Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, Chairwoman Johnson, with whom I spent so many hours. She was my ranking member during the entire 6 years that I had the privilege of chairing the Water Resources and Environment, or during part of the time that I chaired the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and such a good friend, and Ranking Member Baker, for bringing this bill to the floor today and for their good and hard work on this legislation. And I urge its support.

This is a very conservative bill, Mr. Chairman. It is a bill that passed this House with only eight dissenting votes a few years ago and then later only 14 dissenting votes. The bill passed with over 400 votes in favor of it each time in the House. We did our work, but then it got held up in the other body.

Some people say that these projects should be paid for entirely on a local basis. But I can tell you there is a very important Federal role in regard to our water resources because people in California or New York or Michigan use the water in Tennessee. And people expect us to have a good wastewater and clean water system in this country. And yet it is something that people take for granted probably more than anything else that I can think of. And we have got to improve and strengthen our water resource system in this country.

Over the last few years, we have spent many billions on the water system, our wastewater and clean water systems in Iraq. But we have fallen down at the Federal level on what we are doing on our wastewater and clean water systems in this country. And most of the spending has been done by the State and local governments and particularly by the ratepayers. And so this is a very necessary, very overdue bill, as many have pointed out. And I urge support for this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me this time, and I thank the majority side for agreeing to this unanimous consent request.

I simply wanted to rise to say this. During my 6 years as chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I do not believe we had a better member or more active member than the gentleman from Oregon, and I certainly have the greatest admiration and respect for him and his concern about this legislation.

I simply wanted to rise to say this. I don't believe this Congress could pass a stronger environmental bill than this legislation that is before us at this time; Chairman Oberstar has continually made sure of that. And when we started with this bill several years ago, some people wanted no Corps reform at all; some people wanted so much Corps reform that really they were trying to stop every project that was included in this bill.

Mr. Costello, who was my ranking member at that time, we compromised, we worked out things.

I want to commend the staff for their work in this regard, and we put in many environmental concerns the first time around. Then we put in even more the second time around when we passed this bill.

We are now here again. We have given reform on peer review now so that all the major projects, all the projects over $50 million are subject to peer review. We have put in environmental reform and Corps reform in regard to mitigation issues. We have put in Corps reform in regard to project planning so that all the concerns of all the environmental groups who want to be involved in this process will be included.

I just want to point that out, how environmentally strong this legislation is thanks to not only our efforts on this side and the staff and Mr. Baker, but also Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Costello, Chairwoman Johnson with a lot of contribution from the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) himself.

Madam Speaker, I thank, first of all, the gentlelady from Florida, the new ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for yielding me this time and for her kind words and her strong support of this legislation. I also commend Chairman Lantos for bringing this resolution to the floor. But I especially want to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for his work in bringing this matter to the floor today and also calling attention to what is a very, very serious problem.

I had the privilege of chairing the Aviation Subcommittee for 6 years, and that subcommittee seemed to generate a lot of attention and publicity. Then I chaired for 6 years the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and unfortunately I think people did not pay as much attention to that subcommittee; and I thought it was just as important, perhaps more important, than the Aviation Subcommittee. And yet I said many times there probably is nothing that the people in this country take for granted as much as they do our clean water and wastewater infrastructure in this Nation.

Madam Speaker, much work needs to be done in this country in regard to our water to keep it to the standards that the people of this country want. And so the day after tomorrow we will hopefully pass a long overdue bill, the Water Resources Development Act, a bill that we passed two or three times here in the House, that has been held up in the Senate, but that is very, very important for our water infrastructure in this Nation.

You have heard some of the statistics already. My statistics vary just a little bit. I was given the information that 1.2 billion don't have access to clean water; Chairman Lantos said a lower figure, I think Mr. Blumenauer said a higher figure, but it is an astounding number of people, whatever the exact number is, that don't have access to a good, clean water source.

Water-related diseases, as Chairman Lantos said, kill over 5 million people each year. Six million are blind today because of trachoma, an eye infection

spread through poor hygiene caused by dirty water and unsanitary conditions. I could give all kinds of statistics.

