Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is very straightforward and very simple. In the Committee on Science, an amendment was added to the bill to change the name of the National Science Foundation to the National Science and Engineering Foundation. That amendment was added by a 1-vote margin. The purpose of my amendment is to strike that amendment and to maintain the name of the National Science Foundation as the National Science Foundation. I want to emphasize that the issue before us is not an issue dealing with respect for engineering. It is not an issue dealing with support of engineering. I must say that I have the greatest respect for engineers. I began my career in academic work as an engineer. I would be perfectly happy and proud to have remained on that career track and to be an engineer today. I also have a son who is currently a practicing engineer. I have the greatest respect for the engineering profession and for engineers as professionals. I also strongly support and will continue to support engineering as a discipline within the National Science Foundation. Currently the engineering portion of the National Science Foundation budget exceeds 13 percent. So, obviously, there is a great deal of support for engineering within the National Science Foundation. As far as I am concerned, in fact, engineering is a part of science. It is one of the subfields or subdisciplines of science, and I believe it is a mistake to single them out and include them in the name of the National Science Foundation. Mr. Chairman, just to give some idea of what the National Science Foundation covers, at this point they have programs in physics, biology, chemistry, a number of the social sciences--including psychology and economics--computer science, mathematics, oceanography, geology, atmospheric sciences, and also education. I believe that if this name change is added, there would immediately be a request for other names to be included in the title of the organization and, eventually, the name would lose all meaning as we would end up with another meaningless Washington acronym. Mr. Chairman, in fact, I believe that the only discipline within the National Science Foundation which might have some rightful claim to being included separately in the name of the NSF would be mathematics, which never has been and is not now considered a science. It is a separate discipline, a separate method of thought and investigation, and provides the foundation for much of science. Also if anyone were to change the name of the National Science Foundation to accurately reflect its mission, perhaps ``National Research Foundation'' might be most appropriate, because that is the primary emphasis of the National Science Foundation in all the disciplines mentioned above. They fund research in all these different scientific fields, including all those I have mentioned, including engineering, as well as a few others. The suggestion to change the name is particularly inappropriate at this time because there is currently a trend, not only within the National Science Foundation but within this Nation itself, in research establishments to engage in interdisciplinary science. The lines between the disciplines are blurring and we find more and more interdisciplinary efforts to combine engineering and chemistry, for example, or to combine mathematics and physics in particular programs and in particular directions of research. I would also emphasize that a major part of the Foundation's work is in education, and the teachers might well come along and ask why NSF should not be named the National Science and Education Foundation. I recognize that a large number of engineers, many of whom are close friends and all of whom I respect very deeply, are very anxious to have their discipline achieve greater recognition and to be named specifically in the title of the National Science Foundation. I believe this is going in the wrong direction. It is very important to maintain the identity of the National Science Foundation as it is. It is known worldwide by that name. 1915 Because I am a practicing scientist, I recall what happened when the name of the National Bureau of Standards was changed to the National Institutes of Standards and Technology. It still causes confusion throughout the world because for many years the National Bureau of Standards was recognized worldwide as a major scientific enterprise and everyone knew it by that name. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we adopt my amendment and maintain the name of the organization as the National Science Foundation.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3058) to amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to extend the period for receipt of absentee ballots, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from California for his support of this legislation and for his comments. He points out very clearly the need to update this legislation to ensure that every citizen, whether serving in the military or as a civilian overseas, has the opportunity to express their opinion, and voice their opinion at the ballot box. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us amends the Uniform and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. It was unanimously passed in committee on March 12, 1996. Currently, 6 million citizens are covered by the provisions of the original act passed in 1986, a decade ago. This includes 1.5 million U.S. military personnel in and out of the United States, their families, and over 3 million U.S. citizens living overseas. This measure will make it easier for overseas citizens to cast absentee ballots in a timely fashion, and help to guarantee ballot integrity for all those covered in the act by requiring ballot secrecy and the return of the original paper ballots to the State where the ballots are counted. A manager's amendment strengthens the guarantee of ballot secrecy in the bill by providing for ballot confidentiality throughout the federally funded transmission process, not just at the voting location. I would emphasize, also, that the Federal Government will be paying the full cost of this program, particularly that required to electronically transmit ballot materials. Therefore, this is not an unfunded mandate being imposed on local units of government. A great many States already provide for electronic transmission of ballot applications and some do for ballots as well. This bill would encourage all States to ensure that all American citizens everywhere throughout the world have speedy access to the voting box. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we suspend the rules and pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that sounds like a good alternative, but, unfortunately, it does not work. With anyone with high sensitivity and today's modern ventilation system, which circulates air throughout all rooms in all apartments in a wing or building, it simply does not work. I cannot live in the same building with someone who has a pet. Whenever I find an apartment, as I do here, I immediately ask whether the entire building is pet-free.

