Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as the Portland region and our global economy demands a highly trained and skilled workforce the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act will become even more important. Congress, in this instance, understands the important role technical and skilled education plays in preparing our workforce for the future.

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act is a good federal investment, which will increase the role of math, science and technology in career and technical education programs and encourages the expanded use of technology by teachers and faculty. It strengthens the relationship between academic and technical instruction and ensures access for students in secondary and postsecondary programs across the country.

Thousands of Oregonians have lost their jobs over the past several years and many are holding down jobs that pay less and provide fewer benefits. I have heard from businesses and job seekers about the challenges facing the region. High-tech manufacturing represents about 30 percent of the jobs in the Portland region, however, we do not have enough skilled labor. We desperately need to be preparing and training our students for these types of skilled jobs. It is expected by 2020, the U.S. will experience a shortage of up to 12 million college- educated workers.

This bill is a step in the right direction to help prepare Oregon for a 21st century workforce.

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

I heard my friend from Puget Sound in Washington talk about how this was a good deal. You have heard speaker after speaker after speaker talk about how this is a sham, that it is not a direct vote to be able to deal with the minimum wage; but it is worse than that, because those people in Puget Sound who are tipped employees, who work for the minimum wage are going to see a $2.48 an hour cut under the Republican bill intent.

In the State of Oregon, where we have indexed the minimum wage, our people are going to see a $1.75 an hour reduction. The Republican bill cuts the wages of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of workers in the States of Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington by preempting the State minimum-wage laws where a State has disallowed the employer tip tax credit.

With all due respect to my good friend from the State of Washington, what I said was because your bill intends to take away the tip credit provisions, you are going to cut the minimum wage for thousands and thousands and thousands of Washington employees who are minimum wage who, because of the tip credit provision, you are going to cut it $1.75 an

hour immediately upon effect. And that is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, there is probably no issue of more critical interest to the majority of the people that I represent than retirement security. We are facing a growing crisis in this country because of the way pension plans have been mismanaged and the stresses that are coming from demographic changes, in particular the pending retirement of the baby-boomers. We've already seen many of these programs disrupted to the serious disadvantage of hardworking men and women who through no fault of their own are facing a much more difficult time in retirement.

I am sad in this instance that this bill does not make the simple adjustment that all employees' pensions are treated the same whether they are an executive or metalworker or longshoreman. That would have been a simple reform providing equity and would have forced more attention and energy on the part of top executives to protect the integrity of their pension programs. However this is not the case.

I am frustrated that this comes at the last minute with little chance for review and without the full participation from conferees on both sides of the aisle. Frankly, my staff and I and the people in my district have had very little time to be able to fully analyze the consequences of this legislation. This is not the best we can do, but it looks to me like it's the best we can expect for now. I am quite confident this is not the last word and I will vote in favor while continuing to work to do a better job for American industry and its workers.

Mr. Speaker, after having their wages frozen since 1997, it is time to give a long overdue raise to millions of Americans who work hard but are paid only $5.15 per hour.

The Federal minimum wage is the lowest it has been, adjusted for inflation, in more than 50 years. Nine years have passed since the last increase and yet education, energy and healthcare costs have skyrocketed. No one can house, feed, and educate a household by earning the current Federal minimum wage.

Luckily in Oregon, voters passed a statewide initiative in 2002 which raises our own minimum wage that provides an automatic inflation adjustment. With the increase, we have seen significant benefits for our workforce without any ill effects for our economy. Instead of doomsayer predictions of job losses, Oregon has experienced the 8th fastest job growth amongst states since the legislation was enacted.

After months of stalling, the Republican leadership was finally forced to allow a vote. Unfortunately it was not a simple vote on minimum wage, but a loaded bill with costly and unnecessary provisions. This bill provides permanent estate tax relief for the wealthy by increasing estate and gift tax exemptions and lowering tax rates.

Even worse, the intent to raise the existing minimum wage is actually decreasing the wages of some workers due to the tip credit provision. This provision provides that tips must be counted towards the minimum wage. In Oregon restaurant workers are paid $7.50 per hour and yet this legislation would reduce their wage to only $5.15 per hour.

