Bob Ney

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. 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 House Resolution 765, the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 765, and I am joined on the floor by our ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson); and it is good to be here to express the gratitude of the House of Representatives to the cities of Boston, Massachusetts, and New York, New York, for their extraordinary hospitality and successful planning and hosting of the 2004 national political conventions. Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for everyone in the House in thanking the people of the cities of Boston and New York, their cities' host committees, and the countless volunteers for making both cities open and welcoming to the many Members of the Congress, delegates from across the Nation, and all other interested parties who participated in our great conventions. Special recognition needs to go to the Boston Police Department and the New York City Police Department, whose professionalism and constant vigilance guaranteed not only the safety of the residents they routinely protect on a day-by-day basis but the many visitors who attended the conventions. In addition, we have to thank the countless city, State, regional and nationwide agencies who cooperated to ensure the safety of everyone involved with both conventions. I would also like to recognize the exceptional efforts of the hundreds of United States Capitol Police Officers who provided around-the-clock security for all Members during the convention and who coordinated, of course, with the Secret Service, the FBI and, again, the New York City Police Department. And we cannot forget the firefighters in both New York and Boston that were on hand. So I am here on a bipartisan basis, though I would note, Mr. Speaker, for the record, I did not see my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), at the New York convention. But I am glad to be with him here tonight to thank both cities and everyone involved in both conventions. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, on September 8, 2004, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 428, on agreeing to the Rep. Joel Hefley Amendment to H.R. 5006, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005; for rollcall vote No. 429, on agreeing to the Rep. George Miller Amendment to H.R. 5006, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005; and, for rollcall vote No. 430, on the Motion that the Committee Rise. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 428, ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 429, and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 430.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Hugh Langdon Elsbree, who died on August 30, 2004. Dr. Elsbree served as the Director of the Legislative Reference Service (LRS), now the Congressional Research Service, from 1958 to 1966. He was a noted political scientist, academician, and dedicated public servant who led the Legislative Reference Service (LRS) in providing research to the Congress. Dr. Elsbree joined LRS as a research counsel in 1945 and became a Senior Specialist in American Government and Public Administration in 1946. From 1954-55 he served temporarily as the Deputy Director of the Commission on Inter- Governmental Relations and then served as LRS's Deputy Director from October 1955 until March 1957 when he left LRS to become chairman of the Political Science Department at Wayne State University. He returned to LRS in September 1958 as the Director and served in that capacity until his retirement in 1966. Dr. Elsbree received A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University in 1925, 1927, and 1930, respectively. In 1927-28 he was a Sheldon Traveling Fellow in Paris and Geneva, then began his teaching career at Harvard as an instructor in government from 1928-1933. He then served as assistant professor (1933-37) and professor (1937-43) of political science and as chairman of the Department of Political Science (1937-41) at Dartmouth College. For a brief period in 1934 he worked as a research specialist for the Federal Power Commission. In 1943 he joined the Office of Price Administration as principal business economist then the Bureau of the Budget (1945) as administrative analyst. For several years, Elsbree served as the book review editor and member of the editorial board of the American Political Science Review and from 1952-56 as its managing editor. Upon his retirement, L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress, presented Dr. Elsbree with a Distinguished Service Award. In the accompanying letter, Mumford noted ``. . . your ability to discover, attract, and develop talent, your personal integrity, your standards of excellence, your sound judgment, your profound understanding of the requirements of the Congress, your skill in public administration, and your fine qualities as a human being have not only maintained an admirable esprit de corps but have enabled the Legislative Reference Service to fulfill its highest duty--to be responsive to the needs of the Congress.'' Dr. Elsbree's leadership of the Legislative Reference Service contributed significantly to Congress' action in 1970 to expand the scope of the Legislative Reference Service and create the Congressional Research Service. His intimate knowledge of political science provided insight into how Congress' research needs were changing and how the Service could adjust to meet those needs. To his son, Hugh L. Elsbree, Jr. and his family, friends, and former colleagues, I extend our deepest sympathies.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the Senate bill just passed.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2712) to preserve the ability of the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages under sections 238 and 519 of the National Housing Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 21, 2004, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 404, on agreeing to the Conference Report to H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2003; rollcall vote No. 405, on final passage of H.R. 4840, the Tax Simplification for America's Job Creators Act of 2004; and rollcall vote No. 406, on final passage of H.R. 4879, the Military Housing Improvement Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 404, ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 405, and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 406.