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

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, just a few words in response to some of the things that have been said. I am well aware of the data saying that ownership of a pet can be helpful, and that is an important factor. I also recognize that this has been a partisan debate, and I cannot imagine why this should be a partisan issue, debating pet ownership. But I also want to respond to someone who raised the point earlier and wanted to bring a human face to the issue and talked about a person who is having difficulty getting a pet in public housing. I would also like to put a human face on this debate, and that face is mine. I happen to have intense allergies to animals, particularly dogs, cats and horses. I cannot be in a home that has a dog or a cat, even if they are absent from the premises, for more than a half hour at most. When I first read that pets were being introduced into nursing homes and rest homes, I had an involuntary shudder. I thought if that happens and it appears in all nursing homes and rest homes, I will never be able to go to one. When we talk about public housing, we should be aware that there are lot of people who have allergies. Now, I have never talked about my handicap before. It was enough of a handicap that I never went to school until I was college age. I had to be in my home, because I invariably got sick when I went to school, so I was home schooled, not by choice, but out of necessity. I think I have always felt that handicap is my problem, it is not someone else's problem. So if I am near someone smoking, I do not ask them to put out their cigarette, I move away. It is my problem. But if you are talking about a public housing situation, I think we have to be extremely careful about offering amendments or adopting amendments that will restrict the ability of local governments to deal with people who have handicaps, such as mine. And there are many, perhaps not as severe as mine, but there are many who have them. So I advocate a voice of reason on this matter and simply say, why not allow the local authorities to make the decision? Why not allow them to designate a particular building to be pet-free, or a wing to be pet-free, things of that sort, rather than adopting an amendment that says thou shalt admit those with pets. So I am asking for some reason, some consideration, some thoughtfulness on this amendment, rather than prescribing precisely what they have to do.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate for the past hour, I am struck by one aspect of the comments I hear from the other side of the aisle: ``Methinks thou dost protest too much.'' I am beginning to wonder whether there is more here than even I had thought. As a scientist, I like to deal with the facts and I am interested in finding out the facts. I do not put more credence in allegations unless we can investigate them. On that basis, I believe it is important to proceed with this investigation and try to determine what the facts are. It appears that the President did allow the Iranians to get arms into Bosnia, and I believe it is important to determine whether, if fact, that happened. There has been a great deal of discussion here about the cost of the inquiry. I would point out first of all this cost is being handled within the committee budget of the House of Representatives; that that is still 30 percent less than the committee budget under the previous Congress, and certainly appears to be a reasonable expenditure in terms of determining the truth of the situation. The real issues are whether the President did in some fashion deceive the public and the Congress by publicly stating his opposition to arms going into Bosnia and at the same time allowing arms to go into Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps a more serious allegation, and one that certainly has to be investigated, is whether the President knowingly allowed the Iranians to be the source of those arms, to provide the pipeline for those arms to get into Bosnia. I recall when I heard the first news reports of our troops coming in, the international troops, IFOR, and discovering various caches of weapons from the Iranians and finding a number of Iranians there. I was dismayed as a citizen and as a Member of Congress to find that Iranian influence had extended there. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine my dismay when I found out that the President had some complicity in this. As I said, I believe it is extremely important for us to investigate this, to determine as best as possible what the facts are in the situation, and make our conclusions.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am rising as a scientist to speak about the importance of helium in scientific research. I find that most Americans believe that it is simply used to fill balloons to be distributed at parties or other festivities. I want to point out it is extremely important that we maintain a reserve of helium for use in scientific research. It is the only element that can be used to come close to absolute zero in low temperature work. It has some amazing superfluid properties which are still being uncovered, and, all and all, it is a vital component of our research program in the United States. I do not rise to oppose the bill. I simply want to state my main objective here is to ensure that we continue to have an adequate supply of helium for the future, particularly so that our children and grandchildren will be able to carry on this important research. I believe this bill has sufficient provisions to ensure that the reserve will be maintained in some fashion, but I want to assure the entire Congress that it is very important we keep an eye on this in the future and continue to maintain a reserve, whether it be in private hands or Federal hands.