Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5972. While I would have preferred that we would have addressed these items in regular order, I am pleased that the proposed technical corrections in this bill will create a stronger operational framework for the Capitol Police. As often happens when language is tied to an appropriations bill in a hasty fashion, several requirements in the original legislation governing Capitol Police operations proved problematic under greater scrutiny and further use. This bill will bring clarity to the administration of the U.S. Capitol Police and will eliminate those provisions which are in conflict with one another or are antiquated and therefore unnecessary.

I would also point out that this illustrates the importance of the appropriations subcommittees to work together with the authorizing committees, because virtually all the problems that have arisen in the past in this area resulted from a lack of cooperation between the authorizing and appropriating committees.

The changes specified in this bill will also establish a transparent and decisive governance framework and create a clear reporting structure within the U.S. Capitol Police. The clarified language provides the Chief of the Capitol Police with explicit authority to perform all hiring and termination actions, which will assist the U.S. Capitol Police's legal staff in executing its duties regarding personnel matters.

This bill also clarifies that the Capitol Police must notify this committee, as well as the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, of substantive administrative and operational actions, such as notices of personnel actions or deployment of personnel outside of the Capitol Police's jurisdiction. This language further strengthens this committee's function as an oversight body and allows us to address any such issues as they occur.

I thank Chairman Brady for his work on this bill, which will, upon its passage, create a stronger law enforcement organization, and a safer, more secure Capitol complex.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers. I will make some concluding comments.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my chairman, Mr. Brady. He and I have worked very, very well together on a number of issues, and I believe that, if there were a competition, we would probably hold the prize among the committees of the House as to the best functioning committees who really try to get business done without a lot of partisanship. I commend my colleague for his great attitude on this.

One other comment I will make in regard to the Capitol Police. The one area we did not examine, which I think needs examination at some point, and I hope our committee will take it up at some point, the duties of the Capitol Police Board are not as clearly outlined as they might be. The composition, I believe, is lacking. We have a GAO report of a few years ago which pointed out some severe shortcomings in the operations and decision-making processes of the Capitol Police Board, and I think we would be well-served in this institution to re-examine that issue.

We have done so much in the past decade to modernize the police force; make them provide more ready responses to the trauma that we face today in this time of terrorism. I think we would be well-advised to look at the governing structure once again too, which to my knowledge, has not been examined for a long time.

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

One part about this bill that is probably worthwhile is the effort to reduce energy use, and in particular to reduce the carbon footprint, as it has come to be called, although I have always joked that I prefer ``carbon tire tracks'' because we produce a lot more carbon dioxide with our cars than from other common sources. Nevertheless, this bill allows schools to use funds to reduce the carbon footprint of their schools.

As I perused this bill, I realized that it was entirely possible that the schools might decide to use the Federal funds to purchase carbon offsets or carbon credits. To me, that would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Because schools are small, they do not emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide, and the money that they might want to use for that can much better be used to improve insulation in the schools, improve the insulation in the walls, improve the type of windows so that there's less energy escaping. There are many modifications that can be made that would reduce energy use, and by reducing energy use, you reduce the carbon footprint.

I would also maintain that it is much more effective to reduce the energy use, whether it's by better insulation or by sealing the windows, or putting in the appropriate type of glass. It's much more cost-effective in reducing the carbon footprint than it would be to buy carbon offsets. So it seems to me that we should make certain that no school would ever attempt to use Federal funds, if this bill passes, for the purpose of buying carbon credits.

This is not because I oppose carbon credits. I think this is something that in fact we will be facing shortly because the Senate is working on a bill on that issue, but I am simply for efficiency, not wasting money, making certain that the money that is in this bill, if this bill passes, will be used wisely and will be used to conserve energy, not to purchase carbon offsets.

With that in mind, I offer this bill to make certain that money is not improperly used and to make sure that we use the funds efficiently.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I just wish to state that I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan, the other gentleman from Michigan accepting this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of the members of the 2008 United States Physics Olympiad Team.

