Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Math and Science Incentive Act of 2005, which today was introduced by Rep. Wolf. I thank him and his staff for their work on this important legislation. I am very pleased to join him as the lead cosponsor, and pledge that I will work with Rep. Wolf to move this legislation through the House. A number of developments in recent years have fueled concerns that world technology leadership could shift from the United States to other countries. In today's global economy, American manufacturers and other businesses rely on innovation to stay competitive. For the United States to remain a prosperous country, we must maintain our technological leadership in the world. Our knowledge-based economy is driven by constant innovation. The foundation of innovation lies in a dynamic, motivated, and well- educated workforce equipped with math and science skills. An understanding of scientific and mathematical principles, a working knowledge of computer hardware and software, and the problem-solving skills developed by courses in science, technology, engineering and math are now basic requirements for many entry-level positions or for admission to college. In fact, I fully expect that all of the jobs of the future will require a basic understanding of the concepts and principles of math and science. Unfortunately, we are continuing to see disturbing trends in American student performance on basic math and science tests. The recent Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) highlight the shortcomings of current K- 12 science and math students in the United States when compared to other developed countries. We have also seen that fewer students are pursuing degrees in math and science. This should be of particular concern when we consider the large educational and workforce development investments made by emerging economies with huge populations, such as China, India and Russia. We must encourage girls in grades K-12 to become interested in math and science and urge young women to pursue degrees in math and science. While the percentages of women holding baccalaureate degrees in biological and physical sciences closely mirrors that of their male counterparts, recent statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics show that women are underrepresented in engineering and computer science baccalaureate degrees. The Math and Science Incentive Act of 2005 is a direct response to the needs I have outlined. The bill will help recruit and retain direly needed science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) teachers and workforce professionals. It allows the Secretary of Education to pay up to $10,000 in interest on undergraduate loans for those who qualify and agree to enter into a five-year service agreement with the Secretary. Clearly, we must recommit ourselves to leadership in science, technology, mathematics and engineering. This legislation puts us on the path toward ensuring that we will have STEM teachers and workforce professionals in place.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Honda/Ehlers amendment. The purpose of this amendment is simply to clarify and make explicit that DWI courts are eligible for funding under the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures section of the bill. It has become clear that the traditional process is not working for repeat drunk driving offenders. Punishment that is unaccompanied by treatment and accountability is an ineffective deterrent for the repeat DWI offender. The outcome for the offender is continued dependence on alcohol; the outcome for communities is the continued threat of drivers under the influence of drugs and alcohol. DWI/Drug Courts are distinct court systems dedicated to changing the behavior of alcohol/drug dependent offenders arrested for DWI. The goal of DWI/Drug Courts is to protect public safety by attacking the root cause of DWI: alcohol and other drug abuse. DWI/Drug Courts utilize all criminal justice stateholders (prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation, law enforcement, and others) along with alcohol/drug treatment professionals. This group of professionals comprises a ``DWI/Drug Courts Team,'' which is usually accountable to the DWI/Drug Court judge who heads the team. The DWI/ Drug Court Team uses a team-oriented approach to systematically change participant behavior. This approach includes identification and referral of participants early in the legal process to a full continuum of drug/alcohol treatment and other rehabilitative services. These courts have been very successful in Michigan, where approximately one- third of all DWI courts are located. A five-year study conducted on the Lansing, MI DUI/Drug Court demonstrates a 13 percent recidivism rate for graduates of the DUI/Drug Court program versus 35 percent for a comparison group. Unfortunately, funding and resources are often an obstacle to starting DWI courts. Adopotion of this amendment will deliver a clear and unmistakable message to the American people that Congress will take the necessary steps to stop drunk driving. It will send the clear and unmistakable message that we support the valuable work being done by DWI/Drug Courts. Clarifying that DWI courts are eligible for funding will encourage more state and local courts to pursue these comprehensive, treatment- driven programs. I encourage my colleagues to support the Honda amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar have done an impressive job moving the transportation reauthorization so quickly in the 109th Congress. With this summer's construction season nearly upon us, it is critical that we enact a strong transportation bill prior to the current extension's expiration--May 31, 2005. It's just as critical that this legislation be fair for all States. That's why I've supported efforts to increase the rate-of-return in the minimum guarantee to 95 percent. Keeping the scope of programs covered by TEA 21's Minimum Guarantee calculation at the TEA 21 level of 92.6 percent is an essential part of achieving improved highway funding equity. Keeping the scope in TEA-LU consistent with current law will provide more funding to my State's core programs and help address the funding inequities for donor States. I am pleased that the Manager's Amendment includes a new distribution formula that brings the scope of programs covered by the Minimum Guarantee closer to current law under TEA 21. Michigan and other donor States need to prevent going backwards on scope and to improve our rate of return to 95 percent. I thank Chairman Young for his cooperation with donor States on this issue. I hope to work with my colleagues to improve the rate-of-return when we get to conference with the Senate. For my State, we're depending on a higher rate of return as well as the scope improvements we're making today.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I urge the body to adopt this rule and to pass the bill. I will be addressing just one particular topic which has been controversial in committee discussions and will be the subject of an amendment later on, and that is turning the clock back on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and changing what it says. Those who are opposed to this bill on that ground believe that somehow it is wrong to allow religious institutions to receive Federal funds for programs that benefit the public at large, are not restricted to people of particular faith but are operated by organizations that are religiously based. I have listened carefully to the debate in the committee. We have had this same debate several times in committee. I have yet to understand precisely what the objections are, but it seems that opponents are afraid of two things: one, that this provision in the bill somehow will allow these organizations to discriminate on other grounds in their hiring, which is, first, contrary to the Civil Rights Act, and second, I would say religious organizations are the least likely to discriminate on the basis of race or any of the other forbidden categories. The other objection appears to be that somehow these churches are going to use this Federal money to try to proselytize, to get people in these programs and then they will say, okay, now isn't this wonderful, you should join this church. I would like to say, that is also not true. It just does not happen. I can speak from my personal experience. When my wife and I moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1966 to take on a new position, we looked for a church. In fact, we spent 3 months trying out different churches, looking, trying to find a certain something: we wanted a church in the inner city because we wanted to be able to contribute to solving the problems of the city of Grand Rapids, particularly in the inner city. And so we joined Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church because of its location and because of the attitude of its people. They worked very hard in the community. As an example, they established a community center. There was none at that time either federally funded, State funded, or city funded. The church stepped in and started it. It was on the top story of a ramshackle building which housed a small convenience store in the lower floor. It grew slowly at first, but then took off. Today it is a large community center, one of the best, if not the best, in the city. They purchased a school which was being abandoned, filled up that school, and they now have just successfully completed a $2.5 million capital drive to add on to their facilities and improve them. Our church started that. We did have and still largely