John J. Duncan, Jr.

NYC Terror Trials Defy All Logic

2009-11-18T21:34:49Z

The following speech was delivered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr.:

Madam Speaker:

People all over the Nation are upset and angry about five of the Guantanamo terrorists being scheduled for trial in New York.

This is happening only because President Obama issued an Executive Order in the early days of his Administration stopping the military tribunal process.

The Congress – both House and Senate – voted by large margins in 2006 to try these terrorists by military tribunals.

This could have been done in Guantanamo.

But President Obama overruled Congress by his Executive Order, and the Defense and Justice Departments then started the process of bringing the terrorists to trial in this Country.

This will result in very large legal and security expenses that would not have been necessary if these men were tried at Guantanamo.

To try all these terrorists here- the first five and others later – creates a very unnecessary security risk for untold numbers of people.

I hope President Obama will listen to the outcry of the American people and not continue to insist that all these terrorists be tried in the United States.

The families of our victims deserve better.

Bring Our Troops Home Now

2009-11-17T17:54:37Z

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing conservative about the war in Afghanistan. The Center for Defense Information said a few months ago that we had spent over $400 billion on the war and war-related costs there. Now, the Pentagon says it will cost about $1 billion for each 1,000 additional troops we send to Afghanistan. One Republican Member from California told me recently that we could buy off every warlord in Afghanistan for $1 billion.

Fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by all this spending. Conservatives who oppose big government and huge deficit spending at home should not support it in foreign countries just because it is being done by our biggest bureaucracy, the Defense Department.

We have now spent $1.5 trillion that we did not have--that we had to borrow--in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight years is long enough. In fact, it is too long. Let's bring our troops home and start putting Americans first once again.

Afghanistan Not Worth One More American Life

2009-11-05T17:48:54Z

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, this morning I was honored to go with five other Members, three Democrats and three Republicans, to have breakfast at the Pentagon with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The Secretary is a kind man and this was a very nice thing for him to do. I have great respect for Secretary Gates.

   The purpose of the breakfast was to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. When I got this invitation, I wondered if I should go, since I have been very much opposed to our war there. However, I decided that the only right and fair thing to do was to go listen to what he had to say.

   Unfortunately, I still believe that what we are doing in Afghanistan is a horrendous waste that we cannot afford. I also believe that Afghanistan is no realistic threat to us, unless our war there continues to anger so many people around the world.

   George C. Wilson, military columnist for Congress Daily, wrote recently: ``The American military's mission to pacify the 40,000 tiny villages in Afghanistan will look like mission impossible, especially if our bombings keep killing Afghan civilians and infuriating the ones who survive.''

   General Petraeus said this summer we should not forget that Afghanistan has been known as the ``graveyard of empires.''

   Congressional Quarterly reported on September 17 that members of both parties were ``fretting openly about a lack of progress in the conflict.''

   As much as Americans love our troops, we need to realize that the Defense Department is not just a military organization. It is also the world's largest bureaucracy. Every gigantic bureaucracy always wants to expand its mission and frequently exaggerates its challenges so it can get more money and personnel.

   The Taliban guerillas have almost no money, and a top U.N. antiterrorism official said recently that al Qaeda is having ``difficulty in maintaining credibility.''

   National defense is the most legitimate function of our Federal Government. However, that does not mean Congress should automatically or blindly approve the Pentagon's every request or never criticize its waste.

   Much of what we are doing in Afghanistan is of a civic, charitable or governmental nature, like building schools and teaching agribusiness. But the Defense Department should not be the ``Department of Foreign Aid,'' or much of our military primarily a very large version of the Peace Corps.

   In March, the President promised a ``dramatic increase'' in our effort in Afghanistan, including ``agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers.'' Why, when we are $12 trillion in debt, are we spending mega-billions in Afghanistan doing practically everything for them? We are spending money we do not have on a very unnecessary war and jeopardizing our own future in the process.

   Many people think that all conservatives support this war. Well, I believe that there are many millions of conservatives who do not and who want us to bring our troops home, the sooner the better. In fact, this war goes very much against traditional conservatism.

   When I was in high school, I worked as a bag boy at an A&P grocery store making $1.10 an hour. I sent my first paycheck, $19 and some cents, as a contribution to the Barry Goldwater campaign. I am still one of the most conservative Members of Congress.

   But this war has required huge deficit spending, almost half a trillion in war and war-related costs for Afghanistan. Fiscal conservatives should be the people most upset about this. This war has spent mega-billions in foreign aid, because probably at least half of what we have done and are doing there is of a civic or charitable nature. Traditional conservatives have been the strongest opponents of massive foreign aid.

