    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

             MARKUP OF MULTIPLE BILLS AND TWO COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    MEETING

                                   before the

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                     HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 30, 2008

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

                           Available on the Internet:
       http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    48-068                     WASHINGTON : 2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
      Vice-Chairwoman                      Ranking Minority Member
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           KEVIN McCARTHY, California
    SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
                     S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Staff Director
                     Will Plaster, Minority Staff Director

     MARKUP OF H.R. 6339, H.R. 6474, H.R. 6475, H.R. 6589, H.R. 998, H.R.
     6625, H.R. 6608, H.RES. 1207 AND COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS 110-7 AND 110-8

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2008

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:28 a.m., in Room
    1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Davis of
    California, Davis of Alabama, Ehlers, Lungren, and McCarthy.
        Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Charles
    Howell, Chief Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Deputy Staff Director;
    Khalil Abboud, Professional Staff; Diana Rodriguez,
    Professional Staff; Kristie Muchnok, Professional Staff;
    Janelle Hu, Election Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, Election Counsel;
    Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson,
    Press Director; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk;
    Daniel Favarulo, Legislative Assistant, Elections; Gregory
    Abbott, Policy Analyst; Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel;
    Gineen Beach, Minority Election Counsel; Ashley Stow, Minority
    Election Counsel; and Bryan T. Dorsey, Minority Professional
    Staff.
        The Chairman. I would like to now call the meeting on the
    House Administration Committee to order.
        We have many matters on the agenda today, as we are
    cleaning up before we take our August break. So we will try to
    get through them, hopefully.
        We have votes coming about 12:00 12:30. Maybe we can get
    lucky and not have to come back. If not, we will have to come
    back and take a recess when the votes are called.
        Okay, I would like to call the committee to order.
        For the information of the members, for any bills we report
    in the House of today's meeting I will file a committee's
    report when we return in September; and there will be plenty of
    time during the recess to prepare any individual views members
    may wish to submit.
        The first item on the agenda is H.R. 6339, the Federal
    Employees Deserve to Volunteer on the Elections Act of 2008, or
    FEDVOTE. Introduced by Vice Chair Representative Lofgren, this
    bill will provide leave for Federal employees to receive
    training to serve as poll workers. It would also direct the EAC
    to make grants to States for poll workers' recruitment and
    training.
        The bill was referred to the Committee on Oversight and
    Government Reform as the primary committee, with an additional
    referral to us to consider provisions relating to EAC.
        Without objection, I would like to submit several letters
    in support of the bill for the record at this point.
        Hearing no objection, I will submit them.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I would now like to recognize Ms. Lofgren for
    an opening statement.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, let me offer my apologizes to the members of the
    committee. Both Mr. Lungren and I were in a markup in the
    Judiciary Committee that went longer than we thought. In fact,
    it is still going on. So that is what made us tardy, and I do
    apologize for that.
        The bill as proposed would entitle the Federal employee to
    receive administrative leave for up to 6 days a year to serve
    as a poll worker for a State or local government on Election
    Day and to receive any mandatory training that is permitted.
        The Office of Personnel Management in the bill is tasked
    with setting the regulations. As we know, poll workers are
    variously called judges, booth workers, precinct officials,
    board workers and, of course, poll workers; and the person in
    charge of the polling place on Election Day can be called a
    precinct captain, chief judge, supervisor or presiding judge,
    to name just a few.
        Consistent with the EAC's manual on poll worker recruiting,
    training and retention, this legislation uses the term poll
    worker to refer to all workers in a polling place. It provides
    grants to States for recruiting and training poll workers using
    the EAC manual on successful practices for poll worker
    recruiting, training and retention.
        The grants are not used to pay poll workers but to train
    and recruit them, and it requires grantees to report to the EAC
    and the EAC to report to the Congress on the grant program. It
    authorizes $75 million for the grants, and it also exempts the
    EAC from the Paperwork Reduction Act which will make it easier
    for the agency to request information from the public by not
    requiring approval from the Office of Management and Budget
    first.
        As we know, this has received support from a variety of
    sectors; and you have already added the letters of support into
    the record.
        I would note that Federal employees are permitted to use
    administrative leave, for example, for jury duty. This would
    simply allow another reason to use administrative leave. It is
    not a new benefit. It is just a new way to use an existing
    benefit.
        We know that we have a shortage in this country of poll
    workers. We have had hearings on this, and I think we all share
    in the desire to make sure that we have enough volunteers on
    Election Day so that we have a smooth election. This is one way
    to help, as the Federal employees we know are literate and
    responsible and would be potentially a good source of reliable
    poll workers.
        And I will have an amendment that strikes the word
    "nonpartisan" to conform to Section 3. Because some States
    organize in a very different way than California does. We need
    to make sure that there is training in all cases and a report
    in all cases. So I will do that at the appropriate time. And I
    thank the chairman for recognizing me and yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the lady.
        I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Mr.
    Ehlers, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. And these are just opening
    statements on each bill separately, correct?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Ehlers. Okay, thanks.
        We have heard many times in this committee about the
    struggle to find young, technologically savvy poll workers; and
    I think it has been very clever on the part of local clerks to
    hire students who tend to be technological and more savvy than
    some of the older people who have worked here. That is
    certainly one way to handle it.
        I am also intrigued by this proposal to have Federal
    workers, although this bill does seem to primarily address
    Virginia, D.C. And Maryland, where there are an abundance of
    Federal poll workers and does not help the backwaters of the
    United States, so to speak, where there are no Federal
    agencies.
        I sort of like the idea, but I think there are a number of
    problems here that we haven't cleared up yet. One, for example,
    is these Federal workers will receive full pay, as I understand
    the bill, during their serving as poll workers. Are we then
    going to allow them also to receive the poll worker pay from
    the local unit or does that get reimbursed to the Federal
    Government? I haven't seen that clearly specified in here.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. I am thinking really to model after a jury
    duty. I mean, in California, for example, there is a small
    stipend for a juror. We don't take it away from the employee.
    But it is like using your administrative leave in a different
    way, as if you were called to jury duty, because this civic
    duty is as important, really, in some ways as serving on a
    jury.
        And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes. In fact, I was drawing exactly the same
    parallel, but I live in a State with less money than
    California, and we are not allowed to double-dip there. The
    State employees who serve have to turn in their jury duty to
    the State or not receive salary for that time. And I think
    every State does it differently. In other words, I don't think
    it is appropriate for anyone to double-dip for doing this,
    because that provides a motivation you don't want.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Ehlers, if I could ask you to yield again.
    Thank goodness for staff. The attorney who has been working on
    this has advised me that Federal employees cannot accept the
    pay for jury duty; and, therefore, as drafted, they would not
    be able to accept the pay for serving as poll workers, either.
        Mr. Ehlers. So they would serve free of charge as far as
    the local jurisdiction is concerned.
        Ms. Lofgren. That would be correct.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
        The other concerns that I have involve the items in here
    regarding the Election Advisory Commission, in particular the
    Paperwork Reduction Act. And I am concerned about, as I
    understand the bill, it is essentially a permanent exemption
    from the Paperwork Reduction Act. I can certainly understand
    that we might want to do it for a year or two and help them get
    their feet on the ground. But I am very concerned about giving
    them permanent exemption from the Paperwork Reduction Act, and
    so I will be offering amendments on that.
        Other than that, I think that covers the points; and I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 6339.
        Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with and
    the bill is considered as read and open for amendment at any
    point.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I would now like to recognize the lady, Ms.
    Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        As noted in my opening statement, I do have an amendment
    that might be distributed from the desk. Have members been
    provided with the amendment?
        Mr. Ehlers. I haven't seen an amendment.
        The Chairman. Do we have an amendment?
        Ms. Lofgren. Can we provide the amendment to Mr. Ehlers?
        The Chairman. I believe that the amendment has been
    distributed.
        Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Make sure that Mr. Ehlers has it.
        Mr. Ehlers. Okay.
        Ms. Lofgren. The amendment strikes the word ``nonpartisan''
    before poll worker in Section 3. That would conform with the
    language in Section 2. The training should not be limited to
    nonpartisan poll workers because, in some States, they are
    partisan workers; and they all need to be trained.
        Pursuant to State law, this would not impose a new mandate
    on States. It would recognize that States organize in different
    ways. States should not be required if they have partisan
    workers--California does not--to have two sets of trainings. We
    should allow them to do one set of training.
        And then we should, for poll workers of a political
    affiliation, we want a report from them--on them as well as the
    nonpartisan. It is really--you know, I am so in favor of
    California's nonpartisan approach, and sometimes I forget that
    not every State does it in the same way. But we need to defer
    to those States that do it differently and allow them to do the
    training as they do in their States.
        Mr. Ehlers. Would the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Lofgren. Certainly.
        Mr. Ehlers. We also don't have any partisan workers in the
    polls in Michigan. Can you give me an example where partisan
    workers are used?
        Ms. Lofgren. I believe in Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania and
    some other States. I don't have a full list, but I am aware--
    here. The list, Alabama--let's see.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Wherever the best example----
        Ms. Lofgren. If I can give you this rather than read it
    aloud, Mr. Ehlers, I think that would be more efficient.
        Mr. Ehlers. My staff just told me that Maryland has it,
    too. So I will yield on that, and I have no problem with the
    amendment.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Okay. Also, without, objection the amendment
    is considered as read.
        [The information ]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. The question is on Ms. Lofgren's amendment to
    H.R. 6339. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed?
        No opposed. The amendment passes.
        Any further amendments?
        Mr. Ehlers. I have several amendments. Does Ms. Lofgren
    have any more?
        Ms. Lofgren. I don't have an additional amendment.
        The Chairman. I recognize Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. I have several amendments. The first is dealing
    with the paperwork exemption or exemption from the Paperwork
    Reduction Act.
        As I said earlier, I think it would be appropriate to have
    a trial period where you have an exemption from the Paperwork
    Reduction Act while they are still going through their growing
    pains. I would just rather have this----
        The Chairman. Excuse me. Without objection, the amendment
    is considered as read. I am sorry.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Thank you.
