Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring someone who has given 50 years of exceptional service to our country, Ms. Mary Alamar Young.

Ms. Young was born and raised in Devine, Texas just South of San Antonio, and she began her federal civil service career with the Air Force in 1960 as a clerk typist. Over the years, she rose to various positions of prominence due to her exemplary work ethic and her willingness to fight for the opportunities of others. As Program Operations Manager for the Air Force Affirmative Employment Program, her work expanded the opportunities for the minority community to contribute to and excel in our nation's armed forces.

Mary Alamar Young recently retired on December 31, 2011 after 50 consecutive years as a Federal civilian employee. Her expertise and consistently high level of performance contributed immeasurably to the successful accomplishment of the United States Air Force mission. Throughout her career, Ms. Young set the standard by which our nation's military operates today. This is evidenced by the many awards she has received over the years, including the Air Force Distinguished EEO Award and the Texas Governor's Yellow Rose of Texas Award. Additionally through her advocacy, Ms. Young has been critical to empowering students in the Latino community and working to provide increased opportunities for the young leaders of tomorrow.

It is my proud honor to represent constituents like Ms. Mary Alamar Young in our nation's capitol. Once again, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in recognizing a true public servant.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a true asset to our country's armed forces, Ms. Loyola Rose Trujillo.

Ms. Trujillo is currently the Director of the Civilian Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native Programs for the Department of Defense's Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. Prior to this esteemed position, she has served in various posts within the Department of Defense and has worked in budget and contracting, civilian personnel, strategic planning and manpower. Throughout her career, Ms. Trujillo has been a model for public service and government effectiveness, and her dedicated efforts have ensured that our nation's military is an employer that operates at the highest level of civil rights compliance and protections for its employees. Additionally, her work to promote diversity has greatly increased opportunities for members of minority communities to serve proudly and exceptionally in our nation's armed forces.

She is the daughter of Elisa Dominguez and Antonio Simone Trujillo, who was the first Mexican-American policeman on the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department. She is married to LTC Randall Miller USMC (ret), and she considers her greatest accomplishments to be the raising of her wonderful family, including two daughters and seven outstanding grandchildren.

It is my proud honor to represent constituents like Ms. Loyola Rose Trujillo in our nation's capitol. Once again, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in recognizing a true public servant.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 860, 861, and 862. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill in its entirety but especially to that provision which attempts to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission.

I need to address a few points that have been made by the proponents of this bill because I was there when this original bill came up for consideration years ago, and I've been there for the subsequent hearings in the committee of jurisdiction.

First of all, when it comes to the secretaries of state, they've been opposed to the creation of the Election Assistance Commission from its very beginning. This is nothing new. Their renewal of opposition basically used a form letter that didn't even change the 2006 date. The 2010 opposition letter actually referred and still used the same letter of previous years.

But the most important thing to point out is that secretaries of state have multifaceted responsibilities and obligations. One of them is to conduct elections. But each one of us in this body knows who really runs an election, and it's going to be your local election administrators.

You and I and anybody involved in the electoral process knows that on Election Day you're not going to find secretary of state personnel at the polling places. When the ballots are mailed for absentee voting, you're not going to find anyone from the Secretary of State's Office. They're not going to count the ballots. They're not going to be there. It is a local effort, and that's what the Election Assistance Commission is doing.

It was never meant to have a life span of 3 years. If you read the bill carefully, and Mr. Hoyer, who will be taking the floor later, will remind us of the legislative history of that particular bill that created this commission.

If we are to criticize them for an inordinate amount of their budget being applied to personnel, then we must look in the mirror as Members of Congress, because I assure you, because I also sit on a committee, obviously the same committee, that entertains the budget requests of the different committees. Each one of those committees and individual Members of Congress will tell you that they spend a greater proportion of their budget on personnel than the Election Assistance Commission. And there's good reason for it.

It was never really intended to fully fund every effort at the local level. It's to give advice. That's why I have received in the past, from local election officials in Maryland, Texas, Florida, and Ohio-- the local experience in Texas, in my county there, was that we saved $100,000 by the suggestions and recommendations that were issued by the commission.

Lastly, you criticize the commission for not functioning because it doesn't have a full body of commissioners. But whose fault is that? It's the individuals on the other side of the aisle that have blocked consideration.