The bill is so poorly drafted that one interpretation would potentially double the minimum wage for select workers, while the other would show a decrease in the same jobs.

This bill should be firmly rejected. The minimum wage needs to be increased by crafting a simple and clear solution that protects states with existing legislation. Under no circumstance should the Federal government undercut what Oregon voters have already established.

Mr. Chairman, having visited India following the Southeast Asia tsunami, I am more convinced than ever of the benefits of a stronger U.S.-India partnership. There is no relationship more important than that between the world's largest democracy, India, and the world's oldest democracy, the United States. I believe that, as the world's largest democracy and a responsible regional power, India deserves a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Support for such an arrangement would have been a sensible centerpiece to a new strategic partnership.

However, I am skeptical about elements of the proposed nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S. and India. I am particularly concerned that this attempt to create an exception to international nonproliferation norms for India may make our efforts in Iran more difficult, or even encourage other countries to make their own exceptions to the rules for assistance to the supposedly civilian nuclear programs of less responsible countries.

I am pleased that the legislation crafted by the leadership of our House International Relations Committee minimizes the risks associated with this agreement and provides for close congressional oversight, though I support additional amendments to strengthen it. I do not wish to stand in the way of this legislation's progress and intend to follow developments closely for the up-or-down vote that this bill authorizes.

I believe that the more pressing issue is developing an effective strategy for cooperation to address India's growing energy needs. Increased reliance on nuclear energy will only have a marginal impact on India's consumption of fossil fuels and levels of global warming pollution emitted. To make an immediate impact, we should be helping India with conservation, renewable energy technologies, and strategies to reduce pollution such as coal gasification.

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the National Psoriasis Foundation and of August as Psoriasis Awareness Month, I would like to bring attention to this often overlooked and serious disease that affects as many as 7.5 million Americans. Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory, painful, disfiguring and disabling disease for which there are limited treatments and no cure. Ten to 30 percent of people with psoriasis also develop psoriatic arthritis, which causes pain, stiffness and swelling in and around the joints. Psoriasis is widely misunderstood and undertreated. In addition to the pain, itching and bleeding caused by psoriasis, many affected individuals also experience social discrimination and stigma. Many people mistakenly believe psoriasis to be contagious. Psoriasis typically strikes between the ages of 15 and 25 and lasts a lifetime. As such, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis impose significant burden on individuals and society; together they cost the nation 56 million hours of lost work and between $2 billion and $3 billion in treatments each year.

I am pleased that the 89,000 affected Oregonians have access to the knowledgeable support offered by the Oregon affiliate of the National Psoriasis Foundation. Support group interaction and discussion provides individuals affected by this debilitating disease with much-needed comfort, assistance and resources. The work of the support groups in Oregon is invaluable, and I commend the efforts of those involved.

I thank the National Psoriasis Foundation for all of its efforts and leadership over the last 38 years. This year, the National Psoriasis Foundation had nearly one hundred participants join in its Capitol Hill Day to elevate awareness and understanding of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and have policymakers take action to address access to care and boost the nation's research efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the 50th year we have observed Bike Month, and it has been somewhat delayed coming to the floor this year, but I think it is all the more significant.

We just witnessed this last week, American Floyd Landis in his heroic victory in the Tour-de-France, just in time for him to proceed with surgery to replace his hip.

We have watched this summer as gasoline prices have exceeded $3 a gallon across the country, and record high oil prices. To say nothing of the continued congestion, pollution and parking nightmares suffered by so many Americans. It is appropriate for us to reflect on the contributions of the bicycle today and its potential for the future.

The bicycle is the most efficient form of urban transportation yet designed by man. It is fun, healthy, inexpensive. It is often identified with kids; and that is appropriate. We are working hard to make it safe and attractive for children. The recent reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act authorized almost two-thirds of $1 billion for our historic Safe Routes to School program. We are watching safety education for young cyclists around the country.

But it is important to note, as my colleague from Wisconsin pointed out, that this is not just for children. We do have over 57 million Americans who take part in cycling as part of their regular routine. It is the seventh most popular recreational activity in America.

