Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Clearly we are nearing the end of this general debate, and I would at this point yield 1 minute to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just in closing, the Speaker of the House just said what a happy day this is for her. It is a happy day for me and for Members on this side of the aisle also, Mr. Chairman. Why on a bipartisan issue do we have to sound so partisan sometimes in supporting the bill? The Speaker mentioned that veterans funding had been so neglected for the past few years. I will again point out to Members of the House, Mr. Chairman, that during the period of Republican majority, in working with our friends across the aisle and funding VA, we increased funding by 96 percent during that period, from $38.2 billion annually to $74.5 billion. And during the final decades of the Democratic majority, the increase was only half that much. The Speaker mentioned the concurrent receipt issue. Of course it was during the speakership of Speaker Hastert that the House of Representatives enacted concurrent receipt legislation. And as a matter of fact, the previous speaker, Mr. Buyer, was the author and prime mover behind that legislation, and he deserves credit. The point is this is a bipartisan issue. There is bipartisan support. I expect after discussion of a few amendments, Mr. Chairman, that we will have a near unanimous vote in favor of this bill. I will certainly be voting for it, as will the leadership of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from Indiana, the former chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, not everyone within the sound of my voice realizes how hard these young people have worked, some of them, for the last semester, some of them for the past 9 or 10 months, but almost to a person they have been in the page school. There will be a graduation ceremony tomorrow, I understand. They get up in the wee hours of the morning and go to school in a very rigorous academic course, and then they put in a full day. On those frequent occasions when we are in session late at night, they are here with us. So we appreciate their hard work. It has been a great learning experience for them, I know; and I just want them to know how much we appreciate it. They have been here during momentous times. They have seen the President of the United States, as my friend from Maryland stated. They have seen heads of state come and go in the building and witnessed debates concerning the great issues of our time, issues today concerning the very question of life itself. Issues of war and peace and billions of dollars being debated, they have been able to witness. Just as significantly as all of those issues, they have witnessed the orderly transfer of power that we have seen year in and year out, Congress in and Congress out in this great institution. The transfer of power not at the point of a gun, as a result of a battle, but as a result of Americans, one by one, going eventually in the millions and voting in the ballot at the ballot box. Sometimes we are delighted with that orderly transfer of power, as I was in 1994 and 1995, when I first came here as a Member of a new majority. Sometimes, as occurred last November and this past January, I was not particularly overly delighted, but it is profound, nonetheless, that we make those changes in government at the ballot box and not at the point of a gun. In 1967, I had the privilege for only 1 month to serve as a page in this great Chamber for this great body. It was a life-changing experience for a young boy from Pontotoc, Mississippi; and I daresay for the young people lining the back rail and listening to our words this afternoon it has been, in so many ways, a life-changing experience for them. It occurred to me during that brief stay here as a page that I might someday, if given an opportunity and if luck came through, come back here as a Member of the House of Representatives. I had that great opportunity. But to so many of them, undoubtedly, they have no desire whatever to come back here as a Member but to go on and serve their country in other respects, in their professions, perhaps in the military, or perhaps some of you also in public service. But I would simply say that, in closing, they have had such a rare opportunity to serve their country in a way that so few young people have been able to do. We appreciate it very, very, very much. We wish each and every one of them Godspeed as they go back to their homes and families. I thank my friend for yielding the time.

Mr. WICKER. I wonder if the gentleman would yield?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution celebrating National Community College Month. For more than a century, community colleges have offered millions of Americans an affordable means of education close to home. Today 11 million students are enrolled in these institutions, and the reach of this educational opportunity goes far beyond serving the traditional high school graduate. Many adults are taking classes to pursue a college degree, gain continuing education for their present jobs, learn skills for new careers, and earn high school diplomas. Community colleges are also playing key leadership roles today in support of economic development activities. The unique ability of these institutions to adapt workforce training programs to meet specific needs in the areas they serve is a powerful resource. These schools have been partners in attracting new industry and helping existing businesses expand operations. As co-chair of the bipartisan Community College Caucus, I am proud to join this effort to support the goals of National Community College Month and congratulate these institutions, their students, faculty, and staff for their contributions to education. Our caucus was created in 2006 to help educate Members of Congress and focus national attention on the activities community colleges are undertaking to provide educational options and improve the quality of life in the areas they serve. I am also proud of the role the State of Mississippi has played in the development of this important educational opportunity. In 1922, Mississippi became the first State to create a statewide system of junior colleges. It brought affordable and accessible post-secondary educational choices to all of our citizens. Today, more than 70,000 full-time students are enrolled at 15 community colleges in my home State. I stand in strong support of our community colleges and salute their work to educate a diverse group of Americans spanning all age, income, race, and ethnic categories. The enhanced opportunities provided by these institutions are educating millions of people and helping provide a more skilled workforce to compete in our global economy.