That reminds me. When I was a lawyer, we used to have an old joke about the individual defendant who was there charged with murdering his parents, and at the end of the trial goes before the jury and asks for mercy because he's an orphan. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you want to help your local election officials, vote ``no'' on this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order tonight.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me, and I thank the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi, for giving me this time. I thank my colleagues for listening and for joining me in a few minutes. But I am also very sorry to be here in a certain respect. I'm sorry because I stand here tonight to talk about threats to the right of American citizens in States across this great country to go to the polls and cast a ballot in our elections.

The single most fundamental aspect of our democracy--or any democracy--is the right to vote, and that right is under attack. Mr. Speaker, there is no right mentioned more often in the Constitution than the right to vote. In the past 207 years we have amended the Constitution 15 times. Seven of those amendments--almost half of the amendments--over the last two centuries are about protecting, in the words of the 14th Amendment, the right to vote.

Minorities, women, adults over 18 years of age, poor citizens, and of course citizens of our Nation's Capital--at least if only for the Presidential election--all of these groups' right to vote has been enshrined in our Constitution. That's why it is so troubling to see dozens of States passing laws that will make it harder for citizens of the United States to vote. Whether by denying them the opportunity to vote after church on Sunday before the election day--perhaps because they cannot take time off work on election Day--or requiring them to spend time and money to procure a birth certificate and a photo ID, the only thing that these laws will do is to weaken our democracy. They are just plain wrong.

Hopefully, I will be joined by some of my colleagues. But I do want to spend a little bit of time explaining to the American public and to my colleagues what this is all about. And I'm going to start off by the photo ID voter requirement which is being passed obviously out of the legislature in the State of Texas and to be enacted for the 2012 election.

What is it exactly? Well, people will say, you mean, you just have to have a photo ID? It is not just any photo ID; it has to be one that meets all the requirements of a particular State's laws. So you would say, well, how onerous could that possibly be? As I've said, it is not just any government-issued photo ID that will be accepted on election day. It has certain requirements. So, much to my surprise, I recently found out that basically my identification and my voting card that all Members of Congress use would not be sufficient, would not meet the requirements in the great State of Texas. But it should not come as any surprise, because if you are a veteran and you have a photo ID that allows you to go to the Audie Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital in San Antonio, Texas, in my district, that photo ID will not suffice under Texas law. If you're a student in one of our State-supported institutions that has your photo on there, has your name, all that information, that is not going to meet the requirements in the State of Texas.

So you would ask, why would we pass these laws? What is the need? What is the requirement? Because we all know, whether you're in the State legislature or in this great House of Representatives at the Federal level, we don't pass unnecessary laws. So there must be a purpose behind these photo ID laws as well as other laws that are restricting the rights of individuals to exercise the right to vote.

It is to stop fraud. The photo ID, its whole purpose is to stop people from impersonating an eligible voter.

Now, you would say, so that must be happening across this great country and that's why we need this law. People are impersonating other people. People that shouldn't be voting might be impersonating an eligible voter. So let's discuss that, the reason for the photo ID in these many States.

I'm going to give you the example of the State of Kansas. The secretary of state pushed an ID law on the basis of a list of 221 reported instances of voter fraud. This all was supposed to have occurred in Kansas since the year 1997. So from 1997, for about 13 years, there were 221 reported instances of voter fraud. When the newspaper, the Wichita Eagle, looked into the local cases cited by the secretary of state, they found almost all of them were honest mistakes. None were attempted to be perpetrated by someone impersonating someone who they were not.

A great example of that, and I have to read you the excerpt from the Wichita Eagle of October 29, 2010:

Republican Kris Kobach, who has built his campaign for

secretary of state around the issue of voter fraud, raised

the specter of the dead voting in Kansas.

Kobach said in a news conference Thursday that 1,966

deceased people were registered to vote in Kansas.

``Every one of those 1,966 identities is an opportunity for

voter fraud waiting to happen,'' he said. Furthermore, he

said, some were still casting ballots. He gave an example of

one person--Alfred K. Brewer, a Republican, registered in

Sedgwick County with a birth date listed of January 1, 1900.

Brewer, according to the comparison of Social Security

records and Kansas voter rolls, had died in 1996 yet had

voted in the August primary, Kobach said.

Reached Thursday at his home where he was raking leaves,

Brewer, 78, was surprised some people thought he was dead.

``I don't think this is heaven, not when I'm raking

leaves,'' he said.

Those are example after example. No one can give you a specific example of voter fraud based on someone impersonating someone who they should not be on Election Day.

Now, between the years 2002 and 2007, a major Department of Justice, at the Federal level of course, had a probe into voter fraud. The result was failure to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter. Zero prosecutions. After tremendous amounts of manpower, time, energy, and money, nothing happened.

