Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce with my colleagues ``The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Competitiveness Act.'' I introduced legislation in both the 108th and 109th Congresses focused on strengthening U.S. manufacturing, and both times it was passed by the House. I am pleased that this bill contains many of the same provisions as well as others, since the global competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing remains a pressing issue. The President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), started in 2006, launched a three-pronged approach to competitiveness by strengthening research at the National Science Foundation, Office of Science at the Department of Energy, and the laboratories and construction of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This bill addresses the last of these agencies by fully supporting the ACI requested improvements, as well as reauthorizing programs at NIST crucial to our global competitiveness. Although manufacturing has experienced tremendous technological gains over the last few years, international competition has exacted a terrible toll on our nation's manufacturers. In particular, our small and medium-sized firms are under tremendous pressure to become more efficient, to modernize, and to cut their prices. There is no evidence that these pressures are likely to go away. This bill will help address long-term problems facing our nation's manufacturers by broadening and strengthening manufacturing extension services and creating a new program to revive manufacturing innovation through collaborative research and development. Specifically, this bill will address the competitiveness needs of our Nation by: Reauthorizing the critical programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a federal research laboratory dedicated to ensuring U.S. leadership in technology-based standards and industries; creating a new collaborative research and development program for manufacturing technology; creating a fellowship program at NIST to develop U.S. manufacturing research expertise; reauthorizing and creating a new grant program within the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program so that the MEP Centers can extend their expertise to a range of problems beyond their current scope of activities; and establishing the Technology Innovation Program and Advisory Board to help bring more innovative technologies to market. I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for working in a bipartisan manner to introduce this bill, which addresses such an important topic to our nation. I appreciate the efforts of the majority to consider the input of the minority members of the Science and Technology Committee. Madam Speaker, it is incredibly important to our future for this nation to remain competitive today. Congress must provide a coherent federal response to the changes that are underway in manufacturing, and to support the technological innovation that is fundamental to retaining our manufacturing strength. This bill provides a mechanism for that crucial response and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue in the 110th Congress.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to announce the recipients of the 2007 Achieving Excellence Awards (ACE) for the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. This year's award winners are Darrell Norman, Liz McBride-Chambers, Scott Hood, Wanda Jackson, Cari Knowles, Traci Beaubian, Patricia Nuzzo, Jim Caskey, Dave Woodburn and Christine Stewart. Their ACE Awards acknowledge the exceptional efforts made by these employees to provide quality service to the Members, Committees and offices of the House of Representatives. The recipients of the 2007 CAO ACE Awards represent many areas of the CAO organization, perform a variety of jobs, and provide a wide range of services to the House community. Whether working directly with Members or staff, supporting CAO internal operations, or ensuring the technical infrastructure is operational, each serves as an exemplary role model for the entire CAO community. Collectively and individually they deliver solutions that fulfill our goal of providing a quality customer experience. Employees nominated for an award must be in a full-time status and have a current excellent performance rating. Nominations for the awards are submitted by managers or supervisors within the organization. The nominations are then reviewed by a committee comprised of the CAO's leadership team with final award recommendations submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer for approval. Darrell Norman, a CAO employee who died this past January, is being honored posthumously as one of the recipients of the ``CAO Excellence'' award. As a long-time employee of the CAO Technical Support team, Darrell exemplified the customer service standards of the CAO organization, the consultative approach to working with Members and staff to identify practical solutions, and a great attitude that resonated with all whom he worked with and served. Starting this year, the CAO Excellence award will be formally re- named the ``Darrell Norman Excellence Award'' as an ongoing tribute to Darrell's many years of exemplary service to the House, in recognition of the tremendous role model he was for his CAO colleagues, and to acknowledge his ``can-do'' attitude and his infectious spirit. Liz McBride-Chambers and Edward (Scott) Hood were selected as additional recipients of the ``Darrell Norman Excellence Award.'' In her role as a member of the Office of Employee Assistance and the Human Capital Solutions team, Liz is a critical member of the CAO team. She embodies the mission, vision and values of the organization and provides her exceptional consultative skills and excellent customer service to the entire House community. She brings passion, integrity and an unwavering commitment to the ``people'' of the CAO organization and the House in everything that she does, whether providing employee assistance services to an individual House employee, consulting with a Member's Chief of Staff to identify a team development solution, or conducting a training program for a specific work group. Scott Hood, as a supervisor in the Joint Capitol Service Center, inspires and motivates his staff and others to deliver quality services and solutions to many problems for the offices located in the Capitol. Scott has also been a key contributor to our efforts to enhance customer satisfaction and to work across the organization and with a variety of service partners to deliver solutions that exceed the expectations and needs of their customers. He has been particularly effective in bringing his change management and leadership skills to bear in developing an effective partnership with the Architect of the Capitol to deliver seamless solutions to House Leadership Offices. Wanda Jackson is the 2007 recipient of the ``Simplify the Day'' award. As a Telephone Systems Consultant, Wanda