Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I wish to speak on the general merits of the bill. Nanotechnology is an extremely important scientific development, one in which we are just beginning to scratch the surface. Few people in this country realize the tremendous potential that this has. At the same time, as a scientist, I have to say if someone asked me what are we going to get out of this, I have to simply say I am not sure. And that is the nature of basic research. In 1931 when theorists first started investigating stimulated emission of radiation, if one asked the question what is this going to come to, they would have said I do not know. And when Charles Townes first developed the hydrogen MASAR, microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, and someone asked what is this going to come to, he probably said it would be a time standard, but was not certain of any development beyond that. And yet that research led to the development of the laser, and the development of the laser led to a multitude of applications in business, commerce, medicine and the military. The laser today is ubiquitous. Back then it was a precious, expensive discovery, but today we use tiny, inexpensive lasers just to point at slides on a screen. It has been amazing progress. And we will find the same thing with nanotechnology. It is a very promising field, but we do not know where it is going to lead. Some of the promise of nanotechnology could be incredibly strong, light materials which could create a revolution in space travel and in ordinary airplane travel. Other uses for it could be in the medical arena, being able to entrap health-enhancing molecules within a nanoscale shell so that the medicine can be directly applied to the site we are trying to reach. For example, we might treat cancer in a very direct way by having a mechanism of transporting the chemotherapy molecules directly to the cancer cells and not to other cells. That would also be a marvelous development, but we really do not know if it will work out. The point is simply that this is a very new technology, and already we know enough about it to know that it is a major breakthrough. It is absolutely essential that we pursue this research in a thoughtful manner and that we, as a Nation, commit ourselves to development of nanotechnology and research in nanoscience. I am very much a supporter of the bill, and I appreciate the chairman of the Committee on Science and the ranking member for bringing this bill forward. It is a good step forward for our country. Frankly, we are going to need much more in the future in terms of guidance for how this new discovery is supposed to be used, including some of the ethical and societal concerns; but the first thing to do is to promote research on nanotechnology, find out exactly what promise it has, what may become of it, and then pursue those avenues of research.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John W. Kluge for his constant and unwavering support for the Library of Congress. Mr. Kluge is the greatest individual benefactor in the history of the Library of Congress. He came to this country as a young boy from Germany, with virtually nothing but a china Dresden Horse--which he still has. From these humble origins, and through hard work, he received a full scholarship to Columbia University. After service in the United States Army during World War II, he went on in the business world to create a vast media empire which he converted into a great engine of philanthropy, supporting many educational programs, aimed in particular toward helping minorities. Mr. Kluge is the founding chairman of the James Madison Council, the Library of Congress's private sector philanthropic organization, where he has inspired many others to join in support of the Library and its programs. Through his generosity, John Kluge helped the Library of Congress bridge the gap into its third century by enabling it to invest heavily in technologies that bring the vast collections of the Library to people all over the world. Thanks to an endowment from Mr. Kluge, the Library of Congress established the John W. Kluge Center, which brings some of the world's best minds--the Kluge Scholars--into residence to use the rich resources of the Library and interact with national policy makers. The Kluge Center also accommodates Kluge post-doctoral Fellows who are pursuing interdisciplinary and cross-cultural subjects using the Library's rich and diverse collections. The first million dollar John W. Kluge Prize in the Human Sciences will be awarded this fall for lifetime achievement in the humanities. The work and the generosity of spirit of this great American will live on for generations. For years to come, individuals will be able to attend college on a John W. Kluge Scholarship who might otherwise be unable to afford it. Countless future national leaders will benefit from the intellectual stimulation that this man has made possible through his work at the Library of Congress. He is a man who has made a difference. During a lifetime of philanthropic activity and quiet assistance for those in need, John W. Kluge has touched countless lives and truly deserves the recognition of this body.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendments Act of 2003. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are a significant threat to human health, commercial fishing, and recreational water use throughout the United States. My legislation will authorize funding for research to improve our response to this threat and to develop a deeper understanding of these problems. Harmful algal blooms occur in both marine and freshwater environments, and are often referred to as red tides or brown tides. These dense mats of algae produce toxins dangerous to aquatic life and to humans, some of which are so potent that eating just one contaminated mussel could result in anything from mild nausea to paralysis, and even death in some cases. Hypoxia occurs when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed by bacteria in the water. This process depletes oxygen to levels so low they cannot support aquatic life, which decreases fisheries production and can produce terrible odors that make the water undesirable for recreational use. It is estimated that harmful algal blooms cost the U.S. $50 million a year, while hypoxia causes severe conditions in many locations, including the Gulf of Mexico, where a ``dead'' zone the size of New Jersey develops each summer. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are also causing problems closer to my home region, the Great Lakes, where these events are more frequently fouling the water. In the past 30 years, major advances were made to improve Great Lakes water quality, but recently scientists have observed an increase in both harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The reasons for this are unclear, but may be related to invasive species changing the way nutrients are cycled in the lakes. In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. The Act created a Task Force to examine these problems and authorized $19 million annually for research and monitoring activities related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. This March, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, of which I serve as chairman, held a hearing on this subject and found that we need to expand our research efforts to include freshwater blooms, update our assessments of these threats every five years, and improve communication with local resource managers about these efforts. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to address these findings. More specifically, the legislation expands the authorization of funding to $30 million annually (over the next three years) for research and monitoring efforts on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. It also requires the Task Force to develop research plans on previously overlooked aspects of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, such as: Great Lakes harmful algal blooms; and prevention, control and mitigation methods to reduce the impact of harmful algal blooms. This legislation also provides a mechanism for regional and local assessments of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, because the causes of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia vary with regional water use, land use, and environment. Additionally, it increases the participation of local resource managers in this process, ensuring that our investment in research produces useful tools for the people dealing with the problems on a day-to-day basis. The bill reauthorizes funding for programs that have been effective in improving our scientific understanding of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, namely the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program and the Monitoring and Event Response to Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) program. It also requires scientific assessments of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia on a regular basis, providing a means to continuously target our resources in an effective manner. In conclusion, my legislation provides a research framework for addressing the nationwide problem of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. It improves our ability to understand and predict harmful algal bloom events, adds the Great Lakes as an important area for harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research, and ensures the participation of local resource managers in developing research plans so that the research can be fully utilized by everyone concerned with these important issues. I have been working with my colleague from Ohio, Senator George Voinovich, who is introducing companion legislation in the Senate today. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to pass this important bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 92, 93, and 94 I missed the votes due to a delay in my airplane flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill that is a critical component in our efforts to combat aquatic invasive species--the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act. This legislation creates a comprehensive research program that supports federal, state and local efforts to prevent invasive species from ever entering our waterways, as well as detection, control and eradication efforts once they are here. It complements a bill introduced today by Mr. Gilchrest in the House and Mr. Levin in the Senate, to reauthorize the National Invasive Species Act. This legislation is a critical component in our battle against these harmful and extremely damaging pests. In undertaking this effort, I have found that many people wonder-- ``What is an invasive species? Why it is so crucial to keep them out of the United States?'' It is important that we understand these questions so that we can appreciate the scope of the threat that invasive species pose to our economy and environment. The introduction of non-native species is not new to the United States. People have brought non-native plants and animals into the United States, both intentionally and unintentionally, for a variety of reasons, since the New World was discovered. Some examples include the introduction of nutria (which is a rodent similar to a muskrat) by trappers to bolster the domestic fur industry, and the introduction of the purple loosestrife plant to add rich color to gardens. Both nutria and purple loosestrife are now serious threats to wetlands. Non-native species may also be introduced unintentionally, such as through species hitching rides in ships, crates, planes, or soil coming into the United States. For example, zebra mussels, first discovered in Lake St. Clair near Detroit in the late 1980s, came into the Great Lakes through ballast water from ships. Not all species brought into the country are harmful to local economies, people and/or the environment. In fact, most non-native species do not survive because the environment does not meet their biological needs. In many cases, however, the new species will find favorable conditions (such as a lack of natural enemies or an environment that fosters propagation) that allow it to survive and thrive in a new ecosystem. Only a small fraction of these non-native species become an ``invasive species''--defined as a species that is both non-native to the ecosystem and whose introduction causes or may cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. However, this small fraction can cause enormous damage, both to our economy and our environment. Estimating the total economic impact of invasive species is extremely difficult. No single organization accumulates such statistics comprehensively. However, researchers at Cornell University estimate that invasive species cost Americans $137 billion annually. This includes the cost of control, damage to property values, health costs and other factors. Just one species can cost government and private citizens billions of dollars. For example, zebra mussels have cost the various entities in the Great Lakes basin an estimated $3 billion during the past 10 years for cleaning water intake pipes, purchasing filtration equipment, etc. Beyond economic impacts, invasive species cause ecological costs that are even more difficult to quantify. For example, sea lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes cost approximately $10 million to $15 million annually. However, we do not have a good measure of the cost of lost fisheries due to this invader, which was first discovered in the Great Lakes in the early 1900s. In fact, invasive species now are second only to habitat loss as threats to endangered species. Quantifying the loss due to extinction caused by these invasive species is nearly impossible. Given the enormous economic and environmental impacts these invaders cause, two clear goals emerge: First, we need to focus more resources and energy into dealing with this problem at all levels of government; second, our best strategy for dealing with invasive species is to focus these resources to prevent them from ever entering the United States. Spending millions of dollars to prevent species introductions will save billions of dollars in control, eradication and restoration efforts once the species become established. In fact, one theme is central to both Mr. Gilchrest's bill and this legislation. It is an old adage, but one worth following--``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' To successfully carry out this strategy, we need careful, concerted management of this problem underpinned by research at every step. For example, we know that we must do more to regulate the pathways by which these invaders enter the United States (ships, aquaculture, etc.), which is an important component of Mr. Gilchrest's legislation. However, research must inform us as to which of these pathways pose the greatest threat and which techniques used to manage each pathway are effective. This legislation would help develop this understanding through the ecological and pathway surveys conducted under this bill. In fact, research underlies every management decision aimed at detecting, preventing, controlling and eradicating invasive species; educating citizens and stakeholders; and ensuring that resources are optimally deployed to increase the effectiveness of government programs. These