Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Westmoreland

Amendment No. 28: Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Westmoreland

Amendment No. 24: Page 4, line 9, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $18,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Westmoreland

Amendment No. 25: Page 5, line 8, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $184,241,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Westmoreland

Amendment No. 26: Page 3, line 8, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $481,186,000)''.

Madam Speaker, from 6:00 p.m. until the end of the legislative day, I traveled home due to an unexpected medical condition of a family member. As a result, I missed a number of votes. Had I been present, I would have voted the following:

``No'' on the Crowley Amendment No. 21 to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 453).

``Aye'' on the Campbell (CA) Amendment No. 43 to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 454).

``Aye'' on the Reichert Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 455).

``Aye'' on the King (IA) Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 456).

``Aye'' on the Lamborn Amendment to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Rollcall 457).

``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 458).

``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 459).

``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 460).

``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 461).

``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 462).

``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 463).

``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 464).

``Aye'' on the motion that the committee rise (Rollcall 465).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I felt compelled to say something after the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from New York talked about bureaucracy. It's easy to pick on bureaucracy. I ask any Member of this House that has talked to any constituencies, whether it's about a Social Security issue, a veterans' issue, Department of Homeland Security, FAA issue, to talk about it, and they will tell you that they had trouble with the bureaucracy, that they were having to call your office because they had trouble with the bureaucracy. This government has grown at a pace way beyond our population.

As we know, once somebody gets in a position in government, what they try to do is to expand that position, to get another secretary, to get an assistant secretary, an executive secretary, and so forth, because they are trying to build their power base.

So, yes, you ask any citizen that was affected by Katrina on the gulf coast if we have too much bureaucracy in our government, because a lot of those individuals down there that were hurt by that hurricane have yet to get assistance, or the full assistance they need, because of the bureaucracy in Washington D.C. So don't say that the bureaucracy is just something easy to pick on.

Let me say this. The gentleman from California is very earnest in wanting to get $10 million. Now, $10 million may not sound like a lot to a lot of people, but it's a lot of money. I will tell the gentleman from New York that commented on what was causing a deficit, yes, the war is causing the deficit, some part of the deficit. But what is causing the deficit, this is a moment of truth, is overspending, overspending.

Yes, the public did speak last November, and what they said is, you Republicans who have always stood up and said, government is too big and we have too much spending. Yet we were the ones up here increasing the size of government and spending too much money, it's time for us to reclaim the brand of being fiscal conservatives and watching after the taxpayers' dollars. That's exactly what this amendment from the gentleman from California does.

Our base, the Republican base, does not like to spend money or does not like to see government grow, because we think that the entrepreneurial spirit is that we can take care of ourselves better than the government can take care of us. The unfortunate side for our base is that the majority base thinks that the government can do a better job of looking after people than people themselves.

So that's the dilemma that we find ourselves in, that we have got one side that's trying to reclaim their brand, trying to make people realize that we really are who we say we are and doing the things that we are supposed to be doing in cutting the size of government and reducing spending. The other side is saying, here we are and here we are to take care of you.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to yield to my friend from Washington, someone that is a professional in law enforcement (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Utah for yielding.

It's quite interesting. I was listening to the rule debate, and the gentleman from New York said that the reason this was being brought up under a rule is to make sure that the process was open and that there were people who had amendments, and I just thought that was quite comical and more of the smoke-and-mirror thing that this majority has put forth.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 1100. This is a great opportunity for us to realize what an earmark is, whether it is recognized by the Chair as an earmark or not, what real pork is, and what a Federal land grab is.

This is designed to increase the National Park Service's land inventory. This is ironic considering that the National Park Service currently has an overall maintenance backlog for lands it currently owns. In fact, this very site, the Carl Sandburg National Historic Site, already has $600,000 in deferred maintenance cost itself.

The author of the bill said that this was a mission to allow the site. If my understanding is correct, you cannot even see the additional 115 acres from the home site itself. And I don't know if this is going to involve any landscaping or cutting down trees or grading costs or whatever, and maybe Mr. Sandburg did see this, but it must have been on a walk and not from his home.