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I served as a conferee on this bill Monday afternoon, and I was disappointed at what I saw. Everyone in the room knew then, as they know now, that President Bush will veto this legislation because it contains dangerous timelines for withdrawal in Iraq, undercutting our chances for success and making a political statement at a time when we should be working in a bipartisan manner to give our troops the resources they need to succeed. Many of us heard General Petraeus this afternoon. I think most Members are highly impressed with his command of the situation and his candor. We ought to be willing to give him and his new strategy a chance. Instead, the bill before us tonight would guarantee failure. This is a futile exercise and a waste of valuable time. It ensures further delay in getting the equipment, supplies and support to the troops. Because Congress has not provided this funding already, our military leaders must shuffle existing funds. Spending on new equipment will be postponed and repair work will be slowed on equipment needed elsewhere around the world, and the Pentagon will have to curtail training for National Guard and Reserve units. This will hamper their capabilities and their readiness. The veto will come quickly, and, when it does, I hope the majority will not engage in further attempts to micromanage the war. Let's craft a responsible, focused supplemental package that funds the military and demonstrates to our soldiers that we support their efforts to complete the mission. Contrary to what some in the Democratic leadership say, the war is not lost. Let's not legislate as if it is.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this and other efforts to correct deficiencies in our military health care system and to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Forces get the attention and quality they deserve. This is not a partisan issue; as a matter of fact, this is a bipartisan effort, and I am glad to be a part of it as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs in the Appropriations Committee. The Wounded Warrior Assistance Act is an important first step in improving the delivery of medical care and quality of life for our injured military personnel and their families. I say a first step, Mr. Chairman, because I hope it is the first of several to focus the necessary resources and enhance the facilities for overall delivery of service. I am particularly interested in simplifying and speeding the paperwork process associated with both the initial care of these heroes and their transition to the programs administered through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Our wounded warriors, their families and the dedicated health care professionals committed to serving their needs should not have to face bureaucratic stumbling blocks that prevent the timely administration of care and the processing of claims to help these heroes get back on their feet. I support provisions in this legislation that will provide more resources to address the problem, especially the medical evaluation delays. As the bill moves forward, I will say to the leadership of the full committee, I encourage the authors of this legislation to consider adding additional judge advocates to assist the medical evaluation process. In conversations with soldiers at Walter Reed, I learned of a shortfall of properly trained full-time attorneys to assist and represent patients during the formal evaluations. This occurs during the process leading up to the board and during the board. In many instances, the backlog was so long that soldiers retained outside counsel for hearings at their own cost. Those who could not afford to do this were forced to wait. In fact, the March 12 inspector general report highlighted this problem and recommended an increase in trained attorneys. I am grateful for the full committee leadership of the Appropriations Committee for accommodating me in my amendment in this regard. While we await the full Army Tiger Team report in May, I hope my colleagues will recognize the need and right of our wounded soldiers to proper representation. I participated in hearings on this issue as ranking member of the MILCON VA Appropriations Subcommittee, and as a member of the Defense Subcommittee. I have visited Walter Reed Army Hospital and talked to soldiers receiving treatment there and elsewhere in our military and VA systems. While the recent problems have stained our military health care system, I have been encouraged by the bipartisan manner in which we have approached this issue. I have also been encouraged to hear very positive reviews also with regard to our VA health care system, and I know it can be improved on, but certainly we get very, very positive reviews from the constituents who actually use these facilities. These oversight activities have been very helpful in identifying steps we can take immediately to put the focus back on caring for our wounded soldiers. I look forward to working with the chairman and others of my colleagues to advance this legislation as it moves through the process.