Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of the members of the 2005 United States Physics Olympiad Team. These 24 individuals have shown tremendous aptitude in physics and leadership amongst their peers. It is very challenging to earn a spot on this prestigious team. After being nominated by their high school teachers and taking a preliminary exam, 200 students qualified to take the second and final screening exam for the U.S. Physics Team. The 24 survivors of that group represent the top physics students in the U.S., and they are now at a 9-day training camp of intense study, examination and problem solving. Five of these students will advance and compete for our country in July at the International Physics Olympiad in Salamanca, Spain. Members of the 2005 team include: Thomas D. Belulovich, David Chen, Timothy F. Credo, Nickolas A. Fortino, YingYu Gao, Sherry Gong, Timothy H. Hsieh, Anthony E. Kim, John Y. Kim, Jenny L. Kwan, Chor Hang Lam, Samuel S. Lederer, Menyoung Lee, David Lo, Anton S. Malyshev, Sarah E. Marzen, Eric J. Mecklenburg, Aaron H. Potechin, John D. Schulman, William T. Throwe, Madeleine R. Udell, Ameya A. Velingker, Daniel P. Whalen and Fan Zhang. Mr. Speaker, as a nuclear physicist and formal physics professor, I have worked to promote math and science education and to emphasize the pivotal role these fields play in our nation's economic competitiveness and national security. Educating our K-12 students in math and science is very important. It is encouraging to see so many young, outstanding physics students enthusiastic about science. I hope their enthusiasm will be contagious to other students who will be drawn to challenging and rewarding careers in math and science. I am very thankful for these future leaders and ask that you please join me in congratulating them on their wonderful achievements.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this discussion about casinos. I want to relate a similar problem that we have in my area in Michigan, not directly in my district, but it impinges on my district. I believe it is high time that the Congress address this particular problem. The difficulty my area is a case of a tribe which does not live in the area in which it is seeking to have land placed in trust for it in a community that welcomes it because they think that there will be economic development. But, in fact, it is going to have serious impact on areas in my district and on surrounding communities. Obviously, it is going to be a high-traffic area, with a need for new roads, and of course the casinos do not pay any tax. There will be no tax on the land, and this results in a good deal of problems that the local communities and state will not have the funds to take care of. I believe it is very important to put a limitation on off-reservation gambling and on cases where a tribe moves into an area which is nowhere near its home and claims that to be an area where they can have land placed in trust, and they then build casinos and other facilities. It creates particular problems, for example, for merchants who may be running a supermarket or a gas station, and suddenly there is somebody new in town who is offering the same services, but does not have to pay taxes. This is a totally unfair proposition for the local businesses that are there. In that sense, I support the effort to put some regulation on this. I am not rising in support of the amendment. I have been involved in discussions with the previous speakers, and they have much the same problems we do, but I have also discussed it with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) who chairs the Committee on Resources, and he has assured me and the rest of us that he has a bill that will deal with this problem and that will provide free and open debate on the House floor. Rather than deal with it in an appropriations bill, it is my preference that we not consider these amendments at this point, but defer to the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and await the chairman's bill which he has said that he will attempt to get out of committee and onto the floor before the August recess. We have to recognize this is a serious problem for many communities across the country. I have only addressed one aspect of it, but there are many other aspects that have to be addressed and understood. When the Pombo bill comes up, we will have time for a full debate and discussion of all of the other tangential issues as well, including what ability the States have to regulate the location of these facilities, and what ability the States have to negotiate compacts so that the actual costs to the State and local communities are met by these facilities that are moved into an area where the sponsoring individuals have never lived.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Silence in the Chamber represents approval in this particular case. I appreciate the incredible support I have received from my colleagues for this amendment since I offered it. I have instantly become popular for the first time in my congressional career. I appreciate the meaning of the silence that we have. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very simple amendment. It would change the 30-minute rule that requires passengers on commercial flights into and out of Washington Reagan National Airport to remain seated for the first or last 30 minutes of the flight and for passengers to remain tightly in their seats and not even use the restroom facilities. I believe every Member of this House has experienced the nuisance of this rule. It simply does not make sense. It is an inconvenience to the traveler and does nothing to enhance flight security, particularly because there are two marshals aboard every plane into and out of Washington Reagan National Airport. My amendment would reduce the time in seat to 15 minutes, which should certainly be adequate. It would also permit the Secretary of Homeland Security to decrease the time even more. The amendment would also prohibit the pilot from diverting a flight from DCA for a violation of the seating rule unless he or she determines the passenger's actions to be a threat to the security of the other passengers or the aircraft. There are several reasons for offering this amendment. We have already dramatically enhanced airport and airplane security since the time the rule was imposed. We have done this through several measures. First, improved passenger screening. Secondly, we have increased the number of in-flight Federal air marshals. Third, we have reinforced the cockpit doors. And, fourth, have authorized armed pilots in the cockpit. Mr. Chairman, requiring DCA passengers to remain seated for 30 minutes when similar restrictions are not placed on passengers traveling to and from Dulles and BWI or any other airport does not make sense. Planes leaving DCA go past Dulles Airport in approximately 10 minutes, so under a 30-minute rule for DCA, should Dulles passengers not be forced to remain seated for 20 minutes on westbound flights and 40 minutes on eastbound flights? This rule just does not make sense, particularly since the incidents that already have taken place with hijacked airplanes were not from DCA but one of them, in fact, was from Dulles Airport. I understand that our Nation's capital faces significant terrorist threats and boasts many important terrorist targets, but it is important to note that none of these flights that were hijacked on September 11 originated at DCA. LaGuardia does not have this rule. JFK does not have the same rule, even though the attack occurred on New York. Mr. Chairman, I fly into and out of Reagan airport every week. Several times on these flights I have heard snickering and jokes about the 30-minute rule. People know that this rule makes no sense, and the government is the butt of jokes about it. It is nonsense to have rules that are nonsensical, causes the government to lose the respect of the people. I have also seen people, particularly children and elderly, desperate to use the bathroom but unable to do so. This inconvenience is pointless. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), and I am pleased to reclaim the time. I would like to make a few additional points and see if he has any additional comments. One thing we have not discussed tonight, which I think is very, very important, is to ask what is the highest and best use of the energy resources we have. Take, for example, natural gas, which many in this country use to heat their homes. I live in Michigan, the so-called ``Frozen North.'' We use natural gas to heat our homes, and it is wonderful. It is clean burning and so forth, but what has happened with natural gas, because it is clean burning, the power plants, which now have to meet strong environmental requirements if they are burning coal, say, well, let us burn natural gas, it is nice and clean, and we do not have these environmental requirements that we have with coal, and we will save money. So copious amounts of natural gas are being burned in electric power plants to produce electricity. At the same time, those of us who heat it with our homes, our heating bills double because there is just not that much natural gas available. It is even more serious than that. I have often said that natural gas really is too valuable to burn. Why is that? Because natural gas is a beautiful feed stock for the petrochemical industry. We use a lot of fertilizer on our farms, and so do other countries and that is why we had the Green Revolution. We are able to feed far more people today than anyone anticipated because we are using a lot of chemical fertilizer. Much of it is made from natural gas or petroleum. Now, if we run short on supplies of natural gas and petroleum, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) was showing us with his Hubbert curve, then you have a problem because where are we going to get the feed stocks for our petrochemical industry? Where will the plastic manufacturers get their materials, because that is all made from natural gas or petroleum? Where will the farmers get their agriculture because that is made from natural gas and oil? And so on and down the line. So we really as a Nation should be asking ourselves, what is the highest and best use of the energy resources we have. We have huge amounts of coal available in this country. Russia, incidentally, has far more coal available than we do, but coal is dirty. But why do we not investigate ways that we can use that to provide for our electrical needs in a very clean way and reserve the natural gas in the oil for higher and better use? There are other issues that arise from this, and again, recognizing the time spans available, we have not talked much about Europe tonight, but recognize that the reason we have not is because Europe basically has very little natural gas and oil left. They are importing virtually all of it. They still have some coal but not a huge amount of it. So we have not been talking about them, but they still use a lot of energy. Europe has a greater population than the U.S., and they use a great deal of energy. Where are they getting it? They turned to nuclear energy. In the midst of all the discussion and upheaval in the United States about nuclear energy and the dangers and so forth, we produce only 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear energy. France, I believe, is at 80 percent now, and I believe India is even higher than that. These other Nations have turned to nuclear energy for two reasons. First of all, they do not have supplies of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Secondly, they have decided it is safer because it does not give off greenhouse gases. Maybe we have to learn a lesson from these other nations and say, look, oil and coal and natural gas are too valuable to just burn to produce electricity. Let us produce our electricity in other ways, perhaps nuclear fusion reactors, as France, India, and other nations are doing. Perhaps we should work more actively on fusion research so that we can build nuclear fusion reactors, which should be cleaner and safer by far. So there are a lot of different options to investigate. Also, I mentioned earlier photo cells, or photovoltaics, and I mentioned this article from the American Physical Society News, excellent article, written by Dr. Alvin Compaan from the University of Toledo. I did not realize he had written it until I reached the end of the article when I was reading it, and I was delighted because he was a former student of mine some years ago at Calvin College. But he points out here, toward the end, that we have made so much progress in developing solar cells, or photovoltaics cells, that he envisions that by the year 2015 the electricity produced by photovoltaic cells, or solar cells, will cost only about 6 cents per kilowatt hour. Well, that is more than competitive with the energy producing power plants today using coal, oil or natural gas, because they have transmission costs and transmission lines, whereas the photovoltaic cells can be in your back yard or on your roof. He also says the current predictions are that half of all new U.S. electricity generation will be produced by photovoltaics by the year 2025. That will be an amazing growth, and it will be interesting to watch that and see if it happens, because that will definitely give us a heads-up and the opportunity to greatly improve our energy situation. There are other ways, as I have outlined, of using solar energy, other ways of using our savings and our inheritance. But always keep in mind it is our responsibility to provide for our children and grandchildren the resources that they are going to need in this world to do their work, to grow plants, to produce products, to manufacture. And if we run away with all this coal, oil, and natural gas and do not leave our kids and grandkids any, and we do not do the research necessary now to provide alternatives, we are not helping our kids and grandkids. In fact, we are depriving them of things that they will need to go forward in life. So I urge the Congress to adopt legislation that will help develop alternative energy sources that will make certain that our kids and grandkids have enough energy to use and can live a decent lifestyle, as we do today, and that we not waste our resources but shepherd them and use them wisely as a means of producing new energy resources that our children and grandchildren can use.