do have religious restrictions on the hiring of individuals, but the facility serves all people in that community. It has brought in medical care workers of all faiths to work and provide medical care and dental care for the recipients in that community. We started a housing program which turned into the Inner City Christian Federation, and we spun off this organization as well as Baxter Community Center, but they are still largely faith-based organizations. ICCF, the Inner City Christian Federation, developed housing programs, and they had built many houses before Habitat for Humanity started in our community; but ICCF has built and remodeled more houses than almost any organization within the city that I am aware of. Again, it is faith-based. The employees are hired partially on the basis of their faith and their commitment to serving in the inner city and often work for less pay than they could get elsewhere. Our church, not our individual congregation, but our denomination started a mental health institution, Pine Rest, years ago because the people of our church and of our community were not getting adequate mental care. Today it is one of the largest mental health hospitals in our Nation. It serves many people of different faiths and of no faith, but it is a faith-based institution because their treatment modalities are based, to a large extent, on our beliefs about the nature of people and their interaction with each other. It has been very successful. It has received millions upon millions of dollars of aid from the Federal Government, from the State through community mental health funds and from the local community. No one has ever said a word about this, that using Federal money for this is improper. The reason is simply that Pine Rest provides services that really are unequaled anywhere else. And so they have received Federal dollars through Medicaid and through Medicare, and State dollars through community mental health. It is an outstanding operation. Then, finally, something we have ongoing in our church right now. Every Saturday, I wish you could visit our church; you would see people of all races, all colors, all faiths walking in the church basement which we have stocked with food that we have collected from different stores, warehouses and so forth: produce, baked goods, and many different types of perishable food. We have purchased a truck to go around and collect this on Fridays. And Saturday morning anyone from that city can walk in with no test of their faith, no means test, they can just walk in and say, I need some groceries, and they go through the line. We charge them roughly 10 cents on the dollar because we think it is a good thing for them to feel they have bought something; but a family of four can buy a week's worth of groceries for about $10. That is a good deal. It is staffed by people from our church and from other churches, and it is a very successful operation. If we adopt the Scott amendment, which we will be discussing later, we simply could not do that. There is one other factor here as well, and that is every church that I am aware of does not have a surplus of money. The people that they hire have to do many different jobs. That is true in our church as well. We have hired individuals who work in the church. Those individuals not only operate programs such as the food program, or getting community centers started, but they also have duties within the church and by necessity, and clearly within the intent of the Civil Rights Act, they are performing religious duties. A church cannot go out and afford to hire a different person to run each different program. You have to be multifaceted to be on the staff of a church, and that is precisely what we have in our church. For these reasons, and many others I could enumerate, I urge the Congress to pass this rule and this bill, and to defeat the Scott amendment, so that churches and faith-based organizations of other sorts can continue to do their good work for the people of this country without fear of their programs being damaged because they would have to hire additional personnel who do not have a faith compatible with the organization. I believe the system as we have it now, and have had it since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, has worked, it has worked well, and I urge that we keep it that way and not adopt the Scott amendment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of physicist Allan Bromley to this nation's science and technology enterprise. Dr. Allan Bromley, a Yale University professor, nuclear physicist and architect of national science policy during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, passed away on Thursday, February 10, 2005, at the age of 79. A native of Westmeath, Ontario, Canada, Dr. Bromley earned bachelor's and master's degrees at Queen's University and a doctorate from the University of Rochester in 1952. He subsequently received 32 honorary doctorates from universities on four continents. Bromley was the first scientist to artificially form nuclear molecules through high-speed collisions using a five million-volt particle accelerator that he pioneered in 1959. He founded the A. W. Wright Nuclear Structure Laboratory at Yale and served as its director from 1963 to 1989. During the same period, his outstanding teaching contributed to his laboratory graduating more Ph.D.s in experimental physics than any other institution in the world. In 1988, he received the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest scientific award, for his remarkable contributions to the advancement of science and the characterization of atomic nuclei. Dr. Bromley's tremendous accomplishments were not limited to the confines of the academic laboratory. As the first person to hold the Cabinet level rank of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Dr. Bromley increased both the staff and budget of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy by factors of more than five between 1989 and 1993. He supported increasing scientific research in the federal portfolio, considering it a necessity to remain competitive with other nations' investments. He championed the expansion of the ``data superhighway,'' the precursor of the internet, and is credited with convincing the president to attend a summit on global warming. Among his many other accomplishments, Dr. Bromley has served as the president of the American Physical Society, a member of the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics, and as a member of the National Science Board. Curiously, Dr. Bromley became a U.S. citizen through rather unusual circumstances. In 1970, after visiting a high-security testing site, someone realized that Bromley wasn't a U.S. citizen. With the help of a judge, this oversight was quickly remedied. At the time of his death, Dr. Bromley was still actively teaching physics at Yale as the Sterling Professor of Sciences. Dr. Bromley served his country in a variety of ways, from the Oval Office to the classroom. He will be remembered as one of the most influential science advisers ever, as well as one of the most beloved teachers in higher education. We fondly remember his leadership and invaluable contributions, and we extend our condolences to his family.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations and recognition to Prof. Gary Schmidt for having his book for young adults, ``Lizzie Bright and the Buckminster Boy,'' recognized as a 2005 John Newbery Honor Book and as a 2005 Michael L. Printz Honor Book. Professor Schmidt, a member of the English Department faculty at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in my district, took 3 years to write ``Lizzie Bright and the Buckminster Boy,'' which he based on a tragic 1912 incident--the eradication of a small African-American community from a Maine island by townspeople from the nearby community of Phippsburg, Maine. The story follows the friendship between two teenagers--Lizzie Bright Turner, an African-American resident of the island of Malaga, and Turner Buckminster, the son of Phippsburg's newly arrived minister. In making the award, Newbery Award Committee chair Susan Faust said Professor Schmidt's book is ``[s]teeped in imagery and laced with surprising humor,'' and that it ``. . . explores powerlessness, possibility and the profound impact individuals can make.'' ``We spent a year studying the universe of eligible books, and it is a thrill to name this as one of our honor books,'' Faust said. Despite his success as an author, Professor Schmidt continues his work as an educator. In fact, he found out about his honors while leading a group of students on a 3-week study trip in Massachusetts and, after dealing with the requisite media interviews, celebrated with his students. ``It's a tremendous honor in a year when the books are strong and wonderful,'' Schmidt said. ``The (book) is very close to my heart.'' Mr. Speaker, this is a book that we can recommend to all young people, with a wonderful theme of young people learning to make important decisions. It is a story that illuminates that important transition from childhood to adulthood. I hope all my colleagues will join me in congratulating Prof. Gary Schmidt and his fellow honorees: 2005 Newbery Medal winner Cynthia Kadohata for her book, ``Kira-Kira,'' and fellow Newbery Honor Book recipients Gennifer Choldenko (``Al Capone Does My Shirts'') and Russell Freedman (``The Voice that Challenged a Nation''), as well as 2005 Printz Award winner Meg Rosoff for her book, ``how i live now'' and fellow Printz Honor Book recipients Kenneth Oppel (``Airborn'') and Allan Stratton (``Chanda's Secrets'').