        The amendment will simply remove--strike Section 4 of the
    bill, and I urge adoption of that amendment.
        The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I rise in opposition to the amendment; and
    maybe there is a way to find some common ground here, Mr.
    Ehlers.
        Here is the concern. The Paperwork Reduction Act actually
    creates a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy, and we want this to
    be smooth. I understand that because it is a departure there is
    an interest in not making a permanent change. Here is my
    concern. That if we do this, the EAC, as we know, has had
    problems organizationally, and they are going to have to change
    some things administratively. I would hate to have them do that
    for one year and then have to redo it.
        But I do understand your desire to have kind of a test
    period and see how this works. I wonder if we were to limit
    this, say, for 4 years and get a report. That would allow for a
    test, at least two elections, to see how it worked and for us
    to make changes if necessary, but it wouldn't require them to
    redo their process in a 12-month time period.
        We didn't have a chance to talk about that privately, so
    maybe it is not fair to toss it at you, but it just struck me
    as I was listening to your discussion.
        Mr. Ehlers. Well, if we are going to bargain here, I will
    suggest 1 year.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, 1 year is the problem. By the time they
    finish, it will be all over again, so that is the concern. And
    if we could--you know, I pulled 4 years out of the hat because
    it would be two elections, but I wonder if we could find a
    common ground on that.
        The Chairman. I hear 1. I hear 4. Going on, Mr. Ehlers?
        Mr. Ehlers. Well, I would suggest 2 to match the election
    cycle. How is that?
        Ms. Lofgren. So we just have one election.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well----
        Mr. Ehlers. It would be a less stressful election.
        Ms. Lofgren. I oppose the amendment, but since this has
    just come out I would suggest that we defeat the amendment but
    we talk further about this between now and the floor and try
    and reach an agreement based on the election schedule which I
    am just sort of ad hoc'ing here with the hope and intention
    that we would reach an agreement on a suitable trial period,
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Do I hear 3?
        Mr. Ehlers. Well, Mr. Chairman----
        Ms. Lofgren. Perhaps we could withdraw and discuss between
    now and the floor.
        Mr. Ehlers. I will just say I have been the recipient of
    many kind offers like that, and usually the promises are
    forgotten before they reach the floor of the manager's
    amendment.
        Ms. Lofgren. I do not forget my promises.
        Mr. Ehlers. I am pleased to hear that. I think this is
    something we should be able to work out as long as we end up
    with 2 years.
        The Chairman. So we will----
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, with an intention to agree, but we will
    have to see if we agree.
        Mr. Ehlers. Okay. I will withdraw my amendment with the
    understanding that we will work in good faith to come to an
    agreement on this issue.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Any other amendments.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes, indeed.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read when offered.
        Mr. Ehlers. The others were different terms, so we have
    bypassed that issue, so that is the last amendment on this.
        The Chairman. That is the last amendment on this one here.
    Okay.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, may I strike the requisite
    number of words?
        The Chairman. You are recognized.
        Mr. Lungren. If I could address the question to the
    gentlelady from California, you said that since this is
    amending the already existing law and that does not allow
    payment for jury duty, therefore, it wouldn't allow payment for
    poll working, I don't see that anywhere as I look in the law.
    Are you saying that that is something that can be done by
    virtue of regulation by the Office of Personnel Management?
        Ms. Lofgren. It is my understanding that the rule for use
    of administrative leave at this point precludes payment while
    using that leave. That is the rule for jury duty for which
    administrative leave is provided; and the rule on the use of
    administrative leave, I am told, would be the same for this
    other civic purpose.
        Mr. Lungren. So it would be pursuant to regulation by the
    Office of Personnel Management.
        Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
        Mr. Lungren. Then I would hope that in the committee report
    we would urge the Office of Personnel Management to do that.
        Ms. Lofgren. I think that is a good suggestion.
        Mr. Lungren. The second thing, in your presentation, you
    said this adds nothing in terms of--I believe you said adds
    nothing in terms of an additional cost to the Federal
    Government because we are just adding another basis upon which
    people can use administrative leave. But, as I read it, this is
    administrative leave up to and including 6 days a year without
    loss or reduction in pay, leave or--to which someone is
    otherwise entitled. So, as I understand it, this does add an
    additional potential 6 days of administrative leave that does
    not currently exist, is that not correct?
        Ms. Lofgren. I think you are correct. You are correct, and
    I stand corrected.
        Mr. Lungren. So, in essence, what we are suggesting is an
    additional potential 6 days as long as they used it for this
    purpose.
        Ms. Lofgren. It is not an additional cost, but it is an
    additional reduction in service, essentially, because these are
    salaried individuals, and you are correct.
        Mr. Lungren. I would argue that if you have people who are
    not working for 6 days for your job you probably have to pick
    it up somewhere else. If I have got an employee and it doesn't
    matter whether they show up for 6 days or not, maybe that
    employee doesn't need to be there. In most cases, they do need
    to be there, and they have to have someone to take up the
    slack. So I just wanted to make it clear that this is not
    without some expense to the Federal Government when you are
    adding 6 additional days.
        As I understand it now, they would be prohibited from using
    6 days administrative leave, but they could use 6 days of
    vacation or--well, they could use vacation days.
        Ms. Lofgren. People can use vacation days whichever way
    they wish. It is also subject to scheduling.
        But the EAC has called for--if the gentleman would yield--
    recruiting 2 million poll workers for this November; and I am
    feeling--I think we all do--a sense of urgency that we as a
    Nation are going to be able to respond to this incredible
    event.
        Mr. Lungren. And this would be training as well as actual
    service as a poll worker, is that correct?
        Ms. Lofgren. Pardon me?
        Mr. Lungren. This would include training time as well as
    service as an actual poll worker?
        Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
        Mr. Lungren. I thank the gentlelady. I thank the chairman.
        Mr. Ehlers. It seems to me there are a lot of details here
    that we are not quite sure on yet. And I would like to ask that
    the negotiations on the first item I brought up, that is, the
    length of time in the paperwork reduction, that in addition we
    discuss the other issues that may come up today, as I believe
    we need some clarification on this point.
        Ms. Lofgren. If the gentleman would yield, I would be happy
    to. I think any further productive discussion would be
    warranted and useful.
        Mr. Ehlers. If we can agree to work together and try to
    develop a manager's amendment that would clarify it, I think we
    would feel much better.
        Ms. Lofgren. I think that a lot of these issues are
    actually covered by the personnel policies, but we can flesh
    that out to our satisfaction.
        The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Ms. Lofgren for the
    purpose of making a motion.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I move to report H.R. 6339
    favorably to the House with an amendment, and noting the
    addition to the committee report that Mr. Lungren had.
        The Chairman. The question is on the motion. All those in
    favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? With one opposition.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
        The bill will be reported to the House without objection,
    and the motion to be considered is laid upon the table.
        The next item is H.R. 6474, introduced by Ms. Lofgren. The
    bill would authorize the Chief Administrative Officer of the
    House to carry out a series of demonstration projects to
    promote the use of innovative technologies in reducing energy
    consumption and promoting energy efficiency and cost savings to
    the House of Representatives.
        I would like to recognize Ms. Lofgren for an opening
    statement.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This bill would authorize the CAO to carry out
    demonstration projects to promote the use of innovative
    technologies in reducing energy consumption and promoting
    energy efficiency and cost savings to the House. It authorizes
    the CAO to enter into contracts consistent with current House
    Administration regulations and requires a report to be
    submitted to the House Administration and Appropriations
    Committee analyzing the project in the extent that it reduced
    energy consumption and promoted energy efficiency and cost
    savings to the House.
        It authorizes $5 million for each of the fiscal years 2009
    and 2010 to carry out the projects until expended, or $10
    million over 2 years. It is limited in scope. It is to help the
    House determine which technologies are best suited to its
    needs.
        Not only would this further prove our commitment to
    environmentally sustainable practices, but it could also lower
    the cost of House operations, a significant savings for
    taxpayers.
        On April 28, 2008, I hosted a panel discussion and meeting
    with Silicon Valley industry leaders titled, How Going Green
    Saves Money, Jobs and Improves Lives at the Tech Museum of
    Innovation in San Jose. At the panel discussion, the private
    sector and the public sector shared the steps that they are
    taking to reduce their carbon footprint by creating new ways to
    use energy more efficiently and generate power in more
    sustainable ways.
        The benefits of going green are not limited to improving
    the environment. Companies have also improved efficiency and
    lowered costs.
        Applied Materials, a company I am very proud of in our
    community, estimates that by installing solar panels it will
    create 900 jobs.
        Adobe Systems, which has just shy of one million square
    feet in downtown San Jose, installed 23,000 sensors on their
    office towers and was able to monitor and control electricity
    consumption. The sensors paid for themselves in 8 weeks' time
    for Adobe, and the entire move that Adobe made to get the
    highest rating of energy efficiency paid for itself in 18
    months.
        So there is tremendous opportunity in the retrofitting of
    buildings, the use of new technology to save a tremendous
    amount of energy and, therefore, to save a tremendous amount of
    money.
        Adobe also made the switch to nontoxic cleaning products,
    which saved them money and kept their cleaning crew healthier
    and also spared Adobe employees from harmful effects of being
    exposed to noxious fumes.
        At our request, Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard
    attended the discussion. Because Silicon Valley is ground zero
    on what is happening on the pivot of technology to a green
    economy. And with the cooperation of his office I believe that
    the straightforward, innovative recommendations that we made as
    a product of the report, the report that we have, would help in
    the sustainable operations for the House community.
        I am proud to say that this is a bipartisan measure, and it
    is also a measure that has attracted the support of not only
    the authorizers but the appropriators, something that isn't
    always the case. I was happy that Mr. Wamp of Tennessee was
    eager to work on this with me.
        I have been made aware only this morning--and I don't know
    the details, and I hope it will not be part of the discussion
    today because it is a personnel issue, not a policy issue--that
    there is some angst about the individual who currently holds
    the position. But this is a policy issue on whether we can
    allow innovation to occur in a rapid manner that I think and
    hope we can all support.