The International Physics Olympiad brings together top students from all over the world to compete in a rigorous routine of mental gymnastics. To be considered for the U.S. team, students must first take a challenging physics exam. I am proud to say that the top 200 semifinalists included 3 students from Michigan this year. This exceptional group is further reduced to 24 students currently participating in a 10-day physics camp hosted by the University of Maryland.

As you might expect, this is not your ordinary summer camp but rather an intense boot-camp of teamwork, sharpening mental and communication skills. Five of these exceptional students will advance and represent the United States in a tremendous international competition in July in the 67th International Physics Olympiad July 20-29 in Hanoi, Vietnam.

The 24 members of the 2008 team include: Kiranmayi Bhattaram, Tucker Chan, Sway Chen, Joseph, Zer-Yi Chu, Alesia Dechkovskaia, Yishun Dong, David Field, Edward Gan, Rui Hu, Gabriel Karpman, Brian Kong, Kevin Michael Lang, Dan Li, Andrew Lucas, Marianna Mao, Yoon Jae Nam, Anand Natarajan, Joshua Oreman, Thomas Schultz, Jack Z. Wang, James Yang, Alex Zhai, Danny Zhu, and Alex Zorn.

I commend the American Institute of Physics, the American Association of Physics Teachers and affiliated sponsors for organizing this annual event and fostering a passion for science in these students. Integrating science with real-world problems is critical to our national competitiveness. These students will become even more excited about applying physics to national and international challenges after they participate in the Olympiad preparation.

I know my colleagues share my pride in the achievements of these students. Their success is a testament to not only their individual determination, but also a group of exceptional teachers. These teachers often receive very little recognition for their work, so I hope each of the Olympiad finalists will make a point of thanking and recognizing the teachers that have guided them over the years.

I am very pleased that these students take time away from their purely scientific endeavors to meet with their legislators in Washington. Understanding how science fits into culture and politics are very important skills for a future physicist to master. I also hope that some of these students will consider running for public office and add their expertise to the policy world. I am very thankful for these future leaders and ask that you please join me in congratulating them on their wonderful achievements. We wish the top five the best of success as they represent the United States in Vietnam.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers

Bill Number: H.R. 5658

Account: Ap,A Aircraft Procurement, Army; 020 Utility Helicopter Mods

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army National Guard Readiness Center

Address of Requesting Entity: 111 S. George Mason Drive, Arlington,

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 290, I stepped off the floor for a meeting, and returned to the floor just a few seconds after the voting board had been closed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Today is a great day for the Great Lakes and the coastal areas. Today is a terrible day for the zebra mussels.

And I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member LaTourette for their good work on this bill, because it contains measures to inspect and treat and exchange ballast water to prevent any more of those nasty invasive alien species from getting into this country, and into its waters. It now costs us about $13 billion every year for the damage caused by invasive species. This bill will help stop any future species from coming in, and I hope we will be able to develop methods of treating these critters so that we can get rid of them and once again enjoy the pure waters of this country the way we should.

So thanks again to both of you for doing this, and let's get out there and fight those nasty zebra mussels!

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Perhaps the best part about this particular bill and our action on it is to inform us once again how important it is to remember those who have served this country well and have passed on, and to not forget them, because in this case, an entire community, after a period of 145 years, forgot the significance of this individual.

I rise today in support of this bill to designate the Ionia, Michigan, Post Office, located in my district, as the ``Alonzo Woodruff Post Office Building.''

Earlier this year, students from Ms. Maureen Powell's eighth grade American social studies class at Ionia Middle School heard about Alonzo Woodruff and the fact that the community had neglected him. They raised private funds, with the assistance of VFW member Commander Denny Craycraft, to place a monument honoring Alonzo Woodruff in front of the Ionia Courthouse. I attended that ceremony and learned a great deal about Alonzo Woodruff, a sergeant on the Union side during the Civil War, who was an amazing man and did much for his country.