This was not an original part of the Sandburg estate. And if you read the intent of the legislation when it was done, it was to preserve the farm, not to buy up all the surrounding land.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will understand exactly what this bill is, that they will oppose it and join me in protecting the taxpayers' dollar.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

No.

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

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

No, Madam Chairman, I do not.

Thank you, Mr. Price. I appreciate you yielding your time to me. I appreciate you coming down here with the Truth Squad.

Sometimes the truth is many things to many people. But at the end of the day, it's still the truth. As you know, sometimes the truth is ugly. I thought one of the comments you were making about the war supplemental bill, the very truth of what took place to get that bill passed was very ugly.

In fact, this new ethical majority that came up, I felt, was pretty interesting, that, you know, one of the things was not leaving the vote held open to change the outcome, which we have seen several times, that it actually happened; the earmark reform, which is another smoke and mirror that has gone along. Then I think one of the other things was this big lobby reform about buying votes, and I think they called it a ``culture of corruption.''

But I think what we have seen since January is actually an in-house culture of corruption and the fact that they had to buy 218 votes. So that's something that's unique to the situation, because, typically, you don't think about using other people's money to buy votes, but that's what they are doing. They are using the taxpayer dollar, and, like you said, Congressman, it's up into the billions now. I believe it was $20 billion that it cost them to get that 218 vote.

Let's talk about something else for a minute, because, I think the new majority party labeled the 109th Congress the do-nothing Congress, and we have labeled this, being the Truth Squad, and the honest people that we are, the smoke-and-mirrors Congress.

So I want to talk about some of the empty promises, some of the smoke and mirrors that we have all been talking about. One of the things we can all relate to is high gas prices. Mr. Price, it's hard to believe that we talk about the good old days of gas being $2 a gallon. But we don't have to go back that far to where gas was $2 a gallon.

I want to read a few quotes if I could, for you, to the people and to the Speaker. This was a quote: ``Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices . . . join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.'' This was a quote from now-Speaker Pelosi back in April of 2006, and I believe that gas was probably around $2 a gallon then. Now the Americans are paying $3.49 a gallon in California. That doesn't seem like that much of a reduction in the price of gas. In fact, it looks like almost 100 percent increase.

Another quote: ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices . . . we have offered legislation that would actually do something about the rise in gasoline prices . . . '' This is a quote from Mr. Hoyer. That was back in 2005. I don't know what the gas prices were then in Maryland, but I know today in Maryland they are $2.98 a gallon.

So these are some more empty promises; and not only empty promises, we got to see on some of the votes of the leadership, for the majority party, exactly how they vote.

If you look at the ANWR drilling, no, no, no. No, no, no. If you look at the refineries, where we wanted to expand our capability of our refineries, and be able to refine more oil, no, no, no. I am anxious, aren't you, to see what their result is going to be? I am ready for the answer.

They have left us hanging long enough. They have left us hanging for 2 years, and 1 year, as to what their answer is going to be to relieve these gas prices, to lower them. If anything, since the election in 2006, the gas prices have gone straight up.

So, you know, either they don't want to do what it takes to lower the gas prices, they don't know what it will take to lower the gas prices, or the very economic policies they have adopted in this 110th Congress have caused the gas prices to go up.

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

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

I found two more quotes I found interesting: ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.'' Now, this is Mr. Jim Clyburn from South Carolina who said that on July 6 of 2006. Gas prices in South Carolina are now $2.81.

There is another one that says: ``With gasoline and other prices rising, America's middle-class families deserve better . . . Nobody thinks $2.50 a gallon is cheap; it's still expensive.'' Now that came from the Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel on June 2 of 2006. So, evidently, gas prices

were around $2.50 then. Now, in Illinois, they are $3.23.

So, do you think, being the Truth Squad, that this could just be smoke and mirrors to get people to believe that they had some kind of answer to reduce these gas prices to make Americans make it easier for us to meet our energy needs here within this country, without going to foreign imports?

