Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time and defer to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].

Mr. EHLERS

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say of the amendment which has been offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] that the majority is willing to accept the amendment. It is clear that we need in our elementary and secondary educational schools greater computing ability as well as a better means of instructing students in the use of computers, and to the extent that we can assist in the Federal Government with surplus computers and other research equipment, it is a great step forward. My only comment is that this action should also extend to higher education because they can also make particularly good use of surplus research equipment and, to a certain extent, computers. My hope is that we will donate good equipment and not junk equipment. And I think the schools may have to be a bit discriminating as to what they accept, because they may accept greater maintenance liabilities than they think if they are not careful. But there is certainly a noble intent behind the amendment. I am pleased on behalf of the majority to say that we appreciate it and are willing to accept it.

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 bill just passed.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, this week is National Science and Technology Week. National Science and Technology Week is an informal public education outreach program of the National Science Foundation. National Science and Technology Week is celebrated across the country, providing special opportunities in communities throughout the Nation to notice the major impact and importance that science and technology have on all aspects of our daily lives. This year's theme is ``Webs, Wires and Waves: The Science and Technology of Communication.'' This theme recognizes the impact that telecommunications has had in shrinking the world and bringing people worldwide closer together. Today, from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., the National Science Foundation will again offer its ``Ask a Scientist or Engineer'' hotline by telephone and the Internet. The toll-free number for this public service is 1- 800-682-2716. Online access will be provided throughout the week at asknstw@nsf.gov. I encourage my fellow Members to strongly support this program and join with me in celebrating National Science and Technology Week, and if my colleagues did not catch the telephone numbers or the Internet address, feel free to call my office and get the correct numbers.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you and my colleagues to join me in extending birthday greetings to a very special woman from my hometown of Grand Rapids, MI. Mrs. Helen Jackson Claytor will celebrate her 90th birthday on April 12. I am honored to know Helen and I greatly respect the time and energy she has put forth in making our community a better place to live through her work with race relations. Her tireless leadership and ability to get results should serve as an inspiration for all of us. Born and raised in Minneapolis, MN, Helen graduated from John Marshall High School at the top of her class in 1925. After high school she attended the University of Minnesota, where she graduated cum laude in just 3 years while studying to become a teacher. While at the University of Minnesota she was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Following her graduation Helen found that opportunities for African- American teachers were extremely limited. The lack of available teaching jobs led her to the YWCA in Trenton, NJ where she worked as a Girl Reserves secretary. She also served a similar stint at the YWCA in Kansas City, MO in late 1930. These jobs marked the beginning of her long association with the YWCA. Helen serves as a true ambassador for the YWCA, having traveled all over the country to speak on the topic of race relations at YWCA's that were segregated before the civil rights movement. As an elected member of the YWCA's World Council she traveled to such places as China, Switzerland, and Africa. Her drive and determination led her to the position of an active board member of the YWCA in Grand Rapids and later in her career she made history by becoming the first black women ever to be elected president of a community YWCA. In the late 1940's she was elected to the National Board of Directors of the YWCA and served as the president from 1967 until her retirement in 1976. As president, Helen played a key role in helping the organization draft the YWCA Purpose in 1967, an honor she regards as a major accomplishment of her career. She still holds the title of Honorary Member of the Board. In addition to her numerous roles with the YWCA, Helen has been actively involved in countless community organizations and has been recognized for her efforts with numerous awards and commendations. Among her more recent honors are an honorary degree from Aquinas College, the Giant's Award from the Coalition of Grand Rapids Organizations, the Grand Rapids Y.W.C.A.'s Tribute to Women Award, and the Grand Rapids NAACP Role Model Award; she has also been inducted into the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame. Widowed twice, Helen was married to journalist Earl Wilkens, who died of tuberculosis at an early age. She later married Dr. Robert Claytor, the first black physician in Grand Rapids. Throughout her years, Helen has been blessed with the support of a very loving and caring family that includes her three children, Roger Wilkens, Judith Claytor, and Sharon Claytor Peters. Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time in the day to thoroughly highlight the many contributions that Helen had made to our society. Celebrating 90 years of life is truly a blessing. I want to again personally extend my heartfelt wishes to Helen for a joyous day of celebration with her family and many friends that will gather to honor her on April 17 at the Grand Rapids YWCA. Thank you, Helen, for being the outstanding citizen that you are.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 73, I was involved in other legislative business and was not able to vote in time. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. The previous speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts, has so totally mischaracterized the issue before us that it is necessary for me to run through it once again and outline precisely what this resolution will do. First of all, it will establish funding for all committees, other than the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, until May 2, 1997. This interim funding is to permit the committees to operate during the next month while we resolve some of the questions which were raised yesterday. Furthermore, it establishes for the entire 2-year cycle the funding for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight at a 2-year funding level of $20 million, including $3.8 million for investigative purposes in 1997 alone. Furthermore, it authorizes a reserve fund of $7.9 million for the entire 105th Congress. I also have to respond to the characterization of the gentleman from Massachusetts that this is a slush fund. I am from Michigan. I know what slush is. It is dirty, it is messy and it gets splashed all over. That may accurately characterize the way the Members on the other side of the aisle handled the money under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration during their tenure, but this reserve fund is not a slush fund. This is going to be a tightly controlled reserve fund. It will be under the control of the Committee on House Oversight and it will be parceled out only when necessary and for appropriate purposes. That is certainly not a slush fund. It is out in the open. All decisions will be in the open, widely publicized, and not a slush fund of the type that we are familiar with from Congresses prior to the 104th. This resolution also provides that any increase in spending in the 105th Congress, as compared to the 104th Congress, must be offset by spending decreases in other legislative branch activities. In other words, this is a zero sum in terms of funding. It is a very important provision, and that helps us fulfill our commitment to balancing the budget. Under this resolution, committee staff levels remain at one-third of the levels of the 103d Congress, continuing to fulfill the promise we made in the Contract With America more than 2 years ago. It is a good resolution. It freezes the current committee funding at its current level, which is also the level we had in the 104th Congress, and which is substantially below the level of the 103d Congress when the gentleman across the aisle was in charge. Mr. Speaker, I urge we adopt this resolution. It is fair, it is proper, and it will get us on the track to better government in this House and in this Nation.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, for years the American public, and humans in general, have been fascinated with the possibility of creating human life by other than the natural means. This has given rise to stories such as Frankenstein, the attendant movies, and other horror stories related to that. This past week fears reached a new height when we discovered that British researchers had cloned a sheep. Immediately cries arose about the dangers of doing this, the British Government has threatened to withdraw funding for that research, et cetera. I would like to address the issue of cloning in general but more specifically the issue of human cloning. As my colleagues may be aware, I do have a scientific background, although not in the life sciences. I have to say that I am not the least surprised that we were able to clone a sheep and will not be the least surprised if someday we will be able to clone a human being. However, I strongly believe it should not be done. We have through the years tampered with the normal reproductive process, particularly as it relates to animals. First evidence of that was artificial insemination. Today most of the mammals produced for food, for dairy production, and so forth, begin life through the process of artificial insemination. We have even proceeded beyond that through surrogate parenting, selecting not only a father of choice but also a mother of choice, using in vitro fertilization, and placing the embryo in the uterus of an animal which is very good at carrying young and giving birth to them. But now we have reached another stage where we have through cloning created one animal which is in all regards identical to the animal from which its DNA was taken. Immediately the specter arises of doing the same for humans. I can assure you that, if we do not take steps to prevent research, in fact a human will be cloned. Mr. Speaker, I do applaud the President for this morning issuing a moratorium on the use of Federal funds for human cloning experiments. As he says in his comments, There is much about cloning that we still do not know. But this much we do know: any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry. It is a matter of morality and spirituality as well. The President's view is that human cloning would give rise to deep concerns, given our most cherished concepts of faith and humanity. Each human life is unique, born of a miracle that reaches beyond laboratory science. The President believes we must respect this profound gift and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves. That is precisely the danger we face, that individuals with substantial amounts of money and very large egos would decide that they are such a great gift to humanity that in fact they should be cloned, so that there would be many copies of them to perpetuate their image and their ideas. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear in my opposition to this possible practice that I am not a Luddite. I do not automatically react against technological and scientific advances. Obviously not, for I am a scientist and have participated in many advances. But this issue of creating human beings through the cloning process raises such fundamental issues of ethics, morality, theology, and religious belief that I believe we should not only do as the President suggests, withhold funding, but I believe we should have an outright ban on experimentation on human cloning within the United States. Human life is sacred. The good Lord ordained a time-honored method of creating human life, commensurate with substantial responsibility on the part of the parents, the responsibility to raise a child appropriately. Creating life in the laboratory as we do with human cloning is totally inappropriate and so far removed from the process of marriage and parenting that has been instituted upon this planet that we must rebel against the very concept of human cloning. It is simply wrong to experiment with the creation of human life in this way. There are other aspects as well. What do we do with the failed experiments, the clones that go wrong? Are we simply going to say, well, they do not really matter because they were created in the laboratory? Will we simply dispose of them as we do with laboratory animal experiments that go wrong? Obviously you cannot. We are dealing with human beings. So because of the importance of this issue, the importance of preventing human experimentation of this sort, I will be introducing very shortly a bill that will ban the use of Federal funds for human cloning research and a second bill which will provide an outright ban on the practice of human cloning.