Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1215) to provide for the implementation of a Green Chemistry Research and Development Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1215, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his leadership on this important legislation which passed the House in the 108th Congress by an overwhelming vote of 402-14. In fact, I appreciate it so much I am sorry I didn't think of introducing the bill myself.

When I was a college student studying science, the only green chemistry I ever saw was the mold that grew on the neglected food in our dorm refrigerator. Today, we know that green chemistry is about doing chemistry cleaner and smarter in an environmentally sound way.

When businesses innovate by using green chemical processes, they cannot only save money, but also avoid the cost of cleaning up toxic pollutants, providing a safer work environment for their employees, and providing safer products to consumers. Everyone wins.

However, the adoption of green chemistry by the traditional chemical industry has been slow because there are only a few widely accepted processes and a shortage of trained experts in green chemistry. And for too long, the Federal investments in green chemistry research and development have been too small and two unfocused.

To provide that much-needed focus, H.R. 1215, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act, will establish a research and development program to promote and coordinate Federal green chemistry, research, development, demonstration, education and technology transfer activities within the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy.

The program will support research and development grants including grants for university-industry-nonprofit partnerships, support green chemistry research at Federal labs, promote education through curricula development and fellowships, and serve as a green chemistry information resource.

H.R. 1215 does not authorize the expenditure of new money. Instead, the bill obtains funding for the program from sums already authorized to be appropriated at the four agencies involved.

H.R. 1215 is an important first step in focusing Federal support for green chemistry. It expands green chemistry education, develops more green chemistry processes, and modestly and responsibly increases the Federal investment in green chemistry.

The emphasis on both training the next generation of chemical professionals and retraining conventional chemists and chemical engineers is critical to innovation in the traditional chemical manufacturing sector.

I am pleased to support the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act. Again, I thank Mr. Gingrey for his hard work on this important piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1215.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, the author of the bill, Mr. Gingrey.

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

I am very proud of our system of free enterprise in America. It has led to a considerable amount of innovation in every area. But I find, surprisingly, once in a while tradition trumps innovation, and that is the situation that we have here with green chemistry.

I commend the gentleman from Georgia for offering this bill because, frankly, we have to wake up the chemical industry to this promising new field and overcome the tradition and take up the ideas of green chemistry.

In all the experience I have in viewing the cases where it has been used, we have had better products, less pollution, and the manufacturers make more money. There is no reason not to do it. It is just that we simply have to use innovation to break tradition.

So, Mr. Speaker, while the full potential of green chemistry has yet to be realized, H.R. 1215 will place us on the right path to reaching that potential.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5136) to establish a National Integrated Drought Information System within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to improve drought monitoring and forecasting capabilities, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5136, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

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

Today, I rise in support of H.R. 5136, the National Integrated Drought Information System Act. I would like to thank Mr. Hall and Mr. Udall for their leadership on this important legislation. It is truly a bipartisan bill in every way.

Drought is a pernicious disaster. It can creep up on you in the form of pleasantly cloudless days. But once it has arrived it can destroy livelihoods, damage valuable ecosystems, and even threaten human health. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better known as NOAA, estimates that we lose approximately $7 billion each year to this slowly emergent but devastating natural disaster. In 2002, drought killed over three-quarters of all of the Christmas tree saplings in my home State of Michigan. In 2005 and 2006, drought left 60 Michigan counties eligible for the U.S. Department of Agriculture relief programs. And my State got off easy.

Since we cannot manufacture more water, our best defense against this creeping threat is knowledge. We must provide clear and accurate warnings of coming droughts so that we can seek appropriate solutions and take appropriate action. Drought information should include enough details to make it useful to the people who work so hard to manage water resources and minimize the effects of drought on our daily lives. The National Integrated Drought Information System Act seeks to provide just that kind of information.

This bill authorizes the National Integrated Drought Information System, or NIDIS, in NOAA. The system would include a comprehensive drought forecasting and monitoring system and the research and development programs to support it. The bill requires NIDIS to build upon existing forecast and monitoring efforts and to do so in broad consultation with relevant Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, as well as public and private organizations. H.R. 5136 emphasizes the importance of timely, preferably real-time, drought-related information that reflects local and regional differences in drought conditions.

In summary, this bill gives farmers, utilities, forest managers, waterway operators, tourism companies, reservoir managers, and the general public the tools they need to make thoughtful and informed choices about how to limit the impact of drought on our economy, our environment, and our quality of life.