A Michigan native, Sergeant Woodruff was born near Detroit in 1839 and was married to Harriet Hill in 1859 in Ionia County. Alonzo Woodruff was 22 years old when he joined the Union cause in 1861. At the Battle of Hatcher's Run in Virginia, Sergeant Woodruff fought, in hand-to-hand battle, to save and free a fellow soldier. He did this again on the same day by charging Confederate lines single-handedly to rescue another comrade held by a Confederate soldier. Sergeant Woodruff even made the Confederate soldier his prisoner. For these actions, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Both Patricia Provot and Sandra Provot Elmer, great-great- granddaughters of Alonzo Woodruff, support this initiative, as does Mayor Dan Belice of the city of Ionia.

It is most appropriate to honor Sergeant Woodruff by naming this post office building in his honor. We must remember the sacrifices made not only during the Civil War, but in every war, by prominently displaying Sergeant Woodruff's name in the Ionia Post Office. It is my hope that more people will remember and honor the bravery of all our young men and women who are fighting for our country.

I urge all Members to support this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to raise an issue about Small Business Innovation Research funding and also Small Business Technology Transfer Research funding. This bill which is coming up before us increases SBIR by 20 percent and increases STTR by 100 percent. These increases seem totally out of line to me, particularly since that money comes out of the research budgets of the other agencies of the Federal Government. I have offered an amendment, which I am very grateful to the Rules Committee for making in order, which would remove those increases.

Let me explain why it is important to remove those increases. It is because the money for those is taken away from the current fundamental research programs of the Federal Government. In fact, these increases will remove $650 million from the other research funds at various agencies. Just to give an example that we are talking about real money here, note that just for NIH alone, at a time when agency funding increases are below inflation level and we are simply not putting enough money into health research, this particular change in SBIR and STTR will reduce the NIH budget by $185 million.

Now we would not think if a proposal came to the floor to directly reduce NIH and NSF funding, we would not even think about bringing it to the floor or even bringing it up for a vote. Yet this particular provision was put in the Small Business bill without the full consent of the Science Committee. It was presented to us in such a short time span, we couldn't even have a meeting of or mark-up by the full Science Committee, which happens to have jurisdiction over this particular payment. We managed to have a hearing before a subcommittee, and that was the extent of the Science Committee's involvement.

I think this was done without full thought and I don't believe any of my colleagues are interested in reducing the funding for the National Science Foundation, or the Department of Defense, or the NIH at a time like this.

So I thank the Rules Committee again for putting this motion in order. I also wanted to say my amendment is supported by the Association of American Universities, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the National Association of State Land-Grant Colleges, and also the National Academy of Sciences. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as an environmentalist and a protector of our Great Lakes, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2830's ballast water management requirements and its stated goal of eliminating aquatic invasive species from our waters.

Ballast water management and the broader issue of aquatic invasive species is a matter that has received far too little attention, given its dramatic impact on the economy and the environment.

For several years, I have strongly supported a comprehensive approach to stopping the influx of aquatic invasive species, and this bill provides a very, very good start.

Although aquatic invasive species enter into ecosystems through many different pathways, such as natural migration, attaching themselves to ships, and aquaculture, the most common pathway is through ballast water. Ballast water is pumped on board a ship to control its stability at sea. Ships often take on ballast water at an initial port and discharge it at their destination port. When a ship pumps harbor water into its ballast tanks, it usually also sucks up aquatic species from that harbor. When those ballast tanks are emptied, those aquatic species are introduced into a new ecosystem and they become invasive species.

Since some ships are capable of holding millions of gallons of ballast water, the potential for spreading invasive species is large. Once an invasive species takes hold in a new environment, it has the ability to disrupt the balance of an ecosystem and cause significant environmental and economic harm.

In the United States, invasive species cost tens of billion of dollars each year. For example, Zebra mussels have cost the various entities in the Great Lake's basin an estimated $5 billion for expenses relating to cleaning water intake pipes, purchasing filtration equipment and so forth. Sea lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes cost approximately $10 million to $15 million annually. And on top of these expenses, there is the cost of lost fisheries due to these invaders. For these reasons, combating aquatic invasive species is a central element of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration strategy to protect and restore the Great Lakes.

