Lynn Westmoreland

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I believe on the opening day of the session, did we or did we not pass House Resolution 6, that was the rules package?

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Ms. Blackburn. I really want to ask you a couple of questions, if I could, just to have a little conversation here. You talked about taxes and what was being done. How about the alternative minimum tax, the AMT, that was put in under the Democratic majority back in the late sixties or early seventies, that was really targeted to try to get 28 millionaires out of 250 million people that live in this country, to target 28 people, to come up with this alternative minimum tax that says, you know, if you fill out your 1040 and we don't feel like you paid enough tax, in other words, if you had too many deductions or if your tax really wasn't where we thought it needed to be, then you have to pay the alternative minimum tax. I think the lady from Tennessee may have some numbers. I don't know. I have heard the number that as high as 32 million people are going to be affected, 10 percent of our population or over 10 percent of the population is going to be affected by something that the Democrats did to get 28 people to pay taxes. It should have been a little more simple than that, shouldn't it?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That is exactly right. Here is the Web site right here: rsc@mail.house.gov. And you can go to the Hensarling Web site, our chairman, and let us know how you feel about the AMT. If this thing has affected you, we want to know about it, because we are going to make sure that we do everything that we can to make sure that this AMT does not continue to affect more and more of our taxpayers that go out every day and work hard for their money. And, by the way, they are probably still at work right now trying to earn some money. Getting back to the Employee Intimidation bill, is it going to be an open rule or a closed rule? I don't want to talk inside baseball or get down in the weeds here, but are we going to be able to offer amendments? Am I going to be able to offer an amendment to perfect this bill? Or is it going to be a closed rule like we have been having where the people of the Third District of Georgia or some of the people from the lady from Tennessee's district or the gentleman from Texas' district that has no say-so in the process? Have you heard if we are going to be able to perfect this bill? Or is this bill perfect? Is this bill perfect and doesn't really need any perfecting?

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. As my colleague from Georgia just said, I was looking forward to that 5-day workweek, and so far, since January 4, I believe we have experienced one. Here it is, 2:25. And I don't know of many people from the Third District of Georgia that are home right now. Most people are working. The chairman of the Financial Services Committee said his people were falling sleep. They must be staying up too late at night because it is not from overwork. As my colleague from Georgia said, I think in the last 2 days we have worked an hour and a half. When the Republicans were in charge, I remember getting home at 10:30, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock at night from a hard day's work. And when the Democrats took over, I had to really kind of refocus on how to get back to my apartment because I had never seen the daylight hours. So I want to ask the Democrats on the other side of the aisle, if you are going to say something, let's do it. Let's make sure that we do it, and that these are not just empty promises that you told the American people to get into the majority.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to come back and talk a little bit more about the majority and the work schedule and the work ethics that they seem to be putting forth. I could come up and read my BlackBerry and my schedule to you. I don't know if that is exactly what our constituents had in mind, was electing us and paying us to come up here and go to receptions and go to dinners and travel around ourselves. That is understandable. I think what they sent us up here to do was to do the people's business. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) came up and talked about regular order. I just had to come back, Madam Speaker, to address regular order. I have almost forgotten what regular order is because since we have taken over, since the Democrats took over January 4, I guess we have had maybe this bill and one other bill that actually went through regular order. We had an organizational meeting for my committees, and I think I have had one other meeting in one of the committees, two hearings or three hearings in another committee, not actually about any of the specific legislation. In fact, the bills that have come to the floor have been taken out of two of the committees that I serve on to be brought directly to the floor without any kind of markup. So I nicknamed this Congress, Madam Speaker, the smoke and mirrors Congress, and I think that they have done, and I am talking about the majority party that is in control now, have done a wonderful job with smoke and mirrors and fooling the American people. We did a smoke and mirrors on the minimum wage. We did a smoke and mirrors on the war resolution. We have done several smoke and mirrors, and we continue to do smoke and mirrors. It is just like the 5-day work week. They never address the 5-day work week. Where is the 5-day work week? Since the first week of January, we have had one 5-day work week. We may be going to have committee hearings, and we may be going to go to all these parties and receptions and other things, but when are we going to work? Because most of my constituents are at work right now. In fact, most of them, some of them, possibly started at 6 o'clock this morning. A lot of the airline people work a 5:00 a.m. shift. A lot of them start at 7:00, but we start at 10:00, and I have not had a hearing earlier than 10 o'clock, and today we finished the legislative business at 2:15. So, Madam Speaker, I hear all these things, and I hear some good ideas, and I think the people do want us to