        And with that I would thank the chairwoman for his
    introduction and yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers,
    for an opening statement.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I certainly support the spirit of this bill; and I must
    say, in spite of an article which appears to have been planted
    which questions my green credentials, I have been conserving
    energy for over 30 years. I am a physicist. I know a lot about
    energy, and I have applied that knowledge.
        I have spent a considerable number of hours crawling around
    my attic to properly insulate it, because it seems even the
    insulators who get paid to do it don't understand how to really
    do it right, and I cut one-third off my heating bill every year
    because of the work that I did. Now, if you live in Michigan,
    that is substantial. That is about a $400 savings every year.
    Certainly worth doing.
        I drive a hybrid automobile. I have just every way possible
    tried to conserve energy, and so I am entirely in agreement
    with the spirit of this.
        But what I question is why would we give financial
    resources to the CAO to do this. We have already by law in this
    House and Senate charged the Architect of the Capitol with very
    stringent requirements that he has to meet with regard to
    energy efficiency requirements. He has worked very hard on
    those. He has made considerable progress. He has done it
    without publicity or press releases. And perhaps we should
    publicize what he has done, or at the very least we should ask
    him to appear before this committee and give us a review of
    what he has accomplished and what he would do.
        So I will be offering an amendment that will replace the
    CAO with the Architect of the Capitol and also increase the
    amount allocated from the $5 million to $10 million each year
    for the next 2 years.
        This is a very important issue. I support it. There is an
    immense amount we can do around the Capitol and particularly
    the House to conserve energy.
        If I take my own office, for example, currently, it is
    operating between 70 degrees and 71 degrees. I see no reason in
    the world to keep it that cool. I have it turned to the maximum
    high temperature that I can with the air conditioner in my
    office. It drives me crazy. I would be happy to work in an
    office that is 74, 75, maybe even 76 degrees, no problem. Just
    think of how much energy we would save. And then multiply that
    by all the offices around here. We would save a considerable
    amount of energy just on that.
        I see endless opportunities around this campus for
    conserving energy, and I say let us do it. But we have already
    given the job to the Architect of the Capitol. I am not sure
    why we would want to give it to the CAO, unless we do it in a
    fashion that says the CAO is to lend all possible assistance to
    the Architect of the Capitol in achieving the goals that have
    already been established for him.
        So I am opposed to this bill as it is written, simply
    because it is the wrong approach and it will cost us more than
    necessary, given the fact we already have an organization
    working on this problem.
        With that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Yes, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I move to strike the last word----
        The Chairman. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. And to oppose the amendment. The
    bill is just----
        The Chairman. Let me call the bill up first.
        I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 6474--That
    was the opening statement.
        And I would like to commend my ranking member for keeping
    his thermostat on 74. I wish I could. Mine doesn't work, so I
    can't keep it on that. I am at the will of anybody that wants
    to heat or air condition my office. But we have to look into
    that.
        I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 6474.
    Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with and the
    bill is considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I believe the committee relies upon the CAO
    to place the highest priority on projects that are cost-
    effective on increasing energy efficiency and reducing
    greenhouse gas emissions. So I would now like to recognize for
    5 minutes the gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I think procedurally I jumped
    the gun, because Mr. Ehlers wanted to--he has discussed his
    amendment and probably wants to officially record----
        The Chairman. I will recognize the ranking member for any
    amendments that he may have.
        Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Before the committee.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers. And the sense of the amendment is pretty much
    as I have described, to simply take the text of the bill but
    modify it so that the assignment for the work to be done is
    given to the Architect of the Capitol.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman. I recognize the lady from California.
        Ms. Lofgren. I strike the last word.
        The Chairman. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lofgren. I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
        I do commend him for his efforts in saving energy in his
    office, and I have a suggestion. We could save some energy in
    this room if we would turn the air conditioning up. I mean,
    this is the coldest room in the Capitol. I can't understand why
    it is this cold. So that is a suggestion that we can all make.
        But on the amendment itself, this bill, the Lofgren-Wamp
    bill, is for a pilot program. It is not involving changes to
    House facilities. The CAO is tasked with the Green the Capitol
    Program, not the Architect. And the Architect is only putting
    in meters. I mean, they are not really--they are not aggressive
    on this. It took a letter from the Speaker and the language of
    the December '07 energy bill to get them off the stick to start
    putting in meters. The Department of Energy estimated it could
    be done for under $1 million in 3 months, but the Architect
    wants to take a year and spend over $3 million. And we need a
    quicker, more aggressive pilot project to see what can happen.
        I will note that when we checked with the private sector
    and we sent a report on this form we had in Silicon Valley,
    that you can do this stuff quite promptly and save a lot of
    money. And this was--we had Mr. Lungren's constituent, the
    Marquiss Wind Power participated.
        And the ability to move quickly is what this bill is all
    about. When Adobe put in their sensors, I mean, it was massive,
    it was quick, and it paid for itself in 8 weeks.
        And we can't wait for a pilot project to take a year. It is
    just unnecessary. And we will find out, because Mr. Wamp
    suggested this, and I thought I incorporated his request, that
    we will get reports both to the Appropriations Subcommittee and
    to this committee on how these pilots are working so that we
    will be able to monitor our success or if we are not meeting
    with success. And I think that that is something I look forward
    to.
        And we know that we have an energy--we all know that we
    have an energy challenge in this country. But the quickest hit
    is conservation. And what has been done on the private sector
    is astonishing and what is going to be doable in even the next
    6 months is terrific.
        So I want us to be part of the process of being life, of
    being agile, of taking these steps as a pilot project so that
    we can be leaders; and it is clear that the CAO is able to do
    that. The Architect has a very different role to play; and I
    therefore, with respect, oppose the gentleman's amendment.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I recognize Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I will agree that--and I have preached this
    for years because my dad was a preacher so I have inherited
    that characteristic--but there is no quicker, cheaper way to
    resolve energy issues in this country, including gasoline
    prices, by the way, than conservation. There is no question
    about that.
        I have to rise to the defense of the Architect when you say
    he hasn't done anything. He has reduced the energy consumption
    on this campus by 6 percent each of the last 2 years. That
    means we are down 12 percent already. Can we do more? Of
    course. We are going to have to appropriate a lot of money to
    do that, and I think part of the problem the Architect has is
    we have given him the task but not a great deal of money to
    really attack it vigorously. He has to work within his budget.
    But, nevertheless, 12 percent reduction in 2 years' time, that
    is very commendable.
        And before we run off half-cocked and say we are going to
    do it a different way with different people, at the very least
    we should know what the Architect is doing and what he has
    accomplished already. And I suggest bringing him before the
    committee or just having an informal meeting with interested
    committee members and find out from him what he has done, what
    remains to be done, how we could speed it up, and what role the
    CAO can play in helping this happen.
        But to simply toss the ball to the CAO without recognizing
    what is going on and making sure that everything meshes,
    particularly since I am not--and I have been very, very careful
    not to criticize the CAO publicly in spite of the fact we have
    had some differences--but since this has come up here I do have
    to comment that paying $700,000 just to develop a plan for the
    lighting of the Dome, that is called the greening of the Dome,
    when the annual electricity bill for that is only about $13,500
    or something, why would we spend $700,000 to examine a problem
    like that?
        There are a lot worse problems, as have been mentioned
    here. The air conditioning in these buildings. If we are going
    to spend $700,000, let us combine it with the Architect and see
    what we can accomplish.
        I just don't think it makes sense to have two different
    entities working on the same problem, using our money and
    without any coordination, without having them work closely
    together. And I urge the adoption of my substitute.
        The Chairman. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
    substitute.
        Mr. Chairman, as the largest single energy consumer in the
    United States, the Federal Government, beyond the House of
    Representatives, has both a tremendous opportunity and a clear
    responsibility to lead by example with smart energy management,
    as the gentlelady from California has suggested. And while the
    government has made some considerable progress improving its
    use of energy, even here at the Capitol, much more remains to
    be done. All you have to do is walk by at night and see all the
    lights that are left on. If you just had motion switches rather
    than manual switches, we could probably save a considerable
    amount in the House of Representatives without having to do a
    study on it.
        In general, I like the concept of this resolution because
    it is pushing the envelope to pursue cleaner and renewable
    energy in an efficient manner. I think it is important for us
    to try and do everything we can to increase energy savings and
    production in an environmentally friendly and stewardship-
    minded fashion; and I have worked with the gentlelady on a
    number of issues, including a couple of them coming up later
    today.
        But I am not sure if I can support this measure without the
    Ehlers amendment. My concern is that it provides very broad
    authority of the CAO, does not specifically state what projects
    will be executed, nor require any coordination with the
    Architect of the Capitol who is, we must be reminded, our
    facility manager. It does not provide a return on investment
    standard, plus it might conflict with the Architect's ongoing
    contractual or planning efforts.
        I know the Architect of the Capitol has an overall campus
    master plan along with numerous low-hanging fruit energy
    projects sitting on the shelf ready to execute with known
    returns on energy savings which would make a significant
    difference. They also have an ongoing energy saving performance
    contract, plus several in the works. I would hope that this
    legislation coordinates with that, rather than interferes with
    that.
        I have done numerous telephone town halls in the last
    couple of months, and one of the biggest complaints I hear from
    my constituents is we are not doing enough to resolve America's
    energy issues. This bill is in some ways a baby step in the
    right direction, but I think folks want us to be
    transformational here.
        I looked it up and found that the Federal Government will
    spend at least $2 billion over the next 10 years on energy
    expenditures for electricity, natural gas, coal and fuel oil
    for more than 120 large facilities, including at least two
    major utility plants in our Nation's Capitol just here, Federal
    buildings, $2 billion. And we have had some discussions with
    the executive branch, GSA and others, and wondered if it would
    make sense for us to try and get together with the power plants
    we have here with the rest of the Federal establishment and see
    if we can conserve energy to make it more efficient and build
    some redundancy in the system.
