Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 705 improves the efficiency of mail reporting for Members by removing the requirement that the percentage of the mail allowance expended each month be reported. As our Committee on House Administration has increased the flexibility of Members with regard to the Member's allowance, this percentage report has become unnecessary and also creates inefficient paperwork. The actual amount used for mail each month will be reported, but this will remove the monthly reporting requirement and increase the administrative efficiency of the House.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, February 24, 1999.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order for the Speaker to appoint two Members of the House, one upon the recommendation of the Minority Leader, to represent the House of Representatives at appropriate ceremonies for the observance of George Washington's birthday to be held on Monday, February 22, 1999.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Tuesday, February 23, 1999, the Speaker, Majority Leader and Minority Leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and would agree that computers change much more rapidly than mules. We must make sure that we have a top-flight system in operation.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, this bill is absolutely essential. The first portion, to extend the AIP program, is extremely important to local airports which are in the midst of planning and construction cycles. Since the current authorization expires in less than 60 days, if we do not pass this bill, these airports will be at a loss as to what to do and how to proceed. Airports have received only half of their normal grant money for this year, and if we do not pass this bill, they will not receive the remainder. Furthermore, since airport construction projects are unique and long-term, this shortfall will create serious problems for airport planners who have to schedule these projects in phases. Beyond that, this bill gives us time to begin a larger debate about making sure that America's airport infrastructure and aviation systems are the best in the world. At this point, although I believe they are very good, they are slipping compared to the rest of the world. The debate about airport funding, safety, security and the aviation industry as a whole needs to start with this legislation. Let me speak about one area in particular that I am acquainted with, and that is acquiring computers and planning the software and hardware for the new air traffic control system. In a very interesting study several years ago, then-Senator Cohen, who is currently Secretary of Defense, came to the startling realization that the present procurement policies for the Federal Government absolutely guarantee that every computer the Federal Government will buy is obsolete at the time it is purchased. Now how is this possible? Because in the time it takes to go through the specifications procedure, the actual procurement and purchase procedure and follow all the required Federal guidelines, roughly two years will have elapsed--more likely three years. As everyone knows, according to Moore's law, computer speed doubles every 18 months, and it is generally acknowledged that after three years computers have lost their usefulness in the industrial realm. Although people may continue to use them longer, they are no longer optimizing their investment, and if it takes us three years to decide which computer to buy and then buy it, we are always buying obsolete computers. We have tried to correct that in the case of the FAA a few years back by giving them more leeway in the procurement process, but it is still not enough. What FAA has done to try to get around this is to keep changing the specifications as they go along to ensure that they will have up-to-date computers and will have the advanced software needed to manage the new air traffic control system, the so-called free-flight system. It is not working very well, it is not working very efficiently, and I do not blame the FAA for this; I blame the requirements that are imposed on this agency, being subject to the requirements that all Federal agencies have to meet. But we are struggling here with a situation where this is a rapidly evolving field, the airlines are progressing very rapidly, the air traffic control system must evolve as rapidly, and we must develop the best hardware and the best software to handle the complex air traffic control system of the future. We cannot do that under the current authorization, and I hope when we complete the extension of reauthorizing the FAA in this bill, that then we will have a good bill ready that will allow us to address all these handicaps, that will allow us to develop an air traffic control system and an FAA that is second to none in the world, that will indeed match the performance of our airlines and will match the performance that we expect from any agency that is regulating various industries. Then we will be a help and not a hindrance to the airline industry. Once again I want everyone to understand clearly I am not castigating the current FAA administrator. She is doing a marvelous job. I am not castigating her staff. I am simply saying that we have to change the rules of the game and give them the flexibility they need. We made a great step a few years ago. We have to go further, and I hope, as we rewrite this bill, we will be able to do that.

Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from the State of my birth, Minnesota.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was detained the last 2 days by a violent abdominal illness and was not able to attend the session yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted in the affirmative on H.R. 68 and H.R. 432, rollcalls 7 and 8.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is a time of year when we do our retrospectives on what this Congress has accomplished, and we have heard some comments about that already. We have cut taxes for the first time in 16 years; we have balanced the budget for the first time since 1969. Even better than that, we have achieved a surplus, and when I was first elected 5 years ago, we had nearly a $300 billion deficit in this Congress and for this Nation; today, approximately $85 billion surplus. How does that affect us as citizens and legislators of this country? Just an example: My daughter and her husband are in the process of buying their first house. The interest rates are the lowest they have been in this Nation in many, many years. That is related to our budget surplus because the government is not in the market borrowing an additional $300 billion, but they are pumping $85 billion back in, and that reduces interest rates. Much else has happened in this Congress. I participated in developing the first science policy statement that this Congress has adopted in many years, and that is going to have a real impact on the science and technology and will certainly make our Nation more competitive among all. Mr. Speaker, it has been a good Congress, and I am proud to have been part of it.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his support of the bill and thank him also for bringing the bill to the floor. While our Nation and many nations are very concerned about bloodshed and potential warfare in the Balkans, we tend too often to ignore the problems in Africa, a continent that is in danger of drowning in an ocean of blood if further action is not taken. A good example of that is the nation of Sierra Leone, a peace-loving nation, which unfortunately on May 27, 1997 suffered a coup in which the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council seized power from Sierra Leone's democratically elected government. It, together with another armed group, the Revolutionary United Front, began a nine-month regime characterized by abuse of power and misgovernment. The neighboring nation of Sierra Leone decided to take action to end the bloodbath and to restore the democratically elected government. This organization, the Economic Community of West African States, better known as ECOWAS, and its military peacekeeping arm, called ECOMOG, led a West African peacekeeping force in February 1998. This force sought to restore the democratically elected government of Sierra Leone. Since the civilian government was restored successfully, the deposed military junta has engaged in a campaign of terror against the government, the civilian population and ECOMOG. They have fled into the bush, particularly in the eastern part of the country, and continue their battle of terror from that region. As a result of this conflict, thousands of civilians have become victims of gross violations of human rights, mostly at the hands of the rebels, the AFRC/RUF. Abuses include physical mutilation, torture, murder. Hundreds of men, women and children have been abducted, raped, sold into forced labor. Worst of all, young children are being inducted into combat and taught to kill before they are old enough to recognize what they are doing. Approximately one-quarter million refugees from Sierra Leone have fled into neighboring Guinea and Liberia. The location of the refugee camps does not allow for provision of adequate relief, and it is essential that the ECOMOG forces be able to conquer the rebel forces, which unfortunately are receiving arms from some unknown sources. There is poor security, a lack of resources and minimal access to these camps, resulting in hundreds of deaths simply because the aid forces are not able to reach those needing relief. Arms and weapons continue to be supplied to the rebels in direct violation of the United Nations arms embargo. The international community has simply failed to respond vigorously and adequately to this growing humanitarian crisis within and outside of Sierra Leone. Therefore, this resolution urges in the strongest terms that the President and Secretary of State of our Nation give high priority to solving the conflict in Sierra Leone and to bring stability to West Africa in general. It also urges the State Department to give logistical support to ECOMOG and to the government of Sierra Leone. It also condemns the use of children as combatants, and urges the establishment of a secure humanitarian corridor for the safe delivery of food and medicine to all those who are suffering. Furthermore, the resolution urges the President and Secretary of State to strictly enforce the United Nations armed embargo on rebel forces. It also urges the President and Secretary of State to work with West African states nations to ensure that there are sufficient African forces and arms provided for peacekeeping. It is a very serious situation and has resulted in considerable human suffering, and I urge that this resolution be adopted, and once again I thank the gentleman for taking this bill up and yielding this time to me.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the portion of this bill which honors the thirty-eighth president of the United States, Gerald R. Ford and his wife Betty. We previously passed that portion of this bill, but it was under unanimous consent, and we did not have an opportunity for debate. The thirty-eighth president, Gerald R. Ford, has long been noted for his successful efforts to heal this Nation after a previous impeachment drama that we dealt with. Our Nation owes him a great debt of gratitude for his unprecedented work in carrying us through that most difficult period, for restoring and healing and stability in this Nation. This is a particularly appropriate year to recognize him. It is the year of President Ford's 85th birthday. It is also the year of the 80th birthday of Betty Ford, who in her own right deserves recognition. Her name is also included on the medal, due to her work in publicizing the dangers of breast cancer and vastly increasing public awareness of this terrible disease in