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, we should be standing together today in bipartisan support for our troops and for the resources they need to be successful in Iraq and the global war on terror. Instead, we have a proposal before us today that micromanages the war from Capitol Hill with ill-advised timelines for withdrawal that jeopardize our chances for success. This plan is an unruly mess, bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. Those are not my words. They come from a Los Angeles Times editorial. The Times is right on target. The editorial goes on to say that by interfering with the discretion of the Commander in Chief and military leaders, ``Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome.'' The L.A. Times is a lot like most American people. They are unhappy with the war. They are unhappy with the way it has been waged, but they still want to give our generals and our troops the best chance for success. That is in stark contrast to the defeatism we see in this proposal today. Some of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle have quoted approvingly from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Here is a quote they have not used: ``The Study Group sets no timetables, and we set no guidelines. We believe that military commanders must have the flexibility to respond to events on the ground.'' The National Intelligence Estimate carries a strong warning against an early troop pullout. It said, ``If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this would almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq.'' Despite these cautions, the proponents of this legislation are intent on taking us down a path that would lead to failure and defeat. Setting a date certain for withdrawing from Iraq is a dangerous idea. Our enemies will simply adjust their tactics and wait us out. The consequences of such a withdrawal will be far-reaching. It would signal defeat for the United States and embolden the terrorists in Iraq and throughout the world. It would enable Iraq to establish a beachhead in Iraq from which to operate, and it would be a catastrophe for the people of Iraq and the region. There are signs that the new strategy is taking hold in Iraq. General Petraeus believes it will work, and he has our coalition forces engaged fully in this effort to succeed. It would be a grave and irresponsible mistake to undercut our soldiers by passing this measure before the strategy has time to be implemented. The message we send here today should not be one to the terrorists to bide their time and wait for the U.S. to pull out. The message should be one of complete and total support for our troops and for an appropriation of the resources they need to succeed.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Charlie Norwood and I were elected together in 1994, as were the two previous speakers. And we were part of that history- making, majority-making 73-Member class who came to office in 1995. It didn't take us long to realize that Charlie Norwood was one of the wisest and steadiest and most dependable Members of that class. He was a conservative, and never wavered from that philosophy. He was trustworthy, as Mrs. Myrick said. He was a competitor. When Charlie Norwood waged battle on this floor on your side, you knew you had a capable comrade at arms. And if he was on the other side, when it was over, you knew you had been in a fight. I remember at the end of the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights, right along the rail back here, Charlie Norwood and Tom Coburn embracing after the debate like athletes after a great contest. Whatever he did, Charlie Norwood did it cheerfully, and that is one of the main things I will remember about Charlie. He was a patriot in every sense of the word. He was a credit to this House of Representatives. I am proud to have called him my colleague and my friend.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, on December 31, 1776, with the fate of the Revolution in doubt, General George Washington faced a challenge of convincing his soldiers to stay in the fight. With their enlistments over, they wanted to go home. Washington made an impassioned plea and even offered volunteers a bonus. But no one responded. He spoke again, saying that all they held dear was at stake. And finally one man stepped forward. Then others followed. Public opinion at that time was not on Washington's side. Only a third of the population supported the war for independence. One-third were openly hostile, and another one-third simply did not want to be involved. We should be grateful that George Washington was not obsessed with public opinion polls. Only days earlier Thomas Paine had written: ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.'' In the summer of 1863, Colonel Joshua Chamberlain of Maine faced a similar crisis. He had to convince a group of mutineers to stand and fight in a key battle. He promised to plead their case later if they rejoined the ranks. They did, and helped him win the Battle of Gettysburg. Public opinion at that time was running against President Lincoln and the war. It was lasting longer and costing more than anticipated. In Congress, Democrats demanded the troops be brought home immediately, but Lincoln stood by his convictions and won the war. It is easy for us to look back on these pivotal moments in our Nation's history without remembering how tough the going was, how reluctant many of our own people were, and how it took strong leadership to bring about victory. Let's contrast those times with the situation today in Iraq. Clearly the American people are tired and impatient with this war, and many believe we cannot win. Yet troop morale is high. In testimony before Congress last week, the senior enlisted personnel from each service, the National Guard, and the Reserves, said our forces in Iraq believe in what they are doing and that positive things are being accomplished. But you don't have to take their word for it. The enlistment and reenlistment figures themselves are a testimony to the commitment of our troops. All service branches met and exceeded their goals in both categories in 2006. The command sergeant major of the Marine Corps told our committee that young people join the Marines today to get to the fight. Knowing full well they will go to Iraq, they are signing up with enthusiasm and purpose. It almost takes your breath away to hear the troops who have been there say they continue to believe in our mission and want to see it through to completion. I hear the same thing from my constituents who have returned from Iraq. They express frustration about the news media's focus on the bad news. Returning