So that seems to be the indication that this is just more smoke and mirrors that the 110th Congress, then the minority, was telling the American public to become the majority. It's kind of like a barking dog behind the fence. As long as that dog is behind the fence, he is going to bark and say and do things to make you think he is going to get out and get something done. But when you open that gate he becomes a little whimpering Chihuahua, does nothing. I think that's what we see in here, a bunch of little Chihuahuas whimpering around.

I do thank you. I thank you for your time. I think the gentlelady from Tennessee may want to add something to that. I appreciate the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill would simply reauthorize the DCTAG program for an additional 5 years and enable District residents to

continue to attend certain colleges and universities at in-state rates. President Bush, in his budget submission for fiscal year 2008, has included sufficient funds to make this happen. I know that Ranking Member Davis, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Ms. Norton have worked very hard to bring this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

With the recent tragedy of Virginia Tech fresh in our minds, we take this time to remember the many victims of needless violence in our country.

The devastation of families, victims and entire communities in which these tragedies occur is beyond calculation. Too often, victims' loved ones are left alone with their loss and feel overwhelmed with the devastating experience that has altered their lives forever.

No one should have to cope with that loss alone. In such crushing times as these, families and friends look for sources of strength to sustain themselves. They also need ongoing support in dealing with the criminal justice system, which can be especially overwhelming during this period of grief.

The need for sources of strength are often found through a variety of support services, including counseling, crisis intervention, professional referrals and assistance in dealing with the criminal justice system. These organizations play an essential role in preserving the memories of victims of murder.

After the story of the murder fades, victim's family and friends are often left to cope without their loved ones alone. Thankfully, these counseling organizations provide the necessary support to the families and friends of murder victims so they can continue with their daily lives.

These personal assaults on our citizens are also an assault on all of us. We must remain diligent in our efforts to curb violence. Our murder rate in this country is simply too high. People watch television, movies and play video games where murder is often glorified. Many of our youth engage in pastimes where they are exposed to violence at an early age. However, there is no age where it should be appropriate to introduce murder into anyone's life.

It is incumbent upon all of us to recognize the selfless support groups in our communities who work tirelessly to help the thousands of friends and families of murder victims in this country every year. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 223.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time. I urge all my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 223.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, County Mayor Claude Ramsey has a long list of accomplishments to show for his three terms as leader of Hamilton County, Tennessee. From reforming the public education system to creating jobs in the area, Mayor Ramsey has constantly addressed the needs of both the business community as well as the general public.

Mayor Ramsey turned Hamilton County's public education system into a model for other counties to follow. Mayor Ramsey rallied support from the neighborhoods. Nine thousand people participated in an education summit and task force to identify the issues and challenges facing the department. Eight key initiatives, including target graduation and reading rates, increased technology, and early education programs, were formed. When fully implemented, the county's public education system will be one of the very best in the country.

Mayor Ramsey is constantly looking for new business and industrial recruitment and has made economic expansion a priority during his administration. He was able to secure almost $3 million in grant funds for expansion of local industries, which led to hundreds of millions of private investment and the creation of 2,000 jobs. He was also able to receive funding for the Center for Entrepreneurial Growth, a program started by Mayor Ramsey, to create more technology-based jobs in the community.

Hamilton County has received high praise for the changes that have been made, for instance receiving an AA+ rating from Finch, Inc. In 2003, Mayor Ramsey was presented Chattanooga Area Manager of the Year, an award presented annually to an executive whose management skills have profoundly influenced the outstanding performance of a key element of American business, industry, government, or nonprofit activity.

Mayor Ramsey has also addressed important topics such as literacy, obesity, public littering, and the creation of parks.

Making himself open and available to the community, Mayor Ramsey is very active in local agencies, such as the Orange Grove Center and the chairman of the Board of Associates at Chattanooga State Technical Community College.

As Mayor Ramsey rounds out his third term as county mayor, he continues to be an active and committed leader to the citizens of Hamilton County. The programs which he has put into place will be his legacy. They will continue to provide for the community for decades in the future.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to point out that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) would like to be here today to make a statement, but he had to remain home for a family emergency. We wish Mr. Wamp and his family the best.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 1260, which honors Mayor Ramsey for his admirable public service to the people of

Hamilton County and the State of Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.