Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, the Taiwan Relations Act, signed into law more than 34 years ago on April 10, 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, officially recognizes the unique relationship between Taiwan and the United States. Taiwan acknowledges and represents the many liberties and freedoms the United States holds dear, and is a dependable ally and friend in the Western Pacific. Our countries share a strategic partnership. The United States should continue to support the ideals of Democracy and strengthen our relationship with Taiwan, a reliable partner in a very strategic part of the world.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, with the emerging debate on drones and their use, I recently had lunch here in Washington, DC with Harrison Akins, a former constituent of mine, to discuss the subject. He is a fine young man who grew up in Blount County in East Tennessee, and I have known him for many years. He is now a research fellow at American University working as the chief researcher on a book project with Ambassador Akbar Ahmed, the Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, the first Distinguished Chair of Middle East Studies at the U.S. Naval Academy, and the former Political Agent in charge of Waziristan in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Ambassador Ahmed's new book is called The Thistle and the Drone. This book examines the tribal societies targeted by America's drone campaigns in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, as well as other tribal societies involved in the war on terror. As I wrote in my August 2012 newsletter, Georgie Anne Geyer is one of this Nation's most senior and most highly-respected foreign policy columnists. She wrote recently that we ``are embarked upon missions mired in the fog of human nature, with robotic weapons that may relieve the threat to our human soldiers but that will cause many times more hatred toward America.'' She wrote about inaccurate drones ``killing totally innocent people'' in several countries and quoted a Washington Post article that said ``an escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes is stirring increasing sympathy for al-Quaeda-linked militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the United States.'' Of course, a large amount of money is being made off the sale of those drones to the government. Mr. Speaker, we should heed the words of Benjamin Franklin: ``Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' Harrison Akins is an extremely intelligent, capable young man who I believe will be a great leader for this Nation in the years ahead. His outstanding research on this book is a significant contribution in an area that deserves very serious and thoughtful consideration. The Thistle and the Drone gives us all pause to think about the future of drone warfare and the war on terror and the direction of our country, and I call it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, Mayor Bloomberg says, ``Spare me!'' He said yesterday that the Administration's efforts to scare people about the sequester have gone too far. He said, ``In all fairness, on Monday, we'll be able to police the streets.'' He said ``there's a lot of posturing'' and that statements about laying off employees, closing down hospitals, and letting prisoners go ``are not good for the country.'' The Mayor said, ``Spare me, I live in that world. I mean come on, let's get serious here.'' In today's National Journal Daily, Steve Bell, senior director of the Bipartisan Policy Center, says the sequester is ``absolutely over- hyped.'' He says, ``A sequester will occur and the next day the likelihood is that almost no one will know that it started.'' The choice is simple. We can cut now or crash in the very near future. The press says the sequester will hurt the economy. Actually, the sequester is miniscule in comparison to the harm to our economy from the President's tax hikes, Obamacare, and environmental overkill.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, before I speak about the sequester, I want to salute my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for his earlier remarks about Afghanistan. I agree with him that we need to stop trying to rebuild the world and start putting our own country and our own people first once again. We have spent several trillion dollars over the past decade on very unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we should have brought our troops home many years ago. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the sequester. WMAL radio reported this morning that the administration had put out in a list of cuts which the sequestration would require that the National Drug Intelligence Center in Pennsylvania would be cut by $2 million. The only problem is that this center no longer even exists. It was closed in June of last year. The scare tactics about the sequester seem to grow more ridiculous, more exaggerated every day. The Washington Examiner wrote, in its lead editorial yesterday, that: It is known as the Washington Monument Strategy. Turf- protecting government executives and bureaucrats go out of their way to make spending cuts as painful as possible for as many people as possible. By applying any cuts to the very things the public benefits from most, bureaucratic infighters believe they can convince the public that every penny that goes into government is necessary. In other words, the administration has apparently told all the Departments and Agencies to say that their most popular