items are also reflected in the legislation, which I will now describe in more detail. The bill is divided into six main parts. The first three parts outline an ecological and pathway research program, combining surveys and experimentation, to be established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and the United States Geological Survey. This program is focused on understanding what invasive species are present in our waterways, which pathways they use to enter our waterways, how they establish themselves once they are here and whether or not invasions are getting better or worse based on decisions to regulate pathways. In carrying out this program, the three principal agencies I mentioned previously will develop standardized protocols for carry out the ecological and pathway surveys that are called for under the legislation. In addition, they will coordinate their efforts to establish long-term surveys sites so we have strong baseline information. This program also includes an important grant program so that academic researchers and state agencies can carry out the surveys at diverse sites distributed geographically around the country. This will give federal, state and local managers a more holistic view of the rates and patterns of invasions of aquatic invasive species into the United States. Lastly, the principal agencies will coordinate their efforts and pull all of this information together and analyze it to help determine whether or not decisions to manage these pathways are effective. This will inform policymakers as to which pathways pose the greatest threat and whether or not they need to change the way these pathways are managed. The fourth part of the bill contains several programs to develop, demonstrate and verify technologies to prevent, control and eradicate invasive species. The first component is an Environmental Protection Agency grant program focused on developing, demonstrating and verifying environmentally sound technologies to control and eradicate aquatic invasive species. This research program will give federal, state and local managers more tools to combat invasive species that are also environmentally sound. The second component is a program to develop dispersal barriers--administered by the Army Corps of Engineers--which have been a critical issue in the Chicago Sanitary Canal where Great Lakes managers have been desperately trying to keep the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan from the Mississippi River system. The third component is expansion both in terms of scope and funding of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Fish and Wildlife Service program geared toward demonstrating technologies that prevent invasive species from being introduced by ships. This is the federal government's only program that is focused solely on helping develop viable technologies to treat ballast water. It has been woefully underfunded in the past and deserves more attention. The fifth part of the bill focuses on setting up research to directly support the Coast Guard's efforts to set standards for the treatment of ships with respect to preventing them from introducing invasive species. Ships are a major pathway by which invasive species are unintentionally introduced; the ballast water discharged by ships is of particular concern. One of the key issues that has hampered efforts to deal with the threats that ships pose is the lack of standards for how ballast water must be treated when it is discharged. The Coast Guard has had a very difficult time developing these standards since the underlying law that support their efforts (the National Invasive Species Act) did not contain a research component to support their work. This legislation provides that missing piece. Finally, the sixth and final part supports our ability to identify invaders once they arrive. Over the past couple of decades, the number of scientists working in systematics and taxonomy, expertise that is fundamental to identifying species, has decreased steadily. In order to address this problem, the legislation sets up a National Science Foundation program to give grants for academic research in systematics and taxonomy with the goal of maintaining U.S. expertise in these disciplines. Taken together, both my legislation and Mr. Gilchrest's represent an important step forward in our efforts to prevent invasive species from ever crossing our borders and combat them once they are arrive. New invaders are arriving in the United States each day, bringing with them even more burden on taxpayers and the environment. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to deal with this problem, and so I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution and to offer my heartfelt prayers on behalf of the families, friends and loved ones of the seven crew members who lost their lives aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. Our whole nation mourns with them. While this has been a terrible accident, it is important to note that this is only the third accident in the history of the United States space program to result in the loss of life. My home of Grand Rapids, Michigan, especially feels and understands the pain of this loss, as one of our native sons, Roger B. Chafee, was among the first Americans to lose their lives in the space program when the Apollo 1 cabin was engulfed in a launch pad fire during testing in 1967. Obviously, we do not have a full understanding of what happened last Saturday, but I am certain that we, as a nation, will do everything we can to understand what went wrong. As we conduct this investigation, we must commit ourselves to the proposition that the cause of exploration in which these astronauts died will continue. I strongly urge my fellow Members of Congress and the nation as a whole that we must continue to develop our space science program. These missions serve several goals, including valuable scientific and technical research and fulfilling the call of humanity to explore and expand our knowledge. For example, experiments conducted by the astronauts aboard Columbia will enhance our earthquake preparedness and safety, foster our efforts for cleaner air, and assist in strengthening human health. But, beyond the technical value of science in space, with each mission we are deepening our understanding of the conditions and effects of space on the human body. Each piece of knowledge is a stepping stone to further space exploration, enabling a fuller understanding of our universe and satisfying the call of stepping into the unknown. This endeavor of exploration and discovery is the most appropriate way that we can honor the men and women that President Bush eulogized as ``Seven lives of great purpose and achievement'': Mission Commander Rick Husband; Pilot William McCool; Payload Commander Michael Anderson; Mission Specialists Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, and Laurel Clark; and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon. May our continued dedication to the work they pursued with their lives be our most significant memorial.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 13 I was not able to vote because my airplane flight was delayed one and one-half hours due to weather problems in the midwest. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a very important piece of legislation, the ``United States Weather Research Program Act of 2003.'' The human toll and dollar loss from severe weather events is staggering. Each year this nation experiences more than 1,500 weather- related fatalities and more than 15 billion dollars in damage to property. The Weather Research Program is a partnership among academic and commercial communities and several government agencies--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Navy and many others. Led by NOAA, the program supports government and university-based research to improve severe weather forecasts and better utilization by emergency managers as well as the public. This legislation authorizes $46.5 million over three years and emphasizes research on hurricanes and heavy precipitation events through better observations and modeling. Another important goal for the program will be to improve the communication between weather forecasters and the public and emergency managers when it is needed most. The bill also provides for the development of centers where research can be tested in real life environments to more quickly move research and new technology into operation--and save lives in the process. I look forward to working with the agencies involved in this program, the research community, and my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I can only echo the words of congratulation that he has offered. Just to give a little more information about Grand Valley State University, it did not start until 1960, with 223 students. If they fielded a football team that year, it would have consumed 10 percent of the student body. And in 42 short years, they went from that to a rather large University of 20,000 students, more than 48,000 alumni, and winning the national championship in the NCAA. It is an astounding record. Also, I might mention that the main campus is in the west Michigan area, represented by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), from whom we just heard; but the downtown campus is in my district. That consists of many graduate studies programs, engineering, and post- graduate course offerings. It is a remarkable record of success. I have to pay tribute to the former president, Arend (Don) Lubbers, who served from 1968 through 2001 and did an incredible job of taking a fledgling university and building it into a full-grown university. In fact, the football stadium at Grand Valley is named after him, and is called Lubbers Stadium. The current president, Mark Murray, succeeded Lubbers in 2001. He has been there a short time and has done a great job of continuing the work there. Football and sports are not the be-all and end-all of the university experience, especially in Michigan, where we have a strong orientation towards academic performance. But President Lubbers understood that successful sports teams are a source of pride for the students, staff, administration, and alumni of the schools they represent. In this respect, Grand Valley State University Lakers have ably represented their university and all of west Michigan in their march to the national championship. The opportunity of playing on national television in the Division II championship game in each of the past two seasons has given Grand Valley State University national exposure it never would have received otherwise. I wish to congratulate the team for their tremendous performance this year. They came within one game of winning the national championship last year. They came back determined to win it this year, and they did. Congratulations are also due to Coach Brian Kelly, who was named last night as the American Football Coaches Association's Division II National Coach of the Year. He has done an outstanding job there. I also want to congratulate senior quarterback Curt Anes, who received the Harlan Hill Trophy, which is Division II's equivalent of the Heisman Trophy. He is also a First-Team All American. Senior wide receiver David Kircus, also a First-Team All American, set numerous NCAA Division II and school records throughout his career. In addition, congratulations are due to offensive lineman Dale Westrick and defensive lineman Keyonta Marshall, both named First-Team All Americans. Also, I have to congratulate not only the school, not only the team, the coach and the players, but also the supporters of the Grand Valley State University Lakers, who set a conference attendance record. That shows their loyalty and their support for the university and for their sports teams. So I am very pleased that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has offered this resolution. I am very pleased to join him in commending Grand Valley State University and their football team for their very, very, very fine performance.

Mr. EHLERS

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

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am a relative newcomer here, but I have always enjoyed Congressman Gekas in the many discussions we have had. He is very proud of his Greek heritage, loves to serve us the Greek delicacies that we all enjoy and is also a superb piano player. But beyond that he is an outstanding Congressman, and at one time I had a bill before his subcommittee. He treated me with fairness, with honor, and went above and beyond the call of duty of a chairman in helping me get my legislation through, and I still remember that as a newcomer to have someone with that maturity and that experience be willing to help me in my efforts before his subcommittee. He is a great gentleman. We are going to miss him here, but at least he goes out with a crowning achievement and we can all be proud of that.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my pleasure to see this bill reach the floor for final passage and on its way to the President. I certainly agree with all the comments that have been made and I will not repeat them, but I did want to point out that in passing this legislation, both the House and the Senate have recognized the important role that the National Institute of Standards and Technology plays in cyber security. This is very important to note, because in the original proposal for the homeland security bill that particular activity would have been transferred out of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and placed in the Department of Homeland Security. I think that would have been very disruptive to the activity, but the important thing to recognize is that this group at the National Institute of Standards and Technology is the leading group in doing the basic research necessary to solve our cyber security problems. Members of the House and of the Senate working on the homeland security legislation should embrace this role as well. While there have been proposals to transfer NIST's cyber security division into the new department, this legislation clearly identifies the role that NIST should play in cyber security. As such, the proposals to move this responsibility elsewhere do not meet the test. Any conference agreement should recognize this as well by keeping NIST's cyber security division within NIST. Let me also add that to most individuals in this land, cyber security means not having someone steal their credit card number. That is a very important function. But there is much more at stake here, as we have heard. That is the Nation's security. Two years ago, I wrote a report for the NATO parliamentary assembly, which is the legislative body relating to NATO, that discussed and studied information warfare. Much of what I said in that report is pertinent to this discussion today. Mr. Speaker, I include that report at this point in the proceedings. Information Warfare and International Security

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for his very perceptive comments on this issue. One important additional point to note is that the country with the most sophisticated computer systems is also the most vulnerable to information attacks and cyber attacks. Therefore, we have the most to gain by engaging in studies of cyber security to protect our extremely advanced systems.

