Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

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

Mr. DUNCAN. If the gentleman will yield, just one brief comment. Probably, unfortunately, one of the weakest arguments up here against any legislation is that it is unconstitutional, but it should be the strongest argument.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2326.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield for such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), my colleague, the author of H.R. 2326.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank our colleague the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for his very moving and heartfelt tribute to Mr. Floyd Lupton who obviously was a great American, and I am proud to be associated with this legislation. I, again, urge passage of H.R. 2326. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On behalf of the Committee on Government Reform, I rise in support of H.R. 2326. This bill would designate the postal facility located at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, North Carolina, as the ``Floyd Lupton Post Office.'' Floyd Lupton, who passed away on Tuesday, May 10th of this year, was chief of staff to former Congressman Walter Jones, Sr., who served with such great distinction in this body from 1966 until 1992. H.R. 2326 was authored by Mr. Jones' son, the distinguished current Member from North Carolina, Congressman Walter Jones, Jr., one of my closest friends in this body and one of our finest Members. All Members of the North Carolina State delegation have cosponsored this legislation, and I join them in strong support. Madam Speaker, Floyd Lupton, Sr., was born and raised in the town of Pantego, North Carolina, near the Atlantic coast in 1922. He went to college at North Carolina State University, but like so many of his generation, his education was interrupted by World War II. Floyd left home to heroically serve in the Army's 99th Infantry Division, with which he fought in the Battle of the Bulge, among other combat experiences. For his heroism Floyd earned the Bronze Star, and he was honorably discharged as a first lieutenant. After the war, Floyd Lupton returned home to work on the family farm in Pantego. He later worked stints with Norfolk Western Railroad, the State Wildlife Commission and the Beaufort County Sheriff's Department. But most notably, Madam Speaker, Floyd served for 26 years as the top aide to the late Congressman Walter Jones, Sr. Floyd Lupton earned a tremendous reputation with Members of Congress, staff and constituents as both a very dedicated adviser to Congressman Jones and an empathetic liaison with the people of North Carolina's First Congressional District. One of the most difficult jobs in this Nation is to work on a congressional staff, and Mr. Lupton did it with great honor for 26 years. He took very seriously his responsibility working in the people's House and greatly valued all opportunities to help his friends and neighbors throughout his years of public service. Mr. Lupton retired after 26 years on Capitol Hill in December of 1991 and returned home to Belhaven. There he enjoyed an active retirement with his beloved wife, Doris Ambrose. Floyd and Doris were married nearly 48 years before Doris unfortunately passed away on June 24th of 1996. Floyd passed away on May 10th of this year, but this post office will memorialize his career of service to the State of North Carolina and to the country that he loved so much. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for working to honor his father's trusted assistant, Floyd Lupton. I support this meaningful piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2326) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, North Carolina, as the ``Floyd Lupton Post Office''.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlelady from Virginia's amendment to allow the Department of Defense to allow Boy Scout troops on military bases. The Boy Scouts of America is probably one of the finest organizations in the Nation today. The Scouts teach young boys to support God and family and Country, and this Nation would be a stronger place today if we had more organizations like the Boy Scouts. The Scouts also teach young boys all sorts of skills and how to work to achieve ranks and merit badges that they certainly would not learn from any other group. Most young people today have grown up with the television as a babysitter and have been taught to worship the computer. I have nothing against either television or computers, but anything that we can do to get young people outdoors or actually into constructive activities rather than just staring at a screen is a really good thing in my opinion. The Boy Scouts do this. I was a Scout leader for two years prior to coming to Congress and several years ago was given the highest designation given to any adult in Scouts, the Silver Beaver Award. Only about 16 percent of all boys ever start in Scouts in the first place, and these are probably primarily our finest boys. Anything we can do to get more boys involved in Scouting is a good thing for this Country, and I think Scouting will lead many young boys to consider careers in the military. So, I strongly support the amendment by Mrs. Davis and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern about what may be the unintended consequences of some of the General Provisions applicable to the Corps of Engineers in this FY 2006 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. I appreciate that Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky have faced a difficult task in trying to meet the nation's water resources needs in a time of constrained budgets. I also know that the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee has had some concerns about how the Corps of Engineers is managing the civil works program, particularly as