Lynn Westmoreland

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mrs. Wendy Harding, the 2007 Muscogee County School District Teacher of the Year. Almost every student that passes through a school, from the teacher's pet to the class clown, has a fond memory of a special teacher who positively influenced their lives. For many students at Columbus' Hardaway High School, that teacher has been a Spanish teacher named Wendy Harding. Harding knows how to stick with a good thing once she's found it. She stayed happily married and raised two high-achieving children with her high school sweetheart Phil, who was also an educator, until his death from cancer 7 years ago. And Harding has spent every single day of her 31-year professional career at Hardaway High, making her the longest- serving teacher there. Principal Matt Bell told the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer that Harding is an integral part of the school's success: ``She's a leader in the school. She teaches everyone. She heads our mentor program. She cares about every student who comes through her doorway as well as students who don't. If a student doesn't learn in her class, she takes it personally. They all learn at a high level. They see her enthusiasm for her subject and her zest for life and it's just contagious.'' Harding says she's wanted to become a teacher since she was 7 years old. Now, she mentors the next generation of teachers, encouraging her own students to pick up the torch that enlightens young minds. Those influenced by her example include her daughter, who last year was named First Year Teacher of the Year in a Texas school district. The skills needed to excel at the head of the classroom obviously run deep in the family blood. I would like to personally thank Mrs. Harding for her many years of outstanding service to the young people of Muscogee County. Teachers such as her, across Georgia and the United States, make a positive difference every day. On behalf of Georgia's 3rd Congressional District, I congratulate the Muscogee County Teacher of the Year and wish her many years of continued success.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it cuts $18 million from the $278 million authorized under this bill. It is a small cut. Although $278 million is already authorized in current law, it is what the President's request was; and even though we have looked at other amendments and, hopefully, the whole House will see to do some cuts, this appropriations bill is $1.1 billion over the President's request. So this $18 million simply brings back the President's request for the Mississippi River and Tributaries program. The Mississippi River and Tributaries last year was $396.6 million in 2007. There has been plenty of money there, I think, to look at these harbors, look at the flood damage, look at the things that should be done there; and this is a mild decrease of the $18 million. But let me again reiterate, as I did on the previous two amendments, that this is in addition to $105 billion in new Federal spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized by the new leadership in this House. It has been done by enacting the largest tax increase in American history. And this budget that we are looking at for 2008 allows $23 billion in new spending that will be funded by the largest tax increase in American history. This amendment, while being only $18 million, is a small dent. I can't believe that I have been in Congress long enough to say ``only $18 million,'' because that is more money than most American families will see in one lifetime or two lifetimes. It is just a small dent in this year's budget. And, Mr. Chairman, I hope that all Members will see their way to cut this amount of money out of this particular appropriations bill.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding. I just wanted to make a few comments about my friend Mr. Ryan, who I listened to many nights, Mr. Chairman, while I was up in the chair where you're at. Many nights, I listened to the 30-something Group get up and rail and talk about all the wasteful spending and about how much money we were spending and about how we had gone into debt and about what the debt was. And I hear Mr. Ryan stand up and talk about economic development. I'm going to tell you the best bills this country has ever had for economic development was the Bush tax cuts. Those were the best economic bills we've had for economic development in this country. Look at where the Dow is today at 13,000-plus. I haven't been keeping up with it, I don't really have a lot of money in the market. But we have busted records continually, and it has been because of those economic growth tax cut bills that we have had and the economic policies of this White House. And as my gentleman friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) said, we don't necessarily agree with the President's recommendation. We feel like that's probably more money than we need to spend. But at least it is a recommendation that we need to go back to from the proposal of what the Democratic leadership has proposed. And you know, if you talk about striking any money from an agency's budget, I think you get their attention. The ranking member was telling me that when he was the chairman 2 years ago, he asked for the Corps to send 10 of their most important projects that need to be completed. He hasn't heard from them yet. And so we need to send a message to some of