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to state that my comments are in connection with section 9 of the resolution dealing with the proposal that each committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, make its publications available in an electronic form. I strongly support this. Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate my strong support for section 9 of the resolution, which adds the following sub-paragraph at the end of clause 2(e) of rule XI, as follows: (4) Each Committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, make its publications available in electronic form. I strongly support this addition to the rules, but also want to clarify how I interpret this. I am committed to making all House documents available over the Internet as rapidly as possible. There are still many technical problems involved, as well as political issues to be dealt with. However, I believe that this statement is an excellent guiding principle, and I believe this proposed rule change should be interpreted as a means of achieving that objective. In particular, I believe it absolutely essential that every document available in hard copy also be made available on the Internet at the same time or earlier than the hard copy is available. The Congress owes the public at least that much and preferably more. I furthermore hope that, through the years, all House committees will develop the standard practice of making many documents available on the Internet which are currently not available, and that committees will continue to make progress in that direction. From my activities in the computerization of the House, and in my service as a member of the Committee on House Oversight, I will seek to achieve these objectives, while recognizing the authority and responsibilities that each committee chairman has in dealing with business before his or her committee. Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. Once again, I wish to indicate my strong support for this proposed rule change. I only wish it went further.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I take this time today to recognize America's most gifted, thoughtful, and talented entertainer, writer, and storyteller, Garrison Keillor. I recently had the opportunity to welcome Garrison to the Great Lakes State for a wonderful Christmas performance at the University of Michigan. Born in the eastern Minnesota town of Anoka in 1942, Garrison Keillor has been providing radio listeners with a serious, yet humorous, view of everyday life through his descriptive and creative stories since his undergraduate days at the University of Minnesota. After graduating Garrison went to work for The New Yorker, where he exhibited his writing skills and explored new interests. However, it wasn't until 1974 that Mr. Keillor began a new radio program that has become a weekly tradition for his almost 2 million listeners worldwide. ``Prairie Home Companion,'' Garrison's variety show creation in 1974, has been a family favorite in my home for over 20 years. Heard on close to 350 public radio stations across the country, with listenership growing, PHC has created a welcome and enjoyable atmosphere reminiscent of radio of years past by providing unique entertainment and strong mental images that only radio can present. Mr. Keillor exhibits a superb knack for story spinning that is refreshing, and a nice change of pace from the pressures we all face in our everyday lives. Because I grew up in the small town of Edgertown, MN, I cherish the moments I am able to enjoy listening to Garrison's radio imagery and reliving some of the joys of my midwestern youth. Mr. Keillor's work is not limited to his superb activities over radio airwaves. Readers of The New York Times and The Atlantic are enriched and entertained by the thoughts of Garrison through his contributed articles. He is also the author of numerous books: ``We are Still Married,'' ``Happy to be Here,'' ``Lake Wobegon Days,'' ``WLT,'' ``Leaving Home,'' ``The Book to Guys'' and the children's book ``Cat, You Better Come Home,'' He has also broken box-office records in performances with orchestras across the country and overseas. While his work is obviously appreciated by his fans, as evidenced by his loyal listenership, there is also a mutual respect and admiration from his peers. During the first 13 years of PHC, Garrison received the prestigious George Peabody and Edward R. Murrow Awards, along with a medal from the American Academy of Arts and Letters for his work. He has also received two ACE Awards, a Peabody, and a Grammy, along with several Grammy nominations. The Museum of Broadcast Communications has also paid tribute by inducting him into their Radio Hall of Fame. I especially appreciate Mr. Keillor's discussions of everyday religious activities of Americans. Although this subject is considered taboo by most media performers, Garrison treats religious beliefs as a normal part of human activity, which it truly is for most people. He discusses it intelligently, thoughtfully, and respectfully, but does so with his superb sense of humor. He points out the foibles of human behavior vis a vis people's religious beliefs, yet does so in a way that humorously causes us to reflect on our faith and actions and how they relate to the greater meaning of life. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Garrison Keillor for his gifted contributions to our society. His dedication, talent, and writing are a true delight for those who have had the opportunity to enjoy his work.