However, invasive species are not just a problem in the Great Lakes. Invasive species also affect coastal regions throughout the United States. From the Chinese mitten crabs in the North Pacific, to Asian sea squirts in New England, to New Zealand boring pill bugs in the Pacific Northwest, to Asian carp in the Mississippi River, to Zebra mussels across the United States, these foreign invaders cause significant economic and ecological damage throughout North America.

If we do not pass this bill into law, we are just opening the door for many more invasive species to arrive via ballast water. The goal of H.R. 2830 is to eliminate invasive species in ballast water by 2015. To meet this goal, the bill requires vessels operating in U.S. waters to be outfitted with ballast water treatment systems that meet interim standards starting in 2009, with more stringent standards starting in 2012.

This is an excellent bill. I urge everyone to support it and vote for it.

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

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program both were created to stimulate technological innovation, encourage the use of small businesses to meet Federal research and development needs, and increase private sector commercialization of innovations developed from Federal research and development. I believe both programs have been very successful and should be continued, and, on that basis, I support the legislation before us, although I disagree with some aspects of it.

The Science and Technology Committee has a long standing interest in promoting innovation and development by small businesses. Through these two competitive programs, the Small Business Administration is charged with ensuring that the Nation's small innovative businesses are a significant part of the Federal Government's research and development efforts. Currently, 11 Federal departments participate in the SBIR program, including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Transportation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation. Of these 11, five departments also participate in the STTR program, awarding $200 billion to small high-tech businesses.

The original legislation for SBIR was developed based on the Small Business Innovation Research program of the National Science Foundation. The NSF program was designed to encourage proposals from small science and technology firms in NSF program areas. The current Federal-wide program mirrors the original NSF program, which was also organized in three phases to ensure the most efficient use of resources.

Phase I was an opportunity to develop research on important scientific and engineering problems. Projects that were found to be promising after the phase I research stage were given phase II awards to further develop the research project. Phase III is a transition phase that involves commercialization of the products or processes developed in the first phases.

Similar to SBIR, STTR is also a highly competitive three-phase program that reserves a specific percentage of Federal research and development funding for small businesses to work in partnership with nonprofit research institutions to help move ideas from the laboratory to the marketplace, to foster high-tech economic development in the United States, and to help to meet the technological needs of the Federal Government. Since the implementation of this program in 1983 through fiscal year 2006, over $20.7 billion has been given in awards for more

than 94,660 projects. The Government Accountability Office, which has been charged with assessing this program, has generally found that these programs have achieved the goal of enhanced participation of a small business in research and development fields.

Given the interest of the Committee on Science and Technology on the research and development of new technology, our committee has a unique interest in this bill. We have long been concerned about how America competes with the rest of the world in these areas. Many initiatives that have been passed by our committee in this Congress have focused on the need to improve our competitiveness in the world through funding of science education programs and public outreach efforts. I view this legislation as one more way we can reach out to the public to assist American innovation.

My only regret with regard to this legislation is that I do not believe it was able to receive the proper attention it warranted by the Committee on Science and Technology. Our committee shares jurisdiction on this legislation, primarily concentrated on the areas of science itself and the amount of science funding.

However, the full committee was not given the opportunity to consider this legislation and have its voice heard with regard to its continuation, primarily because there was a great hurry to bring this bill to the floor. Had regular order been provided, I believe we would be bringing a different bill to the floor today. And in view of that, I have offered an amendment that I believe will strengthen the bill, make it sounder in funding, preserve the funding of other resources and other research in the Federal Government, and also provide an opportunity to increase the funding for SBIR and STTR in the future by bringing up the funding for the other agencies of which these two organizations receive a percentage.

But I believe the approach in the bill of simply arbitrarily increasing the funding for SBIR and STTR hurts our research efforts in the Nation, and I will speak later on that topic when my amendment reaches the floor.

The second reservation is voiced by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia and, if we have time, we will enter into that discussion later and I will give him an opportunity to speak.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, the substance of the bill is good. I support the general intent of it.