this Nation. Her work with the Betty Ford Clinic also has earned her a place of recognition on this medal. In addition to those two birthdays, this year we also celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary, as well as the 50th anniversary of President Ford's election to this House of Representatives, where he served very ably for 25 years and, in fact, became the minority leader for a number of years. In addition to that, this is the 25th anniversary of the year that President Ford acceded to the vice presidency of the United States of America. As we all know, he did a marvelous job as vice president and president and put this Nation on the right course for years to come. In recognition of the accomplishments of both President Ford and his wife Betty, and in recognition of all that he has done for this Nation, I urge all members to vote for this bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Shirley Fleischmann, an engineering professor at the Padnos School of Engineering at Grand Valley State University. As Vice-Chairman of the House Science Committee, I am extremely proud to announce that Shirley has been named by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as its 1998 Michigan Professor of the Year. Dr. Fleischmann is the first engineering professor and the fourth woman in the state of Michigan to receive this award since it was introduced in 1985. She is also the first Grand Valley State University professor to receive this award that recognizes undergraduate instructors who excel as teachers and who influence the lives of their students. The award is based on the recipients demonstrated involvement with undergraduate students, their scholarly approach to teaching, and their service to their profession and the community in which they live. For professors the award is one of the highest honors they can receive. Before beginning her teaching career at Grand Valley, Shirley was a professor of mechanical engineering at the United States Naval Academy from 1982-1989. She earned her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Maryland. She also received M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Physics from Maryland and was awarded a B.S. in Physics as well. Shirley grew up in Holland, Michigan, where she graduated from Holland Christian High School. To this day she credits her high school teachers for giving her the tools and skills necessary to do her job so effectively. Mr. Speaker, it is the effort and dedication of professors like Shirley Fleischmann that is so crucial to the future of science education. Professors such as Shirley can help the United States renew its interest in science and better prepare our leaders of tomorrow with the necessary tools and knowledge they need for careers in math, science, and engineering. Her excitement and willingness to go that extra mile in training future scientists and engineers is a shining example of why she was selected for this prestigious award. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Professor Shirley Fleischmann on this outstanding accomplishment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House this evening to speak regarding the report of the Committee on Science, Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy, that I have spent much of the last year working on. We started this mammoth effort just one year ago. It has involved a tremendous amount of work on the part of myself, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) and our staffs, and has had the full support of the Speaker, and I certainly wish to thank them all for their support and their work. I consider the release of this report to be a commencement; it is a beginning and not an end. It is intended to serve as the foundation for continued discussion within the Committee on Science, within the Congress and within the Nation regarding the future funding of science and policy decisions relating thereto. This report was not intended to be an end in itself, but rather to stimulate discussion and provide direction for the Congress and for the Committee on Science in future deliberation on this topic. I am certainly delighted by the reception the report has received up to this point. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has named some of the responses we have received, those from the Director of the National Science Foundation, from members of the bipartsan Senate Science and Technology Caucus, and from the White House in the person of the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. All of them have indicated support for the report, and similar letters from many scientists, scientific organizations and universities have been pouring into our office and into the chairman's office. The only comments that we received reflecting reservations agree with and support most of the report, but are concerned about what is not in the report. In other words, they believe that we should have gone further, and indeed we should have and would have in certain subject areas had we had the time. In particular I would like to respond to the comments of the gentlewoman from Texas who spoke just before me. I appreciate and agree with much of what she just said. There is a great need for us to continue our work in the area of underrepresented populations. I am pleased to report and I do acknowledge in the report, that the instigation, the seed for this report, arose from an African American, Dr. Homer Neal of the University of Michigan, who was Chairman of the U.M. Physics Department when I was in the Michigan State Senate. He invited me to the campus, and we began discussions regarding science and science policy. He eventually became Vice President of Research and then Interim President of the University of Michigan and was instrumental in pulling together a large number of scientists-- administrators from major universities to begin discussions on this topic. They met with me, they met with the previous chairman of the Committee on Science, Mr. Walker, and then Dr. Neal organized a symposium at the University of Michigan which was instrumental in beginning the process of developing a science policy in this Nation. In preparing this report we sought input from the scientific community. I have personally spoken to or with approximately 10,000 scientists and perhaps two thousand nonscientists over the course of the past year. In addition, we started a web site. We have received over 300 E-mails and well over 50 