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out, based on the comments that the chairman made earlier, we have saved $53 billion for the taxpayers during this session of Congress. I always like to put that in terms of my constituents. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that that amounts to $200 per capita in this Nation, $200 for every man, woman and child, or approximately $325 per taxpayer or somewhere in the neighborhood of $450 to $500 per average family. That is a very substantial amount of money. Compared to the President's budget as submitted, it is even greater, 50 percent greater than the numbers I quoted. I think we as the 104th Congress can be very proud of this accomplishment that we have run a tight ship. We have reduced spending and we have saved the average family in America approximately $450 to $500 during this session of Congress.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it was with some surprise that I saw this bill suddenly up on the agenda again, without committee action, and I am sorry I did not have more time to prepare and discuss it with the bill's sponsor. This bill did go through the House several months ago and I was tangentially involved in the discussion. At that time I was also surprised because it had popped up on the floor without having, to the best of my knowledge, gone through committee. At that time I was told that the scientific societies' concerns and scientists' concerns had been taken care of. I found out later they were not, and I regret that I voted for the bill on false information I was given. But I did want to point out that, even though this bill is certainly better than the one that passed this body a few months ago, now that the Senate amendment is included, I still have a serious reservation about the entire topic. As has been mentioned here, helium has tremendous uses in the scientific world. We continue to find more all along. The difficulty is, it is a very limited resource. It is found in economically feasible quantities only in certain gas fields in this country. If we do not recover it at the time that the gas is pumped out of the ground, that helium is lost because it is simply pumped out with the gas. When the gas is burned, the helium goes into the atmosphere. Helium is used in medicine. It is used in scientific research. It is used in transmission power lines in certain special instances. It is used in large superconducting magnets for many research facilities. It is used in the space program. Most recently it has been used in the discovery of the fifth state of matter. Most of us, when we were in school, learned about the three states of matter: solid, liquid, gaseous. Later we discovered that there is a fourth state: plasma. We know have a fifth state of matter, which was postulated by Bose and Einstein nearly a century ago, and was finally just discovered within the past year, at micro-degrees Kelvin temperature, a temperature which can only be achieved with liquid helium under a pumped condition. This will lead to a whole new frontier of science, and there are many other unknown frontiers which are yet to be discovered using helium, particularly in the liquid form. So it is a very, very special material; and in particular once it is used, it is lost to the atmosphere. It cannot be recovered economically. Furthermore, because of its lightness and the speed of motion of its atoms within the atmosphere, it is lost into space more readily than the other gases in the atmosphere. The economics that make this issue so difficult at this time occur because there is still relative abundant supply, and it is not economically feasible to recover all that we could recover. Furthermore, we have to recover it from the natural gases which possess the largest quantities of helium, because other natural gases do not have as much and it would be more expensive to recover from those. This is why the Government got in the business in the first place. I am certainly in sympathy with the intents of the sponsor and others who want to get the Government out of the business, but the economics are such at this time that if we are not careful we will lose vast quantities of helium, not from our use but from the use of the next generation and generations beyond. And that would be extremely tragic because it is absolutely irreplaceable. I hope no one in the House of Representatives hopes that somehow there will be a new technological invention of some sort that will replace helium. It simply cannot happen. Helium is a distinct entity of matter. There is only a certain amount of helium on this planet. We have to make sure it is used wisely, and we should not use it for blimps. We should not even use it for helium-filled balloons. We should try to conserve it for the future. What concerns me is that I have no assurance under this bill that this will be taken into account. I do welcome the amendment that calls for the study by the National Academy of Sciences. I believe that is a good step to take. However, the decision is still finally going to be made by the Secretary of the Interior. We have no idea who the Secretary of the Interior might be at that time and whether or not that person will have an adequate knowledge and understanding of the scientific aspects of helium use to make a wise and intelligent decision. I would feel much better, frankly, if we simply commissioned the National Academy study, and then had the issue come back to the House once again for debate and review. Having said that, the dilemma we face now is that the bill is before us. We have to make a decision. I urge all Members of the House to consider these factors very carefully, very thoughtfully, and vote accordingly. I have great reservations about this bill and I hope that we look at the issue very carefully before passing it.