work, but let us not campaign on one thing and then come to Washington and do something else. I think the people deserve more than that. Also, I wanted to address the regular order thing. I am elected by 700,000 people in the Third District of Georgia, and they expect some representation up here, and I do my best to do that. They want a voice in the things that happen on this floor, but yet I have been unable to offer an amendment, unable to offer an amendment when the rules of the House clearly state that every Member of this body has the right to amend a piece of legislation. But when the Rules Committee meet, they waive that rule. It is like the smoke and mirrors PAYGO that we got. People are like, oh, yeah, I like that PAYGO. They cannot increase the deficit or anything without making sure that the money is there to pay it. So, man, we love that PAYGO. The problem is that the Rules Committee, in the bill that came that involved that, waived that rule. Smoke and mirrors. So, Madam Speaker, I am going to let people rest now. I see that Mrs. Blackburn is here to start her Special Order, but I just want the people, Madam Speaker, to understand that we are up here to do the people's business and not just to talk a good game, but to act a good game. So hopefully they will see that we want to earn ourself back into the majority, and they will have the confidence in us to lead this country once again.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, if this undemocratic, smoke-and- mirrors Congress had been in power throughout our Nation's history, I am not sure we would have much to celebrate this weekend when we commemorate Presidents Day. On Monday, we honor the Presidents who guided our Nation through its toughest moments, Presidents who made tough decisions in the face of public skepticism despite great peril and unimaginable sacrifice. Not all Americans supported General George Washington's campaign against the British, yet our Nation's father led a ragtag band of underfed and underequipped soldiers to victory over the greatest military of its day. Not all Americans supported President Lincoln's decision to go to war to preserve the Union. It seems inevitable today, but, at the time, many Americans would have preferred to save the lives, treasure, and misery and just let the Nation cleave into two. But Lincoln decided to preserve the Union, a Union that, in time, would become the greatest, most powerful nation on earth, even though he had to wage the deadliest war in U.S. history, with 600,000 lives lost. I wonder what the forebears of today's Democratic Party would think of their policy of retreat and defeat? What would they think of the timidity in the face of great danger? What happened to the legacy of Woodrow Wilson, who faced down American skeptics to lead us to victory in World War I? What happened to the legacy of FDR, who faced down American isolationists to defeat the evils of German fascism and the militarism of imperial Japan? What happened to the legacy of Harry Truman, the first President to realize the peril of the Soviets and entered our war-weary Nation into the fight against the spread of communism? The wisdom of their decisions wasn't necessarily clear to all Americans of their day, but the judgment of history validates their leadership. Today, our Commander in Chief sees the danger to our Nation's security and freedom posed by Islamic extremist forces in the Middle East. Many in this Congress choose to believe that the violence in Iraq is a local problem. To some degree, it is, but it is also a problem for the United States. If we were to follow the proposals of Democratic leaders, we would pull out our troops and let Iraq become a failed State. Anarchy in Iraq would give al Qaeda and other extremists a safe haven to train and plot attacks. It was in the failed states of the Sudan and Afghanistan that al Qaeda was able to plan the African embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole and the September 11 disasters. The smoke and mirrors Democratic Congress wants it both ways. On the one hand, they say this is a nonbinding resolution. On the other hand, they say this is a first step. Given how Democratic leaders have battled to one-up each other and have allowed their rhetoric to spiral, how can this nonbinding resolution be anything but a first step? How can Democrats stop with the nonbinding resolution if they agree with Senator Obama that lives lost in Iraq have been ``wasted?'' This nonbinding resolution expresses disapproval of the military plan to strengthen our forces in Iraq and give them the resources they need. By the end of this week, every Member of this House will be on the record and answerable to their constituents about whether they are for or against the military plan. My colleagues who vote for this resolution are for one of two things. They are either for retreat and defeat, or stay the course. We all agree that changes need to be made, that changes need to take us toward a stable and peaceful Iraq. Withdrawal would take us in the opposite direction. Let's reject this smoke-and-mirrors resolution and continue to fight, take the fight to the terrorists.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, Charlie Norwood was a friend of mine, he was a friend of all Georgians, and he was a friend of every freedom loving person in this world, because he fought hard for you. He was one of the original Republican revolutionaries that was elected in 1994, and he never really lost that spirit, that conservative fever. He agreed with Jefferson that the government that governs least, governs best, and he fought for 12 years in this House to make sure that regulations on business and individuals' lives were at a minimum. In fact, sometimes he called the government's reach into our lives oppressive. Once Charlie was quoted in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, as saying, ``If I want to put bad wiring in my house and burn my family down, that is my problem, not the government's.'' That was typical of Charlie. He was a witty warrior. When he joined me in the Voting Rights Act, trying to modernize section 5, the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, I had come up with two amendments. One of