        I also found that it is extremely difficult for our branch
    to be talking with the executive branch or even the executive
    branch's various departments to be talking with one another,
    and we are wasting a tremendous amount of energy as a result of
    that. So I would ask the Chairman, might we consider a hearing
    on this issue that would broaden it a little bit such that we
    could entertain some suggestions from the Department of Energy,
    from others, to see if we might be able to have some
    compatibility and maybe some cooperation? You would think that
    has happened before, but my investigation suggests it hasn't
    and it probably won't happen unless we urge it to occur.
        The Chairman. I would have no problem entertaining that and
    having the right and proper people come in from all the other
    organizations that can help us try to conserve our energy. We
    will start with having somebody come to my office and fix my
    thermostat.
        Mr. Lungren. Very good. Thank you.
        Mr. Ehlers. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Lungren. I will be happy to yield.
        Mr. Ehlers. I just want to tag on to that.
        I totally agree with the comments made. I would love to
    seriously address the energy consumption of the Capitol. I
    would love to carry it even beyond that to whatever extent we
    have jurisdiction.
        We just don't take this problem seriously as a government,
    as a Nation, and it is crucial. It is absolutely crucial. The
    gas price issue now is bringing it home that we do not have an
    infinite supply of energy, and we have to develop new sources,
    alternative sources, and we have to use what we have wisely and
    conserve as much as we can.
        I would love to have a complete examination of the type
    that Ms. Lofgren has described is taking place in California.
    This bill doesn't do it. And I would be happy to work with the
    author of the bill and make it more comprehensive, make it
    really hard-hitting and really get the job done.
        We talk about air conditioning in this room and our
    offices. There are endless examples I see around here where we
    can make substantial changes with not much money and certainly
    things that will pay themselves back. But this bill is not the
    answer.
        Mr. Lungren. I thank the gentleman for the time.
        The Chairman. You are welcome.
        The question is on Mr. Ehlers' amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 6474. All those in favor, say aye. All those
    opposed, say no.
        Mr. Ehlers. Ask for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
    it.
        We ask for a recorded vote. Would the clerk please call the
    role.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
        The Chairman. No.
        The yeas are three; the noes are five. The amendment fails.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment.
        The Chairman. Yes, the Chair recognizes Mr. Ehlers for his
    amendment.
        Mr. Ehlers. My second amendment would be----
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
        The second amendment is: Page 2, insert after line 21 the
    following:
        Role of Architect of the Capitol. If a demonstration
    project under this section includes a modification of any
    building or grounds under the jurisdiction of the Office of the
    Architect of the Capitol, the Chief Administrative Officer
    shall consult with and obtain the approval of the Architect of
    the Capitol before the modification is made.
        And some minor technical amendments with that. I urge the
    adoption of the amendment. This would ensure they work together
    appropriately.
        The Chairman. Any further discussion on the amendment?
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Briefly.
        The purpose of the bill that Mr. Wamp and I have introduced
    is for short-term pilot projects done quickly to show us how we
    can get substantial savings in energy in a quick time period.
    Although I am sure that the motivation of the gentleman's
    amendment is the very best, I believe that the additional
    requirements would simply slow down progress on this and really
    prevent the success that Mr. Wamp and I hoped would be the
    product of this bill. And, therefore, I do oppose the amendment
    while respectfully recognizing that the motivation is the best;
    and I would yield to Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. Thank you for yielding.
        Frankly, whether we adopt it or not, this is going to
    happen. The CAO, I don't believe, is going to be able to
    perform modifications of the buildings on the grounds because
    all of that is already under the jurisdiction of the Architect
    of the Capitol; and so it is just recognizing the
    responsibilities that have already been entrusted to the Office
    of the Architect of the Capitol.
        So I am disappointed that you are not willing to accept it.
    It is just saying, this is the way it is, folks. It has always
    been that way, and the CAO should be able to work with this.
        Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time.
        The gentleman makes my point. There is an existing
    requirement that there be coordination. Creating still another
    permission process I think would slow down what Mr. Wamp and I
    hope to achieve with this pilot project bill, and that is why I
    do not support it.
        Mr. Ehlers. If the gentlelady would yield.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would be happy to yield.
        Mr. Ehlers. I am trying to prevent cowboy action here,
    where someone says, good grief, we are going to do this, and
    bingo, and it is in contradiction with what the Architect of
    the Capitol is doing. I am trying to avoid that conflict.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The question is on Mr. Ehlers' amendment
    number two to H.R. 6474. All those in favor, say aye. All those
    opposed, say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Ehlers. Roll call vote.
        The Chairman. I would like to ask the clerk for a roll call
    vote, please.
        I apologize, we have one--this is amendment number three.
    Mr. Ehlers, we are voting on for a roll call right now. The
    clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are five; the ayes are three. The amendment fails.
        Hearing no other amendments, I would like to recognize Ms.
    Lofgren for the purpose of making a motion.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I move to report H.R. 6474
    favorably to the House.
        The Chairman. The question is on the motion. All in favor,
    signify by saying aye. Any opposed?
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill
    is reported to the House without objection, and the motion is
    considered.
        Mr. Ehlers. I am sorry. You zipped by my third amendment.
        The Chairman. I am sorry. You have another amendment?
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
        The Chairman. We will go back and hear Mr. Ehlers----
        Ms. Lofgren. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion
    to report.
        The Chairman. Until we move the motion--unanimous consent
    to hold the motion to report the bill out for Mr. Ehlers'
    amendment number five--we are back to number two. Number two we
    skipped.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Okay. Mr. Ehlers is recognized.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is just a very simple amendment reinforcing the
    responsibilities of the Chief Administration Officer. And it
    simply says that, in carrying out such projects, the Chief
    Administrative Officer may, upon approval by the Committee on
    House Administration, enter into contracts with entities which
    have developed new methods of using energy more efficiently,
    generating electric power in a more sustainable manner, or
    improving the efficiency and lowering the costs of existing
    renewable power systems, in strict adherence to the regulations
    promulgated by the Committee on House Administration for
    contracts entered into by the Chief Administrative Officer in
    order to ensure best value for the House of Representatives.
        This is just reinforcing what is currently the requirement
    on the Chief Administrative Officer, and this is I think
    important to insert in because we have had a recent example
    where he has negotiated something after we have approved a
    contract without seeking our approval for the revisions to the
    contract. So I urge that we adopt this and make clear what the
    requirements of our contractual process are.
        The Chairman. The question is on Mr. Ehlers' amendment
    number two to H.R. 6474. Those in favor, signify by saying aye;
    those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Ehlers. A roll call.
        The Chairman. A roll call is requested. The clerk will call
    the roll.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Can I just clarify? This is
    existing today, correct?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        The clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are four; the ayes are three. The amendment is not
    adopted.
        I would now like to recognize Ms. Lofgren for the purpose
    of making a motion.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I move to report H.R. 6474
    favorably to the House.
        The Chairman. The question is on the motion. All those in
    favor, vote aye. Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
        Mr. Ehlers. Roll call.
        The Chairman. We would like to have a roll call. The clerk
    will call the role.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
        The Chairman. Aye.
        The ayes are four, the nays are three, and the bill without
    objection passes. The motion will be considered as laid upon
    the table.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mrs. Davis of California. There may be an opportunity at
    some point, I am not sure that within this session because
    things are running down, but I certainly would be delighted to
    listen to both the Architect and the CAO together talk about
    what they have done. I think they are coordinating, and so it
    would be good to just hear some of that interplay as well. I
    think that would be a concern. I would like to make our mark on
    that.
        The Chairman. We will do that. We will do that as soon as
    possible. I do not think we can get that done before Friday.
        Mr. Lungren. Unless you want to stay here.
        The Chairman. Oh, I love it here. I love it in my hot
    office, yes.
        But we will try to get that done. I will work to get that
    done before we do break for our November break.
        The committee will now take up H.R. 6475, a bill introduced
    by Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Lungren to establish the Daniel Webster
    Congressional Clerkship Program.
        I would like to recognize Ms. Lofgren for an opening
    statement.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This bill, the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Act,
    has been introduced by myself and Congressman Lungren. It
    provides for congressional clerks to serve in various offices
    of the House and Senate. When legislation was introduced last
    year by Mr. Lungren, it had the support of many of the Nation's
    top law schools.
        I would note that clerks are selected for the other
    branches of government, and these are prestigious posts where
    the top graduates of law schools across the country aspire to
    serve. The House has not had the equivalent clerkship.
        These clerks would be chosen from a pool of law school
    graduates who possess excellent academic records and who have
    demonstrated a commitment to public service and a strong
    interest in public policy. It creates a selection committee
    comprised of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
    and the Committee on House Administration to select no more
    than six congressional clerks to serve as employees for a 1-
    year period in their respective chambers. Clerks will be
    compensated at the same rate as judicial clerks in the U.S.
    District Court for D.C.
        As you may know, many law school graduates, top law school
    graduates begin their legal career as judicial law clerks; and
    these law clerks go on to become leaders of their profession in
    private practice or later serving as judges or as law
    professors. The Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program
    will do a lot, we believe, to improve understanding and
    appreciation of the legislative process within the legal
    profession and in the country as a whole by providing leaders
    of the legal profession their first formative experience in
    Congress. And given that clerks in the judicial branch often go
    on to become judges themselves I think it is particularly
    important that there be an appreciation for the legislative
    branch for high-quality clerkships.
        I don't know whether Mr. Lungren would like his own time. I
    would be happy to yield to him for his comments.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Lungren is recognized.
        Mr. Lungren. I appreciate that, and I thank the gentlelady
    from California for working with me on this bill.
        The genesis of this bill was a visit I received from the
    Stanford University Dean of the Law School probably 2 years
    ago. His name is Larry Kramer.
        While he has great respect for the judiciary and judges, he
    also has tremendous respect for the legislative branch; and so
    these are his words: Clerking for a trial or appellate judge
    provides young lawyers with an invaluable insider's
    understanding of the decision-making process. Not surprisingly,
    judicial clerkships leave young lawyers with a highly court-
    centered view of the law and the legal system; and precisely
    because these are the top law school graduates, former law
    clerks go on disproportionately to assume leadership positions
    in the bar and in the profession, explaining in part why the
    legal profession in this country is so heavily tilted towards
    the courts.