troops tell of their successes in helping steer Iraq toward a path of democracy and freedom. I received an e-mail this week from a Mississippi soldier in Iraq. He said, ``No one wants everybody home more than I do, but we must finish the job. We are doing good things here and taking bad guys out of the game.'' The most important question in today's debate is what message does this resolution send to our military, to the volunteers who have been serving so proudly in harm's way? And make no mistake, they are listening to what we say here and watching what we do here. Will the passage of this resolution give our troops encouragement? I don't think so. The Americans are conflicted about this war. A CBS poll this week showed that only 44 percent of Americans support this resolution; 45 percent are opposed. That is all the more reason for leaders to lead. Washington and Lincoln were not concerned about public opinion polls. They did what was necessary to succeed, and that is what is called for in the halls of Congress today. I am convinced that deep in their hearts, most Americans realize we are in a serious global war for survival against an enemy that wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth. When all is said and done, the American people want us to win this war. Success in Iraq is a key element in winning against the terrorists. Osama bin Laden's chief deputy has urged al Qaeda operatives in Iraq to expel the Americans, extend the ``jihad wave'' to neighboring countries, and 2 weeks ago he spoke of Afghanistan and Iraq as two ``most crucial fields.'' I regret to say that enemies like these will be pleased when this resolution passes. Madam Speaker, let's send the terrorists a message of strength and resolve. Let's send a message of support and unity and confidence and appreciation to our troops. This resolution sends the wrong message, and I will vote against it.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my friend from Oregon supports regular order. That is not what we are seeing today. But the pundits say there is no point in talking about the legislative process in this debate today. They say people don't care about the rights of the legislative minority. I am not so sure about that. When people outside the Beltway hear that the funding bill for the rest of the year was basically drawn up by two people--one Senate chairman and one House chairman, in a closed room with no input from anyone else--they might conclude that doesn't sound quite right. And then when they hear this bill cuts military construction by $730 million below last year's level and falls over $3 billion short of the redeployment needs of our servicemen and their families, then most people might feel a little more debate and a few more people in the room could have resulted in a solution that fully funded these essential programs. That is the way the legislative process works. Someone drafts up a proposal. Then it is debated and amended, and in the end, a consensus is possible. But this is the first time in recent memory where the leadership simply puts two people in a room and lets them write an entirely new bill, moving the numbers around to suit their own preferences. And then the House is told ``just take it or leave it.'' No amendments. No give and take. No one else allowed to submit a better idea. And only 30 minutes of debate for the minority side. Maybe that is why this bill does not meet the critical needs of our soldiers, such as basic housing allowance and research for Gulf War veterans and amputees. So, Mr. Speaker, process may be considered inside baseball and a nonissue to some. But to me, democracy calls for a fair process, even in a continuing resolution; and, more often than not, it results in a better bill for the average citizen.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, I expect a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle are going to vote for this legislation. I can't vote for it because it doesn't live up to the rhetoric that we have heard from the proponents of the legislation in debate today. If you want to come up with a bill to, indeed, make college more affordable for middle America, then count me in. If you want to improve access to a college education for millions and millions of American young people, then count me in. If you want to do something about the very real problem of slowing the growth rate of college tuition, which is really what we should be getting at, then count me in. But I don't think this bill does any of that. And frankly, I am afraid that in the end this legislation, if enacted, would actually make a college education more expensive. But I have to respond to some comments made by my friend from Virginia, Mr. Moran, just a few moments ago to the effect that Republicans are not interested in helping Americans get a college education, that we somehow have a poor record in supporting student aid and higher education. I would take strong exception to those remarks, and I would submit to the contrary, Madam Speaker, that House Republicans, over 12 years of Republican majorities in this House of Representatives, have a proud record of working to expand college access through a two-pronged effort: Number one, working to hold institutions more accountable for their role in college costs, and this bill does nothing to address that whatsoever, and number two, maintaining a historic bipartisan commitment to Federal student aid. Under 12 years of a Republican majority in this House of Representatives we have achieved record levels of overall student aid, more than tripled what it was a decade ago. We funded more Pell Grants, a two-thirds increase over the past decade. In addition, the Republican record on student aid includes new grant aid for Pell Grant students, higher loan limits to give students access to more financial aid, lower loan fees so that students can keep more of what they borrow, tuition savings and deductibility, reduced student loan payments and ending the single holder rule, student loan relief for higher demand teachers--and certainly, that is something that we could have hearings about and have a bipartisan consensus about, Madam Speaker, targeting this student aid to those students who plan to go into difficult areas where there is a great need in this country--taxpayer savings through fewer lender subsidies and, finally, less fraud and abuse in Federal student aid. So I would submit that this party has had a proud 12-year record of accomplishment in student aid, and I could not let the statements of my very good friend from Virginia go uncontested. We are all for helping students, for making college education more affordable and more accessible and for helping move more people into a higher education and a better way of life for them and their families. And I don't think this bill gets us there. I think 12 years of Republican leadership is something that we can all be proud of. So I will be voting against the bill.