I am pleased to support H.R. 5136, the National Integrated Drought Information System Act. Again, I commend Mr. Hall and Mr. Udall for this important and bipartisan legislation; and I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 5136.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the cosponsor of this bill, Mr. Hall.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to urge all of my colleagues to support the National Integrated Drought Information System Act. I urge them to vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give advance notice of a bill that will be coming up today, and I certainly appeal for your support for that bill.

There are very few things in this life that I hate, but one that I hate is dishonesty, particularly dishonesty in voting. I am very eager to make certain that every vote taken in this country is legitimate, is properly cast and properly counted, so that all citizens can be assured their vote will be counted and not be diluted by others who vote illegally.

With that in mind, our committee, the Committee on House Administration, has taken up H.R. 4844, a bill proffered by the gentleman from Illinois Mr. (Hyde). This bill will be coming up today.

It is very simple. It simply requires by the year 2008, in every Federal election, every voter will have to display a photo ID. That is not a bad requirement. You already have to show it to cash a check, to get on an airplane or to buy cigarettes or alcohol. It is not at all a difficult proposition. By the year 2010, that photo ID will also have to have something on it that shows that the voter is a citizen.

With those two improvements, I believe we can go a long way to get rid of fraud in our electoral process.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I am astonished at the comments made by the previous speaker. It is certainly not my intent and certainly not the intent of the Republicans to in any way restrict the ability to vote.

He mentioned the Constitution. The Constitution clearly specifies who are citizens of this Nation. Federal law clearly specifies that only citizens may vote.

We have had numerous instances of fraud, voter fraud, in the history of this Nation. Let me just mention Tammany Hall, the Pendergast machine, the Daley machine, and on and on. There is no question that fraud has existed. Based on my work on the Committee on House Administration and being involved in some of the difficult decisions we make there on voting reviews, I assure you there is no question that there continues to be fraud.

In recent hearings we had on the bill before us here, we had testimony in New Mexico that poll watchers, instead of doing what they were supposed to do, namely, noting who was absent and hadn't voted, and then calling these absent individuals to remind them to come to vote, instead of doing that, the poll watchers were calling friends to come in and vote illegally in place of the missing people. They would vote the party line for the party that was arranging this procedure. Fraud does exist and still occurs in elections.

I think there is one very, very good way to solve this problem, and that is to make sure that every voter who votes proves that they are the person who has registered to vote. A good way to do that is photo

Mr. Speaker, several points. First of all, I am surprised that anyone regards this bill as an attempt

to prevent people from voting. It is intended to aid them in voting. I am committed, as I said earlier, to allow every citizen the opportunity to vote, and make certain they can be assured that no one else is diluting that vote through illegal action.

Having said that, and recognizing that Andrew Young has also endorsed this, I don't understand the arguments of the Democrats on this. When the bill was first introduced and we had our first hearing, all of the complaints from the Democrats and the League of Women Voters was that we are disenfranchising the poor because they could not afford to get a photo ID and they could not afford to prove they were citizens.

So I said, fine, we will provide the money so that the poor can get a photo ID, and so that the poor can prove their citizenship. Then we are truly helping them, because not only can they vote, but as Andrew Young said, they can cash their check more readily. Also, if they want to apply for Social Security or Medicare benefits, they have proof of citizenship which speeds up the process tremendously; otherwise they have to go through the effort of proving citizenship at that time.

So this bill not only will help with voting, it will help the poor in many other ways because it provides payment for them to properly be able to identify themselves to get government services, to cash checks, et cetera, et cetera.

What we have done here is a good bill, and the point of order is simply invalid. If we are going to apply the point of order for this bill because the appropriators haven't yet acted, then every authorizing bill we pass that provides for funding through the States or localities is not going to pass the test either, because they won't have the appropriations in hand yet. I think it is a farce. I urge all Members to vote against this point of order, and I urge that we proceed on to the debate of the bill itself.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to address the comments raised by the gentleman from Missouri, who is one of the most outstanding Members of Congress. I am sorry that his State has adopted a law such that you have to have a certain type of State ID. I am not at all sure why they did not recognize his congressional ID.

Under the bill that we have written, the bill that is on the floor today, a congressional ID would be recognized and would be appropriate for the process, simply because it is issued by the Federal Government. It shows the picture of the person carrying it. It establishes, by virtue of the position, that this person has citizenship, and so the voter, the Member card, which I incidentally use for ID every time I board a plane, would apply equally well for voting. The event described is an isolated case, and he was affected by State law, not by the law that we are proposing here.

