Floor Statements

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 5493. This bill permits the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to each display one statue here in the U.S. Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia and these territories of the United States are important pieces of the larger mosaic that make up our national identity, and I support their right to honor a noteworthy figure of their communities. Statues are funded by the individual territories. Therefore, this legislation is unusual; it's budget- neutral. In the coming years, I look forward to welcoming these statues to the Congress and learning more about the individuals that each such entity chooses to honor.

So I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlelady for those nice comments. I understand the importance of having a statue that reflects the people of the District of Columbia and the territories. I remember the pride that we had, as Californians, when we brought the statue of Ronald Reagan here just about a year and a half ago. That is a great example of someone who was not born in California but someone who rose to great prominence in California and someone who loved our State.

So I appreciate very, very much, and I love this spirit of bipartisanship that the city has shown to choose Mr. L'Enfant, who, of course, was a historic figure before we had the Democratic or Republican Parties, and Frederick Douglass, a prominent Republican and a great American.

So I thank you for that great choice. And I know who I'd vote for, but you have a choice of two great Americans representing the District of Columbia. I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1377, honoring the accomplishments of Norm Mineta. I am glad the gentleman from California made it clear that, while we honor him, Mr. Mineta is not yielding back his time; he is very much with us.

Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mineta has had a distinguished and praiseworthy career in public service, and I am pleased to join my colleagues in honoring him.

Born in San Jose, California, in 1931 to Japanese immigrant parents, it was during World War II, due to Executive Order 9066, that he and his family were deemed enemy aliens and were forced to leave their home and live in the Santa Anita racetrack paddocks for 3 months before they were then sent to their permanent location at the Heart Mountain internment camp near Cody, Wyoming. And as was suggested by the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), despite this humiliation, Secretary Mineta persevered.

In 1953, he graduated from the University of California Berkeley School of Business Administration and joined the United States Army, serving as an intelligence officer in Japan and Korea. In 1967, he became the first person of minority descent to serve on the San Jose City Council. In 1971, he was elected mayor of San Jose, thereby becoming the first Asian American mayor of a major U.S. city.

In 1975, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, representing the 15th District of California. He served in this House until 1995. In Congress, he chaired the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and was a key author of the landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. He also, as was said, helped establish the Asian-Pacific American Heritage Week and Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month, which rightly recognizes the role and participation of Japanese immigrants and Chinese laborers in our country.

It was through his leadership, along with others, including Senator Inouye on the Senate side, that the Commission of Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians was established in 1978, and 10 years later the Civil Liberties Act was passed, offering appropriate apology for the actions taken against Japanese Americans during World War II.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to serve as vice chairman of that commission. It was at the urging of Mr. Mineta and Bob Matsui that I agreed to serve on

that commission. I remember with great pride that while the issue was somber and tragic, the pursuit of truth and justice was something we all shared, guided by the leadership of Norm Mineta.

In 2000, Secretary Mineta became the first Asian American to hold a post in a Presidential cabinet, as he served as Secretary of Commerce under President Clinton, and then, of course, in 2001 became the first Asian American to serve as our Secretary of Transportation.

He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2006, that of course the highest civilian award given in the United States, and granted the Grand Cordon, the Order of the Rising Sun, the highest honor bestowed upon an individual of Japanese descent by the Japanese government.

Norm Mineta has lived a great life of service, of sacrifice, and dedication to this country. This resolution appropriately honors his accomplishments, his legacy, and it also inspires and encourages us to reflect upon and remember the lessons of his distinguished life.

I might say it was a pleasure to serve in the House of Representatives during the 1980s with Norm Mineta. You may have differences of opinion with him, but he never allowed it to rise to a level of being disagreeable. He was someone that you could always speak with. And even though you may have different positions on issues on this floor, I don't think I ever heard a cross word come from Norm Mineta with respect to other Members in this House.

