Lynn Westmoreland

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 748) recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and French victory at Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, over the last year, House Republicans have focused on common sense energy solutions to help lower gas prices, create jobs for American workers, and reduce America's reliance on foreign energy sources. And what have the Democrats done? Democrats voted against the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, which would create thousands of family wage American jobs and allow more of our energy resources to be produced in the deep seas while empowering States to protect their coastlines. Democrats voted against the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, which would encourage new refinery capacity in order to increase gasoline supplies and drive down high prices. Democrats voted against the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act, authorizing environmentally safe energy production in ANWR, creating 1 million family wage jobs and increasing the supply of American-made energy to lower gasoline prices. Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing from the other side of the aisle this refrain of the ``do-nothing Congress.'' I would say it is more the ``do-nothing Democrats.'' Republicans have a strong record in passing commonsense energy solutions, something Democrats can't claim. It is time for the other side to quit whining and start working.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will take up the Federal Election Integrity Act. The Federal Election Integrity Act will ensure American elections of Americans, for Americans, and by Americans. This measure promotes fairness and simply assures compliance with U.S. law. All citizens in this country hold a stake in our electoral system, and we owe it to our constituents to crack down on voter fraud. For these reasons, I have long supported photo ID requirements for voters in Georgia. In fact, Georgia enacted into law such a requirement in the past year. Nearly all voters already have a government-issued photo ID, such as a driver's license or a passport. Georgia made photo IDs available to all citizens and offered them for free to those who could not afford the nominal fee. With these safeguards in place, it makes no sense to argue that photo ID requirements disenfranchise certain segments of our population. Photo ID requirements actually protect the sanctity of every legal vote. The greatest threat to the constitutional right to vote is voter fraud. A legal voter whose ballot is canceled out by the ballot of an illegal voter has effectively been disenfranchised. We seek not to suppress the vote to promote the sanctity of the vote. The Federal Election Integrity Act will require in the 2008 election that voters show a photo ID. In 2010 it will require that voters show a photo ID that could not be obtained without proof of citizenship. I have supported such efforts in the past, and I will support this bill. Though I have acted consistently throughout my career in public service to promote fair and accurate election, I fear the House debate will be rife with irony. You see, just 2 months ago, this House voted by a lopsided margin to trample the equal protection clause of the Constitution and to violate the sovereignty of the State of Georgia by extending the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. I joined several of my colleagues from Georgia on this floor to educate Members of the House on our State's tremendous progress on voter equity. We presented hard evidence that the Georgia of 2006 is far removed from the Georgia of 1964. We proved that Georgia is no different than any other State when it comes to voter equality. After I defended the honor and integrity of my State, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee slurred my State's record. He entered into the Record a statement that said: ``The record since 1982 makes clear that Georgia and its political subdivisions have not progressed beyond the need for the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act.'' As evidence of ongoing problems in Georgia, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and others cited Georgia's photo identification law. Now, the nearly 400 Members who voted to penalize Georgia should reflect on that vote. They need to ask themselves what changed between July and September of this year. Why was it bad in July to have a photo ID requirement for my home State of Georgia, but okay in September to have a photo ID requirement nationwide? Make no mistake, I will be voting for the Federal Election Integrity Act. I only wish it went further, to make all sections of the Voting Rights Act applicable to all States and to make all ballots be in English only

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Permission to speak out of turn.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work of Rev. Joseph Calvin Neal, from Carroll County in my district in Georgia. Rev. Neal began life in Carroll County as one of 12 children of a single mother. As a young teen, he took a job at the Green Front, a locally owned restaurant, and was renowned for his ability to take the orders of multiple patrons with no notes and never missing a beat. Rev. Neal became so beloved by key community leaders that they got him a job at Sunset Hills Country Club and eventually encouraged and supported him at Paine College in Augusta, where he received a degree in music. The Lord called Rev. Neal to the ministry, and after his training was complete, he began serving as the pastor of several Methodist churches in west Georgia. But his service at his churches wasn't his only job. During his time as pastor, he also worked for the Douglas & Lomason Company, one of the major producers of car parts in the country. Even after the plant in Carrollton closed down, the company trusted Rev. Neal with the oversight of the company property for years afterward. But even in working two jobs, Rev. Neal never lost sight of his ministry. Normally, a Methodist pastor serves one church and is moved from church to church every five or so years. But Rev. Neal was so beloved by his congregations that he served as the pastor of 3 churches simultaneously--in Newnan, Georgia for 32 years. These churches are Smith Chapel UMC, Wesley Chapel UMC, and Clark Chapel UMC. During those years, his churches were recognized twice as ``church of the year'' by the North Georgia Methodist Conference, another testament to his leadership and skill. Rev. Neal also continued his education by receiving a Master of Divinity degree from Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta. But Rev. Neal also lived out what he preached regarding the importance of family--he cared for his mother until she passed away, and he continues to live in her house with an older brother. He has also been invaluable to the community in Carroll County. He has served on the planning commission for the city of Carrollton, the Carroll County Water Authority, and on the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors to name a few. Even while working two full-time jobs, Rev. Neal still found time to serve his community. Rev. Neal has earned the respect and love of the people of Carroll County. Even today, when Rev. Neal does something as simple as go out to a restaurant to eat, people know him and come speak to him about their lives. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to bring a life of service like that of Rev. Neal before the House. He is an example to young people across this Nation of the type of spirit we need in our citizens--he looks beyond what it means to gain notoriety for himself, and focuses on serving others. Servant leadership. Something we would do well to practice here in Washington, and something that Rev. Neal exemplifies by his life. We all wish him the very best in his retirement and continued service to my State and our Nation.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, millions play our national pastime for the love of the game, but only the truly elite can claim the title of world champion. I have the great pleasure of representing Columbus, Georgia, home of the 2006 Little League World Champions. Our community beams with pride for these incredible young sluggers and slingers. The players for Columbus Northern are living the dream of every American boy who has ever slipped on a glove. In order to compete for the world championship, Columbus Northern first had to defeat the best Little League teams that the United States had to offer. Then, as the American champions in the World Series, Columbus Northern took on a tough and talented Japanese team. The game was a defensive struggle, allowing Columbus Northern to win 2-1 after a 2-run homer by catcher Cody Walker, who also caught the fastball of winning pitcher Kyle Carter. The champs recently met one of the Nation's biggest baseball fans, President Bush, when he was in Atlanta. The Columbus Northern team is on top of the world. It will have memories to last a lifetime. Mr. Speaker, I salute the players of Columbus Northern. Georgians and Americans are thrilled with their success, and we are more than a little jealous, but very thankful, that they get to live every boy's dream

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, due to a mechanical failure with my voting card, my vote in favor of H. Res. 921 was not recorded (rollcall vote No. 391). I strongly support the state of Israel, and am in full support of its actions to defend itself against the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of these terrorist organizations are comprised of terrorist thugs and must be rooted out in order for peace to be achieved in the region, and their use of civilians as shields is deplorable. I am grateful that Israel has taken so many steps to wage a careful, targeted effort, focused on eliminating terrorist elements while also minimizing other damage. I applaud the President for moving forward on the right track in demanding that Hezbollah be eliminated from Lebanon, and also hope this will be the opportunity for the Arab world to unite against terrorism. Iran and Syria should take notice--supporting terrorist organizations is not a proper activity of governments. Mr. Speaker, I once again reiterate my strong support of H. Res. 921, and would have voted in favor if my voting card had registered successfully.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. If you do not mind me interrupting, but that was at no cuts. This was just a decrease in the spending, a decrease in the growth of our government; and they spoke about sitting around the kitchen table and talking about your budget. We all do that. We all have to do that. The American family has to do that, but at the same time, if we know we are going to get a 5 percent pay raise or whatever, we cannot spend more than that. Sometimes we have to rein in our spending, and this is what the Republican majority has tried to do here. So I want to thank you for bringing the Truth Squad to the floor and for explaining to all of us exactly the good things that this majority party has done to put this country in the right direction, and I might also add that our deficit has come down over the last quarter and the last months due to these tax cuts that we gave the American people because they know so much better about how to spend their money than we do as a Congress and as a government. But I want to thank you for taking this opportunity to bring the Truth Squad to the floor and to bring truth to some of the things that are said here.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Price, and I appreciate you doing this tonight. I have listened to the other side and your debate, and basically, Mr. Price, wouldn't you just assume that this basically comes down to a difference in philosophy? I heard about the deficit, I heard about the spending. But I believe that this Republican majority and the leadership in this House has given the other side every opportunity in the world to reduce that deficit. I believe we had the Deficit Reduction Act that the Republican majority had to pass themselves. And their philosophy is, to reduce the deficit, they would raise taxes. None of us like the deficit. We need to cut our spending. But every opportunity that the majority has had to cut spending, we have been opposed by the other side. So I think what the people, Mr. Speaker, and, Mr. Price, need to realize is that this is a difference in philosophy about how this government should be run and about where the priorities for our spending are. And I know you had the chart up there about Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare. And we all want people to get their benefits, but there is going to come a time of reckoning, and the majority party in this House has taken the leadership to try to address some of those things. Not by cutting them but just by slowing the growth, and yet at every turn, at every turn you know that we have had opposition from the other side. So there has got to be a point where they come to the realization that they need to help us. They need to become part of the solution, rather than just being a party of ``no.''