programs will be drastically cut, instead of reducing spending on their least popular, least necessary, most wasteful programs. The sequester has already been reduced from $109 billion to $85 billion. This sequester is a cut of slightly over 2 percent from our almost $4 trillion budget. Many people seem to have already forgotten that the fiscal cliff deal raised taxes by $620 billion over the next 10 years on upper-income people. Then there is also the $93 billion in higher payroll taxes on all workers this year. That hike is already in effect. Then there are the taxes already coming in to pay for ObamaCare. Columnist Mark Tapscott wrote yesterday: The sequestration scares are the ultimate example of Washington wink-wink. Politicos from both parties warn of imminent disaster if the Federal budget is ``cut,'' even though they know government spending will be higher in 2013 even if the sequestration ``cuts'' are implemented. Put another way, the sequestration scares are lies, pure and simple. Not just bunk, not just distortions or misstatements, but lies. And every professional politician in town-- Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Independent-- knows it. Our national debt is now at a mind-boggling $16.5 trillion. It will go to over $25 trillion in the next 10 years under optimistic scenarios. The Congressional Budget Office a few days ago put out a report that said the interest on our national debt--just the interest-- was going to go from $224 billion this fiscal year to an astounding $857 billion in 10 years. If we allow that to happen, Mr. Speaker, we will then not be able to pay for anything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt. The sequester we are talking about now is minuscule when compared to our present debt and our future pension liabilities. Our choice is simple: we can cut now or crash in the very near future.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, one thing that President Obama mentioned in his State of the Union speech the other night, which I hope he follows up on, is his effort to stop the cost of college tuition and fees from going up at such a rapid rate. I spoke to a class at the University of Tennessee last week--and I've done that many times--and whenever I speak to classes, it shocks the students when I tell them that in my first year at the University of Tennessee it cost $90 per quarter in our tuition. In other words, I went to school for $270. It went up to $105, and then $120, and then $135 a quarter my senior year, so it went up $405. But this was shortly after the Federal student loan program had come in. Until that program came in, college tuition and fees went up at just the rate of inflation. It went up very slowly--in fact, sometimes less than inflation. But now, and ever since that program has come in, tuition and fees have gone up at three or four or five times the rate of inflation, so that today colleges and universities cost 300, 400, and 500 percent higher than they would have if we had just left things alone. Anything the Federal Government subsidizes, the costs just explode. When I went to the University of Tennessee--my senior year in high school I had been a bag boy at the A&P making $1.10 an hour--I got a big raise. As a freshman at the university, I became a salesman at Sears and worked there my first 2 years, and I made $1.25 an hour. Almost everybody who needed to could work part-time and pay all of their expenses and fees in college. Nobody had to borrow money to go to colleges or universities; nobody got out of school with a debt. Then the Federal Government decided to help. And now, what it has resulted in is almost everybody has to borrow money to pay their tuition and fees, and almost everybody gets out of school with some kind of huge debt. We've seen the same thing happen in medical care. The Federal Government decided to help out. Before the Federal Government got involved in medical care, medical care was cheap and affordable to almost everybody. Doctors even made house calls. We took what was a very minor problem for a very few people and now we've turned it into a massive, major problem for everyone. That seems to be the history of the Federal Government. I just came from a hearing in the Oversight and the Government Reform Committee, and I will return to that shortly. But in the GAO report on the New York Medicaid program--which is the largest in the country--it tells about a daily payment method resulting in a $5,000 daily rate for institutional residents in the State of New York--$5,000 daily payments. The New York program is paying over twice as much as the average around the country. We sometimes hear that Medicare and Medicaid can't be cut. We certainly don't want to hurt any lower-income people, but there are some people and companies getting ridiculously, fabulously wealthy off of Medicare and Medicaid. And almost every government program ends up being some sort of a sweetheart, insider-type deal, giving contracts to companies who hire former Federal employees. It's just scandalous what is going on in this country and it's really hurting this Nation badly--and especially hurting the middle income people that the President says he's so eager to help, but who he will be hurting worse than ever if he keeps expanding the Federal Government at the rate that he wants to.