is committed to going the extra mile for her customers and her colleagues. This past year, she stepped in to fill the void left by the departure of a senior telecommunications administrator in the midst of the Congressional transition, and she took on the support of sixty Member offices throughout the transition, including the coordination of the installation of voice and data services in the District offices of several freshman Members. Wanda worked tirelessly on behalf of one particular District office to troubleshoot their problem with the local telephone company and to manage the set-up process to the point of resolution and the complete satisfaction of the office. Cari Knowles is being recognized with the ``Personalized Solutions'' award. In her role of providing graphics-related support services to Members, Committees, and House support offices, Cari has contributed significantly to raising customer expectations for the Graphics office through the excellence of her work, her ability to build relationships of trust with her customers, and her commitment to personalize a variety of graphics solutions for each customer. By carefully listening to her customers, she brings them a particular value through her ability to take ownership for their project by helping them define their requirements and identify the most appropriate solution to their unique graphics production needs. Traci Beaubian and Patricia Nuzzo have been selected to share the 2007 ``Dedicated'' award. Traci Beaubian's persistence in getting the new payroll system stabilized after a challenging conversion process is reflective of her dedication to the House, to her colleagues, and to the House workforce. She looks beyond the surface to identify existing and potential challenges, works with her team to develop practical and innovative solutions, and accepts responsibility for the work of her team in carrying the solution forward. This past year she developed a successful audit technique to identify unusual variances in salary amounts which produced measurable results that were recorded on the CAO's financial statements. Patricia (Trish) Nuzzo, as a senior member of the CAO Advanced Business Solutions team, has responsibility for support of the payroll system covering day-to-day operations, audit management and long-term project support. Her ability to balance short- term and long-term objectives, her positive attitude, and her collaborative approach to resolving problems helps diffuse difficult situations. Trish has been particularly effective as a facilitator in bringing diverse teams together to develop and arrive at workable solutions by matching the right people to the situation, issue or challenge. Her dedication to her work and her ability to recognize and harness the talents of multiple team members has earned her the respect of her colleagues and her customers. James (Jim) Caskey and Charles (Dave) Woodburn are each being recognized with the ``Knowledge'' award. In his role as a Senior Procurement Specialist, Jim Caskey's knowledge and skills in negotiation have saved the House tens of thousands of dollars annually through the effective procurement of professional services and software licenses and maintenance agreements. Jim consistently provides the House community, his procurement colleagues, and the program offices he supports with his expert advice, his extensive experience and his service-minded attitude. His knowledge is particularly evident in the mentoring relationships he has with other procurement personnel and in his creativity in finding innovative and effective solutions to procurement and purchasing issues. Dave Woodburn's knowledge and contribution to the CAO organization and the House far exceeds his immediate responsibilities in the Central Receiving and Warehousing Department, and makes him a ``go-to'' resource for his co-workers, vendors and contractors alike. In addition to having a firm understanding of the needs of the Members, Committees and staffs that he serves, Dave has brought added value to the organization by applying his knowledge of services and processes to meet challenges enthusiastically, while using his excellent people skills to build solid relationships with House offices and vendors and to resolve issues with staff and internal customers in an amenable fashion. Christine Stewart is the 2007 recipient of the ``One Team'' award. Her dedication, professionalism, outstanding customer service skills, and knowledge of procurement management and the House environment have made Christine a valuable team member to the CAO Procurement team and the offices she supports throughout the procurement and purchasing processes. There is never a task that she is not willing to take on, regardless of the level of effort required or the urgency of the procurement need. This was particularly evident this past year during the Congressional transition when, in response to an urgent procurement requirement, she secured inventory services within 6 days while saving the House over $70,000. On behalf of the entire House community, I extend congratulations to the family and colleagues of Darrell Norman, and to Liz McBride- Chambers, Scott Hood, Wanda Jackson, Cari Knowles, Traci Beaubian, Trish Nuzzo, Jim Caskey, Dave Woodburn, and Christine Stewart for their tireless efforts and outstanding contributions to the U.S. House of Representatives. I extend my condolences to Darrell's family, and I wish his CAO colleagues and this year's CAO ACE Award recipients continued success in their endeavors and contributions to the House community.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor in strong support of H. Res. 89, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a day should be established as Dutch-American Friendship Day, to celebrate the historic ties of the United States and the Netherlands. My district in West Michigan has some of the deepest roots of Dutch- American history and heritage in the country. Dutch explorers, traders and settlers were a significant part of the earliest European exploration of the New World, especially in New York and New Jersey. However, the first major wave of Dutch immigration began in the 1840s with the Dissentings (later on known as Calvinists), a new group of religious people in the Netherlands. Like so many of the original settlers here in America, they wanted more religious liberty than they experienced in their home country. They were also seeking prosperity in a time of economic downturn and agricultural hardship in Europe. So the Dutch pilgrims dared the journey across the Atlantic to New York and then moved across northern New York and finally settled near the shores of Lake Michigan. Waves of Dutch settlers soon found Grand Rapids and Holland, Michigan, to be the places of job growth and the religious liberty they were seeking. I am proud to report that the traditions of a ``Dutch work ethic'' and religious devotion still permeate Grand Rapids and the West Michigan region today. Generations of Dutch immigrants