it relates to reprogramming funds and to the use of contracts for work that is completed over several fiscal years--called continuing contracts. However, I am concerned that the legislation before the House today will make it even more difficult to meet important navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration needs all over the country. The Corps' civil works budget request is based on the best information the Corps has at the time the request is made. However, circumstances can change over the course of a year. Severe weather may increase operation and maintenance costs. Major construction projects may get delayed for technical reasons. For these reasons, the Corps has traditionally attempted to maximize the benefits to the nation with the available funds by reprogramming money to best meet current needs and conditions. I agree that the Corps should get Congressional concurrence before moving around funds that have been earmarked in the report of the Appropriations Committee. I also agree that the Corps needs to track and report these reprogramming decisions, so the impact on current and future budgets is transparent. However, H.R. 2419 goes far beyond tracking and transparency and places severe restrictions on reprogramming--which could have adverse consequences for projects all over the country. For example, if we need to conduct emergency maintenance at Chickamauga Lock in fiscal year 2006, to address the concrete growth there, and the cost is more than $2 million above the amount earmarked for operation and maintenance of that lock, the Corps will not be able to reprogram funds to carry out that work. I don't think that is the Committee's intent. H.R. 2419 also tries to place limits on the Corps' use of continuing contracts to carry out civil works projects. In a minute, I will make a point of order to remove section 104 from the bill. The Corps has had authority to enter into continuing contracts since 1922, at the discretion of the Secretary. In the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Congress removed the Secretary's discretion and required the Corps to begin each project for which funds were provided in an Appropriations Act, using a continuing contract if the Act did not provide full funding. Congress made this change in law to prevent the prior Administration from imposing a full funding policy on the Corps. If Corps projects had to be fully funded, the Corps would be able to undertake very few projects each year. Under a full funding policy, most appropriated funds would simply sit in the Treasury, waiting for years to be expended, while other critical navigation, flood control and environmental restoration needs go unmet. I understand that H.R. 2419 does not completely eliminate the use of continuing contracts, but the limits it proposes may be ill-advised. I am told that section 105 of the bill represents an attempt to ensure that funding is requested each year for projects carried out using a continuing contract. However, the language that is before the House today gives Congressional priorities less favorable treatment than Administration requests. Under section 105 of the bill, if a member is successful in obtaining funding for a Congressionally-added project in the FY 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act, but does not receive full funding for the project, the Corps has three alternatives to carry out the project: (1) Hope to get a continuing contract awarded before February 6, 2006 (which will be difficult given the complexity of the Federal Acquisition Regulations); (2) Award a single year contract for only one increment of the project (resulting in increased costs); or (3) Wait until fiscal year 2008 to award a continuing contract for the project (delaying construction of the project). In contrast, Administration priorities may be carried out using continuing contracts. Finally, I want to applaud the Committee's effort to improve the quality of the information in the budget documents submitted by the Corps to Congress each fiscal year. In fact, I believe that if the Corps provides Congress with budget documents that are transparent about the funding needs of all ongoing projects, the Appropriations Committee will have sufficient information to address its concerns regarding both the use of continuing contracts and reprogramming. This information will make it unnecessary to place further restrictions on the Corps' ability to manage the civil works program. The importance of the civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers to our nation's economic security cannot be overstated. I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to ensure that the Corps is able to continue to carry out its mission.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, this section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law, and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against Section 104.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, criticized the U.S. in a graduation speech in Boston on Sunday. He said the U.S. had ``the power and hence the responsibility'' to get involved in Afghanistan even before the tragic events we refer to as 9/11. President Karzai said because the U.S. did not get involved sooner, the result was ``horrible suffering for the Afghan people.'' This is a man who was given a hero's welcome at the White House, the State and Defense Departments, and the World Bank just yesterday. This is a man who was a special guest at two joint sessions of Congress. This is a man who probably would not be president today if not for the U.S., and to whom our taxpayers have given billions of dollars since September of 2001. It takes a lot of gall for President Karzai to come to the U.S. and blame us for the horrible suffering of the Afghan people because we did not get involved in Afghanistan in a big way before 2001. Since 2001, U.S. taxpayers