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, as we return and we begin session once again, I want to rise and express my appreciation for this country and for this institution. We all have experienced elections. What is interesting is that throughout the Nation, the elections have been remarkably close in many cases. I am proud of that, because I would not want to live in a country where we have a dictator that gets 99 percent of the vote in a rigged election. We are in a country where we present our ideas and ourselves to the country and to its people, and those people, on the basis of what we say and what we do, elect us. That is precisely the way the system is supposed to work. That is what the founders of this Nation wanted, and that is what they put in place 225 years ago. In addition to that, yesterday we celebrated Veteran's Day and recognized all those who have given the supreme sacrifice and those who have sacrificed parts of their lives to the service of this country. Once again, a date to remember, a date in which we honor people in our country. I am so proud to be an American. I am so very, very proud of our country, and I am delighted to be an American.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his very generous comments and his erudite display of knowledge. I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Duncan) comments about the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) interest and his vast scope of knowledge. I would like to think that is a trait of people from Minnesota since I was born in Minnesota myself. The gentleman from Tennessee has done an outstanding job of chairing the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and we have gotten some very good legislation out this year, not just this bill, but other bills relating to this, and I hope they all pass as this bill is doing. Also I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for his support, and the excellent staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, who have worked very hard, even sometimes late evenings, to get this legislation through the House, over to the Senate, and now back before the House for final consideration. America is often called the land of plenty, especially when it comes to our natural resources. Few places are blessed more than we are, and the Great Lakes stand out among our many blessings. These lakes provide us with fresh drinking water, habitat for wildlife, food for fisheries, recreation in and on the waterways, water for agriculture, and shipping lanes for economic growth. Millions of people live on the Great Lakes and millions more journey to the Great Lakes to vacation and enjoy all the splendors the lakes provide. Put simply, they are the heart and soul of Michigan. I would also add to the statistic the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) gave that one-fifth of all the fresh water in the world is contained in the Great Lakes. Even beyond that, the Great Lakes alone contain 20 times more fresh water than all the other lakes and rivers in the United States combined; twenty times more than all the others. That is an immense amount of fresh water. The legislation before us today is a marriage of two different bills, both of which represent a great step forward in protecting and restoring our environment in the Great Lakes Basin. Title I of the legislation is the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002, which I introduced in March 2001. The Senate accepted almost all of the legislation that passed the House on September 5, 2002. This title provides $50 million a year in grants to clean up contaminated sediments at ``Areas of Concern'' within the Great Lakes. These areas represent a legacy of pollution within the Great Lakes Basin, and it is high time that we clean them up or, in the words of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), prevent any further contamination of future generations. In addition, the legislation will foster technology research development by providing the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development $2 million a year. With this funding, we can find better, faster, cheaper ways to clean up these toxic hot spots. In carrying out this program, the Great Lakes National Program Office, which is ultimately responsible for making these grants, should coordinate with the Office of Research and Development to ensure that grants are focused on technologies that will, in fact, improve the way we clean up these sites. We also accepted some changes the Senate made to the Legacy Act that passed by the House. We have added a new public information program which is funded at $1 million a year. This will ensure that the public is informed about the progress, or lack of, in cleaning up areas of concern. Lastly, we have added a provision that requires the Environmental Protection Agency to report back to Congress on what the Agency needs in order to oversee and implement the remedial action plans for Areas of Concern and other plans mandated by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. These plans represent the steps that must be taken in order to restore the water quality of a polluted site. Recently, the GAO reported that the EPA has not done an adequate job of overseeing the implementation of these plans by State and local entities. GAO pointed out that this lack of oversight has led to confusion and delays in getting cleanup actions underway. Title II of the legislation was added by the Senate in order to continue and expand a program for Lake Champlain that was established under the Clean Water Act. Current law authorizes the EPA to help State and local governments develop a plan for the restoration of Lake Champlain. Title II expands this authority to allow EPA to also provide assistance to implement projects recommended under the plan. The ultimate goal of this plan, like the Legacy Act, is to improve water quality in the Great Lakes Basin. We as a country have spent many years cleaning up our rivers and lakes on the surface, and we have made very significant progress. Now it is time to turn our attention to the bottoms of rivers and lakes and clean up the toxic sediments that are steadily leaching into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act will give this problem the attention it deserves. I thank the chairman, his staff and the ranking member for their assistance. I also thank groups that helped on this legislation, the Lake Michigan Federation, the Sierra Club and the Council of Great Lakes Industries. I also want to thank Susan Bodine, currently on the staff, who spent endless hours working with us on this issue over the past few years. Also I want to thank Ben Grumbles, who as a committee staffer worked on this legislation. Currently he is at the EPA working in their Office of Water. I am sure he will take great pleasure in implementing this bill. I appreciate the support of all these individuals, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I do not claim to know the late Senator Wellstone very well. We had very little interaction, but I had a deep interest in him because my home State was Minnesota. That was the State of my birth, and I have watched Minnesota politics with great interest over the years and I also watched Mr. Wellstone with great interest. And although his politics and his political views were quite different from those of mine, I admire several things about him. In the go-along-to-get-along atmosphere we often encounter in politics, he stood out as someone who stood for his beliefs. He fought passionately for his beliefs, and he sought to extend those beliefs into action, and I admire that in any individual, whether in the House or the Senate or the political arena in general, to have a stance that they take, to have a passion for what they believe is right, and to fight passionately for what they believe is right I think is an admiral trait in any individual, and Mr. Wellstone certainly exhibited that during his brief career in the political arena. So I just wanted to add those comments to the record, and I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for having this session so we can each express our opinions about what Mr. Wellstone has added to the Senate and to our Nation.