There has been so much said about how this is going to keep people from the polls, I don't see that at all. We have worked very hard on this bill. We have conducted three hearings. I understand that while I was out of the room, someone on the other side said we hadn't had any hearings. We had three hearings: one in Washington, DC, one in New Mexico, and one in Arizona.

I have also heard that this is going to keep people away from the polls. But in Arizona, when they passed their referendum requiring photo ID and citizenship proof, registration went up 15 percent. It did not go down, it went up. I think that is simply because the people could be assured that their vote would be entered properly, their vote would be legal, and that there would not be illegal votes nullifying what they had done.

Most of the argument that I have heard against this bill is simply not germane, or simply erroneous, because they simply haven't read the bill or understood it. We worked very hard to take into account the objections raised by the members of the committee, members of the public who had testified, and we thought we had taken care of all of those concerns.

Why is it unacceptable to help individuals prove their citizenship and obtain a photo ID and proof of citizenship free of charge. It is beyond me why that is unacceptable. Andrew Young says it is wonderful. Why don't the people in the House of Representatives think it is wonderful?

We are actually helping them to collect Social Security eventually, and collect Medicare benefits. We are paying the bill to allow them to do this, and I think this is a really good side benefit of a bill which not only will do that, but which will ensure that all votes cast in this Nation are valid votes, and that fraud will be minimized.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5450) to provide for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5450, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5450, as amended by the Science Committee. H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, is an organic act for NOAA. An organic act defines the overall mission and function of an agency.

In 1970, President Nixon established NOAA in the Department of Commerce by executive order. Since that time, Congress has not passed an organic act for NOAA, and today NOAA's authorities come from over three dozen issue-specific laws.

Some years ago I decided this was an intolerable situation, and we began work on an organic act. In 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, a nonpartisan group of the Nation's leading ocean experts, recognized this lack of congressional direction for NOAA as an impediment to the agency's vital legislative role.

The Commission strongly recommended that Congress pass a NOAA organic act. We in Congress need to provide NOAA and its employees clear direction and the tools they require to perform critical missions and functions that affect the everyday lives of all Americans, including weather forecasts and storm warnings from the National

Weather Service and alerts from the National Ocean Service about dangerous conditions such as toxic algae blooms or even tsunamis.

In response to this need, I introduced the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. My bill gives NOAA a clear mission so it can more effectively set program goals. For example, my bill states that the mission of NOAA is to first understand and predict changes in the Earth's oceans and atmospheres, conserve and manage coastal, ocean and Great Lakes ecosystems, and educate and inform our fellow citizens about these topics.

H.R. 5450 then directs NOAA to reorganize so it can more efficiently accomplish this mission. Based on recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, my bill establishes NOAA within the Department of Commerce and requires NOAA to restructure so it may improve the way it carries out the critical functions of operations and services, research and education, and resource management.

In addition, H.R. 5450 strengthens science at NOAA by creating a new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Education, authorizing a science advisory board, requiring a National Academies' assessment of the agency's data and information systems, and directing NOAA to develop a strategic plan for its research programs.

Valuable input from my colleagues on the Science Committee from both parties further strengthened congressional oversight provisions of H.R. 5450, and the bill now includes a provision to ensure that NOAA does not get in over its head with large programs such as building weather satellites.

This provision requires NOAA to use more streamlined and transparent cost baselines for major programs, and to notify Congress when there are significant cost increases or schedule delays in major procurement programs.

Passage of an organic act for NOAA is a top priority for both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the privately funded Pugh Ocean Commission.

The administration, States, and numerous advocacy groups have also expressed support for the NOAA organic act. H.R. 5450 has widespread and bipartisan support. The bill incorporates ideas from a range of experts and from Members on both sides of the aisle. Everyone recognizes this bill is not a complete organic act because it omits issues solely in the jurisdiction of the House Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we all share the goal of seeing a complete bill. I thank all of my colleagues who contributed to this bill as well as those who continue to express support. In particular I want to thank Mr. Udall. He was a ranking member of my subcommittee when we first started working on this bill.

I also want to thank Mr. Wu, the current ranking member of my subcommittee, and Mr. Gordon, the ranking member of the full committee, for their help and input throughout the process.

