Lynn Westmoreland

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Is the Chair saying that the mere existence of a list is sufficient, even though it includes an earmark where the requesting Member failed to certify he has no financial interest in the earmark?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Is the Chair saying that the mere existence of a list is sufficient, even though it includes an earmark where the requesting Member failed to notify the ranking minority member of his request, as required under clause 17 of rule XXIII?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am confused. The gentleman from Washington has been stating about micromanaging the NSF; and now that I see what this amendment does is not only try to micromanage what they do with their grants and their money, but it is also saying to me that these institutions that get these awards grants for the research from the NSF do not have a complete teaching ability to teach these graduate students how to put their thoughts to a nonscientist audience. Now, to me, we are not only micromanaging the NSF, but now we are getting into some of these schools that receive these grants and saying: You are not doing a full curriculum enough that you can educate these young scientists and these young researchers into how to explain themselves to nonscientist audiences. So I think you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we don't want to micromanage, and if we are going to micromanage, who is the ultimate decider of that? And also, are we going to start micromanaging what the curriculum is for these higher institutes of learning that are turning out these scientists?

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, due to being unavoidably delayed, I missed a vote on H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007-- Passage, Objections of the President Not Withstanding (rollcall No. 276). I would have voted ``nay'' had I been present to record my vote.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, we've got the lights. We've got the cameras. We've got the characters for some fine political theater in the House of Representatives today. Last week this Congress passed an ill-conceived, wrong-headed, ill- fated war funding bill, even though every Member of this House knew the President would veto it, even though our troops are on the front lines of a war awaiting this funding. And while the troops face fire, the Democratic leaders fiddled. They slowed down the process even more by sitting on the bill for days. Madam Speaker, it's time for the majority to change out of their costumes, take down the curtain, take their bow, and exit stage left because Americans don't want to see the last act of this Democratic script that calls for waving the white flag of surrender. We owe it to our Nation and to our troops to change the ending of the story. Send the President a clean bill and give the troops the money they need to do the job. And they will be victorious.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two Americans who achieved greatness in April 2007 at Fort Benning, Georgia. SSG Brandon Greenway and his father, CSM Douglas Greenway, became the first father-son team to compete in the U.S Army David E. Grange Best Ranger Competition. The U.S. Army David E. Grange Best Ranger Competition started in 1981 to determine the best two-man Ranger team in the country. The strenuous 3-day competition is designed to test the teams' physical, mental, and technical abilities as Rangers with less than 50 percent of the teams completing the competition. Every year, the event brings a great spotlight to Fort Benning, as the best and brightest Rangers in the U.S. Army display their incredible capabilities. This event is designed to challenge the most tactically skilled and athletically gifted members of the U.S. Army. This is why so many took note when CSM Douglas Greenway entered this year's competition with his 23 year old son, SSG Brandon Greenway. At 47 years old, Sergeant Major Greenway was also the oldest Soldier ever to enter the competition. This father-son team met the challenges of this grueling competition and finished in the top half of the field. This competition is a great way to cap the career of CSM Douglas Greenway, who is retiring in May 2007 after a distinguished 28-year Army career. Fort Benning will miss Command Sergeant Major Greenway, and I commend him as well as his spouse and family for their service to the country. For this reason, and for becoming the first father-son team to compete in the U.S. Army Best Ranger Competition, I am pleased to honor the Greenways in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I rise today to carry on a tradition started by the late Congressman Charlie Norwood, whose death this year was a great loss to Georgia and the U.S. House of Representatives. Each year on the eve of the Masters golf tournament in his hometown of Augusta, GA., Congressman Norwood would honor a golfer of great acclaim before his colleagues in the House. This year, that tribute belongs to Gary Player, a world-renowned golfer whose accomplishments extend far beyond the links. In April, Mr. Player will tee up at the Augusta National for the Masters tournament for the 50th consecutive year, a remarkable achievement of longevity in any career. Few events in sports compare to the grace and beauty of the Masters tournament, and for a half century, Mr. Player has played an important role in one of the most cherished and most watched sporting events in the world. Gary Player's record is the envy of countless golfers. It includes 159 victories worldwide. He holds nine major championships including: three Masters, three British Opens, two U.S. Opens and one PGA Championship. In addition, he has won the World Match Play Championship four times. Outside the game of golf, Mr. Player has dedicated his life to family--he is celebrating his 50th wedding anniversary this year--and to serving the underprivileged. In 1983, he established the Gary Player Foundation to address the education crisis in South Africa. The Player family started the Blair Atholl School--complete with a primary school of 400 students, a pre- elementary school for 75, a community resource center and a sports complex. The foundation ensures high-quality education, a nutritional feeding scheme and basic medical care for each child. Besides his foundation, Gary Player hosts the annual Nelson Mandela Invitational Golf Tournament, one of the largest charity events in South Africa. To recognize his many achievements, Gary Player was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Laws from the Saint Andrews University in 1995. Gary Player has lived an incredible life and he doesn't take those blessings for granted. He has said, ``I have been so lucky with golf, with my family, with my health, all I can be is thankful.'' Let us wish him continued luck and thanks for his accomplishments on and off the course. Mr. Player, good luck in Augusta.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. You know, Mr. Speaker, Alan Jackson lives in my district, a great country singer, and I was thinking of some songs for him. One of them was ``I Would Rather Be in New York Raising Money Than Funding the War in Iraq.'' The other one was ``How I Turned the Blue Dogs Yellow.'' Then there is also an author in my district, Ferrell Sams; he writes a lot of books; you may have read some of them, but a good book is ``How to Lose a War and Store Peanuts.'' Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, for Alan Jackson to look at the rules. And he could do a whole album on the rules here. ``We Only Change Them When We Have To'' would make a great title for that rules album. ``We Only Leave the Vote Open When We Are Losing, When the Time is Up,'' would be another good one. And the last one would be, ``We Only Change Them When We Have To.''

