Lynn Westmoreland

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is it not true that different committees have different rules and that some committees have emergency rules where these bills can be brought back to the floor as early as the next legislative day?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I stayed at home due to an ongoing medical condition of a family member. As a result, I missed a number of votes. Had I been present, I would have voted the following: ``Aye'' on Closing Portions of the Conference Report Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008 (rollcall No. 1034) ``Aye'' on a Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended National Heroes Credit Protection Act (rollcall No. 1035) ``Aye'' on a Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to Recognizing the contributions of Native American veterans and calling upon the President to issue a proclamation urging the people of the United States to observe a day in honor of Native American veterans. (rollcall No. 1036) ``Nay'' on a Motion to Table a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House. (rollcall No. 1037) ``Nay'' on ordering the previous question on a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House. (rollcall No. 1038) ``Nay'' on a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House. (rollcall No. 1039) ``Aye'' on Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding, of the Water Resources Development Act (rollcall No. 1040) ``Aye'' on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended, to Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress and the President should increase basic pay for members of the Armed Forces. (rollcall No. 1041) ``Aye'' on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended, to Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act (rollcall No. 1042) ``Nay'' on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended, to Kids in Disasters Wellbeing, Safety, and Health Act of 2007 (rollcall No. 1043) ``Nay'' on Will the House now consider the resolution providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agencies. (rollcall No. 1044) ``Aye'' on Motion to Instruct Conferees on the Improving Head Start Act (rollcall No. 1045) ``Aye'' on motion to suspend the rules and agree, as amended, to Congratulating Nicolas Sarkozy on his election to the presidency of France. (rollcall No. 1046) ``Nay'' on Ordering the Previous Question Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agencies. (rollcall No. 1047) ``Nay'' on Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and related agencies. (rollcall No. 1048) ``Aye'' on Motion to Adjourn (rollcall No. 1049) ``Nay'' on Agreeing to the Conference Report Making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes (rollcall No. 1050) ``Aye'' on Motion to Adjourn (rollcall No. 1051) ``Nay'' on Ordering the Previous Question Providing for consideration of H.R. 3685, to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (rollcall No. 1052) ``Nay'' on Agreeing to the Resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 3685, to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (rollcall No. 1053) ``Aye'' on Agreeing to the Amendment of Rep. George Miller (rollcall No. 1054) ``Aye'' on Agreeing to the Amendment of Rep. Mark Souder (rollcall No. 1055) ``Aye'' on Motion to Recommit with Instructions the Employment Non- Discrimination Act (ENDA) (rollcall No. 1056) ``Nay'' on Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) (rollcall No. 1057) ``Aye'' on motion to suspend the rules and agree, as amended, to recognizing the close relationship between the United States and the Republic of San Marino. (rollcall No. 1058) ``Aye'' on motion to Instruct Conferees on Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 (rollcall No. 1076) ``Nay'' on Ordering the Previous Question for Providing for the consideration of H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act (rollcall No. 1077) ``Nay'' on Agreeing to the Resolution providing for the consideration of H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act (rollcall No. 1078) ``Nay'' on Approving the Journal (rollcall No. 1079) ``Aye'' on Motion to Adjourn (rollcall No. 1080) ``Nay'' on Passage of the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007 (rollcall No. 1081)

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Let me bring up one point that you mentioned. Open debate. Wouldn't that be a novelty here in this House? It would be nice to offer an amendment, to be able to open the debate. And the fact that the negotiations on this bill has gone on between Democratic House Members and Republican Senate Members. They have not even opened up a dialogue with the chairmen of Energy and Commerce or of Ways and Means to look at pay-fors for this bill.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Eighty thousand dollars-plus. To me, this program was intended for those poor children that were in a situation with a family of four making $42,000 that could not afford the health insurance, so the government stepped in and said we are going to help you out. We as Republicans want to see these children insured. We don't want to see the program being abused as is being done now. So I think that is the point that is so hard to get back to, is the point that we want to do this. The President has increased the funding. But, you know what? It is one of those things that I think the gentleman from Arizona said this in his opening comments, the name of the bill sounds so good. There are a lot of smart people up here that make these pieces of legislation have great names, that you just feel like I can't vote against this because of what it is named. This bill's original intent was to help the children in families of four that makes less than $42,000. We are now trying to make it now where families that make up to $84,000 can taken their children off of private insurance and immediately put them on this government program. Let me say this: I think this is the first step to national health care. I don't know that that has been brought out enough. But if you go back and look at the national health care program that the Clinton administration brought up in 1993, if you look at what one of the Presidential candidates said, if we can't get the whole enchilada, let's try to do the kids first. This is going back to that.