As the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) said, I was proud that in my hometown of Knoxville recently, the city council, at the urging of our great Mayor Bill Haslam, passed a proclamation in support of World Water Day. This was done without my knowledge, and so I am pleased that other people are helping to call attention to what is one of the most serious problems that this world faces today.

And so I think that it is very appropriate that the Congress take up a resolution at this time, and I think that this will help lead to progress in this area, much, much needed progress; and I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my regret for missing several recorded votes during consideration of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2008. Unfortunately, I was called out of Washington to deliver the eulogy for a close friend of mine and my father's, Ed Bailey. Ed served the House of Representatives for 16 years as an aide to my late father, and I am honored to be making these remarks. This duty required that I leave for Knoxville prior to the final votes of Thursday, March 29, 2007.

I would like the Record to reflect that had I been in Washington, I would have supported the Republican Budget Substitute and opposed the underlying text of H. Con. Res. 99.

The reason for these votes is simple. I am fiscally conservative. The Democrat budget provides for tax hikes on Americans and America's businesses in order to pay for more Government spending. Also, this budget ignores the problems with our entitlement spending and defers these burdens to later generations.

I support the Republican budget because it continues to give American workers real tax benefits. It curbs out of control and inefficient discretionary spending.

The Ryan substitute also tackles the massive problem of entitlement spending and seeks to reform the Medicare and Medicaid systems. These reforms are absolutely necessary to ensure that these valuable programs are around for our children and their children.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chairman for revitalizing this important technical corrections bill and voice my support for H.R. 1195. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

There were many minor errors--in policy and in Members projects--in SAFETEA-LU that need technical correction.

Most people may not remember, but the House and Senate actually passed a SAFETEA-LU technical corrections bill that was signed into law in October 2005. That bill was taken up with extreme urgency because it prevented the accidental shutdown of boat safety programs.

In the time that has passed since the October 2005 SAFETEA-LU technical corrections bill was signed into law, we have heard from DOT and various states regarding fixes to different programs and high priority projects. I believe H.R. 1195 addresses most of the areas which need correction.

It is important to note that this bill does not make substantial policy changes to SAFETEA-LU. Rather, this bill corrects provisions that were not ``workable'' in SAFETEA-LU. After we pass this bill, SAFETEA-LU will finally be able to accomplish what Congress voted to do 2 years ago.

H.R. 1195 addresses all of the true technical corrections except one. This bill does not include a correction to an error in the motor carrier title of SAFETEA-LU.

In SAFETEA-LU, we attempted to harmonize the definition of ``commercial motor vehicle'' with ``motor vehicle''. Unintentionally, this change removed trucks weighing 10,000 lbs or less from the truck exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act and from DOT's safety oversight.

I am very concerned with this change in policy that was never negotiated for or discussed during the bill's original conference.

Now, small trucking business, who will have to change their business plan in order to comply with the law, are going to suffer the most. These are the small businesses who have high overhead and small profits, but are providing necessary services and products to urban areas and rural towns across the country.

This change is going to create great hardships on the small companies who are already in the business and most likely will inhibit others from entering the business.

It is disappointing this Congress has not addressed this problem, but I hope we can do so before final passage of this bill.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for revitalizing this technical correction bill and I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise at this time to request unanimous consent to place a statement in the Record in regard to H.R. 1362.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and I thank all who have worked to bring this legislation to the floor today.

I wish the bill went much further, but there are so many former Federal employees working for Federal contractors now, and so many present Federal employees who want to some day hitch on to this lucrative Federal gravy train, that the pressures against reform are tremendous.

Unfortunately, almost every Federal contract is a sweetheart or insider or friendship type deal. Almost all Federal contracts have at least one or usually several former Federal employees working for them.

Defense contractors are the prime examples. The International Herald Tribune had an article a year and a half ago describing what it called the revolving door at the Pentagon.

