Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to continue to work with the gentleman on these issues. I would like to comment that the issue of creating another layer of bureaucracy has been raised by other Members, and that is totally false. It does not create another layer of bureaucracy, it creates two positions side by side in the same layer, and I believe it is an appropriate role for the science administrator to have an equal status with the administrator who runs the rest of the agency. That is the real objective of this bill, to have science at a higher level, and I do not consider that an additional layer of bureaucracy; but I am pleased to work with the gentleman.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science, and also express my appreciation for his work on this issue. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who has worked so hard on science issues, particularly the need to recruit women and minorities into science.

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

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 79, adoption of H. Con. Res. 353, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2003, I was too late to cast my vote because I was detained in a meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to rise in support of H.R. 3394, a piece of legislation that is badly needed. Most of the citizens of this land do not understand the broad dimensions of the problems of cybersecurity. I was privileged a few years ago to write a report for the cybersecurity of NATO parliamentary assembly but which was under the chairmanship of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) at that time, and it was a real eye-opener to look into all of the dimensions of cybersecurity, both hardware and software. On the hardware end, we are extremely vulnerable as a Nation in many ways, particularly to a high-level nuclear explosion, which would probably have no direct casualties but could wipe out most of the computers and microprocessors in this Nation. This bill addresses primarily the other dimension of security and that is the software problem. We have been very fortunate as a Nation that most of the breaches of security that have taken place so far have been caused by hackers, pranksters and petty thieves; but we are extremely vulnerable in many other ways due to the proliferation of computers in our country, and I am not referring just to the proliferation of microprocessors which have essentially invaded our homes, our businesses in numerous quantities. They are vulnerable in different ways; but any time one attaches a computer to a network, they are vulnerable to activities that take place on that network. We have gained tremendously as a Nation through the use of computers and networks, but we have not taken account of the tremendous opportunities for breaches of security. It is essential that we train our people to deal with these; but above all, we must begin by doing more research in how we can deal with breaches of security. We know so little about it that we are at a disadvantage and we are at the mercy of the hackers, the pranksters, the thieves and, indeed, of other countries. It is essential that this bill pass; that we begin the process of developing a superstructure and an infrastructure to deal with cybersecurity. We need more research. We need more scholars. We need more researchers, and we need more people who are capable of dealing directly with problems that occur. We have heard mention of the electric grid and other such things as this; but it can appear in much more minor ways, simply denial of service which costs our economy billions of dollars each year. Recently, I had a call from someone who had received an e-mail sent by way of a government department's computer. A hacker had gotten into that computer and used this government's agency computer to send out millions of e-mails to prevent service from major entities in this country. So I urge that we join together and we pass this bill and also be sure to alert the American public of the nature of cyberterrorism, cyberinsecurity and that we deal with this problem.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, the bill allocates only $12.5 million for the newly created Math and Science Partnership program. The conference report states that the conferees strongly urge the Secretary and States to utilize funding provided by the Teacher Quality Grant program, as well as other programs provided by the Federal Government, to strengthen math and science education programs across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the intention of the committee is to strongly encourage States to use funding under the Teacher Quality Grant program to fund the Math and Science Partnerships; am I correct?

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and I do want to thank him very, very much for all his work to improve funding for education, particularly for math and science education. Over the past few months, much attention has been placed on the poor state of our Nation's K-12 math and science education. International tests place our students in the bottom third of industrialized nations in their performance in science, and dead last among those nations in high school physics. The 2000 NAEP results recently announced found no improvement in science literacy in the 4th and 8th grades, and a decline in science performance in grade 12 since 1996. This is simply unacceptable. Our country desperately needs more people trained in math and science. Over the past few years, I have advocated improving our Nation's science education programs and increasing the Federal funding for professional development for our Nation's math and science teachers. Mr. Speaker, this bill consolidates funding for the Eisenhower program, which was the primary professional development program for math and science teachers, into the Title II Teacher Quality Grant program, which will receive an appropriation of $2.85 billion. The conference report states that as much as $375 million was actually expended on math and science in fiscal year 2001, and that the conferees therefore strongly urge the Secretary and the States to continue to fund math and science activities within the Teacher Quality Grant program at a comparable level in fiscal year 2002. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the intention of the conferees is that no less than $375 million be expended on math and science professional development in fiscal year 2001; is that correct?