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. There are some people on the program at 400 percent.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but let me put this in terms we can all understand. Two hundred percent of poverty is $42,000, 300 percent is $63,000, 400 percent is approximately $84,000.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That's right. That is a great point. The Republican Congress, in 1997, when they came up with this program, and they funded this program, it was a block grant to the States. And they thought that the States would be there looking after these children that belonged to families under the 200 percent poverty level that didn't have health insurance to give them some affordable, or at least some, health care. But what happened is these States didn't work hard enough to go out looking for these children, so they said, Look, we'll insure adults. Then you learn from your mistakes. This program has been going on 10 years, and I think the President and the administration saw some of the errors that were in this program and tried to correct them and want to correct them in a new bill. What it would do is say, look, all the States are going to be at a 200 percent poverty level. What has happened is States such as New Jersey and others have gone in and gotten waivers to go up to 300 and 400 percent, and that has caused a disbalance in some States that have taken their block grant, that have insured the children, spent the money wisely, and then others that have taken advantage of the system.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. To get 22 million people to smoke, I don't know how much money we will have to appropriate to a ``get smoking campaign.'' We have been spending millions and millions of dollars, as the gentleman from Arizona knows, trying to get people to recognize the health effects of cigarette smoking and to quit. So I think for the Democrats to have this proposal, and I understood the gentleman from Arizona to say, too, that not only is the 61 cent cigarette tax misleading that it would fund the program, that they have a cliff that this program falls off of after 5 years and 6 months. We have got the chart right here that shows that this is really more smoke and mirrors trying to get around the PAYGO in the fact that this is fully funded for the first 5 years and 6 months, and then after that, it drops off about 80 percent. And you can see over here the red line goes down. Now, anybody who believes that we should let these families get on this health insurance program and then pull the rug out from under them is not fair. In fact, what has happened, when this program was first initiated under Republican control in 1997, there was a need there to help people who made 200 percent or less of the poverty level, and that is about $42,000. So we said, If your children are uninsured, we have got a program that can help you. And we let the States administer it. There are over, I believe the gentleman from Arizona, I don't know if you quoted this or not, but I think there is probably close to between a half million and a million children in the United States today that were eligible and had not been insured yet by these States.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend for yielding. I feel like Bill Murray in ``Groundhog Day,'' the movie. I've only been in Congress for 3 years, but my respect for Mr. Abercrombie has grown. I try to take experiences with people I have differences with and learn. He is one of the most patient people that I have seen up here, and the fact that he took a big problem and has ate it just a little at a time, I admire that. And I want him to know how much respect I do have for him for his tenaciousness, and I hope I can be just as tenacious with things that are important to my constituents as he has been and also the gentlewoman from Hawaii. Let me say that from what we have heard today, it reminds me of a story of some gentlemen down in the Okefenokee swamp that were going coon hunting. If you're not familiar with coon hunting, you use dogs and you go at night, typically build a campfire, and you all sit around and talk and gossip and share stories and some other activities sometimes while you're waiting for the dog to tree. One night this old World War I veteran was down there in the Okefenokee, and he had a wooden peg leg. It was pretty cold that night, and the dogs were out running; so he laid down and he got a little too close to the campfire and he burned off about 6 inches of that wooden leg. Well, when the dog started barking and they had really treed the coon, he was the first one up. And he got up, and he said, ``Come on, boys. Old Sam has treed one.'' And he started running off across the field with that one leg about 6 inches shorter. And after two or three steps, he turned around and he said, ``Watch out, boys. There's a hole every other step.'' Well, there are a few holes in this, and I want to try to plug up those holes today as far as what the ability of Congress is able to do and what our Constitution says. So I rise today to oppose the legislation. I want to try to go into what this bill actually does and how it relates to what I feel like our Constitution says and what the limits of our Congress is. Every aspect of this bill from its goal to its methods, I think, undermines the idea that we are one that has come from many people. I