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very difficult issue for me for quite some time and I think for many of my colleagues also. It involves deeply held convictions by conscientious people of good faith, by some of my closest friends, on both sides of this question. So I would like to begin with some things we can all agree upon. Principles about which there is no real debate today. First of all, this bill is not about the legality or illegality of embryonic research. Surprisingly, I have had constituents say to me that they weren't asking for Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, only that it be legal. This represents a misunderstanding of existing law. So let us be clear at the outset. Embryonic stem cell research is legal today, has always been legal, and few people are suggesting that it be otherwise. Secondly, there is currently a great deal of embryonic research going on today. Over the past 6 years, under the Bush guidelines, more than $130 million has been devoted to human embryonic stem cell research. Such research is also being conducted by State governments to the tune of $140 million. I happen to believe that this type of research is ethically troubling, but for my colleagues who feel otherwise, let us at least acknowledge that a lot of embryonic research is being done under current law. Next, I think we can all agree that the Federal Government alone cannot possibly fund all the medical and scientific research we would want. The annual appropriation for the NIH is $28 billion. But even if that figure were to be doubled or even tripled this year, we couldn't afford all the potential research that is out there. It is our job as Federal legislators to pick and choose. We have to allocate scarce resources, and we can't do it all. Which brings us to the real philosophical difference in the debate today. For me and many of my fellow Americans, the destruction of a human embryo involves profound ethical and moral questions. This is a matter of conscience for millions of taxpayers who are deeply troubled by the idea of their tax dollars being used to destroy another human life. We have been told by proponents of this bill that all they want to do is use embryos from fertility clinics which would otherwise be thrown away. I do not believe it will end there. After a period of time with no progress, we will be asked to approve and fund therapeutic human cloning, the creation of a human life for the express purpose of destroying that embryo for research purposes. This is the very real slippery slope upon which we are perched. Indeed, many proponents of this bill have voted against legislation to prohibit human cloning. So, Mr. Speaker, given the admitted ethical problems involved in destroying human embryos, given the lack of any results so far from embryonic research and the proven cures and accomplishments from adult stem cells, given the great potential of germ cells, cord blood cells and amniotic stem cell research without the ethical drawbacks, and given the limited Federal resources and the fact that we can't fund everything, shouldn't we concentrate Federal dollars on research that does not involve the destruction of human embryos?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that there has been so much confusion about the current state of embryonic stem cell research in our country. The choice is not between conducting the stem cell research or not conducting it. That is not the choice. Embryonic stem cell research is legal in America, and nothing in the administration's current policy affects that legality; 400 lines are currently being used to conduct embryonic stem cell research, both in the private sector and by the Federal Government. Indeed, the Federal Government spent $41 million last year on embryonic stem cell research. The administration's policy simply provides that Federal taxpayer dollars are not used to destroy human embryos. It is false to suggest that medical breakthroughs come only through government research. In fact, the private sector has been responsible for such breakthroughs as the heart drug Sildenafil, Prozac and ibuprofen. Private researchers discovered penicillin and the polio vaccine, conducted the first kidney and lung transplants, and identified the role DNA plays in directing our biologic makeup, all without Federal dollars. And where is the private sector spending its dollars now? The overwhelming portion of nongovernment money is going to adult and germ cell research, because that is where the promise is. There are over 72 known treatments using adult stem cells. A huge breakthrough with regard to juvenile diabetes has occurred just in the last 6 months. Ductal cells from the patient's own pancreas can be induced to become stem cells that then produce insulin-producing cells. This process was created in the U.S. and has cured eight people of diabetes in Europe using adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. But, Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that this debate involves a profound ethical and moral question. This is a matter of conscience for millions of taxpayers who are deeply troubled by the idea that their resources are being used to destroy human life, and it is a vote of conscience for me. The private sector can go forward, if it must, with destruction of embryos for questionable and ethically challenged science. But spend the people's money on proven blood cord, bone marrow, germ cell, and adult cell research.