have enriched our area with the unique customs and traditions of their ancestral homeland. They are a people that have given the world great artists, celebrated philosophers, noted theologians, and leaders of international business. The Dutch-American Friendship Day called for in this resolution would be an honorable response to annual celebrations in the Netherlands. Every year, the Dutch-American community in the Netherlands commemorates the bilateral relations between the Netherlands and the United States. Celebrated on April 19, the Dutch-American Friendship Day remembers the day that John Adams, the second president of the United States, was received by the States General in The Hague and recognized as an ambassador of the United States of America. It was also the day that the house he had purchased at Fluwelen Burgwal 18 in The Hague became the first American Embassy in the world. Today, the diplomatic ties between our two governments are the longest continuous ties between the U.S. and any other country in the world. This long history of diplomacy, cooperation and friendship should be lauded as an example for all nations. I congratulate my colleague from West Michigan, Peter Hoekstra--himself a Dutch-American--for introducing this resolution. I am proud of my family's and my wife's family's Dutch roots, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H. Res. 202, which provides approximately a 2.4 percent increase to committee budgets in the 110th Congress. I believe I speak for both myself and my colleague, Ms. Millender- McDonald, when I say we would have liked to have seen a larger increase to relieve some of the financial constraints that have been placed on committees. I totally agree with her concerns, which she expressed a moment ago, about the salaries of staff members, both in personal offices and in committees, and several Members on our side of the aisle have raised that same concern with me. We, of course, as Members of the Congress, will not receive any increase in salary this year, but we expected that, and we have no problem dealing with that. However, it is different for our staffs. They have lush fields of opportunity outside of this institution, and we hope that all staff members will bear with us during this lean time during the next year or two and not be attracted to these lush fields, but remain with us, so that the institution can continue to function as well as it has. The committee and ranking members alike face an increasing workload each year with limited resources and staff. Despite the funding limitations we have this year, it is my sincere hope that even a modest increase will be of use to committees in performing the important work that they do, and also my fond hope that through a normal appropriations process this year, there will be adequate funding to deal with the business of the Congress during the next fiscal year. My goal during the course of providing funding levels for House committees in the 110th Congress has been twofold: first, to maintain what has in the last few years been a relatively smooth committee funding process. Many of our chairmen and ranking members have established standing precedents about the operating practices within their respective committees and have functioned for many years in accordance with those principles. Based on the productive hearing we held last week during which the chairs and ranking members testified on their budget requests, I believe we have continued that smooth process following the pattern of the last several Congresses. Second, I wanted to ensure that an equitable division of funding continues. When the Republicans previously served in the minority, we were not provided with sufficient funds or staff. As an example, one of the major committees was given only 11 percent of the resources assigned to that committee, whereas the then majority, the Democrats, retained 89 percent for themselves. This is not appropriate or fair. During the course of the past 12 years, the Committee on House Administration has reached an agreement on maintaining two-thirds of the funding for the majority and one-third for the minority, and I am very pleased that every committee chairman who came before the committee promised to honor and continue that commitment, that allocation, and we are delighted that the new majority's continuation of that split will serve as good guidance for the future as well. It is vital to the strength of the House of Representatives as an institution that the minority, no matter which party it is, continues to be given adequate resources, and that each chairman and ranking member be able to come to an arrangement that is satisfactory for both parties. Adjustments to the two-thirds/one-third budget allocation have been made in the past, for instance through the years of shared staff or a centrally managed budget for non-personnel expenditures. My goal is not to discourage these types of arrangements between the chairman and the ranking minority member. In fact, I admire the creativity and cooperation demonstrated by some of our chairmen and ranking members to establish a process that works for their particular committees. However, I do want to ensure that those in the minority continue to be given adequate resources and that each chairman and ranking member are able to come to an arrangement that is satisfactory for both parties. I conclude by thanking our chairwoman, Ms. Millender-McDonald, for conducting this process in an open and transparent fashion. While we were only able to provide a small percentage increase for each committee when compared to last year's budget, we are pleased that we have accomplished the goals of a smooth process that maintains the two- thirds/one-third allocation.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a junior member of our committee, but a very experienced junior member, one of the outstanding freshmen and a member of the steering committee.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a brief comment. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his comments, and I certainly agree with him. It would have been much better had that special committee been processed through the Committee on House Administration, as all other committees are. I want to also let him know it is even worse than he said, because the total over the 2-year life of this special committee, the select committee that is being formed, is approximately, $3.7 million, which is a large amount of money for any committee to have. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 9 minutes to another gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who is also on our committee.