think the legislation is divisive and will give a group of U.S. citizens special rights over other citizens based solely on race. Our Constitution seeks to eliminate racial separation, not promote it. How can we promote equality while separating our people? Some people here today have characterized this legislation as nothing more than a kind gesture to Native Hawaiians. This is not the case. This bill will not only create a new race-based government but it will allow rights and privileges to Native Hawaiian descendants throughout the United States that their neighbors and friends throughout this country do not enjoy. The Federal Government today will decide what is best for 20 percent of the Hawaiians who have Native Hawaiian ancestry. The Federal Government should not and cannot create a new Indian tribe for ethnic Hawaiians. Congress does not have this power. The Bush administration has rightly promised to veto the bill if it passes because it will ``discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people.'' This attempt to divide America sets a frightening precedent for separating groups of Americans based on racial backgrounds. This bill is irresponsible, I believe, and simply unconstitutional. My good friend from Oklahoma got up and spoke about that the leaders of the State want this legislation. Well, in 2006 there was a survey done of the Hawaiian people by a nonpartisan grassroots institute of Hawaii that found that 69.89 percent of Hawaii's residents want to vote on a Native Hawaiian government before it is considered at the national level, and 80.16 of Hawaii's residents do not support laws that provide preferences for people groups based on their race; 68.3 percent of residents in the First Congressional District, Mr. Abercrombie's district, want that vote; and 66.95 percent of the entire State opposed the 2006 bill to create a Native Hawaiian government. Definition of Native Hawaiian This bill will grant broad governmental powers to Native Hawaiians including all living descendents of the original inhabitants of Hawaii. Geographic, cultural, and political connections are not required. This bill does not effectively define what it means to be a member of the new Native Hawaiian government. Anyone with one traceable drop of Native Hawaiian blood could claim the same right to this alternate government, regardless of how far removed they are from their ancestors or even what State they live in. There is nothing in this bill that prohibits this newly organized government entity from including members with Native Hawaiian backgrounds from Arizona or Connecticut. Furthermore, this new government entity will then have to come up with a system for assessing and cataloguing all the people who claim to have Native Hawaiian heritage. This could be more costly and time consuming than anyone today realizes. The new government will have authority over more than 20 percent of Hawaii's population, and possibly countless more nationwide. And no where in this legislation is there an opportunity for citizens of the state of Hawaii (Native or not) to vote to accept this newly created government. This is a Federal imposition of the worst kind, one in which the citizens who this bill affects most, have little or no say in acceptance or implementation. In fact, a 2006 survey of the Hawaiian people done by the non- partisan Grassroot Institute of Hawaii found that: 69.89 percent of Hawaii's residents want to vote on a Native Hawaii government before it is considered at the national level. 80.16 percent of Hawaii's residents do not support laws that provide preferences for people groups based on their race. 68.3 percent of residents in the first Congressional District (Rep Neil Abercrombie) want that vote. 66.95 percent of the entire State opposed the 2006 bill to create a Native Hawaiian government. 77.83 percent of Hawaiians would vote for statehood if the vote was held today. (In 1959, 94 percent voted for statehood.) Native Hawaiians are a Racial Group, Not a Tribe The Bureau of Indian Affairs has seven mandatory requirements for tribal recognition. Among other things the tribe must have existed as a tribe since 1900 as documented by the state; existed as a community-- including 50% of the group residing together; and possessed governing documents and membership criteria The Supreme Court's definition of a tribe in Montoya v. United States asserts that a `tribe' must be a united community under one leadership or government, and inhabiting a particular territory. Former Attorney General Ed Meese emphasizes the distinction between racial groups and tribes, ``If sharing one drop of aboriginal Hawaiian blood makes a tribe, then Chicanos, Latinos, African Americans, and Mexicans could become a tribe if Congress so decrees''. Meese went on to say that the phrase ``Indian Tribe'' has a fixed and distinct Constitutional meaning that cannot be changed by a simple act of Congress. This definition limits ``tribes'' to preexisting tribes within North America, or their offshoots, that were thought to be ``dependent nations'' at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Such American Indian tribes had to live an independent existence in a separate community, apart from the rest of American society. By these standards Native Hawaiians would never qualify as a tribe. Hawaii is the most integrated society in the U.S.