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his answers, and I thank him for his commitment to math and science education, and I look forward to working together on this issue in the future.

Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act Conference Report. I commend our Chairman for his strong leadership and members of the conference committee for their tireless efforts to send a bill to the President's desk before we adjourn this session. As a scientist and former professor with twenty- two years of experience working at the K-12 level to improve math and science education, I have tried to bring my expertise to the table in the drafting of this legislation. H.R. 1 encompasses the four elements of President Bush's education reform plan: demanding results from states and schools, providing flexibility in the use of federal funds, reducing the red tape in federal programs, and expanding school choice. This legislation will do much to close the achievement gap between our nation's rich and poor students. This legislation also addresses another achievement gap--the gap between U.S. students and their international peers in science. International tests place our students in the bottom third of industrialized nations in their performance in science, and dead last in high school physics. Recently, the Department of Education released results from the 2000 NAEP and found no improvement in science literacy in grades 4 and 8, and a decline in science performance in grade 12 since 1996. Science education is vitally important to our country's economic and national security, and we must hold states and schools accountable for student performance in science, as well as reading and math. The conferees recognize the importance of science education by requiring states to set standards in science by the 2005-2006 school year. I am pleased that the conference report also includes my amendment to H.R. 1, which requires states and schools to test students in science by the 2007-2008 school year. Such testing requires that teachers be knowledgeable in--and skilled in the teaching of--science and math. Professional development for science and math teachers is vitally important, and I am pleased to see the conference report incorporate my legislation to create summer professional development institutes in the math-science partnership program. These math-science partnerships of higher education institutions, states, and schools will provide sustained, high-quality professional development through these institutes for our Nation's math and science teachers. I am hopeful that the conference report authorization of $450 million for this crucial program will be fully funded. While this bill will do much to improve our nation's math and science education, work remains to ensure that sufficient resources are made available in the appropriations process for math and science professional development. I encourage my colleagues to finish the job and fully fund the math and science partnerships for fiscal year 2002. Again, I would like to thank the Chairman for working with me to incorporate my science education provisions into the conference report and I again thank the conferees for producing this excellent compromise legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 498 I failed to receive notice that this vote was being held. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill. I rise on the premise that every registered citizen has the right to vote, can vote, and should vote. I also believe that every citizen who votes has the right to be assured that his or her vote is counted accurately and, furthermore, that that vote is protected against dilution by fraud of others who vote more than once or who vote illegally. I have served in local, State and national office for over 25 years. During that time I have seen and participated in many elections. The problems we saw last year in Florida are not unique. These problems occur frequently, and I believe this bill will help to solve many of these election difficulties. While we can debate the particulars of how to administer an election or which voting equipment to buy, we know that all voting equipment should be based on the strongest possible standards for usability, accuracy, security, accessibility, and integrity. In order to achieve all of that, I introduced a bill earlier this year, H.R. 2275, which would help to assist in establishing the technical standards for voting equipment, making use of the resources of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is uniquely qualified to do this. I am very pleased that those provisions of H.R. 2275 have been incorporated into the bill that is before us. These provisions originally would have created a commission chaired by the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and comprised of local election directors. This commission would have been responsible for developing voluntary technical standards to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, accessibility, and integrity of voting systems and voting equipment. Those provisions have been carried over to this bill. It is a near perfect fit because it creates the process by which the Election Assistance Commission in this bill can develop and will develop technical standards, which currently are woefully inadequate under current guidelines. These provisions that have been inserted in this bill will help strengthen the bill, providing much-needed research into improving voting equipment. This bill includes a grant program for developing better voting technology and making sure that our existing systems are secure. It also includes a research program inside the National Institute of Standards and Technology that will review, among other things, the role of human factors in the design and use of voting machines. In summary, this legislation will ensure that the Election Administration Commission will have an effective, transparent, informed, and complete process for the development of voluntary technical standards for voting equipment and systems. I am very pleased to have participated in the creation of this bill, and I urge that we adopt it.