Additionally, I thank Mr. Gilchrest who has been an outstanding leader on ocean issues and an original cosponsor of this bill, and he has been invaluable with his input. Finally I would especially like to thank Chairman Boehlert, also an original cosponsor, for his unwavering support and commitment to moving this bill through the process. Chairman Boehlert has long been a strong champion for the sciences and science-based decision making envisioned in H.R. 5450, and we will greatly miss his leadership on these issues.

H.R. 5450 will make NOAA stronger and more capable of doing its job to keep us safe, understand our environment, and manage our coastal and marine resources.

This bill is an important step forward for ocean issues. And I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues here in the House and in the Senate to get a final bill that is clear, well balanced and complete. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5450

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from California.

I am in wholehearted agreement with his sentiments. I want to see a complete bill. The bill before us is a good bill. It deals with the physical sciences portion of NOAA. It has taken us almost 6 years to create this bill, work out all the details with all interested parties, including both political parties. It is a good bill, but it will be improved when we get the oceans portion.

I would hope that we can do it yet before the end of the year. If not, I will pledge to the gentleman from California, and anyone else, I will be happy to continue working on achieving that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who has been invaluable in addressing oceans issues in this particular body.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I will, first of all, enter the sweepstakes for the most beautiful place in the United States and invite everyone to the western coast of Michigan on the Great Lakes of Lake Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, if the other side has no further speakers, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to note that NOAA reaches into the lives of nearly every citizen of this country, from the weather forecasts that people use to decide if they need an umbrella, or if they have to go to the basement to avoid a tornado, to the safety of our seafood and drought predictions of the way we grow our food and manage our reservoirs. This bill will give NOAA the tools and directions they need to continue to serve our Nation in the coming decades, and I look forward to their continued progress.

Very few people realize the importance of NOAA and how it affects their lives. They take the weather forecast for granted. In fact, many are unaware that the information that comes over the radio or as seen on television is provided by NOAA. I recall the famous case of someone who said we should stop funding NOAA because they get

more information from their TV broadcast than they do from the National Weather Service, failing to recognize the important work that NOAA does.

This bill will give NOAA the tools and direction they need to continue to serve our Nation in the coming decades and to meet the challenges of the future. I look forward to the continued progress in

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1015, I call up the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the United States to prevent fraud in Federal elections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4484, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, and ask all my colleagues to support this important bill.

This bill will require presentation of a government-issued photo ID to vote

in Federal elections, effective November 2008. Though most of the voting public already has an ID that can meet this requirement, there is a percentage of eligible voters who do not have an ID, so these extra 2 years will give them time to acquire it.

To ensure that only citizens are voting, the amendment will require presentation by 2010 of an ID that could not have been obtained without providing proof of citizenship. Once obtained, this ID can be used to prove both citizenship and identity when voting.

This Congress has previously enacted the REAL ID Act which will require people to prove their legal status in the country to get a REAL ID. That act has to be implemented by May 2008. Citizens will be able to use the IDs they obtain under this process to vote in elections starting in 2010 and for all elections thereafter. H.R. 4844 will require the ID to include some indicia of citizenship, so poll workers and other election officials will be able to tell that the bearer is a citizen.

Those who arrive at the polls without an ID will be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. These ballots will be counted if the person returns and presents to an election official a qualifying ID within 48 hours. To help those who need but cannot afford the ID to vote, the amendment requires States to provide them free of cost to the indigent and authorizes funds to reimburse States for the cost of doing so.

To most people this proposal is a simple, commonsense proposal and a necessary safeguard against vote fraud. To others it represents a dangerous threat to some citizens' ability to access the polls. While this debate may be heated in Washington, D.C., it seems the American people have made up their mind. A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed that 81 percent of those surveyed favored an ID requirement for voting. A Rasmussen poll during that same time period showed a similar result. Seventy-seven percent surveyed favored an ID requirement for voting.

Likewise, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform recommended a national voter ID requirement in the report they issued last year. While the division on this issue may be partisan here in Congress, it certainly was not on this bipartisan commission. It seems a large bipartisan majority there concluded by an 18-3 vote that requiring ID is a necessary reform.

Once implemented, H.R. 4844 will put an important safeguard in place that will enhance the integrity of our system and help restore confidence in it. By putting in place procedures that ensure voting is limited to eligible citizens, we can encourage participation and increase turnout.