--there are no Hawaiians living apart from other Americans. All U.S. citizens who reside in Hawaii are equally citizens of Hawaii and the United States and are entitled to enjoy all the privileges and immunities common to other citizens, including protection against discriminatory laws, and racially-discriminatory laws. Even the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have objected strongly and consistently to the `race based' classifications in this legislation. Their report released on May 18, 2006 said that passage of a similar bill would ``discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into subgroups accorded varying decrees of privilege.'' Conservative Concerns; Congress Can't Create Tribes Congress lacks the power to invent Indian tribes. In U.S. v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Congress can recognize existing tribes, but does not have the authority to create them. ``It is not meant by this that Congress may bring a community or body of people within the range of this power by arbitrarily calling them an Indian tribe.'' Congress can only acknowledge groups who have long operated as a tribe with preexisting political structure and who live separately and distinctly from other communities both geographically and culturally. Neither is true of the Native Hawaiians today who live in different States, and under different State laws and systems, and who for years have co-existed in the same communities with non-Native Hawaiians. Community Distinctions The fact that Native Hawaiians have lived and currently live in Hawaii in the same communities as non-native Hawaiians will cause many potential problems should this bill become law--in effect creating one set of laws for Native Hawaiians and a potentially drastic different set of laws for non-native Hawaiians living in the same house. Different codes of law would apply to people differently based on race, even though all Hawaiians now currently live and function in one community, attend the same churches, shop at the same stores and attend the same schools. One business may be exempt from State taxes, State business regulations, and zoning laws while the other one is not. Because of this, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act could be found in violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Bill Provisions: Creation of New Federal Offices: This bill will create a Native Hawaiian Relations Office within the Department of Interior and a new interagency coordinating group to coordinate political and legal relationships between the new tribe and all agencies of the U.S. Federal government. Formal Negotiations--Government to Government: This legislation would allow for negotiations between the three governments, the United States, the State of Hawaii, and the new Native Hawaiian government. The Native Hawaiian people would be able to negotiate with these governments on the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other assets and the authority over these transferred lands. The Native Hawaiians could renegotiate the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction in their government, possibly changing which laws or even Constitutional rights they will adhere to by having the option of redrawing various jurisdictional lines. This new government will also be able to negotiate on the delegation of powers and authorities they have from the Federal and State government and possible reparations or grievances for historical wrongs committed against Native Hawaiians. Hawaii Cases--Race Rice v. Cayetano--2000: Currently there are more than 150 statutes that confer Federal benefits to the Native Hawaiian people. Rice v. Cayetano put many of these benefits in jeopardy and casts serious doubt on the Constitutionality of this legislation. The Court hold that the State of Hawaii's limitation on voting for certain posts to only ``Native Hawaiians'' contradicted the Fifteenth Amendment because it used ancestry as a substitute for race. Morton v. Mancari--1974: In this 1974 case, the Court noted there was a large distinction between a racial group consisting of ``Indians'' and a political group, a federally recognized tribe. The Court asserted that all government programs that extend benefits according to racial classifications must be ``strictly scrutinized'' and are presumed invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Hawaiians--pushing for the passage of this bill before us today-- seek to provide a process for the United States to recognize Native Hawaiians as a governing tribe that is political in nature. The stated goal of this legislation is to ensure that ``Native Hawaiians are treated as a unique and distinct, indigenous, native people with whom the U.S. has a special political and legal relationship.''

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor that I stand up and ask for the support on the renaming of this veterans center in Augusta for Congressman Charlie Norwood. I told Charlie one time, I said, Charlie, you are my foxhole buddy. And he said, What do you mean by that? I said, Well, I know that you are going to keep my back covered and that you are going to be with me if you tell me that you are with me until I get out of the foxhole or until they drag our dead bodies out. That's the kind of guy he was. If he told you that he was with you, then he was with you. That's the type of thing that he exerted towards the veterans of this country is that he was with the veterans. I don't think there could be any greater honor on that veterans building in Augusta than Charlie Norwood's name, to let the veterans know and understand that he has always been with them, that he went through many adversities with his health, a long time of trying to get over an illness. They may be up for some of the things, but Charlie Norwood was always there for them. I just think it's a great honor that this body has voted, and I hope will continue to vote, to make that the Charlie Norwood Veterans Administration Medical Center.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, is it not true that if, indeed, this motion passed that this bill could be reported back to the committee or committees to which it has been designated, and then it could be reported back to the whole House tomorrow?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Is the short version of your answer that it could be reported back tomorrow, the next legislative day?