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and for his kind words. Mr. Speaker, there is a very important environmental principle, first publicized by Garrett Hardin some 30 years ago, that states: ``You cannot do just one thing.'' We as a Nation have had to learn that the hard way. We thought we could simply apply DDT everywhere and eliminate a number of insects in this country. It did not work that way. First of all, the insects developed resistance and were not eliminated, but secondly, we found the DDT was affecting many organisms other than insects and we eventually had to ban it. We have also learned that principle with issues, such as the public works projects which we are proud of in this Nation. And one of those projects was opening the St. Lawrence Seaway, which was a boon to my State of Michigan. But my State of Michigan also touches 4 of the 5 Great Lakes. So if anything goes wrong, we are affected more than any other State. Things did go wrong. You have already heard from the gentleman from Minnesota about the lamprey eel, and now the zebra mussel. The zebra mussel certainly has hit Michigan harder than any other State. Yet when I arrived in the Congress, last year a bill came up which would zero out zebra mussel funding. This funding was regarded as a laughingstock by those who were proposing zeroing it out. They thought it was another government boondoggle. I told them before this session ended they would probably have zebra mussels in their district. They do indeed now have problems with them. Mr. Speaker, the problem is serious, and I am very pleased to get up and lend my support to this bill, because this bill is a very good first step at addressing the problems we face with invasive species. It is not just the lamprey eel, and it is not just the zebra mussel, which we now estimate is costing the Nation approximately $2 billion in cleanup costs every year; it is a matter of stopping all the future invasive species of one sort or another that create trouble not just in the Great Lakes, but in many parts of this Nation. In addition to that, there is an even greater danger looming on the horizon, and that danger is bacterial contamination. Already we have evidence of some cholera appearing in some of the sea water ports of this Nation, and there is little to prevent them from also getting into the fresh water ports. As you know, that is a disease which we are not used to dealing with in this Nation. It manifests itself primarily in Third World countries. We are not sure how we would address it. Clearly it is important to stop that disease before it even begins. For those reasons and many more, I am pleased to lend my strong support to this bill and urge that this Congress pass this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 366, I missed the vote because I was detained in a doctor's office. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Tina Hanonu, a 12-year employee of the U.S. House of Representatives, who recently served as a staffer with Representative Sherwood Boehlert of the 23d District of New York and as the volunteer president of the House System Administrators Association. Tina began her career on the Hill in 1984. She served as an advisor and consultant to Representative Connie Morella and went on to become a senior systems administrator for Representative Boehlert. She recently advanced her career in the House of Representatives, from that of a systems administrator, to become a senior technical representative for House Information Resources. Tina has a real knack for organizing and problem solving. She has always taken the lead in mobilizing systems administrators and other computer user groups on the Hill. She has worked tirelessly to help solve problems and find solutions for others in performing their daily jobs. With her busy schedule she also found time to be a cofounder of the House Systems Administrators Association in 1990. She served as president of the group from 1993 until leaving to work with House Information Resources. Under her leadership the House System Administrators Association has become a key organization in the House's efforts to use technology to better serve the country. Tina has been a great help not only to her employing office, but to the entire House of Representatives. Over the years Tina has worked to forge better relationships between Member offices and House resource organizations. She can be credited with aiding in the growth and development of her peers and colleagues throughout her career in the House of Representatives. As chairman of the Computer and Information Resources Working Group of the House Oversight Committee, I am determined to have our new computer system as user-oriented as possible. Individuals like Tina are invaluable in helping us develop such a system. I, as well as the entire U.S. House of Representatives, recognize and congratulate Tina Hanonu for all of her hard work and dedication to this institution.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker referred to reform and the need for reform. I simply want to quickly point to the chart we have before us here showing that this truly is the reform Congress. Start with the very first day of this Congress and look at the many reforms we have instituted. I simply do not have time to go through all of them, but I ask you go down the list of all the reforms that we have made during this session of Congress, and note it is a truly remarkable record. You see, at the very top of the chart, campaign finance reform. This is our attempt to fulfill another one of the promises we made to the American people when we were elected. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important to recognize that this is truly a reform bill. There have been a lot of negative comments made, but they missed the mark. I have served at the local government level, I have served at the State level, I have served at the national level. In my experience, the key point is to trust the American people to do the right thing but give them the information they need to make a good decision. That is precisely what this bill does. As a friend of mine said to me a few weeks ago when I was talking to him about the problems we are facing with campaign finance reform, and this is someone who is not involved in politics, but he said, ``I have looked at this issue for a long time. I believe the simple answer is no cash, and full disclosure.'' This bill certainly meets his requirement, because it does provide, for the first time, full disclosure of all the money that candidates and parties get and all the money that interest groups spend on elections. I think that is a very important factor: No cash, full disclosure. But we go beyond that. We maintain many of the contribution limits, and I think that is extremely important. But it is also important to recognize that we are in this bill empowering individuals, and we are empowering political parties, to be important players in the political process. Mr. Chairman, it is very important for us to recognize that, in modern-day America, advertising is the name of the game. General Motors