them had to do with putting the whole country under it, going through the same scrutiny. I met with Charlie and Charlie said, ``Lynn, I want the modernization amendment to be the Norwood amendment.'' I said, ``That's fine, Charlie, but why?'' He said, ``Because I can do a better job than you can.'' That is the way he felt, and that is exactly the way he was. That is just one example of why I called Charlie my ``foxhole buddy.'' When Charlie Norwood said he was with you, he was with you until the bitter end. You had his word that he would have your back, and his word was his bond. His loyalty and love of country defined him throughout his life. The Valdosta High School football star went on to become a dentist who took his skills to the front lines of Vietnam, where he served his fellow soldiers and his Nation with valor. He served in Vietnam for a year and obtained the rank of captain and won two Bronze Stars. For the next four decades, Charlie and his loving wife Gloria made their home Augusta, where they raised two children, Carlton and Charles, and he served his community with a smile on his face when he talked about his grandchildren. So the thoughts and prayers of all Georgians go out to the Norwood family tonight, to let that family know that we are appreciative of the time that they allowed Charlie to come up here and to serve with us, to bring joy to our hearts and thoughts to our minds of what we could do to make this country a better place to live in. The one thing that I want to close with is this, Mr. Speaker: In all of the discussions that I got into with Charlie Norwood about legislation he constantly said, ``Lynn, we have got to do what's right.'' That was his motto, to do what was right, and he did. It was an honor to call him friend.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, I think we must be debating two different resolutions here today. I just heard my colleague from across the aisle talk about a new plan. Of course, I guess that fits in with the smoke-and-mirror 110th Congress about a new plan. Well, if you don't want to increase the troop size, which the undemocratic majority evidently does not want to do with this resolution, and you don't want to stop the funding, then what do you want to do? You want to stay the course. I think the American people said in the election, we don't want to stay the course. I think that our military leaders, we hear this resolution when the other side talks about it, they talk about supporting our troops. And I am sure General Petraeus is confused to get approved unanimously in the Senate and hear this resolution about supporting our troops and yet we don't want to follow what he has said we need to do. General Casey agrees with this and he has been confirmed to a new position. And so how can we tell our men and women in the field that, Hey, look, we support you, but don't listen to what your commanders have to say. We've got something different. We're going to micromanage the war from Washington. A lot of the people that are going to be voting on this resolution have never been to Iraq. They have never been to Afghanistan. They have never seen some of the situations that our young men and women are put in for freedom-loving people all over this world. I don't know how they could actually vote on it if they have never been, but I guess they will. Because they are trying to paint a picture of having your cake and eating it, too. We support our troops but, look, we don't want to change our way of what we're doing. We don't want to try to help you with more troops, to try to help you save your life over there and securing these areas that you risked your life in going in to take, knock the enemy out, and then have to leave and let the enemy come back in and be even stronger. What kind of message does that send? This is not about President Bush, because I think President Bush has tried every way, Mr. Speaker, he knows how to make this a successful campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he continues to come up with new ideas through the help and the advice of his military commanders to win this war on terror. This is a global war on terror. Some people from the other side seem to believe that if we pull out of Iraq that the Iraqi people are going to go back to tending sheep and herding goats. That is not what is going to happen. If we pull out of Iraq, what is going to happen is you are going to see more bloodshed than we have seen in a long time in this world, and it is going to be the innocent Iraqi people who stuck their finger in that purple ink and went and voted for the first time in their life that are going to be the ones to suffer, the ones that said, we believe in freedom, we believe in governing ourselves, we support the coalition forces here because we believe that they're coming to free us from this tyrant that we have been under. Those are the ones that are going to die. Those are the ones that are going to suffer the most. Those are the Iraqis that are losing their lives today because they want freedom. Our men and women in uniform, those blessed souls that are in Iraq and Afghanistan and are losing their lives, they volunteered to put their lives in harm's way not only to protect our freedom in this country, not only to protect this Republic that we have but to spread freedom and democracy all across the world to every human being that loves freedom and liberty. These brave men and women need our support. They need our encouragement. But what they don't need is a smoke-and- mirror resolution that is done for political reasons and because of political promises made on a campaign trail. They don't need that. They need real encouragement and support from this Congress. Let's do something to give them that and not do things that strengthens the enemy, discourages our troops and really and truly, I believe, goes against the Constitution. When we all took the oath of office, we made an oath to the Constitution, not to anybody else. Let's uphold that. Let's respect our Commander in Chief and the generals in the field.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, could you tell me the reason this vote is being held open and could you read the rule about holding votes open?

