Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I appreciate my friend yielding, and I have also been in need of a poster before and not been able to find it. If the gentleman would put that quote from General Petraeus back up, I will refer to it while he looks for the other quote from the ambassador. To emphasize this point again, coalition and Iraqi security forces have made progress toward achieving sustainable security. Now, that is the testimony of this well-respected general that we have entrusted with this very important mission. And it disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, that often the message of the accomplishments doesn't get through to the American people. We hear only about benchmarks not quite being met or expectations not quite being realized. For example, people point to the fact that an oil law has not yet been enacted by the leadership in Iraq and submitted to the Iraqi Parliament. As a matter of fact, as the testimony indicated today, oil revenues in Iraq are up and the revenues are in fact being distributed out to the local governments and the provinces. Now, this is in the absence of a final piece of legislation enacted by the parliament. But the fact remains that under this interim procedure that they have now, the oil revenues are there. Iraq is exporting oil for the first time in quite some time, and the oil revenues are being distributed out where they can benefit the people. That may not be a benchmark of legislation, but it is a real accomplishment; and it is the sort of thing that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were talking about. Also, there has been much made of the fact that there has been no reconciliation statute enacted into law over there. But as was pointed out today in the testimony, former members of the Iraqi Army, former Baathists, if you please, are now being accepted into the government and being given pensions from the government and many of them are being accepted back into the security forces there in Iraq. Now, a law hasn't been passed, but in my opinion that is de facto reconciliation and de facto amnesty for these people who were formerly in Saddam's Iraqi Army. By the thousands, these people are being integrated back into the mainstream of Iraqi security forces. Also in the Anbar province, it is well known at least in this capital city that the sectarian leaders all across that province have turned on al Qaeda. They were in league with them a year ago. They have now turned on them, and they are helping the United States and coalition forces because they realize that their future does not lie with this destructive, violent al Qaeda force, but with the forces that would bring freedom and liberty and self-determination to more Iraqis. Sectarian violence is down, as Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain pointed out in their op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, and I would commend that to our colleagues. There is an excellent bipartisan piece about that. Sectarian violence is down all over the country, down 70 percent in Baghdad alone. So there are real accomplishments there. Certainly, as the general said, innumerable challenges lie ahead. The assessment is optimistic, but it is sober and this is no rosy scenario; but there is much reason to be optimistic. Let me just say this about the feeling of the American people: I know that they are frustrated about this. This war has gone on longer than expected, and they have been conflicted about it. But I believe after being home for much of August and talking to my constituents, I think the American people do want us to succeed in Iraq. They realize that failure there, that withdrawal there, that leaving too early would leave a huge void that probably al Qaeda would fill and probably our detractors in Iran would fill, and they know that would be a disaster. They want success, and I think these two gentlemen who testified before us give us a good opportunity for success. A few moments ago we gathered on the east steps of the House of Representatives, and we commemorated the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Two other speakers on the floor today were not Members of the House of Representatives at that time. I was, and I shall never forget the resolve and the determination of the Congress, both ends of this building, both sides of the aisle, on that day to defeat these terrorists. The al Qaeda terrorist network that we are fighting in Iraq today is the very same network that brought down those two buildings in New York. They are the very same network that sent a plane crashing into the Pentagon. And they are the very same al Qaeda that had a plane headed toward Washington, DC, which undoubtedly was headed towards the Capitol Building. We are still fighting al Qaeda, and I appreciate people like Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus who are fighting that war as capably as they know how. Al Qaeda must be defeated, Mr. Speaker. And our best opportunity, our greatest chance to defeat al Qaeda today is to be successful in Iraq. That's what I would urge my colleagues to support, and I believe that is what the American people want us to do. I thank my friend for calling this Special Order.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation to fund our troops. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to thank Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Bill Young for their leadership and for working with the members on both sides of the aisle in crafting this important bill. This measure provides the funds to enable our military to meet the challenges it faces in the global war on terror and to protect our homeland. It contains resources to address the needs of our military families and includes initiatives to produce the advanced weaponry, equipment, and training to ensure that our military remains the best in the world. I am particularly pleased that the Committee did not include restrictions on funds that would prevent the President and our military commanders in the field from implementing the surge strategy in Iraq. In the debate on funding for the troops and the surge earlier this year, some of my Democratic colleagues and many in the news media proclaimed this operation to be a failure even before it began. Many said the war was lost. Despite signs that the new strategy was taking hold, the Democratic majority sought to undermine this effort with attempts to cut off funding and set a date-certain for withdrawal. President Bush and Republicans in this Congress countered that we should support the troops fully and give the surge time to work. There is solid evidence now that this strategy so ably put into place by GEN David Petraeus is working. Two military commanders on the ground there reported this week that they are denying freedom of movement to Al-Qaeda and that the citizenry have a new level of confidence in the Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces. More Iraqis are turning against Al Qaeda and working with Coalition forces to make their communities safer. Further proof about progress in Iraq was provided in a July 30 op-ed in the New York Times. The column, entitled ``A War We Just Might Win,'' was written by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two fellows at the Brookings Institution who have been harsh critics of the war effort. They spent eight days in Iraq and spoke of the significant changes taking place there. They wrote that troop morale is now high, that Coalition forces are confident in the strategy, and that they have the personnel on the ground to ``make a real difference.'' Army and Marine units are working well with Iraqi security units and the political and economic arrangements being forged at the local level are helping provide basic services to the Iraqi people. They visited Anbar province and its capital of Ramadi, which has gone from being described as the worst part of Iraq to the best in just six months. To quote, ``A few months ago, American Marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.'' Mr. Chairman, in a previous House debate on this issue, I noted that the American people are war-weary and impatient with the progress of our efforts there. I also said I believe the American people want us to win. I understand the frustration they feel about this engagement, but I still believe they want us to succeed in bringing about a free and stable government in Iraq and in defeating Al Qaeda. The reports I referenced earlier offer encouragement that our strategy may yet produce those results. Our success there would stymie the plans outlined by Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda Jihadists who consider Iraq a central battleground in the war on terror. They seek to establish a radical Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and use it as a beach-head to spread their terror and intolerance throughout the region and around the world. We have taken the fight to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to deny them the staging ground to plot more September 11-style attacks in the U.S. We have also been vigilant about protecting our homeland since 9- 11, and we must continue to provide the support our military and our intelligence communities need to meet that challenge. That includes modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to enable our intelligence agencies to remove outdated restrictions on the collection of information needed to stop terrorist plots before they can be carried out. The funding in this bill and revising the FISA provisions will send a message about our commitment to providing the resources to protect our homeland, enable our military to defend American interests, and fight terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, it was the understanding of all parties that there would not be a recorded vote on this motion. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the vote on this amendment and revote it de novo.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WICKER. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is a rather straightforward and simple amendment. It would simply restore to the face, or the obverse, of the dollar coin, the new dollar coin that is being minted now, the words ``In God We Trust'' and ``E Pluribus Unum.'' ``In God We Trust'' is the current national motto and has been our motto since 1956. ``E Pluribus Unum'' was actually suggested by the Congress to be on the seal of the United States of America as early as 1776. These two phrases have been a part of who we are and what we are about for as long as almost anyone within the sound of my voice can remember. Now, I have in my hand here a United States quarter. On one side, it has ``In God We Trust.'' You turn it over, and this happens to be one of the new quarters featuring a State, it happens to be Rhode Island, but still there's room on the other side of that coin for the term ``E Pluribus Unum''--out of many, one people, as I say, a very significant phrase about who we are as a people. You take the dollar coin, Mr. Speaker, and there's a picture of George Washington on the front, there is a likeness of the Statue of Liberty on the back, but if you're looking for the words ``E Pluribus Unum'' or ``In God We Trust,'' it's not on either side. In order to find that, you have to look at the very edge of the coin and you have to get the light just right and there it is on the edge of the coin. I think most people would agree with me, Mr. Chairman, in saying they would like to have these significant phrases returned to a position of prominence on the coin. Whether by design or by accident, whether purposely or unintentionally, the fact that these two important mottos are on the edge of the coin, I think it puts them in a less prominent place, and I think most Americans would appreciate it if we put them back where they should be. With that, I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WICKER. Would the gentleman yield on that point so that can be cleared up?

Mr. WICKER. By designating that the part of the dollar coin statute that says it should be edged onto the edge of the coin, by removing that, we revert back to the original statute under which we've been governed all along, which has all of the coins from the half dollar down to the penny with ``E Pluribus Unum'' and ``In God We Trust.''