Now, the Brandon Center for Justice, the cases for voter fraud, what is it? So

if you have a law that is addressing a particular offensive-type behavior that obviously hurts this great Republic of ours, such as voter fraud, surely we must have demonstrated, tangible, verifiable cases out there.

The Washington Post, in an editorial, was looking at the number of alleged voter fraud. And these are not all predicated on voter ID. It could be some other type of fraud that's being perpetrated. But if you took all of the cases that have ever been alleged, this is the percentage of the total votes cast of those that might be suspect; because you've got to remember, there's going to be a price we're going to pay for this law, and that is it's going to disenfranchise the eligible voter in pursuit of the phantom illegal voter.

In Missouri, if you took all of their complaints, it would amount to, when compared to the total voter turnout, 0.0003 percent. In New York, it would amount to 0.000009 percent. In New Jersey, it would be 0.0002 percent.

So where is the voter fraud? What are we trying to address in passing these laws by the different State legislatures?

We had a recent occurrence, and this was not even a voter ID case, but this is where the secretary of state in Colorado, Mr. Gessler, was dropping voters from the voting list and not forwarding ballots for voting based on that particular voter not having voted in 2010. It didn't matter if they voted previously to that. If they did not vote in 2010, then they were dropped from the rolls.

And what was the reason for that? Well, there's potential voter fraud, potential of fraud. But they could not--that secretary of state, when they finally went to court, could not address, could not demonstrate, could not offer into evidence one case of voter fraud, not one. Based on his suspicions or conjecture.

In 2006, in the great State of Texas, my home State, the Texas attorney general had a press release, and it was entitled, ``Let's Stamp Out Voter Fraud in Texas.'' Sounds good. Sounds like a good thing to do. He could not name one, not one single case of fraud that would have been stopped by a voter ID law in the State of Texas.

I would yield at this time to my colleague, the great Representative from the great State of New Jersey, Rush Holt, for such time as he may consume.

I thank my colleague from New Jersey, and I appreciate his words of encouragement here to address what is going on in this country as we speak. As a matter of fact, there are other laws that are awaiting legislative action in different States.

I return still because I think people have a legitimate and good faith question about what are these laws supposed to address. And it's supposed to be about fraud. Mr. Speaker, let me address the claim of fraud once more.

There is no voter fraud that is going to be stopped by denying a 96- year-old woman in Tennessee her voter ID card because her last name doesn't match the name on her birth certificate, and she doesn't have a copy of her marriage certificate showing the change. There is no voter fraud that will be stopped by denying Floridians the right to vote after church on Sunday before election day.

Is that because there is no fraud? Not really. Fraud isn't about voters going to polls when they're not eligible. It's about the two individuals in the State

of Maryland who were indicted earlier this year for organizing deceptive robocalls to keep voters from the polls. It's about the robocalls last month in the State of Ohio telling people that the election was on a Wednesday. This is about the group in Houston, Texas, that just hosted a man who said that registering the poor to vote is un-American and ``like handing out burglary tools to criminals.'' That's the fraud that's really perpetrated on Americans today.

It's an old story of keeping people away from the polls when we should be encouraging them to vote. These new voter ID laws and law curtailing early voting or election day registration won't stop this kind of fraud, and the kind of fraud that would stop simply does not exist.

The previous administration, as I noted earlier, nearly broke the civil rights division of the Department of Justice in its quest to find this kind of voter fraud that voter ID would stop. They couldn't find any because it does not happen. But these laws will have a powerful effect. They will deny millions of Americans the right to participate in this democracy.

So we know what the law is. We know what it is intended to address, but doesn't really exist which is that kind of fraud. But what is the cost?

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber understand that when we pass legislation, we always look at the cost-benefit aspect of it. In other words, does the good really outweigh the bad? Is it worth the investment because there's going to be some consequence. In this case, it would not pass any kind of scrutiny if we really look at what it's going to cost Americans and how it's going to benefit Americans.

Now, the NAACP in a brief from November 1 of this year cited the following information: 11 percent of eligible voters in this country, 11 percent of eligible American citizen voters, 21 million strong, don't have updated State-issued photo IDs. So who's going to be impacted? Potentially 21 million eligible American citizen voters.

But of that 21 million, 25 percent will be African Americans, 14 percent are families or individuals that earn less than $35,000 a year, 18 percent will be seniors over the age of 65. But even 20 percent will be individuals between the ages of 18 and 29.

So I was asking a colleague, why do we do the analysis? What is the benefit and what is the cost? And many times we'll say, well, the cost is beneficial because it's worth that kind of investment if we get any kind of return.