It said the top 20 defense contractors had hired over 300 retired admirals and generals during the 90s.

But this type of thing is rampant throughout the Federal Government.

Now I am not against the Federal Government contracting out many functions.

Usually, or often, the Federal bureaucracy is so wasteful and inefficient that Federal contractors can do things better or cheaper, even while making huge profits.

But some of the markups on contracts in Iraq have been mind boggling. I believe fiscal conservatives should be the ones most upset about some of the ripoff deals in Iraq.

Be that as it may, this bill helps highlight what has become a serious abuse of power, and abuse of the taxpayer, and this is a good start toward correcting this problem.

Mr. Speaker, Halliburton has decided to move its headquarters to Dubai. This is a company that has received over $25 billion worth

of contracts in Iraq, and this is the kind of thanks the U.S. taxpayers get. In fact, this is a real slap in the face of the U.S. taxpayers.

The ABC National News reported Sunday night that Halliburton has been charged by government inspectors of overcharging our government and overcharging our taxpayers to the tune of $2.7 billion. No company that commits those types of overcharges should ever get a Federal contract again. In fact, in my opinion, the U.S. Government should not give a contract to any company that cannot certify that over half of its employees are U.S. citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time and for his work on this legislation and his kind comments from a few minutes ago, and I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut who is managing the bill today. Especially I want to thank Chairman Waxman because this bill, while it has been mentioned that we passed this once before in an earlier Congress, it would not be on the floor today if it were not for the support of Chairman Waxman, and I do appreciate that very much.

As has already been mentioned, I introduced this bill several years ago, and in fact it was the 106th Congress when I first introduced this because I learned that some foreign governments from the Middle East were making very large contributions to the proposed library for President Clinton, and I was concerned that could lead to undue influence on the part of not only foreign governments but perhaps others.

Many months later after I introduced this bill, I learned that Marc Rich's ex-wife, and one of his closest friends, had made very large contributions to the Clinton library, and then President Clinton, on his last day in office, granted a pardon to Mr. Rich who had fled the country after evading $40 million in income taxes.

I can tell you this, in my mind, is not a partisan bill. I introduced this under a Democratic President. I reintroduced it in the 107th Congress under a Republican President. As has been noted by the gentleman from Ohio, this bill passed the House by a vote of 392-3. There was not enough interest in the Senate at that time, and so we are back here today to try to pass this bill this time to bring as, has already been said, some openness, some transparency, to shed some light on these contributions and on what would be a real potential for abuse under either a Democratic or Republican President in the future.

As Chairman Waxman and others have said, the price tag on these Presidential libraries has escalated just in a few years' time from $80 million to $500 million projected for this President's library, and no telling where those libraries might go in the future in regard to costs.

This bill does not prohibit any contributions. It allows even very, very large contributions. All it does is require reporting, quarterly reporting.

My original bill has been made stronger by the suggestions, by the actions by Chairman Waxman, and I support this bill. I think it is a good government bill, and I think it is one that all of our colleagues can be proud in supporting. It will certainly help to prevent some real serious potentials for abuse in the years ahead if we pass this legislation.

So I appreciate the support of everyone who has spoken here today, and I urge the support of all of my colleagues.

I certainly want to first thank Dr. Boustany for yielding

me this time and for his hard work on this legislation. As he mentioned, I had the privilege of chairing the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee for 6 years, for the past 6 years, and he served as my vice chairman during part of that time. I appreciate his work.

I also want to salute my really good friend, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, whom I admire and respect so much, and who was my ranking member of that subcommittee and now serves as the full chairman.

I want to also commend Congressman Bill Pascrell, the gentleman from New Jersey, who has been interested in this issue for several years, as has my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Camp, and who are the primary sponsors of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have said many times that there is nothing that the people of this country take for granted as much as they do our clean water and waste water systems in this country that are so very important, first of all, to our environment, our public health, but also to our economy.