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take this time to tell you about an extremely important and effective program for inner-city children and families in my district. Every summer since 1968, hundreds of children, ages 8-16, have been given the opportunity to get away from it all by attending Camp Tall Turf. The camp is appropriately named for its location among very large trees in Walkerville, MI. At Camp Tall Turf campers learn that God is present and that there can be no taller turf than that. The camp was established in response to racial strife that was prevalent during the sixties in cities across the Nation. Since that first summer over 15,000 young people have benefited from the positive Christian activities and messages presented by the caring, committed, and dedicated staff of Camp Tall Turf. When the founders of this camp first came together, little did they know that their ideas and visions would reach this level almost 30 years later. The camp, located on Lake Campbell, provides an environment conducive to growing both mentally and spiritually. Through daily chapel, cabin devotions, drama, and singing, each camper gains a new outlook on his or her life and is able to store away these lessons for the future. These valuable lessons have helped prepare hundreds of children, who might not have received the opportunity otherwise, for roles of service and leadership in their young adult and adult lives. It is important to point out that Camp Tall Turf is not just a one day, week, or month gathering. Staff members work year round to continue relationships that have been established at the summer camp. These relationships are so very important for the young people who need Christian role models and friends. In addition to encouraging meaningful and positive social relationships, the interaction between the staff and the child helps promote cooperation, companionship, and respect. Camp Tall Turf also helps to provide opportunities and experiences that strengthen self confidence and build character in youths who are involved with the camp. Mr. Speaker, far too often we read or hear negative stories involving children. Camp Tall Turf and its staff should be praised for their continuous effort to change the negatives that we read and hear about, and make them positive. Their work to enhance the quality of life and relationships of others should not go unnoticed and should serve as an example for others to follow. It is a great pleasure and honor for me to commend the founders, board and staff of Camp Tall Turf for their outstanding work.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to comment. From my background of 8 years in local government, 11 years in State government dealing with balanced budgets every year, I rise to support this bill and urge its passage. I recognize the original purpose of taking these funds and putting them on the budget was to hide the deficit during the Vietnam war, and for some years it served that purpose. Mr. Chairman, I also recognize that now we do not perform that practice anymore. We do not try to use these funds to hide the deficit. At the same time, the public is angry. They still perceive this money as being diverted to other purposes. They still perceive this as being used to mask the deficit, and we have to get away from that perception or it is going to hurt our efforts to build a transportation infrastructure in this country. I urge that we now do what is right, we do what is fair, that we take the trust funds off budget, that we use them for the purpose they are intended for, that we pass this bill and we restore the trust in the trust fund.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would just like to comment on this little discussion, and especially commend the gentleman from Marylandy [Mr. Gilchrest], who is, I believe, without doubt, the wetlands expert of the Congress. He knows a great deal about it, and has made some very important contributions to that. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in the founding of the West Michigan Environmental Council. That group plus another group were instrumental in making Michigan the leader in writing State laws, in many cases before any other State or the Federal Government had. We wrote a wetlands law in Michigan over two decades ago. Michigan still is the only State that has been delegated authority by the EPA to administer its own wetlands law, and is not subject to Federal wetlands law. It has always puzzled me why other States have not done that because, precisely as the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, each State is often better able to judge the situation within their State. Michigan is a very wet State. We are surrounded by Great Lakes, we have many inland lakes, we have many wetlands, and we have developed a wetlands law that works very well. I do not want to imply that it is without trouble and without dispute, but I can tell the Members from my experience in working with that and slogging through wetlands and working with the laws and working with the people, we managed to work things out. Mr. Speaker, I was astounded when I came to Washington and discovered the antagonism toward the EPA in most parts of this country with regard to wetlands. I think part of it is, as the gentleman from Arizona mentioned, we have tried to pass