I certainly thank Congressman Honda and Congresswoman Chu, both from the great State of California, for offering this resolution, and I am proud to be a cosponsor and urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) to make sure this is not just an all-California event.

If the gentleman from American Samoa has no other speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I was wrong in 1984 when I stood on this floor in this position and led the Republican effort to work with my Democratic friends to pass immigration reform. I don't think I was wrong in 1986 when I was the Republican floor manager of Simpson-Mazzoli in an attempt to try and bring some semblance of law to the issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. But I must say that in 1986, when we did pass that law, we thought that that was going to resolve many of these issues, and it was going to take care of them. And even though we spent weeks on the floor over those 2 years--weeks on the floor, allowing 200-

and-some amendments to be put in the Record, over 100 amendments offered on the floor so that Members had the opportunity to have their ideas heard--I don't think we were wrong.

I do think we are wrong now to bring this at the last hour, to deny anybody an opportunity for a single amendment on this important issue, and to bring it in a parliamentary inquiry fashion that stuffs this bill into a Senate bill, which does what? Disallows the minority an opportunity to bring a motion to recommit.

Now, why do I say that that's important? Because we passed legislation in '86 that we thought was going to solve the problem. In some cases it solved the problem, and in some cases it exacerbated the problem. I was concerned at that time that we passed the SAW and RAW provisions--seasonal agricultural workers and replenishment agricultural workers--because I was afraid that that would be full of fraud. And guess what? It has been. Since that time we have added to the numbers of people who are illegally in the United States. Now, some people don't want to talk about that as if it has no importance.

We have, as a principle in our law, the concept of a worldwide quota. What does that mean? That means everyone should have an equal opportunity to come to the United States, whether you're the poorest child in Africa, whether you're in the Philippines, whether you're in Asia. And when you have rampant illegal immigration, particularly from this hemisphere, you are in essence discriminating against those equally poor, some even in worse poor situations around the world for their chance to come here to the United States. That's why when you deal with an issue like this, you have to look at the whole picture, and we are denied the opportunity to look at the whole picture here.

There are those that say, well, we are here to assist only those children who, by no fault of their own, came to the United States, those up to the age of 16 who came here in one fashion or another. If that be true, why not allow an amendment which would say that those who benefit from this will not have the opportunity to bring those who may have brought them here illegally----

Why not say they will not have the right to bring those who did break the law into the United States? But right now, under this bill, if you qualify under this bill, you have the right to begin chain migration. You have the right to bring your parents in, your adult siblings in, others in. At least give us the chance to have the opportunity for amendment. That's all I'm saying.

We know that this isn't the way to deal with this issue. We know we should have a chance. We had the opportunity for months to bring something to this floor. So all I would say is this is an issue that many of us on this side of the aisle will work with you on, but this is just not the night and this is not the way to do it.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as one of its cosponsors, I rise in support of House Resolution 1540. This draws much needed attention to a problem as suggested by my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, which is the cultivation of marijuana on our Federal lands.

There is no doubt that, oh, 15 years ago, when I was Attorney General of California, we saw that Mexican cartels had basically taken over this trade in our State and that they were largely operating on Federal lands, on non-private lands. Of course, in the State of California, I believe the Federal Government owns about 49 percent of our State--a lot of that forest lands and wilderness areas. These are the areas that these cartels are converting into farms for illegal marijuana crops. They are damaging our protected ecosystems there, and they are threatening the safety of visitors and employees. In fact, the DEA calls marijuana the ``cash crop'' that finances drug cartels' drug trafficking operations.

Marijuana is grown in remote areas of public lands, where there is a limited law enforcement presence. The two primary regions for these marijuana sites are the Western Region, comprised of California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington; and the Appalachian Region, including Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.