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, the district court specifically did not rule on the issues raised by the plaintiffs in the case that my colleague from Georgia is talking about, the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act has a proud and important legacy in my home State of Georgia and across the United States. With minor changes that would modernize the Voting Rights Act and better reflect the reality of what is happening in the 21st century, I would be joining many of my colleagues in voting ``yes'' today. But the bill we have before us is fatally flawed. This rewrite is outdated, unfair, and unconstitutional. I cannot support it in its current form. This rewrite treats Georgia as if nothing changed in the past 41 years. In other words, this rewrite seems based on the assumption that the Voting Rights Act hasn't worked. As a Georgian who is proud of our tremendous progress and proud of our current record of equality, I am here to report to my colleagues in the House that the Voting Rights Act has worked in my State, and now it is time to modernize the law to deal with the problems of today, not yesteryear. Mr. Chairman, it is true when the Voting Rights Act was first passed in 1965 Georgia needed Federal intervention to correct decades of discrimination. Now, 41 years later, Georgia's record on voter equality can stand up against any other State in the Union. Today, black Georgians are registered to vote at higher percentages than white Georgians, and black Georgians go to the polls in higher percentages than white Georgians. One-third of our state-wide elected officials are African Americans, including our attorney general and the chief justice of our Supreme Court. Plus, African American representation in the State legislature closely mirrors their representation in Georgia's population. But don't just take my word for it on Georgia's progress. Listen to this ringing endorsement from my colleague from Georgia, Congressman John Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement. Under oath in Federal court 5 years ago, Congressman Lewis testified: ``There has been a transformation. It's a different State, it's a different political climate, it's a different political environment. It's altogether a different world we live in. We've come a great distance. It's not just in Georgia, but in the American South, I think people are preparing to lay down the burden of race.'' If he said that under oath, sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, why is he telling the House something different today? The reason he was under oath was because he was testifying in front of the Department of Justice that it was okay for the majority-minority districts in Georgia to be diluted, in direct violation of the Voter Rights Act. My other friend from Georgia, Congressman Scott, voted for that. Though it defies common sense, this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act gives no consideration to any changes that may have occurred since the first law was passed in 1965. The House is voting today to keep my State in the penalty box for 25 years based on the actions of the people who are now dead. By the end of this renewal, Georgia will have been treated by Federal law as a bad actor for 66 years, Mr. Chairman. To put that in perspective, 66 years ago, FDR was in his second term, and the Japanese were more than a year away from bombing Pearl Harbor. By passing this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act, Congress is declaring from on high that States with voting problems 40 years ago can simply never be forgiven, that Georgians must eternally wear the scarlet letter because of the actions of their grandparents and great- grandparents. We have repented, and we have reformed, and now, as Fannie Lou Hamer famously said, ``I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' Lastly, this renewal is unconstitutional. In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the section that singles out certain States for Federal oversight, was constitutional only because it was narrowly tailored to fix a specific problem and temporary. You don't have to have a law school degree to know that this rewrite of the Voting Rights Act fails both of those tests. At 41 years, we are already way past temporary. And the application of section 5 is now arbitrary because this House cannot present evidence of extraordinary continuing State-sponsored discrimination in the covered States that is different from the rest of the Nation. As such, section 5 has served its purpose and is no longer an appropriate remedy in light of today's new voting problems. The Voting Rights Act represents a grand trophy of great accomplishment for Congress, but after 41 years, the trophy needs dusting. We could have given the trophy a new shine for a new century, but sadly, that didn't happen. And still this bill states explicitly that my constituents cannot be trusted to act in good faith without Federal supervision. That assertion is as ignorant as it is insulting. I cannot and will not support a bill that is outdated, unfair and unconstitutional.