It is also serious transportation. Those 5 million American bicycle commuters that my colleague referenced in his comments a moment ago burn 90,000 calories a year for a 5-mile commute on average instead of seven barrels of oil, a savings of 35 million barrels of oil at a time when we are concerned about our energy dependence on oil from imported sources.

It is serious in terms of our economy. That commuter who was cycling was saving money. I did a little back-of-the-envelope calculation. Since I came to Congress 10 years ago and made a decision that I was going to bring a bicycle to our Nation's capital instead of an automobile, I have been able to save, conservatively, $40,000.

The economic impact goes beyond individuals who use bikes. It is a significant part of our Nation's economy, somewhere between $5.5 billion and $6 billion a year in economic activity just in terms of the direct bicycle industry. Worldwide there are three times as many bicycles manufactured as cars, and even in the United States we sell more bikes than automobiles. There are some 5,000 independent specialized bicycle shops around the country, 2,000 companies that are involved with the marketing of bicycles, and manufacture of accessories.

In my community, we have recently completed an economic impact statement for cycling in Portland, Oregon. We have been able to identify well over 800 jobs and over $63 million in direct economic impact in our little community. It has dramatic ripple effects across the country.

We are also seeing an explosion in the number of bicycle events, in my community, every day across the country, hundreds of them. Bicycle tourism has assumed a very significant role, starting with the historic Ragbride, the ride across Iowa. State after State are now involved with similar activities. Oregon has the Cycle Oregon, a week-long adventure that often is sold out the day that the route is announced. But there are others in terms of mountain bike adventures, cycling events on behalf of charity. This is an important mixing of charitable, economic, and recreational activity.

Our celebration of cycling also should include reflecting on the effects of integrating bicycling into the fabric of our community. There is nothing that is a better expression of a livable community. Indeed, some would suggest that a family that is able to cycle safely down the street is an indicator species of a livable community. Making bicycles available on transit vehicles, having bike parking, all of these make a difference in terms not just of the adventure but the utility of cycling in everyday life.

Mr. Speaker, since we formed the Bicycle Caucus here in Congress, and my colleague referenced his membership, we have 164 bike-partisan members of the Congressional Bicycle Caucus that are active in terms of not just promoting some recreational activity on the Hill for Members, their families and staff but also advocating on behalf of cycling in our Nation's capital and around the country.

We have been able, through a collective effort, to invest in the most recent reauthorization, not just the two-thirds of $1 billion I mentioned for Safe Routes to School but some $4.5 billion of bicycle path trail amenities, several thousand projects that are priority projects of Members. It seems that every Member that I talked to has a bicycle story, something that makes a difference to them individually or to their community.

We are celebrating Bicycle Month and its importance to the country not a moment too soon. Cycling is important for the health of our citizens. It is playing a larger role for the health of our economy and our environment and literally the health of our communities and our planet. We are recognizing not just a Bicycle Month but the role in cycling in making a livable community, making all our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the bill. I, too, would like to thank Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, Subcommittee Ranking Member Udall, and the staff of the committee that they worked with, and colleagues Peter DeFazio and Darlene Hooley for helping bring this legislation to the floor today.

The Mount Hood Stewardship Legacy Act represents a tremendous amount of

hard work by 1,000 Oregonians who found common ground on the critical issues facing our State's icon, Mount Hood.

Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank my colleague and subcommittee chair, Mr. Walden, for working with me for more than 3 years on this legislation, and for his idea that we actually hike around the mountain. It was a fitting capstone to a really extraordinary opportunity to work together, to strengthen a friendship, and be able to focus on something that is so important to our State.

Together, we enlisted extensive involvement of citizen groups, environmental organizations, recreational advocates, public agencies, tribal representatives, and local governments to create a bill that establishes a long-term sustainable vision for the mountain and addresses the immediate challenges of wilderness protection, recreation, transportation, forest health, water quality, development, and Native American rights.

It seems so simple today, as we come forward, not just with the Mount Hood wilderness bill, but with a comprehensive vision for the future of Mount Hood. The plan makes sense. The pieces fit together in logical ways. But it seems so simple only because 1,000 people, public servants, academics, expert stakeholders, volunteers and people who just plain care about the mountain were willing to roll up their sleeves and invest 3 years to work with my partner, Greg Walden, and me, to make this happen.