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement on August 2, 2004, we rise to thank Mr. Gary Grasmick for outstanding service to the U.S. House of Representatives. For the past 29 years Gary has served this great institution as a valuable employee at House Information Resources, HIR, within the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. Throughout his career with HIR, Gary has held many positions of increasing responsibility. He began his career at the House on June 16, 1975 as a Production Control Specialist in the HIR data center. For many years Gary's technical, analytical, communication, and financial skills served him well in his efficient management of information technology budgets and contracts. He performed extensive amounts of research and analysis of vendors' hardware and software offerings to acquire the most cost effective and functional products for the House. Gary has also been responsible for configuration management of data center hardware and software and served on several HIR task forces. Since 1998, Gary has been a member of HIR's Immediate Office as the Resources Manager where all his years of experience have been invaluable in serving senior management. As Resources Manager, Gary also oversaw the HIR financial management and procurement processes to ensure compliance with House guidelines and the responsible execution of appropriated funds. Gary was also the recipient of the HIR Quality Award, an in-house award given to outstanding employees for service beyond their assigned duties. His peers and co-workers will miss Gary's professionalism and friendly manner. On behalf of the entire House community, we extend congratulations to Gary for his many years of dedication and outstanding contributions to the U.S. House of Representatives. We wish Gary many wonderful years in fulfilling his retirement dreams.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am not sure I am going to attempt to actually answer that, but I will say this, and I respect always the gentleman's opinion: when he says the issue is about counting votes, we cannot count votes unless we have an election, I understand where he is coming from. However, there is an issue about the security of the ballots. Let us take terrorists away from it. There could be an earthquake. It could be in California. It could be in Texas. Do we then stop the national elections? Forget terrorism. Would we stop the national elections if on the day of the elections there was an earthquake somewhere? Would we somehow broadcast to the Nation stop, turn around, and go home? But I think, frankly, understanding what he is saying, respecting what he is saying about security, this still goes way beyond that. At issue tonight is not forgetting about security elections, not forgetting about having accurate elections, but the issue is with the chatter about one person being able to stop elections; the Congress, I think this is the time the Congress is the body that can do that, and this is as a result of the chatter about one person. Now, whom would we pick? Would we pick you, would we pick the Speaker, would we pick the minority leader, would we pick the Attorney General, would we pick Homeland Security? So I think the issue of this is stating on the record that Congress will not even entertain one person, because the idea of one person is something so foreign to us, that no one individual in this country ever, ever has the power to stop an election. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 728) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any Presidential election to be postponed and that no single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election.

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and I would also note that the gentleman has introduced House Concurrent Resolution 474 into our committee, and it supports the very same objectives; and I appreciate the gentleman's introducing that resolution.

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to introduce, I think, an extremely important resolution, House Resolution 728, which expresses the sense of the House that the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any national election, Presidential election, to be postponed and that no single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date of a national election. In a great democratic republic such as ours, there is nothing more fundamental than the bond that is forged between citizens and their representatives during the course of regularly scheduled elections. In our country and by design of our Federal Constitution, the people are sovereign. The power that we exercise as representatives derives directly from their consent. James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 52, stated that ``It is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people.'' According to Madison, ``Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.'' Congress is authorized by the Constitution to determine the date on which the Presidential election and all other Federal elections will take place. Thus, only an act of Congress, and not the actions of a single individual or agency, could change that date. The ability of the United States to conduct regularly scheduled Federal elections even during the most difficult and trying of times, for example, such as during the Civil War and during World Wars I and II, is a hallmark of our strength and our resiliency, the great cornerstone of our democracy itself. We would do well to remember the counsel of Abraham Lincoln who, after having been reelected President while the Civil War was raging, stated: ``We cannot have free government without elections. And if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The election, along with its incidental and undesirable strife, has done good. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility.'' The resolution that we are introducing today reaffirms our national commitment to holding Federal elections, including the election for President, on the date prescribed by law and to stand firm in the face of terrorist enemies who seek to derail the operation of our democracy. Since the terrible and fateful morning of September 11, 2001, we all have become in this country painfully aware of the destructive intent of our country's terrorist enemies as well as the increasingly sophisticated and devastating methods by which they carry out their deadly work. We were further reminded of al Qaeda's hatefulness and total disregard for innocent life this past March when, in the days leading up to the Spanish national elections, they unleashed a string of lethal bombings that killed scores of civilians in Madrid. Shortly thereafter, the Spanish Government, that had stood shoulder to shoulder with us, was then voted out of office. But it is not a matter of who was voted into office or who was voted out of office. It is the matter of the action that the terrorists took to intimidate a country. I realize that many factors were at play during that election. However, I have no doubt that al Qaeda believes its actions led directly to the defeat of a government. And I believe, in fact, the threats that