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend from Georgia yielding the time to me, and I appreciate his work on behalf of the Voting Rights Act during the process of this debate. Mr. Chairman, this bill is named after Fannie Lou Hamer, Coretta Scott King, and Rosa Parks. These brave women dedicated their lives to ensuring that everyone had access to the polls and the right to vote. It is up to us standing here today to honor their legacy by ensuring that the bill we pass to rewrite the Voting Rights Act will stand the test of time forever. There is no question that the Voting Rights Act was needed in 1965. Georgia had a terrible record and merited the drastic remedy imposed on it by preclearance and section 5. The thrilling thing is, it worked; Georgia is not the same place it was. Today, we have more than 600 elected black officials; nine of the 34 statewide officeholders are minorities, and black voter turnout in the 2000 election exceeded white voter turnout. Georgia is a changed State, changed for the better because of the Voting Rights Act. A cornerstone of the civil rights movement, my friend from Georgia's Fifth District, Mr. Lewis, said, under oath during a lawsuit in 2002: ``We have changed. We've come a great distance. I think it's not just in Georgia, but in the American South, I think people are preparing to lay down the burden of race. There has been a transformation. It is altogether a different world.'' My concern is that failing to acknowledge the change will result in the VRA being found unconstitutional. There is no basis for continuing to single out certain States, especially when more than half of the findings of liability on section 2 claims have come from States outside the covered jurisdictions. The remedy of section 5 is no longer congruent and proportional to the discrimination that exists. We must have a record on which to show continued drastic remedies are needed, and that record is not here from this reauthorization. The lack of evidence of State-sponsored discrimination is of major concern for the future of the VRA when viewed by a court. There is a lot of paper, but not many facts or statistics to show why Georgia is different from Tennessee or why Texas is different from Oklahoma or why racially polarized voting in Wisconsin shouldn't be addressed with a remedy such as the VRA. Updating the formula is the answer. Mr. Norwood's amendment does not gut the VRA. It ensures its continuity for future generations. By rolling the formula, every jurisdiction is reviewed every 4 years. Low turnout generally means problems with voting, and this amendment uses the same formula already in law to identify these problems. Any Member who votes against this amendment whose district is covered based on this amendment is being disingenuous about their views on civil rights. You argue for equal rights and the beauty of the VRA, but don't want it applied to your State or in your district. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members, such as Mr. Chabot, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. Tubbs Jones and Chairman Sensenbrenner, who have talked about how good this bill is, to vote for this amendment. If it is good for the South, it should be good for your State and good for your district. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the efforts made by Mr. Norwood.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise once again to argue for strengthening the Voting Rights Act. When I first heard about the rewrite, I was shocked to learn that we were going to put the same States that had problems in 1964, 1968 and 1972 under coverage for an additional 25 years without solid evidence that they continue to have State-sponsored discrimination different than any other State. Chairman Sensenbrenner has talked about that; we do not have enough history if we just do it for 10 years. We have had 41 years of history, and we cannot make a judgment on that, of the States that are not under section 5. We do not know how many violations they have. Some here today have cited the number of objections in Georgia. One of the recent objections in Georgia came from Dougherty County in Albany, Georgia, where a black majority city council had their objections that were sufficient for the Justice Department to rule. Let me just read about some of the other objections in Georgia we keep hearing about. Six of these were creation of additional judicial slots in superior and State courts, objections for which the Federal courts found no merit since they approved these additional judgeships. Another four objections went to redistricting plans. The first three forced Georgia to draw districts that courts later found to be unconstitutional under Miller v. Johnson. The fourth involved the post- Miller plans to correct for racially drawn State legislative districts. An eleventh objection involved Monroe municipal elections that a court deemed to have already been precleared. An October 1992 objection in Union City was withdrawn, and there is no indication that the city made any changes to secure removal of the objection. That might be a twelfth inappropriate DOJ objection. The key number is, since 2001 there have been only five objections. This is when every jurisdiction in the State of Georgia, 159 counties, 300 cities, 180 school boards, 180 house districts, 56 senate districts, were redrawn in redistricting plans. That is hundreds and hundreds of plans that only had five problems, and only four were objections to redistricting plans, and one of those was, the objection was a plan drawn by a black majority city council in Albany, Georgia. When we talk about these objections, let's talk about facts. Let's just don't say objections. Let's talk about that most of these objections had no facts. We do not know how many objections will be brought up across this country because of racial discrimination, because in 2002 a lawsuit brought in Wisconsin said that there was more polarized voting at a higher percentage in Wisconsin than in the South. Let's look at this whole country, let's look at it for 10 years, and then let's come back and see what the results are.