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. I didn't realize there would be so much confusion about the way they voted.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. It is.

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

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I demand a re-vote on the following amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole by those Members of this House duly recognized to vote by the Constitution: The amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida. The amendment by Mr. Weller of Illinois. The amendment by Mr. Rogers of Michigan. The amendment by Mr. Cantor of Virginia.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cantor amendment. We all had campaigns this last November, and my opponent kept calling the 109th Congress the do-nothing Congress, and I want to officially name the 110th Congress as the smoke-and-mirror Congress. We have consistently heard from the other side about the minimum wage and the average American. We have heard about global warming. In fact, I think the Speaker even testified today on global warming, and yet we see the abuse of power that is going on here in the fact that we have not been through regular order on a lot of the bills that have passed here, especially in the first 100-hour program. We were going to have a 5-day work week which I am not sure that we have had one yet. We are going to be productive in the fact that we are flying up here and all Members, all 435 Members in this body have to fly back up here on Mondays to vote on naming a post office or wishing somebody a happy birthday, rather than being at home with our constituents and our families. Now, I have learned something else today or over the last couple of days that evidently the 757 is the smallest aircraft we have that can haul one person. It seems to be that the military would have some sort of other plane that could haul one person to California that would be more fuel efficient, take less than a 16-person crew and cost less than $22,000 an hour. I am very fortunate in I live in Georgia and I live about 45 minutes from the world's busiest airport in Atlanta, and so I can actually leave Reagan and get home in about a 3-hour period of time. I am very fortunate. But I have flown home with many Members, my fellow Members in this House, some of them are going to Atlanta to fly on to Oklahoma or on to Texas, even had one colleague that was going on to California, having to stop in Atlanta. We are not all fortunate to have nonstop flights to our district. I fly many times with Mr. Miller from Florida or Mr. Ross from Arkansas or others that have to make stops and have to make transfers of planes, that have to sit in middle seats. We don't get to eat chocolate. We can have our choice of some crackers or peanuts. We don't have a crew of 16 at our disposal. So as we sit in those middle seats because of the last-minute time that we have to catch a flight, many of us might think that, you know, we need someone to lead us by example. So I would call on the Speaker to lead by example, to put some meaning into the things that I have heard being said from the other side of the House. You know, I keep hearing the word ``bipartisan,'' I see people's lips moving. I hear these words coming out of their mouths. I just haven't seen any action on it. I keep hearing the word ``conservation.'' I hear the word, I see the lips moving, but I don't know if this is a good example of being a conservationist with our fuel and with our air quality. I keep hearing ``being compassionate,'' haven't seen it. So there are a lot of things that I think can be done by a leader by setting an example. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to ask that somebody step up to the plate and lead by example.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the gentleman from Texas if he is saying that the coal bed methane clearinghouse in the People's Republic of China is more important than this and maybe doesn't need to be looked at versus the $10 million for this, or developing and producing a television documentary in China on mercury pollution or improving environmental monitoring capacity in the Ukraine, as Mr. Blunt mentioned, that those are more important and might not be a way to redirect money. I heard him make the comment of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I thought that was the MO of the majority party, but I guess Peter has to be rich and Paul has to be poor. But this is something, and I applaud the gentleman for bringing this up, that if we are going to be good stewards of the money, we have got to prioritize our spending.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would like to call on my fellow Members to keep the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Charlie Norwood, in your thoughts and prayers. As many of you know, Charlie has suffered from cancer for some time and has fought valiantly, just as he did when he recovered from a lung transplant several years ago. Today Charlie announced that he is going to decline further treatment and return home to Augusta, Georgia, where he will receive hospice care in his home. Charlie Norwood has served the people his entire life. He has served his Nation as a soldier in Vietnam. He served Augusta, Georgia, but also as a dedicated father to his children, and a husband to his loving wife Gloria. Since 1995, he has ably and some would say tenaciously represented the people of eastern, northern Georgia, but his service and his wisdom has benefited us all. To me he is not just a great Georgian and a great American, he is a great friend. He served as a mentor to me and to many others in this House. And I know that everyone, Mr. Speaker, here has Charlie and Gloria in their thoughts and prayers. He said today that he is turning it over to the Lord's hands, and I know that he can be in no better place than that. I look forward to working with Charlie again. I look forward to him getting back. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we are talking about the budget and the economy here today, because Charlie was a great champion, is a great champion, for the taxpayers of this country, fighting for smaller government, less spending and lower taxes. In these hallowed halls we hear the word ``compassion'' when we are talking about spending other people's money, when we are talking about disbursing the hard-earned tax dollars of American workers. Mr. Speaker, we talk about how important this spending is, how much it is going to help people. Certainly there is no end to the good and well-meaning projects that we could fund. We all want well and qualified students to have the resources they need to go to college. We all want to find an answer to cover the 47 million people who do not have health insurance. We all want to see the benefits that come from new roads, expanded public transportation, infrastructure improvements and economic development projects. We all scrape and fight to ensure that our constituents get their fair share of the Federal pie. But as we consider the massive spending obligations that our government faces in coming years, everyone in this House, Republican and Democrat, liberal, moderate, conservative, can agree that we cannot stay on our present course. Mr. Speaker, as the baby-boomers near retirement, we will soon face a scenario where there will not be enough workers to support the entitlement spending slated for Medicare and Social Security. We have talked often in recent years about the funding shortfall that Social Security faces. We know that Social Security will run out of money in less than 50 years. Perhaps we have focused on Social Security because it seems to be the more manageable problem. As dire as the Social Security situation is, our shortfall in the Medicare program is eight times larger. That should concern not just Members of Congress, but all Americans. The Medicare shortfall will affect not just retirees and those retiring in the next 10 years, it also is of concern to the younger generations. How will they pay for their parents' health care and long- term care without the guarantees of Medicare? Mr. Speaker, how would their generation afford a pay-as-you-go system for their parents' generation when there are only two workers supporting every retiree? And finally they must ask themselves, will Medicare be there for me when it is my time to retire? These are serious questions that demand serious answers. That is why I think we need to refine what we consider compassionate in this House. I would argue that it is compassionate for us to do a much better job of making tough decisions on spending in today's Congress to save programs not only for present generations, but for the future generations of Americans. Quite frankly, to maintain current benefits after the baby-boomers retire would require crippling levels of taxation that would grind our economy to a halt and put all of our Federal programs at risk. In our effort to be compassionate today, we are spending tomorrow's money. At our present rate we are going to leave future generations with nothing but IOUs. The best thing that we can do to save Medicare and Social Security for future generations is to reduce the growth of the programs and maintain the growing economy that allows us to sustain tax revenues and keep these important entitlements afloat. The tax cuts of the past 6 years have served this purpose. I think the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Iowa have explained that very well. Last year the Federal Treasury took in more money than it ever has before, because our tax policies have allowed Americans to keep more of their money, and they have allowed U.S. businesses to flourish and expand despite the strain caused by the technology bubble, the tragedy of September 11, and the cost of the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, the tax cuts boost the economy. In order to preserve the tax cuts, we have to reduce our spending. Certainly we have to cut back on earmarks and local projects, and I certainly hope we heed President Bush's call to cut the number of earmarks in half. But that is not going to be enough. We must curtail the growth of entitlement spending, or else cuts elsewhere in the budget will never offset those exploding costs. We have to fund our national priorities, but we must be more selective in what we consider priorities. We took an important step last year when we saved $40 billion in the Deficit Reduction Act. That legislation required courageous leadership, and we are going to need more of that kind of leadership in the future. So to sum it up, the tax cuts boost the economy. A strong economy fills Federal coffers, and tax revenues allow us to fund programs important to all Americans so long as we learn to live within our means. I would like to thank the gentleman from California for leading this important discussion. In his time here in the House, he has proven to be a leader on these issues, and I appreciate his experience as a CPA, as a businessman, and one who has furnished jobs and helped this economy grow. I appreciate this time he has yielded me.