Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. EHLERS. 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. EHLERS

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

Mr. EHLERS. 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 NOAA. Let me mention one other side issue. Just last week we had the Mark Trail program in the Cannon Office Building where awards were given for people who are making use of the automatic weather warning system. I don't know if Members are aware of it, but you can buy a simple little radio to keep at your bedside, as I do. If there are any weather alerts during the night when we are sleeping and don't hear the sirens, the radio will wake us up and give us the alert. Every American should have that, just as every American should have a fire alarm or smoke detector in their home. Let me take just a moment to thank the Science Committee staff who worked so hard over an almost 6-year period to make this bill possible. David Goldston, chief of staff of the Science Committee; Amy Carroll, staff director for the subcommittee I chair; Chad English, heavily involved in this issue; Sara Gray and Jason Patlis, as well as Eric Webster. Sara is present here also. She provided legal services. Jason is one of the new leaders of the Science Committee staff. Eric Webster, was invaluable in starting the research on and writing of this bill; unfortunately, he did it so well and learned so much about NOAA that they hired him, and we lost him. Without the hard work of all of these staff members, their selfless dedication, and many long hours, we would not be here considering this bill. Finally, I would also like to recognize Mr. Gordon's staff, who worked so closely with us throughout the process. They were invaluable in helping us perfect the bill, and we all worked with a good spirit of cooperation, and even the committee action on this bill was marked by agreement on the importance of the issue. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5450, as amended.

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

Mr. EHLERS. 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. EHLERS. 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.

Mr. EHLERS. 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. EHLERS. 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. EHLERS. 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. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. 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.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. 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.

Mr. EHLERS. 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. EHLERS. 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 ID. Now, the other side of the aisle tends to see this as a terrible calamity. They believe this is horrible. How can we do this? But at the same time they have approved, I am sure, the use of photo ID for getting on an airplane. They have approved the use of photo ID for purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. They have approved the use of photo ID for cashing a check. And on and on. We use photo ID all the time. We use photo IDs to get on governmental property. This is not a new concept. All we are simply saying in this bill is that by the year 2008 election, every Federal election will require a photo ID of every voter wishing to vote in that and succeeding Federal elections. It further goes on to say that in the year 2010, that photo ID must also indicate whether or not this person is a citizen. So it is two-pronged, and straightforward. In the public hearings that we held, there was much made by, among others, the League of Women Voters and also by the other side of the aisle that this was going to deprive poorer people of the opportunity to vote because they can't afford to get a voter ID, or it's too difficult for them to get out of the house and do it, or they can't prove their citizenship because they were born at home, et cetera, et cetera. We took that to heart. So we modified the bill to say that the States will prepare these photo IDs that will vouch for the persons citizenship, and if there is any expense involved that cannot be reimbursed by the person receiving this information and getting the photo ID and the citizenship verification, and if they cannot pay for it because they are indigent and simply do not have the resources, of if they can't get out of the house, or whatever, the State is to pay for it, and we will reimburse the State. This is not an unfunded mandate. We include the authorization in the bill, saying that when the States incur this expense, they submit their bills to the Federal Government. The Federal Government is authorized to repay them. The only glitch might come if the appropriators don't appropriate the money, but I can assure you the appropriators will be happy to appropriate the money for this purpose as long as we continue in the majority. I think it is totally inappropriate to call this on a point of order. This is not a mandate for the States to spend. They have enough credit in every case to pay the bill and have us reimburse them a month or so later. Surely they can carry that small burden. The total expense for the entire country is estimated to be less than $77 million. That is the estimate from the CBO. So I think the point of order is completely unfounded. I believe it is very important to continue with this bill. My goal in every case is to ensure that every citizen of the United States clearly has the right to vote, and that right will be facilitated by using the methods outlined in the bill, but also every citizen who votes has the right to believe that their vote will be counted accurately, and that no one else will dilute their vote by voting illegally and, therefore, undermining the process.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. 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.