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to a company located in my district, Universal Forest Products Inc., which clearly deserves its place under the heading of ``American Success Stories.'' Universal Forest Products, Inc. was incorporated on February 10, 1955, as a lumber wholesale office specializing in sales to the manufactured housing industry. William F. Grant was the major stockholder and sole salesman. When Mr. Grant decided in 1962 to grow his business, he hired a graduate of Michigan State University, Peter F. Secchia. Nine years later, when the company had sales of $12 million, Secchia, today's company chairman, purchased control of Universal. A year later, he hired William G. Currie, today's CEO and vice-chairman. Together, they have led Universal through three decades of strong, steady growth and great success. Today, Universal is a $2.5 billion, publicly traded company, trading on the NASDAQ index as UFPI. The company is the leading supplier to the four strong markets it serves--do-it-yourself retail, suit-built construction, industrial and other packaging and components, and manufactured housing. Universal is the largest producer of pressure- treated lumber in the world, the largest producer of roof trusses for manufactured housing in North America, and the nation's largest residential truss manufacturer. Furthermore, it is a leading supplier of value-added products to the do-it-yourself market, maintaining this leadership role as a result of the company's commitment to manufacture, distribute, and market its own products. Universal is an employer of choice, where more than 9,000 people work. In fact, among the senior ranks, the turnover has been virtually zero; most officers have been with the company for decades. The same is holding true for the new generation of leadership: They're joining the company and staying. With 96 locations throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Universal produces finished goods within the markets it serves, offering unparalleled distribution and service to its customers. In 2004, Foress once again named Universal to its ``Platinum 400,'' an annual ranking of the 400 best performing companies in the U.S. with more than $1 billion in revenue, and continues its climb up the Fortune 1000 list, up 35 places to No. 734 in the most-recent rankings. In addition, Industry Week magazine in August 2003 named Universal to its list of ``Top 50 U.S. Manufacturers'' and CNN's Money Gang show named Universal a ``Stock Pick of the Day'' in February 2004. Universal is a great American business success story and it is my privilege to honor the company, its chairman, Peter Secchia, and its thousands of employees today in the U.S. House of Representatives. Congratulations on the occasion of Universal's 50th anniversary.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 250, ``The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act.'' I introduced this legislation in the 108th Congress, and it was passed by the House. I am re-introducing it in this Congress in the precise form passed last year. I am doing this because the global competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing remains a pressing issue. This bill will help address long-term problems facing our nation's manufacturers by coordinating existing federal manufacturing programs, creating a new program to revive manufacturing innovation through collaborative research and development, and broadening and strengthening manufacturing extension. 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. In my conversations with manufacturers, I learned of their deep concern that the decline of manufacturing in the U.S. is undermining our ability to innovate. Innovation is the key to the development of new industries, without which our economy could stagnate. Governments of our global competitors are eagerly supporting investments in manufacturing R&D because they know that it is the foundation for sustained economic development. If we are to continue to be the world technological leader, we need to rise to this new global challenge by supporting our manufacturers. The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, which received broad support in the House in the 108th Congress, will accomplish that by: Creating an Interagency Committee that will coordinate the existing federal manufacturing research and development activities to ensure that they work as effectively and harmoniously as possible; Creating a new collaborative research and development program for manufacturing technology; 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 fellowship program at NIST to develop U.S. manufacturing research expertise; and 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. Mr. Speaker, globalization is in full swing. It is incumbent upon this Congress to 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 109th Congress.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce ``The Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2005.'' This legislation is actually a reintroduction of the bill that passed the Science Committee last Congress. After the bill passed the Science Committee, I worked with my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to have many of the provisions included in the House version of the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century--better known as TEA-21. Unfortunately, the House and Senate were not able to reach consensus on a final transportation bill. As we prepare to complete the reauthorization early in this Congress, my legislation still provides the needed emphasis on transportation research and development that will ensure our whole transportation system can meet the tremendous challenges of today and especially for the future. Considering that we won't have the ability to simply build more roads to address these challenges, especially in urban areas, we must look at new ways to improve the overall system, to make it safer and more efficient, and to ensure that the system meets future needs. Good research, properly done, will more than pay for itself in longer- lasting roads, better bridges, faster traffic flow, and fewer accidents. In the last Congress, as chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, which shares jurisdiction over surface transportation research with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I held hearings to hear from experts on the state of the Federal Government's current surface transportation research program. In addition, we heard from a wide array of interests on how to improve and reform the research program, and the levels at which research should be funded. Based on this input, I introduced the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act last Congress. This legislation I am introducing today is identical to the bill that passed the Science Committee last Congress. It has three overarching goals: to increase stakeholder input to ensure that the people who must implement and use the research agree that it is applicable to everyday challenges; to create the highest quality research through increased competition and peer-review of all projects; and to ensure greater accountability so that our research supports the goals of our surface transportation system. More specifically, the bill: Creates and funds an important research program run by the National Academy of Sciences to address short to medium-term research needs. Research will focus on reducing congestion, renewing existing roads and bridges while minimizing impact to the public, improving safety by reducing crashes, and developing tools for getting more out of our existing highway capacity and assessing future needs. All projects funded by this program will be competitively awarded and peer-reviewed; Provides needed funds to implement a public-private cooperative environmental research program, with the goal of developing the knowledge, tools, and performance measures that will help us better understand and manage the linkage between the environment and the transportation system; Calls on the U.S. Department of Transportation to take the lead in carrying out fundamental, long-term research to achieve breakthroughs in transportation research; Increases funding for University Transportation Centers and ensures greater competition among universities which seek to become transportation research centers; Reforms and increases the responsiveness of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the needs of the transportation community; and Provides States with additional resources to better train and educate the transportation workforce. This legislation will significantly, yet prudently, increase funding for transportation research starting at $500 million a year in fiscal year 2006 for Federal research programs and gradually rising to $850 million a year by 2010. When Congress increased funding for overall transportation programs by upwards of 40 percent in TEA-21, funding for transportation research remained relatively flat. I believe that lack of investment in research has hurt our ability to meet new challenges. My approach ensures that our transportation research is well planned, peer reviewed, properly funded and evaluated and will go a long way to help solve the many challenges facing our Nation's transportation system. I look forward to again working with my colleagues on the Science and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees, the U.S. Department of Transportation, state transportation departments, and all other interested stakeholders as we try to finish the job begun last Congress.