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has described the G8 as ``a group of democracies . . . fully committed to free market principles, free trade, rule of law.'' On July 15, the Russian Federation will chair the Group of Eight, G8, for the first time since its full integration in 2002 by hosting the annual G8 Summit in the city of St. Petersburg. While Russia's presidency of the G8 was originally intended to showcase its economic and social progress and demonstrate its further integration with the global community, a growing number of observers strongly feel that Russia is not meeting the democratic and free market principles that are the basis of the G8. I share with my colleagues a recent letter that was circulated prior to the G8 Summit, from nearly 100 diplomats, politicians, academicians and civil society leaders from Russia, Europe and the United States. The letter, which includes notable figures from each of the G7 nations and Russia, was designed to bring attention to Russia's faltering democracy and human rights record. It was released at ``The Other Russia'' summit, organized by Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion and Russian political activist, to examine these problems and to highlight what they will mean for the future of Russia. Mr. Speaker, Russia is an important ally to the United States in many ways although we face a number of disagreements with them on pressing global issues. What should not be at issue is the need for an open society in Russia that advances democracy, human rights and free enterprise. This goal is critical for the development of U.S.-Russia relations and the future of Russia itself. An Open Letter to the G7 Leaders ``The Other Russia'' We wish to express our gratitude to the courageous men and women attending ``The Other Russia'' Summit today and tomorrow in Moscow. This alternative to the G8 summit has been organized by Garry Kasparov, Lyudmila Alekseyeva and other Russian human rights and political leaders. The laudable purpose of the ``Other Russia'' Summit is to focus the world's attention on the increasingly autocratic and repressive policies of the Russian Government. ``The Other Russia'' will bring together distinguished diplomats and politicians, academicians and civil society leaders from Russia, Europe and the United States to examine the deplorable state of human rights and the rule of law in Russia. Experts will document Russia's alarming number of political prisoners, the Kremlin's control over the media, the dangerous increase in government corruption, the continued violence in Chechnya and the return of a one-party state. ``The Other Russia'' Summit will examine these economic and political trends, hoping to provide the Russian people with a clearer picture of what the further loss of human and political rights will mean to them. The gathering is also meant to impress upon the G7 leaders, who will be meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin this coming weekend in St. Petersburg, that there is another Russia--a Russia at odds with the corrupt, authoritarian regime which President Putin and those around him appear resolved to impose. We urge our leaders--Prime Minister Tony Blair, President George W. Bush, President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Romano Prodi--not to equivocate when they meet the Russian President this weekend. He must be put on notice that Russia's current domestic and foreign policies are unacceptable to its neighbors, to the international community and to many of its own citizens. President Putin must be made to understand that fairness towards his political opponents and critics, the release of political prisoners and Russia's constructive engagement with its neighbors in Asia, the Middle East and Europe, are the standards by which his Government will be judged. Russia must meet these standards of justice, freedom and of internationally acceptable diplomacy if it wishes to remain a member of the G8 and of the community of democratic nations. Today, Russia is moving in the wrong direction. With the re-imposition of state control of the media, the nationalization of the YUKOS Oil Company, the abolition of elected governors, overt and covert meddling in the affairs of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania and outright support for the dictatorship in Belarus, the new NGO law restricting the work of human rights groups and other non-government organizations in Russia, and the imprisonment of political opponents like Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Mikhail Trepashkin, the Government of Russia is deliberately turning back the clock. We appeal to the G7 leaders to raise these issues directly with President Putin this weekend in St. Petersburg. And we salute those who are in Moscow today, meeting in a hostile and dangerous environment to prove that a democratic Russia, ``The Other Russia,'' does indeed exist. Signatories: (Institutions are listed for purposes of identification only.) Dimitar Abadjiev--European Parliament Observer, Bulgaria; Dr. Patrick Aeberhard--President, Medecins du Monde; Vo Van Ai--President, Forum Asia Democracy; Doron Arazi--Historian; Timothy Garton Ash--Oxford University, UK; Brian Atwood--Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, US; Former US Agency for International Development (USAID) administrator; Paul Berman--Writer, US; Carl Bildt--Former Prime Minister of Sweden; Roberta Bonazzi--Director, European Foundation for Democracy; Elena Bonner--Honorary Chair, The Andrei; Sakharov Foundation; Michael Bourdeaux--Founder/President, Keston Institute, Oxford University, UK; Pascal Bruckner--Philosopher, France; Ian J. Brzezinski--Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy; Hans Christoph Buch--Writer, Germany; Vladimir Bukovsky--Cambridge University, UK; Leos Carax--Film director, France; Patrice Chereau--Film and theater director, France; Daniel Cohn-Bendit--Member, European; Parliament, Germany; Pierre Daix--Writer, France; Prof. Nicholas Daniloff--Northeastern University, US; Ruth Daniloff--Writer, US; Fertilio Dario--Comitatus libertates; Franco