        And what he was trying to convey as a dean in one of the
    outstanding law schools in the United States was that it is
    frustrating to him to see that lean towards the courts and not
    a proper balance to the other branches of government,
    particularly the legislative branch, not to any animus on the
    part of these individuals but because of their experience.
        And his thought was if we had a comparable experience in
    the legislative branch to which top graduates of our law
    schools would aspire that would help introduce a different
    experience path for some of these outstanding young people and
    he thought over time would result in a greater respect for the
    work that we do.
        I am reminded of a conversation of a member of the United
    States Supreme Court some years ago when, in a discussion on an
    issue that the Court decided, a particular individual after the
    Court had decided said, well, why did you decide that way?
    Congress clearly intended something else.
        And the response of this member of the Supreme Court was,
    well, Congress never considered that.
        To which this person who had studied the issue said, well,
    yes, they did. As a matter of fact, there was a colloquy on the
    floor of the House about that very issue.
        To which this member of the Supreme Court said, oh, that
    doesn't matter. They don't write their own stuff, anyway.
        Now that is maybe just an anecdotal example, but it
    evidences a lack of appreciation for the work that we do. And
    this is just a small thing that we can do that I think may
    begin to address it.
        No fewer than 12 clerks per Congress would be selected to
    serve in the offices of various committee chairs and ranking
    members. It would be highly competitive. It would be
    bipartisan. It would be in the Senate and the House.
        The number of congressional clerks assigned to offices of
    the House will not be less than numbers assigned to the Senate.
    The number assigned to the House and Senate office affiliated
    with the majority party shall be equal to the offices
    affiliated with the minority party. We are trying to make it as
    bipartisan as possible.
        I would hope for unanimous support of this.
        I was pleased that a dean of a law school would come to me
    with this suggestion, recognizing the lack of appreciation for
    the work done in the Congress by many on the court, and I hope
    we can support this.
        Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time, although I was an
    undergraduate at Stanford, the dean of the law school has been
    a great advocate, as my colleague has described. But he is not
    the only advocate. This has received support from top law
    schools across the country.
        Mr. Lungren is correct; it is a way over time for the
    legislative branch to gain a little more clout in the judicial
    ranks than we have today.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R.
    6475, and in the interest of time, I will submit a written
    statement.
        The Chairman. I now call up and lay before the committee
    H.R. 6475. Without objection, the first reading of the bill
    will be dispensed with. Without objection, the bill is
    considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Any debate? Any amendments?
        If not, I recognize Ms. Lofgren for the purpose of offering
    a motion.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I move to report the bill H.R.
    6475 favorably to the House.
        The Chairman. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed?
        The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. Without
    objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table and
    the bill is reported to the House.
        The next item is H.R. 6589, introduced by Ms. Lofgren and
    Mr. Lungren, to provide financial support for the operation of
    the Law Library of the Library of Congress; and I would like to
    recognize Ms. Lofgren for an opening statement.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, this bill, the Charles H.W.
    Meehan Law Library Improvement and Modernization Act, was
    introduced by myself and Congressman Lungren. The bill and the
    private-public partnership embodied within the bill is named
    after Charles Meehan, who was the first Law Librarian at the
    Library of Congress.
        The Law Library of Congress maintains a unique and actually
    world-renowned collection, and this bill will ensure that the
    Law Library will have the resources needed to maintain and
    expand its collections while, at the same time, modernizing its
    systems.
        The act includes $3.5 million for maintaining and
    administering the operations of the Law Library, including the
    cataloging of the collections of the Law Library, which
    unfortunately is way behind and therefore not highly usable at
    the moment. The provision includes language which allows, to
    the extent practicable, efforts to catalog and archive
    nonproprietary material in the collections electronically in a
    nonproprietary and nondiscriminatory format to ensure the
    widest use. It also provides a line item to the Law Library to
    ensure the autonomy and ability to improve the Law Library.
        I would note also we have worked very closely with the
    American Bar Association and other legal groups who want to
    help maintain this Law Library, and it is their judgment that
    when they go out to try and solicit private funds for the
    support of the Law Library, having a line item is going to be
    crucial for them in whether or not they succeed.
        The creation of this program will provide enhanced special
    services for the Law Library, and the Librarian will carry out
    the program through agreements and partnerships entered into
    with other government and private entities.
        As I mentioned, the American Association of Law Libraries
    is joining with the American Bar Association in the effort to
    provide funds, both donations of money and also in-kind
    contributions, in support of the program.
        It requires an annual report, and it authorizes to be
    appropriated for the program an amount equal to 40 percent of
    the amount of the donations accepted by the Library of Congress
    trust fund in support of the program's 60-40 private-public
    split.
        The Law Library really is an invaluable resource, both to
    the Congress and the Nation, and I think we have an obligation
    to future generations to provide for its continuation through
    the establishment of the Charles H.W. Meehan program. Not only
    does it have the ABA and the American Association of Law
    Libraries' support, but probably because of Mr. Lungren and
    myself, the Northern California Association of Law Libraries
    has taken a bold step forward in support of the bill.
        Some have wondered why should we have a law library, but it
    has a unique collection that is unavailable anywhere else in
    the United States and, in some cases, the world. It has been
    neglected. And I want to mention specifically former
    Congressman Bill Orton, who has volunteered and, I think, has
    met with both of us as part of the ABA committee that is paying
    attention to this.
        This is obviously bipartisan and important, and I hope we
    can all support this unanimously.
        I yield to Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. I agree with you, the Law Library at the
    Library of Congress ought to be the premier Law Library of the
    Nation because it has the capacity of getting international
    legal journals and texts, as well as those from around the
    country.
        Unfortunately, in the last 10 to 15 years, I fear that
    budget restraints have caused the Library to have to make some
    very tough choices. The Library has had to cancel subscriptions
    and refrain from acquiring important legal materials in order
    to stay within their budget.
        People might say that happens with all libraries, and so
    forth, but the effectiveness of a law library is the timeliness
    of the receipt of the latest legal decisions; and in this case,
    when they are trying to scan the world, that is a difficult
    task.
        In addition, there are approximately 680,000 volumes of
    legal material that we have been informed the library has
    acquired, but has not yet had the resources to catalog and,
    thus, make available to the public. Once again, not timely.
        It is important that the Law Library have adequate funding
    in order to develop, maintain and make available its
    comprehensive and unique legal collections for the future, as
    well as protect its rare and historic materials that chronicle
    our heritage.
        This act addresses these concerns, authorizes immediately
    $3.5 million so it may renew cancelled subscriptions and
    purchase needed treatises, as well as work the catalog and
    classify the materials more quickly.
        Giving the Law Library a separate line item in the Library
    of Congress budget will allow the Law Library to have better
    control over its collection and be directly accountable to us,
    the Congress.
        In addition--and this is important, and I would just like
    to underscore what the gentlelady has said--it allows a
    mechanism for the Library to receive private and charitable
    donations to help with keeping its collection up to date. And
    we have every reason to believe from those who have testified
    before us, as well as those who have talked with us, that this
    will be done.
        There is a recognition of the importance of this library,
    and we think that private and charitable donations will come
    forward.
        The legislation is timely and needed. And for those who
    might be concerned that this sets a precedent for other
    elements of the Library of Congress spinning off, that is not
    my purpose, and I would not support that. I want to make that
    very clear.
        Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time, I agree with that. This is
    not intended to be the first of many line items or changes in
    the structure. This is a unique situation, and I concur that I
    would not be interested in pursuing additional alterations.
        I yield again to the gentleman.
        Mr. Lungren. Therefore, I urge the committee to support
    this, and I thank both the gentlelady and the chairman of the
    committee.
        The Chairman. Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I just want to say
    that I support the effort of both of our colleagues,
    Congressman Lungren and Congresswoman Lofgren, to augment and
    maintain the Law Library within the Library of Congress. Given
    what we have had with the last two bills and the wonderful
    agreement between the two Members of Congress, perhaps we
    should assign them the job of writing the energy conservation
    bill as well.
        But I do just want to state a caution, and that is, by
    authorizing a separate line item in the Library's budget, we
    are not implying that we wish to begin segmenting other items
    in the Library's budget. Doing so would limit the ability of
    the Library to manage its own resources, and that would be
    unnecessarily bureaucratic.
        With that clarification and understanding, I would be
    pleased to support the bill.
        The Chairman. The Chair now calls up and lays before the
    committee H.R. 6589.
        Without objection, the first reading of the bill is
    dispensed with.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I would like to recognize Ms. Lofgren for a
    technical amendment.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that on page
    2, line 6, would strike the word ``building'' from the bill;
    and I believe this is a technical amendment.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read and the gentlelady from California is
    recognized.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Lofgren. This is a technical amendment. We are not
    really building anything, we are maintaining and administering.
    We want to clarify that.
        It corrects a jurisdictional issue as well.
        The Chairman. Any further discussion?
        If not, without objection the amendment is agreed to.
        Any further amendments?
        The question is on Ms. Lofgren's amendment to H.R. 6589.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed?
        The ayes have it.
        The Chair recognizes Ms. Lofgren to make a motion.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I move to report H.R. 6589
    favorably to the House with an amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
        All in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Any opposed?
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The bill
    with the amendment will be reported to the House. Without
    objection, the motion to reconsider will be laid on the table.
        We have a vote, but we will try to get through the next
    bill before the vote.
        The next bill is H.R. 998, the Civil Rights History Project
    Act. And I will forgo all of my statement, and I will submit my
    statement for the record, and I recognize the ranking member,
    Mr. Ehlers, for an opening statement.
        [The statement of Mr. Brady follows:]

                 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT A. BRADY

        The Civil Rights History Project is an important step
    toward completing the recorded history of that important era.
    The Library of Congress and Smithsonian Museum's National
    Museum of African American History will work together on this
    project. They will gather firsthand accounts from the citizens
    who fearlessly fought for equal rights, lending a unique and
    untold perspective to what we already know about the Civil
    Rights Movement.