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. Better known as NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was created by Executive Order in 1970. It is the nation's lead civilian agency for oceans and atmosphere, yet Congress has never passed an overarching organic act describing the mission and functions of the agency. Instead, over the past 34 years Congress has defined the mission of the agency in a piecemeal manner with legislation focused on specific issues. The bill I am introducing today, which passed the Environment, Technology and Standards Subcommittee in the 108th Congress, is a first step toward Congressional passage of comprehensive legislation for NOAA. Last year, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its long awaited report with recommendations for a coordinated national ocean policy. One of its key recommendations is that Congress should pass an organic act for NOAA. In his response to the Ocean Commission report, President Bush supported this recommendation. The time is right for Congress to consider, and pass, this organic act for NOAA. My bill establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. It defines the mission of NOAA as ``to understand and predict changes in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere and the effects of such changes on the land environment, to conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes ecosystems, and to educate the public about these topics.'' The recent Indian Ocean tsunami is just the latest evidence of the need for NOAA's research and services. My bill maintains the current leadership structure at NOAA, but adds a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology to serve as the point person for the agency to coordinate the research and science activities of NOAA across the agency. This bill also describes the functions of NOAA, which are divided into three broad groups to improve cooperation among NOAA's programs, as recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. First is the National Weather Service, which provides weather, water and climate forecasts and warnings to the nation. The second group is operations and services, which includes all of NOAA's satellites services and its mapping and charting services. The third category of functions is research and education. The bill focuses on pieces of NOAA under Science Committee jurisdiction, and does not currently include any references to NOAA's fisheries or resource management, which are under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee here in the House. I am hopeful that we can work with other committees in the House and our colleagues in the Senate to pass a truly comprehensive organic act for NOAA, but for now we must start with this legislation. I believe it is critical for NOAA's mission to be clearly defined so it can better fulfill its role in observing, managing, and protecting our nation's coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to pass this bill into law this year. This will not be an easy task, but it is so important to our environment, our economy, and our children's and grandchildren's future, that we must succeed.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I certainly appreciate his sponsoring this particular Special Order and particularly his encouragement of the American people to contribute. We are impressed that the President has designated $350 million to deal with this tragedy, but I would like to point out that that is very little more than $1 per person this country and very little more than $2 for every working person in this country. Certainly we can do better than that, and I encourage all Americans to send contributions to the charities that the gentleman mentioned. I would also mention the American Red Cross will play a role in this through its international arms. I am also aware in my community of relief organizations such as the Christian Reform World Relief Committee, which is very active in this. International Aid is another organization in Spring Lake, Michigan, which has dispatched $3 million of medical equipment and other supplies already. And I am sure every American can look around their own community and find similar organizations that they can contribute to to help during this incredible tragedy. We certainly want to express our sympathy as the American Congress and the American country to the people who have suffered this tragedy. It is almost incomprehensible. For years scientists have talked about the possibility of a mega-tsunami and it has largely been dismissed even though tsunamis can be very large, but the idea of a mega-tsunami has been dismissed by most scientists. This one does not quite measure up to that in terms of the power and the energy it contained, but it certainly is a mega-tsunami in terms of the damage and the death, the destruction that it has caused. So I do want to express my personal sympathy and that of the Congress for those who are suffering and encourage all Americans to help. But the main thrust of my comments this evening are going to be about the science of tsunamis. That may seem inappropriate at this point when we are all dealing with a tragedy, but I know there is a lot of interest because I have fielded a number of questions from colleagues and staff in the Congress, and so I think it is worth time talking to our colleagues about what a tsunami is, how it happens, particularly as it relates to the possibility of developing a warning system for tsunamis. First question, how do tsunamis occur? They have four major sources. Earthquakes are the primary source but also volcanos can cause tsunamis either through eruption or collapse. Other possibilities are landslides, slumps, or rock falls. If they are large enough, they can cause tsunamis. The last category is more esoteric. Asteroids, meteorites. They are very rare, but they cause the largest tsunamis. And also man-made explosions, which many people think could cause them, but, in fact, it would be very difficult to do that. I will discuss each of these a bit later. But let me also address, first of all, why we cannot warn people. And I should mention some have asked me why the name ``tsunami,'' why do we use that. Do we not have an American term? Actually we do not have an equivalent American term. It is from two Japanese words that mean harbor and wave, and that is literally what it is. It is primarily waves in harbors or coastlines. If we look at the natural disasters we have in this world and the warning systems that we have, if we look at the very largest natural disasters, such as volcanic explosions, we generally have hours to months of warning time before a volcano will explode, and the emphasis is generally on months provided we have seismic devices measure the activity within the volcano. Hurricanes, we have days in which to prepare and to evacuate or to tighten up our homes or other buildings. Tsunamis, we could have hours of warning if we have a good warning system, and that is the big ``if,'' which I will talk about a bit later. Tornadoes we generally have 10 minutes to an hour of warning. And earthquakes we have no warning