Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a member of the committee. (Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my understanding that this is a very fine project that the gentleman has endorsed and is strongly proposing here, and we will be glad to work with the gentleman in every way to assure that this ends up in the legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack), an outstanding member of our committee.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for those very kind remarks, and I could say everything back to her that she just said. And we appreciate the cooperation and the hard work of the staff on both sides. I had the privilege to introduce Susan Bodine to the Senate committee this morning, and I said so many good things about her at that time that I would not want to repeat those again or her head would get so big, she would not be able to get out of this room here today. But we do appreciate so much the work that she has done over the years for our subcommittee, and she has been one of the finest staffers that this Congress has ever had, and we want to congratulate her. We hate to lose her to the EPA, but certainly she is moving onward and upward and we wish her the very best. With that, I urge passage of this bill. Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would authorize an environmental restoration project in New Jersey contingent upon the Chief of Engineers completing a final report not later than December 31, 2005. The chief's report is the final technical document submitted by the Corps of Engineers for a project. It describes the analysis done, the alternatives considered, and the recommended plan. In putting this bill together, the committee included those projects that had favorable chief's reports. With passage of the manager's amendment, we have added additional projects that the corps tells us will soon have completed chief's reports. These projects are authorized contingent on there being a completed chief's report by December 31, 2005. Although the Liberty State Park project was not on the list of nearly completed studies provided earlier by the Corps, we now understand that this report is expected to be completed by the end of this year. Therefore, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment to include his project as a contingent authorization. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the Flake-Blumenauer amendment. The gentleman from Oregon is one of the most active and one of the finest members of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. The gentleman from Arizona and I vote alike on probably 98 or 99 percent of the issues that come before this Congress, so I cannot overstate my respect and admiration for both of these gentlemen; but I do have to oppose this amendment. Failure to upgrade our infrastructure is not fiscally conservative. Not constructing the upper Mississippi navigation improvement project, according to the National Corn Growers Association, will result in a loss of $562 million in annual farm income by 2020. Of this, $246 million would be lost in reduced exports to other countries. Navigation on the upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway provides for more than 400,000 jobs, including 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs. The navigation improvement project in H.R. 2864 would create an additional 48 million man-hours of work. There is a critical Federal interest in navigation. The vast array of navigation infrastructure is important to the Nation's economy and a secure economy is a necessary part of a secure Nation. Right now, increased transportation costs mean that some of our farmers and manufacturers will not be able to compete in the world market and may go out of business. This means the shipment of cargo on these rivers will decrease, not increase. So it is sort of a self- fulfilling prophecy that we have been discussing. Right now, traffic on these rivers is constrained, very constrained, by small aging locks. It is not fiscally conservative to constrain the United States economy with outdated and obsolete infrastructure. If you do not improve or maintain buildings and homes, they deteriorate. That is not a fiscally conservative thing to do. We could say the same about our locks and our dams. The language contained in title 8 of the bill is compromise language. This language was negotiated last year with the other body. The WRDA bill pending in the other body contains virtually identical language. The Flake-Blumenauer amendment will either delay or halt the project, costing U.S. taxpayers much, much more in the future. As a fiscal conservative, I try to be a careful steward of taxpayer dollars. This project is an investment in America, and I support it. Voting against the Flake-Blumenauer amendment is the fiscally conservative thing to do. Accordingly, I must oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, our guest chaplain today is my friend, Dr. Arnold Lovell, pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church in Knoxville. The Second Presbyterian is one of Knoxville's leading churches with approximately 1,000 members. Arnold has led that church as a senior pastor since 1997. Prior to that, he served for 10 years on the faculty of Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, VA, as a professor of evangelism. He still teaches there in summer programs. Before that he was pastor of the first Presbyterian Church in South Charleston, WV. Dr. Lovell has two doctorates and is a leader in denominational activities of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Before going into the ministry, he was a coach of football and other sports at West Davidson High School in North Carolina. He is a chaplain for the Knoxville Quarterback Club and an avid fan of NASCAR and U.T. football. He and his wife Emily have two daughters, Carolyn and Catherine, and the Lovell women are here today in the gallery. Arnold Lovell is a patriotic American, a leader in both Tennessee and the Nation, and I am fortunate to have him as a friend and as guest chaplain in the United States House of Representatives today.