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim the time for just a moment, I want to explain something that I discover often confuses individuals, and that is, when you reach the peak, they say, well, we have only used half of it, but the problem is that showed beautifully in that chart there, we are already in a habit of using so much oil, and it is going up yet. So even though we only used half, the demand is going to be so high, and as we go over the peak, production decreases, the oil becomes more expensive to retrieve because we may be tapping tar sands or shales at some point there. So you have double effect. It is going to be more expensive to find and produce, but at the same time, the demand keeps increasing. The demand versus supply gets worse, and so the price, of course, goes up and the wealthiest people can buy it. To contrast that, we are talking a bit about solar energy. The best estimate we have at the moment is that the sun will probably continue for roughly 1 billion years, producing just as much energy as it is producing today. After that time, we have to start worrying. That is quite a contrast with the short-time scales here, and I find that much of the difficulty that we have is that most people have very short time horizons. If they have got enough for next week or next year, everything is fine. This is a case where I think we have a particular responsibility, as the leaders of the Nation to recognize the long-time scale problems that are involved and change course so that we do not enter this catastrophic period where we are getting reduced production and increased demand. Prices are going to go skyrocketing. We will have at least a recession, probably a depression at that point, and so I think it is incumbent upon the Congress to recognize the situation we are in and take action now so to avoid disaster later. With that, I will be happy to yield back to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to address a topic of immediate and great importance to our Nation. I will be joined this evening in this discussion by my fellow scientist, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). He is in the life sciences primarily, although he has done work in the physical sciences. I am a physicist by training, a nuclear physicist to be more precise, and we hope to give a scientific perspective on the issue of energy. There are a number of topics I wish to discuss relating to this, but let me first say that as scientists we have a unique perspective on energy, because we have had to deal with it in both a theoretical and a pragmatic way. As a result of this, and our scientific training and analysis, and graphing, we developed a perspective which I believe is accurate, but which is not widely held, except by a few far-seeing energy companies and energy analysts. And I would also like to mention, if I may, that we covered much of this material last week, and I apologize to my colleagues for repeating it, but I have received a lot of questions and comments regarding the comments we made, and I felt in order to review it appropriately we would have to cover all of the material, but in a somewhat more cursory fashion. In addition, this evening we are going to add another dimension to the topic, and that is to discuss its relevance for national and economic security. So I hope that those who have listened to and seen the presentation last week will enjoy this one, again, because it will be somewhat modified. The first point I would like to make about energy is that it is unique. Energy is unique, and unique means there is nothing else like it. That is very true about energy. Let me describe two, just two factors about energy that demonstrate this. First of all, energy is our most basic natural resource. Why? Because without it, we cannot use our other natural resources. Just think about any natural resource you might wish to use, whether it is copper or iron or some other natural resource. Suppose you want to use some copper, you want to do some plumbing in your house or you want to run some copper wires through your house. Where do you get the copper? You have to dig copper ore out of the ground. It takes energy to do that. Once you get the copper out of the ground, you have to process it. You have to smelt it or use some similar process for that to purify the copper. That takes energy. Then you have to transport it to the fabrication plant. If you are going to use copper for plumbing, then you have to transport it to a plant that can convert it to tubing. It takes energy to transport it to the plant, and then it takes energy to manufacture the tubing from the copper. And when you finally finish, it takes energy to transport the copper to the store near your home, and it takes energy for you and your car to drive down and buy it and drive it back home, and finally, you install the copper. Every single step of the way of using that natural resource, that copper, involved the use of energy, and that is why I say energy is our most basic natural resource, because without it we cannot access and use our other natural resources. The second unique aspect to energy as a resource is that it is a nonrecyclable resource. Once you use it, it is gone. Now, that is not true of copper. You use copper tubing, and eventually the house may be demolished, you can save the copper and recycle it and use it over and over. The same with iron. The same with many other natural resources. But with energy, it is different. The laws of thermodynamics are very explicit and the laws of thermodynamics are laws of physics that have been known for over a century, well over a century, and there have been no violations observed to those laws. These are laws of nature governing our creation. One aspect of that energy is it is a nonrecyclable resource. Once you use it, it is gone. You put a tank full of gasoline into your car, you drive your car around, and a week later it is all gone. There is nothing left to recycle. It is energy that has been converted into kinetic energy of motion into friction, and eventually all of it gets converted into heat and radiates out into space. Now, an important side effect of this, of our dependence on energy as being the most basic natural resource and something we cannot recycle, is that the price of energy affects our economy more than the price of almost any other resource. So when the price of gasoline goes up, it has a dramatic affect on us, but even more than that, and an even more dramatic affect, is the price of energy affects the cost of manufacturing something, the cost of digging it out of the ground. So when the price of energy goes up, the cost of living goes up because the price of almost everything goes up. Let us take a look at something else about energy, another aspect. Energy appears to be intangible. You cannot really detect energy very well with your senses, and energy has many, many different forms. But you cannot touch it, see it, feel it, smell it, or taste it, except for light and heat; those are pretty obvious to our senses of seeing and the sense of feeling something hot. But energy is largely intangible. And, for most people, the only tangible aspect of energy is the price at the gas pump and the utility bill at the end of the month, and that is how you tell when you have used energy and how much you have used. Now, it is different for scientists. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) and I recognize the nature of energy because we have worked with it so much. To us energy is very tangible and we can develop a sense of feeling for energy and when it is being used, but for most people it is not. That leads me to a comment that I made a number of times: I wish energy were purple. I really wish energy were purple, because if energy were purple we could see it, we could all see it. We could see when it is being used, when it is being wasted. And if in the middle of winter you drive up to your house and you look at your house and see purple oozing through the walls, you say, I better get better insulation in this house. Or you see rivulets of purple running from your windows and doors, you say, I have to tighten up those windows and doors. I cannot have all that money being wasted in energy. But we cannot see it, so we do not know it. If energy were purple, we would see how cars use it when they go by us on the freeway, we would see it around us in many different ways, and we would certainly treat it more carefully and certainly try to save more money by saving more energy. Something else about energy I have pointed out before is how important it is, that energy actually, as its very base, affects civilization. And by proof of that statement, I just offer two things. The reason it does affect civilization, by the way, is because energy represents the ability to do work. That is the actual definition in physics, and that relates to some of the ways that we use energy in everyday language. Have you ever gotten up in the morning and said, boy, I am full of energy today. I cannot wait to get out there and chop some wood. Or other mornings you wake up and you say, oh, I am so tired, I do not have any energy today; I do not think I can do anything. That is reflecting this statement. Now, how does energy affect civilization? As I said, I give two examples. The first is use of nonhuman energy; in other words, the use of domesticated animals led to the agricultural revolution. People tried agriculture before the agricultural revolution took hold. It did not work. But once they developed a way to use nonhuman energy, they had animals pulling the plows, then it worked, because there was enough more energy added to the mix so that it actually helped advance the agricultural revolution and changed civilization. Thousands of years later, we developed another use of energy, the first use of nonanimal energy. We turned away from domestic animals and we started developing engines, motors, tractors, things that could do work for us, and we ran those by using fossil fuels, first coal and then petroleum, oil, and natural gas. And that led to the industrial revolution, the second major revolution that historians talk about. So energy has a dramatic effect on civilization. Now, how do we deal with energy use? And I have been amazed at the number of comments and telephone calls that I have received since we have put this on the board last week and talked about it, people who are intrigued by this as a very useful model. And let me talk about this. Let us just look at the left-hand side first. We will talk about income savings and inheritance. Now, these terms are all familiar to everyone. Most of us try to get a job so that we have some income. This is the way we handle our money. We try to live within our means, within our income. We also try to build up the savings account for special occasions, special events, saving money towards a car or a refrigerator, washing machine. And then some of us are fortunate enough to get an inheritance. So that is the way we handle our money. Now, a model for responsible energy use is to look at energy in the same way. We have an income of energy