have sent billions to Afghanistan for economic, humanitarian, and reconstruction assistance. We have sent several hundreds of millions of dollars each year, in addition to what the military is spending, and most of what the military is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is pure foreign aid. No country in the history of the world has even come close to doing as much for other countries as has the United States. No country in the history of the world has even come close to doing as much for Afghanistan as has the United States. Yet President Karzai comes here and makes a major speech and instead of thanking the American people over and over, as he should have, he criticizes us for not getting involved sooner. Just yesterday, the front page of The Washington Post carried a story about the parents of Pat Tillman who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan. The parents bitterly attacked the Army for lying and covering up the details of their son's death, and they have every right to do so. Pat Tillman's dad said, ``They blew up their poster boy'' and then lied about it to create a ``patriotic fervor'' in the U.S. I voted to go to war in Afghanistan because I and everyone but one in Congress felt we had to respond to 9/11, but we should have gotten out of there after 3 or 4 months; and if we had, Pat Tillman would still be alive today. I voted against going to war in Iraq because, among many other reasons, Saddam Hussein's total military budget was only a little over two-tenths of 1 percent of ours, and he was no threat to us whatsoever. It is no criticism of the military to say this was a totally unnecessary war. Unless conservatives now believe in massive foreign aid, huge deficit spending, world government and placing almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on our taxpayers and our military, all things that conservatives have opposed in the past, then conservatives should want us to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. William F. Buckley, Jr., the godfather of conservatism, wrote a column a few days ago saying it is now time to exit Iraq. Many leaders of our military will want us to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years so they can get higher and higher appropriations. But in a few months, our national debt will reach $9 trillion. By the end of this fiscal year, we will have spent over $300 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably another $100 billion in the coming fiscal year which starts October 1. Mr. Speaker, seven more Americans were killed in Iraq yesterday. Our colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), just told me that four guardsmen from his State were killed today. Already this month has been one of the bloodiest of the entire war. The headlines on the front page of the Washington Times says: ``Car bombings kill scores across Iraq.'' Our Founding Fathers did not intend for us to run Iraq or Afghanistan or any other country. Our first obligation should be to the American people and no one else. We should be friends to other countries, but we cannot afford to continue spending hundreds of billions all over the world. In just a few years we will not be able to pay our own people all the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, drug costs, military and civil service and private pensions that we have promised. To stay any longer in Iraq or Afghanistan goes against every traditional conservative position. We can no longer afford it in either blood or treasury.

Mr. DUNCAN

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

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, in this week's Conservative Chronicle, William F. Buckley has a column entitled ``Day has come to Exit Iraq.'' He refers to the U.S. casualty figures, now over 1,600 dead and 11,000 wounded, and we continue to lose about 50 dead a month, and says, ``Moreover, the Iraqi deaths have increased substantially since the national election in January.'' Mr. Buckley writes, ``We are entitled to say to ourselves: If the bloodletting is to go on, it can do so without our involvement in it.'' He adds, ``The day has come where we say that our part of the job is done as well as it can be done. It is Iraq's responsibility to move on to wherever Iraq intends to go.'' Of course, several months ago, Mr. Buckley said that if he known in 2002 what he knows now, he never would have supported the war in Iraq in the first place. These words are from William F. Buckley, a man author Lee Edwards described as the ``godfather'' of the conservative movement. There never was anything conservative about the war in Iraq. I said from the start that it would mean massive foreign aid, huge deficit spending, and that it was not far to place almost all the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on our taxpayers and our military. Conservatives have traditionally been the biggest critics of the U.N., and the worst part of all, of course, is all the deaths. All to bring do not an evil man, but one whose military budget was 2/ 10ths of 1 percent of ours and who was no threat to us whatsoever. Two months before the House voted to authorize the war in Iraq, our then-Majority leader, Dick Armey, said, ``I don't believe that America will justifiably make an attack on another Nation. My on view would be to let him, Saddam Hussein, rant and rave all he wants and let that be a matter between he and his own country. We should not be addressing any attack or resources against him.'' Mr. Armey understood there was nothing conservative about the war in Iraq. I voted in 1998 to give $100 million to the Iraqi opposition to help them remove Hussein. We should have let the Iraqis remove Hussein instead of sending our troops to fight and die there. Iraq had not attacked us or even threatened to attack us, and they were not even able to attack us. By the end of this year, we will have