spends more than $250 in advertising for every automobile they sell. We as candidates have to present ourselves to the American public. We have to give them information about ourselves and about the issues. We cannot do it without spending money on advertising. Advertising is very expensive. In my case a full page ad in my hometown newspaper, and it is not a large city, is $2,500 for a full page ad and it costs approximately $1,500 to $3,000 for 30 seconds on TV, and they tell me that this is cheaper than many major TV markets. We have to get the message out. It costs money to get the message out. If we add together all the money spent on political campaigns in this Nation, State, local, and national, add it all together, it is millions of dollars; but let me tell the Members, it is less than one-third of the amount of money that this Nation spends on advertising antacids. I ask the Members, what is more important, to give the voters information about candidates and issues, or to give them information about antacids? I believe in this bill we have put together a good package which allows us to get the information out to the American public about candidates and about issues. It does it responsibly, it does it with full disclosure, and it does a much better job of governing campaign finance than the law we have right now. A few interest groups oppose it, but they are themselves misleading the public on some of these issues. I think it is to their shame that they are doing this. I urge support of this bill, and I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor today to highlight two studies that were completed by the Center for Health Affairs and the Michigan Health and Hospital Association regarding the excellent health care that is delivered in my district and throughout west Michigan. The studies show that west Michigan hospitals have lower costs while also delivering health care that is consistently equal to or better than the expected rates for lengths of stay and mortality. These factors combined help to illustrate the fact that health care in west Michigan is both low in cost and high in quality, and that we can serve as a model for national efforts to reform our health care system. Over the past 10 years, we have seen national consumer health care prices increasing significantly. Last year's increase in consumer health care prices of 4.5 percent was the lowest in 22 years, but this increase is still nearly two times the increase in overall consumer prices. So you can understand why a report illustrating the low cost of hospital care in west Michigan is an important event. These low costs can be attributed to several factors, but the most significant ones are that administrators are operating efficient hospitals, doctors are making responsible decisions about appropriate care, and patients are not over-utilizing health care resources. The most traditional measure of hospital resources in inpatient bed capacity, measured by beds per 1,000 residents. The number of beds in west Michigan hospitals has decreased by 26 percent over the past 10 years. This reflects the changing philosophy in the health care sector toward less intrusive treatments, shorter hospital stays, the use of outpatient and home care, and greater emphasis on preventive care. In west Michigan, the number of acute care beds per 1,000 people dropped to 2.35 in 1993, meaning that we had 1,700 fewer beds than would be expected at the statewide average. And the State average is still below the national average of 3.3 beds per 1,000 people. In addition, the admission rate to acute care hospitals in west Michigan is 28 percent lower than the average rate across the State and throughout the Great Lakes region. The length of time that a person is expected to stay in the hospital upon admission has also fallen considerably in west Michigan from 1980 to 1993. The average length of stay at 5.3 days is over 15 percent lower than the national average. In terms of length of stay for selected medical cases, west Michigan hospitals performed better than expected in all categories. The days of care per 1,000 people in west Michigan is 35 percent lower than the days of care per 1,000 people at the national average. Finally, the per person operating costs in west Michigan hospitals are 30 percent lower than the statewide average, and the expenses per admission are also 10 percent lower than the State expense per admission. All these statistics may be numbing, but together these data show that west Michigan hospitals are leading the State and the Nation in developing low-cost, quality hospital care. The entire health care community is working together in west Michigan to find ways to lower the cost of health care, while still increasing the quality of the services delivered. I applaud health care providers in my region for the innovation and leadership that they have demonstrated. And I would like to highlight two hospitals in the Third District, Blodgett Memorial Medical Center and Butterworth Hospital, for being recognized for the second year in a row as one of the top 100 hospitals in the Nation. Hospitals included in this report, which is conducted by HCIA, Inc. and Mercer Health Care Consulting, reduced expenses per adjusted discharge, lowered mortality, and cut length of stay. If all hospitals emulated this performance, hospital expenses would decline by 17 percent, inpatient mortality would drop by 24 percent, and average lengths of stay would decrease by almost a day. These are the kind of results that we are going to need in order to decrease health care costs in a way that does not decrease the quality of care. These results will also help us address the rapidly increasing rate of spending in the Medicare program. The Social Security Board of Trustees' report for the Medicare trust fund illustrates the grim prognosis that the rate of increased spending poses for the Medicare trust fund. One way that we can slow this increase in spending is by utilizing alternatives to fee-for-service coverage. It is ironic, however, that the low cost of health care in west Michigan currently hinders our ability to attract Medicare managed-care organizations. In order to determine payments to managed care plans, Medicare uses a formula that is based on 95 percent of the average amount that Medicare pays per beneficiary for fee-for-service care. Low-cost areas, like west Michigan, receive dramatically lower managed