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to conclude. I wish to make a few comments about some of the points raised by the members of the committee on our side of the aisle. First, I voted for this resolution as it came out of committee, without any dissent, because I thought we had done the best job we could, with both parties working together, to fairly distribute the limited funds that we had. What is upsetting our side of the aisle and upsetting a number of individuals are two things: first, the select committee apportionment. I can assure you I am not opposed to forming the Energy Independence and Global Warming Select Committee. It is a major issue, a major topic, which probably has to be studied by a special task force, a select committee, simply because the issue is so complex and cuts across so many committees' jurisdictions that this is the only way to effectively conduct the study and come to an answer. I do, however, strongly object to the process of adding this huge amount of money, $3.7 million, in the confines of the Rules Committee. That is something that I had hoped and expected would come to our Committee on House Administration so that the Chair of the committee and I could work on this issue with all of the parties involved and ascertain the needs of the select committee and determine the precise allocation needed. What particularly angers me about this is that we did not fully fund the Ethics Committee at the level it should be funded. The reason was we simply didn't have the money. Now, suddenly, there is an extra $3.7 million. I would have much preferred to allocate part of that to the Ethics Committee and reduce the amount for the select committee. I am sure they would not have noticed the difference, whereas the Ethics Committee would notice a huge difference and would be able to do its work effectively. With those caveats, I want to express my disappointments with the process, not within our committee, but the process outside our committee. I wish it would have gone through our committee, and we would have dealt with it properly. My final comment is simply to say most Members of Congress do not realize what an incredible amount of work goes into this budget process. It took our committee a full day just to hear the testimony, but that was the easy part. The tough part is for the staff to assemble all of the numbers and get them in order, particularly when there is a transition from one party to the other. That adds complexity and difficulty to the task. I want to thank Peter Sloan and George Hadijski from our side of the aisle, who did an excellent, an outstanding job on this issue. But even though normally one only praises the people on their own side of the aisle, I want to take special note of some individuals who worked very, very hard on the majority side, simply because their job was monumental having to do it for the first time. I particularly want to commend Charlie Howell, Janelle Hu and Matt Pinkus for their hard work. They worked closely with our team, and we were very happy to help them. But I can't emphasize enough what a horrendous task this is to put together all these budgets very quickly, and both sides did yeomen's work. I am very pleased. I think they set a pattern for the committee because they worked so closely together on this, both parties equally shouldering the burden and not worrying about how many hours they were spending on whose job; and I think that is a good pattern for us to follow for the next 2 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, the Great Lakes provide drinking water for 40 million people, and 56 billion gallons of water per day are used for municipal, agricultural, and industrial use. The Great Lakes contain 5,500 cubic miles of freshwater--that's 6 quadrillion gallons of water, equal to 90 percent of U.S. supply and 20 percent of world supply. In fact, if you emptied the Great Lakes onto the continental U.S., everything would be under 9\1/2\ feet of water. The Great Lakes shoreline stretches for 10,210 miles. That's a lot of sand for summer Saturdays at the beach. The Great Lakes contain over 250 species of fish, and they sustain a $4 billion sports fishery industry and millions more in commercial fishing. Is it any wonder that we call them great? The lakes are the foundation of our region's quality of life, and they are a national treasure. The Great Lakes are so vast, so majestic, and so plentiful that we might think they can withstand any contamination. We take them for granted. But the Great Lakes have suffered from years of industrial pollution, stormwater and agricultural runoff, the introduction of invasive species, and wetlands and coastal habitat loss. The size and shape of the Lakes only contribute to the problem. The retention rate for Lake Superior is 191 years. Lake Michigan is 99 years. It takes the Lakes that period of time to cycle through water and get rid of pollutants. The Lakes are nearing a tipping point of environmental pollution from which they might not be able to recover. Closed beaches, fish consumption restrictions, loss of wildlife habitat, and depleted fish stocks are harbingers of problems that will only worsen over time. Thankfully, we largely know what needs to be done to clean up and protect the Lakes. In December 2005, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, initiated through an executive order by President Bush, produced a strategic action plan for protecting and restoring the Great Lakes. The Regional Collaboration--a partnership of Federal program managers, State governors, mayors, scientists, industry leaders, anglers, hunters, environmentalists, and other interested private stakeholders--focused their attention on addressing the most critical threats to the Lakes. The diverse group of 1,500 participants developed recommendations for addressing aquatic invasive species, habitat protection, coastal health, Areas of Concern and contaminated sediment, non-point source pollution, toxic pollutants, scientific research and monitoring, and sustainable development. Today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to address these threats. As its name implies, my bill--the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act--makes many of the necessary legislative changes to implement many of the policy recommendations contained in the Strategy. This bill prevents further biological contamination from aquatic invasive species introductions. It also helps clean up contaminated sediments in rivers and harbors and restores beneficial uses of those waters. Provisions in the legislation will restore wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitat, and help communities improve their wastewater infrastructure and prevent sewer overflows. Finally, the bill strengthens scientific research and monitoring activities in the Lakes, so that we can monitor our progress and make good decisions on what steps to take next in clean up and restoration efforts. The solutions are practical and manageable. The sooner we pass this bill and provide the necessary funding levels for these programs, the less costly the solutions will be in the long run. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Ms. Berendina R.H. (Diet) Eman, who this morning became one of the newest citizens of our United States of America. Ms. Eman is a native of The Netherlands, but has been a lawful, permanent resident of the United States in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for more than 4 decades. Ms. Eman deserves special recognition because during World War II, she was a member of the Dutch Underground Resistance to the Nazi occupiers of The Netherlands. As a young woman, Diet bravely and courageously saved the lives of countless Jewish Dutch citizens, helped numerous Allied soldiers escape from Axis forces and ultimately was imprisoned in the Vught concentration camp for her activities. For these many acts of bravery, Ms. Eman was recognized immediately after the war by Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower, then the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. She received a certificate signed by General Eisenhower expressing ``the gratitude and appreciation of the American people for gallant service in assisting the escape of Allied soldiers from the enemy.'' Years later, Diet was recognized by the Government of The Netherlands for her acts and also received a letter of commendation from President Ronald Reagan in 1982. In that letter, President Reagan noted that she ``helped write one of the great chapters in the annals of bravery,'' adding, ``In risking your safety to adhere to a higher law of decency and morality, you have set a high and fearless standard for all those who oppose totalitarianism.'' She is now nearly 87 years old, and I am humbled by her excitement to become a U.S. Citizen after first coming to our country on December 31, 1960. This morning at 10 a.m., she was sworn in as a citizen by the Hon. Robert Holmes Bell in a private oath ceremony in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Although I was unable to attend the ceremony due to our duties here in Washington, I hope the members of this House of Representatives will join me in thanking Ms. Eman for her incredible acts of bravery and congratulating her upon becoming a citizen of our country.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in opposition to this resolution. I say ``reluctantly'' because I had hoped to be able to vote in favor of something positive, a fresh perspective, a new idea, a new pathway to success, anything to encourage and foster a positive outcome in the Iraq conflict. But this resolution offers none of these things. It is a simple, almost meaningless, nonbinding statement of disapproval that provides no constructive resolve on this daunting, yet critical mission. My opposition is both procedural and substantive. I am extremely disappointed that we only have this one simplistic, inadequate statement before us for consideration. No alternatives, no other ideas, no solutions. The situation in Iraq is complicated, and the American people deserve far more from Congress than a resolution that essentially calls for the status quo. The resolution opposes the troop surge called for by the Commander in Chief, but fails to offer or even allow for consideration of any alternatives aimed at achieving success in Iraq, nor does it offer an alternative aimed at a reduction of troops. There are other ideas out there worthy of consideration and discussion, yet we are not debating those, including those suggested by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. For example, the study group concluded that there is no single action that the military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq. I agree with that assessment. Regardless of a troop surge, I believe a positive outcome in Iraq requires regional cooperation and positive engagement with all of Iraq's neighboring states. A case can be made for a troop surge, but even more, we need a surge in diplomacy to create an environment conducive for a lasting peace throughout the Middle East. The history of the region is too diverse, too complex, and too tumultuous to expect progress without an integrated diplomatic effort and multinational support. Of course, this simple resolution before us offers no perspective on these matters. In a few weeks, this body will have the opportunity to vote on funding for ongoing operations in Iraq. Forget today's resolution; the vote on the supplemental funding bill is where the real debate will occur, and the policies will be laid forth. Make no mistake, a cutoff of funds and a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq will produce even greater sectarian violence, further deterioration of security conditions, and would foment a terrorist breeding ground for radical Islamists. We, the Members of Congress, must give our troops the resources they need to carry out their critical mission to a successful conclusion. In closing, let me say that we all unequivocally support the troops who are serving and who have served in Iraq, and we all deeply appreciate their efforts to carry out their duties. Every day I think about the 3,000-plus American troops who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I pray for their families, as well as for our troops that are there now. I think about the thousands more who have been injured, and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens who have been killed or injured as a result of this conflict. We must do all we can to ensure that those casualties were not suffered in vain. Above all, we must seek to end this conflict and stop the casualties. Simply put, the resolution we are debating offers no path to success, and that is why I oppose it.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Britt ``Max'' Mayfield on an exemplary career of service to his fellow citizens, and to wish him well in his much-deserved retirement. In his 34 years of service to the Nation, Max Mayfield has personified the dedication and excellence that make the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service one of the crown jewels of the Federal Government. Since he began forecasting weather for the Air Force in 1970 and over more than three decades with the National Weather Service, Max has helped push forward the science of forecasting to help make our Nation a safer place. But just making better forecasts has never been enough for Max, because a forecast does no good if no one hears it. Mr. Mayfield has also dedicated his career to making sure that his always- improving forecasts got out quickly, as quickly as possible, to the people who need them. He understands not only the science of forecasting hurricanes, but the science of communication. There is no doubt in my mind that Max Mayfield's exemplary efforts and those of his hardworking staff at the National Hurricane Center's Tropical Prediction Center have helped communities prepare for impending disasters and have saved lives in communities around the country and around the world. I am not alone in my esteem for Mr. Mayfield. The American Meteorology Society, the National Association of Government Communicators, ABC Television, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, the National Hurricane Conference, the Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and President George W. Bush have all presented Max with formal awards for his outstanding achievements and service to his craft and to society. And those are just the formal awards. They do not include the many personal ``thank yous'' that he has received from the very people he has spent his life serving, and from the people whose lives he has helped save. My colleagues, in Congress we think we are busy, and, indeed, we are. But I understand that in the thick of storm season, Mr. Mayfield sometimes did more than 100 interviews in 1 day. Now, that is busy. I am certain he is looking forward to retirement. I am pleased to express my deepest gratitude to Max Mayfield and to his endlessly supportive family for sharing him with us for this time. Max, God bless you and the work you have done. I wish you calm weather and smooth sailing in your retirement.