one-size-fits-all legislation, and certainly the wetlands requirements in South Dakota and Arizona are different from those in Michigan and in Maryland. I think it is important for us to recognize that. It is also important for the States to take on that responsibility, as Michigan has done in passing its own wetlands law. Similarly with takings laws, that is a real legal morass, and I regret the takings legislation that passed this body earlier this year, because I think, again, it was an attempt to be a one-size-fits-all, and it certainly did not fit my State. We have struggled with that for years with the wetlands law, with the Sand Dune Protection Act. We have come to a reasonable working arrangement on that, and keep working on trying to improve it. Again, realize that the real objective is to protect the environment and work in a common-sense fashion that works, that gets the job done. When you were talking about clean water and clean air a moment ago, I was reminded, when I moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1966, the Grand River, which was a beautiful river flowing right through downtown, was filthy. No one would swim in it. No one boated on it. No one would think of catching fish from it. Now the river is clean enough so it has become a major fishing attraction. People boat on the river, and some even dare to swim in the river. So we have made considerable progress in the past couple of decades, and I think it is a tribute to the progress we have made. We should never forget that. We have cleaned up most of the biological pollutants in the water and in the air. Now we are working on the chemical pollutants. It is a much tougher problem and much more scientific in nature. We have to, as I said earlier, use good science to do that.

Mr. EHLERS. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, we need both. Take clean air, for example. We have to have a Federal law, because the transport across distances is so huge, but we also need local law to regulate how this is applied locally, and do it in a commonsense fashion. Only with everyone working together are we truly going to achieve a clean environment. the urgent need for meaningful tax reform

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I simply wanted to comment that I agree wholeheartedly with that. I think, getting back to the theme of what we have been talking about, we are simply trying to demonstrate that we are Republicans are trying to develop a responsible approach to the environment here. I appreciate the comments that have been made. I thank the gentleman from Maryland especially for his views on wetlands, and obviously, it is very similar to Michigan. There is just one minor correction, by the way. Michigan has its own wetlands law, whereas Maryland and New Jersey will administer the Federal wetlands law. It was interesting, when I was in office there I heard a lot of complaints about the wetland law, and one legislator proposed repealing the Michigan wetland law. The two groups that argued the most against that were the sportsmen, who think the wetlands law is wonderful, because Michigan has great hunting and fishing and so forth, and business. They said, ``We know this law. It works for Michigan. We do not want to be under the Federal law.'' That shows how each State can design the law that accomplishes the goals better than we can with a one-size-fits-all approach from Washington. I think we have to set a minimum standard, but encourage the States to go beyond that. As Republicans who are talking about devolution of power, of letting the people in the communities have a say, I think this fits in beautifully with that.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, in fact, everyone consumes peanut butter, and that is why it has not been banned. It is a food staple for so many people. I am simply pointing out that what we have to do is analyze the risks in every situation and prioritize the risks. There is a great deal of concern, of course, in our Nation about toxic waste, but yet, if you analyze in a hard-headed manner what really are the environmental risks we have today, what is the highest environmental risk, you are likely to find that there are many things other than improper disposal of waste that are higher up on the list. For example, urban sprawl with its destruction of habitat, and destruction of habitat of course is key in the endangerment of species, and that leads to something that my colleague from Maryland sitting here is an expert on, the Endangered Species Act. These are all very, very complex issues. We have to look at all aspects of these and recognize precisely what the problems are, and what the dangers are, and what this leads to, as my final point in this list before I summarize, and that is what we need is common sense regulation. That is something I have strived for throughout my legislative career. It is very easy to adopt what is called the command and control approach where you simply say something is bad, let us regulate it out of existence. If you do that without looking at the benefits and the costs, you can go down a very dangerous path, dangerous both in terms of health and our economy. What we, what I, typically did in the Michigan Senate, when we encountered a problem, I would get representatives gathered. I would get scientists together, environmentalists, industrialists, everyone possible, get a representative group together, sit down in a room and pound it out, week, after week, after week, educate each other about the problem and come up with a solution. Mr. Speaker, frankly, that is what I believe that we have to have the Congress doing as well. That really results in good common sense regulation which gives the maximum return on laws and the maximum return on the investment of time and energy as well as money.