whatsoever. We know of no good warning system for earthquakes. Although there are some precursors, we can never predict an earthquake precisely. And since earthquakes cause most tsunamis, that means it is very difficult to predict tsunamis. But because they take from minutes to hours to reach the shore once we detect the earthquake and detect whether or not it causes a tsunami, we do have some warning time available and we have a warning system in the Pacific Ocean, which has been quite successful. Let us talk about some of the science behind tsunamis. Why do they occur? What is going on? How does an earthquake cause a tsunami? First of all, not all earthquakes do. If it is an earthquake that does not cause much shifting of the surface under the ocean, there is generally not much of a tsunami. Also if it is a weak earthquake, it generally does not create a tsunami. But if we have a large earthquake, let us say above about 7.0, in that neighborhood, on the Richter Scale, and if it involves substantial motion of material, we will get a tsunami. And the most common way in which these are called is when there is a subdeduction, when a tectonic plate sliding under another tectonic plate in the ocean and if there is a big movement and if it extends for many miles or many kilometers in the direction, we get a lot of motion in a very quick time. The water pours in to try to fill up that space. It is sort of like throwing a rock in a pond, and we get ripples coming up. But if we are talking about an ocean, and a typical ocean depth is in the neighborhood of, let us say, 15,000 feet, we have a huge amount of water being moved in a very short time, and it is like throwing a very, very, very large rock in the ocean. The waves that spread out from this disturbance are not very big. Typically the wave that is caused by an earthquake or an underwater volcano will only have a height ranging from a few inches to a few feet. So the waves that are traveling across the ocean are barely noticeable to a ship that is sailing on the ocean. And that is why we have this strange situation, terrible destruction around the Indian Ocean now, but the fishermen who were out in their ships were not injured. They scarcely even knew that they were lifted up a foot and then let down again as the wave went under. But the waves are very deep; and as they approach shore, it becomes shallower. All of that energy of motion is condensed together and the waves add together and create huge walls of water that hit the coast and travel inland from the coast. So if we have an earthquake, a volcano, a landslide, a slump, a rock fall, anything that generates motion of a lot of water, as that spreads out across the ocean, it loses a little energy but not very much, and depending on the depth of the ocean, it can travel very rapidly. If the ocean is deep, we can get speeds of these waves on the order of the speed of a jet airplane. And it is just a tremendous speed to travel. That is why we do not have much warning time, because they travel very rapidly. As they approach shore, as I said, they slow down, mount up, and we get this huge wall of water. And it depends entirely upon the geology of the area, the shape of the land, the nature of the source of the earthquake. One of the most destructive that occurred was the one up in Alaska some years ago, and it was not that large an earthquake, but the wall of water that hit the land was over 100 feet high. It hit a reinforced concrete lighthouse and demolished it and killed everyone inside. It had that kind of force, much more force than we had in the Indian Ocean last week, but it did not have as great an extent. Interestingly enough, that tsunami which was close to Alaska did cause substantial damage in Hawaii and killed more people in Hawaii than it did in Alaska because Alaska is not very heavily populated and Hawaii is. So we have many different sources of tsunamis, and I hesitate to go into a great deal of detail on that. I do want to point out for the people who like to be terrified or those who like to make movies to terrify people that the largest tsunamis, as I mentioned, would result from asteroids or meteorites. If one of those lands in an ocean area, we would have a tsunami that could totally decimate all of the surrounding coastal area for miles inland. That has happened in the past geological history of this planet; but, in fact, it is quite rare. Usually the time between those is measured in millions of years, sometimes many millions of years. What about the warning system? As I said earlier, we do have the Pacific warning system. It has worked fairly well. What we have to do is have a good system to detect earthquakes since they are the main cause and seismographs that could not only detect earthquakes but could detect a volcanic explosion or a volcanic collapse, anything that would move a lot of material and therefore create a big hole for the water to pour into or else an explosion that would make the water move out. So if we have the seismographs that can detect that, then we have to have a method of calculating where the earthquake occurred, and we have that in many parts of the world. Unfortunately it took a while to establish the exact location of the earthquake in the Indian Ocean and find out its magnitude and find out really what the danger was. And then that tells us the starting time of the tsunami. Then we have to be able to detect the motion of it, the velocity. So we have to have buoys displaced around that can measure these waves I mentioned, which are not all that large; but we have to have a buoy system that can detect that so we can calculate the speed. And above all we need a warning system that will send out a warning to the people in the countries that are going to be hit. That is where we completely failed in the Indian Ocean, because no one expected a tsunami of this size in the Indian Ocean. The Pacific system has worked reasonably well, but even then we cannot always predict far enough in advance exactly where it is going to hit and how hard it is going to hit. And as I said before, not every earthquake results in a tsunami. So we are going to have false alarms. We may send out the alert and the people will all quickly evacuate the coastal areas, get to high ground, and there is just a minor little wave that comes in. It is like the boy who cried wolf. If this happens several times, people say, well, it is a good warning system, but we really do not need it. But we never know when the big one is going to come, so people have to be trained to follow the warning system no matter what and recognize that not every time will it result in a major tsunami in every location that is warned, but sometime it will. I believe it is incumbent upon us to lead the way as we have in developing the Pacific Ocean tsunami detection system which has saved a lot of lives. We cannot protect against a tsunami; so we cannot stop the property damage. But at least we can save the lives. We know how to do it. The problem is, the nations around the Indian Ocean and in other threatened areas are going to have to join the effort and, above all, they are going to have to develop a warning system and train their people how the warning system will work and how tsunamis work so that they will take the warning seriously and flee to high ground at the first indication of any disaster of this sort. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I hope I have not taken too much time. But as I said, since so many people are interested in the nature and the science behind tsunamis, I thought this might be helpful, particularly as this Congress will be involved in the next year or 2 in helping to decide on what type of warning system should be developed worldwide and what our role is going to be in that. Lest we think that all the tsunamis are in the Pacific, just because the majority are, be aware that there is potential for huge tsunamis in the Atlantic and, as we all know, we have a heavily populated Atlantic coastline, New York City just to name one major population center, but all the way from Maine down to Miami. We will have to worry about it. And the likelihood of it is small, but if it occurs, the probability of major damage is so high that we should not just concentrate on the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean, but we should also worry about the Atlantic Ocean and our eastern seaboard.