, seriously flawed, patently unfair and exceedingly disappointing. Can we please do better? J. Randall O'Brien is president of Carson-Newman University.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, over the past 15 years, we have had thousands of young Americans killed and thousands more maimed and trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars spent in our failed attempts at nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the Middle East. Surely, surely, we have learned a very expensive lesson, that we cannot run the Middle East. In fact, in some ways, our good intentions have made things worse. Now some companies and people who make money off of an interventionist foreign policy are clamoring for us to get in an even bigger way in bloody Syria. Mr. Speaker, this is not true conservatism. Mr. Speaker, the conservative columnist Thomas Sowell wrote recently and said: ``What lessons might we learn from the whole experience of the Iraq War? If nothing else, we should never again imagine that we can engage in `nation-building' in the sweeping sense that term acquired in Iraq--least of all building a democratic Arab nation in a region of the world that has never had such a thing in a history that goes back thousands of years.'' David Keene, the conservative opinion editor of the Washington Times, wrote: The concept of U.S. national interests was stretched beyond any rational meaning. America took on more than we could possibly handle. The result is a generation of young Americans who have never known peace; a decade in which thousands of our best have died or been maimed, with little to show for their sacrifices; our enemies have multiplied; and the national debt has skyrocketed. Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy said in one of his most famous speeches at the University of Washington in 1961: We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we are only 6 percent of the world's population, that we cannot impose our will on the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that, therefore, there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. The only difference now, Mr. Speaker, is that we are 4 percent of the world's population instead of 6 percent that he mentioned. But I would repeat those words of President Kennedy: ``We cannot right every wrong or reverse every adversity and that, therefore, there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, the same people that got us into a very unnecessary war in Iraq are now clamoring for military action in Syria. These same people that have opposed us getting out of Afghanistan, even though our troops have been there more than three times longer than World War II, now demand action in Syria. These same people seem to want us to be at war in almost every country in the Middle East, even though things are worse now than when we started fighting there many years ago. Surely we have learned a very costly lesson after spending trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and losing thousands of American lives, that we cannot run the Middle East. President Eisenhower certainly knew the horrors of war. He brought us home from Korea and kept us out of all the conflicts and little wars during his time in office. He did not have to prove that he was tough or that he was a great military leader. Too many of our leaders or would-be leaders seem to be falling all over themselves trying to show that they are tougher than anyone else. With our national debt now totaling more than $18 trillion, we simply cannot afford to intervene in every hotspot or conflict all around the world. This is not isolationism, this is common sense. We should have trade and tourism with other countries and cultural and educational exchanges, but we should not be eager to go to war or send troops or drones or bombs in mainly to prove that we are great world leaders. We have too many officials and candidates who want to be seen as new Winston Churchills. They try to turn every two-bit dictator into new Hitlers. President Eisenhower, in his most famous speech near the end of his Presidency, warned us against the military-industrial complex. Now some people say we have a security-industrial complex as well. Most of the threats against us have been greatly exaggerated by people and companies which make big money from all of our foreign interventions. If we would stop trying to run the Middle East, we could make our own country stronger from both a financial and security standpoint. While our intentions have been honorable, our foreign policies in the Middle East have created much hatred and resentment for us. It was not an American bomb that went astray killing 131 people at the wedding in Yemen a few days ago, but all the reports said it was a U.S.-led coalition. So we are getting the blame. The air attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan that killed 22 in what the Pentagon described as inadvertent was another public relations disaster for the U.S. We need to stop trying to run the whole world. We have enough problems of our own right here at home, yet many of our leaders seem to feel more important if they are concentrating on foreign issues. It is not the fault of the American people, but it is the fault of our liberal elitist foreign policy establishment that there is so much hatred for America in the Middle East. This liberal elitist establishment wanted us to go to war in Syria 2 or 3 years ago, but the public outcry from ordinary American citizens was so strong against it that their plans had to be abandoned. Now these same interventionists have figured out a way to accomplish their goal by resurrecting a Russia that no longer exists. Even the disgraced General Petraeus said at a hearing last week that Putin's foreign reserves are less than $200 billion. With his economy at home in shambles, in part, due to low prices for oil and natural gas, he cannot afford to run Syria for long, even if it were possible to do so. If Putin wants to pursue this folly, we certainly should not try to do the same, as if it were a competitive advantage to take over a failed state. It would be especially foolish to try to take over a messed-up place like the Syria of today. Businessmen compete to take over very profitable businesses. They generally don't fight over businesses that are going under. While the neoconservatives hate to admit it, both Assad in Syria and the leadership in Iran are allies in the fight against ISIS. ISIS has strength for two main reasons: One, resentment for our interventions in the Middle East; and, two, billions of dollars' worth of U.S. equipment abandoned by security forces that we spent billions to train who cut and run at the first sign of danger. We should not send more young Americans to fight and die for people who are not willing to fight for themselves. Dr. Daniel Larison, a contributing editor of the American Conservative magazine, wrote a few days ago that ``the U.S. keeps stumbling ahead with a war in Syria that it doesn't need to be fighting. All of this comes ultimately from our political leaders' inability to recognize that there are many conflicts that the U.S. should avoid all together.'' Eisenhower recognized this. We desperately need a leader like him again. Finally, Mr. Speaker, columnist Pat Buchanan summed it up best: ``If America's elites continue to assert their right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations . . . then we are headed for endless conflict.'' He said: ``There was a time, not so long ago . . . when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy.''