We have environmental extremists in this country who don't want us to cut any trees, dig for any coal, drill for any oil or produce any natural gas, and they basically want to shut our whole economy down. I don't go along with their agenda, but I can tell you that this bill is one of the most important bills that we could do for the environment. Those who really care about the environment should be over here in strong support of this bill.

The water infrastructure network has done some real yeoman's work in regard to the needs of this country, in this regard, for the last few years, and they have estimated that we have needs over the next 20 years or so of over $400 billion in our clean water and waste water systems in this country.

This bill and the other two bills we will take up later this week certainly are very important, and they are good starts in alleviating some of this problem. It has been said that we have spent more from a Federal level on the water system in Iraq over the last 4 years than we have spent from the Federal level on the water systems in this country. Certainly more money has been spent in this country on our water systems, but that has been done by the ratepayers and the local and State governments.

There is an important Federal role in this regard because people in California drink the water in Tennessee and vice versa. We have a mobile society, and there is an important role for this Congress to play and for our Federal Government to play in this regard.

I think this bill is a good start in the right direction, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. There are going to be, I think, two or three amendments offered from our side to make the bill a little more fiscally conservative, and, certainly, I have no objection to that.

But we need to pass this legislation, because, as Mr. Camp said, there is a lot of this water infrastructure in our country, both waste water and clean water, that dates back to the 19th century. We need a lot of work if we are going to have the water systems and the kind of country that our people want us to have.

Mr. Speaker, today the Federal Government owns over 30 percent of the land in this country. State and local governments and quasi-governmental agencies are controlling the other 20 percent. Half the land, 50 percent, is in some type of government or public ownership or control.

We could probably live with this, but the problem is that government at all levels keeps taking over more and more property at a faster rate than ever before.

People don't get upset unless or until their property gets taken. And it sounds great for a politician to create a park, but now we have so many parks, recreation areas, nature preserves, national forests, and on and on that we can't take care of all of them.

We are constantly being told we have a mega-billion-dollar maintenance backlog for the national parks and all these other public areas; yet we keep taking over more land. You really can never satisfy government's appetite for money or land.

We just do not teach our young people how important private property is to both our freedom and our prosperity. We see this most clearly in the fact that counties that have high percentages of public land are almost always poverty areas or at least counties with incomes far below the national average. Also, because we keep taking so much land off the tax rolls, we keep shrinking our tax base at the same time that all of the schools and government agencies tell us they need more money.

Now almost every State has gone to lotteries, casinos, or some type of gambling in a desperate attempt to get more revenue because property taxes just don't raise enough money since so much land has been taken off the tax rolls. Because of this, I believe gambling addiction is going to become a real problem in this country in the years ahead.

Another part of this problem is that government at all levels keeps putting more and more restrictions on the land that remains in private hands. The Washington Post had a headline a few months ago that said: ``Judge Saves Land From Development.'' It might also have said: ``Judge Preserves Land for Wealthy'' or ``Judge Keeps Young People From Buying Homes.''

Preventing more land from development is driving up the cost of homeownership and putting it out of reach for many young families. It is also forcing more people into apartments or townhouses or homes on postage-stamp-size lots, leading to new problems from congestion.

The Washington Times pointed out that more than five times as much land, more than five times as much land, has been set aside as national parks, wilderness areas, Federal forests, and Federal grazing areas than has ever been developed. Today, you could put every family of four in the State of Texas and give them 3 acres of lands each and leave the whole rest of the country empty. Over three-fourths of the population lives on 3\1/2\ percent of the land.

USA Today reported last November 30 that the U.S. now has 37 million acres of private land under some type of protective trust or restrictive easement, a 54 percent increase just since 2000. Also, conservation of private land from 2000 to 2005 averaged 2.6 million acres a year, which USA Today said was almost half the size of New Jersey, each year. This is information from the Land Trust Alliance, which represents 1,200 of the 1,667 local, State, and national land trusts.