Debennedetti--Senator, Italy; Martin Dewhirst--University of Glasgow, Scotland; Freimut Duve--Former member of the German Bundestag; Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative; Dr. Marek Edelman--Former dissident, Leader of the Warsaw ghetto uprising; Humphry Crum Ewing--Chairman, The Standish Group; Edourad Fillias--President, Alternative Liberale, France; Paolo Flores de Arcais--Director, Micromega, France; Carl Gershman--President, National Endowment for Democracy; Andre Glucksmann--Philosopher, France; Alex Goldfarb--Foundation for Civil Liberties, US; Adam Gopnik--Writer, US; Veronique Nahoum Grappe--Anthropologist, France; Andrew P. Grigorenko--President, General Petro Grigorenko Foundation, Inc; Robert Halfon--Political Director, Conservative Friends of Israel; Daniel Hamilton--Johns Hopkins University, US; Arthur Hartman--Former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union and France; Satu Hassi--Member, European Parliament, Finland; Roger Helmer--Member, European Parliament, UK; Mary Holland--New York University, US; Marie Holzmann--President, Droits de l'homme in China, France; Robert Hunter--Former US ambassador to NATO; Toomas Hendrik Ilves--Member, European Parliament, Estonia; Bruce P. Jackson--President, Project on Transitional Democracies; Kjell Olaf Jense--President, Pen Club, Norway; Alan Johnson--Director, Democratya, UK; Tunne Kelam--Member, European Parliament, Estonia; Bogdan Klich--Member, European Parliament, Poland; Bernard Kouchner--Former UN ambassador to Kosovo; Founder, Medecins sans Frontieres, Medecins du Monde, France; Irina Krasovskaya--President, We Remember Foundation, Belarus; Guntars Krasts--Member, European Parliament; Former Prime Minister of Latvia. William Kristol--The Weekly Standard, US; Girts Valdis Kristovskis--Member, European Parliament, Former President of the Lithuanian Parliament; Vytautas Landsbergis--Member, European; Parliament, Former President of the Lithuanian Parliament; Bernard Henri Levy--Philosopher, France; Ekkehard Maass--German-Caucasian society, Germany; Giwi Margwelschwili--Schriftsteller, Germany; Cliff May--President, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; Michael McFaul--Stanford University, US; Alan Mendoza--Executive Director, Henry Jackson; Society,

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, what is the status of our effort in Iraq today, and where do we go from here? Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle see the situation getting worse and worse. I see real progress. I see three successful elections, I see the completion of a national unity government, and I see the elimination of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. But more than anything else, Mr. Speaker, it is the returning troops I talk to who convince me that our mission is succeeding and that their sacrifice is accomplishing a valuable service for our effort and for our people. I haven't surveyed many seventh graders, but the soldiers I see express support for what we are doing and frustration over the coverage they see in the media. Now, as to the question of where we go from here, two things are certain: Iraq is ground zero in our global war on terror. And the decisions we make will affect U.S. credibility for decades to come. Al Qaeda attacked our homeland unprovoked on 9/11, and it is that same al Qaeda we fight today in Iraq. We must defeat them there and anywhere else until their terrorist threat has ended. But make no mistake, this is the same enemy that demolished the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon. Another argument we have heard today is that this war was a mistake to begin with; that it was unnecessary; that it was in fact based on a lie. This view, of course, ignores the fact that intelligence agencies not only in the U.S. but from Israel, Great Britain, Germany, and France, to name a few, were unanimous in their conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright cautioned that it was a real possibility Saddam would use these weapons or share them with terrorists intent on attacking the U.S. again. But if you think about it, Mr. Speaker, what such an argument really advocates is a present day Iraq with Saddam Hussein still in power. That would have been the logical result of their point of view. An Iraq still ruled by intimidation, humiliation, rape, and torture. A Saddam Hussein still free to continue his proven network of chemical and biological weapons research. A Saddam Hussein with plans and advanced designs for long-range missiles to threaten our allies and our interests. To some, this may be an acceptable alternative. But it is not to me. The world is a better place because Iraq is free of Saddam Hussein, and the world will be safer if we maintain our resolve. The administration has embarked on a sound plan for freedom and stability in the region and for better security for our citizens. Stay the course.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, perhaps at the end of that 2 minutes, I might ask the Chair's indulgence for a little more time. I do appreciate the chairman's opposing the amendment, and I think it is instructive at this point to talk about the congressional spending procedures that we have in place. We receive the President's budget, and the Congress then acts on that budget by the adoption of a resolution. We decide at that point the level of discretionary spending this Congress will spend on a variety of issues. It is at that point, at the point of the budget resolution, that we decide how much we will spend on domestic discretionary dollars. In other words, upon our adoption of the budget, the level of spending in the discretionary category is decided. Now, we find ourselves today further down the process. We are today at the appropriations stage. The level has already been decided. Our decision today is how we allocate the funds we have already decided to spend through our budget resolution. The funds set aside for this subcommittee will be spent. That decision has already been made. The decision that we are going to make today is the question of where those funds will be spent. Now, having said that, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to explain