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. I appreciate that comment, because that is precisely what has happened. I am certainly not arguing for putting toxic materials in food or using the wrong fertilizers or anything like that. I am simply saying that our laws have to keep up with scientific changes, and if you demand a zero tolerance, as we did originally with the Delaney clause, it is a mistake, because there is no such thing in this life as zero risk. Mr. Speaker, that leads to my next point, and that is, we have to learn as a nation to prioritize, to decide what is good and what is bad, and recognize, everyone has to recognize that there are certain risks to every part of life. For example, it is commonly assumed by many that natural is good. Something that is natural is good. Something that is artificial is bad. That is not necessarily true. For example, peanut butter. Perhaps I should not mention this in the hearing of those who are from Georgia. But peanut butter is a fairly carcinogenic material, and the lab tests have shown that. And if we truly enforce the Delaney clause, we would probably have to ban peanut butter.

Mr. EHLERS. Let me give an example, too, that occurred in Michigan. Years ago it was discovered that the Kirtland's warbler in Michigan was an endangered animal. Everyone loved the Kirtland's warbler, a wonderful bird, beautiful song. It was endangered because of some very peculiar mating habits. This bird is very selective about its habitat for mating. It would only mate in jack pine trees which were less than 6 feet tall. As the forest grew, the jack pine were too tall, and the birds would not mate. So they were becoming extinct. The initial approach suggested setting aside vast acreages so that there be at any given time enough jack pine available so that the birds would nest and proliferate. In fact, a different approach was developed, and that was to use smaller acreage and provide for selective cuttings of timber in such a fashion that there is always ample jack pine of the appropriate height. The Kirtland's warbler has flourished. It is no longer endangered. It has become a major tourist attraction in that area. So we find that we have improved the habitat for the Kirtland's warbler. It has benefited the community as well, and it is a good example of meeting the needs of the environment, meeting the needs of the endangered species, and yet not with any undue takings, or anything of that sort. Mr. Speaker, that is what I mean by commonsense regulation. There are ways of handling most of these problems if we simply take the time to address them properly and study them thoroughly, use scientific evidence, and do not get all wrapped up in rhetoric, or taking sides, or polarizing the issue. Now this will not be true in every case, but it is true in many cases. Sometimes we will have really tough issues, but if we remember our environmental principles of saying the environment is very important, we have to find a solution, let us find the best possible solution, I think it will serve all of us well. Well, I have given this as an example of a Republican approach to the environment, and I think it is the approach that we have to take here, that we have to follow, get away from some of our polarization. To summarize, I would make a few key points. First of all, we must protect the environment; we have no choice about that; for the betterment of our planet and for the benefit of our children, grandchildren and future generations. We must do it scientifically. We cannot do it haphazardly. We have to analyze the risks as best we can and not simply say, ``Oh, that is a terrible danger, let us address that and ignore something over here that might be even worse.'' We must do it in priority order. We have to develop a method of prioritizing the demands, the problems in the environment, so we are putting our money where it makes sense, and we must use common sense in doing it. But above all, we must do it for our children, our grandchildren and for any future generations. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. EHLERS. He was a great Republican, and also started in some ways the political meaning of the term conservationist. I always love to point out to my friends that the root word for conservation is the same as the root word for conservative and that any true conservative should be an environmentalist, because it is important for all of us to conserve what we have for the advantage of future generations. During my time in the political arena and working on environmental issues, I have learned some lessons which I just want to share with my colleagues here. First of all, the environment is extremely important. I can perhaps draw an analogy to something that we discuss here an awful lot: The balanced budget. We approach this, as Republicans, from the standpoint that we want to protect this economy, this Nation for our children and grandchildren. It is simply not right for us to continue to live in debt and expect our children and grandchildren to pay that debt. We want to leave them a promising future and not a huge debt. Well, that is also true of the environment. That is one of the reasons I am a confirmed environmentalist . It is absolutely wrong for us to leave a polluted country to our children and grandchildren and to other future generations. We have to give them the same resource opportunities