letters, very thoughtful letters, I might add, from scientists across the country. We have held seven hearings specifically on this topic, and in addition to that last year held four hearings on science, math, engineering and technology education, something that is extremely important to this country. We listened very carefully to what every group or individual had to say, and I believe this report reflects much of what we have learned. But as important as what we learned from these sources was the conviction that we started with. Our goal, our vision, was that America ought to maintain and improve her preeminent position in science and technology in order, first of all, to advance human understanding of the universe and all that it contains, and, second, to improve the lives, health, and freedoms of all peoples on this planet. Science--including the physical, natural, life and social sciences, math and engineering can help bring about this vision. The scientific and technological enterprise is critical to bringing about advances in understanding that help ensure that we can maintain our national defense, keep people healthy, and bring about prosperity. I might add that, if we can maintain people's health and their prosperity, we have introduced a great deal of stability which very naturally will lead to greater democracy in this planet. I truly believe that science and technology are the key to our economic future--as a Nation, and as a planet. But for science to continue to exert its beneficial effects on society, the scientific enterprise must be kept strong and sustainable. Much of our report is devoted to recommendations for doing so. We have identified three major areas needing attention. (1) We must have continued discoveries at the scientific frontier; (2) we need research advances in the private sector; and (3) we must improve our system of education from preschool through graduate school. These are critical areas to address because, first of all, future advances in fundamental research will depend largely on substantial and stable funding for this research from the Federal Government. Second, research in the private sector and industry is important in bringing the fruits of understanding-driven research to society through applied research. Third, science and math education, the development of our Nation's intellectual capital, is fundamentally important to our Nation's future. While the freedom of individual researchers is necessary to bring about ground-breaking scientific discoveries, it is crucial that the scientific and engineering enterprise strengthen its ties to society, the taxpayers, who support it. Our report suggests a number of ways to do so. In addition, science has another role, and that is to help us make decisions, as a society, as a government, within both the regulatory sector and the judicial branch, as individuals and as voters. We must develop and strengthen our ability to draw on science and engineering to help us make decisions, and our report suggests ways to bring this about. In writing a document that adhered to my initial goals, in that it should be coherent, comprehensive, and yet concise, we were not able to address any particular issue or aspect of the scientific enterprise in great depth. Because the report is so comprehensive, encompassing not only the role of the Congress or the Federal Government but also the private sector and our entire education system, it does not explore any particular issue in great depth. It is instead a broad-brush view of the entire science and engineering enterprise. In part because of this ``big picture'' approach, this report is the beginning of a process, not the end of one. The work of addressing specific science policy issues will have to come later. I am gratified, in fact, that the additional views submitted by some committee members indicate a desire to pursue further issues raised in the report. It is my hope that we will do so in the next Congress. Much hard work remains. We must address these issues that are so critical to maintaining our science and technology enterprise. Let's start that process. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to commend the sponsor and cosponsors of this bill as well as the committee members. It is an excellent bill. It will serve the Great Lakes well. I particularly commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for continuing in his efforts to be a conservator of the Great Lakes. He has done a tremendous amount of good work here on that score. I hope he continues. There is one point in the bill I do want to raise because it might create some problems for Michigan. I simply want to get this on the record and perhaps get some assurances from either the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) or the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) regarding the language here. The bill says that there is established the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Proposal Review Committee which shall operate under the guidance of the Council of Lakes Committees. The Review Committee shall consist of representatives of all State directors and Indian tribes with Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife management authority in the Great Lakes Basin. The language in the report is similar to that in the bill but also adds, ``* * * nothing in this bill shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of any Indian tribe with respect to the management of fish and wildlife in the Great Lakes Basin.'' There is a problem relating to this that just came to my attention during a call I received from the Governor's office in Michigan. As some of my colleagues may be aware, there have been several court cases on the issue of Indian fishing rights in Michigan, resulting in a substantial number of court decisions. And my concern is that this language in the bill might be interpreted to say that those tribes which have been given certain rights in court cases would be regarded as having management authority. If that were true, then we might well have 5 or 6 times more representatives of Indian tribes than from the State of Michigan on this commission. That would make it somewhat unbalanced. I assume the intent was not to do that and I want to get that on the record. Perhaps both the chairman and the sponsor of the bill can assure me that that is not the intent, and that in fact we will use and interpret the language as it was originally intended.