The experience in Arizona is instructive here. Despite all the claims that disenfranchisement would ensue after the enactment of the proof of citizenship and ID requirements in Proposition 200, testimony in Phoenix revealed that registration went up 15 percent after the requirement to prove citizenship went into effect. The fact is, people are encouraged to vote when they believe their vote will count and know that their vote will not be canceled out by an illegal vote.

I know there will be some who oppose the action we will take today, and there will be some controversy generated by the proposal. I wish it were not so. It seems we should all be able to agree that voting should be limited to citizens of the United States, because that has been the law for years. If we can agree on that, we should be able to agree that our voting systems must have procedures in place to ensure that.

We should all be able to agree that every eligible citizen should be able to vote, should be encouraged to vote, to vote only once, and to be assured that their vote will not be diluted by an illegal vote. If we agree on that, we should be able to agree that making people identify themselves when they vote is a simple and necessary safeguard.

It was not always so. I grew up in a small town, Edgerton, Minnesota, with 800 people. They did not need photo IDs. They knew everyone in town. If a stranger had showed up to vote, he would have been ushered out of the hall. But today we live in urban cities, by and large. We do not know each other well, and we need some means of foolproof identification.

I am sure that we will hear from the other side of the aisle today that an ID requirement is not necessary and is too much trouble. But every day millions of Americans show a photo ID to pay by check, board a plane or buy alcohol or tobacco. Surely the sanctity of the ballot warrants as much protection as these other activities.

In too many States, lax identification requirements mean people can cast votes without ever having to prove their eligibility. Our voting rights are too important to rely on an honor system. We need to make sure we have procedures in place that protect the right to vote and make sure only eligible citizens are able to do so.

I hope all Members will recognize the need for these necessary reforms. They will advance the security of our electoral systems, increase confidence in their integrity and reduce the opportunities for fraud. I ask all Members to support this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) one of the most honorable persons in the Chamber, one who has served well for so many years, the sponsor of this bill, who has worked tirelessly for this Congress and for the people of the United States, including on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the future Governor of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to observe for a moment there will be no expense to any voter. It will be paid by the Federal Government if the voter has to pay money to get a birth certificate or a photo ID.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the House Administration Committee, Mr. John Mica of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) who was kind enough to host us when we held a hearing in his State.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Walden for purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I recognize the concern of the gentleman from Oregon, and we will certainly try to work with him. We will solicit ideas not only from his State, but also from the State of Washington, which has a considerable amount of mail-in voting. And I would certainly like also to hear from the secretary of state of both States and several county clerks from each State for ways that we can accomplish the goal of the bill, which is to ensure that every citizen has the right to vote, and only those who have the right to vote will be allowed to vote. There may be more than one way to accomplish that.

We will be happy to work with you when the bill reaches conference with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for another colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for raising the question. This is not the first time it has come up. There are other groups. Many of the American Indians have raised a similar objection, and I am quite sure that once we get in conference with the Senate, we will be able to hear from that group and all the other groups, the Amish, the Native Americans, and find another method to ensure identity.

Clearly biometrics would be equally acceptable as a photo ID. Thumbprints are generally not reproducible for other fraud; so I believe this will help deal with the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to respond to all of the erroneous comments that have been made. Some of them may have been pertinent as relating to the original bill as introduced. But I wish all those commenting would have read the amended bill that we have before us now.

There has been much discussion about poll taxes. Absolute nonsense. I would never stand for putting a poll tax on any citizen of this country. There is no poll tax. We specifically provided that the State and the Federal Government will pay for any cost. There is no poll tax in this bill.

Furthermore, it is said the burden falls on the poor. Again, nonsense. We help the poor. There is no burden on the poor. We assist them by helping them prove citizenship and paying for it. So when they apply for Social Security, when they apply for Medicare, when they apply for prescription drug coverage, they will have proof of citizenship in hand.

This benefits the poor. It benefits those who do not have citizenship, because we help them to prove citizenship and we pay for it.

This bill is designed to cut down fraud. I put the question, Where is the fraud? Several have said, there is no fraud. There is fraud.

In the 2000 election in Philadelphia, they had 103 percent of the voter turnout in one precinct. That is fraud. When you have the number of voters who appeared was greater than the number registered for a district, that is fraud.

Then there is the gubernatorial race in the State of Washington. The final result that judges certified, was that the number of illegal votes cast was over 1,000 percent greater than the margin of victory for the winner of that race. That is fraud. Conclusioin: There is fraud in voting in this Nation.