Let me point out the fallacy of these laws when we actually apply the test because when we talk about numbers, they are mere numbers in the abstract; but these are real American voters that will be denied their right to vote when they go to that polling place and are informed that they need a State-issued photo ID.

There is no more fundamental right than that of voting, and a barrier that stops 1 percent of the people from voting is not acceptable merely because 99 percent of the people are still able to vote. Think of that proposition.

You simply are saying, well, if we just deny 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent, or 5 percent, you still have 90-something percent of the population, of the registered and eligible voters, who are still going to be able to vote. But think in terms if that were your vote or if that were a family member's vote. Every vote is precious in this country, and there is no evidence to support that what you're addressing is a widespread problem that will disenfranchise many, many thousands--hundreds of thousands and even millions--of American voters. That's what we're facing here today. That's what the analysis shows.

So, even if the lies of any scrutiny would show that this is ill- conceived, it will not produce the result that you're seeking because the problem that you're trying to remedy does not exist. There is a price that will be paid, and the price will be paid by many disproportionately--by seniors and minorities and by those who may not be in the upper economic scales of this country.

It is now my honor to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from the great State of Florida, who can tell us many things about the Florida experience, Congressman Ted Deutch.

I thank my colleague from Florida.

At this time, I yield to a dear friend and colleague who is also from the great State of Florida, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for such time as she may consume.

I thank my colleague from Florida.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into colloquy with my colleagues from Florida and New Jersey. I guess I'm just going to pose the question: So what if just a few people are denied access to the ballot box? It's just a few. And after all, we're trying to see if there's any kind of provable, tangible fraud going on. Now, they haven't been able to prove any fraud based on identification, of course. But you pointed out in your remarks what happened in Florida in 2000.

How many votes in Florida actually determined who was going to be President of the United States of America?

And we've already touched on estimates of how millions

of eligible American citizen voters don't have a current State-issued ID. The number is in the millions. And in Florida, it was less than 600 votes.

I don't know the experience in New Jersey. But it would seem--and I went over this earlier, and I don't know if my colleagues were here--we passed laws in this Chamber, and we always try to demonstrate that we're trying to remedy a situation that is true in existence. And the manner in which we do it--we look at cost benefits. We can't prove fraud; but I can assure you, we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people will be denied access to the polls.

Well, the curious thing, and I know the gentlelady from Florida has already pointed it out, there is no doubt that certain segments of voters are being targeted. This isn't an even application whose consequences will be felt across equally all sectors or segments of the voting population. We know what is really going on, and it is an asserted, directed effort. And some people may find it exceedingly hard to believe that that's what these laws will actually accomplish rather than the lofty goal of somehow eliminating, addressing voter fraud when we've already stated that you don't have any demonstrable evidence that the fraud is occurring.

Now, I do want to say in Texas, we just had this new photo ID law passed, and so I went to the Secretary of State's Office and I went to the Department of Public Safety which is charged and tasked with the duty of providing this election ID, photo ID. Now, this is the amazing thing. The Department of Public Safety in the State of Texas has not been appropriated one extra dollar

for this added burden. They are not going to have extended hours. They are going to have the regular hours. They're not going to have any mobile units of any type. They will continue using their existing facilities which are already taxed to the limit by individuals who are going in there just for regular business.

Now, this is the State of Texas. You may not believe this, but I think Florida is a pretty big State. New Jersey, not as big. But you can have a distance of 100 miles from some of our towns to the nearest DPS office. Now, why would that be important? You don't have a Texas driver's license, so that tells you you're going to have to get someone to drive you to the DPS station. And then you're going to be in the same line. Maybe they'll queue it a little differently, whatever it is, but I'll tell you now, the Texas experience is no different than most other States where you stand in line for inordinate amounts of time. If we're talking about the elderly, if we're talking about those who have some sort of a physical handicap, they can still go out and vote because they're so proud of the right to vote that they've been exercising for 60-plus years.

I would yield to the gentlelady from Florida.

I believe we still have at least 5 minutes, and I surely wanted to reference an article that was written by our colleague from Georgia, John Lewis. Mr. Holt, I think, has already referred to Mr. Lewis' illustrative career in the civil rights movement and such, but I would like to read the last couple of paragraphs because coming from John Lewis it is special because he's lived the worst of times and he knows that it's been a progression, a slow one, and we're not there yet. To somehow return to those old days under the guise of some sort of voter fraud, which again has not been demonstrated, we know the cost is going to far exceed the benefits.