Another group, the Nature Conservancy, manages 1,400 areas in the U.S. and now has assets of $4.14 billion. Some people will recall The Washington Post series about the sweetheart deals the Nature Conservancy was doing for its wealthy contributors and board members. The Nature Conservancy had income of $1.8 billion in 2004 and 2005 and has set aside 15 million acres. According to its tax returns, the Nature Conservancy in fiscal year 2005 received over $97 million in government grants, over $14 million in government fees and contracts, and over $165 million from sales of land almost all to government. All this is always reported in the news as the greatest thing since sliced bread; but unless these activities are slowed, which is very doubtful, young people will find it extremely difficult to find places to start small businesses or build new homes. Also, there will be less money for people to travel to and enjoy all the parks, preserves, national forests, and recreation areas we already have.

Mr. Speaker, if we keep taking more and more property off the tax rolls, we are going to really cut back on government services. Much worse, if we keep destroying private property and restricting development, we are going to slowly do away with the dream of homeownership and we are eventually going to bring about a lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, on Saturday, March 3rd, the Knox County Republican Executive Committee will honor George Barnes, one of its greatest leaders.

George was born on September 21, 1923, in Sevier County, Tennessee, and graduated from Sevier County High School.

He then graduated from the University of Tennessee and had a distinguished career at Robertshaw Controls Corp. for almost 40 years.

He was active in the Society for the Advancement of Management and the South Knoxville Optimist Club. He has been a member of Meridian Baptist Church for over 50 years.

He has been a longtime member of the Knox County Republican Executive Committee and was president of the South Knoxville Republican Club and chairman of the 27th Precinct.

Senator Ben Atchley has credited George Barnes as being the person who talked him into staying in the legislature as long as he did.

Some people get into politics only for themselves. George Barnes has unselfishly worked for almost all Republican candidates and office holders over his active career.

Working alongside him and supporting him in every way has been his wife, Flo. They are the proud parents of two daughters, Elizabeth, a speech pathologist for the Oak Ridge Schools, and Jean, a lawyer in Brentwood.

George Barnes is honest, ethical, hardworking, patriotic, and above all else, kind. He has touched thousands of lives in good and positive ways.

He is a truly great American and this Nation is a better place because of the life he has led.

Mr. Speaker, Dick Armey, our former majority leader, said in an interview with a major newspaper chain last week that he deeply regretted voting for the war in Iraq. Mr. Army said, ``Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the adventure vocally and aggressively.'' Chris Matthews, on MSNBC on election night, said, ``The decision to go to war in Iraq was not a conservative decision historically.'' And he added that it ``asked Republicans to behave like a different people than they intrinsically are.''

William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote in 2004 that if he had known in 2002 what he knew then, he would have opposed the war. And in 2005 he wrote that to continue there beyond another year would indicate ``not steadfastness of purpose but, rather, misapplication of pride.''

What about this surge? The conservative columnist George Will wrote in opposition to it and said it would take a miracle for it to succeed.

Very few people, Mr. Speaker, pushed harder for us to go to Iraq than the columnist, Charles Krauthammer. A few weeks ago he wrote that the Maliki government we have installed there cares only about making sure the Shiites dominate the Sunnis.

``We should not be surging troops in defense of such a government,'' Krauthammer wrote. ``Maliki should be made to know that if he insists on having this sectarian war, he can well have it without us.''

But listen to what the enlisted men say: Specialist Don Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colorado, now in his second tour in Iraq, told the Associated Press: ``What could more guys do? We cannot pick sides. It is like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions.''

Sergeant Josh Keim of Canton, Ohio, also on his second tour said, ``Nothing is going to help. It is a religious war and we are caught in the middle of it.''

PFC Zack Clauser, 19, of York, Pennsylvania, told the McClatchy News Service: ``This isn't our war. We're just in the middle.''

Sergeant Clarence Dawalt, 22, of Tulsa, Oklahoma said, ``They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change.''

And Sergeant First Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tennessee, said: ``Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years'' and he said that after our raids melt insurgents away, ``2 or 3 months later when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back.''

