Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill that is critical to solving the economic and environmental problems posed by aquatic invasive species--the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act. This Act authorizes funding to conduct research to support our efforts to detect, prevent and eradicate invasive species. It complements a bill being introduced today by Mr. Gilchrest in the House and Mr. Levin in the Senate to reauthorize the National Invasive Species Act. Many people may wonder what an invasive species is and why it is so crucial to keep them out of U.S. waters and so I will start off with some background. The introduction of non-native invasive species is not new to 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--zebra mussels, for example, 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 under consideration, 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 economic and environmental. Aquatic invasive species can be very costly to our economy. Estimating the total economic impact of harmful non-native species is extremely difficult. No single organization accumulates such statistics comprehensively. However, researchers at Comell 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. 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 to $15 million annually. However, we do not have a good measure of the cost of lost fisheries due to this invader. In fact, invasive species are now the number two threat to endangered species, right behind habitat loss. Quantifying the loss due to extinction of these species is nearly impossible. To protect our environment and our economy, it Is critical that we prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species to U.S. waters and eradicate any new introduction before the species can become established (once an invasive species is established, it is almost impossible to eradicate it). Spending millions of dollars to prevent species introductions will save billions of dollars in control, eradication and restoration efforts once the species become established. Prevention requires careful, concerted management, but it also requires good research. For example, it is impossible to know how to prevent invasive species from entering the United States without a good understanding of how they get here, an understanding that we would develop through the pathway surveys conducted under this bill. We cannot screen the planned importations of non-native species for ones that may invade without a thorough understanding of the characteristics that make a species invasive and an ecosystem vulnerable, a profile that would be created in this bill. Finally, we can't prevent invasive species from entering our waters through ships' ballasts (a known pathway) without good technologies to eradicate species in ballast waters. This bill supports the development and demonstration of technologies to detect, prevent and eradicate invasive species. In fact, research underlies every management decision aimed at detecting, preventing, controlling and eradicating invasive species; educating citizens and stakeholders; and restoring ecosystems. Research is also crucial to ensure that resources are optimally deployed to increase the effectiveness of government programs. This bill sets up a comprehensive research program to support efforts to detect, prevent and eradicate invasive species through informing and reviewing management initiatives. Now let me explain some of the details of the bill. The bill is divided into six sections. In the first three sections of the bill, a comprehensive research program is established through the United States Geological Survey, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to conduct surveys and experimentation on invasive species, and analyze and disseminate the results. The goal of this program is to support efforts to prevent the introduction of, detect and eradicate invasive species. This will be done by notifying early detection and rapid response efforts, informing relevant policy questions, and assessing the effectiveness of implemented policies. For instance, infor-nation about new invasive species discovered in the monitoring effort will be directly disseminated to those agencies that can respond rapidly. And policy makers will learn about the pathways and practices that are most responsible for bringing invasive species into U.S. waters so that they can set up targeted responses to reduce the risk posed by those pathways. In the fourth section of the bill, a research, development and deployment program is set up to promote environmentally sound technologies to better detect, prevent the introduction of, and eradicate invasive species. This includes programs to develop dispersal barriers, and the expansion of a program geared toward demonstrating technologies that prevent invasive species from being introduced by ships. The fifth section of the bill focuses on setting up research to directly support the Coast Guard's efforts to set standards lor the treatment of ships with respect to preventing them from introducing invasive species. The National Academy of Sciences will be asked to make recommendations for standards, and researchers will be asked to evaluate the effectiveness of any standard and recommend protocols to test technologies on ships to make sure they meet that standard. Finally, invasive species research depends on strong academic programs in systematics and taxonomy and so the National Science Foundation will be given funding to support academic research in those areas. Preventing aquatic invasive species from entering U.S. waters and eradicating them upon entry are critical to our economy and environment, and good policy decisions depend on good scientific research. I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 469) authorizing the Rotunda of the Capitol to be used on September 19, 2002, for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to General Henry H. Shelton (USA, Ret.), and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 H. Con. Res. 469.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002. First, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the subcommittee; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee, for their kind comments and for the help that they have given me in getting this bill to this point, particularly not just in terms of process but also in substance, in the advice I have received. America is often called the land of plenty, especially when it comes to our natural resources. Few places on Earth are more blessed than we are, and the Great Lakes stand out among our many blessings. I am pleased to be the author of this legislation because it will protect this precious resource, our Great Lakes. Let me describe just how important the Great Lakes are, both to citizens within the Great Lakes basin and to the country as a whole. The Great Lakes constitute almost 20 percent of the Earth's surface fresh water and 95 percent of the surface fresh water in the United States. Let me repeat that: 95 percent of the surface fresh water in the United States. That means if you take all the waters of the United States, starting first with the rivers, the Hudson River and working west, the Ohio, the magnificent Mississippi, the Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, Snake