Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to rise and indicate my willingness to accept this amendment, just as we did in the previous bill. Mr. Chairman, I have worked with the gentlewoman from Texas on many issues relating to this. I am very familiar with NIST and their work, and, I suspect, in fact, I believe it is correct to say that they are as color-blind and gender-blind as anyone I have known, largely because on issues such as this they are working primarily on the computer language rather than on other issues. But, nevertheless, given the past history of our Nation and of some business practices, it never hurts to add the language that the gentlewoman from Texas has included in her amendment, and it certainly enhances the bill, does not detract from it, and I am very pleased to accept this amendment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2486, the Inland Flood Forecast and Warning System Act of 2002. Mr. Chairman, everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it. That is a famous statement I remember from my youth, but I am here today to talk about a way that we are going to do something about the weather. When it comes to hurricanes, wind speeds do not tell the whole story. Hurricanes produce storm surges, tornadoes, and often the most deadly of all, inland flooding. While storm surge is always a potential threat, more than half of all deaths associated with tropical cyclones during the last 30 years are due to inland flooding. Inland flooding can be a major threat to communities hundreds of miles from the coast. In 1999, Hurricane Floyd killed 48 people and caused nearly $3 billion in property damage, primarily because of flooding of inland communities. The severity was quite unexpected because these communities are 50 to 100 miles inland from hurricane landfall. However, this type of flooding has become all too common. While the National Weather Service has the ability to accurately predict most flood events, it has difficulty in forecasting inland flooding events that are caused by tropical cyclones. In addition, the flood warning index currently used by the National Weather Service for all flood events does not include enough information about the potential risks and dangers posed by expected floods. This index defines floods as minor, moderate, or major. Sometimes the category is accompanied by a warning of a comparable flood from another year. However, most major floods happen several years or even decades apart, so this information may not be very helpful. We need only to watch the news during the past few weeks as flooding in Texas has caused the deaths of many people. It is time for a new warning system that will provide more information to emergency managers and the public and will save lives in the process. This bill, H.R. 2486, the Inland Flood Forecasting and Warning System Act of 2002, provides the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, lovingly known as NOAA, an authorization of $5.75 million over 5 years to do several things: first, improve the capability to accurately forecast inland flooding, including flooding influenced by coastal and ocean storms, through research and modeling; second, develop, test, and deploy an inland flood-warning index that will give the public, the media, and emergency management officials more accurate information about the risks and dangers posed by expected floods; third, train emergency management officials, National Weather Service personnel, meteorologists, and others regarding the improved forecasting techniques for inland flooding, risk-management techniques, and the use of the new flood-warning index; and, fourth, conduct research, outreach, and education activities for local meteorologists, media, and the public regarding the dangers and risks associated with inland flooding, as well as the use and understanding of the new inland flood-warning index. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for introducing this important bill. It was my pleasure to work closely with him in perfecting it. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the two bills before us this day coming from my subcommittee were both authored by Democrats, and in both cases I worked very closely with them. That is a good example of the bipartisanship that one experiences on the Committee on Science, and I believe is a model for other committees, as well. It was the district of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) that suffered the loss of 48 people in 1999 because of the unexpected severe inland flooding caused by Hurricane Floyd. I appreciate his leadership by responding with this legislation, which will help communities to more fully understand the risks and dangers of floods. We worked together closely during consideration of the bill in the Committee on Science to ensure that the new flood-warning index would help all our States, whether landlocked or coastal. But, more importantly, I am confident that training managers in the use of this new index and educating the public on its meaning and importance will save lives. This bill received strong bipartisan support in the Committee on Science, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this important and timely piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I first rise to state that I am opposed to the amendment, but as you will see in a moment, I am also opposed to the bill but not for the reasons you may think. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of arming pilots in the cockpit as a last line of the defense against a terrorist attack on an airplane. The safety and security of the flying public is a central concern to us all, and a well-trained, armed pilot could be a valuable asset in defending ourselves against terrorist acts. Moreover, the bipartisan bill approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure addresses a number of the logistical and procedural issues for implementing a program for arming pilots, even if it leaves most of the sticky details to the TSA. I must say that I am skeptical of the ability of the Transportation Security Administration to develop adequate procedures for this complicated process of safely getting a firearm on and off an airplane and securing it in the cockpit without incident. Let us hope that they can successfully answer many of the questions we do not firmly work out in this bill. In summary, I am not fundamentally opposed to this bill. In fact, I have consistently voted against any measures to control firearms. But let me just say, having said all of that, that H.R. 4635 still has at least one fatal flaw and a few minor ones that prevents me from voting for it. The problem: the bill does not give the airlines a choice on whether their pilots, their employees, can carry guns on the airline's planes. We have heard from the public. We have heard from the pilots. We have heard from the flight attendants. And we have responded to these groups, but we have shut out the airlines. This is entirely inappropriate. The Federal Government should not mandate that a reluctant airline be required to allow one of its pilots to carry a firearm on board one of its planes. I acknowledge that we often tell employers what to do, such as how to treat employees and how to handle safety and security matters. However, I am not aware of any instance where the Federal Government has told an employer you have to let your employees carry guns to work if they want to. We do not tell bus companies that they have to let their drivers carry weapons, but buses have been the subject of terrorist attacks. We do not tell rail service companies that they have to let their engineers carry weapons on their trains, but they are subject to terrorist attacks. We do not tell banks, gas stations or convenience stores that they have to allow their tellers or employees to carry firearms at work in case they face a robbery. In fact, my home State of Michigan, like the State of Texas, has passed a concealed-carry weapons law, but even those broadly permissive laws do not force an employer to permit an employee to carry a weapon while at work. In fact, they very specifically, in their language, allow employers to exempt the workplace as a place where employees may carry their guns. This bill does precisely the opposite of what those concealed-carry permissive laws do. The airlines have indicated that they are opposed to allowing guns in their cockpit. We are depriving them of their voice in this important matter. This is wrong, and for this reason I will not vote in favor of this bill. I have two other concerns about this bill as well. One is the total cost for implementation of the test program which, according to the CBO estimate, is $47 million. This money could be better spent on other security measures, such as securing cockpit doors and bulkheads. In addition, if this test program is broadened to include all pilots, how many millions of dollars will it cost to provide them the proper training and to implement the necessary procedures? The increased TSA spending that we are deciding today will result once again in higher taxes on the flying public, at a time in which we are already seeing the detriment to flying that security fees and taxes are having on the aviation economy. My final objection to H.R. 4635 is that it exposes the Federal Government to massive amounts of potential liability. Under the bill's language, a Federal flight deck officer is treated as a Federal employee for purposes of liability. If an armed pilot accidentally shoots a passenger that posed no threat to the aircraft, the Federal Government could be on the hook for a huge amount. There are a number of other situations that could lead to potential liability. For example, a pilot could improperly respond to a mentally deranged passenger attacking the cockpit. This very situation was faced by pilots on United Airlines Flight 855 from Miami to Buenos Aires in February of this year. Or a pilot could accidentally discharge a weapon in a scuffle with an intruder or injure an innocent passenger or flight attendant or, even worse, the pilot could use the weapon in a perfectly lawful manner to overcome a terrorist, but do so in an improper way which results in crew or passenger death or, in the worst possible case, the plane going down. Coupled with the costs of implementing this program, this potentially enormous liability makes this bill financially irresponsible. For these reasons, the fact that we are forcing airlines to allow their pilots to carry guns, the fact that the program is very expensive, and the fact that the Federal Government is exposed to extremely high liability, I am opposed to this bill. I urge its defeat.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the outstanding chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3389, which reauthorizes the National Sea Grant College Program. The bill before us today is a result of a bipartisan compromise between the House Committee on Resources and Committee on Science. The interaction of the two committees produced a better bill than either of us could have done alone, and I am pleased with the outcome. The national sea grant program is unique in connecting research results with coastal communities through the combination of research, extension and education. 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. Projects that Michigan sea grant is working on include ballast water cleanup and management strategies, remote sensing of pollution in Lake Superior, effects of community development on wetlands and fisheries, and changes in the Great Lakes food web and the effects on commercial and sport fishing. Sea grant's importance is not solely in its funding of research but also in the education and outreach activities that ensure the research is conveyed to State and local decision-makers, commercial and recreational interests and future marine scientists. While many have criticized the administration's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal to transfer the National Sea Grant College Program from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the National Science Foundation, I saw it as an opportunity to more fully examine and improve the program, and H.R. 3389 does just that. H.R. 3389 does not move sea grant to NSF. Rather, it reauthorizes sea grant within NOAA. The legislation does, however, mandate that sea grant 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 must