I must also acknowledge three other critical people, who were invested in this, in this body and soul, Colby Marshall, on Congressman Walden's staff, Janine Benner and Hillary Barbour on mine. They were a team in Washington, D.C., they were a team in Oregon, and they were a key part, literally, in joining us around the mountain. We would not be here today without their efforts.

We began drafting with a document that contained core principles and concepts. The ideas were developed through the elaborate public process that my colleague, Congressman Walden, just outlined, and that great 41-mile hike around the mountain.

It was through these meetings with interested parties, thousands of public comments, that we further refined the principles and then translated them into the legislation, which was introduced this spring. Following the Forest Subcommittee hearing in April, we continued working with stakeholders, the Forest Service, our colleagues from both parties, staff people, to refine the language and clarify the intent.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long hard effort, but it has been worth it, because the stakes for Mount Hood and the Pacific northwest have never been higher. It is not just an icon for both our home towns of Hood River and Portland, it is the single most important recreational resource in Oregon. A million people depend upon the integrity of the mountain for their drinking water. And it is a place of retreat for tens of thousands of people every year.

There are hundreds of people who call the mountain their home, and we have historic treaty and moral obligations to Native Americans for whom the mountain has special spiritual and practical significance.

By solemn treaty rights, they are owed their due for gathering first foods, hunting, fishing and for spiritual observances.

This bill deals with the important elements that will profoundly affect Oregonians for generations to come. First and foremost, over 77,000 acres of pristine wilderness will be protected, a 40 percent increase in wilderness inventory.

Over 25 miles of river will be protected as ``wild and scenic.'' This bill will protect the pristine quality of these areas that people hold so dear.

It is not by any stretch of the imagination the last word on wilderness, but it does break down the log jam that has prevented wilderness from moving forward for over 20 years.

We have dealt with the very complicated and challenging issue of recreation. Our legislation will ensure that people who love to snowshoe, ski, mountain bike, snowmobile and hike will have access, but we are also making sure that we will all not collectively be loving the mountain to death.

We have laid the groundwork to address the mountain's transportation challenges in a way that will both ensure the safety of the mountain's visitors and residents, while at the same time moving more people but in fewer cars to and from key recreation destinations.

Even the 3,449 miles of forest roads that are currently in uneven states of repair and without adequate resource provide the basis for a potential unparalleled system of bicycle facilities. We will help the Forest Service work with local communities to address forest health and water shed issues. We will enhance the ability of Native Americans to gather first foods and exercise their treaty rights.

We address long simmering disputes about where development on the mountain should take place. For example, the Cooper Spur land exchange settles a 30-year dispute on the north side of the mountain, and is widely supported by conservation groups, citizens, and the ski industry and county government.

Its implementation keeps development on the south side of the mountain where infrastructure already exists, while protecting the pristine north side in perpetuity. With this legislation, we honor the historic mediated settlement between the parties and we now appear to be within reach of a long-term solution that is in everyone's best interest.

Today, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most important days in the modern history of Mount Hood. We have proven that the many people who care can put the pieces together in a finely-balanced fashion that produces a blueprint for the next century, while enhancing current uses and being true to the mountain legacy we all hold so dear.

This is the most progress we have seen in either the House or the Senate in over 20 years. I am hopeful that our friends in the other body will seize the day. If they choose to act this week, the President can sign this bill into law before Labor Day, assuring the single most important step in crafting and implementing the legacy of Mount Hood for the next century.

Madam Speaker, honest and fair trade will help the U.S. and other countries grow more prosperous and stable. Trade barriers, quotas, and restrictions hurt all but a select few by raising prices for consumers, limiting economic growth, and restricting the ability of developing countries to improve their economies. However, I do not support free trade at any cost. There must be strong protections to ensure that workers benefit from trade, that the environment is protected, and that we provide the necessary help to those who lose out from increased trade.