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, CPL Stephen Bixler was a proud and loyal American who served his country while fighting the war on terror. He made the ultimate sacrifice defending freedom when he lost his life on May 4, 2006. Corporal Bixler was born in Hartford, Connecticut, on August 17, 1985. As a student at Suffield High School, he was known as a ``shy, soft-spoken, very dedicated young man and very patriotic, in a quiet, determined way.'' During high school, he was involved in athletics and was a member of the indoor/outdoor track team as well as the cross country team. His love for the outdoors and helping others was exemplified during the time he was a Boy Scout and his hard work and dedication was shown when he became an Eagle Scout. In July 2003, Corporal Bixler's sense of dedication to his community and country led him to enlist in the United States Marine Corps. He was an ambitious man who was able to accomplish much in his short, but meaningful, life. As a result of his exceptional military skills, drive, courage and strength, Corporal Bixler applied for and was selected as a member of the 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion. He volunteered willingly for his second tour in Iraq because he knew his fellow marines needed his help. Tragically, during his second tour, on May 4, 2006, he was killed by enemy fire in Fallujah. His decorations include the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Humanitarian Service Medal, Armed Forces Terrorism Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, and Purple Heart Medal. We can never show adequate appreciation in honoring the brave men and women who give their lives in service to our country. However, Corporal Bixler's name is etched on the Wall of Honor in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC. In addition to the memorial wall, naming this post office in his honor is a fitting and meaningful tribute to a proud marine who served selflessly on behalf of his hometown and his Nation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I would like to encourage all my colleagues to vote affirmative on H.R. 3325 honoring this brave young marine who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2276 honors the life of a young man who fought bravely for his country and made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. Corporal Christopher Esckelson was killed during combat action in Fallujah, Iraq on December 28, 2006. He was less than 1 week shy of reaching his 23rd birthday. Christopher Esckelson felt personal anger after September 11, 2001, when his country was brutally attacked, and he knew immediately he wanted to serve in the U.S. Marine Corps. In addition to defending his country, it was a way to earn money for college. His plans included attending medical school. His dream of becoming a doctor, however, was cut short on a 5-day mission fighting insurgents in a war-torn Fallujah. Corporal Esckelson was a squad leader of 12 men and suffered a direct hit during a mission. His leadership skills were proven day in and day out while in Iraq. He knew the risks involved and experienced the horrors of war. But his determination to fight and win was evident. He was fearless on the battlefield. Christopher never had the chance to return home safely from the war or attend medical school as he planned, but he will surely be remembered in his community by the naming of this post office in his hometown of Vassar, Michigan. I am pleased to support H.R. 2276 in naming of the post office for this valiant soldier. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise today to join my fellow Members of Congress in recognizing Philip Baddour, Sr., and his extraordinary contributions to Goldsboro, North Carolina. A steadfast business and civic leader, Mr. Baddour served on the Goldsboro City Council from 1979 to 1995 and owned several downtown businesses. Mr. Baddour passed away in April 2002 at the age of 87. As a young man, he served in World War II. After the war, he returned to Goldsboro, North Carolina, where he married his wife, Louise, and was the father of four sons. He was known for his love of the community and affection for what he called the ``little man,'' the average working person in Goldsboro. As the son of Lebanese immigrants, his desire to give back to the community that had welcomed him when he was just an infant took many paths. He served as a director of Wayside Fellowship, was active in Boy Scouts, Lions Club, and St. Mary's Catholic Church. Mr. Baddour's popularity as a public servant was a result of his compassion and interest in helping his fellow citizens. He also felt it his civic duty to wisely spend the taxpayers' money while delivering needed city improvement projects. His legacy of sacrifice and service to others is a wonderful example to his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the citizens of Goldsboro. With gratitude for his devotion to the Goldsboro community, it is particularly fitting that we would rename the William Street Post Office in his honor. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I am pleased to support today H.R. 3233, naming the postal facility in Piney Woods, Mississippi, the Laurence C. and Grace M. Jones Post Office Building. Laurence Jones was well-known in Mississippi history for founding the Piney Woods School in 1909. After graduating from the University of Iowa, he returned to his home State of Missouri, where he was sought out by a local Baptist church to create a school for black children. Jones found himself by himself in an abandoned sheep shed with no students, but one day a small barefoot boy arrived seeking a lesson. The next day, this young boy came back with two friends. This simple and small beginning grew over the years to what is now a premier educational institution, teaching 300 high school students on a 300- acre campus. Piney Woods is the country's largest African American boarding school and the oldest continually operating African American boarding school. Laurence's wife, Grace, was also an educator. They met in Iowa, where she had established a similar school for black children. Upon moving to Mississippi, she helped raise funds for Piney Woods and also taught classes. They believed in the importance of providing these youths with the educational opportunity they deserved. Laurence and Grace Jones were pioneers in the education system in the early 1900s. Their historic achievements are worthy of this recognition, and I am pleased to support H.R. 3233. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I missed recorded votes on Monday, September 24, 2007 due to a delay in my flight. Had I been present, I would have voted the following: ``Yea'' on H. Con. Res 193, Recognizing all hunters across the United States for their continued commitment to safety (rollcall No. 891) ``Yea'' on H. Res. 668, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the September 25, 1957, desegragation of Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine (rollcall No. 892) ``Yea'' on H.R. 1199, Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007 (rollcall No. 893) ``Yea'' on H. Res. 340, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives of the importance of providing a voice for the many victims (and families of victims) involved in missing persons cases and unidentified human remains cases (rollcall No. 894)

Mr. WESTMORELAND

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I missed recorded votes due to official business in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted the following: ``yea'' on H. Res. 257, supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, rollcall No. 865; ``yea'' on H. Res. 643, the resolution commemorating September 11, rollcall No. 866.