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

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, as Congress moves forward on consideration of spending for foreign affairs, I would like to draw attention to the successes of the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee (CRWRC) headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1997, CRWRC received a USAID grant of $75,000 for a Development Education project. In collaboration with Bread for the World Institute (BFW), CRWRC used the money to fund a national event which linked international development organizations with U.S. leaders who were interested in public policy, sustainable development, and hunger. The event was a huge success. The Gathering, which took place in Washington, D.C. in June of 1997, was preceded by a number of training materials and publicity brochures and newsletters. Participants were divided into one of three groups: Track I, which involved over 300 people who were interested in poverty and hunger and wanted to learn more; Track II, the ``leadership corps'' or those who expressed a higher level of interest and would apply the ``miltiplier effect'' in their own regions after leaving the Gathering; and finally, Track III, the six foreign nationals who were development practitioners working in partnership with CRWRC overseas. Attendance at the Gathering exceeded expectations, drawing over 500 people. The conference was a time to share stories and learn from others. According to the increase in learning based on the results of a baseline survey given at registration and a follow-up survey that followed the conference, each of the three groups was impacted significantly by new information. The follow-up survey showed that Track II participants tripled in their learning and Track I showed a positive increase as well. In addition, the visiting international developers were able to learn about the democratic process in the U.S. and the possibility of creating their own action in their own countries. Other evidence of learning appeared in the comments from participants after the Gathering: From Jean Claude Cerin, a development practitioner from Haiti, and one of the international presenters: There was a woman in my small group the first day of our meetings who felt forced to adopt international issues. [. . .] She said that's not what she's concerned about, she's more interested in what's happening in her own backyard. After going through the workshops and interchanges, she became so interested. She's interested in the mailing lists, to publish talks of folks at the Track II workshops in her local newsletter, and to be in communication with international folks through email. She said, ``I'm able to connect these international issues to my own backyard, now.'' She caught the connection, the link. We are interconnected. [emphasis added] From a Track II participant: ``Thanks again for your faith-filled leadership and courage in conceiving creating funding and hosting the [TrackII] sectional. It's a milestone in raising awareness for me!'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize the positive aspects of this program and believe it shows how far public dollars can go to serve the world's poor when coupled with private effort.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the amendment and the comments just made. I would remind my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, that when his people come out of the store, my colleague might ask them what they think of the laser scanner that was used to get them out of the store more quickly and more efficiently, because development of the laser was financed in part by the National Science Foundation. My colleague might ask, too, whether they enjoy the rapid delivery of their FedEx packages. Indeed, part of that research has been done by the National Science Foundation. My colleague suggested that FedEx should pay for it themselves, but, in fact, Federal Express developed into what it is today, because of the techniques resulting from such research, and the taxes that FedEx pays today far more than cover the cost of any research that was done which may have helped to develop the system. My point is that the United States has a vibrant and booming economy today, especially compared to that of other nations, because we also have a booming and vital research enterprise in this Nation. There is a direct correlation between economic growth and the amount of money spent on research, and all of us should recognize that. Let me also comment on a few other specifics because, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) said earlier, much of this debate arises out of a misunderstanding of the scientific terms used. Some terms used in science which are similar to everyday language have totally different meanings when used scientifically. As an example, consider ``billiards'', which was referred to in one of the ``Dear Colleagues'' sent out by the sponsors of the amendment. Billiards we all understand is a game. But, in science, the word is used to describe a theory which originally was developed to explain the collisions and interaction between rigid objects, but today is used to describe collisions and trajectories of small objects, such as atoms, molecules and nuclei, within confined areas. This is crucial to the study of air flow and turbulence around aircraft. In fact, a recent development was the discovery that ripples in the surface of an aircraft wing reduce turbulence substantially, resulting in fuel savings and cost savings. It is interesting that you can now buy swimsuits that incorporate the same effect and will now allow for faster swimming in competition. That was not the intent of the research, but this is a by-product that is beneficial. ATMs were criticized in one of the ``Dear Colleagues.'' As used in science, that does not refer to ``automated teller machines,'' where you withdraw money, but rather refers to ``asynchronous transfer modes,'' which is today the most modern and most rapid method of transmitting information over the Internet or between computers in general. This is very beneficial to society, and allows sending more information for less money. That brings us into the next item of criticism: that NSF spent $12,887 to study cheap talk. That is not referring to what you might in common parlance think of as ``cheap talk,'' but rather refers to the cost of information transmitted over the Internet or used in commerce. All of these are very beneficial grants. They have helped us. They have helped our economy and made us one of the strongest nations on this earth. It is hard to find a Federal agency that gives us as much for our money as the National Science Foundation, and it certainly does help our economy to a great extent. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, a very fundamental question in the American democracy is how do we ensure that voters are legal voters? What is the purpose of voter registration? It is, pure and simple, to prevent fraud. We have to recognize that the laws of this land are written to control the bad folks, not the good folks. And I do not think it is an insult to Americans to have voter registration. But if we have registration, there has to be some requirement that the people have met the requirements of the registration laws. How do we do this? By checking identification when someone registers to vote. If we prohibit that, if we have simple mail-in voting registration for anyone that wishes, then why have registration at all? Why not just simply use the poll directory or the telephone directory and check people off on that as they vote? If we are going to have a voter registration and the purpose of it is to prevent fraud, we have to ensure that fraudulent behavior does not take place and this bill will do that.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak about honesty and integrity, and this bill is a bill of integrity. I have been concerned, unhappy, and upset for almost 30 years now, since transportation funding was placed on budget, surpluses were allowed to accumulate, and the money was used to shield the size of the national deficit from the American taxpayers. That is wrong, and I am pleased that this bill ends that practice. Mr. Chairman, the money that the public pays for gas taxes, under this bill will be used for the purpose for which it was intended, and that is transportation funding. No longer will it be used to disguise the size of the deficit. Some people have called this bill a budget buster. If it were a budget buster, then we should reduce the tax. But, Mr. Chairman, there is a good reason it is not a budget buster. Section 1001 makes it very clear that if the expenditures in this bill exceed the budget guidelines, spending will have to be cut back or offsets will have to be found, and we will take care of that through the budget process. One other important issue of equity. I come from a donor State. That is a polite way of saying that Michigan has contributed more to road funding in this country than it has received back. In fact, under ISTEA, 76 cents of every dollar we sent to Washington came back to Michigan. Under this bill we will be treated much better. This bill achieves equity in funding, equity in taxation, and is an honest bill that serves the people well. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, my interest in campaign finance reform goes back to 1972 when I became very angry at a fellow Republican, Mr. Nixon, for the manner in which he raised and disbursed money in his Presidential campaign, and that, in fact, is one of the reasons that I ran for public office the following year. Today, we have decided that those laws which were passed after Watergate simply no longer do the job, and I speak particularly in favor of the bill that is before us, the one introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White). It is something we should do. I am sorry we are not debating it more. But in this electronic age we clearly should do precisely what this bill requires, and that is to have instantaneous disclosure, instantaneous reporting of contributions received. The money contributed will be known to the entire world and to the opponents of the person involved. Now a few general comments about the debate. Several speakers have said we need comprehensive campaign finance reform. Those are the bills that do not pass. I think what we are doing here tonight is right. I am hopeful that at least one, perhaps two, maybe even three, and, if a miracle occurs, all four will pass. But I am convinced that the only way we are going to get campaign finance reform passed in this House is to take it bit by little bit, put it up for a vote, up or down, and some will pass and some will fail, and we will keep plugging away. Parkinson's law, for those of us who are old enough to remember Parkinson's law, tells us that the difficulty in getting something passed in a decision-making body is inversely related to the experience that body has with the issue. We all know and understand campaign finance reform, and we can find something wrong with every bill. The more comprehensive the bill is, the harder it is to get it passed. So I think doing what we are doing tonight, breaking it into little pieces and saying we will pass each individually, is the right way to go. We have to continue doing that.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a close friend, a good colleague, and a wonderful Congressman. During my maiden voyage in Congress after election in a special election, and you may recall that in a special election we jump right into the work, one of the subcommittees I was assigned was the one chaired by Mr. Schiff. He was an outstanding chairman and a very kind friend that was willing to show a freshman the ropes and was extremely helpful. But what struck me most throughout my brief acquaintance with him in the House was that he was absolutely totally honest. He was diligent, a straight arrow, a very fine person and a good example for all of us. It was a delight and a pleasure to work with him. I, along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and all my other colleagues, offer our prayers for him and his family. I think especially of his wife Marcia. We pray that she may enjoy the comfort of God during these difficult times and that his family will feel his presence as well. We certainly offer them our best. We pay tribute to Steve for serving his country well in so many ways, but particularly in this Congress.