This year, when I was visiting one of my counties, the smallest population county in the State of California, Alpine County, which has parts of several U.S. forests and a couple of wilderness areas, the under sheriff told me of some of the largest finds that they had made in those areas. They were finds that were unexpected and finds that were difficult to discover precisely because there are so few people who live in these areas. Of course, we designate them as wilderness areas and as forest lands. In many cases, they are not that often visited by citizens of the United States. The people who recreate these areas do so, enjoying the environment. These pristine lands of our National Forest system are therefore particularly enticing to these drug trafficking organizations as the dense, expansive forests that we find in these areas provide optimum marijuana-growing conditions with very little risk of detection.

America's National Forest system, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, is comprised of 193 million acres of land with 153,000 miles of trails and nearly 18,000 recreation sites, but we only have a little under 200 sworn officers and detectives who patrol this vast, expansive land, including 36 million acres of wilderness area.

The members of these cartels hike deep into the forests, fell trees, and clear away brush to plant their marijuana crops. They construct rudimentary irrigation systems, and divert water from local creeks or streams. They use these to water the plants. They use Miracle-Gro or other fertilizers, and they even lace the area with animal-killing chemicals. It's obvious they don't file for EPA permits or anything like that.

They are destroying much of the beautiful natural resources that we have in these areas. We have discovered that the cartel members set up camp nearby and patrol the areas for intruders; and sometimes, when innocent American citizens are traveling through these areas, they are encountered by these individuals. More and more, we see that these members of the cartels have lethal weapons with them, even automatic weapons.

The Justice Department reports that these cartels, particularly in the States of Washington and California, are becoming increasingly aggressive in protecting the marijuana fields. We have found assault rifles, and we have found them engaging in standoffs with law enforcement officers. I would say, in my most rural counties, we do not have the largest law enforcement departments. That, combined with the very few people we have from the Federal Government's law enforcement, make it a prime area for these drug cartels to take over and make it dangerous, as I say, for law-abiding citizens, who want nothing but to recreate in these areas, to utilize these facilities.

I will say, late this summer/early this fall, we got tremendous support from the Forest Service and from other elements of the Federal Government in support of our effort to try and clean out these areas and also to protect our local law enforcement officers as they were working on it. In 2010, more than 3 million marijuana plants were seized from Forest Service lands in practically every region of the country. Now, this is a dramatic increase from 2004 when fewer than 750,000 plants were seized.

Once their illegal crops are harvested, the growers then abandon the sites, and they leave their garbage and their destruction behind. These fields are easy to plant, easy to harvest, but difficult to eradicate. Law enforcement officers must patrol the thick forest canopy from the sky, hoping to glimpse a marijuana grow site.

They must then fly or hike into the site, hoping that they won't be confronted by armed guards or boobytraps. These marijuana sites not only pose a danger to law enforcement officials, park employees, and visitors, but as I say, to the very natural resources the forest designation is intended to protect.

Marijuana fields utilized by these illegal cartels cause extensive long-term damage to the forest ecosystems and deplete the drinking water supplies for neighboring communities. Just last month, the Forest Service removed more than 10 cubic yards of garbage from six abandoned marijuana grow sites in northern California. The Forest Service reports that it cost approximately $30,000 to remove the marijuana and restore the ecosystem of each of the 622 marijuana sites discovered in the national forest system for fiscal year 2010. That is a cost of over $18 million in taxpayer dollars to rid our forests of these illegal marijuana grows.

It is imperative that Congress and the administration make a commitment to put an end to the marijuana sites on Federal land and protect our precious natural resources from any further destruction.

I commend my colleague from California (Mr. Herger) for his tireless efforts to address this growing problem and as I say, I was proud to join him in

this case as an original cosponsor of H. Res. 1540. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say that I support this resolution.

The concern is a considerable one. These cartels are in fact violent and vicious, and their violence has gone up over the last number of years, and it is affecting our districts very directly.