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, no Republican in Congress is trying to protect millionaires or billionaires. In fact, Republicans lose most of the wealthiest counties and neighborhoods by very large margins. Much of the impasse in the current negotiations is over who is going to spend the money. Republicans do not want higher taxes simply because so much of what the Federal Government spends is lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. The most wasteful, inefficient way to spend money is to turn it over to the Federal Government. The best way to create jobs and hold prices steady is to let private citizens spend and invest as they choose. The wealthy do all right even in socialist countries. But lower-income and working people come out much better in countries that allow the most free enterprise. Millionaires and billionaires can take care of themselves. Republicans are simply trying to help create jobs and keep the cost of living from going out of sight for ordinary people.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Ron Paul. I have now served in Congress for 24 years, the last 16 of which I have served with Congressman Paul. During all of that time, I have never once seen him waver or stray from a commitment to liberty and freedom and his promise to uphold and defend our Constitution. I can assure you that no one runs for office wanting to make people mad. In fact, it may be that people who run for office have a stronger desire to be liked than most people. Thus, I feel certain that at times it has been hurtful to Congressman Paul to be the only Member out of 435 to vote ``no'' on some popular bill or seemingly harmless resolution. Yet, on many occasions, he has been the only vote on some issue. Yet, because of his courage and sincerity and his steadfast belief in free enterprise, private property, and individual freedom, he has earned the respect and admiration of almost everyone with whom he has served on both sides of the aisle. When there was tremendous pressure, especially on the Republican side, to vote to go to war in Iraq, only six Republicans voted ``no.'' Three of those were very liberal Republicans, and three were very conservative. The three conservative ``no'' votes came from John Hostettler of Indiana, Congressman Paul, and myself. It is probably accurate to say that, during the 16 years Congressman Paul and I have served together, no two Members have voted more alike than we have. Most of that time we have arrived at our decisions separately and independently. But we also have discussed many votes over the years, and I have attended most of the meetings of the Liberty Caucus Congressman Paul has hosted in his office with a wide variety of speakers. One national magazine about 4 years ago gave just three Members 100 percent ratings on a freedom index--Congressman Paul, Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, and myself. Last year I was very surprised when the National Taxpayers Union ranked me as the most fiscally conservative Member on all 338 spending votes. But the only reason Congressman Paul was not first was because he missed many votes during his run for the White House. There have been articles and comments and questions about who would be the next Ron Paul in Congress, but, really, no one can replace Ron Paul or fill his shoes or be the next Ron Paul. He has achieved a fame and a following and a position of influence that is almost miraculous considering his unique independence. He is such a kind, humble, almost bashful person that I know he has been amazed by the numbers that have turned out to support him, and especially the following he has among young people. After all, there is nothing cool or hip about him, but several million college students and 20-somethings love the man. I think his appeal lies in his principled stands on the issues, the concern young people have for their future and where this country is headed, and the fact that Congressman Paul is real. There is nothing fake about him. He believes what he says and says what he believes and then sticks by it even when it is not ``politically correct.'' Financial columnist Charles Goyette probably summed up Congressman Paul's time in office best in a column a few days ago. He wrote: Politics has ways of bending such lesser men and molding even the well-intentioned to become servants of the State. The tools are many: Congressional leadership bribes and bestows its favors from plum committee assignments to nicer Capitol offices. The parties reward the lockstep marchers, too. For those who stay in step, there are endorsements and campaign funds. Meanwhile, for those who march to a different drummer--well. And then there is the simple social pressure to which men whose eyes are not focused on a polestar of principle soon succumb. The description you've heard of Washington that you have to go along to get along is all too true. Mr. Goyette concluded by writing: Ron Paul never succumbed. He never sold out for a better assignment, a nicer office, lobbyist largesse, or shallow conviviality. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think words written in a 1930 novel called ``The Lion's Den'' fit Congressman Ron Paul. The words described a fictional Congressman named Zimmer. The author, Janet Fairbank, wrote: No matter how the espousal of a lost cause might hurt his prestige in the House, Zimmer had never hesitated to identify himself with it if it seemed to him to be right. He knew only two ways; the right one and the wrong, and if he sometimes made a mistake, it was never one of honor. He voted as he believed he should, and although sometimes his voice was raised alone on one side of the question, it was never stilled.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 593 (the Waxman of California Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 3409), I voted ``yea'' when I meant to vote ``nay.''