these agencies and say look, you are going to give us the information we want, you are going to be accountable, and you are going to be under some authority. So, I think we need to send that message loud and clear. And although some of these cuts are mighty small, I think they will do a good job in getting some attention. I'm glad to see that the 30-something Group is now, and that the Blue Dogs, or whatever kind of dogs they are, that I listened to also, Mr. Chairman, when I was up there late at night, listened to them for hours at a time talk about wasteful spending, I hope that they will join me in an hour, in Special Orders, when we talk about the largest tax increase in the history of this country and the runaway spending that we now have, even larger spending than it was when we were in charge. I hope they will join me in that hour and we can get up and talk about being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply strikes $184,241,000 from operations and maintenance to the Corps. The amendment would save $184 million, reducing the account from $2.655 billion to $2.471 billion. The account was funded at $1.97 billion in fiscal year 2007. The bill increases this amount by 34 percent over last year's funding level and the amendment would limit this increase to 25 percent. While I may feel this is still too much money, it at least brings some type of accountance that we would want to increase this 34 percent in 1 year. Mr. Chairman, I think as already testified today by many Members in talking about the bureaucracy, the red tape, the problems in prioritized spending, the lack of accountability, where better to make a difference and to make a change and to spend something than in the maintenance and operation of this agency. We heard from the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein, talk about the problems that he had with regulations, and I know that Florida has a lot of different water problems and a lot of different Corps' interests down there. I was pleased to hear Chairman Visclosky in his comments about bringing accountability to the Corps and bringing about accountability on this spending that seems to be run away. I really enjoyed talking to the ranking member about some of these problems that he has been addressing over the past years as chairman of this committee and how accountability needs to be brought to the attention of Members. I don't know if I have mentioned it before, but this appropriations bill is $1.1 billion over the President's request. I don't know if I have mentioned it before, but there has been at least $105 billion in new Federal spending over the next 5 years that has been authorized by the new majority in this House, the Democratic leadership. And I don't know if I have mentioned it or not, but we have enacted the largest tax increase in American history. This Democratic budget, and I don't know if I have mentioned this before or not, allows for $23 billion in new spending over that of the President's request. And I want to just make a couple of other comments. Mr. Ryan had mentioned economic development. I just want to say that 6 years ago the Dow was at 10,690. Today it is at 13,632. That is a pretty nice increase, seeing how it came on the heels of 9/11, and I think and I believe Mr. Ryan quoted the fact that 7.8 million new jobs since this economic development tax cut legislation has gone into effect. That's more than Europe and Japan combined. The President's policies, economic policies, have been working. And whether we agree with the amount of money that he has spent or not, the economic policies are working and tax cuts do work. And so I would ask that we would send a message to the American taxpayers that we want to cut $184 million out of this bill that is already bloated, over $1.1 billion. And I think we also want to send a message to some of these departments that we are going to hold you accountable and we are going to make sure that you are responsible for the way you spend money and that you are accountable to this Congress, because we are directly accountable to the people who elect us to this position. So I ask Members to support this amendment and keep in mind that last year it was $1.9 billion, that this year the President's request was $2.4 billion, and the proposal is for $2.6 billion.

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, from 6:00 p.m. until the end of the legislative day, I traveled home due to an unexpected 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: ``No'' on the Crowley Amendment No. 21 to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 453). ``Aye'' on the Campbell (CA) Amendment No. 43 to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 454). ``Aye'' on the Reichert Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 455). ``Aye'' on the King (IA) Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 456). ``Aye'' on the Lamborn Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 457). ``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 458). ``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 459). ``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 460). ``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 461). ``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 462). ``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 463). ``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 464). ``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 465).