on this planet. Where does it come from? Most of it comes from the sun. We have what is called solar energy which has many different forms. We receive it mostly as light from the sun. And it takes 8 minutes to get here from the sun. But the sun produces vast amounts of energy. And so we have a lot of solar energy impinging on the Earth at all times. That energy, a lot of it, goes into growing plants. We refer to that as biomass. And we take these plants, and we can burn that to extract energy from it. Solar energy through differential heating of the atmosphere creates wind. And we can tap into wind energy. That is another way of using solar energy. Hydropower. Building big dams and backing up the water behind them, and having them turn the turbines so we generate the electricity. That again is solar energy. The sun's energy evaporating the water from the oceans and the lakes gets into the atmosphere, it rains down on the Earth behind the dams, and the water shed, we get to collect it behind the dams. So that is another way of using solar energy. Wave energy. Waves are generated by the winds, which are generated by the sun's energy. So another way to tap solar energy. And, finally, tidal energy, which comes from the tides, which are generated by the motion of the Moon. Now, all of those are sources of income for our energy mix. And if we are wise, we will try to live within our energy income, just as we try to have our families live within our personal income. So that is the best use of energy, try to use our income energy. What about the savings? What does that represent? Well, first of all, in wood, solar energy helps grow the trees. The trees become very large. There is a lot of energy there. We can burn the wood as the people in this planet did for many millennia. But also there are other savings accounts we have below the surface. Coal, oil, natural gas, all of them are captured solar energy. Energy that grows plants, the plants died, they decayed. And in the process of decaying, they are transformed into other chemicals. But they still return energy from the sun. And so we have a savings account on the surface of the Earth; we have the wood. Underneath the Earth, underneath the surface we have coal, oil, natural gas. And this is over-simplified. I can name other examples. Finally, an inheritance. These came with the Earth. As the Earth was created, it was very hot. Hot body. And a lot of that heat is still there underneath the surface of the Earth. In fact, the center of the Earth is molten iron. So it has a lot of heat there. And we could tap that inheritance, if we wish. Also nuclear energy. That was there from the beginning of the Earth, and through radioactive decay. It has changed over the years. Nevertheless there is still a lot of nuclear energy available to us if we mine appropriate ores and use it properly. So income, savings, inheritance. We should live within our income. We should use our savings only for emergencies, and inheritance, tap into that when we need it; but if you have a good inheritance, you can tap into it for quite a while. The savings is where we are exceeding our quota; and my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) will talk about that a bit later, and particularly the fact that we have finite resources of coal and natural gas and we should be quite careful in how we use those resources because there are not that many. I am not saying we should not use them; but the point is, if we use them, we should use them to help develop other energy sources so that our children and grandchildren will have energy available for use. Now, let me add something else that is of extreme importance on this issue. And these are quotes that are taken from the document prepared by the Energy Future Coalition and contained in a letter addressed to President Bush from representatives of this Energy Future Coalition. I cannot list all of the names corresponding to this, but Frank Gaffney was a leader in this, and James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, certainly someone who knows about security, C. Boyden Gray, Robert McFarlane, and many others signed this document, including a number of our military people. And I bring this forward because too many people in America have this idea somehow that conserving energy, using energy carefully, living within your income is some fuzzy-headed liberal idea. I am only pointing out here it is a national security issue as well, and we have got some very conservative individuals and military people who are signing and saying, well, the policy we are pursuing is not a good one. First quote: ``U.S. dependence on foreign petroleum poses a serious risk to our national and homeland security as well as our economic well-being.'' Why is that? Because if it is from foreign countries, first of all, we have to buy it. That contributes to an economic problem, namely, our deficit, a trade deficit. But, secondly, much of the money is going to people who really are not that friendly to us, and, in fact, some are downright enemies. So dependence on foreign petroleum poses a serious risk to our national and homeland security. Another quote from the document: ``Some foreign interests have used oil revenues to purchase destabilizing weapons or to support terrorism.'' Where do you think Osama bin Laden got the money that he used to attack New York, destroy the Twin Towers and kill 3,000 Americans? It was not his personal fortune, although that also came from oil; but it came from many, many of the dollars that we sent overseas to buy oil. And it really irritates me. It burns me up that our Nation is sending money abroad to people who are using it to, in turn, attack us. I would also say the same, incidentally, about the drug trade, because much of the drug money has been used also in the war on terror against us. Two other quotes in the document from the Energy Future Coalition, and the letter addressed to the President: ``We must act now. Technologies exist today that can improve efficiency and produce clean domestic petroleum substitutes.'' There is no question about that. But they need some development money to really get going. And some of these technologies are, for example, improved nuclear reactors. They will be safer and operate more efficiently. No green- house gases produced. We can do a much better job with that, but also with photovoltaics. I have a report here which appeared in the American Physical Society News in April, about photovoltaics, so-called solar cells, which are now becoming very efficient and very soon will reach the point where they can be used, for example, as shingles on houses. So on a house, you cannot only put shingles on your house to protect it from the rain, but also to generate electricity, to operate your appliances, your lights and everything inside the house. Another important point from the Energy Future Coalition, and that is that the cost of action is far smaller than the risk of inaction. And there is no excuse for further delay. I totally agree with the comments in their letter; and I hope that we can, as a Nation, act on this, these ideas, and not only improve our energy future but also improve our national security. Well, basically, I have been talking about energy because I hope this will help all of my colleagues and our Nation to appreciate energy. My hope is that a better understanding of energy will lead to a wiser use of it by our citizens. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am pleased to turn it over to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett); and he will talk, as I said earlier, about petroleum reserves and what we are doing with our petroleum, and how we are using it so rapidly that the price is going up, as we know every time we go to the gas station, and it is going to get worse and worse until we take appropriate action. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Maryland. The gentleman has given an excellent presentation. Unfortunately, we do not have time to go into details, but as the gentleman mentioned, I believe we have other time next week when we can do that. I look forward to hearing more from the gentleman about his field of expertise. Mr. Speaker, I would also enter into the record a letter from the Energy Future Coalition which was sent to President George W. Bush along with some attached material which I think is very important for our colleagues to peruse and it will certainly be of interest to other people in this Nation. I want to thank the four gentlemen who joined me here this evening, all of them are experts in different areas relating to energy. They have done an excellent job of presenting things, and I hope this clarifies the energy situation and sheds some light on our efforts to ensure that we advance energy efficiency, advance energy conservation, advance development of new sources of energy, and, in particular, in terms of the chart I used, let us get away from using our savings; let us get on to using our income and some of our inheritance so that we have a balanced economy in the future and a safer Nation. `Set America Free' a Blueprint for U.S. Energy Security Introduction Historically, the United States has pursued a three-pronged strategy for minimizing the vulnerabilities associated with its dependency on oil from unstable and/or hostile nations: diversifying sources of oil, managing inventory in a strategic petroleum reserve and increasing the efficiency of the transportation sector's energy consumption. In recent years, the focus has been principally on finding new and larger sources of petroleum globally. Rapidly growing worldwide demand for oil, however, has had the effect of largely neutralizing this initiative, depleting existing reserves faster than new, economically exploitable deposits are being brought on line. Under these circumstances, diversification among such sources is but a stop-gap solution that can, at best, have temporary effect on oil supply and, hence, on national security. Conservation can help, but with oil consumption expected to grow by 60 percent over the next 25 years, conservation alone will not be a sufficient solution. The `Set America Free' Project Long-term security and economic prosperity requires the creation of a fourth pillar--technological transportation of the transportation sector through what might be called ``fuel choice.'' By leading a multinational effort rooted in the following principles, the United States can immediately begin to introduce a global economy based on next-generation fuels and vehicles that can utilize them: Fuel diversification: Today, consumers can choose among various octanes of gasoline, which accounts for 45 percent of U.S. oil consumption, or diesel, which accounts for almost another fifth. To these choices can and should promptly be added other fuels that are domestically produced, where possible from waste products, and that are clean and affordable. Real world solutions: We have no time to wait for commercialization of immature technologies. The United States should implement technologies that exist today and are ready for widespread use. Using existing infrastructure: The focus should be on utilizing competitive technologies that do not require prohibitive or, if possible, even significant investment in changing our transportation sector's infrastructure. Instead, ``fuel choice'' should permit the maximum possible use of the existing refueling and automotive infrastructure. Domestic resource utilization: The United States is no longer rich in oil or natural gas. It has, however, a wealth of other energy sources from which transportation fuel can be safely, affordably and cleanly generated. Among them: hundreds of years worth of coal reserves, 25 percent of the world's total (especially promising with Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle technologies); billions of tons a year of biomass, and further billions of tons of agricultural and municipal waste. Vehicles that meet consumer needs (e.g., ``plug-in'' hybrids), can also tap America's electrical grid to supply energy for transportation, making more efficient use of such clean sources of electricity as solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and nuclear power. Environmentally sensible choices: The technologies adopted should improve public safety and respond to the public's environmental land health concerns. Key Elements of the `Set America Free' Project Vehicles Hybrid electric vehicles: There are already thousands of vehicles on America's roads that combine hybrid engines powered in an integrated fashion by liquid fuel-powered motors and battery-powered ones. Such vehicles increase gas- consumption efficiency by 30-40 percent. Ultralight materials: At least two-thirds of fuel use by a typical consumer vehicle is caused by its weight. Thanks to advances in both metals and plastics, ultralight vehicles can be affordably manufactured with today's technologies and can roughly halve fuel consumption without compromising safety, performance or cost effectiveness. ``Plug-in'' hybrid electric vehicles: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are also powered by a combination of electricity and liquid fuel. Unlike standard hybrids, however, plug-ins draw charge not only from the engine and captured braking energy, but also directly from the electrical grid by being plugged into standard electric outlets when not in use. Plug-in hybrids have liquid fuel tanks and internal combustion engines, so they do not face the range limitation posed by electric-only cars. Since fifty-percent of cars on the road in the United States are driven 20 miles a day or less, a plug-in with a 20-mile range battery would reduce fuel consumption by, on average, 85 percent. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can reach fuel economy levels of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline consumed. Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs): FFVs are designed to burn on alcohol, gasoline, or any mixture of the two. About four million FFV's have been manufactured since 1996. The only difference between a conventional car and a flexible fuel vehicle is that the latter is equipped with a different control chip and some different fittings in the fuel line to accommodate the characteristics of alcohol. The marginal additional cost associated with such FFV-associated changes is currently under $100 per vehicle. That cost would be reduced further as volume of FFVs increases, particularly if flexible fuel designs were to become the industry standard. Flexible fuel/plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: If the two technologies are combined, such vehicles can be powered by blends of alcohol fuels, gasoline, and electricity. If a plug-in vehicle is also a FFV fueled with 80 percent alcohol and 20 percent gasoline, fuel economy could reach 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. If by 2025, all cars on the road are hybrids and half are plug-in hybrid vehicles, U.S. oil imports would drop by 8 million barrels per day (mbd). Today, the United states imports 10 mbd and it is projected to import almost 20 mbd by 2025. If all of these cars were also flexible fuel vehicles, U.S. oil imports would drop by as much as 12 mbd. Fuels Fuel additives: Fuel additives can enhance combustion efficiency by up to 25 percent. They can be blended into gasoline, diesel and bunker fuel. Electricity as a fuel: Less than 2 percent of U.S. electricity is generated from oil, so using electricity as a transportation fuel would greatly reduce dependence on imported petroleum. Plug-in hybrid vehicles would be charged at night in home garages--a time-interval during which electric utilities have significant excess capacity. The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that up to 30 percent of market penetration for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with 20-mile electric range can be achieved without a need to install additional electricity-generating capacity. Alcohol fuels: ethanol, methanol and other blends: Ethanol (also known as grain alcohol) is currently produced in the U.S. from corn. The industry currently has a capacity of 3.3 billion gallons a year and has increased on the average of 25 percent per year over the past three years. Upping production would be achieved by continuing to advance the corn-based ethanol industry and by commercializing the production of ethanol from biomass waste and dedicated energy crops. P-Series fuel (approved by the Department of Energy in 1999) is a more energy-efficient blend of ethanol, natural gas liquids and ether made from biomass waste. Methanol (also known as wood alcohol) is today for the most part produced from natural gas. Expanding domestic production can be achieved by producing methanol from coal, a resource with which the U.S. is abundantly endowed. The commercial feasibility of coal-to-methanol technology was demonstrated as part of the DOE's ``clean coal'' technology effort. Currently, methanol is being cleanly produced from coal for under 50 cents a gallon. It only costs about $60,000 to add a fuel pump that serves one of the above fuels to an existing refueling station. Non-oil based diesel: Biodiesel is commercially produced from soybean and other vegetable oils. Diesel can also be made from waste products such as tires and animal byproducts, and is currently commercially produced from turkey offal. Diesel is also commercially produced from coal. Policy Recommendations Provide incentives to auto manufacturers to produce and consumers to purchase, hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and FFVs across all vehicle models. Provide incentives for auto manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency of existing, non-FFV auto models. Conduct extensive testing of next-generation fuels across the vehicle spectrum to meet auto warranty and EPA emission standards. Mandate substantial incorporation of plug-ins and FFVs into federal, state, municipal and covered fleets. Provide investment tax incentives for corporate fleets and taxi fleets to switch to plug-ins, hybrids and FFVs. Encourage gasoline distributors to blend combustion enhancers into the fuel. Provide incentives for existing fueling stations to install pumps that serve all liquid fuels that can be used in the existing transportation infrastructure, and mandate that all new gas stations be so equipped. Provide incentives to enable new players, such as utilities, to enter the transportation fuel market, and for the development of environmentally sound exploitation of non- traditional petroleum deposits from stable areas (such as Canadian tar sands). Provide incentives for the construction of plants that generate liquid transportation fuels from domestic energy resources, particularly from waste, that can be used in the existing infrastructure. Allocate funds for commercial scale demonstration plants that produce next-generation transportation fuels, particularly from waste products. Implement federal, state, and local policies to encourage mass transit and reduce vehicle-miles traveled. Work with other oil-consuming countries towards distribution of the above-mentioned technologies and overall reduction of reliance on petroleum, particularly from hostile and potentially unstable regions of the world. A New National Project In 1942, President Roosevelt launched the Manhattan Project to build an atomic weapon to be ready by 1945 because of threats to America and to explore the future of nuclear fission. The cost in today's prices was $20 billion. The outcome was an end to the war with Japan, and the beginning of a wide new array of nuclear-based technologies in energy, medical treatment, and other fields. In 1962, President Kennedy launched the Man to the Moon Project to be achieved by 1969 because of mounting threats to U.S. and international security posed by Soviet space- dominance and to explore outer space. The cost of the Apollo program in today's prices would be well over $100 billion. The outcome was an extraordinary strategic and technological success for the United States. It engendered a wide array of spin-offs that improved virtually every aspect of modern life, including but not limited to transportation, communications, health care, medical treatment, food production and other fields. The security of the United States, and the world, is no less threatened by oil supply disruptions, price instabilities and shortages. It is imperative that America provide needed leadership by immediately beginning to dramatically reduce its dependence on imported oil. This can be done by embracing the concepts outlined above with a focus on fuel choice, combined with concerted efforts at improving energy efficiency and the increased availability of energy from renewable sources. The estimated cost of the ``Set America Free'' plan over the next 4 years is $12 billion. This would be applied in the following way: $2 billion for automotive manufacturers to cover one-half the costs of building FFV-capability into their new production cars (i.e., roughly 40 million cars at $50 per unit); $1 billion to pay for at least one of every four existing gas stations to add at least one pump to supply alcohol fuels (an estimated incentive of $20,000 per pump, new pumps costing approximately $60,000 per unit); $2 billion in consumer tax incentives to procure hybrid cars; $2 billion for automotive manufacturers to commercialize plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; $3 billion to construct commercial-scale demonstration plants to produce non-petroleum based liquid fuels (utilizing public-private cost-sharing partnerships to build roughly 25 plants in order to demonstrate the feasibility of various approaches to perform efficiently at full-scale production); and $2 billion to continue work on commercializing fuel cell technology. Since no major, new scientific advances are necessary to launch this program, such funds can be applied towards increasing the efficiencies of the involved processes. The resulting return-on-investment--in terms of enhanced energy and national security, economic growth, quality of life and environmental protection--should more than pay for the seed money required. Gary L. Bauer, President, American Values. Milton Copulos, National Defense Council Foundation. Congressman Eliot Engel. Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy. Bracken Hendricks, Apollo Alliance. Col. (ret.) Bill Holmberg, American Council on Renewable Energy. Anne Korin, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. Deron Lovaas, Natural Resources Defense Council. Gal Luft, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. Cliff May, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Hon. Robert C. McFarlane, Former National Security Advisor. Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum. Professor Richard E. Smalley, 1996 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry. Admiral James D. Watkins, Former U.S. Secretary of Energy. Hon. R. James Woolsey, Former director of the CIA, Co- Chairman, Committee on the Present Danger. Meyrav Wurmser, Hudson Institute.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I appreciate his words about the Jetsons. Both previous speakers mentioned we have to be smart with the smart cars of the future. I would say if we are not smart, we may end up like the Flintstones, instead of the Jetsons. So it is very important for us to do the long-term planning we need to in this body. Also the gentleman mentioned the document from the Energy Future Coalition, which I also have. National security is a very, very important part of this discussion, and it really irritates me that we are financing our foes in the Middle East by sending all this money over there which they are diverting into instruments of war against us. With that, I am pleased to recognize our final speaker of the day, another scientist, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is an expert on what is called ``peak oil.'' In other words, we talked about the finiteness of the oil and natural gas supplies. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is the expert, and he will explain that to us.