This is what he said:

These restrictions purportedly apply to all citizens

equally. In reality, we know that they will

disproportionately burden African Americans and other racial

minorities, yet again. They are poll taxes by another name.

The King Memorial reminds us that out of a mountain of

despair we may hew a stone of hope. Forty-eight years after

the March on Washington, we must continue our work with hope

that all citizens will have an unfettered right to vote.

Second-class citizenship is not citizenship at all.

We've come some distance and have made great progress, but

Dr. King's dream has not been realized in full. New

restraints on the right to vote do not merely slow us down.

They turn us backward, setting us in the wrong direction on a

course where we have already traveled too far and sacrificed

too much.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

I'd like to yield time to each of my colleagues as we close out the Special Order.

I would first recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I thank my colleague for his participation and his words.

I would yield to my colleague from Florida.

I thank my colleague from Florida, I thank the Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Anna Maria Chavez and to congratulate her on her appointment as the 19th Chief Executive of Girl Scouts of the USA. Ms. Chavez officially assumes her new role at the Girl Scouts National Council Session/52nd Convention being held this week in Houston, Texas.

I am particularly proud that Ms. Chavez joins GSUSA following an incredibly successful term as Chief Executive of Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas in my home district in San Antonio, Texas. During her tenure, Ms. Chavez oversaw a 20 percent increase in membership in just two years. Quickly recognized for her leadership, Ms. Chavez received the inaugural ATHENA Organizational Leadership Award in 2010 and was inducted into the San Antonio Women's Hall of Fame in March 2011.

As the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I also take great pride in the fact that Ms. Chavez is the first Latina woman to be named the head of Girl Scouts. Her story began in the small town of Eloy, Arizona, where she was raised in a Mexican-American family.

Ms. Chavez holds a law degree from the University of Arizona College of Law and a bachelor's degree in American history from Yale University. Bar admissions include the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Arizona Supreme Court, and U.S. Supreme Court. Her professional accomplishments are many. Prior to coming to Girl Scouts, she served as deputy chief of staff for urban relations and community development for former Arizona Governor and current U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. Prior to being appointed as deputy chief of staff, Ms. Chavez served as then Governor Napolitano's director of intergovernmental affairs from 2003 to 2007. She also served as in-house counsel and assistant director for the Division of Aging & Community Services (DACS) at the Arizona Department of Economic Security. Ms. Chavez entered state government after serving as senior policy advisor to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater. Previously, she had been chief of staff to the deputy administrator at the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) in Washington, D.C. Ms. Chavez also served as chief of staff for SBA's Office of Government Contracting and Minority Enterprise Development.

As she takes the helm at Girl Scouts of the USA, Ms. Chavez will shepherd a dramatic period of change for the organization. This week, Girl Scouts will kick off its 100th Anniversary celebration, designating 2012 as the Year of the Girl. In the coming years, Girl Scouts has plans to promote its award winning Girl Scout Leadership Program, including the exciting new badge book, The Girl's Guide to Girl Scouting. Girl Scouts is also preparing to launch an ambitious new fundraising effort tied to these activities, and to elevate public awareness about girls' unique needs.

As relevant today as it was when it was founded 100 years ago, this organization delivers the best leadership experience for a new generation of girls whose lives--and the opportunities they face--are ever changing. I am confident that Anna Maria Chavez will continue this strong legacy of leadership and service, and look forward to working with her for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. John Folks on being awarded Superintendent of the Year from the Texas Association of School Boards.

Dr. Folks has served as superintendent of the Northside Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas since 2002 and was selected from among the 1,000 eligible superintendents from across the state of Texas for this award. Dr. Folks has consistently advocated against budget cuts to education and schools, and during his time as superintendent, Northside ISD has become the largest school district in Bexar County and has grown from 65,000 students to 97,500 students. Northside ISD is also the largest school district in Texas to be classified as a ``recognized'' school under the state's accountability system.

Dr. Folks has been instrumental in maintaining the quality of Texas public schools and has served as superintendent of Spring Independent School District in Houston and Midwest City-Del City Public Schools in suburban Oklahoma City. He began his teaching career in Port Arthur, Texas and has remained an educator for 41 years. As Past President of the Texas Association of School Administrators, he has used his leadership skills to help school districts excel across the state of Texas. He is committed to doing what is right for Texas youth and understands that it takes a skilled team of dedicated educators to pave their road to success to prepare students to lead productive and fulfilling lives.