and Columbia, and you could name many more, add them all together and then put in all the other lakes in the United States and collect all that surface fresh water together in one spot, then you would still have to multiply that by almost 20 to equal the amount of water in the Great Lakes system. That is an incredible resource. It is an incredibly wonderful thing to have. These lakes provide us with fresh drinking water, habitat for wildlife, food from 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. However, longstanding pollution from contaminated river sediments continues to harm water quality in the Great Lakes and restricts our use of this valuable resource. As we heard from the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the fish have become contaminated with the toxic material, particularly the PCBs. The waterfowl that eat the fish have in turn become more contaminated. And then, of course, the humans who eat the fish and occasionally the waterfowl collect it all and become even more contaminated. After many years of dumping harmful, toxic substances into the waterways surrounding the Great Lakes and the lakes themselves, the pristine environment and waters of the Great Lakes have suffered. Cleanup projects have been implemented at only a portion of the so- called areas of concern identified by the EPA as the worst of the contaminated sites. Let me just explain what these areas of concern are. That is kind of a euphemistic phrase in my mind. What it is describing is dirty, toxic, polluted sediments at the bottom of the rivers. This material is slowly leaching into the Great Lakes. Years ago we cleaned up our rivers on the surface. We cleaned up the obvious pollution, the things you could see floating down the river. Many of us recall the days when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire and rats ran across the river, it was so contaminated. When I moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, the Grand River, which runs right through the city, was polluted enough that you would not think of swimming in there; and you did not want to eat the fish in it. We have made progress in cleaning up the obvious pollution. Today, the Cuyahoga River is a reasonably clean river. The Grand River in Grand Rapids is so clean that people fish constantly and eat the fish without difficulty, and some people even swim in the river now. However, what we have not addressed is the problem of the sediments, what is at the bottom of the river. We have not addressed this for several reasons. First of all, we did not know how to address it, because if you simply dredge it, you stir up all the sediments and the contamination just flows down into the lake. So we needed to know more about how to do it. But also there was a hope that the toxic material would just stay there in the sediments and not move and we could just leave it there and ignore it. We have now found out that we cannot ignore it. It is steadily leaching into the Great Lakes, and we must stop it and we have to develop methods to do it. One of the biggest obstacles to completing a remedial action plan, or a cleanup plan, is the funding for it. Community groups, States, the EPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers have all committed to remediation efforts and have cited the lack of Federal funding as an impediment to cleaning up areas of concern in communities that have taken the initiative to improve the quality of their water. It is time that we helped them clean up these sites. Existing authorities and programs such as Superfund and other enforcement mechanisms have not provided the resources that are necessary to clean up contaminated sediments. We must provide the EPA administrator with authority and with authorized appropriations to carry out qualified projects in areas of concern that require cleanup and are not likely to suffer further contamination. We must take steps to monitor and clean up contaminated sediment and prevent further or renewed contamination. In addition, we must pursue research and development of innovative approaches and technology to help us learn how to remove contaminated sediment in the most environmentally safe and efficient manner. The Great Lakes Legacy Act helps accomplish these goals. Finally, this act is not only environmentally responsible; it is also fiscally responsible. The act provides leveraged funding and fosters partnerships between State and local authorities and private interests by requiring a 35 percent non-Federal cost share. In addition, non- Federal sponsors are prevented from using Federal funds to displace previous expenditures for remediation programs. In other words, with a 65-35 split, we will get a greater environmental bang for our Federal buck. The Great Lakes Legacy Act will greatly improve cleanup efforts in the Great Lakes communities which need it most and will allow unfettered, continued use of this precious natural resource. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their assistance. I appreciate their support of this bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I regret that my next speaker, the gentlewoman from Maryland, had to leave for the Committee on Government Reform to present an amendment there. I particularly regret it because she is such an outstanding Member of Congress and an extremely conscientious member of the committee and has worked very hard on this bill. But her comments will be entered into the Record. Mr. Chairman, I also want to at this time thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) for his work on this bill and his work on the Committee on Science. He has been an outstanding ranking member to work with on this subcommittee and we have accomplished a great deal this year by sharing ideas and working together on bills. I have shared a legislative career with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) longer than most people in this Congress have. We served together in the State House of Michigan and the State Senate of Michigan. He preceded me to this Congress by 11 months and 7 days, but we have worked together since then in this Congress. I am very sorry to see him leave this Congress, even though he will be returning to the State of Michigan and will continue to make his contributions there. But it has been an outstanding partnership on this committee. We have produced some really good work together with a minimum of strife because both of us are interested in results and not in seeking partisan advantage on an issue. I just want to publicly state how much I have enjoyed working with the gentleman, how much I appreciate his work and his person and his ethical standards, and just state my regret that he will be leaving us at the end of this year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for offering the amendment that once again raises an issue that deserves to be raised. But I also appreciate her withdrawing this because it would be inappropriate in this bill at this time simply because it would likely detract from the central goal and slow it down, and it is very important to get this into action soon. But once again, this is something we would pursue down the line, I am sure, if there is a problem that has to be followed. So I appreciate her offering it, and I appreciate her willingness to withdraw it at this time.