spent $300 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan, with probably 85 to 90 percent of that being in Iraq. But are we following the latest advice by William F. Buckley in getting out? No. Unfortunately, we are doing just the opposite. Paul Wolfowitz, the father of this war, told the House Committee on Armed Services several months ago that we would have to be in Iraq for at least 10 years. Last week, a Congressional Quarterly headline said, ``with ink just dry on War Supplemental, more spending expected before August.'' The Congress has just approved $82 billion more and now we are told we will be asked for even more as early as this coming August. Instead of getting out, as William Buckley has recommended, Congress Daily reported last week that a Congressional Research Service study ``portends a more permanent presence'' in Iraq and the Middle East. The report noted approval of $2.2 billion for additional military construction in the Middle East, supporting activities in Iraq, including $75 million for an airfield in Kuwait, $66 million for an air base in the United Arab Emirates, and $43 million for a new runway in Uzbekistan. At a time, Mr. Speaker, when we are closing down bases in the U.S., we are building like crazy all over the world, especially in Iraq and the Middle East. I am pro-military and pro-national defense, but I do not believe we can shoulder the defense of the entire world. Our Founding Fathers would be shocked at what we are doing, and most of what we have done in Iraq is pure foreign aid, rebuilding roads, several thousand schools, power plants, bridges, water systems, free medical care and on and on and on. I believe in having a strong Department of Defense, but I do not believe it should be a department of foreign aid. Syndicated columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote, ``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.'' Seventeen American soldiers were killed in Iraq over the last two weekends and a few others during the week. Some have said if we pull out a civil war would erupt there. Well, what do my colleagues think we have there now? We should at least stop the killing of American kids, heed the advice of William F. Buckley, Junior, and begin a phased and orderly withdrawal. We cannot afford to stay there for years either in terms of lives or money.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. This amendment will provide more funding for brownfield site assessments and cleanup and bring the appropriation for State voluntary cleanup programs in line with the level authorized by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. This Brownfields Revitalization Act was legislation which came through our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, which I have the privilege to chair and on which the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) serves as the ranking minority member, and the Congress passed this legislation in 2002. Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment are very important to our communities and the economy. There are hundreds of thousands of brownfield sites around the Nation waiting to be cleaned up. We need to continue directing funds toward cleaning up and revitalizing these sites by fully funding State voluntary cleanup programs. The gentlewoman's amendment helps accomplish this goal, and I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the author of this amendment, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), is a good man and a good friend of mine and I think he is well intentioned, but I think my colleagues should know that this amendment is opposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Rural Water Association, and 38 other national and State water organizations whose job it is to protect the environment and provide communities with clean water. Let me tell you why these organizations oppose this amendment. Communities all over the country have wastewater treatment plants that are designed and permitted to allow blending during extreme wet weather events. That is only a very small percentage of the time, usually maybe 2 or 3 percent. These plant designs allow communities to prevent sewer overflows and meet all Clean Water Act standards in a cost-effective way. If blending is prohibited, then cities like Atlanta, Detroit, Cincinnati, Tacoma, Portland, Oregon, Boston and many, many others would have to spend billions of dollars to change their wastewater treatment plant designs, all to deal with extreme wet weather events that occur only once or twice a year. Some individual cities could have to spend as much as $100 million on this or perhaps even more. Blending has been mischaracterized as the discharge of raw sewage. This is not true. Here are the facts. During normal dry weather operation of a typical wastewater treatment plant, the wastewater receives three stages of treatment: solids removal, biological treatment, and disinfection. During extreme wet weather events, wastewater flows can exceed the capacity of the biological treatment unit. In those cases a plant then treats it twice. This blending does not mean the discharge of raw sewage into any river or waterway. These flows are recombined and blended with wastewater chemical treatments and so forth and disinfection so that it meets all Clean Water Act water quality and technology-based treatment standards. This practice is not a bypass around treatment because it is part of the plant's permitted treatment design. We held a hearing on this. Let me just tell you a few quotes from some of the experts. One person from the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission said, ``In the case of the Ohio River, without our blending policy more untreated overflows would occur and the water quality impacts of wet weather would be more damaging.'' The head of an agency in California said, ``With blending, our member communities