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in support of House Resolution 99. This resolution honors the top-ranked University of Nebraska women's volleyball team for their victory over the second-ranked Stanford University Cardinals. The Huskers rallied to defeat Stanford 3-1 for their third NCAA Division I women's volleyball championship in front of a record crowd of 17,209 fans at the Quest Center in Omaha. Led by four All-Americans, including national player of the year Sarah Pavan, the Huskers won the school's ninth Big 12 title in 11 years with a 19-1 Big 12 record, and a 33-1 overall record. This is the second national title that the team has won with head coach John Cook leading the team. I extend my congratulations to Coach John Cook, all of the hardworking players, the fans and the University of Nebraska. I am happy to join my good friends and colleagues, Representatives Smith, Fortenberry, and Terry, in honoring this exceptional team and all of its accomplishments, and wish all involved success in the future. My only regret, since I enjoy playing volleyball myself, is that I never had the opportunity to watch them play in person. But it would have been a real pleasure, had I been able to. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Mr. Smith, the sponsor of this resolution, I apologize on his behalf that he is unable to be here, but he dearly wanted to be here to speak on this resolution. In his absence, I am next pleased to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the previous speaker for commending me for my support of Nebraska athletes. That is certainly true, except for one time when I was invited to speak to a conference at the University of Nebraska. At this conference, I was speaking on teaching better mathematics in elementary schools. Then I saw a huge billboard as I was driving into Lincoln to give the speech, and I saw how badly they needed my speech on mathematics, because there was a big billboard that announced ``Welcome to the University of Nebraska. Home of the number one football team in America.'' Well, that year, of course, Michigan was the number one team, but Nebraska refused to concede that. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 120, recognizing African American spirituals as a national treasure. Simply defined, spirituals are the songs created and first sung by African Americans during the times of slavery. These songs should be celebrated as a part of the American culture today, for they are the source from which gospel, jazz and blues evolved. The lyrics of these songs are tightly linked with the lives of their authors and were inspired by the message of Jesus Christ and the Gospel of the Bible. The most pervasive message conveyed by spirituals is that of an enslaved people yearning to be set free. The slaves believed they understood better than anyone what freedom truly meant in both a spiritual and a physical sense, and I believe they were correct in believing that. The Old Testament Scriptures that are referenced in their songs spoke of deliverance in this world, and they believed God would deliver them from bondage just as he had delivered the people of Israel. These spirituals are different from hymns and psalms, because their creators used them as a way of sharing the hard condition of being a slave while also singing about their love and faith in God. They used the songs to teach their young, to record their history, and to heal their pain. These songs awakened possibilities in their lives and inspired so many to dream. Because the slaves were forbidden to learn how to read and write, they had to find ways to communicate secretly. The spirituals were a medium for several layers of communication and meaning. Throughout the 20th century the spirituals experienced a renaissance as African Americans documented their struggles for equality. During the 1950s and 1960s, before and during rallies for civil rights, demonstrators often sang spirituals such as, ``We Shall Overcome,'' and, believe it or not, ``This Little Light of Mine,'' one of my favorite songs in my childhood. The lyrics of these new spirituals dealt with improvement and with a new kind of freedom. Many of them were inspired by social problems such as segregation, drug and alcohol abuse, and a basic lack of human equality. Today the congregation of my church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and so many other churches in our community and across the country, continues to sing these spirituals. They inspire in us the human struggle for freedom and remind us of the lessons of history. I am honored to stand here today in support of House Resolution 120 to express the deepest gratitude and recognition to the former enslaved African Americans for their gifts to our Nation, including their spiritual music and oral history. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It always amazes me how the Lord manages to turn evil to good. And this is a good example of that; how under the terrible abuse and sin of slavery came the beautiful spirituals that we are honoring in this particular resolution. It is a real national treasure. It is something that I grew up with. I recall my family, in which we had a number of musicians. Very frequently we were singing Negro spirituals, and in groups at church we would sing Negro spirituals, and yet look where this music came from, out of the terrible black mark on the history of this country when we had slavery over half the Nation. And yet the human response guided by God came out of these people and produced this beautiful, beautiful music. It is a heritage we all have, it is a heritage we must enjoy and, above all, a heritage that we must honor, as we are honoring in this resolution today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 512, which establishes a commission to study the possible creation of a national museum of the American Latino community. As you know, this bill mirrors H.R. 2134, which was referred to the Committee on House Administration in the last Congress and which I was pleased to guide through that committee and present to the House for passage on September 