jointly submit, with NSF, a report about how the oceans and coastal research activities of both agencies will be coordinated. H.R. 3389 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 algal blooms, oysters and fisheries extension activities. One issue that was raised during the Committee on Science's hearing on sea grant is the seemingly unfair nature of allocating Federal funding to sea grant programs. Currently, about 80 percent of the Federal funding goes directly to the State programs, based mostly on historical averages. Fifteen percent is for national competitive projects, and no more than 5 percent can be used for national administration of the program. The Office of Management and Budget was highly critical of this process, and that seems to be one of the main reasons for proposing to move sea grant to NSF. Currently, only about $3 million of the total that is directly distributed to the State programs is based on the merit review process. This is the process by which each State program is reviewed by an outside panel and given a rating on how well its program is conducting its research, education and extension activities. I understand that each State program needs a consistent level of funding to ensure it can adequately maintain its extension and education activities. However, I believe the system needs to be more transparent and based more on competition. Therefore, H.R. 3389 will require that any moneys appropriated above the fiscal year 2002 level shall be distributed to the State sea grant programs on a merit review, competitive basis, or distributed to national strategic initiatives. We also allow this funding to be used for sea grant programs designated after the enactment of this act and for those universities trying to become new sea grant colleges or institutes. Finally, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for introducing this bill and for his efforts on behalf of the sea grant program. All of us benefit greatly from his leadership on these issues. I also want to thank his staff who helped to quickly and amicably bring resolution to the differences between our two versions of the bill, and I also thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), for his great assistance. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the manager's amendment and for H.R. 3389. Our Nation's coasts and Great Lakes are depending on it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wish to respond to my good friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Smith) in regard to his comments, because I also am a very strong supporter of the National Science Foundation and the way they handle their research efforts. But I want to point out that a century and a half ago, this country established one of the landmarks in research efforts in this country, and that is the land grant university system. That system has worked very well precisely because it not only did the research but also through that system we developed a cooperative extension service that literally gets the results from the laboratory to the farmer's fields within 1 year. It is the best technology transfer program we have in the United States. The reason that I did not support transferring Sea Grant to NSF is simply because they also have an extension service. The Sea Grant Program is modeled not after programs in NSF, but rather it is modeled after the land grant system. For that reason it is better to remain where it is and continue to operate as it is. However, what this bill does is move the Sea Grant Program in terms of its research grants into the NSF model. That is why we are requiring Sea Grant to work cooperatively and coordinate their work with the National Science Foundation and, furthermore, to report back to us on their progress on that score. Furthermore, this bill also no longer will allocate all the money on an historical basis but, rather, the new money put into this activity from now on will be assigned on the basis of peer review and merit- based evaluations, which again is the model followed by the National Science Foundation. In view of that, I believe it is better to have the Sea Grant Program remain where it is and not move to the NSF. The NSF is simply not equipped to do the extension and education activities that are included in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the achievements of the members of the 2002 United States Physics Olympiad Team. The 24 young men and women who make up this team are remarkable and dedicated students with extraordinary talents. Landing a spot on this prestigious team is extremely difficult. Initially, about 1,100 highly qualified students across the country are nominated by their high school teachers to take a national exam. The top 200 scorers on this test then advance to the next round of competition. Results from the second round of testing are used to select the 24 members of the team who then go on to attend an eight day intense training camp that features studying, testing and problem solving. Members of the 2002 team include: Jared A. Bass, Peter S. Behroozi, Immanuel D. Buder, Steven J. Byrnes, Bryan G. Chen, Craig J. Fratrik, Daniel R. Gulotta, Chintan Hossain, Jennifer H. Hou, Joanna N. Huey, Patrick A. Hummel, Daniel M. Kane, Chen Li, Andrew M. Lutomirski, Sean P. Markan, Pavel G. Matrachenko, Paul J. Miller, Cristina Moldovan, Lydia W. Ng, Gregory N. Price, Emily R. Russell, Benjamin M. Schwartz, David W. Simmons-Duffin, and Albert Z. Wang. Mr. Speaker, as a nuclear physicist, a former physics professor, and a strong proponent for math-science education, I have worked extremely hard to draw national attention to the need for and the importance of math-science education. After reading the accomplishments of the members of this team, I am proud to see students embrace the world of physics and the many challenges it presents. I am hopeful that the enthusiasm these students have shown toward learning more about physics will spread to other students. I personally want to thank all of the students who made an effort to become a part of this team for showing others that science is and can be fun. Mr Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting these future leaders of our country.