It is time for us to get rid of fraud in voting in this Nation. This bill will make a big step towards doing it. It will not endanger anyone's right to vote. It is not a poll tax. It helps citizens to vote legally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to respond without having seen the text of this beforehand, but it appears clear to me that it has the purpose to provide a number of exceptions. Our bill does not provide exceptions, because we are interested in ensuring that every voter has the right to vote. We also want to ensure that there are no illegal votes cast.

References have been made to unfunded mandate. The House just defeated that suggestion and said there is no unfunded mandate. There are concerns about no money being provided. Our committee, the House Administration Committee, is an authorizing committee, not an appropriations committee.

If this bill is unfunded, it is simply because we are an authorizing committee, and any bill passed by an authorizing committee is unfunded. We have to follow the procedures here. We pass authorizing bills. The appropriators then provide the money to implement authorizing activities.

I strongly urge the Members of the body to recommit this bill and to pass the original version of the bill, as amended, and which was introduced to this body and debated for the last 2 hours. It is a good bill that will provide the safety and security we need to ensure the vote is taken properly. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, please find attached the Congressional Budget Office's estimate for the legislation, H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, as reported by the Committee on House Administration.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2006.

Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers,

Chairman, Committee on House Administration,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4844, the

Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matthew

Pickford (for federal costs), Sarah Puro (for the impact on

state and local governments), and Paige Piper/Bach (for the

impact on the private sector).

Sincerely,

Donald B. Marron,

Acting Director.

Enclosure.

H.R. 4844--Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006

Summary: H.R. 4844 would amend the Help America Vote Act of

2002 to require all voters in federal elections to display a

valid and current photo identification card issued by a

government agency. The requirement would begin with the

November 2008 federal election. The legislation would require

the photo identification cards to document U.S. citizenship

by the 2010 federal election. The legislation would require

states to provide photo identification cards to all eligible

voters who cannot pay for them, and it would authorize

appropriations for the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)

to reimburse states for those costs. CBO estimates that

implementing H.R. 4844 would cost about $1 million in 2007

and $77 million over the 2007-2011 period, assuming

appropriation of the necessary amounts.

H.R 4844 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Beginning in 2008,

the bill would:

Require state and local governments to establish a program

that would make certain forms of photo identification

available to those who currently do not have it;

Prohibit state and local governments from allowing

individuals without proper photo identification to vote; and

Prohibit states from charging a fee for such identification

if the applicant cannot afford the fee.

While the aggregate costs to state, local, and tribal

governments of complying with these mandates is uncertain,

CBO estimates that they would far exceed the threshold

established in UMRA ($64 million in 2006, adjusted annually

for inflation) in at least one of the first five I years

after the mandates go into effect. The bill would authorize

funds to cover the costs of reimbursing states for providing

identification cards to those individuals that cannot

afford them, which CBO estimates would total about $70

million over the next few years.

By requiring individuals to have a government-issued

identification to vote in a federal election, H.R. 4844 also

would impose new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

Based on information from government and other sources, CBO

estimates that the cost to comply with those mandates would

exceed the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-

sector mandates ($128 million in 2006, adjusted annually for

inflation) in at least one of the first five years the

mandates are in effect.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated

budgetary impact of H.R. 4844 is shown in the following

table. The cost of this legislation falls within budget

function 800 (general government).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

By fiscal year, in millions of

dollars--

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2965. This bill restores a modicum of sense to our current government procurement system.

Let me highlight two important aspects of this bill. One, the bill helps federal agencies manage taxpayer dollars more responsibly. For the first time, private-sector firms will be free to bid on federal contracting opportunities currently reserved for Federal Prison Industries. To assure that a buying agency is getting adequate value for the taxpayer dollars being spent on clothing, textiles, electronics, office furniture, equipment, services, or other procurement items, the buying agency--rather than FPI--would be empowered to determine whether the offered product and delivery schedule meet the buying agency's needs. Similarly, the buying agency would be empowered to determine whether FPI's offered price meets the procurement standard for a ``fair and reasonable price.''

Two, the bill is eminently more fair to contractors. Let me give you one example of the egregiously unfair practices under the current system. Back in 2003, the FAA was seeking to procure office furniture for its headquarters building. Through the General Services Administration, it solicited bids for the contract. On April 16, 2003, Steelcase (which is a major office furniture manufacturer based in my district) submitted its final bid for this contract to the GSA. A week later, Steelcase was informed by GSA that they were likely the winning bid on the contract. On May 7, they were informed by GSA that FPI had copied the proposal word for word and exactly matched Steelcase's bid. FPI asserted its sole source authority and decided not to grant a waiver for this contract. This was completely unfair as Steelcase had spent over 1,000 man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars preparing the design, construction schedule, labor and material costs and other elements of this bid, only to have FPI duplicate the offer and undercut them. Thankfully, FPI eventually relented after considerable political pressure was brought to bear by myself and others.