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention one point which I did not include, a very practical point for anyone who is in an area that might suffer a tsunami. There is a very natural warning system that nature provides, but it is very short term and that is before a tsunami, before the big waves roll in, the water recedes, not always, but almost always, and that is precisely what happened in this case. In fact, that killed more people because they did not recognize it. Any time one is on the coast and you see the water receding for some unexplained reason, head for high ground. That is your first warning. But, in fact, what happened, all the fish were left stranded on the shore, people rushed out, and especially children rushed out to grab the fish because obviously they need the food and they were out there beyond where they should have been when the water hit. They had no chance of survival whatsoever. So there is one good warning system every person in every country should be aware of, in case you are ever on shore, you see the water running out, you run in, and head for high ground as fast as you can.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Public Museum of Grand Rapids, Michigan, located in Michigan's Third Congressional District, which I represent. The Public Museum of Grand Rapids is a collections-based educational organization that explores and celebrates the world and our place in it. It seeks to educate and delight the public, contribute to the well- being of its community, and enhance the quality of life in west Michigan. Founded in 1854, the Public Museum has been owned and operated by the city of Grand Rapids since 1906, serving a broad regional audience of all ages. It is Michigan's oldest museum open to the public and the State's third largest museum, hosting visitors annually from every Michigan county, U.S. State and Canadian province and many foreign countries. The Public Museum's beginnings date back to December 17, 1854, when a group of amateur historians, scientists, and collectors of antiquities gathered to form the Grand Rapids Lyceum of Natural History. By 1868, the Lyceum had allied itself with a group of interested high school students to form an actual museum with rooms open for ``public inspection'' in the city's Central High School. Increasingly, the museum shifted away from the display of natural curiosities and oddities, and acquired systematic collections that were useful tools in teaching about human culture and the natural world. A new name was adopted that emphasized the museum's expanded educational role as an operation of the Board of Education: The Kent Scientific Institute Museum. By 1917, the museum occupied two adjacent mansions in the downtown area, was a chartered department of municipal government, and had developed a huge lending program of instructional materials and mounted specimens and artifacts for use in schools. In 1936, the institution was renamed the Public Museum to better reflect its citizen ownership and operation and multidisciplinary, program-focused character. It had a professional staff and had seen a great increase in historical collections and programs as well as permanent installations. In 1938, the museum's board matched a WPA grant with a bequest and built an innovative, modern building that looked and acted more like a department store than a traditional museum. Inspired by the writings of Newark Museum director John Cotton Dana, the museum was populist in philosophy and presentation, marketing itself in 1940 when it opened as being ``as convenient as your corner store, and friendly as your neighbor.'' By 1964, an incredible growth in service-oriented programming had necessitated building additions and the construction of the Roger B. Chaffee Planetarium along with the acquisition of the 143-acre Blandford Nature Center. The Voigt House, an unusually well-preserved, late-19th century residence, was acquired in 1974 with all of its original furnishings and archives. It is a house museum that balances the didactic historical displays developed in the main museum, especially those focused on furniture design, manufacturing and marketing. In the late 1970s, even as it became the first museum in the Nation to be accredited by the American Association of Museums, 1971, it was evident that expansion was necessary again in order to maintain standards and better serve a growing audience. In 1982, an extraordinary public planning process was begun that resulted in the creation of a master plan for the museum's growth on a new site in the heart of downtown Grand Rapids. This culminated on the museums 140th anniversary in 1994 with the debt free opening of its 155,000-square- foot VanAndel Museum Center. In total, $42 million was amassed from more than 25,000 public and private donors for its completion, with major support coming from the VanAndel family. Community-based exhibition development, object conservation and program development were planned, fabricated and implemented simultaneously with the structure, resulting in multiple exhibitions exploring regional urban, social and industrial history, ethnology, regional art, and environmental education. The museum boasts numerous unique features, including a fully operational 1928 amusement park carousel and completely restored 1928 Mighty Wurlitzer theater organ. With growth came new opportunities. Professional staff was expanded. Citizens formed a private foundation in support of museum programs that now manages assets of more than $6 million. The city of Grand Rapids renewed its commitment to operations, while facilitating and encouraging the museum to become entrepreneurial. In response, annual institutional attendance climbed to nearly double the city's population simultaneous with the Public Museum's third award of AAM accreditation (1996). The museum staff manages a collection that now includes nearly 1 million objects in more than 350,000 record groups. A new temporary exhibition program was initiated, which reached new heights of success with the organization of a proprietary exhibition of The Dead Sea Scrolls, organized in collaboration with the Israel Antiquities Authority. Between mid-February and June 1, 2003, the exhibition hosted a record 235,541 visitors, having an economic impact on the region of $9 million. It was the second-most-attended temporary antiquities exhibition worldwide in 2003. As 2004 draws to a close, the museum is again poised to expand both with new programs and exhibitions as well as a new 140,500-square-foot, state-of-the-art Community Archives & Research Center providing excellent preservation of the permanent collection and expanded public access. The center houses not only museum collections, but also the archives of the city of Grand Rapids and the county of Kent, which collaborate in its planning and operation. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in congratulating the Public Museum of Grand Rapids on the occasion of its 150`h anniversary. Its long history of service to the west Michigan community is laudable indeed and we look forward to its continued work in the future.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3014.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the final version of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act. This bill represents the final negotiated compromise between the House and Senate earlier versions of this bill. Harmful algal blooms, also known as HABs, and hypoxia, are serious problems in coastal communications nationwide. This bill supports basic and applied research that will lead to new methods to predict, control and respond to HABs and hypoxia. I am especially pleased that we added the Great Lakes to the research categories in the bill. I thank my colleague from Maryland, Wayne Gilchrest of the Resources Committee, for his help in guiding this bill through the process. I also want to thank my Senate Colleagues, Senator McCain, Senator Snowe, Senator Breaux and Senator Voinovich for their leadership on this issue. And finally, I thank my colleagues on the Science Committee, including Chairman Boehlert, and my friend from Washington, Mr. Baird who have provided useful input. I appreciate all of their help in reaching an agreement on this important bill. The language before us today reflects a bipartisan, bicameral agreement and I urge all of my colleagues to support the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act. I reserve the balance of my time. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 3014) to reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 529) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my displeasure with the current state of the appropriations bills. First, I regret that we are using an omnibus bill to finish the appropriations process for FY 2005. It is not a good procedure, under any circumstances, when we are required to vote on a bill with insufficient time for review, especially a bill as important as appropriations for most of government funding other than Defense and Homeland Security. My most serious concern with the omnibus is the appropriation for the National Science Foundation, (NFS), which is $227 million below the President's request for FY 2005. The amount is even $60 million lower than last year's appropriation--before accounting for the .83 percent across-the-board cuts, meaning the cut is actually larger than $60 million--primarily in the critical areas of research and education, and even reduces the support for basic research. In the last 20 years this has happened only twice, and I am sorry to see that this year we will make it a third. While I understand the need to make hard choices in the face of fiscal constraint, I do not see the wisdom in putting science funding far behind other priorities. We have cut NSF despite this omnibus bill spending more money for the 2005 fiscal year, so clearly we could find room to grow basic research while maintaining fiscal constraint. But not only are we not keeping pace with inflationary growth, we are actually cutting the relative size basic research comprises of the overall budget. NSF has been praised as a model of administrative efficiency--over 95 percent of its funds go directly to support education and research programs. Former OMB director, Mitch Daniels, praised NSF as a model of administrative efficiency and called NSF one of the ``true centers of excellence in this government'' for its low overhead costs and efficient use of tax dollars. Furthermore, NSF has earned a reputation as the premiere basic research institution with only 4 percent of the total federal research and development budget. I am concerned about the kind of message that we are sending by cutting funding at agencies that succeed so well with already lean budgets, while rewarding those less efficient agencies by increasing their funding. This decision shows dangerous disregard for our nation's future, and I am both concerned and astonished that we would make this decision at a time when other nations continue to surpass our students in math and science and consistently increase their funding of basic research. We cannot hope to fight jobs lost to international competition without a well-trained and educated workforce. If we want to remain competitive in the international marketplace, we must provide funding that stimulates innovation and supports education. Within our borders, NSF supports technological innovation that has been, and remains crucial to the sustained economic prosperity that America has enjoyed for several decades. This innovation is made possible, in large measure, by NSF support of basic scientific research, particularly in the physical sciences. Research at NSF not only underpins physical science research, but lays the foundation for work in the health science and medicine as well. Reducing this funding is extremely short-sighted. While I strongly oppose the reduced budget for the National Science Foundation, I recognize that the omnibus contains many important pieces of legislation that are necessary to pass. Therefore, under protest, I will vote for the bill, but my vote does not in any way represent my approval for the funding cuts to the NSF.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, November 24, 2004, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 529, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise today in strong support of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act conference report. This excellent bipartisan agreement is a win for parents, teachers, schools and, most importantly, students with disabilities. I was pleased to be a part of the conference committee and would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for their dedicated work in producing this bipartisan conference report. I particularly congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his excellent work on No Child Left Behind and also on this bill. This bill sets in motion important reforms that will help schools, parents, and teachers ensure that all students with disabilities receive a quality education. First, the conference report gives local schools more flexibility and greater financial control over special education funding. Although Congress has increased funding for special education by almost 400 percent in the past 10 years, bringing annual funding to $11.1 billion, the Federal Government is not yet meeting its goal of paying 40 percent of special education costs. I am pleased that this bill puts us on the track to do that. Taxpayers within my district and throughout the Nation have had to make up the cost difference. Last year, voters in my district approved a special milage to raise millions in additional special education funding. I am very proud of my community for their willingness to provide extra funding for special education. This new bill will help such communities as the Federal share of special education costs continues to increase. Communities will be allowed more flexibility in the way educational resources are spent by enabling schools to redirect a share of their own local resources for other educational purposes. Next, while everyone involved in a child's education plays an important role, I would like to particularly commend the parents of students with disabilities. Throughout my career as an educator and as a Member of Congress, I have been struck by the dedication and active participation many of these parents have towards ensuring their children's success. I truly believe that children, and especially children with special needs, learn best when they have at least one parent who is actively involved in their education. This conference report supports all parents by giving more opportunity for them to be active participants in their children's educational experience by expanding parental rights and options. For example, the conference report enables parents and school districts to agree to change the student's Individualized Education Plan, known as the IEP, without holding formal meetings as is required under current law. The bill also requires parents to select supplemental educational services for their children when they attend a school that is in need of improvement because students with disabilities are not making adequate yearly progress. Both of these are marked improvements over current law. Finally, the conference report builds upon the sweeping education reforms of the No Child Left Behind Act and emphasizes academic results for children with special needs. For too many years, students with disabilities were allowed to fall between the cracks as they were left out of accountability systems. This bill solves that problem, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill. Finally, the conference report builds upon the sweeping education reforms of the No Child Left Behind Act and emphasizes academic results for children with special needs. For too many years, students with disabilities were allowed to fall between the cracks as they were left out of accountability systems. Now, States and schools are being held accountable for ensuring that students with disabilities are indeed learning. The conference report strikes an important balance between accountability and flexibility by maintaining the No Child Left Behind requirement that all children be taught by highly qualified teachers, while providing some key flexibility for special education teachers who teach multiple subjects or teach only children with severe mental impairments. I strongly support this excellent conference report and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor and recognize an organization in my hometown, the Grand Rapids Junior Chamber of Commerce. The Jaycees, as they are