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise here today with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), for consideration of H. Res. 309, a resolution honoring the United States Capitol Police for their commitment to the security of the Capitol, the public and the employees and Members of Congress. Their unwavering dedication to protect and serve shall not go unnoticed. Congress created the United States Capitol Police force in 1828 to provide security for the Capitol. Since inception of the Capitol Police, their officers have courageously and successfully protected the Capitol, and the people and buildings that surround this symbol of freedom and democracy. The U.S. Capitol, which is simultaneously a national shrine, a tourist attraction and a working office building, imposes challenging security requirements. Since the September 11 tragedy, the Capitol Police have been placed under a tremendous strain to implement the increasing number of important security enhancements that have been instituted. Working 6 or 7 days straight with 12 hour shifts, the United States Capitol Police deserve a great ``thank you.'' In addition, when the House of Representatives relocated to the General Accounting Office, the Capitol Police protected us there as well. We know this was not an easy task, and we truly appreciate their service. Mr. Speaker, their valor has not come easily. The United States Capitol Police have faced several emergencies, three bombings and two shootings, one of which took the lives of Private First Class Jacob ``JJ'' Chestnut and Detective John Michael Gibson. I want to extend our appreciation of their commitment to protect and serve this institution. Last year more than 2 million tourists visited the Capitol complex, which is comprised of 19 buildings. At the same time, the Capitol hosted more than 1,200 American and foreign dignitaries and 1,000 special events and was the site of nearly 500 scheduled demonstrations. In addition to lawmakers and their staffs, a sizable number of journalists, lobbyists and service personnel also work within the Capitol complex. Achieving a secure environment for the Capitol complex, while still maintaining an atmosphere of openness, has become increasingly challenging in recent years. Both the potential threats to the Capitol and the number of people entering the area every day have grown dramatically. The men and women of the United States Capitol Police risk their lives every day for the safeguarding of the Capitol. Again, our thanks go out to you, our officers, our protectors and our friends. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 309) honoring the United States Capitol Police for their commitment to security at the Capitol.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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 Senate Joint Resolution 26.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass to the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 26) providing for the appointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Senate Joint Resolution 26 provides for the appointment of Patricia Stonesifer to serve on the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents. This board governs the Smithsonian Institution and includes the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and the Vice President of the United States. It also is comprised of three Members each from the U.S. House and Senate and nine citizens who are nominated by the Board and approved jointly in a resolution of Congress. Patricia Stonesifer currently serves as cochair and President of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She works to achieve that foundation's mission of improving access to advances in global health and education for all people as we move into the 21st century. Her other philanthropic work includes serving on the Board of the Vaccine Fund, which was started in 1999 to address the need for vaccines among the world's poorest countries. Prior to her being appointed President and Cochair of the Gates Foundation, she held a Senior Vice President position at Microsoft and ran her own management and consulting firm. I believe her diverse background and strong management experience make her an excellent candidate for appointment to the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents, and I urge my colleagues to support Senate Joint Resolution 26. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 the subject of House Resolution 309, the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for yielding me the time, and I commend him for introducing this bill and especially commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for their hard work on it for a number of years, and I am pleased to have been a cosponsor of each and every bill they have introduced on this. My acquaintance with the problem goes back some years, and my interest with Sierra Leone goes back to 1978 when I chaired a world hunger task force for the denomination of which I am a member, and since I am results oriented, I insisted that we not only prepare a report but that we come up with an action plan and that we adopt a country where our small denomination could have a major impact. We adopted Sierra Leone in 1978. Our church, through its missionary efforts and through its relief efforts, has been active there ever since, and I have some friends who have served there for a number of years. The news I have received during the past decade was intensely dismaying. The atrocities that were taking place, the difficulties that were developing, the rebels who were acting as if they were political rebels but, in fact, were bandits, they were simply seeking to get the natural resources of that country, and they did not care what they had to do to get it. I have to tell my colleagues, it is heartbreaking to meet a 4-year old child whose arms were amputated when she was two because she was not worth the price of a bullet. The soldiers had killed her parents, killed many people in the room, and the soldier said, What should I do about her? The commander said, She is not worth a bullet; just cut her arms off. Fortunately, she survived but handicapped for life, and I could repeat this story over and over: Incredible cruelty and a desire to get the diamonds and to get the power that they