Before the 2002 vote on ``fast-track'' trade promotion authority, I told President Bush in a meeting that he could gain broad bi-partisan support for a trade policy that expanded markets for U.S. products and helped developing countries grow themselves out of poverty if he made simple, small changes to the trade agreement model to take into account concerns over labor, the environment, and farmers in developing countries. However, the Oman Free Trade Agreement continues President Bush's tradition of pushing forward harsh and divisive agreements, designed to pass by the smallest of margins.

For example, the Senate Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the trade agreement exclude items made with forced labor, slave labor, or trafficked persons. Despite this, the President refused to make these simple changes that Congress demanded.

Questions of how the United States engages in an increasingly global economy are too critical to our future to use as partisan and political wedges. We must develop a forward-thinking and honest trade policy that can be broadly supported by Americans of all political stripes and that reflects the concerns that I hear from Oregonians. Because the Oman Free Trade Agreement doesn't meet that test, I must oppose it.

Madam Speaker, after 9/11 there were calls to connect the dots. And as we approach the first anniversary of Katrina, with wildfires raging across the West, it is time to connect the dots dealing with natural disaster.

Former National Parks Director, Roger Kennedy, wrote an outstanding op-ed in the New York Times yesterday entitled `` Houses to Burn,'' and recently published a book `` Wildfires in America.'' He documents that we in government are part of this problem. We construct roads and infrastructure into hazardous areas. We don't have appropriate building codes, and often we don't even enforce the building codes that we have. We even build, as the Federal Government did, Los Alamos Research Laboratories in the midst of an area that has burned repeatedly decade after decade for centuries. And it is only going to get worse by sprawl and global warming.

It is time for government at all levels to connect the dots, to reduce and ultimately protect Americans from wildfires and other natural disasters, to make our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the ``Pledge Protection Act'' because of its potential ramification for the judicial process. This legislation seeks to prohibit all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing any case that challenges the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

This legislation is a response to recent challenges in the 9th Circuit Court involving the statement ``under God.'' While I do not agree with the court's decision, we are heading down a slippery slope when we authorize Congress to use its power over the courts to limit jurisdiction of constitutional challenges.

This seemingly bipartisan legislation is another attack on our principles of civil liberties and equal protection, just as we saw on yesterday's vote on the ``Marriage Protection Act,'' to please the most extreme of the Republican base. It is not worth undermining our system of checks and balances.

Yesterday, the state's domestic laws; today, the Pledge of Allegiance; tomorrow . . .?

Mr. Speaker, every American has a very personal stake in today's discussion on stem cell research. Everyone knows people who would benefit from breakthrough research using stem cells. Indeed, with a hundred million Americans at risk from a variety of diseases ranging from Lou Gehrig's disease, to Alzheimer's, to Parkinson's, to cancer, to juvenile diabetes, it's almost impossible to not know somebody who could potentially be helped by stem cell research. For me, the most important beneficiaries are our children and grandchildren who have not yet shown any symptoms, but who may fall victim to one of these devastating diseases.

H.R. 810 is an opportunity for Congress to clarify the issues and exert leadership in a way that the federal government has in the past. Instead the President vetoed the bill after having passed through the House and Senate. This administration is out of touch with the 70% of the American public who supports stem cell research. We have inadequate access to stem cell lines for research purposes and we are putting forth neither money nor encouragement while we construct artificial boundaries. These misguided policies by the administration will not stop progress from stem cell research, but will delay the day we have these very important therapies to transform people's lives. Americans are losing ground on this vital research to other countries while relinquishing leadership to the states here in our country.

Stem cell research is not about cloning a human being or creating embryos for research purposes. We can maintain prohibitions against cloning of humans while supplying stem cells in an ethical manner from 400,000 embryos already accessible that will otherwise be destroyed.

Every American needs to watch this closely. The stakes in this debate are high both for the potential benefit to the physical condition of all humankind, as well as the establishment of the boundaries between public policy and personal theology.

For me the choice is clear. American families deserve an opportunity for embryonic stem cell research to be conducted in a reasonable, controlled manner, to hasten the day of vital life-saving, life- enriching therapy.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak and for his hard work on this resolution.