Mr. EHLERS

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I do not even rise reluctantly to oppose it, because I think it is ill advised. It is ill advised for several reasons. The type of research that is being outlined here is already being conducted, not just in the NSF but in various other agencies that are interested in it, the Department of Agriculture, the EPA; and I am sure NIH is looking at some aspects of it as well. But my main reason for objection has to do with the history of the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation arose out of a report written by Vannevar Bush at the request of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1945. That report set out the basic structure of the National Science Foundation, and the basic idea of that report was that this would be an agency that would do scientific research, the priorities would be set by the scientists based on the scientific evidence, and that the research to be conducted would be peer reviewed by other scientists so that we would have good science done in this country. It has an outstanding record. We have heard already that we have had over 100 Nobel prizes awarded to people who have received National Science Foundation grants. The basic idea is that the Congress would keep its hands off of specific appropriations for specific projects. It is very disappointing that this bill, which received unanimous support in committee and appears to have received unanimous support in debate on the floor, has this introduced where we are trying to earmark money for a specific pet project. I can tell my colleagues that I can quickly list 20 pet projects that I think the NSF should be conducting research on and that they should be spending more money on. But the idea behind the NSF is that we do not allocate that money here, particularly in authorization bills; that, in fact, the work done there is based on the scientific judgments collectively gathered from the scientific community in this Nation. It is entirely inappropriate for us to sit here on the House floor in an authorizing bill and try to designate funding for a particular project which a few Members of this body believe are important above and beyond all the other scientific research that we are considering in this Nation. I object to this amendment. I hope that it is defeated, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, the items the gentlewoman has mentioned are all, if I heard them correctly, are all in the educational area, and are not directing research within the agency.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. In preparation for the discussion of the bill itself, I would just like to offer some general comments about the nature of basic research and the importance of funding basic research because that often raises questions in the mind of the public and, consequently, questions in the minds of the Congress. Basic research is that research which is done to understand the basic underpinnings of science, the basic underpinnings of the nature of our universe and how it operates. It is very broadly based. It is not specifically directed toward any particular problem in society and sometimes not even toward a problem in the sciences. It is an effort to really learn more about the universe and how it and all its composite parts work. That makes it very difficult to defend in the political process, but let me simply point out to my colleagues some of the results of basic research that we take for granted today. In the 1930s, there was some research done on a very esoteric topic called stimulated coherent emission of radiation. This was theoretical work. It was very low cost work. The National Science Foundation did not exist. It was done by a professor and a few others working together, and they deduced that it was possible to have stimulated emission of light where one would have one photon, one particle of light, hitting an atom in an excited state, and one would have another photon come out that was exactly like the one that came in, and yet the one that came in would be unaffected. So one obtains double the amount of light and the light was coherent; that is, the wavelengths matched and the light was in phase. This was essentially an unremarkable result in 1930 because no one had yet imagined a way in which it could be done, but after World War II, during which we learned a lot about more advanced physics, and researchers began investigating this with microwave radiation and discovered, in fact, it did work; this work was done by Charles Townes, a good friend of mine, a good physicist, who is now at Berkeley. He discovered that he could direct a microwave photon at an excited atom and get two microwave photons out that were coherent, traveling in exactly the same direction, in phase, and with identical frequencies. He immediately recognized that this could also lead to light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, and so the laser was developed about 1960, or in that time frame. It was a laboratory curiosity. I remember the first time I saw a laser and played with it. It was almost a toy, and we had fun with it. What an amazing thing, that one could amplify light! And yet everyone today is familiar with lasers; They have become ubiquitous. We use them for everything from lining up sewers to making certain that the tiles in the ceiling of a building are level, to conducting surgery of various types, on to many other uses, cutting metals and cutting cloth. Most likely the dresses and suits that are being worn here today were cut by laser initially before they were sewn together. All of this is based on the initial research work done in 1930. Let me take another example, nuclear magnetic resonance, an esoteric bit of research which occurred while I was in graduate school. Who really cared about the nuclear spins and magnetic moments of hydrogen nuclei? Yet that nuclear magnetic resonance work which forms the basis for what we today call magnetic