represent. Just a few weeks ago we discover that Osama bin Laden is buying the diamonds from Sierra Leone because he can no longer ship money across borders, and so he has decided to buy diamonds because they are easier to ship across borders and finance his operations. It is a problem that has been there for a long time, but a solution has not been forthcoming as it should have been. I commend some of the individuals I have worked with on the African desk in the State Department over the past few years. They have been earnest, and they sincerely wanted to resolve the problem, but, unfortunately, the upper levels of the State Department over the past several years have simply not been willing to spend the political capital to do that. I am pleased that now we have worked out an agreement where we can make a difference, that we will no longer be encouraging the chopping off of arms and hands and limbs, that we will not sanction the arbitrary killing of citizens of Sierra Leone, as happened to a friend of a friend there. A leader in the church walking down the street was shot by a soldier. When they asked why he did it, he said, I haven't killed anyone for about a week. We thought it was time to kill someone else. We cannot tolerate that type of behavior on this planet. We have to ensure that we do not encourage it. This is one bill that will take strong steps to ensure that there will not be any profit in the actions they have taken, and we hope that with the cutback in Charles Taylor's actions that, above all, we may have peace in the beautiful land of Sierra Leone.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I congratulate and thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for their excellent work on this conference report. We have spent a good deal of time over the last few weeks discussing whether the screeners, baggage screeners, should be Federal or contractual employees. Frankly, that is in a sense beside the point, because the major gain in the bill is that we have Federal control over the process, we have the Federal Government setting the rules, we have Federal supervision of the employees and the process, and we will have Federal guards at every checkpoint, along with a Federal supervisor. All of this ensures uniformity from airport to airport. It will ensure better performance on the part of the employees; and I think a unique feature of the bill is that we will have an opportunity to compare contractual employees to Federal employees and find out which really do a better job, if either one does. I think another main factor in this bill, and I very much appreciate the fact that the Senate accepted the House version of the bill on this score, and that is the administrative structure. It is a clear, clean, effective administrative structure, much better than that which had been in the Senate bill before. So we accomplished a great deal by sending this bill to conference and improving it, using both the ideas of the Senate and the House. It is now a good bill. We can assure the public that we have increased their safety while flying. We have increased the probability that we will be able to stop terrorists who try to do anything to our airplanes. I believe it is an excellent bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for it and approve the conference report.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to get past the politics of this issue for a moment because most of the discussion has been about whether or not this workforce should be federalized. I really do not think that is the big issue here. Federalization is something that can be resolved later, because both bills allow federalized employees. The Senate bill requires it. In other words, the Oberstar bill requires it. The House bill allows it and gives a choice to the administration. I think it is very important to remember that. That is not really the issue here. I do not know why everyone is spending all that time on it. I think it is very important to look at just what is important here and look at writing good law. That is what we are supposed to worry about. I think if you look at it very carefully, you will clearly see that the House bill is a better bill, in a number of different ways. We have already heard the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), who reviewed the laws that the Attorney General could ignore under the Senate bill, which is the Democratic substitute: The Veterans Preference Act, civil rights law, Rehabilitation Act, age discrimination in employment, merit principles, Family and Medical Leave Act. These were all very hard-fought issues over the years and we are suddenly going to throw them out in the substitute. That is not writing good law. The House bill is carefully drafted after consideration, hearings, study, consultation. The Senate bill gives the appearance at least of being hastily drafted. All of us here know that sometimes one House, one body in this Congress will do that. They will hastily draft a bill, send it over to the other side and say, ``We'll clean it up in conference.'' This substitute has to be cleaned up in conference, but the way it is written it will not go to conference. We need a bill to go to conference so we can write good law. The House bill provides for good administration of the system. The Senate bill, I tried to diagram this and it is almost impossible to diagram the administration of the law under the Oberstar amendment. DOT has a Deputy Secretary for Security with very little responsibility. Then the Secretary of Transportation comes in with quite a bit of responsibility. The Attorney General gets involved and it is hard to even know where to draw the lines between the two because their relationship is not clearly specified. The FAA Administrator comes in and, of all things, the Attorney General, which administers law, provides the guidelines for all the air marshals whereas the FAA Administrator, which is not used to supervising Federal law enforcement, has to supervise the air marshals. It is exactly the opposite of the way it should be. This substitute is poor law. Do not vote for this substitute. Vote for the House bill, send it to conference and together with the Senate we can write good law. Announcement by the Chairman