   We went into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan under U.N. resolutions, yet conservatives have traditionally been the biggest critics of the U.N. Conservatives have traditionally been the biggest opponents of world government because it is too elitist and arrogant and too far removed from control by the people. We should not now support what is essentially world government just because it is being run by our military.

   I am a veteran and I am very pro military, but I am for national defense, not international defense. I know that the leaders of Afghanistan want us to keep spending hundreds of billions there, but we cannot afford it. We cannot afford it economically, and as far as I am concerned, it is not worth one more American life.

   I know that when leaders of the Defense Department and the State Department and the National Security Council all get together in their meetings, that all of the pressures are on getting involved or staying involved in just about every military, political or ethnic dispute all around the world. I know that they want to be considered as great world statesmen, but 8 years in Afghanistan is not only enough, it is far too long. It is time, Madam Speaker, to come home. It is time to start putting our own people and our own country first once again.

Government is Reason for Expensive Health Care

2009-11-03T17:54:06Z

Mr. Speaker, before the Federal Government got heavily into health care in the mid-sixties, medical care was cheap and affordable for almost everyone. Doctors even commonly made house calls. We took what was a very minor problem for very few people and turned it into a major problem for everyone.

The people want medical care that is less expensive and less bureaucratic. The bill that we will apparently vote on later this week is 1,990 pages of bureaucratic gobbledygook. It will make health care even more expensive and even more bureaucratic. As Senator Joe Lieberman said on Face the Nation, this bill ``will actually hurt the economic recovery and our long-term financial situation.''

The pattern seems to be that the Federal Government makes a problem so bad that the only solution people can see is for the government to take it all over. But a famous man once wrote that there is a simple solution to every human problem, one that is neat, plausible and wrong. This bill is the socialist approach, and all it will do over the long haul is make a bad situation even worse.

We Simply Cannot Afford Health Care Plan

2009-10-27T12:30:36Z

Washington, DC -- Mr. Speaker, Robert Samuelson is a long-time economics columnist for The Washington Post. He is considered to be a very middle-of-the-road writer, neither liberal nor conservative.

   In yesterday's Post, he wrote a column entitled, ``Public Plan Mirage.'' Mr. Samuelson wrote that the public option ``is mostly an exercise in political avoidance: It pretends to control costs and improve access to quality care when it doesn't.''

   He wrote that it is a mirage because it uses ``free market rhetoric to expand government power'' and added that the public plan ``would probably doom today's private insurance.''

   The so-called opt-out provision is a mirage, too, because it does not allow people to opt out of paying for the program. No State could really opt out, because its citizens would then be paying medical bills for people in other States without receiving any benefits in return.

   Medicare and Medicaid have both cost about 10 times more than was predicted. This new health care plan will also cost many times more than is predicted now. We simply cannot afford it.

Time for Solar Power to Stand on its Own

2009-10-22T12:29:09Z

Washington, DC -- I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying multibillion-dollar waste that the rule brings to the floor.

Later today, I am sure the House will approve overwhelmingly this very wasteful $2.2 billion subsidy for the solar power industry and for the solar bureaucracy, but we should be remembering that our national debt will soon pass $12 trillion in just a few days. Solar energy has received massive subsidies, with very little progress, ever since the Carter administration. In fact, it has turned into little more than a jobs boondoggle for bureaucrats. As the gentleman from California just showed us in a story from the Wall Street Journal, in 1978, there was a claim that solar energy - by the year 2000 - would make up 20 percent of our energy needs.

After all of this time and after all of this money, however, solar energy makes up far less than 1 percent of the total of U.S. energy. In fact, it is just 1 percent of the 7 percent that renewable energy provides this country. That is such a small figure that I can't even figure out exactly what 1 percent of 7 percent is. It's hard to get that small. The Department of Energy has received at least $1.2 billion for this research just since fiscal 2000, not counting what other departments and agencies have spent on this.

I am not against solar energy in any way, but it is way past time for this industry to stand on its own. The demand for solar energy will go up much faster if the industry is weaned off of Federal money and if it is forced to put out a better, more efficient and less expensive product. This is called free enterprise. Some people may have heard of it. The taxpayers simply cannot afford to keep funding a very wasteful program just because it is politically correct or fashionable to do so. This is a multibillion-dollar waste, and it should be defeated.

As someone told me last week, it is easy to run as Santa Claus, but it is almost impossible to run against Santa Claus.

I urge the defeat of this legislation.

Duncan Calls for Highway Bill Reauthorization

2009-10-01T12:27:54Z

Washington, DC -- Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.

   First of all, I want to say that I certainly agree with and support the comments that he made on this legislation a few moments ago. I find myself in the same position, and I certainly want to thank him for the great leadership he has given me in his position as the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I want to commend our great chairman, Chairman Oberstar, because all of us, Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Mica, myself, Chairman DeFazio of our subcommittee, we all would like to stop these extensions. Nobody wants a 3-month extension or any kind of extension. What we all want is to pass a major reauthorization bill.