I am very concerned about several aspects. One of those is the size of the increase of the allocation, which is going to hurt our Nation's research effort in its totality. Secondly, the issues raised by Dr. Gingrey which involve giving perhaps too much control and power to the venture capitalists. And, third, the issues relating to the other issues that Dr. Gingrey brought forth regarding category I and category II funding, and the interplay between the two.

If we can solve these problems I would hope to support the bill.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the recognition.

This amendment is very important in terms of the total research effort of our Nation. H.R. 5819 would increase the Small Business Innovation Research program set-aside from 2.5 percent to 3 percent, a 20 percent increase. It would also increase the Small Business Technology Transfer program set-aside from 0.3 percent to 0.6 percent, a 100 percent increase. My amendment would remove these increases and keep the current set-asides in place at 2.5 percent for SBIR and 0.3 percent for STTR.

This is an extremely important issue. The Science and Technology Committee has worked very hard during the last few years to get the America COMPETES authorization bill signed into law. It has now been signed into law. It establishes a funding doubling path for several agencies under Science Committee jurisdiction, several of which are SBIR and STTR funding agencies. However, finding the money to fund these authorizations has not been so easy, and in fact these increased authorizations have not been appropriated.

Several of my colleagues have expressed the opinion that an increase in the set-aside for these two programs was justified by the authorized funding increases in the COMPETES Act. However, as I said, these have not been appropriated.

My concern and my purpose behind my amendment is to make sure that we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. If we increase the SBIR and STTR program percentages while other agency's funding remains flat, we begin to severely erode our fundamental research base. I would much rather see us fight over extra funding for our basic research programs, our fundamental research programs, of which a percentage would then transfer into SBIR and STTR.

I should point out that my amendment is supported, first of all, by Mr. Obey, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He has spoken to me about it, and asked me to specifically mention that he supports my amendment.

I believe it is also supported by a large number of Members, as well as the Association of American Universities, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the Biophysical Society, the Campaign for Medical Research, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the National Association of State and Land Grant Colleges and the Small Business Administration.

To quote the President of the Association of American Universities, the change ``would translate directly into cuts in both nominal and real terms in the budgets of most Federal research agencies.''

In real terms, the proposed changes would remove approximately $650 million that is currently provided to researchers, especially those at universities around the country. At the National Institutes of Health, which I believe everyone in this body supports very strongly, if we do not adopt this amendment, the NIH budget would be reduced by $185 million. That is a severe cut.

So I urge the adoption of my amendment. I think it actually will improve things. I hope that in the next few years we will get substantial increases in the amount of funding for the various research agencies and SBIR and STTR would receive substantial increases to the percentage that they will continue to receive.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just like to offer a few closing comments.

First of all, I thank you for your offer to work on this problem together. As you know from working with me on this so often, I totally support research in all areas. My concern in this case is that we would be giving some money to one agency and taking it from others. I think we should work together to increase the funding for both, and all boats will rise. If we manage to give the appropriate amount of money to the research institutions, then SBIR and STTR will automatically increase because of that. So if we work together from that standpoint, I think we will be in total agreement.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and would like to comment on this amendment.

I have no great objection to it, but I am not terribly excited about it, either. Let me comment.

I personally would prefer, if we are going to show preferences here and use the money for that purpose, I would really prefer that we use those funds to give preference to those organizations that submit proposals for doing research and developing areas that will reduce carbon emissions. I think in the long run that might be better for the Nation than simply rewarding those who have taken steps within the organization rather than developing new ideas and inventions that can apply to everyone in the Nation.

So, as I said, I will not oppose it, but I did want to make that suggestion.

Madam Chairman, would the gentlelady yield?

I am not necessarily in opposition to this amendment, but

Will the gentlewoman please yield?

Thank you for yielding.

I just have to express some concern. We already had a preference earlier for organizations that have exhibited concern about their carbon footprint. And I don't object to the one about veterans, but I worry about getting too many preferences involved here. And Uncle Joe, who's trying to build a widget in his barn, may just fall in the cracks because he doesn't meet any of these preference categories.