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York was making a great argument for the bill itself, but we are talking about the rule. We are talking about the ability of every Member of this body to be able to amend the bill. We go through a committee process here, well, I shouldn't say all the time, because in the 110th Congress, it has been very rare that we have gone through a regular order. But in this particular case we did go through a regular order as far as the bill going to Government Reform. I had an amendment. The amendment was pretty simple. It said, notwithstanding the fact that the District of Columbia would get a vote on the floor of this body, but that the intention, and the end result, was for them not to have representation in the United States Senate. Now, that was fairly simple. In fact, I believe it passed Government Reform unanimously. My 700,000 people that I represent in Georgia had an opportunity to amend this bill. But because of the closed rule that we have today, an amendment that was passed, agreed to by both sides, put in the bill in Government Reform, has come to the floor without it. You know, this was hyped up to be the most ethical Congress. I haven't seen any proof of that. It has been hyped up to be the most open Congress where all Members would have an opportunity to participate. We certainly haven't seen that. This is government almost by gradualism. We are gradually getting to where the leadership of the majority party wants to go. I believe that is to give D.C. the ability to have Members of Congress. Now, this little book right here, the gentleman from New York was quoting parts of the Constitution, but he didn't quote all of it. Because in here I think it lays out very plainly who is to vote on the floor of this House and who is to have representation in this House, and who is to have representation in the United States Senate. I think this is the first step. I think my amendment made it clear that the intention of this bill was not to gradually give them the ability to have seats in the Senate. But because it made it so clear and described so clearly the legislative intent of this body, they won't allow it to be in the bill, because their intention is to go further. I would hope that one day we would. I hear people's lips, I hear things coming out of people's mouths. I see lips moving, talking about bipartisanism: we are going to be bipartisan; we are going to let everybody participate. I haven't seen that in action. Let me say this, I don't think anybody has ever written a perfect bill, a bill that couldn't be adapted or expanded or explained a little bit better, a bill that couldn't be made better, a bill that couldn't be perfected. In fact, if you read the rules of this House, it talks about amendments and perfection and perfecting the amendment, perfecting the bill. That is all we want an opportunity to do. I think everybody in this body, all 435 of us, I think the people that we represent, all they want us to have is an opportunity to try to help perfect the bill or make it better. So far, we have been shut out of that process. I think it is a shame. As my friend, Mr. Bishop, said, a lot of people don't pay any attention to the process up here. But when the process is broken, the product is flawed. I think the closed rule on this important bill is an example that this is a very broken process.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, according to rule IV, clause 4(a), the privileges of former Members on this floor, it states, ``is a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal, as those terms are defined in clause 5 of rule XXV.'' Is it true that if a former Member was a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal, that they could not be on the floor?