resonance imaging, a fantastic medical advance. diagnostic tool, the MRI, which look inside our bodies and tell us whether we have cancer, or a torn muscle, or something else. Similarly, the CT scan came out of research in high-energy elementary particle physics, an esoteric topic as far removed from everyday life as we can imagine. The question is, so what? The point is simply that during the past decade the marvelous economic expansion we enjoyed was, according to Alan Greenspan and other experts, almost entirely based on the basic research that we funded some 30 to 50 years ago. If we want to continue to enjoy economic growth and expansion, if we want to continue to lead the world, we have to also continue leading the world in basic research. That is what this bill is all about, continuing to lead the world in basic research so that our children and grandchildren are going to have the same economic advantages that we enjoy today, just as our parents and our grandparents invested in basic research so that we could enjoy the fruits of that today. That is what this bill is about. That is why the Congress must pass this bill so that we adequately fund basic research and continue the economic base and growth that we enjoy today, and so that we can continue to expand our basic understanding of the universe and all it contains, and learn about the scientific processes that constantly occur.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to add to the comments I made a moment ago under the discussion for the rule but apply those comments specifically to the National Science Foundation. Over the past decade, we have had some interesting trends in the funding of scientific research in the United States. However, we have failed to keep pace with that of other nations. At the moment, we are spending less on research compared to GDP in the United States than Japan does and the gap is increasing, not decreasing. Even worse, we are spending less compared to our GDP than Germany does. Even worse, we are rapidly being overtaken by South Korea. We are losing ground. Yet we are supposed to be the superpower, the world's leader, not only in military might but also in research and advancement. We have to change that trend. We made a good step in that direction a few years ago when we doubled the NIH budget over a period of 5 years. It is high time we do precisely the same for the National Science Foundation. Just to illustrate the impact of what has happened and how things have gotten out of balance, I have here a very small chart, which I hope my colleagues can read, and at least see the trend lines, which shows very clearly what has happened to NIH, as shown on the top line. A few years ago NIH was bundled fairly closely to NASA and Department of Energy research. We decided to double it, and it has shot up exponentially as happens when you double things, whereas NASA is holding its own or slightly down, and DOE, the Department of Energy, has gone down. We are spending less on research in the Department of Energy now than we did 10 years ago, in real dollars. The National Science Foundation, our most important basic research entity, is struggling along at the bottom of the chart. It had slight increases over the past decade, but very slight. I maintain that that is out of balance. As the rate of NIH goes up, NSF should also go up, because the National Institutes of Health builds its research on the basic research that is done under the auspices of the National Science Foundation. They go to the well of this basic research periodically and build on what has been developed there. But if they go to the well and the well is empty, all the money that we have spent for NIH is not going to count for much. It is essential that we proceed with the doubling that is proposed in this bill for the National Science Foundation. I commend Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Smith for leading the charge in this effort. It is something that we must do and that we can do. To those who are worried about budget busting, let me simply point out that this year's increase in the National Institutes of Health is greater than doubling the NSF budget will be. In other words, this year's increase in NIH is greater than the total current budget of the National Science Foundation. At the very least, we can easily afford to double the NSF budget; and by doing that over 5 years, we are spending one-fifth of what we have been spending each year to increase NIH. This is a good bill. I urge that my colleagues vote for it. I urge that we pass this bill and put this doubling program into effect.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 197 I was detained in reaching the House floor, and the vote was closed before I reached the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a very important piece of legislation, the ``United States Weather Research Program Act of 2002.`` The human toll and dollar loss from severe weather events are staggering. More than 1,500 weather-related fatalities and $15.8 billion in weather-produced damage to property occurs annually. The Weather Research Program, which 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. The legislation authorizes $45 million over three years and clarifies the research focus on hurricanes and heavy precipitation events. The bill also incorporates the provisions of Congressman Etheridge's legislation, H.R. 2846, that calls on the U.S. Weather Research Program to develop a new flood warning index that will give the public and emergency management officials more complete, clearer, and accurate information about the risks and dangers posed by expected floods. I also note that my introduction of this legislation corresponds with President Bush's proclamation that this week is ``National Hurricane Awareness Week.'' With hurricane season quickly approaching, investment in the U.S. Weather Research Program will help provide better forecasts and warnings that will save lives and better prepare our Nation to handle severe weather events.