care payments, based on this formula. As a result, the payments are too small to attract managed care organizations. This comes down to a basic issue of fairness because Medicare beneficiaries pay the same amount to participate in the program, but those in high-cost, high-utilization areas are able to access better benefits through managed care. It is improper that areas, such as west Michigan, that have worked hard to keep their medical costs low are then penalized with less adequate Medicare coverage. If we expect to help lower Medicare spending through the use of alternatives to fee-for-service coverage, we must ensure that managed care payments are developed in a fair manner. I address the House today to commend west Michigan for the low-cost health care that its hospitals have developed. As we proceed with Medicare and other health are reform, I urge this body to take steps to ensure that we do not penalize low-cost areas, like west Michigan, as they try to develop alternatives to fee-for-service coverage.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. After that introduction, I am almost afraid to hear what I am going to say. It reminds me of a little medal which a friend presented to me a few days ago which I do not have the courage to wear on the floor. But it says, why, yes, I am a rocket scientist, which might be appropriate at this point. I would note that the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to red herrings, which reminded me that you need boats in order to catch red herrings or other-colored herrings. And I come from Michigan where we have a great many boats, and we define a boat as a hole in the water into which you pour money. And that is unfortunately true. But in our nuclear waste program in this Nation, nuclear waste repository is a hole in the ground into which you pour money. If we are serious about budget problems, we should worry about how we can reduce the costs of burying nuclear waste. We have spent billions and billions of dollars on the nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Frankly, anything we can do to reduce the volume of nuclear waste is going to be a moneysaver, not an expenditure out the Federal budget. I support anything that is likely to reduce the amount of waste. It seems to me the supporter of the amendment makes a comment that it is reprocessing, and therefore it is bad. Of course it is reprocessing. That does not necessarily make it bad. If in fact it is able to reduce the problem, increase the safety of disposal of the waste, I think it is a good project. The National Research Council has evaluated it and has come up with a statement that this is the methodology that should be pursued. Is it in fact going to be a positive response to our nuclear waste problems? We cannot guarantee that, but it certainly looks promising to the Research Council and National Academy of Sciences and others. Based on that, I think we should pursue the research further and determine whether or not it is going to be effective. Based on that, I urge the defeat of the Markey amendment. (Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, integrity is extremely important to me. I have always been a great believer in Government and believe integrity in Government is also important. There is a very sad period in my life in the early 1970's when it appeared that the Federal Government, or at least some individuals in the White House, had betrayed the trust of the American people and had displayed a notable lack of integrity. It is at that time I decided to become involved in politics. I never expected to be in the Congress, but I did run for local government. I am sorry to say that once again sadness affects me. Once again, we have an incredible abuse of power in the White House. We have the greatest invasion of privacy that has occurred in the history of the FBI. I am very saddened that this has taken place. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is extremely important for all of us in this Congress and throughout the Federal Government to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that those responsible are punished, but above all to once again restore the American faith in our Government and in the integrity of Government both in this Chamber and in the White House. I urge that we take strong action to do so.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment. I recognize the point that has been made by others, that the National Science Foundation employees are loyal, they are hardworking, and it would be improper and not good practice to pass the amendment and reduce the amount available for salaries and expenses. That is true of many areas of Government. I am very familiar with the National Science Foundation. Indeed, I can verify that these are very good employees. They are loyal employees and they work very, very hard. But we are in a time where we are facing a $5 trillion national debt. We are facing interest payments of $300 billion per year. We have to tighten the belt. The question is, where is the belt going to be tightened? When it comes to the National Science Foundation, are we going to tighten the belt in grants or are we going to tighten it in administration? Those are issues we struggled with in the Committee on Science. We reached the conclusion that we should tighten the belt in a number of areas, but certainly also in the administrative expenses, salaries. It is a difficult decision, but it was one that was made in the committee and that was adopted by the House as a whole. The question before us now is whether we are going to stick with that decision, whether we are going to follow the authorization that was made by the Committee on Science and the House, or whether we are going to change gears here and shift to another approach based on the Committee on Appropriations' recommendation. I believe it is very important for us to stick with the authorization that was passed out of the Committee on Science and through the full House, and not switch at this point. We want to stay with the previous decision, and pass an appropriation that matches the authorization. At issue here is more than just where the money is going. At issue is the role of the authorization committees. I believe we have to be consistent and stay with the recommendation we decided on earlier.