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the subject of cloning. Last year Ian Wilmuth, a scientist in Scotland, announced the cloning of a sheep named Dolly; and at that time I came to the floor and expressed my concern about the possibility of applying that technique to cloning humans. I was certainly in tune with the American people, because it turned out over 90 percent of them object to cloning of human beings, for various reasons. I am in the unusual situation of being one of the few scientists in the Congress, and as a scientist I understand the vital role that science plays in enhancing the welfare of individuals in society, and I am extremely reluctant to place any limits on scientific research. However, while the possibilities of scientific experiments may seem limitless, there are times when society, through its governmental process, can and should place limits on scientific experimentation. There are many things which science can do. Most of them should be done. Some should not. And it is up to us to decide which should not. There are a number of scientific reasons at this point for banning human cloning. It took 277 tries to produce Dolly, and it would take considerably more than a thousand, I believe, to produce a human clone. The dangers associated with that are immense. And in particular, we have to worry about the rights of all those failures which resulted in discards. If we are cloning sheep and things go bad, no one regrets discarding the defective sheep. But if it is a human, we have an entirely different situation. There are also social and psychological reasons for banning human cloning and, above all, there are moral and ethical reasons for a ban. However, in spite of the national consensus on banning human cloning that I mentioned, the bill that I introduced to do this has come under attack, primarily from those who would benefit in various ways, from allowing the process to go forward. The Biotechnology Industry Organization and the Association for Reproductive Medicine clearly have a vested interest in this. Let me point out some of the scare tactics that have been used. The following was distributed in a letter to all Members of the House of Representatives, from the Biotechnology Industry Organization, better known as BIO. They state, just to select one phrase, ``We urge you to use caution before deciding to cosponsor or support hastily drafted legislation which would not only ban human cloning, but would inadvertently shut down biomedical research by outlawing basic laboratory techniques used for decades.'' There are several things wrong with that statement. First of all, they say the legislation is hastily drafted. That seems to be a phrase people always use when they do not like legislation. The bill under discussion in the Committee on Commerce has survived several hearings over several mouths in the Committee on Science. It has been deliberated and modified by the Committee on Science and is certainly not hastily drafted. I think it is a good bill. Secondly, they say it will inadvertently shut down biomedical research. That is absurd, absolutely absurd. The bill that I have introduced would not shut down biomedical research. The letter says it would do that by outlawing basic laboratory techniques used for decades. I would like the industry to show me one such technique used for decades which my bill would shut down. It is time for the facts to get out. It is time for the Members of the House to get the facts and to pay attention to it and not be guided by alarmist information distributed by organizations that have a vested financial interest in preventing my bill from passing. If we look at the bill that came out of the Committee on Science, which is now before the Committee on Commerce, and a companion bill which will be modified similar to this, we were very careful. We do not ban human cloning, first of all, because ``cloning" is not a precise term. We defined it in terms of prohibiting human somatic cell nuclear transfer. Now, that is a very technical definition, but very narrow and very precise. Secondly, we specifically outline what is permitted, because I did not just want to ban human cloning and leave things up in the air; I wanted to be very specific about what was permitted. And this bill makes it clear that somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning technologies can be used to clone molecules, to clone DNA, clone cells other than human embryo cells or tissues, to clone animals; and I plan to expand that to include cloning plants as well. We are working very hard to come up with a good bill that is fair and equitable and that will allow legitimate research to go forward but will ban the cloning of human beings in any form and at any stage of life. I would appreciate the support of my colleagues.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, earlier a colleague from Maine registered concern about the results of the third International Mathematics and Science Study, which indicated that in the area of mathematics we were at the bottom of the list of Nations who took the test, with the exception of Cyprus and South Africa. And in science we are very little better. We only passed up Italy, Lithuania, Cyprus and one other country. This is indeed a sad state of affairs. I appreciate my colleague's interest, and I also want to mention that the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), and the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), earlier during the previous session decided that this was a serious problem that had to be addressed by the Committee on Science. Mr. Sensenbrenner has commissioned me to head up the effort on the part of the Committee on Science to look into math-science education as well as our Nation's science policy. In particular, we will be having a hearing tomorrow in which we will have Mr. Bill Nye, the Science Guy; a representative from Sesame Street; and others, talking in particular about the question of how we can maintain interest among our students in science and mathematics as they get older. I encourage the Members of the House to attend that hearing, and I am sure we will learn a great deal about what we can do as a Nation to improve our students' performance in mathematics and science in elementary and secondary schools.