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. You want to listen to somebody that has expertise in this. And I don't think anybody has more expertise in intelligence than a local sheriff does, somebody that has been involved in trying to find some criminals. And the gentleman from Washington has certainly done that. He has brought his professionalism here to Washington. And I think it is good advice that the Members vote for this amendment and recognize that we are listening to somebody that has got the experience and not bureaucrats that think they know how to do a job and they have never actually even been in the field.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I felt compelled to say something after the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from New York talked about bureaucracy. It's easy to pick on bureaucracy. I ask any Member of this House that has talked to any constituencies, whether it's about a Social Security issue, a veterans' issue, Department of Homeland Security, FAA issue, to talk about it, and they will tell you that they had trouble with the bureaucracy, that they were having to call your office because they had trouble with the bureaucracy. This government has grown at a pace way beyond our population. As we know, once somebody gets in a position in government, what they try to do is to expand that position, to get another secretary, to get an assistant secretary, an executive secretary, and so forth, because they are trying to build their power base. So, yes, you ask any citizen that was affected by Katrina on the gulf coast if we have too much bureaucracy in our government, because a lot of those individuals down there that were hurt by that hurricane have yet to get assistance, or the full assistance they need, because of the bureaucracy in Washington D.C. So don't say that the bureaucracy is just something easy to pick on. Let me say this. The gentleman from California is very earnest in wanting to get $10 million. Now, $10 million may not sound like a lot to a lot of people, but it's a lot of money. I will tell the gentleman from New York that commented on what was causing a deficit, yes, the war is causing the deficit, some part of the deficit. But what is causing the deficit, this is a moment of truth, is overspending, overspending. Yes, the public did speak last November, and what they said is, you Republicans who have always stood up and said, government is too big and we have too much spending. Yet we were the ones up here increasing the size of government and spending too much money, it's time for us to reclaim the brand of being fiscal conservatives and watching after the taxpayers' dollars. That's exactly what this amendment from the gentleman from California does. Our base, the Republican base, does not like to spend money or does not like to see government grow, because we think that the entrepreneurial spirit is that we can take care of ourselves better than the government can take care of us. The unfortunate side for our base is that the majority base thinks that the government can do a better job of looking after people than people themselves. So that's the dilemma that we find ourselves in, that we have got one side that's trying to reclaim their brand, trying to make people realize that we really are who we say we are and doing the things that we are supposed to be doing in cutting the size of government and reducing spending. The other side is saying, here we are and here we are to take care of you.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to yield to my friend from Washington, someone that is a professional in law enforcement (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. WESTMORELAND

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Utah for yielding. It's quite interesting. I was listening to the rule debate, and the gentleman from New York said that the reason this was being brought up under a rule is to make sure that the process was open and that there were people who had amendments, and I just thought that was quite comical and more of the smoke-and-mirror thing that this majority has put forth. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 1100. This is a great opportunity for us to realize what an earmark is, whether it is recognized by the Chair as an earmark or not, what real pork is, and what a Federal land grab is. This is designed to increase the National Park Service's land inventory. This is ironic considering that the National Park Service currently has an overall maintenance backlog for lands it currently owns. In fact, this very site, the Carl Sandburg National Historic Site, already has $600,000 in deferred maintenance cost itself. The author of the bill said that this was a mission to allow the site. If my understanding is correct, you cannot even see the additional 115 acres from the home site itself. And I don't know if this is going to involve any landscaping or cutting down trees or grading costs or whatever, and maybe Mr. Sandburg did see this, but it must have been on a walk and not from his home. This was not an original part of the Sandburg estate. And if you read the intent of the legislation when it was done, it was to preserve the farm, not to buy up all the surrounding land. Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will understand exactly what this bill is, that they will oppose it and join me in protecting the taxpayers' dollar.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the Neugebauer No. 4 amendment.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. No, Madam Chairman, I do not.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. No.