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for yielding me this time and for her hard work on this bill. I rise in strong support of the rule for consideration of H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. This is a good rule and a good bill. There are, as all of us know, very few amendments; and I think that is in large part because the committee has worked hard over a long period of time to address Members' needs in the bill and in the manager's amendment. I think that our subcommittee does not have a better member than the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I will speak more to his amendment during general debate. But I can tell you that I certainly sympathize with the thrust of his amendment because I think every water project in the country should be looked at very closely and should be done in the most cost-effective way possible. I will say just simply at this point that the project of which he has spoken and to which his amendment is addressed is the number one priority of the Inland Waterway Users Board representing the taxpayers who pay into the inland waterway trust fund and that pays one-half of the project cost. As I said, I will speak in more detail about the general provisions of the bill during general debate. Right now, let me just say that H.R. 2864 is the product of several years of bipartisan work by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) mentioned the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) who was the ranking member and with whom I worked so closely on this bill in the last Congress. Basically, this bill in the last Congress is really the product or was the forerunner and is very, very similar to this bill and that bill passed the last Congress by a vote of 412-8. Basically, we have the same bill here today. By working together, the committee is presenting to the House a bill that is supported by over 200 organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has stated that they plan to score the vote on this bill when they issue their annual ``How They Voted'' ratings. I certainly would not want to run through the more than 200 of those groups, but just let me give you a short list of some groups supporting this bill, and you will see some of the wide variety: the Chamber of Commerce, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, the International Longshoremen's Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Association of Port Authorities, the Laborers International Union, the National Mining Association, the Agricultural Retailers Association, American Waterways Operators, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the American Shipbuilding Association, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association. I could go and on. But you see that we have business groups supporting this bill, labor groups supporting this bill, governmental organizations supporting this bill; and so I think this is a bill that deserves bipartisan support. It is a very fiscally conservative bill. But I think perhaps even more importantly, we have passed WRDA bills and water resource development bills usually every 2 years for many years. No WRDA bill in the history of this Congress has done more to be environmentally friendly, none has done more for environmental infrastructure projects, none has gone further in setting up peer review procedures for our major projects; and so I think this is a bill that will receive and will deserve the support of a very large number of Members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rules Committee for their help and assistance and cooperation, and I urge passage of this rule and passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time and for bringing this resolution to the floor tonight. This 5-to-4 decision by the Supreme Court in the Kelo case is one that will ultimately be very harmful to our freedom and our prosperity. Even a brief study of economics and world history shows that the most prosperous nations in world are those that have given the most freedom to their people and the greatest protection to private property. Some have said we do not need to worry about this decision because this new power will be used sparingly by local governments. Those who say that either do not believe very strongly in the right of private property or they do not realize how government at all levels can rationalize or justify almost anything, especially almost any taking of property. People do not really get upset unless or until it is their property being taken. Yet we can never satisfy governments' appetite for money or land. They always want more. Will your property be next? The City of New London wanted more tax revenue than these small homes could provide. As I said, we can never satisfy