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight with several of my colleagues to discuss an issue of great importance to our Nation, and I know that everyone that gets up here starts the same way, but this is a particularly important issue, one that the three of us wish to discuss as scientists, or those who have a great interest in science. Tonight's topic is going to be energy. You have heard a lot about energy recently, worried about the gas prices, worried about the energy policy bill that we have worked on in the House and the Senate is now studying. Energy is extremely important, but what is most important to me when we are talking about energy or any other issue is to talk about the long-term effects because that is what the people hire us for. They elect us to come here and discuss and debate the future of this Nation, and it is very easy to forget that because we are always caught up in the instantaneous things we do, the stuff we have to get done today; but the people of this land, struggling every day to make a living, keep ends together, do not have the time to do the long-range thinking. Corporate leaders are bound by their requirement to produce profits every quarter, to get the stock price up. It is up to us to really think about where this Nation is going and what is really important and what is likely to happen to it. So I wish to approach this topic this evening to talk about our energy future, where are we now, what is energy like, what is going to happen in the future; and between the three of us discussing this this evening, I hope that we can enlighten our colleagues and others who are interested in the topic. Let me begin by an introductory way just talking about energy and the nature of energy. I happen to be a scientist, a physicist to be more precise; and I have been involved in energy studies for some 30 years, but also because of my background in physics, I have learned a lot about energy, and I would like to tap some of that knowledge to talk about some of the issues and point out some of the characteristics of energy. First of all, energy is unique. Unique means there is nothing else like it. It is unique in several ways. Energy is our most basic natural resource. For one simple reason: Without it, we cannot use our other natural resources. Now, let me give an example of that and to prove my point that energy is our most basic natural resource. If you would like to build something out of iron, suppose it is a car or a can or whatever, the first thing you have to do is dig the iron ore out of the ground. That takes energy. Then you have to transport the ore to the smelting plant and recover the iron out of the ore. Transportation takes energy. Smelting it takes energy. When you are finished with that, you transport it the rolling mill. That takes energy. And you roll it out into sheet steel so it is easier to work with. That takes energy. Then you transport it to the factory. That takes energy. Finally, you fabricate a car or something else out of it, and that takes a lot of energy. Finally, you transport the finished product to the consumer, which once again takes energy. Notice that every step of the way you were using energy in order to use other natural resources. I could have picked any other natural resource, and the same thing would be true. So energy is our most basic natural resource. You must always remember that. But secondly, and perhaps even more important, energy is a non-recyclable resource. Once you use it, it is gone. Now, if we use up our iron, we could go mine our landfills. We can recover scrap iron, as we do already to a great extent, and we can recycle it over and over and over. There is only so much iron on this planet, but we can keep using it over and over and over, and we are not likely to run out. Its cost may go up, but it is still there. But when you use energy, it is gone. When you fill your tank with gasoline and you drive it for a week and the tank is empty, the energy is all gone. It is used up. Where does it go? We know energy is conserved, but it can change form. All the energy from the petroleum you put in your car, from the gasoline you use, gets consumed and turned into heat energy, largely unusable heat energy. And eventually, that gets radiated out into space, and it is gone for us forever. So these two important features define a great deal about energy and how we should treat it and how we should handle it. Finally, because of this, the price of energy affects our economy more than the price of almost any other resource, simply because when the price of energy goes up, that price gets added on to every step of the manufacturing process which I mentioned. Let me mention some other characteristics of energy. Energy is intangible to most people. To me, as a scientist, it is very tangible. I have worked with energy so long I can almost touch it, feel it, taste it, et cetera. But to the average person, you cannot touch it. You cannot see it, unless it is light energy. You cannot feel it, unless it is heat energy. You cannot smell it, and you cannot taste it. So energy is intangible. To most people, the only tangible aspect of energy is the price at the gas pump or the utility bill at the end of the month. Because energy is intangible, people tend not to understand it. They do not know how to use it properly. I have a saying I often use, and I even have a tie to match the color I am talking about, I wish energy were purple. Because if energy were purple and people could see it, their behavior would change. When they drive home from the store or from the church and drive up to their house in the middle of winter and see a purple haze oozing through the walls because of poor insulation, or purple rivulets around the windows or doors because they are leaking heat, they would say, Man, that is terrible; I have to insulate this house better. I have to seal up the windows and doors more. Because they do not see it, it is not purple so they cannot see it, they are not aware of this. If you were driving down the highway and a little Toyota Prius or some other hybrid car goes by, something like the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) drives, and he may discuss that a little later this evening, and this little Prius goes by, and there is just a little purple around it, because it does not use much energy; but then a Hummer or a large SUV goes by, and there is a purple cloud around it, if people could see it they would say, Hey, I am going to get a Prius or some other hybrid car and use less energy. So I wish energy was purple so it would be tangible to everyone. I think behaviors would change very quickly. To show the importance of energy, I would like to point out that energy affects civilization in a very direct way because energy represents the ability to do work. That, in fact, is the definition of work in physics. Energy represents the ability to do work. With the first use of nonhuman energy, in other words using animals to plow the fields and so forth, we had the agricultural revolution beginning. We talk about these big revolutions in the human history, and the agricultural revolution is a large one. There is no contention about that. But the agriculture revolution occurred only after we started using nonhuman energy, because people were not strong enough to really do a good job of pulling plows. Before they had plows that they could pull, people tried agriculture, and it never really succeeded until they discovered they could domesticate oxen or other animals and have them do their work, and then the agriculture revolution succeeded. The next big step was again related to energy. You have heard of the industrial revolution, where we began using industry to manufacture things and to replace human labor. What did we use? Fossil fuels. Coal first and then oil and eventually natural gas. So the first use of nonanimal energy led to the industrial revolution. Once again, this indicates how important energy is to life on this planet and to civilization and to our economy. I have drawn here on this chart a model for responsible energy use, trying to relate it to something that everyone understands. When you talk about your money, you go out and get a job because you need to eat, and you would like to have a house and a car. So you get a job, and you earn money. That is income. And most people in this country have to live within their income. That is what everyone aspires to. Sometimes, there are special needs, and you dip into your savings. And some are fortunate enough to inherit some money. So that is the model of individual use of money. Now, you can look at energy the same way. If you look at the income of energy on our planet, most of it comes from solar energy. We talk a lot about using biomass. That is energy from the sun captured by plants, and we can try to retrieve the solar energy from that. Wind energy. Lots of efforts to build windmills and use wind energy. Once again, that energy comes from the sun because the sun differentially heats the atmosphere and that causes the wind to blow. How about hydropower? Huge dams generating lots of electricity for us. Once again, that is solar energy, because the sun evaporates the water off the oceans and the lakes, gets into the clouds and comes down as rain, collects behind the dams, and we use that energy. Waves are also related to solar energy, because that powers the wind, which generates the waves, and people have tried to extract that energy. The only one on this list that is income energy but not from the sun is from the moon, and that is the tidal energy. And efforts have been made to tap that, but it is pretty tough to do and you do not get a lot of energy out of it. What about the savings? Our savings account are all the fossil fuels; coal, oil and natural gas. Those are stored solar energy. That comes from plants which grew many, many, many, many years ago. Those plants eventually got covered up and over the years decayed and turned into coal, petroleum, natural gas. Then there is wood, which is also a short-term savings account. Again, it is plant. It really could go up in biomass here, but trees live a long time, so I put it down here in our savings account because, normally, we do not use all that energy in our lifetime. Finally, our inheritance, that is energy we inherited with this planet. Our universe and our planet were so beautifully created, and there are energy sources within the planet. There may be more than I have listed, but certainly geothermal energy. Heat energy within the earth can be used to drive power plants and already is in certain parts of California and other parts of the world. And nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is so long term, and it is basically there from the creation of the earth, so nuclear energy I would also classify as an inheritance. Now, I would propose that when we are using energy, we should treat it the same way we do our money; try to live within our income. In other words, try to use as much as we can of the solar energy, lunar energy and so forth. Recognize we have to dip into our savings account, and so we can use the fossil fuels and wood for that, but not to the extent we are using it now so that we use it all up, unless we use that to develop new energy resources for our children and grandchildren. And, finally, the inheritance. That is a long-term thing, but we do not want to depend totally on it. But certainly, that is there and that is a very promising thing to pursue. Finally, I hope as a result of the discussion we have tonight that all of us in this Congress and all the people of this country will come to appreciate energy. It is my hope that a better understanding of energy will lead to a wiser use of it by our citizens. And so that is the theme of this hour's discussion we are going to have tonight. Mr. Speaker, I have been joined by several colleagues, and next I would like to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his perceptive comments and his poetic, almost philosophical, statements. I appreciate that. I would just like to add one quick note. When you refer to photovoltaics, I just read an article a week or two ago on this. It is just astounding to me how fast the field has developed in the last few years. Let me just give one quote: We expect that by 2015, photovoltaics will be producing electricity at the cost of 6 cents per kilowatt hour. That is generally less than people are paying for their electricity at their home. And there are no transition costs because you can keep the photovoltaic unit right in your home generating electricity for your home. A friend of mine has built a house which is totally independent of outside energy using photovoltaics and other things. He lives 5 miles from the nearest power line. It works beautifully. But the very interesting thing is that the prediction is that half of new U.S. electricity generation by 2025 will be produced by photovoltaics, replacing a lot of power plants. I was pleased when I read this. I thought, this fellow really knows what he is talking about. I got to the end and looked at the name. It is Mr. Al Compaan, professor at the University of Toledo and a former student of mine. I did not realize until I reached the end that he was one of my students. We have approximately 30 minutes, and I have three more speakers so if each of them could limit themselves to 10 minutes or less, I would appreciate it. Next I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) who was with the Congress for 6 years, term- limited himself, very honorably, and has now returned to us having fulfilled that commitment.