I don't particularly oppose this one about transportation. Everyone knows we need improvements in that. But there are so many different areas, I don't want to bog down the SBA in dealing with these requests by having to worry about preference after preference.

So basically I'm issuing a warning here. Let's watch it in the future, and let's make sure we don't add too many preference requirements or it becomes very, very cumbersome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss this bill and, first of all, to commend Mr. Holt for his efforts and his concerns.

He is sincerely and extremely concerned about accuracy in voting, and what can be done to make certain that the results are accurate. He expressed that in his first bill, H.R. 811, which did not receive committee consideration.

I spent considerable time with him trying to work out the details of that bill, but we simply could not reach agreement or even come close to agreement.

I commend Mr. Holt again for his concern and his persistence, as he authored H.R. 5036. When I reviewed it with him I thought this might be a much better basis for agreement and, that by working together, we might be able to achieve that.

Unfortunately, we have not achieved full agreement on it, although we did get it out of committee. I supported it out of committee because I thought it should reach the floor for floor debate. I anticipated that it would be taken up under a rule where we might have the possibility for an additional compromise, but that has not happened.

There are a number of issues that still remain. I agree with Mr. Holt that we should have some type of redundancy in our recording systems. I disagree that it has to be paper. I think there are other methods of achieving redundancy.

Recently we had an exposition in the House Administration Committee room where we had demonstrations of equipment which shows redundancy in an electronic fashion, and I think would be fully as reliable as redundancy in paper.

Another area where we disagree is in the hand counting of ballots. I have enough experience with elections in local politics to recognize that hand counting is not as accurate as almost any machine counting that I have seen.

There are ways of achieving what Mr. Holt wishes. I think the optical-scan method is certainly a valid one, and that is what the State of Michigan uses. Other States are beginning to go use that.

But the final blow to our efforts was the judgment of the CBO that it was $685 million for 1 year. I realize that Mr. Holt had estimated that would be the cost in his original bill. In fact he had included it as an authorization in his original bill.

But having the CBO report that large sum that casts a pall over this particular bill in respect to the opinions of the Members of this body, and I am afraid that is likely to be the death knell.

In summary, I certainly commend Mr. Holt for his concerns. I commend him for his efforts. I just don't think we have achieved enough agreement to effectively make this a bipartisan bill. Therefore, I suspect it will not pass, and I will have great difficulty supporting it at this point.

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 4 minutes to the Republican whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, who has considerable voting experience, Mr. Mica.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

We have no further speakers. If you have none then I will make some concluding remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We've heard a good deal of discussion on this bill. Some of you may recall Parkinson's laws from some years ago in which he commented that when there's a debate on a subject, the more the people know, the longer the debate. And I suspect we could go on considerably longer if we had more of the Members of Congress here simply because all of us have experience with elections.

I would like to point out a few items. First of all, the comments about the integrity of the system. I agree totally. The objective should be the complete integrity of the system to insure that every vote is counted accurately, and that every voter can be assured that their vote is not cancelled out by someone who has illegally voted the wrong way; in other words, through fraud or through mistakes by the machine.

I believe that the audits that Mr. Holt has proposed are very important and should be developed. It should be developed with the help of the Secretaries of State and local election officials to develop a system that works, so that we can ensure that the count is as accurate as possible.

I also want to comment that the White House also has taken a dim view of this. They've issued a SAP this afternoon, somewhat to my surprise, that indicates that they oppose this bill and urge Members of the Congress to vote against it.

But I do want to look at this from the historical perspective, and as an older person, I've been around a while, and I've seen a lot of different elections. Recalling the early history of our country, all balloting was with paper. But because there was too much miscounting on opportunity for fraud, machines were developed: the iron monsters, as they called them, meaning the lever machines. And those were used for years, even though their error rate also was note zero. And then we've gone to many other voting methods over the years.

Now we're using high tech approaches with computers, and we have encountered some of the same difficulties.