        Building on the success of the Veteran's History Project,
    the Civil Rights History Project will highlight the efforts of
    those who would otherwise go unacknowledged. We know a lot
    about Martin Luther King, Junior and Rosa Parks, but countless
    others were also involved in securing fair and equal treatment
    for African Americans. This project will tell their story.
        We have a letter from the Library of Congress and the
    Smithsonian explaining how they will work together on the Civil
    Rights History Project. Without objection, I will include that
    letter in the record.
        I would now like to recognize the Ranking Republican
    Member, Mr. Ehlers, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Ehlers. I will also enter my statement in the record,
    but I do want to mention that I am offering a minor amendment
    just to ensure the accuracy of the data, and that is based on a
    lot of experience.
        If you wish, I may go directly into describing the
    amendment.
        The Chairman. I need to call up the bill.
        The Chair now calls and lays upon the committee H.R. 998.
    Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed
    with. The bill is considered as read and open for amendment at
    any point.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. And now I would like to recognize Mr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this
    amendment.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers. As many of you have dealt with stories from
    people who have lived through events, often there are
    inaccuracies that appear, and so the amendment just requires
    that they review and, to the extent practicable, verify the
    authenticity and accuracy of the recordings and other materials
    that are obtained; and to create, catalog and index the
    collection of such recordings and materials in a manner that
    the Secretary and Library consider appropriate.
        I urge adoption of the amendment.
        The Chairman. We have the amendment to the Civil Rights
    History Project.
        I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
    Rather than going through all of the talking points, I would
    just call for the vote on the amendment.
        Mr. Ehlers. Would the gentleman just summarize the
    objections?
        The Chairman. To verify the recollection of stories and
    experiences of the real-life accounts of those who participated
    in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and the 1960s is not
    the job of the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian
    Institution.
        History is for people to interpret; and mainly, we can't
    ask the Library to insult the dignity of a person by asking
    them to provide documentation of a story of terrible beatings
    or attacks by dogs and fire hoses way back when in the Civil
    Rights Movement.
        And how do you verify? We would be doing it forever and
    forever to have them verify everything that was coming in. In
    some instances, their physical scars still remain. But in
    countless other cases, the emotional scars still exist, and it
    is hard to verify any emotional scars.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, as the oldest person on the
    panel, I can vouch for the fact that memories weaken as you get
    older. And the verification is simply to get two statements
    from two different sources. Then it is verified.
        This is not an attempt to argue with the authenticity of
    things, but simply to try to accumulate enough data so that
    scholars can find out what is the real story in any given
    event. There is certainly no intent to question the integrity
    of people's memories.
        The Chairman. Again, I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote
    on this amendment.
        Mr. Lungren. If the gentleman would yield, I would just ask
    Mr. Ehlers: The genesis of this amendment was the experience we
    had, and have, with some of the oral histories dealing with
    veterans, where we had some people making claims they were
    Medal of Honor winners and so forth; and there was a concern
    that there not be an effort by some to have inappropriate
    information here. And that is why Mr. Ehlers drafted this ``to
    verify to the extent practicable.''
        I believe that is the only purpose for his amendment, as I
    understood it, not to require people to relive their histories
    or to put them through third-degree investigation, but rather,
    to try and avoid what we had with the other experience.
        I would just offer that for consideration.
        Mr. Ehlers. If I may give an example, I was with a group of
    veterans once. There were four veterans from the same battle
    who fought side by side, and they started telling their
    stories, and there was constant correction back and forth.
        ``No, Joe, that's not the way it was. Remember, the plane
    came in from over the hill instead of through the valley.''
        ``Oh, yeah, that's right.''
        That is the sort of verification I am talking about.
        The Chairman. And that just proves the point, there is no
    practical way for the Library of Congress to accomplish that,
    in my opinion.
        Mr. Ehlers. It states ``to the extent practicable.''
        Ms. Lofgren. There is a Veterans Administration. There is a
    way to find out whether somebody actually did get the medal or
    not get the medal. I think this is a much more complicated
    question here, which is why I agree with the chairman.
        The Chairman. All those in favor of Mr. Ehlers' amendment
    signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed?
        In the Chair's opinion, the noes have it. The amendment is
    not agreed to.
        Mr. Ehlers, do you have another amendment?
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes. I have a simple amendment to change some
    dates, 2007 to 2008, et cetera, just to extend the timeline and
    give them time to put it together.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. This is my amendment, but I could give it to
    you.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        Mr. Ehlers. That's the only way I will get one passed.
        The Chairman. You've got this one. The amendment is agreed
    to.
        Any further amendments?
        The chairman moves the committee reports H.R. 998 favorably
    to the House with amendments. All those in favor say aye.
        Opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The motion
    is agreed to, and the bill with an amendment will be reported
    to the House. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is
    laid on the table.
        We will now break to go vote and come back when the votes
    are over.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. I would like to recognize myself for a brief
    statement on H.R. 6625.
        I am proud to sponsor this bill, which requires the
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs to allow States to designate a VA
    facility as a voter registration agency under section 7 of the
    National Voter Administration Act. In addition, VA facilities
    are required to provide voting information, assist veterans
    with registering as well as voting, and work with election
    officials to ensure proper delivery of voting materials.
        The bill also prohibits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
    from preventing nonpartisan organizations and election
    officials from providing veterans with voting information at VA
    facilities.
        Our veterans have dedicated their lives to protect our
    country, and many have been seriously wounded doing so. They
    deserve every opportunity to participate in the political
    process.
        Recent policy decisions by the VA that interfere with
    veterans' registration are simply an outrage. This bill would
    direct the VA to provide the voting assistance our veterans
    deserve and ensure that those with the most expertise and
    election officials and nonpartisan voter education groups can
    assist them in the voting process.
        Without objection, I would like to enter into the record
    some letters of support received from groups that represent
    over 6 million veterans and hundreds of thousands of concerned
    citizens.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I will now recognize the ranking member, Mr.
    Ehlers, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I have often stated
    in the past, I believe it is extremely important that we ensure
    that every vote is counted and that every eligible person is
    able to cast a ballot and that no one's vote is weakened by
    someone else casting an illegal vote.
        As a part of that effort, I am pleased to join Chairman
    Brady in support of this bill which would designate veterans'
    facilities as voter registration agencies. Doing so will allow
    those who have risked their lives for our freedom an
    opportunity to register to vote and make their voices heard.
        I do wish we had had the opportunity to have a full hearing
    on this bill, rather than having it introduced yesterday and
    then marking it up today. This is an important issue, and I
    would have preferred we receive testimony from the relevant
    parties on both sides as to the potential impact of this bill
    before we vote on whether or not to move it forward.
        In particular, one of my main concerns with this bill is
    the language that states that nonpartisan groups may have
    reasonable access to veterans in order to encourage voter
    registration. The word ``reasonable'' means different things to
    different people, and I would hate to see a veteran who wishes
    to convalescence in a private setting be intruded upon by an
    activist from a voter registration group, however well-
    intentioned they may be.
        I would ask that we more clearly define the boundaries that
    are considered reasonable, or strike this language altogether
    to prevent these types of interactions or intrusions from
    occurring.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, if I may make a brief comment,
    thanks for the bill.
        And in support of your bill, I think it was in my county
    that, at least as far as I am aware, this first came to a head
    when volunteers attempted to register veterans at the Palo Alto
    VA hospital and were turned away. Those volunteers have now
    sued the Veterans Administration. And as your letters indicate,
    the veterans groups support what you are doing here.
        So I appreciate that if we succeed here, we will avoid the
    need for litigation to resolve this and we will legislatively
    make sure that our veterans get the help they deserve and need.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
        I call up and lay before the committee H.R. 6625. Without
    objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with.
    Without objection, the bill is considered as read and open for
    amendment at any point.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Any debate? Amendments?
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered as read.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ehlers. Well, this amendment would strike from section
    4 of the act language requiring VA facilities that are
    designated as voter registration agencies to make available
    absentee ballots upon request.
        Although we question the propriety of imposing upon
    veterans facilities additional burdens beyond those required of
    other NVRA section 7 voter registration agencies, we are aware
    of the potential for fraud inherent in absentee voting. And I
    can give numerous examples of that if you wish.
        We do endorse full enfranchisement of our Nation's veterans
    and, where appropriate, via absentee voting. Accordingly, we
    believe that those who are eligible to vote absentee under the
    laws of their State should be offered absentee ballot
    applications at voter registration agencies.
        However, we do not support the notion of VA facilities,
    which are Federal offices, administering elections by having
    absentee ballots on site for disbursement to voters by VA
    personnel. Such ballots should be sent to the voter by a State
    or local election official pursuant to State law.
        Therefore, under the language of this amendment, VA
    facilities that are designated as voter registration agencies
    under NVRA section 7, would still be required to provide
    information relating to the opportunity to request an absentee
    ballot and make available absentee ballot applications and
    provide assistance in completing such an application.
        In other words, I am encouraging absentee balloting, but
    absentee ballots should not be available and kept on hand at a
    facility; they should always be under the control of an
    election facility until they are mailed out to the appropriate
    person requesting them.
        I offer this amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Any statements in reply?
        Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, although I don't doubt the good
    intentions of the amendment, I think that the amendment would
    weaken a very good bill. I think that our veterans have risked
    life and limb to protect our freedom and the right to vote;
    especially soldiers who returned home impaired because of
    injury should have whatever help is necessary.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
        I also agree that these men and women fought for us. There
    could be some loss of sight and mobility, and maybe they cannot
    get to register or to an agency that will provide an absentee
    ballot. I don't see anything wrong with the absentee ballot
    being made available to them, done in a proper way; and I don't
    see why we can't allow them to fill out the absentee ballot
    with a nonprofit or with somebody from their veterans home that
    would assist them, just like on that ballot, they would ask for
    assistance if they got an opportunity to vote, and if not, they
    would be able to vote via absentee ballot.
        So I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Ehlers. Just continuing on with my comments, I don't
    know, perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying here. I am not
    disagreeing with you.
        The facility should provide applications for persons to
    apply for an absentee ballot. An institution should assist
    veterans in filling out the forms and putting it in the mail.