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to help save the Voting Rights Act. After carefully studying the issue and collecting information about the renewal, I have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this rewrite of the VRA. When Congress last renewed the Voting Rights Act 25 years ago, it adjusted the system for providing bailout, a way for covered jurisdiction, if its record is clean, to get out from under coverage. Congress believed that there would be a flood of bailout petitions, as a result, from jurisdictions with clean records. Instead, only 11 counties, and I believe they are all from Virginia, out of the thousands of jurisdictions covered have bailed out. So today, hundreds of jurisdictions that are otherwise able to bail out simply are not doing so; and the committee did not appear to explore this question in detail during its hearings. My concern is that a failure to provide a better way to get out from coverage will result in the Supreme Court looking at the preclearance portion of this act in a negative way. We must provide a better way for jurisdictions to get out from under the coverage. Although the bailout procedures are in place, many times small jurisdictions cannot figure them out or are afraid of asking to bail out and being rejected. In order to bail out, a county has to hire an attorney and sue the United States Department of Justice in Federal court in Washington, D.C. Let me say that again. My hometown of Grantville, Georgia, with a population of 2,270 people, that has never had an objection lodged against it, would have to sue the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., in order to bail out. My amendment seeks to address the bailout issue by requiring the Department of Justice to assemble a list, using its existing databases, of all the jurisdictions that are eligible to get out from under Federal oversight, and then consent to entry of judgment, letting those jurisdictions out from coverage. The genesis for this idea came from Professor Rick Haysen, who is one of the leading election law experts in the country and has carefully studied the constitutional issues surrounding the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. He openly supports this amendment and urges all Members to look carefully at it. The amendment does not change the existing bailout requirements, nor does it prevent any other party from intervening in an action for bailout and objecting, requiring a full trial. The amendment does not get the VRA; it does not make a bill change to the bill, except to ease the process for jurisdictions that do not have problems with discrimination to get out from under coverage. Some say this is a difficult burden to place on the Department of Justice, or that it cannot obtain all the information necessary. But the DOJ is free to request information of every jurisdiction in this country whenever it so desires. And it has the evidence of lack of objections in its possession. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to carefully consider this question. We all want to preserve the legacy of the Voting Rights Act, and not giving careful consideration to the constitutionality of the renewal will probably result in the Supreme Court throwing it out. To prevent that from happening, I urge that all Members support the Westmoreland amendment to H.R. 9. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary has argued that my amendment places an impossible burden on the Department of Justice. All we are asking them to do is to look at the jurisdictions that are now covered under section 5, and hopefully, I thought that the Department of Justice was looking at these jurisdictions. I thought they were keeping up if there was any violation or not any violation. The chairman of the Judiciary has just really caused me some concern to think that we are under the coverage of section 5, but nobody is looking at us. Nobody is looking to see if we are doing the right thing or not. I am confused. Maybe we need to do some more legislation to make sure the Department of Justice is doing their job. They are the ones that know if there have been any objections. They should be the ones that have the information to know if a city or county should be able to bail out or not. Maybe this is why jurisdictions aren't bailing out. I listened to the chairman read all the stuff. I felt like I was listening to an algebra problem. That is the reason we do not know if we can bail out or not. With all of its lawyers and all of its resources, if the Justice Department cannot figure out who can bail out, how in the world is a small city or county going to make that determination? The chairman of the committee appears to be arguing my point. The bail-out procedures are so complicated that even the Justice Department cannot figure them out. That seems to indicate that we may need to take another look at the bail-out provisions in this law, which does not appear to have been done by those 12 hearings with all these different witnesses that never once looked at the flawed bail-out procedure. I would also ask whether this burden is better borne by the Federal Government or by small cities, such as my hometown of Granville, and counties that are not able to come to Washington to litigate their past history Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains for each side?