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, Americans do not want, forever, permanent wars that last three or four times longer than World War II. And they especially do not want to spend hundreds of billions on people who hate or don't at least appreciate what we've done for them. Probably half the spending we have done over the years in Iraq and Afghanistan has been pure foreign aid. And we have poured many, many billions into Egypt, Pakistan, and other countries throughout the Middle East. Our own Nation is $16 trillion in debt. We are borrowing all this money to send to countries that are exploding with anti-American rage. Fifty-one American soldiers have been murdered over the past several months by Afghan police and soldiers who they were training. Now we have had our Ambassador and three other Americans killed in Libya. We should have gotten out of Afghanistan years ago. We need to get out now and not take too long to do it. We need to stop trying to run the whole world, creating so much resentment, and start putting our own country first once again.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise to take this opportunity to recognize Jennifer Joy Pinniger on the occasion of her retirement as President and CEO of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA). Ever since Joy joined the National Stone Association sixteen years ago, she has been an advocate of the 107,800 men and women in the aggregates industry workforce. She has focused NSSGA's advocacy on those issues with the most potential impact on the industry, always aware that the most effective advocates are those members of NSSGA who work every day to produce the construction materials essential to the built environment. She has dedicated herself to educating Members of Congress and the public alike about the importance of the aggregates--or the stone, sand and gravel industry--not only to the Country as a whole, but to our individual lives. About 10 tons of aggregates per person are used annually in America-- everything from glass to cleaning products to pharmaceuticals, toothpaste , and so much more. Every mile of interstate contains 38,000 tons of aggregates and about 400 tons of aggregates are used in construction of the average home. Joy led NSSGA's advocacy for the successful passage of the last two surface transportation authorization bills--SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21. She worked closely with coalition partners in the Transportation Construction Coalition and the Americans for Transportation Mobility. She realized early on that involvement of the public--those affected by the need to get to and from jobs on a daily basis, to take parents to the doctor, to attend children's soccer games; in reality all of us--was critical to success in moving surface transportation legislation forward. Joy worked tirelessly facilitating NSSGA member contacts with community leaders and lawmakers to build momentum for this often overlooked national priority. Her leadership extended well beyond transportation to those regulatory issues affecting the aggregates industry. She championed the industry in meetings with administrative regulatory agencies, always intent on finding solutions that were right for both the aggregates industry and America. Most importantly, Joy always emphasized the industry's ethics and credibility through NSSGA member company commitments to safety and health resulting in 11 years of record- breaking achievements. Joy's policy, management and motivational strength has helped NSSGA members reinforce message and guide relation bridges to fend off unjustified regulations like tightened standards for ``farm dust,'' and legislation that does not accurately distinguish aggregates operations from others. I salute Joy Pinniger on her tenure at the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association which she led with distinction and integrity. I congratulate her on her retirement and wish her the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I first want to commend Chairman Upton and especially my longtime friend, Chairman Stearns, for bringing this important legislation to the floor this morning. Mr. Chairman, I have read and heard for many years that almost 80 percent of small businesses fail within the first 5 years. Thousands of small businesses, many thousands, have failed over the last 10 or 20 years. Many of those would have made it if government had given them $100,000. Most of them would have succeeded or survived if the government had given them $1 million. The government gave Solyndra $535 million, over half a billion dollars, and yet, they squandered it and failed, as we've heard today, in about 2 years. What a ridiculous scandal this is. And I'm grateful to Chairman Stearns for shedding so much light on this. And yet, unfortunately, it's only the tip of a very big iceberg. Our friends on the other side frequently attack the oil industry on their subsidies; yet no industry in this Nation has received nearly as many subsidies, loans, or tax breaks as has the solar energy over the years. And yet the solar energy provides, even after all of these massive subsidies and loans and tax breaks, a little less than one percent of our total energy. The government should not be picking winners and losers. I have nothing against solar energy if it can stand on its own feet, but it certainly cannot do so at this time. And so I rise in strong support for this legislation. But I rise mainly to commend Chairman Stearns, with whom I've served for so many years. Unfortunately, he will not be returning in the next Congress, and I think this is a tremendous loss for this Nation. I've worked with him on many things. I have not seen any Member or known any Member of this Congress who has been more conscientious, who has worked harder, and who has tried to study legislation any more than he has. And I want to especially commend him.