I might say to the gentleman who just spoke that we happen to be one of the States that allows for medicinal marijuana, and it is not very difficult to get a medicinal purpose for marijuana. But we also had before the voters in the State of California an opportunity to decide whether or not they wanted to make it legal, and it was voted down by a substantial margin. That being the case, I think this resolution needs to go forward, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Today, the House considers S. 3998, the Criminal History Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2010. This bill was introduced by Senator Schumer of New York and recently passed the Senate by unanimous consent. I might just say parenthetically it makes me feel good that I finally found a bill sponsored by the gentleman from New York that I could support.

This bill extends the child safety pilot program, which provides background checks for volunteer organizations that work with children, for an additional year. Originally created, as the gentleman from Virginia said, in 2003 under the PROTECT Act, the child safety pilot program has proven itself to be an effective resource for protecting our children. Through the pilot project, nonprofit organizations that provide youth-based care may request criminal history background checks from the FBI on applicants for volunteer or employee positions that involve working with children.

A study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children provided data that underscores the importance of the pilot program. The National Center found that of almost 90,000 background checks performed through the pilot program, 6 percent of volunteer applicants were found to have a criminal history of concern. These included serious offenses such as sexual abuse of minors, assault, child cruelty, drug offenses and even murder. Further, over 42 percent of those with criminal histories had convictions in a State other than the State in which they then were applying to volunteer. If the volunteer group had performed a search only of the in-state records, many relevant criminal convictions would not have been identified. One youth-serving organization that received 1600 applications for volunteer positions found that over 50 percent of the applicants lied about having a criminal history, even though they knew it would be subjected to a background check. Of the applicants with criminal records, 23 percent had a different name reflected on their record than the one used to apply to volunteer. Without access to the national criminal database, many of these dangerous individuals may have slipped through the cracks.

Mr. Speaker, volunteer and other child-serving organizations across the country are working hard to provide safe learning and growing environments for our children. That means hiring professional and responsible employees. This bill will help and continues to help these groups to do just that, by extending the pilot program.

The child safety pilot program is supported by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America; the YMCA; the Salvation Army; Big Brothers, Big Sisters of America; and Volunteers of America as well as many other important organizations. Many Members of this body are parents first and Members of Congress second. This legislation is critical to keeping our children safe from criminals.

If just a single child does not become a victim of crime because of this program, then obviously it will have been successful. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for this piece of legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3353, which does provide for American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to be treated as States for certain criminal justice programs.

This is sponsored by Mr. Sablan from the Northern Mariana Islands. We thank him for bringing this forward to us. As the gentleman from Virginia said, this will allow these two territories to be treated individually for the Byrne Grant Program. This will assist both of them in dealing with some of the law enforcement challenges that they have.

This increase in formula grant funding will provide additional resources to territorial law enforcement officials to help them combat crime. For example, this additional funding will help officials cover the costs of purchasing and maintaining police vehicles and other equipment which have to be shipped to the island.

H.R. 3353 will also help the territorial governments to provide much- needed services to the victims of crime. Because of the remoteness of the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, these costs are quite high and services are very limited. For instance, there are three main inhabited islands in the Northern Mariana Islands but only one shelter that provides services for victims of domestic violence.

The increase in Byrne JAG grants will also help to build capacity and sustain programs to serve crime victims. As there are a limited number of crime victim specialists and advocates in the territories, these funds can be used to hire and relocate additional staff from the U.S. mainland.

This is important legislation that will help law enforcement officials in the Northern Marianas and American Samoa to accomplish their mission. So I support this bill, and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again I reiterate my support for H.R. 3353.

I yield back the balance of my time

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6412, the Access to Criminal History Records for State Sentencing Commissions Act of 2010. This amends the Federal law to direct the Attorney General to share criminal history records with State sentencing commissions.

I am proud to say that although it's not as rare as the chances I have to agree with the Senator from New York, I do agree with my friend from Virginia more often than that, and it is good to be able to be here and support the legislation which he brings to the floor.