Saddam Hussein was an evil man, Mr. Speaker, but he had a total military budget only a little over two-tenths of 1 percent of ours, most of which he spent protecting himself and his family and building castles. He was no threat to us at all. As the conservative columnist Charley Reese has written several times, Iraq did not threaten us with war. They did not attack us and were not even capable of attacking us. But even before the war started, Fortune Magazine had an article saying that an American occupation of Iraq would be ``prolonged and expensive'' and would make U.S. soldiers ``sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists.''

Now we have had more than 3,000 Americans killed, many thousands more wounded horribly and have spent $400 billion and the Pentagon wants $170 billion more. And as one previous speaker said with all the added medical and veterans' costs, the ultimate cost of this war could reach $2 trillion. There is nothing fiscally conservative about this war. Most of what we have spent has been purely foreign aid in nature, rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, giving free medical care, training police, giving jobs to several hundred thousand Iraqis and on and on and on. Our Constitution does not give us the authority to run another country as we have in reality been doing in Iraq. With a national debt of almost $9 trillion, we can't afford it. To me, our misadventure in Iraq is both unconstitutional and unaffordable. Some have said it was a mistake to start this war but that now that we are there we have to, quote, finish the job and we cannot cut and run. Well, if you find out you're going the wrong way down the interstate, you do not keep going, you get off at the next exit.

There is no way, Mr. Speaker, we can keep all of our promises to our own people on Social Security, veterans' benefits, and many other things in the years ahead if we keep trying to run the whole world. As another columnist, Georgie Anne Geyer, wrote more than 3 years ago, Americans, quote, 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.

We should help other countries during humanitarian crises and have trade and tourism and cultural and educational exchanges. But conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents to interventionist foreign policies that create so much resentment for us around the world. We need to return to the more humble foreign policy President Bush advocated when he campaigned in 2000.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to tell all these defense contractors that the time for this Iraqi gravy train with their obscene profits is over. It is certainly no criticism of our troops to say that this was a very unnecessary war. It has always been more about money and power and prestige than any real threat to us or to our people. And this war went against every traditional conservative position I have ever known.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker just mentioned, tomorrow we will begin debating the Iraq war surge resolution. George Will, the conservative columnist wrote in opposition to this surge and said it would take a miracle for the surge to succeed.

Dick Armey, our former majority leader, in an interview with a major newspaper chain said just a few days ago that he deeply regretted voting to go to war in Iraq, and said, ``Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively.''

William F. Buckley, Jr., often called the godfather of conservatism, wrote in 2004 that if he had known in 2002 what he knew in 2004 he would have opposed the war. Chris Matthews on Election Night said, ``The decision to go to war in Iraq was not a conservative decision historically,'' and he said it asked Republicans, ``to behave like a different people than they intrinsically are.''

And that confirmed what I have said many times on this floor, that the war in Iraq went against every traditional conservative position I have ever known. I would like to read into the Record at this time a column that I wrote for the Nashville Tennessean, Tennessee's largest circulation daily.

I wrote this. ``I voted against going to war in Iraq when Congress voted on this in October of 2002. And I am opposed to sending more U.S. troops there now. President Bush has said repeatedly that he is going to listen mainly to his commanders. I wish he would listen to Specialist Don Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colorado, now in his second tour in Iraq, who told the Associated Press: ``What could more guys do? We cannot pick sides. It is like we have to watch them kill each other then ask questions.''

Sergeant Josh Keim, of Canton, Ohio, also on his second term said, ``nothing is going to help. It is a religious war and we are caught in the middle of it.''

Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but he had a total military budget only a little over two-tenths of 1 percent of ours, most of which he spent protecting himself and his family and building castles.

He was no threat to us at all. As the conservative columnist Charley Reese has written several times, Iraq did not threaten us with war. They did not attack us, and were not even capable of attacking us.

But even before the war started, Fortune Magazine had an article saying that an American occupation of Iraq would be ``prolonged and expensive'' and would make U.S. soldiers ``sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists.''

Now we have had more than 3,000 Americans killed, many thousands more wounded horribly, and have spent $400 billion, and the Pentagon wants $170 billion more.