we hear about are intimidation factors on us in the United States to attempt to get us to think about the possibility of a national election being changed. We hope that there are no terrorist attacks, of course, and we hope that our Central Intelligence Agency and FBI and Homeland Security will do everything possible, as we know they will, in conjunction with the States, to make sure that attacks are not carried out. But if an attack did occur and we in fact postponed an election, what would we do? Would we say it will happen in 1 week? Or it will happen in 2 weeks? And there is another attack and we postpone it for 2 more weeks. One could imagine the chaos that would be caused by this type of action. It has been suggested that such an attack may require the postponement of this November's election. I strongly disagree. Any delay in the conduct of an election in the aftermath of a terrorist attack would signify weakness rather than strength and would be a victory for the terrorists if they could accomplish that here on our soil. I believe that if such an attack were ever to occur, and I earnestly pray, as we all do, that it never happens, the actions of millions of Americans across this great country casting their ballots in a regularly scheduled election would send a very powerful signal to our terrorist enemies and to all the world about the vigor of our democracy and the fortitude of our citizens to continue on where America does her work, at the ballot box. With this resolution the House declares on behalf of the American people it represents that the strength and stability of the American democratic system and the values upon which it is founded are much greater than any attempts our terrorist enemies may make to disrupt or destroy them. The message we send is unmistakably clear: we will not shrink in the face of terrorist threats. And let me add one other point I think that is important to make. As there has been chatter about the possibility of talking about one person or one agency postponing the elections, we live in a democracy. Elections are postponed in countries that have dictators by one individual. We do not operate that way. So there are many good reasons to support this. I want to thank the Speaker of the House, all of the Republicans. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and most of all also the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), our ranking member. This is a truly bipartisan resolution. This is a resolution where everybody has joined together to say that we will not be intimidated and to say that Congress has the authority on the elections, the elections will go forward, and that no one single person or agency will even entertain the idea that, in fact, they can postpone an election. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his great support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have gone a long way in this country, and we always continue to look for ways we can better improve security, ways that we can have integrity in the elections, the Help America Vote Act. There are a lot of different things that we continuously do in the history of our country. On this issue, I am so proud of this House. I want to thank the Speaker for his support, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his quick action on this, the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). You take Members from all backgrounds in this House and sometimes people say, do you ever agree on anything? Well, you know, we might disagree here and there. But you take Members from the left, the right and the middle, you take Members from the rural and the urban, they have come together so quickly on this resolution on a bipartisan basis, because I believe that this Chamber knows and respects the integrity of our process and the rule of law that we have on the election process and Congress' clear, defined role in that. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I urge support of this resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 38) providing for the appointment of Eli Broad as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

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

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 38, which provides for the appoint of Eli Broad as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian is governed by a board of regents which is comprised of 17 members. These 17 members include the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Vice President of the United States, three Members each of the U.S. House and Senate, and nine citizens who are nominated by the board and approved jointly in a resolution of Congress. The nine citizen members serve for a term of 6 years each, and are eligible for reappointment for one additional term. Eli Broad will fill a vacancy on the board of regents for Barber Conable, Jr., who, sadly, passed away last year. Eli Broad is an accomplished business leader who built two Fortune 500 companies from the ground up. He serves on several boards, most notably; he is chairman of AIG Retirement Services and KB Home, formerly Kaufman and Broad Home Corporation. He is also the founding chairman of the board of trustees for the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles and currently a trustee and member of the executive committee of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Eli Broad and his wife, Edythe, are active philanthropists. Since 1984, the Broad Art Foundation has operated an active ``lending library'' of its extensive collection to more than 400 museums and university galleries worldwide. One of Eli Broad's charitable contributions includes the Broad Foundation, whose mission is to improve urban public education. The foundation has committed over $400 million to support new ideas in the Nation's largest urban school systems. The Broad Foundation contributed toward the construction of the Broad Art Center at UCLA. However, Mr. Broad's background does not end there, as he incorporates extensive involvement in the field of science as well. The Eli and Edythe Broad Institute for Biomedical Research is a partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and Whitehead Institute. It was created in June 2003, and the institute's aim is to realize the promise of the human genome and to revolutionize clinical medicine. Eli Broad's ongoing leadership roles in art, education, science, and civic development make him a strong candidate for service on the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents. I join with my colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), in support of Senate Joint Resolution 38. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 728.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4816) to permit the Librarian of Congress to hire Library of Congress Police employees.