I would again ask you to congratulate Dr. John Folks on his recognition as Superintendent of the Year by the Texas Association of School Boards and acknowledge his fight for providing an exemplary education throughout our nation's public school systems.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to reflect that, had I been present for the vote, I should have voted ``nay'' on the Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment to the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2608) as I had voted against it on Wednesday, September 21, 2010.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I extend my thanks to my colleague from Illinois for joining me in cosponsoring what I believe is a very important amendment.

We offered this amendment because we have concerns with EPA's intent to proceed with a tier 3 rulemaking which would establish new fuel specification standards without justifying it with the sufficient data that has already been called to be conducted under a study in a previous bill.

In 2007, Congress included a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that directed EPA to study and implement fuel changes to negate any detrimental air quality impact resulting from the renewable fuel standard. EPA has not conducted this required study.

I am concerned that EPA may be moving too quickly with tier 3 regulations. EPA should complete the study first and provide for adequate comment and feedback from stakeholders before proceeding with the proposed rule. Any proposed changes to gasoline sulfur content and vapor pressure should be backed by sound data. These reductions must be justified because they have real costs. I have concerns about the effects these new regulations could have on refiners. These costs could result in decreased gasoline supplies and possible refinery closures, both of which could undermine our Nation's energy security.

Our amendment simply adds any proposed tier 3 rulemaking to the list of regulations where EPA must conduct additional analyses, as outlined in TRAIN. This additional study will ensure that all of the costs and impacts are known before EPA proceeds with its proposal.

I hope my colleagues in the House can support this straightforward amendment. It simply calls on an agency to simply do that which it was directed to do years ago before proceeding and not to basically proceed before you have the vital information on which to base some very important regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Margaret Fuentes Gonzalez Zepeda on the occasion of her 96th birthday and tribute at the Guadalupe Community Center in San Antonio, Texas.

Born in 1915 Margaret ``Margarita'' Gonzalez was the daughter of Simon Gonzalez and Maria Fuentes Gonzalez. Margaret and her family grew up in San Antonio, and in April 1931, she married Manuel Zepeda, a union that would last 44 years, produce three girls and one boy.

Margaret worked for the San Antonio Housing Authority for over 20 years and rose to the position of Assistant Manager. Additionally, Margaret was extremely active in the community, and she used sports as a method to mentor San Antonio youth. Through sports Margaret developed a strong sense of discipline that she took to the Guadalupe Community Center and to the City of San Antonio as a recreation leader.

After retirement Margaret accelerated her own participation in sports, and in the late 1980s began her journey into the Senior Olympics. Since 1990 Margaret has participated in Senior Olympics in a variety of sports including: bowling; walking; horse shoes; softball and football for accuracy and distance; and each year has qualified for the National Games. At the age of 96, Margaret has won over 100 gold and silver medals. She has been to the National Games in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (twice); San Antonio, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; Orlando, Florida and has brought home the Gold or Silver (Tucson) every time.

Margaret Zepeda has a ``never give up'' spirit that impacted the self worth of each child she mentored. She instilled in them pride and discipline, and an understanding that love and command of sports was the great equalizer. For her half century of community work and leadership to the children of San Antonio, I join in celebrating the tribute hosted at the Guadalupe Community Center by the cadre of successful women who began their lives under the tutorage of Margaret Fuentes Gonzalez Zepeda.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a truly amazing citizen of our country, Mr. Atanacio Garcia of San Antonio, Texas.

Mr. Garcia has dedicated his entire life to serving the United States of America. At the age of 22, he enlisted in the military and served 8 years, including a stint in Korea and Germany. Upon his discharge, Mr. Garcia returned to Texas and joined the U.S. Postal Service. In addition to working for the Postal Service for 24 years, Mr. Garcia also served in the Texas Air National Guard from March 14, 1963-March 13, 1982.

Since his retirement in 1984, Mr. Garcia has remained steadfast in his commitment to civic duty and civic responsibility, and he has continuously worked to help the people of San Antonio. Mr. Garcia worked to help bring the first public pool to San Antonio's Westside neighborhood, and he has been a constant figure at neighborhood events and local community service projects.

Even after all of these incredible achievements and accomplishments, Mr. Garcia has still felt the need to do even more for his country. Concerned about America's growing debt, he decided to take matters into his own hands. Starting in 2009, Mr. Garcia made a pledge to send $50 every month to the U.S. Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt in order to pay down our national debt. In order to maintain his monthly pledge, Mr. Garcia uses money he makes from selling aluminum cans that he collects in his neighborhood.