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I wish today to recognize an organization that has had a huge impact on rural areas of my District and the State of Tennessee. The Appalachian Electric Cooperative is celebrating its 75th anniversary during its annual meeting on September 26th in White Pine, Tennessee, where up to 2,000 people are expected to attend. Governor Bill Haslam has proclaimed September 26th as Appalachian Electric Cooperative Day. Since 1940, the member-owned, non-profit Appalachian Electric Cooperative has been providing reliable and affordable electricity across East Tennessee. Today, it serves 45,000 people in Grainger, Hamblen, Jefferson and Sevier Counties. Several years ago, I was named the number one champion of rural America in the entire House of Representatives. I have always rooted for the little guy or the underdog in life. It is very important to stand up for small towns and rural areas because they do not have the resources of big cities and often get shortchanged. I read recently that two-thirds of the counties in the U.S. are losing population. There are many small towns and rural areas across the Appalachian region that are barely holding on. Without affordable, reliable electricity, these rural areas would cease to exist. We must do everything we can to support rural America and help stem this population loss. Mr. Speaker, the Appalachian Electric Cooperative has been a lifeline for many thousands of people across rural East Tennessee for the last 75 years. I urge my colleagues and other readers of the Record to congratulate them on this milestone and thank them for their service to Tennessee.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I participated in a hearing on criminal justice reform before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A second hearing is being held today on this issue in the same committee. At both hearings, conservatives and liberals are joining together to urge that we stop or at least try to slow the growth of our Federal police state. Conservative columnist George Will wrote a few months ago: ``Overcriminalization has become a national plague.'' Paul Larkin, senior legal research fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, wrote in The Washington Times: ``Today, there are perhaps 4,500 Federal offenses--and more than 300,000 relevant regulations--on the books. No one knows exactly how many. The Justice Department and the American Bar Association each tried to identify every crime and failed.'' Mr. Larkin continued: ``No reasonable person, not even a judge or lawyer, could possibly know all of these legal prohibitions, although criminal penalties are attached to each.'' John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor said: ``There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some Federal crime.'' He added: ``That is not an exaggeration.'' Mr. Speaker, I have special interests in this because, for 7\1/2\ years before coming to Congress, I was a criminal court judge in Tennessee trying the felony criminal cases. I believe in being tough on crime, and I have been a very strong supporter of local law enforcement, the people on the front lines who are fighting the real crime, the violent crime that everyone is so concerned about. I remember in 1993 reading an article in Forbes magazine, one of the Nation's most conservative magazines. This article said that we had quadrupled the Justice Department just between 1980 and 1993 and that Federal prosecutors were falling all over themselves trying to find cases to prosecute. We have kept on expanding the Justice Department since then and have had explosive growth in the number of Federal crimes. We have had far too many cases where overzealous prosecutors have prosecuted high-profile defendants just so that a prosecutor could make a name for himself. I remember the totally unjustified case against Secretary of Labor, Ray Donovan, in which, after he was acquitted, made the famous statement: ``Where do I go to get my reputation back?'' Our Federal Government has become far too big, and it is far too powerful. We all have heard how particularly the IRS is running roughshod over individual citizens. Newsweek magazine a few years had on its cover: ``Inside The IRS--Lawless, Abusive, and Out of Control.'' Unfortunately, while there are many good Federal prosecutors, there are far too many of them and, unfortunately, some who, like the IRS, are lawless, abusive, and out of control. Mr. Speaker, there are now so many laws, rules, and regulations on the books today that people are being prosecuted for violating laws they didn't even know were in existence. Paul Larkin, whom I quoted earlier, said that we need a ``mistake of law'' defense. An innocent mistake is not supposed to be criminal, but a zealous prosecutor can make even an innocent mistake look criminal, and there is an old saying that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to. Almost everyone has violated some tax law--they are so convoluted and confusing--and almost every person in any type of