governments' appetite for money or land. Justice O'Connor wrote that there is now no realistic constraint on the taking of private property. Her words have already been quoted at length, but I will insert them in my statement. In my home region of East Tennessee, government has taken huge amounts of land. Almost all has been taken from poor or lower-income families who would be wealthy today if they still had their beautiful land. Justice Thomas said in his dissent, ``Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.'' He went on to say, ``The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict and promise to be harmful . . . Extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.'' Mr. Speaker, this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a very dangerous one and will end up being especially harmful to the poor and lower-income and working people of the country. Thomas Jefferson once said, ``A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have.'' Justice O'Connor wrote that there is now no realistic constraint on the taking of private property. She said: `any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process . . . As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.'

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, last year William F. Buckley, Jr., said if he had known in 2002 what he had since learned, he would have opposed the war in Iraq. A few weeks ago, he wrote that it is now time for the U.S. to get out and leave Iraq to the Iraqis. This is a man who has been described as the ``godfather of conservatism.'' On June 17, Mr. Buckley wrote that opposition to the war was mounting and summed up his feelings in this way: ``A respect for the power of the United States is engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose, but misapplication of pride. It can't reasonably be disputed that if in the year ahead the situation in Iraq continues about as it has done in the past year, we will have suffered more than another 500 soldiers killed. Where there had been skepticism about our venture, there will be contempt.'' We should heed these words of this very respected conservative leader. The American people do not want this war to continue for another 10 or 12 years, or even another 5 or 6 more years.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday handed down a decision that will ultimately be very harmful to our freedom and our prosperity. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court decided that a city government could take a private home by eminent domain for the benefit of another private party. This decision was in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, and it strikes a serious blow right at the heart of or the concept of private property, which our Founding Fathers believed in so strongly. If anyone does not realize how important private ownership of property is to both our freedom and our prosperity, they should do a more detailed study of economics and world history. The most prosperous countries in the world, without exception, have been those that gave the greatest protection to private property. Not only is it important to individuals, it is important to government as well. It sounds great for a politician to create a park; however, now that we have so many Federal, State, and local parks, we cannot take care of them properly. Also, most of them are vastly underused. But more importantly, when property goes from private to public ownership, it goes off the tax rolls. This means that taxes have to continually go up on the property that remains in private hands for the always increasing costs of schools and other public functions. We can never satisfy government's appetite for money or land, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat that. We can never satisfy government's appetite for money or land. They always want more. The Federal Government already owns over 30 percent of the land in this Nation. Another 20 percent is held by State or local governments or quasi-governmental agencies. So today about half the land is in some type of public ownership. But government always wants more and is continuously taking more. In addition, there are more and more restrictions being placed on the land that remains in private ownership, so developers are having to crowd more and more people into apartments, townhouses, or homes on postage-stamp lots, all at a rapidly escalating prices. Some have said we do not need to worry about this decision because this new power will be used sparingly by local governments. Those who say that either do not really believe very strongly in the right of private property or they do not realize how government at all levels can rationalize or justify almost anything, especially almost any taking of property. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent against the Court's decision said: ``The Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use and give it over for new, ordinary private use so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public, such as increased tax revenue . . . But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus,'' she said, ``there really is now no realistic constraint on the taking of private property.'' Justice O'Connor went on to say, ``For who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.'' She later added, ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process . . . As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.'' In my home region of East Tennessee, government has taken huge amounts of land. Almost all has been taken from poor or lower-income families who would be wealthy today if they still had their beautiful land. Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent, ``Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.'' Justice Thomas went on to say, ``The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful . . . Extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on the poor.'' Mr. Speaker, this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a very dangerous one and will end up being especially harmful to the poor and lower-income and working people of this country. Thomas Jefferson once said, ``A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to a man who is not from my districts or even from my State, but who certainly must be one of the most wonderful men of whom I have ever read. The story of Dick Hoyt of Holland, Massachusetts is one of the most amazing, inspiring stories I have ever read. Rick Reilly, a columnist for Sports Illustrated, wrote about Mr. Hoyt in a column published in that magazine the week before last. Mr. Reilly described it as a love story that began 43 years ago when Mr. Hoyt's son Rick ``was strangled by the umbilical cord during birth, leaving him brain damaged and unable to control his limbs.'' The Hoyts were told Rick would be a vegetable for the rest of his life and that they should put him in an institution. They refused. When Rick was 11, they took him to engineers at Tufts University to ask them if there was some way to allow him to communicate. They were told, no way, nothing was going on in Rick's brain. ``Tell him a joke,'' Mr. Hoyt said. ``They did. Rick laughed.'' They had noticed the way Rick's eyes followed them around the room. There was a lot going on in Rick's brain. The engineers rigged up a computer that Rick could peck letters on by hitting it with a stick attached to the side of his head. His first words were, ``Go Bruins!'' After a high school classmate of Rick's was paralyzed in an accident, and a charity run was organized, Rick pecked out the words, ``Dad, I want to do that.'' Mr. Hoyt, who called himself a porker, pushed Rick in that race, and Rick typed out ``Dad, when we were running, it felt like I was not disabled anymore.'' Now, here comes the amazing part. Since that first race, Dick Hoyt has pushed Rick in 85 marathons, 26.2 miles each. Twenty-four times they have run in the Boston Marathon. Listen to Rick Reilly's column: ``Their best time, 2 hours 40, minutes in 1992; only 35 minutes off the world record which, in case you don't keep track of these things, happens to be held by a guy who was not pushing another man in a wheelchair at the time.'' Now Dick Hoyt is 65, his son is 43. They have done 212 triathlons, including four grueling, 15-hour Ironmans in Hawaii, 8 triathlons altogether where the father not only pushed his son 26.2 miles in a wheelchair, but also pulled him 2.4 miles in a dinghy while swimming, and pedaled him 112 miles in a seat on the handlebars, all in the same day. Columnist Reilly wrote, ``I try to be a good father, but compared with Dick Hoyt I suck.'' What a special son. What a special father. What a special story. I thank Rick Reilly for writing such a wonderful column. It is an honor to pay tribute to a man like Dick Hoyt. I am sure that his special relationship with his son has inspired countless numbers across the land and has, in a very unique way, made this Nation a better place. Mr. Speaker, I think it is the most inspiring story I have ever read. I would like to attach the column from Sports Illustrated to my remarks here tonight and call them to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record. [From Sports Illustrated] Strongest Dad in the World (By Rick Reilly) I try to be a good father. Give my kids mulligans. Work nights to pay for their text messaging. Take them to swimsuit shoots. But compared with Dick Hoyt, I suck. Eighty-five times he's pushed his disabled son, Rick, 26.2 miles in marathons. Eight times he's not only pushed him 26.2 miles in a wheelchair but also towed him 2.4 miles in a dinghy while swimming and pedaled him 112 miles in a seat on the handlebars--all in the same day. Dick's also pulled him cross-country skiing, taken him on his back mountain climbing and once hauled him across the U.S. on a bike. Makes taking your son bowling look a little lame, right? And what has Rick done for his father? Not much--except save his life. This love story began in Winchester, Mass., 43 years ago, when Rick was strangled by the umbilical cord during birth, leaving him brain-damaged and unable to control his limbs. ``He'll be a vegetable the rest of his life;'' Dick says doctors told him and his wife, Judy, when Rick was nine months old. ``Put him in an institution.'' But the Hoyts weren't buying it. They noticed the way Rick's eyes followed them around the room. When Rick was 11 they took him to the engineering department at Tufts University and asked if there was anything to help the boy communicate. ``No way,'' Dick says he was told. ``There's nothing going on in his brain.'' ``Tell him a joke,'' Dick countered. They did. Rick laughed. Turns out a lot was going on in his brain. Rigged up with a computer that allowed him to control the cursor by touching a switch with the side of his head, Rick was finally able to communicate. First words? ``Go Bruins!'' And after a high