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate East Tennessee Foundation in Knoxville, Tennessee, on obtaining its National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations accreditation from the Community Foundations National Standards Board. East Tennessee Foundation is headed by my longtime friend Michael McClamroch. Mike is one of the hardest working and finest men I know, and I am very proud of his leadership of East Tennessee Foundation and all the great work it does for East Tennessee. In the United States, community foundations serve tens of thousands of donors, administer more than $40 billion in charitable funds, and address the core concerns of more than 700 communities and regions. Achieving this accreditation is a rigorous process, demonstrating that East Tennessee Foundation has a commitment to the highest standards possible. I want to again congratulate my friend, Mike McClamroch, and East Tennessee Foundation on receiving its National Standards accreditation and commend the foundation's dedicated service to East Tennessee.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, later today, we will vote on H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2012. Because this legislation comes to us on the suspension calendar, it will require a two-thirds vote in favor of passage. I rise today in support of a full audit of the Federal Reserve. I have thought for many years that there's too much secrecy and too much power vested in our Federal Reserve. This is an effort that I first joined in June of 1991, in the 102nd Congress, when I cosponsored a bill introduced by Congressman Phil Crane of Illinois to audit the Federal Reserve. Even back then, before our most recent major financial recession, Congressman Crane's bill had 56 bipartisan cosponsors. That support has grown over the years, and in the 111th Congress, the last Congress, Congressman Ron Paul's ``audit the Fed'' bill gathered an overwhelming 320 cosponsors from both parties. Now that support, I believe, is at 270 in this Congress. Thomas Jefferson was one of our Founding Fathers who was concerned about putting too much power into a central bank, and he wrote in a letter in 1816 ``that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.'' That was not me; that was Thomas Jefferson. Listen to what people are saying about this bill today from both ends of the political spectrum. Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of Freedom Works, said: Many economists have found that the central bank's loose monetary policy played a major role in the current economic crisis. It is more crucial than ever that the Federal Reserve's monetary decisions be examined. Without a comprehensive audit, we will never know how the Fed is manipulating our money behind closed doors. The National Taxpayers Union, one of our most respected organizations, said: American taxpayers deserve to know more about the workings of a government-sanctioned entity whose decisions directly affect their economic livelihood. Arnold Kling, an author and scholar at the Cato Institute, said: If an audit were to uncover serious flaws and decisions made by the Fed, it is difficult to see why we are better off remaining ignorant of such flaws. Journalist and columnist Rick Sanchez said: For an entity that wields so much power, we know relatively little about the Fed. Would you trust an unknown banker to decide what happens with your paycheck every week? Why do we accept this for our country? And Brent Budowsky, a very liberal political opinion writer, wrote in support of an audit and said: In my years of experience in politics, media, and business, I have learned that secrecy is usually the enemy of common sense, fairness, and sound policy. Another liberal economist, the famous John Maynard Keynes, said this: There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. And a very conservative--one of the most respected conservative economists, F.A. Hayek, said this: When one studies the history of money, one cannot help wondering why people should have put up for so long with governments exercising an exclusive power over 2,000 years that was regularly used to exploit and defraud them. I have heard over the years, Mr. Speaker, people say that we need to have a Federal Reserve and a Federal Reserve system in order to prevent depressions and recessions. Well, that is certainly a very, very dumb statement to make because the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and 16 years later, in 1929, we started our greatest depression. I think we have had more recessions and more downturns in the economy since the Federal Reserve was created than we ever had in the entire history of our country before that system was created. I'm not saying that it is a bad system or that it's wrong to have some type of Federal Reserve system, but it certainly is one that deserves more attention from the Congress. And surely, it is one that has too much secrecy and too much power in this day, and at least the Congress needs to look into it more than it has since that system and that board was created.