can provide the maximum clean water treatment possible to unpredictable, exceptionally heavy rains and snowmelt, while still meeting permit limits which are set to protect public health and the environment.'' A water executive from Little Rock, Arkansas, said, ``Blending protects public utility infrastructure by preventing washout of sensitive biological systems and protects public health and private property.'' Another official said, ``A prohibition of blending will result in the need for extremely expensive facility upgrades that will not result in any meaningful improvement to water quality or protection of the public health.'' If we prohibit blending, it will cause worse environmental trouble than if we allow these experts and these utilities to proceed with it. There is a lot of misunderstanding on this issue. What we should do is we should work with the gentleman from Michigan because what he wants to accomplish and what we want to accomplish is really the same thing. We need to have more work on this before we leap into this very complicated situation.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 231) recognizing and celebrating the life and accomplishments of the great African American jockey Jimmy ``Wink'' Winkfield and the significant contributions and excellence of other African American jockeys and trainers in the sport of horse racing and the history of the Kentucky Derby, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 231 that honors the Kentucky Derby and particularly the success that African-American jockeys have enjoyed during the race's history. I am pleased that the House is considering this resolution before the 131st Run for the Roses at Churchill Downs on Saturday. The resolution reminds us that African-American jockeys have greatly influenced the history of the Kentucky Derby. Thirteen of the fifteen riders in the first derby in 1875 were African-American. African- American horsemen won 15 of the first 28 derbies. Jimmy ``Wink'' Winkfield, whom the resolution recognizes specifically, remains the last African-American jockey to win the Kentucky Derby. He is one of only four jockeys in Kentucky Derby history to win back-to-back races. He was victorious riding His Eminence in 1901 and Alan-A-Dale in 1902. He also came in second the following year when he entered the race as the favorite on Early in 1903. Mr. Speaker, on a Saturday in May each year, the Kentucky Derby provides us with many outstanding moments, many of which go down in sports history. Champion horses such as Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Alysheba, and last year, Smarty Jones, have captivated the Nation during the race that is known as the ``greatest two minutes in sports.'' We know this year's derby will be a spectacular show as well. Again Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House is considering this timely resolution that honors the significant contributions and excellence of African-American jockeys. The gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Bobby Rush, deserves the commendation of all Members for his efforts on House Resolution 231. I also recognize the resolution's lead cosponsor, my distinguished colleague from Kentucky, Congressman Ed Whitfield, to whom I know the adoption of the resolution means a great deal. I urge all Members to agree to the resolution.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) on the occasion of its 35th Anniversary and on its name change to the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, or NACWA. Its 35 year record of advocacy and leadership in meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act has helped guarantee the chemical, biological, and physical health of our Nation's rivers, lakes, streams, bays, and coasts. NACWA's members serve the majority of the sewered population in our Country and treat and reclaim over 18 billion gallons of wastewater a day. Simply stated, NACWA and its members deserve to be celebrated for their ongoing role in the remarkable revitalization of America's waterways. Despite the improvements made so far to our Nation's waters, NACWA understands that significant work remains to be done to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. From the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's close working relationship with the Association, we know NACWA is well- positioned to continue building on our Nation's water quality gains. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has looked to AMSA and will continue to look to NACWA as a valued informational resource and advocate on behalf of sound water quality policy. The Association has always been willing to share its expertise and to provide leadership in challenging times. For example, in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Association responded immediately with creative ideas and vital leadership in developing tools and resources to help further secure our Nation's critical water infrastructure. The Association has been a vital resource on a host of clean water issues from wet weather control, nonpoint source pollution prevention, and the critical need for a sustainable, Federal-State- local partnership to meet our Nation's clean water challenges. I have worked closely with the Association and know that NACWA will build on its tradition as a trusted resource for Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I also am confident that NACWA will meet its strategic objectives and the goals of AMSA's original founders. Most importantly, NACWA's success is a direct result of its broad membership. NACWA (then AMSA) was established in 1970 by representatives of 22 municipal wastewater treatment agencies. Since then, AMSA has grown into an organization of nearly 300 municipal agency members and a total membership of nearly 400 organizations poised to ensure that the 21st Century will enjoy continued water quality improvement. The Association's public agency members not only represent what is best about public service; they exemplify what it means to be environmental practitioners. Their daily work enables us to enjoy our Nation's rivers, lakes, streams, bays, and coasts--something we, as a Nation, must never take for granted. Once again, I congratulate NACWA on this important milestone as an organization and applaud its members for their outstanding service.