   I am in my 21st year in the Congress. I have been here for all of the major highway bills since I first was elected in 1988, and those bills have always passed with overwhelming margins and strong bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle, almost unanimous support.

   Today, what you have, you have the Chamber of Commerce wanting a bill, you have the National Association of Manufacturers wanting a bill, you have the American Trucking Association wanting a bill, you have labor groups wanting a bill. I could give a whole long speech just naming all the different groups and people across this country that want a bill who say that we need it, especially with the economy in the situation it is in now.

   So it is unfortunate that we have to talk about a 3-month extension or a 6-month extension. What we really need to be talking about is a strong, bipartisan highway reauthorization bill to help get this country moving once again and do all of the projects that have been getting backed up and are causing problems and delays all over this country.

Coal is Needed

2009-10-01T12:26:01Z

Washington, DC -- Mr. Speaker, Bjorn Lomborg, one of the world's leading environmentalists, wrote in Monday's Washington Post these words:

   "Today, coal accounts for almost half of the planet's electricity supply, including half the power consumed in the United States. It keeps hospitals and core infrastructure running, provides warmth and light in winter, and makes lifesaving air-conditioning available in summer. In China and India, where coal accounts for more than 80 percent of power generation, it has helped to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty."

   "There is no doubt that coal is causing environmental damage that we need to stop. But a clumsy, radical halt to our coal use--which is what promises of drastic carbon cuts require--would mean depriving billions of people of a path to prosperity."

   "To put it bluntly: despite their good intentions, the activists, lobbyists and politicians making a last-ditch push for hugely expensive carbon-cut promises could easily end up doing hundreds of times more damage to the planet than coal ever could.''

   I wish we would heed those words of this environmentalist because if we drastically cut back on coal, we're going to hurt millions of poor people in the process.

Duncan Honors Victor Ashe on House Floor

2009-09-29T12:22:41Z

Washington, DC -- Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of going earlier today to the flag ceremony at the State Department for Victor Ashe who is retiring as our ambassador to Poland. Victor Ashe is a longtime friend of mine, and in fact, we roomed together in San Francisco where we were attending the 1964 Republican National Convention. I was between my junior and senior years in high school and at the time was an honorary assistant sergeant at arms at the convention. I don't suppose you can get any lower than being an honorary assistant, but it got me in the door. And Victor that summer had just completed his first year at Yale, and I'm sure had a much more important position.

In the years since then, Victor Ashe has had one of the most distinguished careers of anyone from our State. He was elected to the Tennessee State House at the age of 21, the minimum age for service in that body. He began his service in the Tennessee State Senate at the age of 30, also the minimum age required. He was the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate and then spent a year and a half as the executive director of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors.

In 1987, he was elected as mayor of Knoxville, eventually serving for 16 years and becoming the longest-serving mayor in the city's history. In that position, he achieved national recognition by being named president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Five years ago, President George W. Bush named Victor Ashe as our Ambassador to Poland, where he served longer than any other U.S. ambassador to that country. Political appointees usually become our very best ambassadors, and that was certainly true in the case of Victor Ashe. He visited approximately 200 villages, towns and cities in Poland, covering almost every nook and cranny of that country. He hosted receptions and parties for over 28,000 people and had 320 overnight guests at the ambassador's residence. Showing that he never forgot where he came from, most of his overnight guests were from the Knoxville area.

I had the privilege of leading a congressional delegation of 11 Members to Poland; and Ambassador Ashe and his wife, Joan, went far above and beyond the call of duty in hosting us at that time. In addition, I had several Members of Congress who had met him on other trips, and they always came back singing the praises of our great ambassador.

I have met many U.S. ambassadors and ambassadors from other countries during my time in Congress. I have never met, heard of, or read about anyone who has worked as hard or has spent as much time going around the country getting to know people from all walks of life. I want to commend Victor Ashe for all his service to the people of Tennessee in the State house and senate and as mayor of Knoxville. But tonight I especially want to salute him for his great service as the 24th U.S. Ambassador to one of our strongest allies, the nation of Poland.

Having summed up his distinguished career thus far, I also want to commend him for continuing to advocate good things for our Nations.

James Morrison, a friend of mine, writes the "Embassy Row'' column for the Washington Times. This past Friday, most of his column was about the farewell message Victor Ashe posted on the Web site of the U.S. embassy in Poland. In that message, Ambassador Ashe criticized the construction of "fortress-like'' American embassies throughout the world. He pointed out that these fortresses have been built even in countries where Americans face little danger of terrorist attacks.

