Floor Statements

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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.

I wonder if the gentleman would yield?

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.

I object, Mr. Speaker.

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

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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.