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. We just had a vote to restore the floor privileges for a Member who had his words taken down. Is it not true that the Democratic leadership, Speaker Pelosi, made the comments that we were going to have a more civil House and that we----

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry: Is it true that we did not pass rules in this House that talked about civility?

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for having this amendment. I have called this Congress the smoke-and-mirrors Congress because of the way the majority party has presented their case to the public, and it has been a process of smoke and mirrors. This seems to be a fuzzy math program. If you have 7,000 section 8 homes in New Orleans, and it's funny, we haven't heard from the people in Mississippi or Florida or some of the other places. This is specifically for the New Orleans housing. Seven thousand section 8 homes. Only 5,000 of them were occupied before the hurricane, and now we are wanting to put all 7,000 back. Yet in New Orleans today, there are 500 that is uninhabited that they can't get people to come back to. So somewhere there is a need to help people that don't seem to be taking that first step to helping themselves. We have people from New Orleans in Atlanta and in a lot of places in Georgia. If they want to go back to New Orleans, I am sure that we want them to be back in their hometown, and that probably the Federal Government would give them some assistance to get back to New Orleans and to know that there are 500 vacant section 8 houses for them to go to. I think the other interesting thing is that if you were in a section 8 house prior to Hurricane Katrina, and Hurricane Katrina destroyed your home that you were living in under the section 8 program, then you would now be entitled to section 8 for the rest of your life. Maybe for the gentleman from Texas that we would need to say that anybody, and I feel sorry for these people, but anybody that has an unfortunate situation happen to them in their life, that they could come to the government and just give us a list of things that they would need for the rest of their life. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for offering this amendment, and I hope that this House will see fit to support it.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit with instructions. One of the most confusing areas of public life for most Americans involves to what extent a person may express their personal religious views. Everyone believes they have complete religious freedom and yet the media often reports instances where courts or administrators say people may not express their religious faith. The unfortunate result of this confusion is that people tend to self-censor their behavior. In 1997, the Clinton administration sent out guidelines to all Federal agencies that specifically detailed an employee's right to religious expression in the workplace. As then-President Clinton said in his remarks on the executive memorandum, ``Religious freedom is at the heart of what it means to be an American and at the heart of our journey to become truly one America.'' America continues to see ever-growing and diverse forms of religious expression, and unfortunately we have also seen an increase in the attempts to undermine religious freedom and expression. So, as we consider this bill, we should be clear that the Federal employees do not have to check their faith at the door of their workplace and are protected under this bill if they do report violations of the current Clinton-era guidelines. In fact, it is often their faith that makes them the compassionate social worker in the employment office, the loving teacher in the Head Start program and the caring medical professionals treating our wounded soldiers. There is nothing more personal than a person's faith, and our Federal employees deserve to know that they cannot be forced to check their quality of life at the door. As such, this motion provides that it is an abuse of authority for Federal agencies to prevent a Federal employee from blowing the whistle on instances of retaliation against permissible religious exercise and expression in the workplace. The definition of permissible religious exercise and expression is drawn from President Clinton's 1997 memorandum to Federal agencies regarding religious expression in the Federal workplace. It includes, for example, the ability of Federal employees to have a Bible on their desk, wear a religious emblem on their clothing, or to express their views to other employees. It also includes provisions protecting against discrimination, harassment and coercion. I believe this is an important addition to this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to support the addition of this language. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would like to join me in noting that clause 2(a) of rule XX provides that a recorded vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote. On the previous question vote, Rollcall Vote No. 145, I would hope that you would agree that at the expiration of time for this vote the noes were prevailing. Is that true?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Could the Speaker tell me when an instance of the vote being held open would reverse the outcome if it is not when the ``nays'' are prevailing against the ``yeas,'' or the ``yeas'' prevailing against the ``nays,'' and the majority wants the outcome to be the exact opposite?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Sir, that is not a hypothetical.