We cannot continue to fight these kinds of situations on a case-by- case basis. That is why I support comprehensive FPI reform. If FPI can compete on quality and price, then great! Let me note that the bill does not alter a broad array of other advantages that FPI enjoys when it competes with private-sector firms, including extremely low wage rates, low overhead costs and no tax liability. But the current mandatory source privilege is anathema to principles of the free market and open enterprise.

I commend my colleague, Mr. Hoekstra, for his steadfast dedication to addressing this problem and for working with all the interested stakeholders. I urge everyone to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer recognition of the 150th anniversary of the First Christian Church of Muir, Michigan. It is located in Ionia County, part of the Third Congressional District of Michigan, which I represent. The church will celebrate its sesquicentennial on September 7, 2006.

The First Christian Church of Muir is part of the Michigan Region of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and has great historical significance within that denomination. The church was formed in 1856 at about the same time the village of Muir was organized. Some members of the community called upon a friend, the Rev. Isaac Errett of Ohio, to come to Michigan to establish a church.

The church held its first meeting on a cold, mid-winter morning, when parishoners gathered at the edge of the Grand River with temperatures that reached 31 degrees below

zero. They had to break through the river's ice in order to get water to perform baptismal rites--certainly not a baptism by fire, I must say! The church became known as the ``Mother Church of the World,'' as it was the denomination's first church in the Grand River Valley and became the parent church of offshoots in Ionia, Owosso, Detroit, North Plains and Woodard Lake, as well as financing other Disciple churches in Tennessee, Kansas and Missouri.

In 1861, the church building was completed, and Rev. Errett's longtime friend and fellow Disciple of Christ James A. Garfield, soon to become a member of this House and later to be the 20th President of the United States, traveled to Muir to dedicate the building. An elder and minister in the Disciples of Christ, Garfield had visited the church and preached there several times. Garfield was not the only House member and future president to visit the church, as then- Congressman Gerald R. Ford was on hand in 1956 to participate in the church's centennial celebration.

The First Christian Church of Muir, originally constructed at a cost of $3,215 with boards cut at local saw mills, today rests on its original foundation and displays several stained-glass memorial windows, with the main window as a memorial to Rev. Isaac Errett. The church's bell, which was cast in England and hangs in the church's belfry, still is rung to announce services each Sunday, and also rings out on special occasions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and our colleagues to join me in congratulating the First Christian Church of Muir on its 150th anniversary and send well wishes to Rev. W. Gregory Gladding and the church's congregation as they celebrate their sesquicentennial on September 7, 2006.

This is a very complex issue, and we have worked on this bill for a considerable amount of time in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, of which I am a member.

I am puzzled, because there is a little confusion on the floor tonight about the airlines issue, and I hope I can help to clarify that. The impression that has been given, and I have heard it in other discussions and not just in this debate, that there is one plan here for Northwest and Delta and a different plan here for Continental and American Airlines. That is simply not true.

There are two plans, but it does not specify which airlines. Any of the airlines can pick one of the two plans. It is an open choice. One plan is for an airline which chooses to freeze their pensions. In that case, they will pay what they owe to the PBGC at a certain rate of interest over a certain period of time. In the other plan, airlines do not have to freeze their pensions and they pay their obligation to the PBGC at a certain rate over a certain amount of time.

Now, those rates and times are different because the two plans are different. The liabilities of the airlines are different. But Continental or American Airlines can choose to use the frozen plan with no problem whatsoever. If they think Northwest and Delta are getting a better deal, they can join them. They can freeze their plans and get the same repayment rate, same interest rate, same time to repay as Northwest and Delta. It is very simple. Two plans, but no airline is tied to a particular plan. They can make the choice they wish. In fact, Continental is using both plans.