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 2002 Kent City Community High School Quiz Bowl team for winning the 2002 Michigan Class ``C & D'' Quiz Bowl Championship with a perfect 6-0 record during the two-day state tournament. This marks the second time in three years that the Kent City Eagles have claimed the championship. Members of the 2002 State Championship team include: Mike Cheyne, Jerry Urban, John Hersey, A. J. DeGroot, Josh Whitehead, Joe Postema, Jared Brown, Andy Lerch, Matt Nixon, Brandon Stout, Robert Nyblad, Justin Waller, Dan Ondersma and Isaac Owens. Government teacher Sid Smith, who serves as the coach of this talented squad, should also be commended for his outstanding work in preparing the students for competition. On the way to their second championship, the Eagles compiled a remarkable 46-7 record, often against much larger schools. To illustrate how much the Eagles dominated most of their competition throughout the year, I note that six of their seven losses were to Class ``A'' Quiz Bowl Champion Detroit Catholic Central, Class ``B'' Champion Detroit Country Day and Class ``A'' runner-up, Hartland. The team will now compete on the national level as they take part in the National Academic Quiz Tournament in Austin, Texas on June 8 and 9 and the Partnership for Academic Excellence Nationals in Washington, D.C., on June 15 and 16. I have no doubt that these outstanding young men will serve as wonderful representatives for Kent City, the State of Michigan, and the Third Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these students who have put Kent City, Michigan on the Quiz Bowl map. Congratulations on an outstanding season, and I wish you continued success in the upcoming national competitions!

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the more than 1,200 students who will converge on Washington, D.C., this weekend to participate in the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution national finals. We the People . . . is a national program, administered by the Center for Civic Education, that requires students to develop a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government. Since the program began, more than 26.5 million students at the upper elementary, middle and high school levels have benefited from this program. I am extremely honored to recognize the students from East Grand Rapids High School in my home district who have gone above and beyond the call of student duty to reach the national finals. Led by teacher Janice Rocque, this year's team includes: Emily Brennan, Evan Koch, Claire Lerchen, Kate Mann, Aubrey Merpi, Stephanie Nagengast, Jay Rapaport, Komal Saxena, Ian Seasly, Karen Smith, Megan Smith, Caitlin Townsend, Molly Tupper, Jacob Turner, and Dan Wohns. Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress enough the amount of preparation that these students put into this competition. In addition to the academic challenges they face in the classroom, these young leaders have juggled extracurricular activities and family responsibilities while preparing for this competition. Mr. Speaker, so that you and my colleagues can understand the rigorous questioning these students face, I am providing you with some of the questions they will face during the national finals. Congratulations to all the participants in this year's We, the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution competition. Sample of the We the People . . . 2002 National Hearing Questions How did the Renaissance and Reformation change people's views about the relationship between the individual and society? What are the political principles and values set forth in the Declaration of Independence? ``A deliberative democracy, operating under a good constitution, responds to political disagreement not simply by majority rule, but also by attempting to create institutions that will ensure reflection and reason-giving.'' Do you agree or disagree that such institutions are essential components of a deliberative democracy and of a ``good constitution''? Why or why not? Be prepared to defend your position. Should members of Congress consider themselves delegates obligated to vote the way the majority of the people in their districts want or should they consider themselves trustees who, while taking the views of their constituents into account, use their own best judgment or their conscience in deciding how to vote? Explain your position. In the ratification debates, the Federalists insisted that the Constitution had been carefully drafted to limit the powers of the national government. These limitations were sufficient, they contended, to allow for healthy, energetic government while at the same time preventing abuses of power. Evaluate those claims made by the Federalists. ``The First Federal Congress was the most important Congress in American history,'' according to two prominent historians. ``Its awesome agenda breathed life into the Constitution, and established precedent and constitutional interpretation which still guides us 200 years later.'' What was on the agenda of the First Congress? Should those agenda items be considered ``awesome''? Why or why not? Evaluate the major arguments advanced by the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists during the debate about the need to have a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. James Q. Wilson, a noted political scientist, claims, ``Were the American Constitution the only guarantee of the independence of the American states, they would long since have become mere administrative subunits of government in Washington. Their independence results in large measure from the commitment of Americans to the idea of local self- government and from the fact that Congress consists of people who are selected by and responsive to local constituencies.'' Do you agree or disagree with Wilson? Why? What evidence can you offer in support of your position?