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. And I particularly would like to emphasize a couple of things. First of all, many people tend to assume hydrogen is a new source of energy. It is not a source of energy because free hydrogen does not occur in nature. We have to produce it. And highlighting the needs, we have to develop means of production and storage and distribution, which includes transportation to the gas stations. It is going to be a real revolution. I would expect, by 2020, we will see a substantial number of those vehicles on the road. It is going to take a lot of hard work, but it will be worth it because they will be essentially pollution free, and if we produce the hydrogen using nuclear energy or solar energy, something other than petroleum, we will also be contributing to a cleaner atmosphere and get rid of the greenhouse gasses. So I thank the gentleman very much for his contribution, and I am delighted to have him on the Committee on Science with me. Mr. Speaker, next I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) who has Oakridge National Laboratories within his district and is very interested in science and particularly in energy, which is natural because the Oakridge Laboratories is a Department of Energy facility. So I am very anxious to hear what he has to add to the discussion this evening.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. If the gentleman will yield, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. It just reminded me of something I often say to students when I am in high schools. I tell them, Look, you have a choice: You can either be a nerd, or you can end up working for a nerd. Which would you rather be? That is what it is likely to come down to in the future because, if you do not understand math and science, you are not going to have a really quality job.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for the glowing introduction. I would return the compliment, and the gentleman from Delaware has done a superb job of chairing the subcommittee dealing with education. I appreciate his efforts. He deals primarily with K-12 education and is largely responsible for all the good things that we have done and that he has been talking about. My first comment is simply one I have to get off my chest, because I heard so many falsehoods about this last year during the campaign when individuals were asserting over and over and over that we Republicans had passed No Child Left Behind, but we had not provided funding for it. That is just utter nonsense. If you look at the history of what the appropriations were from the Federal Government for K-12 education before No Child Left Behind was passed and what they have been after, it is clear that there is a huge difference. I believe my colleague will probably discuss that later and show a graph which shows how rapidly it has increased under the Republicans. Republicans are the true friends of education and have been for years; and this is a dramatic demonstration of it, increasing 148 percent in our funding over a short number of years. Now that I have that off my chest, I will talk about math and science education. The No Child Left Behind bill contains some provisions which were not in there before, and that is that students not only will be tested on reading but also on math and science. They are being tested on mathematics right now to find out how well they are learning and how much they are learning. In the year 2007-2008, for the first time, they will be tested on science. And States are, as we speak, drawing up requirements, standards that the students must meet, and they are developing appropriate tests for those standards. Now, why is math and science so important? A lot of people think, well, it is great if you want to be a doctor or an engineer or a scientist, fine, take math and science. But if you do not want to be any of those, why bother? Well, I will tell you why it is important. Because the jobs of the future are simply going to require that the individuals applying for those jobs have an understanding of the basic principles of science and mathematics. It is that straightforward. I can give a good example of that just in my personal experience. Last year, I was driving down the highway and listening to National Public Radio, and they were doing a story about grease monkeys, or what used to be called grease monkeys, mechanics who work on cars. In the course of doing the story, they interviewed a service manager of a dealership and asked, what do you look for when you hire a new mechanic? He said, first of all, they have to have had high school algebra and high school physics. That was amazing to me, because when I graduated from high school many years ago, those who were planning to become mechanics did not take physics or algebra because they did not need it. They were planning to be mechanics, so why bother taking it. But the world has changed. The cars back then had no computers under the hood. Today, there are literally hundreds of microchips under the hood of every car. And anyone who wishes to be a mechanic had better understand how to do the diagnostics, how to read the curves and graphs the diagnostic equipment displays. And so that is just one example out of many. My district has a lot of manufacturing, as does much of Michigan; and when I tour those factories, it is a different world today. The people who work on those machines understand math and science. And if they do not, they will not get that job. They are making good money, $60,000 or $70,000 a year. But they earn it because they have studied hard to learn math and science, and they have learned it well. Our country in the future is going to need good technicians, good mathematicians, good scientists, good engineers, but also good factory workers, because the jobs in the factories are changing. Jobs in retail are changing. Jobs in many areas of life are changing, and we have to do a better job than we have been. How have we been doing compared to other countries? The Third International Mathematics and Science Study, which occurred a number of years ago, was very revealing. In the United States, the fourth grade was a little below average in mathematics. By eighth grade, we were way below average. By high school, our students, our high school students compared to those of other industrialized countries were second from the last. Now, I have never regarded America as a Nation to be second from the bottom. I have never regarded our Nation to be average. We should be better than average. But our students are not performing in mathematics. A similar test for physics was even worse. We were dead last of all industrialized nations in high school physics. More recent tests bear the same trend out. We are just not meeting the needs of the future. We are not competing with other nations. We are losing ground to them. A lot of people say, why do kids really need it? Well, I talked about the jobs of the future, but let me outline that it is more than just that. We need scientists and engineers to provide the kind of innovation that will keep jobs here. We constantly complain about jobs going to China, to Mexico, to Thailand, and to India. Why are they going there? It is not just the different wage rate. It is the fact that they have highly trained scientists and engineers, whereas in America, engineering enrollments have gone down steadily for the past 20 years, just starting to come up the last couple of years. In China, they went from producing far fewer engineers than we do to producing more than four times as many engineers every year as we do, and they are beginning to innovate. They are beginning to develop new products. They are developing new factories, and we are falling behind in that. But there are other reasons to teach math and science. Consumers today need to know when they are in the marketplace, they have to know something about science to read all the labels on materials and understand what there is in these foods and what is in these products they are buying, whether they are safe or not, and how do you read the labels, the content labels and the warnings. Also, voters have to know. Today, with referenda, particularly in California, they frequently have referenda on things such as the environment. Last election they had one on stem cells. How are the people supposed to vote on these if they know nothing about math and science? Math and science also produces thinkers and learners. It is a different learning process to learn math and science. I hear this a lot from people: oh, it is so hard. Do our kids really have to take it? Or, I just could not get math when I was in school. I hear this over and over. What they fail to recognize is that math and science require a different mode of thought because science uses a different mode of inquiry. I do not think it is any harder than anything else, but it is a different way of learning, something most students have not experienced before if they have not had good math and science education in the first eight grades. I recall a case where I was teaching a student when I was a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. She came in with a total mental block. This was the most elementary physics course in the department, Physical Science 10. She said, I cannot get this stuff. I cannot get it. I cannot get it. And I worked and worked with her, and spent hours with her; and finally she saw the light and learned how to think properly. I had not heard from her for years after she left my class. When I came to Congress, I got a little note from her. She is now the director of a laboratory in Wisconsin. So even someone who felt they had no hope of passing learned how to learn, and from then on it was good. But also we have other reasons for it. Economic security. The better jobs go to those who understand math and science. National security. The Rudman Report of a few years ago made the most striking statement I have heard, and that is that the greatest danger our Nation faces beyond nuclear war is the fact our students are not able to compete in the world market and, therefore, we are facing dramatic problems in our Nation if we do not improve. Now, what can we do about this? Everyone always blames the teachers first. I have worked with teachers in the classroom for some 30 years. I have gone in the classrooms, I have taught myself, I have taught the teachers how to teach students, and I will not say a bad word about the teachers. Because all the teachers I worked with earnestly wanted to do a better job of teaching. The problem is they had not been taught math or science properly. They had not been taught how to teach it properly, and they just felt it was hopeless. They did not know where to start, what could they do. So I believe our role as the Federal Government is to provide training opportunities, both preservice and in-service training for teachers, teaching them math and science, but also how to teach math and science. In addition to that, we need improved curricula that really teaches science the way it should be taught. The way to teach science is by doing it, not by talking about it; and that we have to get across. Because the kids love science if it is taught by doing it. They love doing the experiments. They love figuring it out. But if they have to just sit and read a book and memorize all the terms of science, it is not going to appeal to them, and they will not learn what science is all about. So we need inquiry-centered curricula. We need hands-on curricula, where kids actually use materials and work with them; but it also has to be based on the concepts of science. Too often education programs emphasize either inquiry or they emphasize the hands-on approach or they emphasize concepts, and they all argue with each other about what approach to take. To me the answer is simple: it is all of them. You combine all of those and develop curricula that really meet the needs of the kids, keep them excited and interested, and also provide the teacher training so the teachers can teach those courses. We are facing a crisis because of this. But there is another reason: India and China. Almost 20 years ago, India made the decision that the only way they were going to compete in the world today is by developing strong backgrounds in math and science, and they had a unique way of doing it. They set up an institute of science, mathematics, theoretical physics, and all these things, similar to MIT and Harvard combined, and set that as the goal for every child in the nation to achieve. And it really worked. All the parents wanted their kids to go to that school. It was the best school in India, and arguably one of the best in the world. So the parents wanted their kids to go. They made sure they studied math and science hard. Now, obviously, not all of them made it; but in the process of trying, many of them ended up learning enough math and science so that when they got to the university, they could study more math and science and choose one of many different careers. In conclusion, let me just say that we live in a very competitive global economy. If we are serious about competing in this global economy, we have to make certain that we work smarter. And to do that we have to make sure that our kids are smarter; that they learn the right things in school; that they are fit for the job market of the future; that we can compete with these other nations and beat them at their own game, and that we can maintain our strong economy in the face of this global competition. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield back to the gentleman from Delaware, and I thank him for accommodating me for such a lengthy discourse.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce comprehensive legislation to protect and restore the Great Lakes. I am pleased to be joined by Rep. Mark Kirk and 17 bipartisan original cosponsors. The Great Lakes are a national treasure, providing drinking water to millions of people and supporting billions of dollars in trade, fishing, and recreation. While we have taken steps to improve environmental conditions in the basin, the Great Lakes still suffer from pollution from contaminated sediments, storm water and agricultural runoff, and wetlands and coastal habitat loss. As its name indicates, the Great Lakes Environmental Protection and Restoration Programs Reauthorization Act reauthorizes several federal Great Lakes environmental programs in one comprehensive package. The bill also provides a mechanism for coordinating activities among the various federal agencies that carry out these programs, along with a process for coordination and future planning among federal, state and local program managers and the private sector. Finally, the bill reauthorizes the State Revolving Loan Fund under the Clean Water Act, in order to address wastewater infrastructure needs. The bill provides about $4 billion over 6 years by increasing the authorization levels for current major environmental programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the most effective way to undertake a major restoration initiative is to do so within the context of current programs, through higher funding and improved coordination among federal, state, and local agencies and cooperation with interested stakeholders. The bill includes federal programs at the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill is specifically targeted to address the costly big-ticket items that will have a dramatic impact on improving the health of the Lakes. This includes $1.65 billion for cleaning up Areas of Concern, a total that is consistent with recent low-end estimates from site experts on AOC sediment remediation needs. It also provides $640 million for fisheries, wildlife, ecosystem and habitat restoration programs. The bill provides about $900 million for research and monitoring programs at the EPA, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The bill also authorizes extramural grants to public universities and private institutions to conduct this important work. These activities are critical to the successful planning, implementation and oversight of restoration efforts. The bill also reauthorizes the national State Revolving Loan Fund and provides $20 billion over 5 years to assist communities with the critical task of upgrading and improving their wastewater infrastructure. This piece is taken from H.R. 1560, passed by the Water Resources Subcommittee in the 108th Congress. Sewer system needs are a critical component of keeping the Great Lakes and their tributaries clean, and the State Revolving Loan Fund has been a successful program for helping cities and towns undertake these very expensive upgrades. Finally, the bill codifies Executive Order #13340, signed by the President in May 2004, and codifies the regional collaboration process outlined in conjunction with the E.O. on December 3, 2004, by the Administrator of the EPA, the Great Lakes governors, tribal leaders, several Members of Congress, and others. This will continue to improve collaboration among the many projects and programs operating in the Basin and ensure long-term stability to the preparation and oversight of the comprehensive restoration action plan currently under development. Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to clean up and to protect this precious resource. My bill provides the funding and the coordination necessary to implement the programs we have in place and to accomplish the shared goals of the region. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would just like to make a few closing comments. I was struck by the fact that Mr. Miller spent some time working in an auto-parts warehouse. There must be some relationship between that and the University of Michigan because my youngest son also spent some time working at an auto-parts warehouse because he did not intend to go to college or a university. After a short time, he decided to go to college and today is a faculty member in geophysics at the University of Michigan. So for those wishing to succeed at the University of Michigan, they may consider starting to work at an auto-parts warehouse. I also want to recognize the importance of the preeminent play that Mr. Miller wrote, ``Death of a Salesman.'' Very few works of the theater or cinema have affected me as much as that, simply because it struck me as someone who is a generation removed from the time of that particular play. I was just astounded at the generosity of Willy Loman's neighbor who recognized that Willy was in trouble, tried to help him, and every once in awhile would slip him $20 and say, ``Do not worry about repaying it. Whenever you get it, just give it back to me.'' What struck me about that was there was no widespread social network in those days, and people depended on their neighbors. This is something we have lost today. Handing a neighbor $20 in the 1930s and early 1940s is equivalent to handing them more than $100 today; and how many of us would casually slip $100 to a neighbor and say, Here, do not worry about it, just pay it back when you can. I think that encapsulates the spirit of that era. It was very tough times in the 1930s after the Great Depression, yet everyone helped each other, and that is how we as a Nation survived and became the great Nation we are today. I have many personal differences with Mr. Miller and his stance and position on various issues, but I think it is appropriate to recognize genius when and where it exists, and it is certainly appropriate for us to honor him today. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution honoring Mr. Miller and the University of Michigan for its role in naming a theater after him. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 216, which honors the great American playwright Arthur Miller, and also honors the University of Michigan for building a theater in his name. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz) for his work on this resolution, and I recognize his contributions to the University of Michigan and its alumni association. As a talented and brilliant playwright, Arthur Miller was a legend of his time. Most widely known for his work ``Death of a Salesman,'' Miller enjoyed a successful career and earned great celebrity status. Miller's significant contribution to theater and society at large can be felt even today. According to Robert Falls, director of Chicago's Goodman Theater, ``Not a day goes by that, somewhere around the world, one of Miller's plays is not being performed.'' Miller's fame, however, did not come without hard work and an ability to translate the human condition onto the American stage. Throughout his life, he overcame much adversity, and this struggle played out through his many works. After graduating from high school in 1932, Miller worked in an auto- parts warehouse to earn money for college. Reading great novels by world-famous authors, Miller decided to become a writer. In order to follow this passion, he applied to the University of Michigan in 1934 to study journalism. Ironically, the university initially denied admission to Miller because of his less-than-stellar high school career. He failed algebra three times in high school. (And, of course, that stabs me right in the heart as a scientist!) He gained admittance only after appeal to the dean. After being accepted, however, Miller thrived at the university and won two of the university's prestigious Hopwood Awards for his playwriting. After graduating in 1938, Mr. Miller returned to New York and launched his career. His first successful play was in 1947 when ``All My Sons'' ran for 328 performances on Broadway. In 1949, Miller won international recognition and a Pulitzer Prize by producing his most famous work, ``Death of a Salesman,'' which is known as one of the major achievements of modern-day theater. The story portrays the tragedy of Willy Loman, a salesman living around the time of World War II, who fails in pursuit of the American Dream. The powerful story is still well known and read today. Throughout his successful career, Miller maintained his connection to the University of Michigan. He often visited to meet and work with students in the theater program. The university awarded him an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters in 1956, and Miller worked with the Alumni Club of New York to establish the Arthur Miller Award for aspiring writers. In 2000, Miller sent a simple postcard to the university allowing it to name a theater after him. Therefore, it is fitting that Arthur Miller's lasting contributions as a playwright and author will be forever remembered through the Arthur Miller Theater. It is my pleasure to commend the University of Michigan for honoring his memory and impressive accomplishments. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 216, the resolution now under consideration.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 216) to honor the late playwright Arthur Miller and the University of Michigan for its intention of building a theater in his name, as amended.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would just like to add my voice, and I know the Chamber is not as full as it should be for this occasion, but I have served in public office for approximately 30 years. I am relatively quiet, but I do a lot of observation. And I have noticed over the years that there are some people who are simply very outstanding by making a lot of noise but not doing much. The people I prefer, whom I have observed also, are those who do a great deal but do not make a lot of noise about it. And the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is in the latter category. I have watched him over the years I have been here. An outstanding person, very hard worker, always behind the scenes, not asking for credit or bragging about what he has done. This is what makes the government work. This is what made the House work. And I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and wish him the best of everything in his new position. I am sure he will do equally well in that position and will continue to serve this country well.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to codify the Executive Order that established the Invasive Species Council and gave the Council responsibility for coordinating all invasive species activities across the federal government (Executive Order #13112, issued in February 1999). Invasive species, such as the snakehead fish and zebra mussel, cause an enormous economic, ecological and human health toll on the United States every year. There are over 20 different federal agencies involved in prevention, eradication, control, monitoring, research and outreach efforts to deal with the threat of invasive species, and this Executive effort seeks to make these efforts more coordinated, effective and cost-efficient. Better management of invasive species efforts across federal agencies is critical to an effective response to this threat, and the Executive Order was the right first step. However, it is only the first step. Congress now needs to pass this legislation to give the Council more authority to effectively meet this threat. Since its inception, the Council has made progress in achieving its mandate. In particular, in January 2001 the Council issued the National Management Plan to provide a general blueprint of goals and actions for federal agencies to better deal with invasive species. While this broad plan lacks detail in some areas, it helps focus the various federal efforts on common goals and coordinated actions. In addition, the Council established a federal advisory committee consisting of 32 members from a broad array of stakeholders. The advisory committee has met several times in order to provide guidance on the development of the National Management Plan and on federal agency actions regarding invasive species in general. While the Council has had some success, its authority to coordinate the actions of federal agencies has been limited. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recognized this problem, reporting that agencies did not incorporate the components of the National Management Plan into their annual performance plans. In addition, the GAO recommended that the Council study whether or not a lack of legislative authority has hampered its mission. Key agencies of the Council have already recognized this lack of authority as problematic and have supported codification of the Council in testimony before a November 2002 joint hearing of the House Resources and House Science Committees on aquatic invasive species. The legislation I am introducing today essentially keeps the existing structure of the Council intact, while at the same time it addresses issues raised by the GAO by giving the Council a clear statutory mandate. First, the legislation maintains the Executive Order's statement of administration policy that federal agencies should not undertake actions that may lead to the introduction or further spread of invasive species without careful consideration of the costs that the proposed action may cause. The legislation requires that the Council on Environmental Quality, in conjunction with the Council, issue guidelines for federal agencies to help them consider the consequences of any proposed action. The intent of this provision is to create a common set of guidelines by which all federal agencies can measure their actions, not to give individuals a private right of action against government agencies that take actions regarding invasive species. Second, the legislation makes some modifications to the existing institutional structure of the Council. The membership of the Council will remain the same; however the legislation updates the membership, as described by the Executive Order, to reflect additional agencies that have been added since 1999. It also makes the Council an independent entity within the Executive Branch, to be chaired on a rotating basis by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce. This is a change from the Executive Order, which called for the Council to be housed within the Department of the Interior and chaired by that agency. If the Council is to be a truly independent entity that can work with all federal agencies, this change is necessary. Third, the legislation retains the duties of the Council as described by the Executive Order (including development of an updated National Management Plan), but it adds some new duties in order to give the Council more tools to use in coordinating federal programs. In particular, the Council must submit an annual list of the top priorities in several different areas related to addressing the threat posed by invasive species. The legislation also specifically calls upon the Council to work with federal agencies during the budget development and submission process in order to ensure that budget priorities reflect the priorities of the National Management Plan. The legislation also calls on the Office of Management and Budget to develop a crosscut budget of all invasive species efforts in the federal government. This is a necessary tool for the Council to coordinate efforts among the various federal agencies. Finally, the legislation retains the existing Invasive Species Advisory Council to serve as an important contributor to the ongoing dialogue between the federal government and stakeholders to ensure that the federal government acts in the most effective way. This legislation will help further the federal government's efforts to combat invasive species, and I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill that is a critical component in our efforts to combat aquatic invasive species--the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act. This legislation is similar to legislation that was reported out of the House Science Committee in the 108th Congress. It creates a comprehensive research program that supports federal, state and local efforts to prevent invasive species from ever entering our waterways, as well as detection, control and eradication efforts once they are here. It complements a bill introduced today by Mr. Gilchrest in the House and Senators Collins and Levin in the Senate to reauthorize the National Invasive Species Act. This legislation is a critical component in our battle against these harmful and extremely damaging pests. In undertaking this effort, I have found that many people wonder-- ``What is an invasive species? Why it is so crucial to keep them out of United States?'' It is important that we understand these questions so that we can appreciate the scope of the threat that invasive species pose to our economy and environment. The introduction of non-native species is not new to the United States. People have brought non-native plants and animals into the United States, both intentionally and unintentionally, for a variety of reasons, since the New World was discovered. Some examples include the introduction of nutria (which is a rodent similar to a muskrat) by trappers to bolster the domestic fur industry, and the introduction of the purple loosestrife plant to add rich color to gardens. Both nutria and purple loosestrife are now serious threats to wetlands. Non-native species may also be introduced unintentionally, such as through species hitching rides in ships, crates, planes, or soil coming into the United States. For example, zebra mussels, first discovered in Lake St. Clair near Detroit in the late 1980s, came into the Great Lakes through ballast water from ships. Not all species brought into the country are harmful to local economies, people and/or the environment. In fact, most non-native species do not survive because the environment does not meet their biological needs. In many cases, however, the new species will find favorable conditions (such as a lack of natural enemies or an environment that fosters propagation) that allow it to survive and thrive in a new ecosystem. Only a small fraction of these non-native species become an ``invasive species''--defined as a species that is both non-native to the ecosystem and whose introduction causes or may cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. However, this small fraction can cause enormous damage, both to our economy and our environment. The economic damage includes the cost of control, damage to property values, health costs and other factors. Just one species can cost government and private citizens billions of dollars. For example, zebra mussels have cost the various entities in the Great Lakes basin an estimated $3 billion during the past 10 years for cleaning water intake pipes, purchasing filtration equipment, and so forth. Sea lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes cost approximately $10 million to $15 million annually; and, on top of these expenses, there is the cost of lost fisheries due to this invader. In fact, invasive species now are second only to habitat loss as threats to endangered species. Given the enormous economic and environmental impacts these invaders cause, two clear goals emerge: First, we need to focus more resources and energy into dealing with this problem at all levels of government; second, our best strategy for dealing with invasive species is to focus these resources to prevent them from ever entering the United States. Spending millions of dollars to prevent species introductions will save billions of dollars in control, eradication and restoration efforts once the species become established. In fact, one theme is central to both Mr. Gilchrest's bill and this legislation. It is an old adage, but one worth following--``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' To successfully carry out this strategy, we need careful, concerted management of this problem, supported by research at every step. For example, we know that we must do more to regulate the pathways by which these invaders enter the United States (ships, aquaculture, etc.), which is an important component of Mr. Gilchrest's legislation. However, research must inform us as to which of these pathways pose the greatest threat and which techniques used to manage each pathway are effective. This legislation would help develop this understanding through the ecological and pathway surveys conducted under the bill. In fact, research underlies every management decision aimed at detecting, preventing, controlling and eradicating invasive species; educating citizens and stakeholders; and ensuring that resources are optimally deployed to increase the effectiveness of government programs. These items are also reflected in the legislation, which I will now describe in more detail. The bill is divided into six main parts. The first three parts outline an ecological and pathway research program, combining surveys and experimentation, to be established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and the United States Geological Survey. This program is focused on understanding what invasive species are present in our waterways, which pathways they use to enter our waterways, how they establish themselves once they are here and whether or not invasions are getting better or worse based on decisions to regulate pathways. In carrying out this program, the three principal agencies will develop standardized protocols for carrying out the ecological and pathway surveys that are called for under the legislation. In addition, they will coordinate their efforts to establish longterm surveys sites so we have strong baseline information. This program also includes an important grant program so that academic researchers and state agencies can carry out the surveys at diverse sites distributed geographically around the country. This will give federal, state and local managers a more holistic view of the rates and patterns of invasions of aquatic invasive species into the United States. Lastly, the principal agencies will coordinate their efforts and pull all of this information together and analyze it to help determine whether or not decisions to manage these pathways are effective. This will inform policymakers as to which pathways pose the greatest threat and whether or not they need to change the way these pathways are managed. The fourth part of the bill contains two programs to develop, demonstrate and verify technologies to prevent, control and eradicate invasive species. The first is an Environmental Protection Agency grant program focused on developing, demonstrating and verifying environmentally sound technologies to control and eradicate aquatic invasive species. This research program will give federal, state and local managers more tools to combat invasive species that are also environmentally sound. The second is expansion both in terms of scope and funding of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Fish and Wildlife Service program geared toward demonstrating technologies that prevent invasive species from being introduced by ships. This is the federal government's only program that is focused solely on helping develop viable technologies to treat ballast water. It has been woefully underfunded in the past and deserves more attention. The fifth part of the bill focuses on setting up research to directly support the Coast Guard's efforts to set standards for the treatment of ships with respect to preventing them from introducing invasive species. Ships are a major pathway by which invasive species are unintentionally introduced; the ballast water discharged by ships is of particular concern. One of the key issues that has hampered efforts to deal with the threats that ships pose is the lack of standards for how ballast water must be treated when it is discharged. The Coast Guard has had a very difficult time developing these standards since the underlying law that support their efforts (the National Invasive Species Act) did not contain a research component to support their work. This legislation provides that missing piece. Finally, the sixth and final part supports our ability to identify invaders once they arrive. Over the past couple of decades, the number of scientists working in systematics and taxonomy, expertise that is fundamental to identifying species, has decreased steadily. In order to address this problem, the legislation sets up a National Science Foundation program to give grants for academic research in systematics and taxonomy with the goal of maintaining U.S. expertise in these disciplines. Taken together, both my bill and Mr. Gilchrest's bill represent an important step forward in our efforts to prevent invasive species from ever crossing our borders and combat them once they are arrive. New invaders are arriving in the United States each day, bringing with them even more burden on taxpayers and the environment. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to deal with this problem, and so I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.