And so the argument that we are being unfair and are picking winners and losers among the airlines simply does not apply in this case. As Mr. Oberstar said, this is a fair arrangement which will preserve the pension funds for the employees of the airlines and will prevent a further load from being assigned to the PBGC, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which would lose a lot of government money and which we may have to bail out if we do not adopt this plan.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 108) authorizing the printing of a revised edition of a pocket version of the United States Constitution, and other publications, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 108, authorizing the printing of a revised edition of a pocket version of the United States Constitution and other publications. This concurrent resolution not only reauthorizes the printing of the pocket size Constitution, but also the publication ``Our Flag.'' These congressional publications are favorites among Members to distribute to their constituents who visit them both here and in the Nation's Capitol and back at home in their district.

And I can say that not only do Members enjoy distributing them, because we have such a respect and love for the Constitution, but I do have to tell you that students, citizens, teachers, also love to receive these pocket editions. And I urge them to emphasize to them what a fantastic thing it is that a pocket-sized version of a document has served this Nation so well for so many years that it has led to the longest lasting democratic government in the history of this planet.

In addition, this resolution authorizes for the first time the printing of a history of the U.S. Botanic Garden. This book offers a comprehensive history of the garden and will further help its mission of educating the American public on environmental sciences.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Captain Victor J. Van Heest for his service as a member of the United States Navy on the occasion of his retirement after 27 years of military service.

Captain Van Heest is a native of my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and currently serves as Senior Military Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. After attending Michigan State University, where he graduated in 1979 with a degree in mechanical engineering, Captain Van Heest was commissioned in the U.S. Navy in August 1979. He was designated a Naval Aviator in 1980 after completing flight school.

He has served in many different posts around the country and world and has been deployed to the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf during his career. Furthermore, he continued his education, earning a Master of Science in Administration degree from Central Michigan University in 1999, and graduating from the Air War College in 1996. His personal awards include the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal (three awards), the Navy Commendation Medal, and the Navy Achievement Medal (three awards).

Upon graduation from the Air War College, he transferred to VR-48, NAF Washington, DC, as the Executive Officer and in April 1997 assumed command of the squadron. During this time, the ``Capital Skyliners,'' who fly the C-20G aircraft, won the Battle `E' for C-9 and C-20 squadrons.

Following his command tour, he reported to the Director of Air Warfare staff at the Pentagon as the Transport Aircraft Coordinator. One year later, he transferred to the Director of Naval Reserve staff as the Head, Reserve Air Logistics Programs and then fleeted up to Director, Air Programs Management Division.

Assuming command of Fleet Logistics Support Wing in July 2001, he led the Airwing during Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. He relinquished command in July 2003 having accumulated more than 5,700 flight hours in Navy aircraft.

Captain Van Heest and his wife, Anne, reside with their sons, Peter and Andrew, in Annapolis, Maryland. Their oldest son, Kyle, is a Midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. Upon his retirement, the Van Heests

plan to move to Holland, Michigan, where, I am told, he will work for Haworth Inc.

I ask my colleagues to join me in offering Captain Victor J. Van Heest our deepest gratitude for his 27 years of service to our Nation and congratulations on his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 40) authorizing the printing and binding of a supplement to, and revised edition of, Senate Procedure, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 427) permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

For three-quarters of a century, the Department of Veterans Affairs has supported the distinguished men and women of our Armed Forces through the many services they offer. Since its inception in 1930, the VA has worked tirelessly to enhance patient care and veterans benefits, providing excellence in service to those who serve our Nation proudly.

Of the 25 million veterans currently alive, nearly three of every four served during a war or in an official period of hostility. About a quarter of the Nation's population, approximately 70

million people, are potentially eligible for VA benefits and services because they are veterans, family members or survivors of veterans. But the VA stands for more than the collection of services they offer. They represent the desire of all Americans to ensure that we honor those who selflessly answer the call to defend our great Nation with the great dignity and respect they deserve.

On the occasion of its 75th anniversary year, the Department of Veterans Affairs, with the support of Chairman Buyer of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has requested use of the Capitol rotunda to commemorate the significant contribution that the VA has made in supporting veterans.

As I have noted in the past, it is important for us to continually identify opportunities to recognize the contribution of our men and women in uniform as a way to give thanks for all that they have given to the American people. As you may know, the Committee on House Administration recently partnered with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Armed Services Committee to introduce the Wall of the Fallen memorial, a tribute to those men and women who have lost their lives in battle in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was proud to sponsor the Wall of the Fallen in recognition of these heroes, just as I lend my full support to the request of the Department of Veterans Affairs for use of the Capitol rotunda to celebrate their 75 years of service to our Nation's veterans.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous matter on the subject of the bill.

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