known, will celebrate both their 75th and 95th anniversaries this Saturday, November 20, 2004. First, allow me to explain this apparent contradiction. The Jaycees were born as the Grand Rapids Junior Board of Trade Club at Grand Rapids Central High School 95 years ago in 1909 as a training program sponsored by the Grand Rapids Board of Trade and the Grand Rapids Public Schools. The Junior Board of Trade became the Jaycees in 1929 when the program affiliated with the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce. Since its creation, the club has been an engine of training and community service. In its earliest years, its members raised funds for local orphan newsboys, flu victims and soldiers, and provided chauffeur services at the annual Furniture Market when Grand Rapids was known as the Furniture Capital of the World. In the 1930s, the Jaycees helped lead the campaign to build the Grand Rapids Civic Auditorium and a ``bigger, better'' county airport. The 1940s saw the Jaycees move Grand Rapids onto the professional sports scene by raising funds to purchase a franchise in the All- American Girls Baseball League (popularized in the movie ``A League of Their Own'') named the Grand Rapids Chicks. In the 1950s, the club operated what has become an enduring symbol of holiday spirit, the city's Santa Claus Parade, while also starting the area's Junior Achievement program, which today continues to foster the entrepreneurial spirit among local youngsters. The City of Grand Rapids sought assistance in 1966 to fund city governmental programs and the Jaycees were there to lead a non-partisan campaign to implement a city income tax. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Jaycees showed leadership by helping to form the West Michigan Environmental Action Council and the West Michigan Burn Unit. It also brought professional golf to the area by starting the Charity Golf Classic, an event that later grew into an official PGA Seniors Tour event. Most recently known as the Farmers Charity Classic, the tournament has raised more than $3.5 million for local charities since its inception. The Jaycees' civic involvement continues today. In the last decade, the group built one of the city's finest parks, the Mackay/Grand Rapids Jaycees Family Park and raised funds for the VanAndel Arena, one of the area's premier sports and entertainment venues. Even more recently, Jaycees raised funds for the new DeVos Place convention center and provides school supplies for area children. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Grand Rapids Jaycees is a remarkable organization that has provided invaluable leadership in making the Grand Rapids community a better place to live. I hope you will join me in celebrating its 75th and 95th anniversaries and wishing its members many, many more in the future.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5186. This legislation ends the loophole that allowed some tax-exempt student loan providers to reap high rates of return on certain loans. The savings would be used to fund increased loan forgiveness for urgently needed math, science and special education teachers in Title I schools. Jobs of the future will require workers who understand the basic concepts and principles of math and science. However, studies show that our students lack even the basic math and science skills and rank near- last in international comparisons. Our country urgently needs to improve our math and science education in order to ensure our workers can compete in the workplace. Research has shown that a highly-qualified teacher with an extensive background in subject matter and teaching skills is a very important factor in improving student learning, especially in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Unfortunately, as school districts struggle to find, train and keep qualified math and science teachers, many have had to resort to hiring out-of-field teachers, particularly in high schools. Often, those with an interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics select college majors outside of teaching due to the possibility of higher salaries. Increasing loans forgiveness for math and science teachers should attract more college students to teaching careers. This legislation meets an urgent need, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5163, the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act. The goal of this legislation is to align and strengthen the planning of research and development activities at the Department of Transportation. As chairman of the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee of the Science Committee, I have spent the past two years examining surface transportation research programs and identifying ways to improve the coordination, planning and implementation of this important research. I developed a comprehensive bill to achieve these goals, most of which was included in the House version of the larger transportation reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to reconcile our differences with the Senate to pass the larger bill. However, I am pleased that Secretary Mineta had the personal vision and commitment to seek to reorganize the Department to begin efforts to reform and strengthen research programs. Mr. Mineta, in addition to being Secretary of Transportation (and previously Secretary of Commerce), was a leader on transportation issues in the House of Representatives for 20 years. Specifically, he has always made sure that research played a strong role in developing transportation policy and programs. This legislation is a perfect example of his commitment to that goal. This bill is a good first step in reforming and strengthening research at the Department of Transportation. The chief responsibility of the new Administration created by this bill, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, is to coordinate research across the Department. This is to ensure that we are getting the maximum out of our research dollars by funding research that contributes directly towards the goals of the transportation system and is not unnecessarily duplicative of other research efforts. But we have much to do to improve research at the Department, and I look forward to completing the job early next year as we pass the larger reauthorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Young and his staff for working with me and my staff to incorporate our views into this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act.

Mr. EHLERS

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

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) for ably managing the time on the minority side and particularly for his provision of the statistics which I find very fascinating, and I do not want to prolong my statement too much by including them, but it illustrates something very dramatically. Often the public asks us what we do with all their tax money and why do we waste it so much. There are a good many things that the Federal Government does that are very, very good for people. This is one example of that. Funding NOAA is a very worthwhile enterprise. Given the statistics that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) gave and the statistics that I gave compared to what we do today, you can extend that to tornados as well and other types of disasters. The average lead time for tornados was 10 minutes during Hurricane Ivan, and frequently it is earlier than that for tornados in the Midwest where I live. Flash flood warnings average 57 minutes; 38 tornados occurred across Florida during Hurricane Ivan, so we really saved a lot of lives in this particular case; and it makes the expenditures for NOAA look small by comparison. It is very important for all of us, especially the appropriators, for all of to us recognize that this is money well spent. It does save lives. It does save properties. It saves injuries, and it is very important for us to continue that. Madam Speaker, in closing I want to thank my colleagues from the Florida delegation, virtually all of whom co-sponsored this legislation; and I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his enthusiastic support of the resolution. I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), of the Committee on Science for their support, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the ranking member of my subcommittee.