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to join in praise of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his work on this bill, and for his longtime work on this committee. He has done yeoman's work, and we can be very thankful for all the good work he has done for the Congress and for the people on this particular committee over the years. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3389, which reauthorizes the National Sea Grant College Program. This final version of H.R. 3389 resolves the few minor differences between the House and Senate while maintaining the provisions to strengthen the merit review component of the program, and to interject more competition for additional funding. This bill will make an important marine research and outreach program even better. The National Sea Grant Program is unique in connecting research results to coastal communities through a combination of research, extension and education. In this way, it is somewhat similar to the land grant program we developed for universities and agriculture extension many years ago. Of course, it is not as well-funded as that program, but this is a very good start. Currently, there are 30 Sea Grant College Programs which fund and incorporate research from hundreds of universities throughout the country. I am especially proud of my home State program, the Michigan Sea Grant Program. It plays a vital role in enhancing our Nation's knowledge and understanding of Great Lakes issues. While the administration has proposed to transfer the National Sea Grant Program from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the National Science Foundation in its fiscal year 2003 budget proposal, we determined it was best to keep the program in NOAA. However, the administration did raise some legitimate concerns with the program which we have addressed in the final version of H.R. 3389. First, the legislation ensures that Sea Grant will better coordinate its activities with other programs within NOAA and with NSF. To this end, the bill requires NOAA to provide a strategic plan that establishes the priorities for the National Sea Grant College Program and jointly submit a report with NSF about how the oceans and coastal research activities of both agencies will be coordinated. This will reduce duplication and should increase the overall breadth of Federal marine research. Secondly, we acknowledge the unfair nature of how Federal funding is allocated to the State programs, which appears to be based mostly on historical averages rather than merit or need. Therefore, H.R. 3389 will require that any monies appropriated above the fiscal year 2003 levels shall be distributed to the State Sea Grant Programs on a merit review competitive basis or distributed to national strategic initiatives. This will ensure the State programs can continue their vital outreach efforts while increasing the level of competition among the State programs, and providing the National Sea Grant Office the flexibility to use some of the additional money to address national problems as they arise. In addition, we added a review of this new evaluation system to ensure that it works as we intend it. In other words, what we are trying to do in this bill is to make certain that the peer review mechanism applies very stringently to the research that is done, but that the States will be able to continue their educational and extension programs as they have in the past. H.R. 3389 also provides much needed increases in overall funding levels for Sea Grant. The authorization gradually increases from a total of $78 million for fiscal year 2003 to $103 million for fiscal year 2008. Included in that amount is $18 million a year specifically for research into aquatic nuisance species, harmful algae blooms, oysters, and fisheries outreach activities. Finally, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) as well as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for their work in introducing H.R. 3389, and thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for his leadership in these areas. I am particularly pleased that our two committees, the Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources, were able to work so well together throughout this process. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and his staff on similar joint ventures in the next Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3389. Our Nation's coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes will benefit from this legislation.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Calvin College on the dedication of its two newest facilities, the Prince Conference Center and the DeVos Communications Center, the new home for the college's Communications Arts and Sciences and Political Science departments. These facilities will be formally dedicated in ceremonies to be held on Calvin's campus October 25 and 26. I am thrilled to see the college's new growth and the new opportunities these facilities will afford Calvin's students, faculty, alumni and visitors. I especially want to thank Ren and Elsa Broekhuizen and the entire Prince family as well as Richard and Helen DeVos for their incredible gifts that made these facilities a reality. The services rendered through these facilities will serve not only those associated with Calvin, but the rest of the Grand Rapids and West Michigan community, which will be able to participate in public events staged in these facilities. Furthermore, the students who are taught in these facilities will disperse throughout the world with the knowledge and skills gained here. These facilities are truly gifts to the entire world. As a former student and faculty member, a past recipient of Calvin's Distinguished Alumni Award, and a neighbor of this campus, I am proud my congressional colleagues and I played a part in this expansion, as we provided some of the funding for the 380-foot pedestrian overpass known as Calvin's Crossing. This overpass of the East Beltilne provides a safe crossing for people traveling from Calvin's main Knollcrest campus to the new East Campus. In that vein, I would like to offer words of remembrance and condolence to the family of Kevin DeRose, a Calvin student who was killed in 1989 while attempting to cross the East Beltline. Part of these ceremonies involves the planting of a tree near Calvin's Crossing in Kevin's memory. My prayerful hope is that never again will we have to plant another tree on this campus for a similar reason. Calvin College has come a long way since my days as a student in the 1950s and my years as a professor in the 1960s and 1970s. My student time was spent on the ``old'' Franklin Street campus. As a member of the faculty and as a neighbor, I have watched the college grow on the ``new'' Knollcrest campus. And now, with the opening of the DeVos Communications Center and the Prince Conference Center, we are witnessing the beginning of a new chapter in the life of Calvin College. My congratulations to Calvin College President Gaylen Byker who helped make these facilities a reality. Congratulations to former president William Spoelhof, whose vision brought Calvin College to the Knollcrest campus and to former president Anthony Diekema, who ably guided the campus through twenty years of expansion. Finally, best wishes to the faculty and students who will be able to enjoy the fruits of these generous gifts.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the chairman of the Committee on House Administration and sponsor of this legislation in a brief colloquy. I commend the chairman's effort in crafting this important legislation and bringing it before us today. In particular, I wish to thank him and his staff for working so closely with me in incorporating provisions of H.R. 2275, which I introduced with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and which was passed by the Committee on Science last year. My legislation established an independent commission charged with developing technical standards to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, accessibility, and integrity of voting systems. This concept is included in the conference report in section 221 in the form of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee. The conference report charges this committee with the duty of developing voluntary voting system guidelines and then recommending these technical standards to the newly created election assistance commission. I am seeking clarification from the chairman that it is his intent that these guidelines should include standards to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, accessibility, and integrity of voting systems, including those areas described in section 221(e)(2). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, to respond to this request.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his assurance and for his hard work on this conference report. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of the conference agreement on H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2002. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, for their hard work on this. We have all worked very hard to produce this bill, but their leadership is what pulled it through. For a month after the November 2000 election, we watched in disbelief as Florida's troubled election system became a national drama and fodder for the late-night talk shows. Polling station workers across Florida struggled to discern the true intent of a voter based on their interpretation of the now-infamous hanging chad. Because of Florida's problems, the most precious component of our democracy, the expression of the free will of individual voters, was turned into a battle between attorneys. After the dust settled, we put Florida's voting system under a microscope and analyzed the flaws that troubled citizens and legislators alike. After the Florida voting problems occurred, I, as a scientist, quickly realized that we needed to improve the technical flaws in our voting systems before State and local officials made large investments of taxpayer dollars in new voting equipment that may, in fact, be substandard. Scientists at MIT and Cal Tech came to the same realization and launched a joint research project to uncover the technicals flaws in our voting systems and equipment. I thank them for their work and for their cooperation with us in this area. After careful analysis of the problem and the MIT and Cal Tech study, I was appalled to discover many potential problems. For example, a high school computer hacker, or any other hacker, could sabotage some computer voting systems and make them display erroneous vote totals. In response to these problems, I drafted H.R. 2275 in conjunction with my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia). In analyzing flaws of voting equipment, one of the key issues I identified was that the FEC's standards for voting equipment had been woefully inadequate for many years. It was very clear that we needed legislation to improve the process for developing technical standards for voting equipment, and H.R. 2275 was designed to address this need. The legislation before us today contains almost all of H.R. 2275's provisions. It will improve voting equipment, because while we can debate the particulars of how to administer an election or which voting equipment to buy, no one will disagree that any voting system should be based on the best possible standards to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, accessibility, and integrity of voting equipment. I know that new technical standards do not capture the public's attention, but they are the very foundation upon which voting accuracy and reliability rests, just as all of our commerce rests on reliable universal standards. This conference report takes the concepts from H.R. 2275 and corrects a glaring flaw in our existing technical standards development process by creating a new 14-member panel chaired by the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This panel will develop and recommend voluntary technical standards to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, accessibility and integrity of voting systems. A newly created Election Assistance Commission will then determine whether or not to adopt these voluntary standards. Finally, the Commission will publish a central list of systems that are certified as meeting the current Federal standards. Since these standards are voluntary, States are still free to choose voting systems that are not certified, but now State election officials will be able to use this list to guide the purchasing decisions. This is a relatively simple, straightforward process that will lead to great improvement throughout our voting system. With these provisions, voters can rest assured that casting their vote on equipment that meets the new Federal standards will mean that their vote counts. I would also like to point out the strong anti-fraud provisions in this legislation. We must not only guarantee that each vote counts, we must also ensure these votes are not diluted by fraudulent votes. This bill will guard against fraud of many different types and will ensure that votes will be recorded accurately. We certainly do not want a return to the Tammany Halls or the Boss Prendergasts of the past. Once again, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for working with me to incorporate my thoughts in this legislation. I believe our collaboration has made a good bill even better, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement on H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2002. For a month after the November 2000 election, we watched in disbelief as Florida's troubled election system became a national drama and fodder for the late night network shows. Polling station workers across Florida struggled to discern the true intent of a voter based on their interpretation of the now infamous ``hanging chad.'' Because of Florida's problems, the most precious component of democracy--the expression of the free will of individual voters--was turned into a battle between lawyers. After the dust settled, we put Florida's voting system under a microscope and analyzed the flaws that troubled citizens and legislators alike. But the problems Florida faced weren't unique, nor were they new. Fraud, outdated and inadequate voting equipment, poor access for handicapped voters, poor training of polling station workers, and voter disenfranchisement have occurred in local, state, and national elections for years. But it took Florida's elections to spur Congressional action to correct these flaws. We can be proud that the agreement before us today addresses, and takes action to correct, each of these issues, among others. After the Florida voting problems occurred, as a scientist I quickly realized that we needed to improve the technical flaws in our voting systems before state and local officials made large investments of taxpayer dollars in new voting equipment that may, in fact, be substandard. Scientists at MIT and Caltech came to the same realization and launched a joint research project to uncover the technical flaws in our voting systems and equipment. I thank them for their work and for their collaboration with me in this area. After careful analysis of the problem and the MIT and Caltech study, I was appalled to discover many potential problems. For example, a high school computer hacker, or any other hacker could sabotage some computer voting systems and make them display erroneous vote totals. In response I drafted H.R. 2275, in conjunction with my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Barcia, to address the many problems we found. In analyzing the flaws in voting equipment, one of the key issues I identified was that the Federal Election Commission's standards for voting equipment have been woefully inadequate for many years. It was very clear that we needed legislation to improve the process for developing technical standards for voting equipment, and H.R. 2275 was designed to address this need. My legislation was reported out of the House Science Committee with the encouragement of Science Committee Chairman Boehlert. The legislation before us today contains almost all of H.R. 2275's provisions. It will improve voting equipment because, while we can debate the particulars of how to administer an election or which voting equipment to buy, no one will disagree that any