to my colleagues the nature of this project. And I have often thought, Mr. Chairman, if I ever had the chance to speak to a national audience about Rowan Oak and the William Faulkner Museum, I would take that opportunity. If I ever do get such a chance, I will tell my colleagues what an absolute jewel is located in my district in the form of Rowan Oak and the Faulkner legacy. Of course, William Faulkner is one of the greatest authors in American history. The recipient of the Nobel Prize for literature, the recipient of two Pulitzer Prizes. William Faulkner is one of the preeminent figures in the history of this Nation, and I have in my congressional district, I am fortunate to say, the home where he not only lived for 32 years, between 1930 and 1962, when he died, but where he wrote so many of America's great treasures, including Sanctuary; As I Lay Dying; Light in August; Absalom, Absalom; A Fable; The Unvanquished; Go Down, Moses; and the Reivers. Thousands and thousands of tourists come to Rowan Oak and the University of Mississippi each year for the express purpose of seeing the legacy of William Faulkner. Our guests have included Prince Edward of England, numerous Members of this Congress, foreign Parliamentarians, and people from all over the world. I want to congratulate my friend from Arizona, and he is my friend, for being consistent. If it were up to people like my friend from Arizona, perhaps we would never spend any money at the Federal level on higher education. Perhaps no Federal dollars would ever go to a museum of any type. It is an entirely honorable position to say that no local economic development project should ever be funded. That is an honorable viewpoint. I do not think it is the position of the Members of the House of Representatives, but it is a worthy opinion nonetheless. I would simply say that at this point the decision has been made to allocate the money to the subcommittee. Our decision today is whether the allocation will be spent on priorities outlined by the elected representatives of the people or whether these funds will go back to an agency where a nameless, faceless, bureaucrat will make the decision about where these funds will be spent. I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman agree that if this Obey amendment passes today, the headline tomorrow in Egypt would be that the United States House has taken a slap at our allies in Egypt and that it might make it harder for moderates in Egypt to continue down that path?

Mr. WICKER. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I rise in opposition to the amendment and urge my colleagues for a strong vote against this ill-advised initiative. In debate on the House floor some 2 years ago, some of the advocates of this amendment today rose and very eloquently spoke basically on the other side of the argument, saying that this would be ill advised, it would be unilateral action against a friend of ours. I thought those remarks were correct at the time. And I am disappointed that some of the advocates of this amendment have changed their minds over 2 years' time. What has happened in 2 years? Well, one thing that has happened is they have had a presidential election in Egypt which has represented progress. Now, we were not happy with everything that happened with the parliamentary elections, and it was not exactly a perfect presidential election in Egypt. But they had multiple parties, they had an open process. And I think almost every person who watched this on the international stage said it represented progress. So what has happened between 2004 and now is actual progress in Egypt. I commend them for that. But let's talk about why we have this bill at all. I meant to get down here for general debate to discuss this. We do foreign assistance for altruistic reasons, certainly for humanitarian reasons, of course. But the main reason we do foreign assistance is we do it in the American national interest. This bill is a very important part of our national security package. And let me tell you about the national interest. Those of you who have been to the Middle East know that we do not have a lot of friends over there. But one friend we have in that area is Egypt. Since Nasser kicked the Soviets out, since Sadat helped with Camp David, with the beginnings of that Arab-Israeli peace process up until today, Egypt has been our strategic friend and our strategic partner. Talk about national interests: When we went in with Operation Iraqi Freedom, some of our allies, Turkey, for example, would not let us through. How much trouble did that cause us, because we were not able to go into Iraq through Turkey? By contrast, Egypt has allowed us to use the Suez for that purpose. They have allowed us continuous overflights. And just recently, they have been instrumental in helping with the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza. They have helped us when it counted. How many American soldiers are alive today because Egypt was our friend in Operation Iraqi Freedom? How many billions of dollars have we saved for the American taxpayers because Egypt has been our friend? An amendment that was stronger than this was offered in the Appropriations Committee, and it was rejected overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. The authors of this amendment have attempted to soften it here on the floor. And one of the things that they have tried to do is take the money from Egypt and give it to programs that we all like--AIDS in Africa, Darfur, things of that nature. It is hard to resist. It sounds good. But my friends, these people in Egypt have stood by us in a tough, tough neighborhood. And I do not think this amendment is the sort of thing we do to our friends. It might make us feel good, but it is terrible foreign policy, and I believe the House of Representatives will reject this amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I accompanied the gentlewoman on the delegation to Egypt. Will she acknowledge that we met with Mr. Mubarak, Jr., and that he outlined a roadmap for further constitutional democratization in Egypt that is a positive step and that the gentlewoman was impressed with that? Would she acknowledge that?