Over a dozen States operate sentencing commissions that, similar to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, promulgate guidelines to provide uniform sentences for criminal offenses. Many State sentencing commissions also collect and report statistics on the types of crimes, the lengths of sentences, the rates of recidivism, and other important public safety data.

Federal law has required the Attorney General to collect criminal history records and share such records with State and local governments, Indian tribes, penal institutions, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission. However, interestingly enough, State sentencing commissions are not currently eligible to participate in this exchange. H.R. 6412 corrects this omission by amending the Federal law to add State sentencing commissions to the list of entities authorized to obtain criminal history records.

There is an old adage that all crime is local. And in many respects, that is still true today. But while crime still may be local, oftentimes the criminal is not. Today, more than ever, criminals move from one State to the next, or across the country, leaving a trail of criminal records behind them. Public safety officials rely upon shared criminal history records to apprehend fugitives and to identify dangerous criminals.

Prosecutors and the courts depend on these records to assess penalties. And sentencing commissions need this data to accurately report sentencing data and to ensure that their sentencing guidelines provide fair and appropriate punishment. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill brought to us by Mr. Scott of Virginia.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 75, authorizing use of the rotunda of the Capitol for an event in January marking the 50th anniversary of the inaugural address of President John F. Kennedy.

Madam Speaker, Presidential inaugural addresses are always historic and are often some of the most memorable events during different eras of our country's history.

We can recall Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address in 1861, President Franklin Roosevelt's inaugural address in 1933, and President Ronald Reagan's inaugural address in 1981, among many others, as addresses that inspired this Nation at particular moments of importance.

In 1961, President Kennedy's inaugural address rightly challenged us to ask what we could do for our country and not what our country could do for us. As people across this land did 50 years ago, so we must continue to do now. We must ask ourselves how we can best contribute to our society--by providing for our families, by participating in our communities, in civil society, in our children's schools, and by looking at the lives and needs intimately and immediately around us and seeking to meet them.

Some were then, and some may now, be also called to use their skills and services in our military, diplomatic, and public service sectors. Self-government needs all these attributes and contributions, and President Kennedy's address boldly challenged us to meet them.

Madam Speaker, I support this resolution authorizing use of the rotunda. I, too, believe we should look for inspiration to President Kennedy's eloquent address given some 50 years ago this coming January.

As I say, I hope all will join us in supporting this resolution.

I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Calvin ``Cal'' Worthington, a great American entrepreneur who is turning 90 years old this week.

When I think of Mr. Worthington, the first thing which comes to mind is that he is a true ``Renaissance Man.'' He proudly served our country in the United States Army Air Corps in World War II as a B-17 Bomber pilot, and because of his heroic skills during the military campaign in Germany, he was awarded the Air Medal five times, as well as the Distinguished Flying Cross.

When Mr. Worthington returned to the States, he eventually became one of the most successful car salesmen in the country. With his dealerships in five States, Cal quickly demonstrated an aptitude for drawing in customers. His name today still evokes memories of tantalizing jingles as well as images of zoo animals and stunts, as he is best known for his lively commercials with his ``dog'' Spot. His advertisements were received with high national acclaim, due to the fact that Spot was never a dog. Instead, Spot was always an exotic animal, such as a tiger, chimpanzee, lion, bear, goose, rhinoceros, skunk, water buffalo, snake, elephant or seal.

Mr. Worthington's sense of humor, tremendous business skills, love of music and the arts, and his desire to continually improve his community will be his legacy. It is an honor to recognize Cal Worthington for his immense dedication to improving the quality of life for so many individuals and for his commitment to excellence. He has served our Nation proudly and I am privileged to say that he will always be my friend. Happy 90th birthday, Cal; in dog years you are now officially 630 years old!

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the Deterding family for its legacy to Carmichael, California.

After the marriage between Charles Deterding and Mary Shields in 1894, along with their three children they forded the American River during the dry months to claim their homestead. This is where Charles and Mary Deterding established their legacy in Carmichael--on 425 acres of farmland that they continued to plough and live on.