voting system should be based on the best possible standards to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, accessibility, and integrity of voting equipment. I know that new technical standards do not capture the public's attention, but they are the very foundation upon which voting accuracy and reliability rests, just as all our commerce rests on reliable, universal standards. From the moment that you walk into a voting booth until your vote is officially recorded, the adequacy of the standards underlying this process will help determine whether or not your vote is recorded correctly. For example, standards help ensure that new ``touch screen'' technology does not bias your vote for one candidate over another, that voting equipment will afford access to all individuals with disabilities, and that your vote will be transmitted securely and recorded correctly. This conference report takes the concepts from H.R. 2275 and corrects a glaring flaw in our existing technical standards development process by creating a new 14-member panel, chaired by the Director of The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This panel will develop and recommend voluntary technical standards to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, accessibility, and integrity of voting systems. A newly created Election Assistance Commission will then determine whether or not to adopt these voluntary standards. Once the Commission adopts these standards, labs accredited by the Commission will be able to test voting equipment and certify that new equipment meets the federal standards. Finally, the Commission will publish a central list of systems that are certified as meeting the current federal standards. Since these standards are voluntary, states are still free to choose voting systems that are not certified, but now state election officials will be able to use this list to guide their purchasing decisions. The legislation also includes a research and development program to support the standards development process and to develop better voting technology and systems. This is critical because research must underpin decisions that the standards development committee will be making. In addition, we need research to help improve our voting equipment and systems for future elections. This is a relatively simple, straightforward process that will lead to great improvement throughout our voting system. With these provisions, voters can rest assured that casting their vote on equipment that meets the new federal standards will mean that their vote counts. I would also like to point out the strong anti-fraud provisions in this legislation. We must not only guarantee that each vote counts; we must also insure those votes are not diluted by fraudulent votes. While flawed voting equipment can undermine a person's right to have their vote recorded accurately, fraud can undermine our entire voting system. In my 25 years in elected office I have seen voting fraud in many different forms. It occurs more often than the American people know. The anti-fraud provisions in this legislation are common-sense measures that reasonable people will agree that we must have in order to preserve the integrity of our elections. We don't want any new Tammany Halls or Boss Preudergasts in the USA! I want to thank Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Hoyer again for working with me to incorporate my thoughts on this legislation. I believe our collaboration has made a good bill even better, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, casting a vote over whether to authorize military action may be the most difficult decision a member of Congress is asked to make. It certainly is for me. No matter who the opponent or what the circumstances, the consequences of a collective ``yes'' vote likely will be the loss of life. But failure to act holds the potential of even more terrible outcomes. Such a vote presents an excruciating moral dilemma. For the past year, our nation has been engaged in a great civic debate. How do we protect our nation from those who would do us harm? How can we ensure the safety of our children and grandchildren here and around the world? Should we take action against potentially hostile nations? These are questions without simple answers. President George W. Bush asked Congress to grant him the authority to take military action against Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq as part of our war on terrorism. No member of Congress takes such a request lightly. We may have different views and concerns, but each of us deals with this issue very seriously and solemnly. On such issues, persons are often characterized as hawks or doves. I am neither. Instead, I seek to be wise as an owl. I listened to the concerns voiced by many of my constituents. I wrote President Bush informing him of their concerns and seeking answers to their questions and mine. I studied Saddam Hussein and his past actions. I sought and received extensive briefings from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Central Intelligence Agency and others. And, because of my scientific background, I also received a detailed scientific briefing from civilian officials at the Pentagon about Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities. This information has convinced me of several things. Saddam Hussein continues to have dangerous, warlike ambitions. He is Hitler-like in his methods of repression, especially in gassing his own people. He has thumbed his nose at the United Nations by evicting inspectors and using the UN's ``oil-for-food'' program to fund weapons rather than feed his impoverished people. Saddam Hussein continues, in violation of the U.N.'s sanctions and the peace agreement he signed, to develop and produce chemical and biological weapons for war and terror. Most troubling, he continues to develop nuclear weapons and may be as little as a year or two away from success. As a nuclear physicist, I know the destructive force of nuclear weapons. If a weapon of the type he is developing was detonated over Calder Plaza, the blast would devastate all of Grand Rapids and the near suburbs, a firestorm would consume the rest of the suburbs and a lethal dose of radiation would envelop much of the downwind area. All told, upwards of 300,000 people would be killed. Saddam Hussein's regime poses a very real threat to the safety of the United States, the safety of his own people and, indeed, the safety of the rest of the world. Early in this debate, I thought President Bush and his advisers were seeking to strike Iraq preemptively. But I found they view that as a final alternative, not a first step. The Bush Administration continues to work with the U.N. and our allies to build a coalition and seek a peaceful end to this situation through inspections and disarmament. However, we must grant the President the power to take action against Iraq because Hussein will not acquiesce until he faces a superior force. We may have to put troops on Iraq's border before he will comply, but I hope, along with many others in Congress and the Administration, that military action ultimately will not be necessary. I abhor the idea of the U.S. making a preemptive strike. Our philosophy has always been to take the first punch before we act. But when the first punch can destroy a city and kill hundreds of thousands of people, we must consider ways to stop that first punch. I commend President Bush for his recent speeches in which he more clearly stated his intentions and reasons for requesting this resolution. I also commend him for working with Congress to craft a resolution that is not as broad as his original proposal and meets many of the concerns raised by Congress and our constituents. The legislative process has worked in structuring the approach and limiting action to only Iraq. And so, after many days and weeks of thoughtful and prayerful consideration, I've decided to support this resolution. In this case, I've concluded not acting is more dangerous than acting.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 I was detained at a meeting in the White House and could not return to the House floor before the vote concluded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''