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I'm delighted to yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goode) a minute and a half.

Mr. WICKER. I would inquire of the Chair as to whether he has any other speakers on this amendment.

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

Mr. WICKER. My friend the gentleman from New York says there's the possibility that we might do something unintentional here. Really this is quite clear. And Members voting on this in a few moments should understand that it's quite clear. If you feel that ``In God We Trust'' ought to be put in a place of prominence on the dollar coin, you'll vote ``yes'' for the amendment. If you feel that the all inclusive phrase ``E Pluribus Unum'' should be put back on the dollar coin in a place where it can actually be read by people using it in commerce, then you should vote for the Wicker amendment. If there is a question on interpretation, if there is this possibility that the chairman mentions, certainly that can be cleared up. This amendment has a little farther to go. The Senate may take up the appropriation bills. At some point we will have to come to some sort of agreement between the House and Senate on how to fund the Treasury and the departments dealt with in this appropriation bill. I say the issue is clear. If you want ``In God We Trust'' on the dollar coin, it's a very simple question. Vote ``aye'' on the Wicker amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to clarify it for my friend the chairman. I am simply asking that the voice vote which was taken be vacated and that we retake the vote de novo. It is my hope that after so doing, we will be able to avoid a roll call.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, less than 6 months ago, House Democrats promised not to hold recorded votes open to change the results. They went even further. They changed the House rules to prohibit this practice. But last night the Chair held a 2-minute vote open so that five Democrat Members could have their arms twisted, change their votes and pass the Udall amendment. And what was this amendment? Democrats broke their promise for a provision that prohibits America from producing energy from our plentiful supply of shale, further demonstrating what a fraud the Democrats' energy policy is, a policy repeatedly preventing us from developing our own petroleum reserves. Shame on the Democratic leadership for going back on their promise with such breathtaking speed. More importantly, shame on the Democrats for a policy that stops Americans from producing our own energy, for causing gasoline prices to continue to rise, and for making sure we are increasingly dependent on foreign oil.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 106.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 512, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin the debate by thanking Chairman Edwards for all the hard work he's put into preparing this legislation. I congratulate him on his first bill as chairman of Military Construction-VA, and I appreciate his kind words made just a few moments ago. Mr. Edwards has continued the excellent bipartisan relationship that this subcommittee has enjoyed for years. The chairman held many, many hearings this spring, perhaps more hearings on the VA accounts than any previous subcommittee with jurisdiction over this issue. Mr. Edwards has previously thanked our staff for their diligent work to prepare this bill and has mentioned them by name. I will thank them once again by name. They include Liz Dawson, Dena Baron, Jamie Swafford and Susan Sweat on the minority staff, and Carol Murphy, Walter Hearne, Tim Peterson, Donna Shabaz, Mary Arnold and John Conger on the majority staff. They have worked very hard on this measure, but their work is just beginning. As most of us know by now, there's much left to do in conference on this bill. For the first time in the history of the subcommittee, for the first time since 1958, the military construction portion contains no specific recommendation for projects. While I remain disappointed that no projects were included in this appropriation, I am pleased that last night we reached an agreement that will restore the transparency and openness begun by the Republican majority in the last Congress with regard to earmarks in the remaining appropriations bills. I want to make sure my colleagues understand that there is very little to the military construction portion of this bill. Unlike some appropriations bills, such as the Homeland bill we passed earlier today which include funding for specific agencies, offices and programs in addition to projects, the MILCON appropriation consists almost entirely of projects. Pursuant to yesterday's agreement, specific detailed funding amounts for the following programs will have to wait until conference: Base Realignment and Closure needs; initiatives to restation 70,000 troops and their families from Europe and Korea to the United States; projects necessary for increasing the active duty Army by 65,000 and the Marine Corps by 27,000; relocating Marines from Okinawa to Japan; consolidating U.S. forces south of Seoul, South Korea; establishing enduring bases in Afghanistan and Djibouti; new runways, control towers, National Guard readiness centers, and projects in the Middle East or Afghanistan where we have soldiers in harm's way. All of these specific details will have to wait until conference, Mr. Chairman. In addition, we know that quality-of-life issues are a priority for our military; yet, no specific initiatives such as modernization of unaccompanied housing, construction of new medical facilities or much- needed child development centers, which we continuously heard in our hearings was the primary quality-of-life issue for our soldiers and their families, none of these are included in this bill. Specific projects and earmarks will no doubt be included in the