The Deterdings' San Juan Meadow Farm was named for the old Mexican land grant on which Carmichael was later established. Their original farmhouse was on a bluff above what is now Ancil Hoffman Park. Clearing the land, they planted grains and raised livestock.

Mary's lasting impression on Carmichael was her generosity. She donated wood for settlers' cooking and heating. She was the first president of a local improvement club that eventually evolved into the Carmichael Chamber of Commerce. This visionary helped establish the irrigation company that became the Carmichael Water District.

A local school and an Arcade Park bear her name but Mary Deterding's legacy stands tallest in Palm Drive. The avenue that once led to the Deterding farmhouse is shaded by 88 date palms that Mary planted herself.

Younger generations of Deterdings have since included builders, property developers, teachers, landscapers, military and nursing careerists. In 2006, family ranks were reinforced by the famous McNulty babies--quadruplets. The only boy, Russ, is named for his great- grandfather.

Says patriarch Russ Deterding: ``As Mary and Charles' descendants, we have to admire how, 100 years ago, they survived such a challenging environment. Their work paved the way for what Daniel Carmichael developed. But nobody paved the way for Mary and Charles. They were the true pioneers.''

I am pleased to recognize and congratulate the Deterding family for over 100 years of contribution to the Carmichael community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1646. I was privileged to be the main sponsor of this, but this is one of those unique bills where every single member of the committee, Democrat and Republican, sponsored it. That is not unusual in the sense that the goal of this bill is to celebrate one of the greatest gifts we can give to our children; that is, the gift of reading.

The first Library of Congress National Book Festival was held on September 8, 2001, so this year it celebrates its 10th anniversary with another highly attended, all-day event and remarkable panoply of authors. The National Book Festival has only grown in popularity over this last decade, and this year's estimate is that over 150,000 individuals attended the 2010 festival this past Saturday.

The festival highlights and demonstrates the importance of literacy, creativity, and imagination in our schools, our young people, and throughout our society. The festival vividly brings to life the richness of books and fosters a lifelong love of reading.

So we congratulate the Library of Congress for its achievements in hosting the festival and wish them continued success. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that after the wonderful bipartisanship on the last vote today I have to rise in opposition to H.R. 512.

When I heard the gentlelady talking about the analogy to a football referee having a conflict with a team playing, I was reminded of the game I saw this last weekend where unfortunately my alma mater, Notre Dame, didn't do too well against a Pac-10 team with Pac-10 referees. As a matter of fact, there was one case where it was clear that the fullback for Stanford didn't even come close to making a first down, and yet with some myopic vision, they were given a first down. But I would not suggest there was a conflict there. The way we played, we would have lost anyway.

I would just say that we should proceed with great caution before depriving any individual State official or non-State official of their full rights as citizens to participate in the electoral process. Unfortunately, I feel the majority has preceded with H.R. 512 without adequate justification. The bill does prohibit the chief State election administrator from taking an active role in a political campaign of any Federal office.

And while this bill places significant restrictions on the ability of secretaries of State to participate in the political process, it does so, in my judgment, without producing any justification why such a drastic action is warranted. Restricting secretaries of State from their First Amendment right to speak without any history of abuse is a dangerous precedent this House should not undertake.

I notice that in the bill before us, we have exceptions. That is, if the secretary of State is himself or herself running for Federal office, they continue to be the secretary of State and the chief election officer. The analogy that was drawn between this situation and a Federal judge is an inept analogy because, I believe, under the canons of ethics a Federal judge cannot run for another Federal office while still occupying the position of Federal judge. Also, if an immediate family member is running for Federal office, the election officer of the State is not prohibited.

It would seem to me that if you are going to argue for this bill on the basis of a conflict of interest, why do you exempt the greatest conflict of interest that there would be? That is, if the election officer is running for a Federal office, she is allowed to do so and continue to be the chief election officer. If one of her immediate family members is running, she--or he--is allowed to continue to participate fully in all of that election process.