school classmate was paralyzed in an accident and the school organized a charity run for him, Rick pecked out, ``Dad, I want to do that.'' Yeah, right. How was Dick, a self-described ``porker'' who never ran more than a mile at a time, going to push his son five miles? Still, he tried. ``Then it was me who was handicapped,'' Dick says. ``I was sore for two weeks.'' That day changed Rick's life. ``Dad,'' he typed, ``when we were running, it felt like I wasn't disabled anymore!'' And that sentence changed Dick's life. He became obsessed with giving Rick that feeling as often as he could. He got into such hard-belly shape that he and Rick were ready to try the 1979 Boston Marathon. ``No way,'' Dick was told by a race official. The Hoyts weren't quite a single runner, and they weren't quite a wheelchair competitor. For a few years Dick and Rick just joined the massive field and ran anyway, then they found a way to get into the race officially: In 1983 they ran another marathon so fast they made the qualifying time for Boston the following year. Then somebody said, ``Hey, Dick, why not a triathlon?'' How's a guy who never learned to swim and hadn't ridden a bike since he was six going to haul his 110-pound kid through a triathlon? Still, Dick tried. Now they've done 212 triathlons, including four grueling 15-hour Ironmans in Hawaii. It must be a buzzkill to be a 25- year-old stud getting passed by an old guy towing a grown man in a dinghy, don't you think? Hey, Dick, why not see how you'd do on your own? ``No way,'' he says. Dick does it purely for ``the awesome feeling'' he gets seeing Rick with a cantaloupe smile as they run, swim and ride together. This year, at ages 65 and 43, Dick and Rick finished their 24th Boston Marathon, in 5,083rd place out of more than 20,000 starters. Their best time'? Two hours, 40 minutes in 1992--only 35 minutes off the world record, which, in case you don't keep track of these things, happens to be held by a guy who was not pushing another man in a wheelchair at the time. ``No question about it,'' Rick types. ``My dad is the Father of the Century.'' And Dick got something else out of all this too. Two years ago he had a mild heart attack during a race. Doctors found that one of his arteries was 95% clogged. ``If you hadn't been in such great shape,'' one doctor told him, ``you probably would've died 15 years ago.'' So, in a way, Dick and Rick saved each other's life. Rick, who has his own apartment (he gets home care) and works in Boston, and Dick, retired from the military and living in Holland, Mass., always find ways to be together. They give speeches around the country and compete in some backbreaking race every weekend, including this Father's Day. That night, Rick will buy his dad dinner, but the thing he really wants to give him is a gift he can never buy. ``The thing I'd most like,'' Rick types, ``is that my dad sit in the chair and I push him once.''

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have until midnight, Friday, June 24, 2005, to file a report to accompany the bill H.R. 2864, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have come here tonight, first of all, to commend the gentleman from Texas for these remarks and for his leadership role that he has taken in this regard. I also want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), because he feels so badly that he voted for this war and now he has seen what has happened. And certainly the most unfortunate thing has been the more than 1,700 young Americans who have been killed there now, and the some 12,000 who have been wounded, many of them severely wounded, maimed for life, in what was a totally unnecessary war. I told people before this war started that there was nothing conservative about this war; that it was going to mean massive foreign aid, which conservatives have traditionally been against; that it was going to mean huge deficit spending, which conservatives have traditionally been against. Lawrence Lindsey, who was the President's leading economic adviser, said before the war started that it would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Now, by the end of this fiscal year, we are going to be at the astounding figure of $300 billion. And I think the only reason more people are not upset about that is that it is humanly impossible to truly comprehend a figure as high as $300 billion. Of course Lawrence Lindsey lost his job over that. A few days before we voted on this war back in October of 2002, I was called to the White House with five other Members and was given a briefing by Condoleezza Rice; George Tenet, then head of the CIA; and John McLaughlin, the Deputy Director. I asked about the Lindsey prediction and was told by Ms. Rice, oh, no, the war would not cost near as much. I asked them if you could get by the traditional conservative view against massive foreign aid and get by the traditional conservative position of being against huge deficit spending, and if you could get past the traditional conservative view that the U.S. should not be the policeman of the world, was there any evidence of any imminent threat? I was told there was no evidence of any imminent threat, and that was later confirmed the day after Mr. Tenet resigned. He gave a speech at Georgetown and he said he told everyone all along there was no evidence of any imminent threat by Saddam Hussein, who was truly an evil man. I asked at that time meeting at the White House how much Saddam Hussein's total military budget was in regard to ours, in relation to ours, and I was told it was a little over 2/10 of 1 percent of ours. It just amazed me that we would be considering such a drastic action, and what really impressed me later on, I read in Bob Woodward's book, and the briefing I had was in October 2002. Some 2.5 months later on December 21, the President received that same briefing from Mr. Tenet and Mr. McLaughlin and probably received more information than I did. According to Mr. Woodward, the President's comment was, Is that the best we have? That will never convince Joe Public. And yet we went on to this unnecessary war anyway. One thing that disturbed me about this also, not as much as the deaths and the woundings, but many people, I think, mistakenly thought this was a conservative war. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and I are two of the most conservative Members of this House, as is the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), another one of our colleagues who voted against the war. Charlie Reese, a nationally syndicated conservative columnist, who was chosen several years ago as the favorite columnist of C-SPAN viewers, said before the war that it is ludicrous to think that a Third World country like Iraq is a threat to the United States. He went on to write, ``A U.S. attack on Iraq is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension, urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another, has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the cost in both blood and treasury.'' James Webb, President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and a Vietnam veteran, wrote a column in the Washington Post strongly opposing this war before it started. He said if we went in, we would be there probably for 30 years. A professor of international affairs at Sarah Lawrence College wrote in the Washington Post before the war started, ``Initially, a military liberation of Baghdad could unleash joy in the streets of Iraq. But unless the United States is willing to forcefully police the new order for many years to come, Iraq will fracture and descend into chaos, destabilizing its neighbors and giving rise to new jihad groups that will attack Americans. Not only will there be no democracy in Iraq, but U.S. vital interests will be in danger.'' The gentleman mentioned the word ``isolationist'' a few minutes ago. Anyone who opposes any foreign adventure or misadventure is sometimes referred to as an isolationist. But our policies and actions in Iraq have isolated us almost more than anything else we have done from the rest of the world. I have traveled in many foreign countries, and in almost every country I have been told 75 to 80 percent of the people have been against the war. Dick Armey, the Republican majority leader at the time we voted on the war, said before the war started, ``I do not believe that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a Nation. My own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants, and let that be a matter between he and his own country. As long as he stays within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him.'' Jack Kemp wrote before the war, ``If there is a lack of sufficient hard evidence that Saddam Hussein has his finger on the trigger of a weapon of mass destruction or is at least taking active steps to use one in the near future, are we prepared to assert the moral and legal authority to invade and conquer Iraq preemptively because we fear Saddam might use a weapon of mass destruction against us if he were able to acquire one? Would the same apply, say, to Pakistan or Iran if we fear the current regimes might fall and Taliban-like regimes take their place? What is the evidence that should cause us to fear Iraq more than Pakistan or Iran in this regard? Do we reserve the right to launch a preemptive war exclusively for ourselves, or might other nations such as India, Pakistan or China be justified in taking similar action on the basis of the fears of other nations? Based on the hard evidence I have seen, I do not believe the administration has made a compelling case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.'' Georgie Ann Geyer, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote after the war started, ``Critics of the war against Iraq have said since the beginning of the conflict that Americans, still strangely complacent about overseas wars being waged by a minority in their name, will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the globe.'' That seems to be what we are doing in this situation. President Kennedy said 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,'' now 4 percent, ``that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse every adversity, and therefore, there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.'' I can also tell Members that last year Robert Novak wrote a column and said Republicans all over the country are ``distraught about the U.S. adventure in Iraq.'' He quoted from a speech by Senator Roberts, who said, ``We need to restrain our growing messianic instincts, a sort of global social engineering, where the United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy, by force, if necessary.'' And of course we know, too, a few days ago that the godfather of conservativism William Buckley came out and said it is time to exit Iraq. A few months before he said if he had known in 2002 what he knows now, he would have