that we inherited from our ancestors. We have to give them the same clean environment that we have inherited from those who came before us. That is why the environment is very important to me. I want my children and grandchildren and their grandchildren to inherit a clean country, a clean planet, and to be able to have enough resources to use and enjoy this planet. Mr. Speaker, another lesson I have learned is that energy, energy and energy use, are probably the single-most important component of the environment. Not everyone realizes this. But once you begin analyzing the sources of pollution, where it comes from, a lot of it is from improper use of energy or inefficient use of energy, and that is something this Congress has to spend more time and energy on, just recognizing the importance of energy and working on the efficient use of energy. Now, let me make it clear, I am not here talking about energy conservation. Some people confuse those. Somehow they think if they are freezing in the dark, they are helping the environment. Well, that may be true, but it certainly is an uncomfortable way to save the environment. What I am talking about is simple, common-sense efficiency of use of energy which can result in less pollution and less cost and a better environment. Everyone wins in that situation. Another lesson I have learned is that we have to work together on the environment. This is not a partisan issue. I happen to believe that the current Congress is far too polarized on many issues and sometimes polarized on the environment. But they should not be. The Congress should recognize this is a universal problem. The public certainly recognizes. Eighty percent of them favor a clean environment, and we should work together on this issue and recognize it is not partisan but it is important. As a scientist, I have also learned that correct science is essential. You cannot ignore science and say there is no problem. You also should not manipulate science to prove your point of view, if it happens to be wrong. The facts are the facts, and you have to deal with it. But another issue that arises when you are dealing with environmental issues is what I call trans-scientific issues, issues that do not have a ready scientific response because the problems are so immensely complicated, and there we simply have to use our best judgment in trying to come up with a workable solution. Something else that has developed in science is tremendous improvements in detection of toxic materials or other sorts. But out of that comes a big mistake very frequently. A good example is the Delaney clause, which was passed years ago, said no substance used for human consumption can have any carcinogenic or mutagenic element in it at all. Well, as our detection methods got so much better, and we can now detect one part in a quadrillion, that law no longer makes any sense.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time, and I would like to take a few moments to talk about some Republican ideas on the environment. As the gentleman correctly pointed out, we have been criticized severely over the past 2 years for some of the actions taken and some of the votes that were held, but I would like to discuss from my perspective, first of all, as a scientist. I am sure the gentleman is aware of my scientific background. Perhaps not all of my colleagues are. But I would just simply mention I have a doctorate in nuclear physics, and I worked in the field for a number of years, both in research and teaching, before I entered the political arena. That does not make me an environmentalist or an ecologist automatically, but it at least indicates that I have the ability to establish fact from fiction when dealing with environmental issues. Mr. Speaker, back in 1968, I first became concerned about the environment, and I noticed a little notice in the newspaper in Grand Rapids, MI, my hometown, that there was going to be a meeting to discuss environmental issues. I went to that meeting. There were a group of citizens concerned about some pollution that was taking place at that time in various areas of the State, and we formed an organization called the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, and I served as a charter member of that and I have also served on the board. That whetted my interest in what was happening to the environment, and I had a good deal of interest in government but had never thought of running for office. But when our county developed a severe landfill problem and we had the possibility of raw garbage piling up in the streets, I decided to run for the county commission, and I used that as a means to straighten out the solid-waste situation in my county. It took the work of a lot of other people, too. I do not want to claim the credit for it. But it shows what a citizen activist who is concerned about the environment can do. The interesting thing is, when I was elected to office and came up with some solutions, I soon lost many of my environmental friends who thought I was going to be a total purist and save the world. The gentleman knows as well as I, from working on issues here, there are many sides to issues and you have to use a reasonable, logical approach. When you are faced with mounds of garbage coming in the gate and the threat of it piling up on the sidewalks, you have to make some tough choices. But over a period of time, we managed to totally revamp the solid waste disposal system. In fact, I suggested renaming it the solid waste storage system, because the gentleman knows as well as I that if you put it in the landfill, you have not