Most of what we have spent has been purely foreign aid in nature: rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, giving free medical care, training police, giving jobs to several hundred thousand Iraqis and on and on. Our Constitution does not give us the authority to run another country as we have in reality been doing in Iraq.

With a national debt of almost $9 trillion, we cannot afford it. To me our misadventure in Iraq is both unconstitutional and unaffordable. Some have said it was a mistake to start this war but that now that we are there we have to finish the job, and we cannot cut and run. Well, if you find out you are going the wrong way down the interstate, you do not keep going, you get off at the next exit.

Very few pushed as hard for us to go to war in Iraq as did syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. Last week he wrote that the Maliki government we have installed there cares only about making sure the Shiites dominate the Sunnis. We should not be surging troops in defense of such a government, Krauthammer wrote. Maliki should be made to know that if he insists on having this sectarian war, he can well have it without us.

There is no way we can keep all of our promises to our own people on Social Security, veterans benefits, and many other things in the years ahead if we keep trying to run the whole world. As another columnist, Georgie Anne Geyer, wrote more than 3 years ago, Americans ``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.''

We should help other countries during humanitarian crises and have trade and tourism and cultural and educational exchanges. But conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents to interventionist foreign policies that create so much resentment for us around the world.

We need to return to the more humble foreign policy President Bush advocated when he campaigned in 2000.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to tell all of these defense contractors that the time for this Iraq gravy train with its obscene profits is over. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, in an interview published yesterday by the McClatchy newspaper chain, Dick Armey, our former Republican majority leader, said he felt really bad about voting to go to war in Iraq. Mr. Armey said, ``Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively.''

It takes a big man to admit something like that. Chris Matthews on MSNBC on election night said, ``The decision to go to work in Iraq was not a conservative decision historically'' and said the President asked Republicans ``to behave like a different people than they intrinsically are.''

In 2004, William F. Buckley, Jr., often called the godfather of conservatism, wrote that if he knew in 2002 what he knew by 2004 he would have opposed going to war in Iraq.

Today, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the subject of waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq. A couple of years ago the same committee, then under Republican leadership, held a similar hearing.

David Walker, now head of the GAO but then Inspector General of the Defense Department, testified at that time that $35 billion had been lost in Iraq due to waste, fraud and abuse and another $9 billion had just been lost and could not be accounted for at all.

I heard a talk by Charlie Cook, the very respected political analyst, who said people could not really comprehend anything over $1 billion. But $44 billion is an awful lot of money in anybody's book.

A Foreign Service Officer told me last year, a few months after he had left Iraq, that he sometimes saw SUVs there filled with cash with barely enough room for the driver.

Conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents and biggest critics of Federal waste, fraud and abuse. Conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents and biggest critics of wasteful, lavish and ridiculous Federal contracts. Conservatives, especially fiscal conservatives, should not feel any obligation to defend wasteful spending or lavish Federal contracts just because they are taking place in Iraq.

Ivan Eland, in the January 15 issue of the American Conservative Magazine, wrote this. He said, ``Many conservatives who regularly gripe about the Federal Government's ineffective and inefficient use of taxpayer dollars give the Pentagon a free ride on their profligate spending habits.''

Conservatives admire, respect and appreciate the people in the military as much or more than anyone. Conservatives believe national defense is one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal Government and one of its most important. However, this does not mean we should just routinely give the Pentagon everything it wants or

turn a blind eye to waste in the Defense Department.

The Defense Department is a gigantic bureaucracy, in fact, the biggest bureaucracy in the world. It has the same problems and inefficiencies of any giant bureaucracy; and conservatives, especially fiscal conservatives, should not give a free ride to waste, fraud and abuse just because it is done by the Defense Department.

Counting our regular defense appropriations bill, plus emergency and supplemental appropriations bills, plus the military construction appropriations bill, plus the end-of-the-year omnibus appropriations bills, we spend more on defense than all of the other Nations of the world combined. Yet the military, like all other bureaucracies, always wants more money.