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation, the so-called Affordable Care Act, which should be called the ``Unaffordable Care Act.'' Even if the President's plan were the best thing since sliced bread, we simply cannot afford it. Both Medicare and Medicaid now cost many times more than what was estimated when they were first passed. Already, the estimate for the President's plan is double what it was just 1 year ago, and most of it will not be fully implemented until 2014 and some parts until 2016. And much of it is ``paid for'' by placing millions more onto the Medicaid rolls. This will cost all the States many billions they do not have. The nonpartisan Congressional Quarterly estimated these additional Medicaid costs at $627 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, in June, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that increased taxes over the next 10 years just to cover the plan would be from $675 billion up to possibly as much as $804 billion. If these are lowball front-end estimates, as is typical, the health care plan will not work unless medical care is limited or restricted more and more each year. In considering their votes on this legislation, on this so-called Affordable Care Act, I hope that my colleagues will consider these strong words by Dr. Milton R. Wolf, President Obama's cousin. He wrote this: For the first time in the history of our Republic, our government has demanded that every American, upon the condition of breathing, be forced to enter a legal contract with government-approved corporations. Not even King George III dared impose such control. In truth, if a government can force you to patronize companies of its choosing, the fundamental relationship between the government and the individual is irrevocably changed. If it is allowed to stand, there will be no part of your life the government cannot control, and no crony it cannot enrich with your money. I urge the support for this rule and this underlying legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former chairman of our committee, a great Member of this body, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of this amendment. This is a $110 million increase in spending, and it is simply too much under the circumstances. I want to first of all, though, certainly commend Chairman Latham and all those who have worked on this bill because the material that has been provided to our office said that this bill overall contains a 7.1 percent decrease in funding, which I think is the biggest cut of any appropriations bill that we've dealt with so far. I also want to commend and salute the gentleman from Georgia for trying even harder to rein in spending, because I think almost everyone on both sides of the aisle knows that we have to reduce spending and we have to do more than we've been doing. This $110 million increase is double the rate of inflation. The amendment by the gentleman from Georgia does not reduce the funding of this agency. It just holds it at the same level. We've cut our own budgets, Madam Chairwoman, for the last couple of years. We've tried to cut many other things. But megabillions have been poured into this program over the last 10 or 15 years. Even with the gentleman's amendment, this fund will still get $1.765 billion. I can tell you most people around the country think that's an awful lot of money. I rise in support of this amendment. I certainly hope that if this amendment does not pass, that we will at least pass the much smaller cut in the gentleman's next amendment. But I think this is a good amendment. We have to get serious about cutting spending when we're facing a national debt of over $16 trillion, which is going much higher and much faster. Unless we want this country to become a gigantic Greece and have the problems that we're seeing all over the world, then we've got to do more than we're doing. So I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back that balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chairwoman, I rise to raise a point of order against section 169C.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chairwoman, I raise a point of order against section 169C on page 56, lines 10 through 16. This section violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules. I would also note that the issue of when transit agencies can use Federal transit funds for operating expenses is part of conference negotiations on the highway bill, which hopefully will be resolved by the end of this week. The conference report will include a better, more targeted policy on this issue. I request a ruling in favor of this point of order.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker: Our Nation recently lost one of its most patriotic Americans, Mr. Charles M. ``Chuck'' Jones, on May 16, 2012. Chuck had been a close friend of mine for many, many years and was one of the finest men I have ever known. Chuck joined the Navy as a teenager toward the end of World War II and continued his service for 22 years on troop ships and submarines. He served during the Korean Conflict and the 1962 Naval blockade involving the Cuban Missile Crisis, but his service to our Country did not stop here. Later in his career, Chuck served as the Veterans Service Officer for Knox County, Tennessee, from 1985 to 2012. He was involved in various military organizations over the years and helped spearhead the movement to bring to our area what is now known as the Ben Atchley State Veterans Home, which opened in 2007. In fact, a road near the Veterans Home was renamed in his honor and will be known from hereafter as Chuck Jones Drive. Along with his exemplary military career and outstanding work in our community, Chuck Jones had a profound impact on my staff and me personally. My Knoxville Office Manager, Jenny Stansberry, worked closely with Chuck on Veterans issues, and I echo her sentiments. After his passing, she said: I feel very fortunate to have worked so closely with a man whom I admired tremendously. His accomplishments in serving our Country are only outdone by the character and integrity Chuck displayed every day of his life. I will miss our working relationship, but more than that I will miss our friendship. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Colleagues and other readers of the Record to join me in celebrating the remarkable life of Chuck Jones. He was truly a great American and I feel this Country is certainly a better place because of his life.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words from the gentleman from Minnesota. He is correct in that I am very much committed to trying to produce and pass a good transportation bill in this Congress. When the gentleman's party was in control of the House and the Senate and the White House a couple of years ago, they couldn't, for various reasons, pass the bill. And I certainly hope we can in this Congress. For the past 3\1/2\ years, about half the time when I've come to the floor I've had some Members on both sides come up to me and say, When are we going to pass a highway bill? And this is my 24th year in this body and I have been involved actively with all of those bills that the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned, all of which passed by overwhelming margins. And as he said, the last highway bill that was passed in 2005 passed with only 8 votes in opposition. I agree and I think all of the people on our side of the aisle agree in principle with Mr. Walz's motion to instruct. We should focus our efforts on completing the conference report and delivering a bill to the President's desk before the surface transportation programs expire at the end of this month. Unfortunately, up until this moment, the Senate has not shown a sufficient willingness to address the House's top four priorities: streamlining project delivery; program consolidation; State funding flexibility; and equitable funding formulas not based on past earmarks. When the average transportation project, Mr. Speaker, takes 15 years to complete, I cannot help but think there's something wrong with the current system. And as the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned, when the will is there, these projects can be completed in record time, such as the I 35 bridge in Minnesota after it collapsed. Bureaucratic red tape is the main culprit, and much more must be done in the reauthorization bill to accelerate the process by which projects are approved. Every other developed nation is doing similar types of projects in a third or half the time that we are, and it is ridiculous that we are wasting so much money dragging these projects out for so many years. We can accomplish the goal of accelerating the process without harming the environment, but the Senate so far has shown more interest in catering to radical environmentalists than building infrastructure projects. Program consolidation is another important reform that the House is pushing for in this bill. The Senate insists on including two new programs at the cost of $3 billion a year that would allow the administration to play politics with the funding that should go directly to the States. At a time when the highway trust fund is going broke, we should focus our limited transportation dollars on consolidating programs and eliminating wasteful programs, not creating new ones. Funding flexibility for the States is critical to allowing the States to fund the most economically significant highway and bridge projects. The Federal Government should not mandate that States spend their limited Federal aid funding on flower plantings and transportation museums and other questionable projects, while State budgets are squeezed to the breaking point. States need to be given flexibility. Some States need to spend more on bridge replacement. Some States need to spend more on crumbling highways. Some States have done more already on highway beautification and other enhancement-type projects and don't need to spend so much in that area as possibly some other States. States need to be given flexibility. Most States have a backlog of crumbling bridges and highways needing to be rehabilitated. Why not allow them to focus their limited resources on the greatest needs in their State? The needs vary from State to State. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the funding formula for how Federal highway funding is distributed to States is based in part at least on the number of earmarks the States received in the last reauthorization bill. Funding formulas should be based on the most equitable factors that are part of a State's transportation system, not which Member of Congress fared the best in the last go around. I hope these reasonable issues can be resolved before the end of the week. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), a leading member of our committee.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland), a very active member of our committee.

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), who has been one of our lead negotiators on trying to come up with a transportation bill in our conference.