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to thank our ranking member from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for working on this. It is a crucial issue. I believe our thinking is correct on this, to work together, to work with the appropriators and look at the long-term interests. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4816, a bill that will restore the Librarian of Congress' authority to hire Library of Congress Police employees. To understand this legislation, one must first understand the chain of events which brings this legislation to the floor of the House. Language was included in last year's appropriations bill which stripped the Library of its authority to hire new police officers. Our committee was not consulted and did not support that language. The language further called on the United States Capitol Police to begin detailing officers to the Library of Congress as a way to force the beginning of a merger of the two agencies before the appropriate committees of jurisdiction had even had a chance to fully deliberate the merits of a merger. Over the past several weeks, draft memorandums have circulated back to the committee which attempt to effect this transfer of officers to the Library. All of these memorandums have contained provisions that are not only objectionable to the committee, but raise more questions about the transfer and the merits of a merger. It is the committee's steadfast position that such a sweeping action affecting security must be conducted in a manner which undeniably results in greater security and greater efficiency for both the Congress and the Library of Congress. There are a multitude of complex issues that really need to be dealt with in order to ensure that any steps taken by the Congress toward a merger are taken in a deliberate manner, with the long-term interests of both institutions in mind. Many details of the potential merger or the initial detailing of Capitol Police officers have yet to be addressed, in my opinion, in a satisfactory manner, details such as the composition of a new command structure, differences between Library Police procedures and regulations because there is a large difference in the way we operate with the Capitol Hill Police and the way the Library of Congress operates in their missions and their tasks. We really, I think, need to look at those issues, plus the disposition of large numbers of Library Police who would be forced into retirement, the reconciliation of two distinct agency missions, the manner in which grievances are handled, the manner in which recruitment and morale of the United States Capitol Police could be affected, and ultimately, the life safety of the hundreds of thousands who serve, work or visit in the Capitol complex. The Committee on House Administration and the Congress have a responsibility to ensure that unresolved details like these are not swept up in a hasty and broken process. Our committee was exercising appropriate oversight and due diligence in this process at the time this authorizing language, which originated from the other body, appeared in an appropriations conference report, placing the cart squarely in front of the horse. Now, because the Librarian is unable to exercise any hiring authority to bring new police onto the Library force, there is a growing manpower gap which some argue could impact the security mission of the Library; and frankly, I think this is putting the Library in a Catch-22 position. Additionally, the attention being paid on fixing the current situation is siphoning resources from the United States Capitol Police during what we know is a very crucial time. The growing need for officers at the Library is an urgency of the Congress' own creation and should be fixed by the Congress. The mission of the Capitol Police is to protect the Congress, and at a time when that mission is under threat from terrorists, any distraction, I think, is detrimental to the interests of the institution and could have dire consequences. Madam Speaker, I am intimately involved with and deeply concerned about the security of this campus, as I know our ranking member is and all members of our committee and frankly all Members of this House. It is arguably the most important issue which our committee has jurisdiction over as it deals with matters of life and death. That is why I urge passage of this legislation. We need to remove the restriction on the Librarian's authority to hire police officers so that we may mend this broken process and allow the authorizers to handle this complex issue in an appropriate manner. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill so our security officials can meet their missions and focus their attention and their thrust on protecting everyone in the Capitol complex, especially in this heightened security threat environment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation restoring authority to the Librarian, and upon passage, I hope the other body will act quickly to lift these constraints on the Librarian and that the appropriators in both bodies will provide the funding necessary to train and pay the officers that can be hired pursuant to this resolution. Let me just close by saying, also, I think we can have discussions about this with the other body, within appropriations and within the authorizers of both Chambers. But I think right now in the best interests of everybody involved, if we take this measure, it will help the Library of Congress, which is in really a very difficult situation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of S.J. Res. 38, the Senate joint resolution just passed.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 4816, the bill just passed.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong support of the Buyer amendment. It saddens me, Mr. Chairman, that some members of the body seem to think that we need the U.N. election monitors here in the United States. I was pleased to work with the Members on both sides of the aisle to secure passage of the Help America Vote Act, which passed overwhelmingly in the previous Congress. That bill is being implemented today as we speak and is addressing many of the problems referenced in the letter to the U.N. Three billion dollars have already been provided and been appropriated pursuant to the bill, which provides for better voting machines, better registration systems and for more poll worker training. I have faith in the commissioners of the EAC Elections Commission to carry this out. Mr. Chairman, the U.N. has its hands full helping countries around the world that have problems far beyond anything we have experienced here in the U.S. For example, just a few weeks ago in Afghanistan, Taliban forces determined to prevent the onset of democracy in that country killed 16 Afghans, simply because they had voter registration cards. In India, Reuters reports that militants in Kashmir set off mines and fired at polling stations as voting began to elect a new parliament, killing at least seven people and wounding dozens. In Myanmar, separatist guerrillas killed four soldiers, burned electoral rolls and destroyed voting machines. In Turkey, a candidate for village headman was gunned down and others injured. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the problems in other parts of the world far surpass anything we face in this country. The U.N. needs to focus its attention on situations like these where people cannot even register to vote without fear of being killed. Of course, one of the biggest hurdles facing the U.N. election monitors will be assisting and setting up the framework for democratic elections in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the U.N. is helping other countries with their elections, and I hope they will continue to do so. We do not need them here in the United States, however. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for offering the amendment, and I strongly support its adoption.