27 of last year. It is only our regret that it did not pass the Senate. The Latino American community is often recognized for its rich traditions, its sense of community, and deeply rooted beliefs which are woven throughout the fabric of American history. As the Nation's fastest growing ethnic community, the Latino population in America has more than doubled in size in the last 10 years to over 40 million, and continues to grow. The creation of a national museum of the American Latino community would enable Latino Americans to tell their story in their own words and would create a destination for students, families and visitors that would accurately depict Latino American history. In order to explore the possibility of creating such a museum, the legislation before us specifies that a commission be created with 23 members, seven of whom would be appointed by the President, and three voting and are non-voting. Each would be appointed by the Speaker, the House Republican leader, the Senate majority leader, and the Senate Republican leader. Once appointed, the commissioners would assess the cost of the museum, its impact on other Hispanic and Latino-related museums, identify a possible location for the museum, and propose guidelines on the museum's operation. The commission would also work closely with the Latino American community during the design and development phase to ensure that the museum accurately captures the Latino American experience. I urge my colleagues to, once again, support this important legislation which is the first step in creating a national museum of the American Latino community that will serve as a testament to the vibrant history and tradition of Latino Americans. And I would just be delighted to eventually see this constructed. Now, Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being the skunk at the garden party, I would like to add a postscript expressing my concern about the proliferation of museums on the Mall and what this may do to the Mall. As you recall, the Mall was designed many, many years ago as a gathering place for America, and it has nobly served that purpose. I believe it is very important that we, in building any additional museums, not impinge on that intent. So establishing location is I think going to be one of the most difficult parts of the work of this Commission, and I wish them well. But I think it is extremely important that we preserve the National Mall as the gathering place for America and make certain that any additional buildings on the Mall fit well with that purpose.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I would join my colleague from Maryland in commending Jay Eagen and Karen Haas for the tremendous job they have done, and, before Karen, Jeff Trandahl, who served temporarily as CAO during the bridge time before the selection of Mr. Eagen, and who also served as the Clerk of the House very ably. They both, Jay Eagen and Karen Haas, have done a great job in that office. The House has run very, very well as a result, and I commend them and wish them well in the future. I am certain that they have bright futures based on the excellent work that they did here. I also would like to comment about the appointments that have been made. The new appointment for the Clerk, Ms. Miller, from everything I see, is an outstanding appointment. We recognize that as traditionally the appointment of the Speaker and can be made solely by the Speaker and has been in the past. I look forward to good things from her. She is obviously very capable, has an outstanding record in working in the House, the Senate, and various other places. I look forward to good work from her. In regard to the selected candidate for Chief Administrative Officer for the House, Mr. Beard, I do not object to his appointment. He is, I think, of relatively good background and should be able to manage the job, at least I seriously hope so. But I have serious concerns about the lack of transparency and the selection process that resulted in his appointment. Just to give a better history, when I first arrived here, it was shortly before the Republicans took over the majority, and there had been considerable confusion in the House. We had the bank scandal, the post office scandal and so forth. A position was created, I forget the precise title, but something along the line of the director of the nonlegislative and financial functions of the House of Representatives. The Speaker at that time, who was a Democrat, since they were in the majority, appointed a person to fill that post. It was General Wishart, I believe, and he resigned after several months saying basically he could not do the job, given the parameters that were imposed upon it. When the Republicans took over the House of Representatives, they also appointed, and it was largely a Speaker's appointment at that time, appointed someone to serve as the Chief Administrative Officer of the House. That position was created and described by the new majority. Mr. Faulkner had a good resume and had a lot of good ideas, but, frankly, did not really meet the needs that we had for that position at that time. We then decided, and I believe Mr. Hoyer was on the committee at the same time with me, and we simply decided that we had to make this as nonpartisan a position as possible. So we formed a group, two Republicans, two Democrats, and they conducted a nationwide search with a search firm to find the best person for the Chief Administrative Officer position. They ended up selecting someone from the House of Representatives, someone who was familiar with it, but also someone with extensive administrative background who did a tremendous job of operating this institution since that time. The main point I want to make is a process was set up that was bipartisan. It resulted in an excellent appointment, and I believe we should use that same process again. In fact, I felt so strongly about it, I sent a letter to the Speaker last week pointing out that we should use that same process again. Barely was the letter delivered that she announced publicly that she had selected a new CAO, without using that process at all, without input from the minority party. Simply, we had the courtesy of chatting with the new appointee, but nothing to say in the appointment or whether or not that person should have the appointment. I have met with him; I recognize he has considerable administrative ability. He has been around a long time, but I am very concerned because we did not use the same process. I think this new appointee is going to owe his allegiance to only one person, that is the Speaker of the House, and I don't believe that is the best way to operate the House of Representatives. At the same time, should anything deleterious or improper happen, we recognize where the responsibility for that will lie, because it will be with the person who made the appointment. But I have firsthand knowledge, having served on the House Administration Committee now for over 12 years, firsthand knowledge