Going ridiculously overboard on security causes two very serious problems. One, it sends an unfriendly message from our diplomats, who are supposed to be trying to make friends; and, two, it has cost U.S. taxpayers many unnecessary billions all over the world. Ambassador Ashe wrote: ``The design of many of these buildings quite often creates a fortress-like atmosphere, and the impression given to host nations can be less than friendly, not the warm, welcoming impression we should offer as Americans.''

He complained that the State Department is imposing security requirements and design elements for all new U.S. embassies, regardless of the threat posed in more peaceful nations. ``Given different security situations in virtually every nation, wide flexibility in construction design and location is needed, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all approach,'' Mr. Ashe said. ``As such, different sites and designs can be adopted at less cost and with greater architectural warmth.''

I agree with Victor Ashe and congratulate him on his outstanding service to our country.

Wealthy Environmentalists Win, Farmers Lose

2009-09-24T12:19:14Z

Washington, DC -- Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. gave the following speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on September 24, 2009:

Mr. Speaker:

Over the last few days, thanks to Sean Hannity, millions of people have seen or heard about the plight of farmers and farm workers in central California.

In some areas, over 40% are unemployed, and many thousands are having to stand in food lines so their family can have something to eat.

Farms have dried up because the federal government has cut off their water to save a two-inch minnow elsewhere. This will drive up food costs everywhere.

What many do not know is that the House voted on this issue twice, on June 18th and again on July 23rd.

On the first vote, 171 Republicans voted for the farmers, 215 Democrats voted for the minnow.

On the second vote, 176 Republicans – all but one – voted for the farmers, all but three Democrats voted for the fish.

Unfortunately, neither vote was close. Wealthy environmentalists won, the farmers and farm workers lost.

Duncan Questions Afghan Mission in Oversight Hearing

2009-09-09T12:16:57Z

Washington, DC -- The following are unscripted remarks by Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding spending in Pakistan and Afghanistan:

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that you and Ranking Member Flake are continuing to try to oversee all the really unbelievable spending that is going on in this part of the world, because we so flippantly talk about trillions now, where we were (once) talking about billions. I think we really lose sight and can't rea1ly comprehend the astounding amount of spending that's going on in this area. And, in fact, General Fields mentioned that we'll be up to $50 billion in rebuilding Afghanistan by the end of 2010; and in yesterday's Washington Post it says that the pending 2010 budget has $129 billion budgeted for spending in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, and for the first time we will be spending over half of that or more in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region--$68 billion as opposed to $61 billion.

No one can really humanly comprehend how much even $1 billion is. So these are amazing amounts of money that we're talking about, and certainly have no criticism of any of the witnesses here, because if we're going to be spending that kind of money, we need to have people like this making sure that it is being spent in an honest and not wasteful way.

But the point I would like to make is that we shouldn't be spending all this money in the first place. We're spending money that we don't have. Our national debt is
reaching $12 trillion now. Nobody can even comprehend that kind of figure. But now they're going to have to come to the Congress once again to raise the debt limit once again. It's just unbelievable what we're doing.

I'm saddened that it seems that criticism of these efforts has been limited primarily to liberals, until a few days ago. George Will finally started to question some of
this. Because I have said many times - and I still believe - that the fiscal conservatives should be the people most upset, most concerned about all of this amazing spending. It's just mind-boggling, in a way.

General Petraeus said a couple of months ago that we need to remember that Afghanistan has been known through the centuries as the graveyard of empires. Now I'm sure, being the good bureaucrat that he is, though, I don't suppose there's ever been any real spending by the Department of Defense that he's ever really opposed; and that's one thing that I think fiscal conservatives are going to have to realize at some point, that the Defense Department is, first and foremost, a gigantic bureaucracy, and like any gigantic bureaucracy, it always wants to expand its mission and always wants to get increased funding.

Now I have the greatest respect for those in the military and believe that national defense is probably the most important, most legitimate function of a national
government. But I also don't think that that means that we just automatically should approve every huge increase and every military adventure that the Defense Department or any other department requests. Because I will go back to what I said a few minutes ago: We are spending money that we don't have and we're really putting in great jeopardy the future - I used to say of our children and grandchildren, but now I say of ourselves. Because I don't believe it's going to be 10 or
15 years before - if that long - we're not able to pay all of our Social Security and veterans' pensions and all the other things we've promised our own people.

So I wish all these witnesses well, and I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. But I think we need to realize that we can't afford to keep doing what we're doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan and keep expanding our mission and increasing our spending over there. We're going to increase our troops by the end of the year to 68,000, and in all of these areas we're having as many or more civilian contractors than we are military troops. At some point, we've got to come to our senses and realize that we just simply can no longer afford this. Thank you.

For video of these remarks, please go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax4hmOv_Lwo