I attempt to carefully examine the terminology and the nuance in such efforts because I want to make sure the United States' policy is carefully reflected in terms of our long-term interests, the security of Israel, and those of peace. And I think this resolution meets that test.

The attacks on Israel by Hezbollah are both unjustified and unprovoked, particularly given Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon 6 years ago.

Since the initial raid across the Israeli-Lebanese border, in which Hezbollah killed eight Israeli soldiers, took two others hostage, they have continued indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians with increasingly sophisticated weaponry.

It is in this context that Israel has exercised its right of self- defense, which I completely support. I am, of course, I hope we all are concerned about the impact on the actions that deal with innocent Lebanese civilians. But as I cringed a little bit when I saw one of my colleagues look at the minority, and talked about shortcomings in the resolution, because I know Mr. Lantos had offered up on behalf of the minority specific language of concern for innocents which, sadly, is not in the resolution. But I do think it is a good starting point.

Even the Saudis and the Egyptians have recognized the responsibility for the current crisis lies with Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, as well as with Lebanon's inabilities to disarm Hezbollah as called for by Security Council Resolution 1559.

We should not seek to impose a cease-fire that returns the region to the status quo without ensuring that Hezbollah is no longer a threat to Israel or Lebanon.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this issue.

I have heard my friends on the other side talk about marriage being under attack. Well, I think it probably is in many sectors. Marriages are under strain today in terms of economics. There are social cross- currents. We see failed marriages. But it is not under attack by our gay and lesbian citizens.

The gay and lesbian citizens I know in my community are dealing with the everyday stresses of their lives, which are actually more difficult than most Americans. They are struggling against discrimination in the workplace. They are struggling against discrimination and in some cases violence directed towards gay and lesbian citizens. And every day gay and lesbian couples in long-term committed relationships, sometimes involving children, have to struggle with the fact that they are not afforded the protections and the resources to be able to deal with the everyday challenges like health care emergencies. That is what they are dealing with. They are not assaulting my marriage or anybody else's. They are trying to deal with a difficult hand that has been dealt to them.

The good news is that we are seeing the changes that are going to make a difference in the long run. The good news is that younger Americans wonder what bizarre episode we are involved with here. They are not peddling discrimination and hate. They have a much more positive and healthy attitude towards their neighbors, their friends, their relations, who happen to be gay and lesbian. The good news is that the States are trying to figure out ways to handle it.

The bad news is that Congress is not part of the solution but is instead pandering politically in something that has already been killed in the other Chamber, that has no chance of passage; going through a ritual that is actually setting us back.

I am confident that in the long run truth and justice is going to prevail. We are not going to be having any assaults on any heterosexual marriages, but we will be dealing with how we are going to provide the necessary protections for our gay and lesbian citizens. That day, sadly, is not today.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization in hopes that it will be a vehicle for true comprehensive election reform on a national level.

More than 40 years ago the Voting Rights Act was enacted as a direct response to purposeful discrimination that denied many Americans, mostly African American, equal voting rights. Currently only 16 States are covered. I am disappointed that we have not broadened our scope and our vision.

Currently Georgia is considering changes to its voter registration which will fall disproportional on its African American citizens who have long suffered discriminatory practices.

This further proves that discrimination is alive and well in today's society. We must keep the faith with the civil rights struggle. There are a number of demographics, such as low income citizens, who are still targeted by those who shamelessly continue to manipulate the system.

Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years is questionable considering the changes that should be made to address the political manipulation seen in recent years in elections through redistricting and with voting machines.

For instance, in Texas a politically driven redistricting between censuses altered the political dynamic of a geographic area and its voters. any professionals in the Justice Department were convinced that the Tom DeLay driven scheme had serious problems but were overridden by the political appointees who were their bosses. In Ohio, during the last Presidential election, inner-city voters had to deal with a purposeful lack of voting machines that led to lines that were hours long. The fact that these issues are not being addressed by this legislation shows its shortcomings and the need for further reform.

We should take a principled stand to make our election process work better for the American public. We need elections that are fair, where every vote is counted, and people have equal access to the polls. Without addressing these concerns this vote is largely a symbolic effort that does little to change the overall distrust with the election process. I hope it improves during the next steps of the legislative process.