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Price. I appreciate you yielding your time to me. I appreciate you coming down here with the Truth Squad. Sometimes the truth is many things to many people. But at the end of the day, it's still the truth. As you know, sometimes the truth is ugly. I thought one of the comments you were making about the war supplemental bill, the very truth of what took place to get that bill passed was very ugly. In fact, this new ethical majority that came up, I felt, was pretty interesting, that, you know, one of the things was not leaving the vote held open to change the outcome, which we have seen several times, that it actually happened; the earmark reform, which is another smoke and mirror that has gone along. Then I think one of the other things was this big lobby reform about buying votes, and I think they called it a ``culture of corruption.'' But I think what we have seen since January is actually an in-house culture of corruption and the fact that they had to buy 218 votes. So that's something that's unique to the situation, because, typically, you don't think about using other people's money to buy votes, but that's what they are doing. They are using the taxpayer dollar, and, like you said, Congressman, it's up into the billions now. I believe it was $20 billion that it cost them to get that 218 vote. Let's talk about something else for a minute, because, I think the new majority party labeled the 109th Congress the do-nothing Congress, and we have labeled this, being the Truth Squad, and the honest people that we are, the smoke-and-mirrors Congress. So I want to talk about some of the empty promises, some of the smoke and mirrors that we have all been talking about. One of the things we can all relate to is high gas prices. Mr. Price, it's hard to believe that we talk about the good old days of gas being $2 a gallon. But we don't have to go back that far to where gas was $2 a gallon. I want to read a few quotes if I could, for you, to the people and to the Speaker. This was a quote: ``Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices . . . join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.'' This was a quote from now-Speaker Pelosi back in April of 2006, and I believe that gas was probably around $2 a gallon then. Now the Americans are paying $3.49 a gallon in California. That doesn't seem like that much of a reduction in the price of gas. In fact, it looks like almost 100 percent increase. Another quote: ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices . . . we have offered legislation that would actually do something about the rise in gasoline prices . . . '' This is a quote from Mr. Hoyer. That was back in 2005. I don't know what the gas prices were then in Maryland, but I know today in Maryland they are $2.98 a gallon. So these are some more empty promises; and not only empty promises, we got to see on some of the votes of the leadership, for the majority party, exactly how they vote. If you look at the ANWR drilling, no, no, no. No, no, no. If you look at the refineries, where we wanted to expand our capability of our refineries, and be able to refine more oil, no, no, no. I am anxious, aren't you, to see what their result is going to be? I am ready for the answer. They have left us hanging long enough. They have left us hanging for 2 years, and 1 year, as to what their answer is going to be to relieve these gas prices, to lower them. If anything, since the election in 2006, the gas prices have gone straight up. So, you know, either they don't want to do what it takes to lower the gas prices, they don't know what it will take to lower the gas prices, or the very economic policies they have adopted in this 110th Congress have caused the gas prices to go up.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do you think these are some of the same people that think increasing our taxes by the largest tax increase in the history of this country is going to make our economy better? Could these be the same people that think these economic policies are going to make us better?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Just to interrupt you one more time, because I think this is important to understand that those tax increases on an oil company really come from doing away with the tax credits they were getting for new exploration on finding new oil.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I found two more quotes I found interesting: ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.'' Now, this is Mr. Jim Clyburn from South Carolina who said that on July 6 of 2006. Gas prices in South Carolina are now $2.81. There is another one that says: ``With gasoline and other prices rising, America's middle-class families deserve better . . . Nobody thinks $2.50 a gallon is cheap; it's still expensive.'' Now that came from the Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel on June 2 of 2006. So, evidently, gas prices were around $2.50 then. Now, in Illinois, they are $3.23. So, do you think, being the Truth Squad, that this could just be smoke and mirrors to get people to believe that they had some kind of answer to reduce these gas prices to make Americans make it easier for us to meet our energy needs here within this country, without going to foreign imports? So that seems to be the indication that this is just more smoke and mirrors that the 110th Congress, then the minority, was telling the American public to become the majority. It's kind of like a barking dog behind the fence. As long as that dog is behind the fence, he is going to bark and say and do things to make you think he is going to get out and get something done. But when you open that gate he becomes a little whimpering Chihuahua, does nothing. I think that's what we see in here, a bunch of little Chihuahuas whimpering around. I do thank you. I thank you for your time. I think the gentlelady from Tennessee may want to add something to that. I appreciate the opportunity.