I am not saying that you can't make a perfect machine. I am saying that as long as people are involved in operating them, there are likely to be mistakes.

And one of my classics that I remember is from the presidential election in 2004, when in Los Angeles County there were something like nine candidates for President listed on the ballot. This was an optical scan ballot. Over 3,600 voters crossed through the oval for candidates other than President Bush and left his blank.

Now, how is one to interpret that? Did these voters think they should leave the Bush oval blank because that was who they wanted to vote for? Or were they saying ``Anyone but the President? Who knows. As long as those types of mistakes are possible, they will be made. And we have to do our best here to work diligently, with, and I emphasize ``working with'' very strongly, working with the local elected officials, the State-elected officials, and continue to do as best we can to perfect the best possible voting system.

And with that, I will yield back.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5493, which would establish that the pay date in the House be determined by Committee on House Administration

regulations. However, I want to make clear that, while I support the committee establishing its authority to determine the House's pay date, I do not necessarily support alteration of the current House pay schedule at this time.

Along with the obvious administrative challenges that would impact the CAO, there are a number of cultural implications within the House population that must be addressed prior to making such a change.

Many employees pay their mortgages, utility bills, and other financial obligations in concert with a monthly pay schedule. To change a system that has been in place for such an extended period of time will have a pervasive impact and must be considered and communicated thoroughly before it is instituted.

This bill is the first step on a very long road, and it should be followed by hearings and surveys to allow House employees to express their opinions.

However, I fully support the efforts of Chairman Brady to ensure that the committee take a decisive role in determining whether or not changes to the House pay schedule are made.

Mr. Speaker, 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 H.R. 1068, which would permit military liaisons who are assigned to official duty within the House of Representatives to join the House Staff Fitness Center. The center has been a welcome benefit to many House employees since it opened in December of 2005. Located in the southwest corner of the Rayburn building, the fitness center covers 11,000 square feet in which gym members can take advantage of health screenings and fitness assessments, take part in health wellness workshops and seminars, and receive individualized exercise programs, in addition to using the state-of-the-art exercise equipment.

While membership in the House Staff Fitness Center will prove a convenient and useful operation to those military personnel who work in the House campus, I think it's also important to recognize that these gentlemen and women are part of the military. They must remain in shape because they may be called into active duty at any time.

And so I believe this is a good bill, and I thank Chairman Brady for his work on the bill.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I would like to make a few comments.

I am proud to support S. Con. Res. 71, which authorizes the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey.

A pioneer in the field of cardiovascular surgery, Dr. DeBakey became chairman of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University College of Medicine in 1948. Over the last half century, he has created a number of medical devices, techniques, and procedures that have saved countless lives. He is perhaps best known for his pioneering efforts in cardiovascular surgery, as he was one of the first physicians to ever perform coronary bypass surgery.

Additionally, Michael DeBakey is credited with developing the concept for the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, or M.A.S.H., units which were used in the Vietnam and Korean War to treat injured soldiers, saving even more lives.

An adviser to nearly every President for the past 50 years, Dr. DeBakey has served the public through his vast knowledge on a variety of medical issues. He has published more than

1,300 medical articles and has performed over 60,000 cardiovascular procedures. He is a beloved educator, so much so that in 1976, his students across the globe worked together to establish the Michael E. DeBakey International Surgical Society in his honor.

Dr. DeBakey has received numerous awards for his work, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1969 and the National Medal of Science, which was awarded to him by the late President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

I am extremely pleased that this bill will enable us to bestow another honor upon Dr. DeBakey as he receives the Congressional Gold Medal in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to object, but I will not object.

Madam Speaker, this is a very important resolution. It's something we do every year, and I can't imagine any more appropriate use of the rotunda of the Capitol than to recognize and commemorate the days of the Holocaust and the victims of the Holocaust. It's something that we do every year, something we should do every year and perhaps more frequently. And it is extremely important for us to recognize this as we confront genocide in other parts of the world, to recognize the genocide that started all genocides and started the discussions about the horrible nature of genocide. So I'm very strongly in favor of this.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.