    And once it is received, the facility should assist the
    veterans in looking at it and, if necessary, assist them in
    voting if they are incapacitated in some way.
        The objection is simply to having a stack of absentee
    ballots in the facility. I don't know of any other place which
    would just allow a stack.
        For example, a nursing home is very similar. No one would
    ever think of having the local clerk of elections drop off 100
    absentee ballots at a nursing facility and say, Here, give them
    to whoever wants them, and they can fill them out.
        There is a process under State law by which absentee
    ballots are processed. Every State has their own law. I believe
    that the VA facility should operate under State law just like a
    nursing home would.
        The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, under section 7 of the Voting
    Rights Act, it actually requires assistance agencies--I don't
    know if the VA is included--to actively go out and recruit
    voters. I think, whether or not--and I can't do this from
    memory--they are included, certainly the spirit of what is
    intended in NVRA is honored by the bill which you have
    introduced; and certainly nothing in this bill changes the
    requirements that are present in State law.
        I won't get into the jurisdictional issue, but there is
    nothing in this bill that changes the State eligibility
    requirements.
        The Chairman. According to State law, they would have to
    fill out an application. They could do that by presenting an
    application to them, and then they would receive the ballot in
    the mail to them at the nursing home.
        All we are saying is that we think they need to be assisted
    in applying for it, and we think they should have assistance in
    filling it out. They are not given a stack of ballots to take
    with them. They have to apply for them like anywhere else.
        Mr. Ehlers. I am simply saying they should apply, as anyone
    else.
        NVRA, for example, just to make clear, does require the
    distribution of voter mail registration application forms, and
    I am just trying to make this comply with the NVRA law.
        The Chairman. Again, with all due respect, it is the same
    thing happening here. Nobody is walking into a nursing home
    with a stack of absentee ballots and passing them out. Anyone
    anywhere can have an application. I can walk around with an
    application.
        Mr. Ehlers. I don't contest that.
        The Chairman. That is what we are doing here.
        Mr. Ehlers. No. The way it is written, it states absentee
    ballots will be available, not applications.
        That is my concern. That is what we are trying to change.
        The Chairman. Again, I don't read it that way. I would be
    opposed to this amendment.
        The question is on Mr. Ehlers' amendment No. 1 to H.R.
    6625. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, if I may have the privilege of a
    comment. I think there may be a misunderstanding here between
    what my amendment is trying to do and what the bill is trying
    to do. I would be happy to sit down with you and your staff and
    our staff and try to make sure that we, first of all,
    understand each other on this and what our concern is.
        The Chairman. I will be more than happy to do that.
        Mr. Ehlers. I don't think we are apart in what we are
    trying to do, but I think we are getting tangled up in the
    language here.
        The Chairman. We can do that in the clarifying language in
    the report in September. I will be willing to work with you on
    that.
        The amendment was not agreed to.
        Now opening up again for any further amendments.
        Mr. Ehlers. I have a second amendment.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers. Amendment No. 2 provides clarification that
    nothing in this act may be construed to waive any requirement
    under State or local law regarding an individual's eligibility
    to receive an absentee ballot or vote by absentee ballot. And
    this is necessary because the act, as drafted, is vague as to
    whether section 4, which provides absentee ballot application,
    et cetera, be made available upon request, and establishes a
    new basis for eligibility to vote absentee which may conflict
    with State law.
        Again, we don't disagree with what you are trying to do. We
    are simply trying to clarify the language to make certain that
    it agrees with current law and State law.
        The Chairman. I have no problem in accepting this
    amendment.
        Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. I am with you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. We accepted Ehlers' amendment No. 2.
        I recognize Mr. Ehlers for amendment 3.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers. Amendment No. 3, this amendment exempts from
    eligibility to be designated as a voter registration agency any
    VA facility where the voluntary service provides for the
    provision of voter registration and voting assistance services.
        To comment on that, this will ensure that the VA offers
    voter registration and voting assistance in a nonpartisan
    manner and with minimal disruption to facility operations. This
    service should be coordinated through the agency's voluntary
    service office at each medical facility.
        We should encourage State and local government officials to
    work with the voluntary service officers to provide
    coordinated, accurate, and timely voter registration
    information and services; and where the voluntary service
    provides these services, we think it is unnecessary for States
    to designate such facilities as voter registration agencies.
        The Chairman. I do appreciate again the gentleman's
    amendment. The only problem is that it does cut the cord of the
    bill.
        I am not comfortable with the VA having anything to say in
    regulating in any way, shape or form how a nonprofit can come
    into the veterans home, simply because the director already is
    saying that they cannot without having a conversation with any
    one of us; and that is the purpose of this bill.
        Again, I think it cuts the cord and I think it cuts the
    ability and the right of our men and women that have been in
    harm's way, while we are here in either our too-air-conditioned
    offices or not-too-air-conditioned offices; and we are trying
    to impede in any way, shape, or form, as the veterans
    administrator did when they impeded their right to get an
    opportunity to vote absentee or to be registered to vote at
    all.
        I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this.
        The question is on Ehlers amendment 3 to H.R. 6625. All
    those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        I would like to recognize Mr. Ehlers for amendment No. 4.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers. Amendment No. 4, this amendment prohibits the
    provision of certain services at VA facilities that have been
    designated as voter registration facilities under NVRA section
    7 where the provision of such services would be detrimental to
    the health of or interfere with the provision of services to
    any patient or beneficiary.
        The goal here is to protect the well-being of our veterans.
    We are concerned by the stark differences between other voter
    registration agencies, such as public welfare agencies on the
    one hand, and VA facilities where injured veterans go to
    receive health care services. We simply want to protect the
    health and dignity of patients, and accordingly, we want to
    ensure that the provision of assistance with absentee ballots
    does not do harm to veterans in any way, under the care of the
    VA.
        So it is just saying, if someone is very ill and they
    shouldn't be disturbed, then they shouldn't be disturbed by
    people trying to get them to vote either.
        The Chairman. I can understand and appreciate the intent,
    but the problem with this is that, again, it goes back to our
    veterans administrator, who put out that directive that can say
    at any point in time they can exclude an entire facility.
        Our intent is not to disturb or bother or cause any
    hardship on these men and women, but allow them their rights. I
    want to ensure that no one--I can't imagine how you would try
    to bother or impose upon any veteran that is there, that can't
    or won't be able to or have the ability at that particular time
    to fill out an absentee ballot, to register to vote.
        The problem I have is excluding an entire facility. Again,
    it was at the direction of the veterans administrator, who I
    have no faith at all in, in allowing our veterans to be
    registered and being able to vote via absentee ballot. And so,
    again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
        Mr. Ehlers. So I take it, Mr. Chairman, you would like a
    new administrator?
        The Chairman. I am sure we will have one, one way or
    another.
        The question is on Ehlers amendment No. 4 to H.R. 6625. All
    those in favor, say aye.
        All those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
    amendment is not agreed to.
        I recognize Mr. Ehlers again for amendment No. 5.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers. Amendment No. 5 would simply limit the scope of
    the applicability of the requirements of section 4 to those VA
    facilities where patients reside.
        I don't know if I have to really say much more about that,
    but the whole idea is, we are doing this for the patients, and
    it wouldn't have to apply to VA facilities that don't have
    patients.
        The Chairman. Again, I oppose this amendment.
        We should allow an outpatient that would have the
    opportunity to come into the Veterans Administration for any
    type of medical procedure, any type of medical update, any kind
    of prescriptions; they could probably have their appointments
    the same day, making it a one-stop shop when they know there is
    registration being held and have the opportunity to make it
    easier for them.
        Just because they are outpatient, I don't want to
    discriminate against them--again, to afford the luxury of
    making it easier for them to absentee vote or register to vote.
        So again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
        The question is on Ehlers amendment No. 5 to H.R. 6625. All
    those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        The Chair moves to report H.R. 6625 favorably to the House
    with an amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The motion
    is agreed to, and the bill is reported to the House.
        Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table.
        We will next consider H.R. 6627, the Smithsonian
    Institution Facilities Authorization Act for 2008.
        H.R. 6627 represents an agreement between our committee and
    the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to move two
    Smithsonian projects. We agree to release the bill at this
    point in order to get around jurisdictional dispute with other
    committees. It sets no precedent for future Smithsonian bills.
        Ranking Member Ehlers has joined me in cosponsoring this
    bill introduced by Chairman Oberstar. The House Administration
    Committee was given an additional referral to consider section
    2.
        That section authorizes a project at the Smithsonian
    Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland, on the
    Chesapeake Bay. H.R. 6627 will authorize a total of $41 million
    over 3 years for design and construction of the Mathias
    Laboratory renovation and trailer replacement project. $3.5
    million will be used to design the project for fiscal year
    2009, and has been included in the House Interior appropriation
    bill. Construction is then expected to cost $37.5 million over
    the following 2 fiscal years.
        The current Mathias Laboratory exceeds its capacity by 40
    percent, and is considered unsuitable for missions and safety
    of staff. The project will modernize the facility, a building
    that was constructed in seven phases between 1978 and 2000. The
    Smithsonian will also demolish a series of trailers and other
    ad hoc structures, some more than 30 years old, which pepper
    the site.
        The bill will also be considered by the Transportation
    Committee in its markup tomorrow. They will consider a SCRC
    project. And, also, section 3 of this bill deals with the
    Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Gamboa, Panama. I
    also support that project, which was inspected by committee
    staff from both sides last January.
        I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Mr.
    Ehlers, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am proud to have cosponsored this bill which will enable
    additional research to continue both at the Smithsonian
    Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland, and at
    the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama City,
    Panama.
        In the interest of time, I will not read the remainder of
    my statement, but submit it for the record. But I simply want
    to agree with the Chair's comments.
        These are very valuable facilities, particularly the
    research institution in Panama, which is a worldwide center for
    research. I have visited this in the past under the auspices of
    a different committee, and I know that our committee staff has
    gone down and visited the facility in Panama.