business has unknowingly violated some law, rule, or regulation for which they could be prosecuted. That is why, yesterday, we had at our hearing a conservative Republican like Senator John Cornyn, a former justice of the Texas Supreme Court; and Senator Cory Booker, a liberal Democrat; and a conservative like Representative Sensenbrenner; and a liberal like Representative Bobby Scott--all joining together to urge reform. Lastly, let me mention one other aspect of our Nation's crime problem. In my years as a judge, I handled over 10,000 cases because probably 97 or 98 percent of the defendants enter some type of guilty plea and then apply for probation. Every day, for 7\1/2\ years, I would read several 8- or 10-page reports into a defendant's background, and I would read, ``Defendant's father left home when defendant was 2 and never returned,'' or ``Defendant's father left home to get a pack of cigarettes and never came back.'' Mr. Speaker, over 90 percent of the defendants in felony cases in my court came from father-absent households. Drugs and/or alcohol are involved in most cases, but they are secondary to the absent father problem. Years ago, I read a report that said 57 percent of marriages break up in arguments, disputes, or disagreements about money. As government has grown so much at all levels, Federal, State, and local over the past 40 or 50 years, it has become a major factor in the breakup of the American family by taking so much money and making it so much more difficult for families to stay together. This, Mr. Speaker, has had a major impact on our Nation's crime problem.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S. 179, a bill to name a post office in Chisholm, Minnesota, after a very distinguished former Member of this body, Congressman James Oberstar. The bill was introduced by Senator Amy Klobuchar, and our colleague Congressman Richard Nolan has introduced House companion legislation. Mr. Oberstar served in the House for a remarkable 36 years, and I think it is very fitting and appropriate to honor his legacy by lending his name to a post office in his hometown of Chisolm. Congressman Oberstar was born in Chisholm, Minnesota, on September 10, 1934, and graduated from the high school there in 1952. Four years later, he earned a bachelor of arts from the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. He later earned a master's degree from the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium. A lot of people knew he was very fluent in French and liked to express himself on many trips in French. Before running for Congress himself, Congressman Oberstar served on the staff for Congressman John Blatnik of Minnesota from 1963 to 1974. In that capacity, he worked with Congressman Blatnik on all of the legislation from the Public Works and Transportation Committee. In the last 3 years he was with Congressman Blatnik, Congressman Oberstar became the chief of staff for that committee. Congressman Oberstar was first elected to represent the people of Minnesota's Eighth District in 1974. Among many notable achievements, he served as chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the 110th and 111th Congresses. In total, he served in 18 Congresses. Sadly, Mr. Oberstar passed away on May 3, 2014, in Potomac, Maryland. He certainly was a devoted public servant who left a remarkable legacy of service to the citizens of Minnesota and the United States. Earlier in this Congress, there was another tribute for Congressman Oberstar. At that time, I said this: It is an astounding figure to think that a man worked on this one committee for 47 years of his life, but he did so with great honor and distinction. In fact, I think most everybody knew that there was no one in the Congress and probably never has been anyone in the history of the Congress who has known transportation issues and understood them and worked on them longer and harder and with more effectiveness than Jim Oberstar did. At one point, he was chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. In 1994, after the election, the Republicans took control, and I had the honor of becoming the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and I served for 6 years in that position, which was the maximum allowable on our side. When I took over as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I frequently heard Jim Oberstar referred to as ``Mr. Aviation.'' So I went to him and asked for his help, and he helped me, guided me, and gave me advice that, to this day, I appreciate very much. He did so in a very kind and humble way. Of course, then he reached the pinnacle and became chairman of that committee, a committee that he loved. He was a great chairman. He worked across the aisle in a very bipartisan way, and I think he tried to help everyone on both sides of the aisle and others in any way that he possibly could. I just wanted to join in this opportunity to pay tribute to a man who was a great American and a great Member of this body, Congressman James Oberstar. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.