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding dedication and effort of a group of students and their teacher from my district. The students are from East Kentwood High School and their teacher is Deb Snow. Earlier this spring, Ms. Snow and her 22 students competed in the We the People the . . . The Citizen and the Constitution national finals and won the region three award. The award is presented to five schools, from each of five geographic regions, with the highest cumulative score during the first 2 days of the national finals. This remarkable feat was accomplished while competing against 49 other classes from around the country. The We the People the . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program encourages high school students around the country to better understand the history and principles of our Nation's constitutional government focusing on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. After extensive preparation in their respective schools, students compete in a challenging 3-day competition that includes a simulated congressional hearing. During the competition the students are judged on their oral presentations, their knowledge of constitutional principles, and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. The program is the most extensive of its kind. I am extremely proud of the students from East Kentwood who made numerous sacrifices to represent our district and State in this competition. Advancing to the national finals and being recognized as one of the top schools in this competition is no easy task. These students made a commitment to succeed and followed through on their goals. The students who studied long hours to reach the finals were: Katie Bacon, Ryan Brubaker, Dan Bush, Brad Busse, Brian Busse, Nathaniel Cartier, Jamie Cassis, Stacy Corsaut, Michelle David, John Defouw, B.J. Desmond, Brian Dishinger, Ryan Eavey, Chris Frazier, Andrea Hudson, Mark Hulbert, Rachel Katonak, Winnie Lee, Kurt Leland, Chris Magnuson, Emily Peterson, and Beth Zoller. The students are not the only ones who give their all for this competition. They are fortunate to be under the tutelage of their teacher, Deb Snow, who goes above and beyond the call of duty of preparing students for this competition. Under her leadership, East Kentwood has enjoyed frequent success in the We The People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. Her dedication and passion for teaching should serve as an example for other teachers to follow. Congressional district coordinator Donald Fink and State coordinator Linda Start also play important roles in East Kentwood's success. Their guidance and planning efforts were extremely beneficial in helping the team advance to the national finals. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take this time to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of this team. The valuable lessons learned through competition and teamwork will help prepare these students for the challenges that lie ahead in their adult years. I want to thank the students and teacher Deb Snow for serving as excellent representatives of the Third District. Again, my deepest congratulations and my wishes for continued success in the years to come.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee not only for yielding time but also for taking this bill up in the subcommittee and lending his support to it. As my colleagues have heard, this bill is necessary because the current law simply specifies motor vehicle, and that has been interpreted in three different ways by the courts. In 1989, there was a case in Florida in which the judge ruled that motor vehicle included a boat or an airplane, operated respectively on a waterway or on an airway. In a later decision in 1993, another court held that motor vehicle clearly was intended to apply only to an automobile and, therefore, did not apply to watercraft or aircraft. Once again, in 1995, there was a judgment in another court that, indeed, motor vehicle included boats and aircraft. So it is not only necessary to pass this particular bill to make certain that we include aircraft and watercraft as vehicles whose illegal operations by someone who is drunk or on drugs results in a nondischargeable debt during bankruptcy, but it is also very important to make this clear because the courts have ruled in different fashions in these various cases. Therefore, I appreciate the committee taking up the bill and giving us an opportunity to clarify this. The bill itself is very simple. It simply makes clear that anyone who is operating a motor vehicle, a watercraft or an aircraft illegally by virtue of being intoxicated from using alcohol, a drug or another substance may not hide from responsibility for damages by making this a dischargeable debt by declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, this can be labeled as a victims' rights bill, because this will ensure that victims of such a drunk or drugged operator will receive adequate compensation and they cannot be deprived of that compensation simply by virtue of the perpetrator having declared bankruptcy. I urge that the bill be passed, and I thank the chairman, once again, for his diligent work on this issue.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I started political life as a county commissioner in Kent County, MI. We had a county welfare department that won a number of awards for providing better services at lower cost than most counties across the United States. But most of the programs that we instituted required a waiver from Washington, and we had to fight and kick and scream in order to get those waivers. I thought it strange that we would have to fight with the Federal Government in order to save them money. I went to the State legislature, and once again I got involved in battles at the State level requesting waivers from the Federal Government to improve the welfare program and to provide better services at less cost. Once again I thought it strange: Why should we have to fight the Federal Government to save taxpayers money? Now that I am here, I strongly support giving the States and local communities more to say about operating their welfare programs, because I am convinced that they can do a better job at less cost than we have with our current system. I applaud the Republicans in the House for introducing a bill which will bring that about and make it possible for us to save money for the people of this country.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.