        I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you organize a
    codel some time during this year to examine perhaps both
    facilities, but certainly the Tropical Research Institute in
    Panama. It is a great asset to the entire world, and I think
    the members of this committee should be completely aware of
    what a wonderful gem we have there and what we can do.
        I was surprised. I didn't even know about it when I went
    down there, as I said, under the auspices of another committee;
    and I was just astounded what an excellent facility it is. I
    certainly support the bill and respectfully suggest a codel.
        [The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
        The Chairman. I appreciate that and I take your
    recommendation. We will put together a codel going down to
    Panama.
        The Chair now calls up before the committee H.R. 6627.
    Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with and the
    bill is considered as read and open to amendment.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate? Are there any
    amendments?
        If not, the Chair will move to report H.R. 6627 favorably
    to the House.
        The question is on the motion. All those in favor, say aye?
        Those opposed.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The bill is
    reported to the House. Without objection, the motion to
    reconsider is laid on the table.
        Our next bill is H.R. 6608, a bill I introduced with Mr.
    Ehlers. This bill would replace lost income for military
    reservists working for the House of Representatives when they
    are activated for more than 30 days.
        I introduced this important bill after discussing with
    several House employees who have also served as members of the
    armed services. With our country engaged in mismanaged wars
    without end, some reservists or National Guard members are now
    being deployed for the second or third time. When they are
    called up, these men and women must leave their homes, families
    and jobs, often for an indeterminate and unpredictable amount
    of time. While on active duty, these men and women earn the
    wages of full-time servicemen and forfeit their regular salary.
        We know that many companies have helped families continue
    to survive during this difficult time by continuing to pay the
    difference between their annual salary and their active pay.
    This bill would do the same thing for House employees. It
    requires the CAO to provide debt supplement for House employees
    when they are activated involuntarily.
        This is a good bill that honors the devoted public service
    of our House employees who not only serve as stewards of our
    democracy at home, but as defenders abroad.
        I would now like to recognize the ranking member for any
    statement he may have.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your
    leadership on this issue, and I am proud to join with you as a
    cosponsor of this important bill.
        I think it is extremely important for us to help our Armed
    Forces in any way that we can, and we have an opportunity to do
    so with our own House staff, and we can set an example for the
    Nation by doing so.
        I submit the rest of my statement for the record in order
    to save time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Any other statements?
        I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 6608.
    Without objection, the first reading of the bill will be
    dispensed with. Without objection, the bill is considered as
    having been read and open for amendment at any point.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Any debate? Any amendments?
        If not, the Chair will move to report H.R. 6608 favorably
    to the House. The question is on the motion. All those in
    favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed?
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill
    is reported to the House. Without objection, the motion to
    reconsider is laid on the table.
        The next item is H. Res. 1207, which directs the Chief
    Administrative Officer to give House employees the option of
    receiving receipts of pay and withholdings electronically. This
    is a commonsense step to the modernization of our pay system.
    Not only will it simplify pay records, it will reduce paper and
    waste and support the Speaker's Green Capitol Initiative.
        I now recognize our ranking member for an opening
    statement.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I fully support this
    bill. I think it achieves a number of goals. As I am sure
    everyone does, virtually all of my personal banking and
    financial work is done online, and the check that I receive
    from this institution goes to my bank. I never see it.
        By passing this bill, we can extend the electronic use even
    further and save time and paper. I believe it is a good bill.
        I submit the remainder of my statement for the record in
    the interest of time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        I now call up and lay before the committee H. Res. 1207.
    Without objection, the first reading of the resolution is
    dispensed with. And without objection, the resolution is
    considered as read and open to amendment any point.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate?
        Mr. Ehlers. I am sorry. I do have an amendment.
        The Chairman. Your amendment is now in order, Mr. Ehlers.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ehlers. Page 2, line 11, strike the period and insert
    the following, ``the option of viewing electronically the
    individual's employee statement required under section 6051 of
    the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the option of revising
    electronically (to the extent permitted under applicable law
    and regulations) the individual's number of deductions and
    withholdings under that statement and information relating to
    the deposit of the individual's funds with the financial
    institution to which the electronic funds transfer is made.''
        I am just adding a few more things to improve the bill, and
    so if we want to change the number of dependents, instead of
    having to go down to the service's office or have them mail the
    form, we can get on line and enter our code and change our
    number of deductions, reduce or increase, whatever.
        We are just adding three different things, in other words,
    to make it an even better bill.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        I would ask the committee to agree to Mr. Ehlers'
    amendment.
        The question is on Mr. Ehlers' amendment to H. Res. 1207.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed?
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
        Any additional amendments?
        If not, the Chair moves to report H. Res. 1207 favorably to
    the House with an amendment.
        The question is on the motion. All those in favor, signify
    by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
    resolution will be reported to the House. And without
    objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
        The next item of business is Committee Resolution 110-7
    related to shared employees in the House of Representatives.
        In May, the House inspector general told us the results of
    his investigation of how the system of shared employees affects
    the House. The IG made several recommendations regarding what
    we can do to secure House funds, and I would ask my statement
    be entered in the record for the sake of time.
        I would now like to recognize our ranking member for his
    opening statement.
        [The statement of Mr. Brady follows:]

                 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT A. BRADY

        In May, the House Inspector General told us the results of
    his investigation into how the system of shared employees
    affects the House. The IG made several recommendations
    regarding what we can do to secure House funds and data.
        Some of the IG's recommendations just required action by
    the CAO's office. We wrote to the CAO shortly after the hearing
    and asked him to take steps on disclosure and to educate
    Members and staff on the rules governing shared employees. But
    some of the IG's recommendations required additional
    regulations from this committee that we are taking up today.
        These rules would require employees who work for three or
    more offices to provide additional disclosure. They would be
    required to tell their employers who else they are working for.
    And they would be required to file annual financial disclosure
    forms. In addition, the regulations would require that shared
    employees read the Shared Employee Manual that the CAO is now
    preparing. They would have to certify that they are complying
    with the mandatory laws and rules listed in the manual. This
    requirement would only take effect after the Committee approves
    the manual.
        Finally, these new rules would make it clear that House
    staff are not permitted to market anything back to the House.
    We believe that this prohibition is already part of existing
    rules, but the IG's report suggested that we should make it
    more explicit.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased we are
    instituting these changes to the guidelines for shared
    employees. Most of our shared employees are very hardworking
    men and women who provide valuable services to many Members,
    but there are few individuals who might be tempted to take
    advantage of the system.
        Previously, shared employees who engaged in criminal
    activity used the currently largely unregulated, shared
    employee structure to their advantage. It is their actions that
    unfortunately make these reforms necessary. By implementing the
    financial disclosure statement filing requirement for those
    individuals who are concurrently employed by more than three
    offices, we will be increasing transparency into a key group of
    individuals that pose the greatest financial risk to the House.
        In addition, the shared employee reports that will be
    provided by the CAO, as well as the regulation which stipulates
    that existing House staff may not contract their services to
    other offices, will ensure that the House is safeguarded
    against those with criminal intent.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have had a problem with this
    issue in the past year. And, in fact, one individual is either
    soon going to jail or has already gone to jail as a result; and
    we want to make sure we lock the barn door even after the horse
    is gone to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. We have many more
    horses still in this barn.
        Any other debate?
        Any amendments?
        I would now call up Committee Resolution 110-7. Without
    objection, the first reading is dispensed with. And Committee
    Resolution 110-7 is considered as read and open for amendment.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Any debate?
        If not, the question is on agreeing to Committee Resolution
    110-7. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        The ayes have it. Committee Resolution 110-7 is agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table.
        The last item of business is Committee Resolution 110-8
    related to student loan repayment, and I would ask unanimous
    consent to put my remarks into the record and ask my ranking
    member for any statement he would like to make.
        [The statement of Mr. Brady follows:]

                     STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT A. BRADY

        Recently the Congress increased the cap on student loan
    repayment--a benefit the federal government offers to some
    employees. However, that increase in benefits can't take effect
    in the House until this Committee changes the regulations.
        The resolution before us today would change the House
    regulations to increase the annual benefit cap to $10,000 and
    the lifetime cap to $60,000. It would also clean up some other
    technical errors in the regulation. These changes will place
    House staff on a level playing field with other federal workers
    and allow offices like the Legislative Counsel to recruit top
    employees.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, this again is something that is
    very important to our employees.
        The price of most goods and services has risen over the
    years and so, too, has the price of education. More and more
    young people pay their own way through school, and also are
    faced with substantial student loans once they graduate.
        I am pleased that the student loan repayment program has
    proven to be successful and that we have been able to alleviate
    some of the financial burden associated with higher education.
        As a former educator myself, I know the value of education
    far outweighs the cost of attendance. It is in the public's
    interest that we find creative ways to enable bright young
    people to embark upon careers in the legislative branch. With
    the House limited in what financial incentives we can offer
    those who are considering a career in public service,
    increasing the disbursement cap for the student loan
    reimbursement program is an excellent way to encourage recent
    graduates to choose public service while still being able to
    meet the financial obligations they entered into while
    achieving their educational goals.
        I thank you Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. And I call up
    Committee Resolution 110-8. Without objection the first reading
    is dispensed with and Committee Resolution 110-8 is considered
    as read and open for amendment.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Any additional debate? Any additional
    amendments?
        If not, the question is agreeing to Committee Resolution
    110-8. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and Committee
    Resolution 110-8 is agreed to. Without objection, a motion to
    reconsider is laid upon the table.
        Without objection, staff may make technical and conforming
    changes to the various matters considered by the Committee
    today.
        There being no further business, I thank our committee
    members, those that stayed. I thank the gentlelady for staying.
    I thank this lovely audience for participating with us and
    staying with us for all this time. And I thank our ranking
    member and recognize our ranking member.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We probably have to
    double the budget of the committee to pay for all the paper we
    generated today. I thank you for your work in the spirit in
    which this was done, and I hope we will be able to resolve our
    minor differences on some of the bills before they go to the
    Floor.
        The Chairman. We certainly will.
        I thank everyone. And have a good, healthy and safe break.
    Thank you all.
        If there is no further business, this committee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]