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, legislation to allow Delegate voting should have appeared on the 100-hour agenda because it would fit snugly under the agenda's general theme of symbolism over substance. In fact, to bolster their case, the bill's advocates insist that Delegates' votes will be meaningless. But it is not meaningless. We have a written Constitution that clearly outlines who receives a vote in Congress. The principle is as clear as it is simple. The Members will be chosen every second year by the people of the several States. The Constitution doesn't provide exemptions to those rules in cases where it feels good, it is seemingly irrelevant or is politically expedient. Residents of U.S. territories reap the benefits of the world's biggest economy; they are protected by the greatest military in the world, and they have coveted access to the 50 States. Yet territories, by definition, are not States. This status comes with pros and cons. On the one hand, they maintain a greater deal of autonomy, independent identity and self-determination. On the other hand, territories don't get the same representation in Congress as States do. This is a prime example having your cake and eating it, too. There are many reasons to oppose this legislation. For one, it makes no sense in the people's House where representation is determined by population for Puerto Rico's 4 million to get the same vote as American Samoa of 57,000. It makes no sense to give Delegates a vote that doesn't count if it counts. And it makes no sense to pretend that this effort is anything but political opportunism. But those aren't the most important reasons for opposing this bill. The most important reason is that it plays fast and loose with the constitutional limitations on who can vote on the floor of this House. We are not members of a backyard club making up rules on who gets to vote as we go along. When we took this job, we swore to uphold the Constitution, and that is what I am doing by opposing this legislation today. If supporters of this bill think it is important to give Delegates a vote on the House floor, I urge them to draft a constitutional amendment, not a constitutional runaround. I ask and I say to the majority's argument with us, it is not with us, it is with the Founding Fathers and the writers of the Constitution. I ask my colleagues, and especially those from the great sovereign State of Georgia, to oppose this legislation.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the congressman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the Congress wields the power of the purse. It can declare war, it can create new laws, but it has no power to alter the laws of economics. No endeavor in the history of mankind has provided more consumer choice, more innovation and more advances than the invisible hand of market forces. As the country song says, everybody wants to drink the free bubble-up and eat the rainbow stew, but in the real world, economics determines how we divvy up finite resources. Under the current prescription drug plan, market forces have worked. Seniors get a choice of the drugs they need while at the same time the cost to taxpayers has come in billions below original estimates. Without doubt, government regulation of prices will limit prices, just as it does under the system used by the Veterans Administration. That is why more than a million veterans have signed up for a Medicare plan. H.R. 4 is another example of Democrats saying the government can make better decisions for the American people than the American people can for themselves. We offer choice; they offer smoke and mirrors and empty rhetoric. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on H.R. 4.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully recognize and thank Senator Chambliss for his efforts with Senator Isakson to have S. 4050 passed in the Senate. Both Senators played an important role in seeing that S. 4050 was promptly passed in the Senate so the bill could be addressed in the House before the adjournment of the 109th Congress.