of the important role the Chief Administrative Officer plays in the House operations, and it is an extremely important job. This is a complex organization on the Hill, over 10,000 employees. The position has many responsibilities that are of significant consequence to the House of Representatives. While the proper administration of the House is ultimately the responsibility of the majority, the successful operation of the House is most certainly not a partisan manner. Republicans and Democrats alike maintain a shared investment in preserving and building upon the professional improvements made by the House Chief Administrative Officer over the last 12 years. In 1997, as I mentioned, the last occasion a new CAO was appointed, a search committee was constituted that, as I said, required a unanimous decision from all search committee members in order to select a candidate for the position of Chief Administrative Officer. That last provision, I think, is very important, to ensure that it was not a partisan position required that both Republicans and both Democrats had to vote to select the final candidate for the position. At that time, our current House majority leader, my colleague from Maryland, stated that the formulation of a search committee comprised of the leaders of both parties ``was done to assure that we would have a bipartisan agreement on an administrator for the business of the House.'' Mr. Hoyer also stated that what this House needs is a bipartisan and effectively nonpartisan way to assure ourselves and the American people that the business of the House, the paying of our bills, the managing of our information systems, all of that which has nothing to do with the formulation of the policy, but everything to do with the effective management of the people's House, is being done in a proper fashion. Now, I am not quoting this to throw the words in Mr. Hoyer's face. That is not my intent at all. It is simply my intent to show how at that time we worked very hard to get a bipartisan agreement. That bipartisan agreement, which Mr. Hoyer spoke of, resulted in the appointment of Jay Eagen, our current Chief Administrative Officer, who has served us so well for a number of years. Under Mr. Eagen's tenure, just as an example, the House has achieved eight consecutive clean opinions from independent auditors, an impressive result by any measure. This should be contrasted with the result when the Republicans first took office, we asked for an independent outside audit, and the auditors came back and said the books are such a mess, we cannot even audit them; you will have to construct an entire new financial management system. I was pleased that since I had helped develop the computer system that I was able to help develop a system that was appropriate for that task. I think all of this together has led to the clean audits that we have had for a number of years. I certainly support the comments that Mr. Hoyer made some years ago. They were very appropriate. They described the procedure accurately; and his points, as he made them, I totally agree that the appointment of a post was such a significant impact to this institution, we should be able to put aside our party affiliations and work together to find a suitable candidate. I wish I could make a comparable statement today. I wish that such a bipartisan process had been followed this time. Instead, I am left only to express my sincere disappointment that it did not take place. Let me make it clear, the qualifications of Mr. Beard are not under attack; but the process that Speaker Pelosi administered to make this appointment is. I think we should have had the same process, and I am disappointed that the Speaker chose not to do that. Without a fair, open and competitive process, there simply is no way to determine whether the selection is in the best interest of the House, and the complete absence of transparency is cause for alarm for those who value the integrity of this institution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, I have several. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, a newly appointed member of the Committee on House Administration, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his comments. I would also echo his comments about Mrs. Miller. I was astounded at her resume. In fact, I would love to have a resume that complete myself. She has served government in so many different agencies and in so many different ways that I am certain that she will perform very, very well as the Clerk of the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. McCarthy of California, a brand new member of the Committee on House Administration but one with considerable experience on it because of his previous work as a staff member for the Honorable Bill Thomas, who chaired the committee.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, in that case I will make my final comments. I assume the gentleman from South Carolina is able to close right after that. Just hearing this debate reminds me again of all the things that happened. And first of all, I have to clarify that Mr. Eagen did not have to clear up a mess left by Mr. Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner may or may not have been the best choice for CAO at the time he took the job, but certainly improved the situation. And I was there. I saw the books as they were, ledger cards made out in pencil with erasures in the ledger book, an erasure of a number filled in with $2,500,000 just to make the books balance. I have seen those books. I know the facts. It was a mess after 40 years of the rule of one party. Now, I am not defending or criticizing either General Wishart or Scot Faulkner. They were there. They did the best job they could in very difficult circumstances. But they were not there very long. The point is simply that when we followed a good process, when we used a bipartisan process, we appointed someone who has served for a number of years and has served extremely well. You know as well as I that if you hire a person, that person's loyalty is going to be to you. It is very important that this position be operated in a bipartisan fashion. And since the Speaker has appointed Mr. Beard, no matter how capable he is, no matter how much he tries, he will be suspected of partisanship in his decisions. Daniel Beard may, in fact, be the right person to lead the CAO organization, and I truly hope that he is. However, given the selection process, there is simply no way of knowing that with any degree of confidence. This appointment could and should have occurred with the full confidence of all Members of the House. Unfortunately, the burden of proof now lies with Mr. Beard and, ultimately, Speaker Pelosi, to ensure that Mr. Beard is able to maintain the level of skill, professionalism and bipartisanship we have come to expect from the House CAO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question on the adopting of the resolution.

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