Obviously, we cannot all have the sense of public service and civic duty of Mr. Atanacio Garcia, but it is my hope that we can all strive to be a little more like Mr. Garcia. If lawmakers and corporations were able to embody just a fraction of his willingness to solve problems by putting America first, I do not believe that our country would have the problems that it does.

I want to thank Mr. Garcia for his tireless efforts and dedication to his community and to his country. He is a pillar of the San Antonio community, and an example for citizens across the country. It is truly an honor to represent constituents, such as Mr. Atanacio Garcia, in the U.S. Congress, and again, I would like to ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing this incredible public servant and citizen of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the McAfee family for celebrating their 70th family reunion in San Antonio, Texas.

On Saturday, August 27, 2011, members of the McAfee family will gather at Rodriguez City Park in San Antonio to celebrate a tradition of coming together that has lasted 70 years. The McAfee Family Reunion began in 1941 with the family of William and Charlotte Newton McAfee, and their nine children. This year, four of the McAfee children from the initial reunion will be celebrating their 70th continuous McAfee Family Reunion: Harold McAfee, Delton McAfee King, Doris McAfee Walker, and Joseph McAfee.

At the core of American values is a commitment to family, and I want to thank all of the members of the McAfee family for their incredible dedication to each other. They are truly a model for families all across our great country, and I am honored to have their family celebrate such a tremendous milestone in my district. The McAfee family's steadfast embodiment of family values is an inspiration, and I wish them years of continued happiness for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Judge Ricardo Manuel Urbina for his distinguished career and long outstanding service to his community.

Over the course of his career as an NCAA track and field champion and Georgetown University honors graduate, he distinguished himself as an athlete and a scholar. In the early years of his life, Judge Urbina was frequently recognized for his exceptional athletic achievements which included his running in the 1968 Olympic trials. After receiving his law degree in 1970, he continued to break barriers with every stride further earning a stellar reputation as a trial lawyer, academician and tenacious advocate for the fair and equal administration of law.

In 1981 President Reagan appointed him to the DC Superior Court. Thirteen years later, President Clinton appointed Judge Urbina to serve on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia where he currently presides after thirty years of service on the bench.

I am inspired by Judge Urbina's steadfast commitment to the law and strict adherence to the highest ethical standards. Numerous lawyers, judges, and Latino leaders have had the privilege to be mentored by Judge Urbina and have benefited from his counsel and guidance. He has inspired a diverse network of people to strive to reach their fullest potential and pursue their dreams.

Judge Urbina's career exemplifies not only notable legal accomplishments and a long history of achievements in every arena of endeavor, but also a man's tireless efforts to improve the line of succeeding generations. Mister Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to congratulate Judge Urbina for his thirty years of service on the bench, to wish him the best as he assumes senior status and to recognize the many contributions he has made to the administration of justice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Operational Technologies (OpTech) on its 25th anniversary of providing business expansion opportunities and incredible employment sources for many San Antonians.

Founded by Max Navarro a quarter-century ago, OpTech has been committed to excellence and strives to provide scientific and technical solutions for global clients across a range of service sectors. OpTech focuses on areas ranging from Supply Chain Management, Biotechnology, and Automotive Industry. OpTech has succeeded in exceeding client expectations and the achievement of outstanding corporate citizenship through its adherence to the highest levels of professional integrity.

From securing the defense contract to develop a nerve gas antidote or constructing an $850 million state-of-the-art manufacturing plant to assemble the Toyota Tundra pick-up truck, OpTech has made great strides towards providing San Antonio a promising economic future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Operational Technologies on their continued success and contribution to San Antonio as a leading minority owned business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 672, and I yield myself 5 minutes.

Supporters of the bill once told us that this would save $14 million each year. I'm not sure how they came up with that number. What we do know is that when Ranking Member Brady asked the FEC if they could handle the responsibilities of EAC, this is what they said: Sure, if you give us more money. So this bill would take money from an agency they don't like and give it to an agency that no one likes. It will take money from an agency that has met many challenges and has improved its operations in the past few years, and it will give it to one on the opposite path, one that has become only more dysfunctional in recent years.

But H.R. 672 doesn't move all of EAC's functions to the FEC. Some of the best ones simply go away. So let's say that H.R. 672 will save the Federal Government $6.6 million a year. That's great. Unless you happen to live in a State. This is just another example of shifting the costs to the States. Well, we lose the efficiencies of having a central clearinghouse for information, so maybe this isn't just cost shifting but cost increasing, because no matter what we do, our States have to run elections every year, often twice a year.