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude by saying that this is a very worthwhile bill which, even though I gave all the examples as benefiting Michigan industry, it will benefit the industry of every State in this Union, and, for that matter, every territory. It is a good thing for us to do, to help create more jobs and to make sure that we are more competitive in the world marketplace. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I rise in support of the Enterprise Integration Act of 2002. Much has changed about the manufacturing industry during the past 30 years. In the 1970s and 1980s, our manufacturing sector was in trouble. Plagued by quality problems and inefficiency, our domestic manufacturing sector was on the decline, and it was costing U.S. workers their jobs. I saw this firsthand in my home State of Michigan, when one observer noted in a national column how much Michigan's auto manufacturing sector had fallen and asked for, in print, ``The last person to leave the State to please turn off the lights.'' This decline served as a wake-up call not only for State and Federal governments but especially for domestic manufacturers, and they have worked hard over the past three decades to become leaner and more competitive in the global marketplace. Automation, outsourcing, efficiency, and quality became the buzzwords of this effort, as manufacturers made fundamental changes to their business models. When these changes were coupled with the information technology revolution, manufacturers were able to unleash the untapped potential of American workers. Over the past 10 years, our workers increased their productivity as never before in the modern era. These gains led to one of the greatest economic expansions in U.S. history and made a bold statement that U.S. domestic manufacturing was ready to compete in the global marketplace. Domestic manufacturing industries are now beginning to undertake new steps to ensure that they stay globally competitive. Our manufacturing industries are moving away from the traditional models where products are mass produced and consumer preferences are aggregated at the end of a manufacturing chain. The new model is marked by a commitment to flexibility, networked supply chains, just-in-time inventories, and responsiveness to changes and customers' preferences. Underpinning all these elements is the need to be able to exchange information quickly, reliably, and without fear that the information contains errors or is incomplete. The purpose of the legislation before us today is to support this critical component. H.R. 2733 will establish an enterprise integration initiative within the National Institute of Standards and Technology, better known as NIST. At the heart of this initiative is what modern manufacturing industry craves--the ability to exchange information up and down the supply chain without error or loss. For example, with a fully integrated supply chain, if Ford were to design a change for a bumper, every one of the suppliers that contributes parts to Ford for that bumper would be able quickly and easily to see how the new specifications would affect the component they manufacture. Each supplier would be able to redesign the component knowing that the information used does not have errors and has not lost data along the way. As I said earlier, the new manufacturing model requires industry to respond to consumer choices quickly and with a high degree of quality and reliability. This flexibility can only be achieved with a fully integrated supply chain. Two of Michigan's key industries, automotive and furniture, can derive tremendous benefits from this legislation. A 1999 study by NIST found that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler together could save $1 billion per year if they fully integrated their supply chains. West Michigan's worldwide office furniture suppliers, Steelcase, Herman Miller, and Haworth, are facing significant challenges both as a result of the economic downturn and stiff foreign competition. Information technology is a powerful tool for bringing together the various elements of design, manufacturing, and delivery of furniture, and the U.S. furniture industry is beginning to utilize this tool to better integrate these elements. All three firms, and others, can realize huge benefits through better linkage with their suppliers, which will lead to reductions in inventory, fewer manufacturing slow downs, lower purchasing costs, and higher quality. Achieving this level of integration, however, is complex and requires a substantial amount of research regarding what information exchange standards need to be developed and implemented for different supply changes. H.R. 2733 will allow NIST to capitalize on its existing knowledge in this field by authorizing the agency to work with major manufacturing sectors, such as automotive, aerospace, electronics, shipbuilding, and furniture, to reach a consensus on what standards are needed to integrate supply chains, support the development of those standards, and help smaller businesses in those industries integrate fully into their respective supply chain. Under this legislation, NIST will work with major manufacturing industries to identify current enterprise integration standardization and implementation activities within the United States and abroad and assess the current state of these activities within any given industry. NIST will also work with individual industries to develop goals and milestones for fully integrating the industry's supply chains. Additionally, NIST will support the development, testing, promulgation, integration, adoption and upgrading of standards related to enterprise integration efforts. I want to note that this legislation has strong bipartisan and industry support. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and I have introduced this legislation, and we have worked together every step of the way as it moved to the House floor. The legislation also unanimously passed the Committee on Science. In addition, industry groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing support the legislation. If our manufacturing sector is to remain competitive in the global marketplace, and if it is going to continue to provide jobs for American workers, it must undertake the efforts envisioned by this legislation. I urge Members to support the Enterprise Integration Act so we can meet this goal. Let me also comment to explain this in a very simple fashion, using the words that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) used earlier during discussion on the rule, and that is if we do not talk the same language with each other, we cannot communicate and we cannot get the job done. The whole purpose of this bill is to ensure that the computers and the officials of the companies involved can talk the same language using the Internet, and that through that common language the whole system will work much more efficiently, the manufacturers will benefit through increased profits, the workers of the companies will benefit through higher pay and more jobs. This is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record on the bill just considered, H.R. 2486.