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow a funeral will be held for Staff Sergeant Stephen Kennedy, the second soldier killed in Iraq who was a member of an Army National Guard unit headquartered in my hometown of Knoxville. Both of these young men who were killed were from just outside my district; but I was able to attend the funeral for the first, Sergeant Paul Thomason, as we were not in session in Congress at the time. Both of these men leave wives and each had four small children and many other relatives. I admire and respect their service. There are many ways one can serve this country, but certainly one of the most honorable is by serving in our Nation's Armed Forces. I am pro-military and believe we should have a strong national defense, but I emphasize the word national. It goes against every traditional conservative belief for the U.S. to try to be the policemen of the world and to place all of the burden and cost of enforcing U.N. resolutions on our military and our taxpayers. It is no criticism of anyone in the military to say that the war in Iraq was a very unnecessary war. The more than 1,500 soldiers who have died there were simply doing their duty in the best way they could, probably hoping to come home as soon as they could, but certainly hoping to come home safely rather than in a body bag. Now this past Saturday we saw headlines about anti-American demonstrations all over Iraq. One wire service story said more than 300,000 demonstrated in Baghdad. Last year, our own government took a poll and found that 92 percent of Iraqis regarded us as occupiers rather than liberators. An earlier poll had a similar, but slightly lower, figure of 82 percent; and these were polls taken by us, or at least by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which is 95 percent U.S. Obviously, the great majority of people in Iraq do not appreciate what we have done there and do not want us there. They do want our money, and that is the only reason some will say good things about us being there because we do still have several hundred thousand Iraqis on the U.S. payroll. This is a nation that Newsweek said had a GDP of only $65 billion the year before the war. By the end of this year, we will have spent $300 billion in just 3 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, but mostly in Iraq. Iraq had a total military budget of just a little over two-tenths of 1 percent of our military budget in the year before we attacked. They were no threat to us whatsoever. Just a few weeks ago, a report came out saying our prewar intelligence was dead wrong. At that time, Richard Perle, one of the main architects of this war, appeared before the House Committee on Armed Services to say that everyone at that time thought there was a threat. This was not correct. Just before the House voted to authorize the war in October 2002, I was asked to come to the White House for a briefing with Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and John McLaughlin. I asked at that time how much Hussein's military budget was in comparison to ours and was told the two-tenths of 1 percent figure I mentioned a few minutes ago. I asked was there any evidence of imminent threat. I said one man cannot conduct a war by himself, it would have to involve many others, was there any movement toward war. I was told there was none. George Tenet later confirmed there was no imminent threat in his speech at Georgetown University just after he resigned as head of the CIA. There were just five other Members at that briefing, so we got to ask a lot of questions. I asked about former economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey's prediction that the war would cost 100 to $200 billion. Ms. Rice said the war would not cost nearly as much. Now we know that Mr. Lindsey's prediction was far too low. Most of what we have spent and are spending in Iraq is pure foreign aid, megabillions to provide free health care and rebuild Iraqi roads, schools, water and power plants, airports and railroads, and provide law enforcement, among many other things. At the White House briefing, I said most conservatives have always been against massive foreign aid and huge deficit spending. The war in Iraq has led to foreign aid and deficit spending on unprecedented scales. There is nothing conservative about the war in Iraq, and many conservative columnists and activists have now realized this. Columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote in 2003, ``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 minorities 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.'' The first obligation of the U.S. Congress should be to our own citizens, not the citizens of Iraq. In 1998 when Saddam Hussein was not even in the news, I voted to give $100 million to the Iraqi opposition to help them begin the effort to remove Saddam Hussein. We should have let Iraqis fight this war instead of sending our kids over there to fight and die and be maimed, and the sooner we bring our troops home the better. I hope we have learned that we should never be anxious to go to war and should do so only when we are forced to do so and there is no other reasonable alternative.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I simply want to close by commending the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for his very fine work on this legislation. This is a very worthwhile land exchange. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.