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, Professor Rick Hasen was quoted today saying if Congress goes on and passes the current version, as is, with a 25-year extension, there is significant danger that the measure is struck down. Professor Sam Issacharoff was quoted saying: ``To the extent that the coverage of jurisdiction continues to be triggered by what happened in 1964, it puts a great deal of constitutional pressure on the continued vitality of the act.'' Neither of these men are conservatives. Neither of these men support me. These are liberal law professors who are very learned in the election law field that support this amendment. So if you want to talk about somebody stabbing the Voting Rights Act in the heart, or if you want to talk about somebody that is doing this because they do not have any desire to see it continue, you need to talk to these people, these liberal professors who agree with me and support what I have said. Mr. Chairman, I think the one thing that I have learned here today is that section 5, as looked at by the Department of Justice, is not really looked at. The only thing they are is a bunch of checkers. They just check things as they come in to them, rather than looking at these 900 jurisdictions. By the way, if Mr. Norwood's amendment passes, it would be a lot more than the 900 jurisdictions to be looked at, because of problems all across the Nation. But our DOJ has more attorneys on staff than the city of Granville does or the county of Coweta or the State of Georgia. If they do not know what jurisdictions should be able to bail out, God forbid that any city, county or State does. I ask that the Members of this House please support the Westmoreland amendment to H.R. 9. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Mike Stokely joined his fellow soldiers in the National Guard in Iraq, turning down a service opportunity that would have allowed him to stay home in Georgia. Last year Sergeant Stokely married his high school sweetheart. Then, 1 week later, he answered his Nation's call to duty and headed to Iraq as part of the 48th Brigade. Sergeant Stokely's work in the Army fulfilled his lifelong dream. According to his father, Coweta County Solicitor Robert Stokely, from the time Sergeant Stokely was in middle school, he cared more about seeing his name on dog tags than seeing his name on a driver's license. As a rising senior high school star, he chose to spend his fleeting days of youthful freedom at a Fort Benning boot camp. In early August of last year, Sergeant Stokely called his family from Iraq and told them that if the time came to make the ultimate sacrifice for his Nation, he was ready. Then on August 16, 2005, after having been on duty for more than 30 hours, Sergeant Stokely volunteered for another mission. Sergeant Stokely stood guard as his best friend and another soldier checked a suspicious location. An IED exploded, and Sergeant Stokely died in his best friend's arms. It happened 3 months after his wedding day. The father of this American hero told me, ``As much as I hurt for the loss of my older son and the memories we will never have, I am thankful for the 23 years we had and a son who knew his purpose in life, and his dreams were fulfilled.'' I want to commend Sergeant Stokely and his family for his honor and service and his dedication to duty.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian. In early May, he will be making stops in the United States en route to Central and South America. I commend President Chen for his leadership and wisdom in having maintained peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait during the past six years. Despite the People's Republic of China's military buildup along the Taiwanese coast, despite China's passage of the anti-secession legislation last spring and despite China's continuous harsh rhetoric threatening Taiwan's future, President Chen continues to hope for a dialogue with his Chinese counterparts. President Chen wants permanent peace in the Taiwan Strait. President Chen firmly believes in his people's right to maintain a free and democratic way of life. Any solution of the Taiwan question must have the consent and approval of the 23 million people of Taiwan. We must help the 23 million people of Taiwan to determine their own future. First, we must reaffirm our commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act, which stipulates a peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue. In the meantime, let's give our support to Taiwan in its application to be an observer at the World Health Assembly meetings this May. It is my hope that President Chen will be warmly welcomed in the United States. Too often he has been misunderstood. I salute him as a leader who's always put his country and his people first. He is our ``peacekeeper'' in the Taiwan Strait.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 383) supporting the goals and ideals of the National Arbor Day Foundation and National Arbor Day, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.