Mr. EHLERS

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

Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for it. This is something we have worked on together. It is something I had hoped that would happen anyway when this the bill reached NOAA; that they would interpret it this way. But it is good of her to point out that this must be done. This makes things very specific, and we have reached agreement on this amendment, so I am pleased to accept it. I would just comment that I will have to revise my cost estimate. I commented earlier this bill would cost us a grand total of 10 cents per person in this country. Because of this amendment I have to raise that to 11 cents per person in this country. But I should also make it clear, which I did not before, that that cost is spread over 5 years. So rounding off, it is still 2 cents per person per year for 5 years, and we are getting a lot for our money. But I am very pleased to accept this amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will proceed to close. The preamble to our Constitution specifies as one of the major duties of government to promote the general welfare of its people. This bill is an example of what we can do to promote the general welfare of our people. This bill will save lives, it will save property, and it will cost very little. In fact, the cost per capita in this Nation of this bill is 10 cents per capita, and I think that is a good bargain. By developing an inland waterway and flooding bill of this nature, that will protect the people of this country, we will save undoubtedly at least 15, probably 100 lives per year and we pay only 10 cents apiece-- that is a good deal. So I strongly encourage this House to pass this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would observe that at one time my parents lived in Canada and the area north of Toronto suffered tremendously from a hurricane. So we are not safe from hurricanes almost anywhere inland. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the angel of NIST and NOAA.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the gentleman from North Carolina in commending the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for his good work, and also the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), as well as the staff. They have made the Committee on Science into a smoothly working machine, one of the most productive committees in the House, and I commend all of them for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who has firsthand experience with the problems this bill is designed to address, because, as we know, there have been some disastrous floods in Texas the past week.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In 1994, when I first arrived in this Congress, I was absolutely astounded. I went to my office and, first of all, found that I did not have a computer in my office, but when I tried to use staff computers to send e-mails, I discovered that I could send an e-mail more easily and more rapidly to Moscow than I could to a colleague 20 feet down the hall. Why was that? Because in the House of Representatives, we had allowed a system to develop that did not have standards for the whole House of Representatives, and each Representative had a kingdom where they had set their own standards for their computer systems. Each individual system could not talk to each other. When the Republicans took the majority, then Speaker Gingrich put me in charge of standardizing the system. Today, we have a system that seamlessly allows over 10 million e-mails a month to flow between offices in this Capitol, saving us a lot of money and a lot of staff time. That is an illustration of what we can accomplish with standards. Without standards, this place barely functioned in terms of Internet usage, e-mail and Web sites. Today, with standards, it functions extremely well, and the American people have access to each and every one of us almost instantaneously, and the American public, through Web sites, can receive information on our activities instantaneously. This bill is about something similar. It will help industry by setting standards--standards for enterprises working together. Let me give an example. A smaller auto parts supplier from my district visited me recently. As my colleagues know, in Michigan we make a lot of automobiles and we have many auto parts suppliers around the State. He had a good business. But he commented that he was working very well with the Japanese manufacturer. He was making parts for this manufacturer, who manufactured cars in this country, and they had a good system working together. Everything was computerized, everything was set up from the beginning so each side knew exactly what the other was doing, and they could relate to each other well. But with the American manufacturers, they did not have that relationship. They were trying to establish it, but it was going to be different than the one with the Japanese manufacturer, so he was going to have to have two different systems to deal with these two different manufacturers. That does not make sense, and that is what this bill is about: so that small businesses such as this gentleman's can be assured that whichever manufacturer he makes parts for, he will be able to use the same communication system via the Internet, and that his business will flourish, because it will reduce his expenses tremendously. This bill will help both large and small manufacturers alike, because it will cut costs and improve efficiency. By taking advantage of information technology such as the Internet and other parameters relating to that, our manufacturing industry will be able to fully integrate their supply chain so information will be able to flow freely up and down the supply chain. This integration, however, will require the development of standards on how the information is going to be exchanged between businesses within a supply chain. Going back to my example of the small parts supplier working with