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of a wonderful organization in my district, Positive Response, and their work in the continuing battle against HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS is an epidemic that has run rampant in our Nation since its discovery in the U.S. in 1981. Today, over a million people in our Nation live with HIV/AIDS, with more than 40,000 people each year learning they have the virus. On December 1, 2006, we all recognized World AIDS Day, to bring attention to the threat facing many individuals, and to continue to promote efforts at preventing and ending the spread of the AIDS virus. Organizations like Positive Response have taken positive steps to do just that--in my district, Positive Response helps prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS both through education and testing. Of the million people who have HIV/AIDS today, up to a quarter of them still do not know they have the virus. Education and testing are necessary to help stop the spread of this virus. But the efforts do not end when someone contracts HIV/AIDS. Positive Response works hard to provide human and compassionate support for people living with HIV/AIDS, helping them understand their disease, and how they can continue their life. The abundance of treatments today help those with HIV/AIDS maintain a normal life, and Positive Response helps ensure they are able to continue to live a healthy and full life. Mr. Speaker, we need more organizations like Positive Response. On the somber note that is World AIDS Day, we are grateful for the dedication and commitment of Positive Response to fighting HIV/AIDS and helping those who are so much in need.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Davis and his staff, and to Mr. Davis and the Republican leadership for allowing this bill to come to the floor. I also want to thank Senator Isakson for handling this bill in the Senate and having it passed. Sergeant First Class Robert ``Bobby'' Lee Hollar, Jr., was a loving husband, father of two, son, and friend. He was a respected and loved brother in arms to his brother soldiers in E Troop 108th Calvary of the 48th Brigade of the Georgia National Guard and was mobilized and deployed as part of the U.S. Army Force Command in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sergeant First Class Hollar arrived in Kuwait in May of 2005, and only 10 days later went into Baghdad with his fellow troops. His unit moved down to assist with missions in the Triangle of Death, and he patrolled out of his Forward Operating Base Michael south of Baghdad in mid-June 2005. His unit faced tough, hostile conditions in the Triangle of Death. On September 1, 2005, while on patrol, Sergeant First Class Hollar's vehicle was struck by a powerful improvised explosive device. Although he survived at the scene and was evacuated to the field hospital for emergency surgery and treatment, his injuries were too severe for him to survive. He died later that day, leaving his wife Amanda, his 2- year-old son Wesley, and another son by a previous marriage. Sergeant First Class Hollar was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star. He was awarded various service and achievement awards as well. Sergeant First Class Hollar was assigned to the Jonesboro, Georgia, Postal Facility and had taken up residence in Thomaston, Georgia. Sergeant First Class Hollar had become a pen pal for students at Crescent Middle School in Griffin, Georgia. In May of 2005, Sergeant Hollar visited the middle school and was accompanied by his then 1- year-old son, Wesley. Sergeant Hollar touched the lives of the fourth and fifth grade classes with whom he was a pen pal. These children became very attached to Sergeant Hollar as he continued to write them from Iraq. On September 2, 2005, their teacher, Katie Cobb, was unfortunately faced with the tough task of sharing the horrible news that their friend, Sergeant Hollar, had died from an explosive device that hit his vehicle. That fourth grade class had the chance to know a true American hero. Sadly, when the class heard of Sergeant Hollar's death, they learned a tragic but important lesson about the high cost of defending freedom. According to Ms. Cobb, the students all started crying and were very upset about Sergeant Hollar's death. Ms. Cobb stated that she was proud that her students became even more appreciative of their freedom from knowing Sergeant Hollar. After his death, the students proceeded to write their government officials asking that his memory be carried on by having the Thomaston Post Office named in his honor. It is a rare occasion when a post office can be named for such a wonderful individual who was an active postal employee and Active Duty servicemember who died while serving his country as an American hero. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members would support S. 4050 in honor of this great man.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of a veteran and mayor in my district, Bob Poydasheff, the former Mayor of Columbus, Georgia. Bob Poydasheff knows what service to our Nation means. He served our Nation in the Army during a combat tour in Vietnam, along with service as counsel for the Secretary of the Army and other officers. He retired with the rank of colonel and many awards, including the Bronze Star. Bob Poydasheff began serving in the community in the city of Columbus through a variety of non-profit organizations, including the Columbus Symphony, and he worked to help ensure the right direction for our young people through his involvement with the Boy Scouts of America. He has served as the mayor since 2003 and served on the Columbus Council for 6 years prior to his election as mayor. Bob is also committed to his family, raising two children with his wife Stacy, and enjoying his time with his five grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, we are all grateful for the service Bob Poydasheff has rendered to our Nation through his time in the military and to our state through his service as mayor of Columbus. We wish him well in all of his future endeavors.