The EAC doesn't run elections. That's not its job. It assists the State and local election officials so that they can run elections better and for less. And local election officials have written in from across the country in praise of the EAC and opposition to this bill. H.R. 672 would eliminate the one Federal agency that's focused on finding best practices for elections. That will make it that much harder for the supervisor of elections in Palm Beach County, Florida, to learn that the registrar of voters in Fresno County, California, figured out a way to process paper ballots so they would run more smoothly, representing a 25 percent savings in election costs.

In my home, Bexar County, the elections administrator, Jacqui Callanen, learned from an EAC instructional video a new technique that will save

our county $100,000 per year. That's $100,000 in savings for one county, from one EAC instructional video, and we have more than 8,000 election jurisdictions in the United States.

But the savings don't stop there. The recount from Minnesota's 2008 Senate race was estimated to cost the State as much as $5 million and the candidates around $20 million. Worse, the people of Minnesota were deprived of one of their Senators for 6 of the most turbulent months in recent history. If the EAC can prevent the need for such recounts and reduce the costs and time involved in others, how much is that worth? EAC has taken tremendous steps to help our States ensure that our citizens, especially the disabled, are able to exercise their constitutional right and civic responsibility to participate in our electoral system. Now, how much is that worth?

Are the proponents of this bill willing to put a pricetag on that? Mr. Speaker, we spend millions of dollars and put our young men and women in harm's way, promoting and protecting our great democracy. Is it really too much to spend $6.6 million here at home?

When H.R. 672 was marked up in committee, I offered a very simple amendment. It would have had GAO look into whether the bill would actually save money, including whether savings at the Federal level would simply be the result of pushing costs onto the States, and whether voters would be disenfranchised, giving us the time to reconsider if the results were negative. I hadn't anticipated that the bill would reach the floor with no chance to offer an amendment. When we defeat this, when it comes up for a vote, and if the Republican leadership should decide to bring H.R. 672 back to the floor under a rule, I fully intend to offer that amendment again. If the supporters of H.R. 672 are so confident of the bill's savings and innocuous nature, I can't see why they would object to my amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip who was instrumental in a bipartisan effort to actually pass, a few years ago, the Help America Vote Act.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the great State of Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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

First of all, I would like to address some of the remarks made by the proponents of this particular bill. First, I know it was not intentional to mischaracterize the words of Mr. Hoyer. He did not state that the EAC should have an eternal life. What he said is, it was essential, in its present form, in the function that it provides. I think he also indicated that everything is not a simple budget or mathematical problem. There is cost benefit to look into and see what the true benefit is for the investment of that Federal dollar.

Much has been said about the National Association of Secretaries of State coming out with a resolution. That is not news. From the very inception they opposed the creation of the Election Assistance Commission, and on a regular basis they would pass a resolution expressing that opposition. But I do wish to point out that the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, Secretary of State of Minnesota Mark Ritchie--whose State knows something about the cost of problematic elections--testified before our committee on March 31 that he was certainly not in favor of terminating the Election Assistance Commission.

I also wish to read from a letter that we received today at about 4 p.m. to a House Administration election staffer:

Dear Mr. Khalil, I am the election director of Harford County Board of Elections in northeastern Maryland. I am a Republican and have been active in the Republican Party since 1968. I am also the Republican member of the Standards Board of the Election Assistance Commission.

As a representative of a local board of elections, we are very isolated and depend on the EAC as a clearinghouse of information and resources. The EAC has been most helpful to local boards of elections in supporting our election administration and providing guidance in future elections. The FEC is too political and cannot do and perform as the Election Assistance Commission.

The passage of H.R. 672 will be a loss to local boards of election nationwide. We are the grassroots of the election community, and we need the support of the EAC.

In closing, we will in fact defeat this tomorrow. I'm hoping that my amendment will be ruled in order and that we will have a chance to really look at the potential effect this bill will have on local election officials. Not to politicize it. This is not about Republicans or about Democrats; it's about how effective and efficient our local election officials can be. With the assistance of the only clearinghouse, the only commission with the expertise and the dedication to that single goal. There will be no other agency like it, there will be no other commission like it, and it's well worth the investment that we make on a yearly basis to assure the integrity and the efficiency of our local elections. I don't know of any better investment.

I understand that we have to tighten our belts. Do we do it, though, at the cost of the efficient running of our elections, the very basis for our democracy?

I commend the Members on the other side of the aisle for this effort, but it is truly misguided. It's not based on facts or the realities on the ground. And almost every local election official will echo those sentiments today.

I oppose this bill. I will be voting against it. And I ask my colleagues to please oppose this bill.

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

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