Well, at some point, we are going to have to decide, do we want national defense for our own people, or are we going to be the policeman of the world and provide international defense for all countries that claim to be our allies?

With a national debt of almost $9 trillion and unfunded future pension liabilities of many trillions more, I believe it is both unaffordable and unconstitutional for us to try to be the policeman of the world. We will soon not be able to pay Social Security and veterans' pensions with money that means anything, and all of the other things the Federal Government is doing, if we try to maintain an empire around the world.

Conservatives have traditionally been the biggest critics of interventionist foreign policies because they create so much resentment for us around the world.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, conservatives have traditionally been the biggest critics of nation building, as President Bush was when he ran for the White House in 2000. We need the more humble foreign policy he advocated then, or we need to tell the people to forget about their Social Security because we are giving blank checks to the Pentagon.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish a happy birthday today to my constituent, Marion Stout. She is 111 today and is now the oldest person in Tennessee.

She never misses a church service at Second Presbyterian Church in Knoxville. She walks two or three times a week with her caregiver, who says she walks until she gets tired, but she never gets tired. For her walks, she always wears a pretty dress, heels and rouge to highlight her blue eyes.

No matter what small thing someone does for her, she always says thank you. She says, I eat right, take care of myself and stay positive.

She bought some GE stock when she was 102 because she wanted a good, long-term investment.

I know the entire House wants to join me in wishing Marion Stout a happy 111th birthday today.

Mr. Speaker, conservatives who oppose world government and massive foreign aid, such as our very unconservative war in Iraq, are sometimes called isolationists. However, anyone who makes the isolationist charge is really resorting to childish name-calling rather than a discussion on the merits.

Another major issue on which there is a lot of name-calling these days is the debate over global warming. Just today the Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a one-sided hearing on allegations that the Bush administration is guilty of political interference in the global warming debate. The implication was that Federal scientists are being intimidated by those who are skeptical about global warming.

Actually, the intimidation is coming from those who believe that global warming is the biggest or one of the biggest problems we face. Global warming alarmists get very angry if anyone even dares to question their views.

Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT wrote a few months ago about what he called, ``the sinister side to this feeding frenzy about global warming.''

Professor Lindzen said, ``Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence, even when they fly in the face of the science that is supposedly their basis.''

Professor David Deming, a geophysicist, said, ``The media hysteria on global warming has been generated by journalists who do not understand the provisional and uncertain nature of scientific knowledge. Science changes.''

And Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research, writing in the Washington Times, said, ``The emotional politicized debate over global warming has produced a fire-ready-aim mentality, despite great and still-growing scientific uncertainty about the problem.''

Mr. Bradley added, ``Still climate alarmists demand a multitude of do-somethings to address the problem they are sure exists and is solvable. No job is too big for government because they welcome bigger and bigger government. They pronounce the debate over in their favor, and call their critics names such as 'deniers,' as in Holocaust deniers. This has created a bad climate for scientific research and for policymaking. In fact, the debate is more than unsettled.''

I can produce hundreds of quotes like this from experts and scientists who question or are skeptical about the wild claims from some climate change alarmists. And the charge that the Bush administration is intimidating scientists or suppressing their work seems to be coming from scientists who want more attention or publicity or who want to make themselves out to be some sort of courageous, heroic martyrs.

Actually the Bush administration has spent $25 billion on global warming and climate change research in the last 5 years, far more than any previous administration. Almost all global warming alarmists either work full time for the Federal Government or get Federal funding for their research. They know they are very unlikely to get more Federal money unless they say this problem is terrible and getting worse all the time.

There may be some global warming and some of it may be bad. In some places it may be good. However, we need to make sure we solve the problems that exist without destroying our economy, or harming humanity in the process. The worst polluters in the

world have been the Socialist and Communist countries.

Only free market systems generate the excess funds to do the good things for the environment that all of us want done. Anger and name- calling and biased hearings will not solve any serious or legitimate problems.