the Japanese manufacturer and American manufacturer, each of them thinks their own standards are the best. There has to be some outside force that works out the differences and gets agreement. This bill will provide that outside force by supporting this integration through authorizing the National Institute of Standards and Technology, better known as NIST, to work with industry to identify what research, testing, and development needs to be undertaken to develop these information exchange standards. NIST has been in the standards business for over 150 years. They are experienced at this. They are experts at bringing together different parties and establishing standards, and this is the logical place to put this particular effort. This legislation provides NIST an authorization of $47 million over 4 years, starting with $2 million in fiscal year 2002 and ramping up to $20 million in fiscal year 2005; and with this money, they will be able to carry out this effort. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this legislation. Small and large businesses in America will benefit from it. I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and this bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, most Americans do not understand the power of floods until they encounter them. Floods cause an immense amount of damage to this Nation and also cause an average of approximately 100 deaths per year throughout America. Most Americans are not aware of how dangerous they are and do not realize that we lose almost as many people to floods as we do to tornadoes within this country. Flooding affects every Congressional District in this country. The force of only 6 inches of swiftly moving water can easily knock people off their feet and carry them away into a nearby stream. The force of 2 feet of moving water can sweep cars away. I am sure all of us have seen night after night on the evening news pictures of cars being trapped in water and we say, how could that happen? How could these people not know the danger? But it fools us. We think it is a small amount of water, but there is so much force that it can easily stall a car or sweep it away and carry it down the river. The public needs more useful information about flooding, about the nature of floods, the damage from floods, and, most importantly, they need more and better information about when floods are likely to occur. The bill that is before us, H.R. 2486, the Inland Flood Forecasting and Warning System Act, which came out of our subcommittee, provides that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better known as NOAA, will have a $6 million authorization for a 5-year period to, first of all, develop a new flood warning index that will give the public, the media, and emergency management officials more useful information about the risks and dangers posed by expected floods. We have done very well in this country in terms of tornado warnings, we have done very well in terms of hurricane warnings, and we have saved not just hundreds, but thousands, of lives over the past few decades with these new warning systems that have been in place. But we have ignored the need to warn people about floods; and not just about the general nature of a flood, but we have to outline roughly the boundaries of the expected flood so people know when to evacuate before the water hits them. So this bill will help develop the new flood warning index that will be understandable by the public, can be easily broadcast by the media, so that we can give warnings out so people will know precisely what to do before the flood hits. The second aspect of the bill is that it will conduct research and develop, new flooding models, to improve the capability to more accurately forecast inland flooding due to tropical storms. Most people are not aware of the fact that deaths from hurricanes are not from these strong winds that come in from offshore. Most of the deaths are due to floods which occur when the hurricane moves inland and drops huge amounts of rain with resulting flood waters occurring. It is an excellent bill. I was very pleased to work with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) on this bill. We have perfected it in every way possible. It will serve the people of our Nation well. I urge that we pass this rule and then pass the bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, some corporate executives have been lying and cheating. They have betrayed their companies, their stockholders, their employees, and the public. I am angry about it. They are as bad as the previous speaker said, as bad as a street punk who mugs someone. It is totally unacceptable behavior. At the same time, we have to recognize this is just a small fraction of the corporate executives in the country, just as the aberrant priests in the Catholic Church are a very small fraction of that church. Or the number of Members in this body who are accused and convicted of breaking the law are a small number of this body. Nevertheless, their behavior is totally unacceptable, and we have to take action. It is not simply a matter of changing the law or strengthening the law, although that may be part of it. What we need is enforcement of the law. I am pleased President Bush went to Wall Street yesterday and spoke to them about the need for enforcing the law and enforcing regulations. We must do that. It is not just a matter of punishment, but we also should seek retribution from these highly paid executives who have cheated employees out of their 401(k) accounts, who betrayed stockholders and reduced the value of the company; and not only that, have scared the American public from participating in the stock market. Mr. Speaker, it is high time that our Nation take action against these individuals, both through regulation and enforcement of the law. I hope it happens soon. The American people are angry at this betrayal of the free enterprise system. I am angry about it, and we have to see that something is done about it.