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 64) to provide for the establishment of the position of Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 materials on H.R. 64, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 64, the Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection Agency Act. Time and time again I have heard my colleagues say, ``What I really want is the use of sound science at the EPA.'' The perception of how EPA decision-makers use science in their regulatory actions seems to fall into two camps: One view comes from the regulated community who claims that controversial decisions have ignored the underlying science. The other view comes from environmental and public advocacy communities who claim that the Agency ignores the underlying science while letting the regulated community unduly influence the process. While these constituency may forever disagree on controversial decisions, one theme is common to both camps and to Members of Congress and the Judiciary, they doubt that the EPA uses science appropriately in its regulatory decisions. How should the EPA use science? Is science simply a cudgel used to win a court battle? Is it simply an afterthought to the regulatory process? No. Rather, science should be at the beginning, middle, and end of the agency's decision-making process. It should infuse every issue from the beginning of discussions on that issue. Several independent reviews have concluded that there are significant problems with the way science is used within the EPA's decision-making structure. These reviews include expert panels of scientists commissioned by the Congress, the EPA, the MITRE Corporation, and the National Academy of Public Administration. The latest and most influential review, the National Academy of Sciences' 2000 report concluded: ``The importance of science in EPA's decision-making process should be no less than that afforded to legal considerations. Just as the advice of the Agency's general counsel is relied upon by the administrator to determine whether a proposed action is legal, an appropriately qualified and adequately empowered scientific official is needed to attest to the administrator and the Nation that the proposed action is scientific.'' H.R. 64 provides for that qualified scientific official. This legislation would establish a new Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology to serve as an advocate for, and reviewer of, sciences at the most senior levels of the Agency. Second, the legislation would convert the position of the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development to a set term and give that position the title of Chief Scientist for the Agency. The Deputy Administrator position will bring a much-needed change to the culture of the EPA and ensure that science has a higher profile in the Agency's decision-making process. This person would not only be accountable to the administrator for improving and overseeing science at the Agency, but would also be accountable to the Congress. This relationship would bolster Congress' confidence in the appropriate role of science at the EPA and, therefore, in regulatory decisions. The Deputy Administrator is also needed to coordinate research between the regulatory and scientific arms of the Agency. A common problem with trying to ensure that science is involved throughout the regulatory process is that the head of the scientific arm of the Agency, the Assistant Administrator for ORD, shares the same rank as the heads of the regulatory offices. The authors of the Academy report argued since the new Deputy would rank higher than the existing Associate Administrators, this person could foster research relationships between the Office of Research and Development and the regulatory offices. While this first objective of H.R. 64 is intended to increase the political impact that science has at the Agency, the second objective, to establish a set term for the Associate Administrator of the Office of Research and Development, seeks to decrease political pressures on this office. Although the political aspect of the Associate Administrator's job often receives attention, the most important aspects of the job are not political. Since the Deputy Administrator could bear many of the political pressures inside the Agency, the Associate Administrator could focus his or her role as the Agency's chief scientist on inspiring and supervising a world class scientific organization. Before I close, let me mention that this legislation has garnered support from a wide array of outside groups. It has received backing from prestigious scientific groups such as the American Chemical Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the Society of Toxicology; from business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the Business Roundtable; and from universities and other interested parties, including the National Association of State universities and Land Grant Colleges, and members of EPA's Scientific Advisory Board. The time has come to strengthen science at the EPA. Congress can act now by passing H.R. 64. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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