opposed the war from the beginning. It has not been a conservative war from the start. It was totally unfair and unconservative to put the total burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on our taxpayers and our military. Conservatives have traditionally been the biggest critics of the U.N. I get back to the word ``isolationists,'' and say we should try to be friends with every nation. I think most of us support helping out during humanitarian crises. We should have trade and cultural and educational exchanges, but we should never go to war except as a very last resort. Another great, great conservative from many years ago, Senator Robert Taft, wrote, ``No foreign policy can be justified except as a policy devoted to the protection of the liberty of the American people with war only as the last resort and only to preserve that liberty.'' That is the true conservative position. The true conservative position is to put our own country and our own people first, and we are not doing that. Most of what we have done in Iraq has been massive foreign aid. We have built or rebuilt over 6,000 schools. We have been rebuilding roads, water systems, power plants. We have set up a witness protection program, small business loan program, and even Internet cafes. I know that the soldiers over there are proud of these good things that they have done, but at a time when the Congress, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and I do not vote to raise the national debt, but the Congress voted recently to raise our national debt to $9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, it is not going to be many years ago, they talk about 2046, but it is going to be much sooner when we are not going to be able to pay all of our Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Every article says Medicare and Medicaid are in worse shape than Social Security. We have guaranteed 44 private pensions through an agency called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. We have added on a trillion-dollar prescription drug benefit. There is nobody up here that I have talked to on either side of the aisle who says we are going to be able to pay all of these obligations in the near future. So what will we do, first we will start printing more money, but that does not work for very long. It is like a ball rolling downhill; it gets faster as it goes along, and then they are going to have to cut benefits. At the most we have 12 or 15 more years probably, and that is at the most. A few days ago the pensioners of United Airlines woke up, and their pensions had been cut in half. It will not happen that drastically with the government, but that is the kind of future we are facing if we try to take on the obligations of the entire world. We went into Iraq, and I can tell Members this: In 1998, I voted to give the Iraqi opposition $100 million to start the movement to take out Saddam Hussein. I was convinced that we should have let them fight their own war instead of sending our kids over there to fight and die. I think what we should do now, we should start, and I wish the President would announce a phased and orderly withdrawal. I think he could do this in a very positive way. He could say we have done far more for Iraq than any other nation has done for another in the history of the world. He could point to the $300 billion we have spent there, and he also could refer to the polls showing almost all Iraqis view us as occupiers rather than liberators. Last year in the last poll that the government took, it was 92 percent, and 78 percent in a poll taken by CNN, that the Iraqis view us as occupiers rather than liberators. They do not really appreciate what we have done. They do want our money. This is a country that Newsweek said had a gross domestic product of $65 billion before the war, and we have spent $300 billion in just a couple of years' time. As I said earlier, some may say this is isolationist, but the truth is the war in Iraq has isolated us from almost everyone except a few foreign policy elitists around the world. When they use thoughtless cliches like we cannot cut and run, or we must stay the course, we should ask, why? Is what we are accomplishing or not accomplishing in Iraq worth one more young American being killed? Would it be worth the life of your son and daughter, I would say to anyone who happens to be listening to this? Last June about this time I read in the Chicago Tribune a story about a young soldier who had just been killed in Iraq. Just a few days earlier he had called his mother and told her, this is not our war. We should not be here. I can tell Members this: We changed the name of the War Department many years ago to the Department of Defense. We should make it truly a Defense Department once again and bring our troops home. I can tell Members very few people in this Congress, I do not think anybody in the Congress, really respects and admires the military more than I do, but I believe in national defense. I do not believe in international defense, and if we take on the defense obligations of the entire world, and that is another thing, conservatives have never believed in world government. This is not a conservative war. We should begin a phased, orderly withdrawal and stop the killing over there. It is such a sad thing, and it is just not worth what we are going through. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for getting this time tonight and all of his comments.