Senate version of this bill, and I hope Chairman Edwards and Chairman Obey will work with Mr. Lewis and me to make sure that House Members' initiatives will receive equal consideration at the conference level and are not disadvantaged by our airdropping of these projects into the conference. I would point out that the bill is different from other appropriations bills in that military construction projects have an added layer of examination, having already undergone scrutiny by the Department of Defense. It is my hope that our colleagues will not offer amendments today that may decrease the military construction accounts. Though this bill today does not detail how these accounts will be used, the accounts will provide for many important military projects that our troops need. Now, with regard to the VA portions of the bill, the VA is receiving the largest increase in the Department's history, an increase of $6.7 billion over the last fiscal year level. All of us in this body are deeply grateful for the sacrifices and service our veterans have provided this Nation, and this generous increase is appreciated by Members on both sides of the aisle. We do have concerns about the VA's ability to absorb so large a funding increase in one fiscal year. We are determined to work with VA officials in this effort as part of our oversight responsibilities. The bulk of the increase is going to boost medical services, medical facilities and construction for the VA. The bill increases the VA's discretionary funding by more than 18 percent over the fiscal year 2007 level. It is important to remember that the increase in this bill is in addition to the $1.8 billion this Congress just provided to the VA in the supplemental. When considered together, the supplemental funding and the funding in this bill amount to a 23 percent increase for the Department of Veterans Affairs' discretionary accounts. Chairman Edwards has indicated that we will be conducting oversight hearings later in the year, and I'm glad to know that. Hearings will be needed to ensure that the funding we have provided actually gets to the veterans and does not languish in an administrative account. Mr. Chairman, we all want to make sure our veterans receive the care they deserve, but we will have to be diligent in our oversight in order to get this funding where it is intended, to our veterans. The President has indicated he will sign this bill even though it exceeds his budget request by some $4 billion. However, he has stated that offsets for these increases should be found in other appropriations bills. I agree with him, and I call upon my colleagues across the aisle to work with us and find these savings elsewhere. I think it is important to point out that, though we have some concerns on our side of the aisle about the feasibility for this large 1-year increase, it has been in large part Republicans that have a track record of meeting veterans' needs. During the period of Republican majority from 1995 to 2007, VA funding increased by 96 percent from $38.2 billion to $74.5 billion. I would point out that in the final decade of the last Democratic majority, veterans funding increased by less than half as much, about 42 percent, Mr. Chairman. Similarly, Republicans led the way to increase spending per veteran by over $1,800 when we held the majority, while the Democrats managed to increase per-veteran spending by $411 during a similar period of their majority. It was also a Republican Congress that passed the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, which expanded eligibility for millions more veterans to access VA health care. I point out these things to make sure my colleagues understand the historical record on veterans' issues. And in truth, Mr. Chairman, funding for our veterans has always been a bipartisan issue. I support the bill on the floor today. It continues in the bipartisan tradition. It's not a perfect bill in my opinion, but our subcommittee has a good work product, and I'm proud of the combined efforts of Republicans and Democrats to continue the longstanding tradition of support and commitment for the men and women who have served our great country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WICKER. I thank my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding. I would simply join my chairman in his offer to continue working with Mr. Hayes with regard to this effort. Certainly, no one has been a stronger advocate for the men and women at Fort Bragg, and also Pope Air Force Base and the families in that surrounding area, than has Robin Hayes of North Carolina. I appreciate the sense of the amendment. I suspect that it will not pass today, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to work with Chairman Edwards to see if we can accommodate the gentleman from North Carolina's needs as we move forward in the process.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WICKER. Before I yield to my friend from Indiana, I too want to join my colleagues in commending my friend from Florida, Bill Young, and his wife, Beverly, for constantly, consistently visiting our veterans, our wounded veterans at Walter Reed and Bethesda and at veterans facilities, and for day in and day out and week in and week out and year in and year out, being as supportive of our Nation's veterans as any couple probably in the entire United States. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) an additional minute.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, for a different perspective, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), but I would express to all of my colleagues, though, that we are receiving calls from people who have made airline plans and are hoping to get back to their districts and to their homes for Father's Day. Mindful of that, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. WICKER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much times remains.