Now, if, in fact, the concern of the majority is that there is a conflict of interest, it is interesting that what most people would consider to be the greatest example of a conflict of interest is not covered here. Now I will listen to the majority as they tell us why that happens. Perhaps it is what we call that difficult truth. The Constitution might come into play here. But I would just wonder why, if they are going to say this is absolutely necessary and that any of us vote against it must want conflicts of interest, must wish that we have this cloud over our elections to exist, why those situations which would seem to be the greatest opportunity for that concern are specifically exempted under the terms of this bill.

We can all agree that if someone is breaking the law and abusing their power to try to skew elections, they should be prosecuted accordingly. If, for instance, someone is standing outside a polling place with a billy club in his hand and is making threatening gestures to people as they come before him, have to pass by him to vote, and this person has had a record of saying that ``crackers' babies ought to be killed'' and stands on the street corner condemning racially mixed couples, but yet we have a Justice Department which says that that doesn't violate any laws.

Maybe I would be a little more concerned about the bill before us if I found any evidence whatsoever of the other side being concerned about the New Black Panther Party standing there all dressed in black with a billy club as people come forward, and one of the two individuals is known as someone who has made those kinds of threats against somebody else merely because they are of another race.

Now if we want to bring that forward, I think we could get a strong vote of support here. But we can't even get a hearing on that. We haven't heard a thing from our Judiciary Committee. It's more important to bring Steve Colbert to testify before our committee, for him to remain in character. Maybe we ought to bring one of those New Black Panthers to our committee and have him in character, as he was on the day of election. Maybe then we would be getting down to our concern for equal treatment of each and every voter in America.

But when you have a Justice Department which decides they are not going to treat people equally based on their race, as was testified to last week, last Friday at the same time on the same day as Mr. Colbert was gracing us with his presence in our Judiciary Committee, and where we had this rush, this tremendous rush of cameras to cover him, yet we have very little coverage of the amazingly cogent testimony about terrible decisions that were made in the Justice Department in the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division. That ought to be what we take our time discussing here.

I'm not trying to denigrate the gentlelady's efforts here. I understand her sincerity in this bill. We have a dispute over whether this bill is the proper response to the situation she sees. But I find it very, very interesting that we can find time to bring comedians to Washington, D.C., to testify before committees, but we can't find the time with the committees of jurisdiction to investigate what appears to be an absolute disgrace with respect to the protection of individuals.

I would just ask this question: If instead of the New Black Panther Party you had had there, you had had the New Klux Klan party dressed in white robes with billy clubs, standing in front of a voting place with both blacks and whites coming in, whether we would not have raised our voices in protest against that and demanded that the full extent of the law be brought against those people.

But, no, we find ourselves too busy doing other things, too busy doing other things, bringing comedians to Washington, DC and forgetting about something taking place at that exact moment, where a career attorney in the Justice Department, who has been banished to some hinterland--I don't mean to say that. That might be someone's State that someone here represents. I apologize--who has been sent a way from main Justice and the basic responsibility he has had for protecting the rights of citizens and their votes, where he has testified, and yet we couldn't spend the time to pay attention to him, nor have we scheduled any hearings whatsoever in this Congress. Something is wrong.

So I don't in any way suggest the gentlelady had anything to do with that or that this bill interferes with it. I am trying to show the contrast of what I happen to think is an immediate problem, as opposed to the potential problem that the gentlelady here has spoken about.

It is an immediate problem when you have a situation with people with billy clubs standing in front of a voting poll with a reputation for having talked about the fact that people need to kill babies for the very reason that they happen to be of another race. That ought to outrage Americans. It ought to outrage every one of us here, and it ought to outrage everybody at the Justice Department, but thus far it has not.

