Floor Statements

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

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. 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. 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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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.

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.

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''.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.