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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of H.R. 5717. Once again, we are back in a bipartisan state supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Smithsonian Institution is an invaluable part of our national heritage and our ongoing commitment to historical preservation and scientific advancement. I am pleased to support this legislation sponsored by our friend and colleague, Congressman Sam Johnson, and the congressional members of the Smithsonian Board of Regents. This legislation will help further the institution's founding mission, which is to support and increase the diffusion of knowledge.

This authorizing legislation supports the Smithsonian's important biological conservation work conducted at the National Zoological Park located in Front Royal, Virginia, and strengthens their collaborative partnership with George Mason University in these efforts. The planned renovation and construction, which leverages a very modest Federal investment with significant non-Federal funds, will enhance the education and professional training programs currently underway.

The Smithsonian is truly a unique part of our American culture. I am pleased to support this authorization which helps the Smithsonian maintain its well-deserved international reputation for excellence in scientific discovery and advancement and its continued commitment to the environment that we must steward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5717.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Justice Arthur G. Scotland for his life of service to our California judicial system.

Justice Scotland is a native Californian born in Sacramento on October 19, 1946. He graduated from the University of California, Davis, and became a law enforcement officer with the California Department of Justice. He later graduated with honors from the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 1974.

After serving as a Deputy District Attorney, Sacramento County, 1974- 76, California Deputy Attorney General, 1976-83, and Cabinet Secretary to the Governor, 1983-87, he was appointed as a Superior Court Judge by Governor George Deukmejian in 1987. Since 1989, he has served on the Courts of Appeal, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. In 1998, he became the Presiding Justice, appointed to the position by Governor Pete Wilson.

In 2004, Justice Scotland was named Judge of the Year by the Sacramento County Bar Association.

Active in his community, Justice Scotland was named Humanitarian of the Year in 2002 by the Sacramento County Bar Association for his volunteer work on behalf of the Sacramento Children's Home--a residential and treatment facility for abused and neglected children. He also received a community Service Award from the Center for Youth Citizenship for his volunteer work helping educate school children about our legal system about their rights and responsibilities as Americans.

Presiding Justice Scotland has served with distinction on the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, since 1989--serving 9 years as associate justice and 12 years as presiding justice. During his tenure, Justice Scotland has participated in deciding more than 6,000 appeals and thousands of writ petitions, authoring 2,744 majority opinions, 48 concurring opinions, and 40 dissenting opinions.

I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Justice Scotland on his retirement and for his dedication to our community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Fire Chief Dan Haverty for his 27 years of service to our California communities.

Chief Haverty began his career with the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District in Tahoma, CA. He entered the Fire Service 27 years ago after experiencing the unselfish acts of compassion given to his family by volunteer firefighters following an airplane accident in Ketchikan, Alaska, which took the lives of his sister and her four children.

Haverty has served Sacramento County since 1987 when he joined the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (SMFD) as a firefighter and ended his tenure in the position of Assistant Fire Chief. While serving as Assistant Fire Chief at SMFD, he also served as Chief Assistant Deputy Director for the Training and Exercises Division within the Governor's Office of Homeland Security. Haverty joined the Folsom Fire Department in July 2007 as its Fire Chief.

Chief Haverty belongs to many professional and community organizations including: the International Association of Fire Chiefs, American Society for Public Administration Sacramento Chapter, Golden State Donor Services, Folsom Lake Rotary, and Holy Trinity Parish.

In April 2005, Chief Haverty donated a portion of his liver to former Sacramento Roman Catholic Bishop William Weigand. For his humanitarian acts, Haverty was awarded the Venerable Cross ``Pro Ecellesia et Pontifice'' from His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in 2005.

Chief Haverty most recently participated as a member of the Team Donate Life support crew in the Race Across America. The Race Across America was a 3,005 mile-long bike ride across the United States. The purpose of Team Donate Life's participation was to promote organ donation and transplantation.

I am pleased to recognize and honor Chief Dan Haverty for his dedication to fire safety, his service to the City of Folsom, and his protection of the citizens of Sacramento County.