disposed of it; you have simply stored it, and it is still there to create problems in the future. But in any event, we did resolve the environmental issues, and I will not go into all the details of that. Later I moved on to the State senate. I was made chairman of the Environmental Affairs and Natural Resources Committee, and in the course of several years, with the help of John Engler, who was senate majority leader at that time, now the Governor of the State of Michigan, we got landmark legislation passed and probably had more environmental legislation passed in those 4 years than at any time in the history of the State of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am giving this not to brag about my accomplishments but simply to point out that those people who think the environment is a Democrat issue and not a Republican issue are sorely mistaken. We have different approaches perhaps, but I believe that we can accomplish a great deal in the end on the environment by working together.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the value to the House of Representatives of the bill that is before us. It cleans up over 200 years of statutes and regulations which have accumulated, will result in a much more efficient operation of the House of Representatives, and I ask all my colleagues to join me in voting for the final passage of this particular bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in brief response to the comments of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], let me say I certainly appreciate his work, not only as the ranking member on the Committee on House Oversight, but also as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Legislation of the Committee on Appropriations. He made reference to some of the changes that we have made and the increased costs that may accrue, as well as perhaps the inability of Members to perform their functions as well as they should in responding their constituents. Let me assure the gentleman from California that I am certainly, as a member of the Committee on House Oversight, very sensitive to concerns about being able to serve the needs of our constituents. Clearly, if any of the actions taken would in any way interfere with our ability to represent our constituents, I am sure the Committee on House Oversight would be willing to consider adjustments on that score. At the same time, I would point out that we have made many changes beyond those contained in this legislation. I had not planned to discuss those here on the floor, but I think it is very important to recognize that there are many changes taking place with, in fact, with affect the budget in one way or another, but will have the net effect of aiding Members in representing their constituents. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that one area I am very familiar with is the area of computerization. In that case we are trying to, in some ways, centralize the computer operation and make it far more efficient, and enable members and staff to do much more in the House of Representatives at lower cost. This is going to result initially in some additional costs in the House information resources budget. It will also eventually result in lower costs in both the Members' budgets in HIR's budget. I think, on balance, the changes are positive and that we will see an increase in the ability of the Members to represent their constituents more effectively, through the changes that are made. At the same time, there may be some temporary dislocations. If there are, we will certainly address those in the Committee on House Oversight. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for putting this on the record to make it clear to all Members present that there is no intent in any actions to impair Members' ability to serve. We are, I think, very successfully improving the efficiency of the House, cutting the overall budget by a substantial amount, and we believe that the people will be represented equally well at less cost under the system that is being developed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on December 13, 1995, the Committee on House Oversight agreed to an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the bill H.R. 2739, the House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act. This bill was made necessary by the historic reforms following the first Republican majority in over 40 years. One should not be surprised that considerable reforms were put in place at that time, after such a lengthy period of time out of power. I would comment that the two amendments offered to the original bill are minor in nature. They do not basically affect the substance of the bill, and so the substance of the bill is basically that contained in the bill as originally introduced. On January 4, 1995, the House adopted House rules which significantly restructured the internal administrative and legislative operations of the House. Two House officer positions, that of the Doorkeeper and the Postmaster, were abolished, and a new House officer, the Chief Administrative Officer, was created. Based on the authority of the Committee on House Oversight under House rules, the committee directed that operational and financial responsibility for various House functions be assigned to the appropriate House officers. For example, the House Finance Office was assigned to the Chief Administrative Officer, and that has led to a complete restructuring of the Finance Office which is still ongoing, as well as changes in the House financial management system. The House Document Room, which was formerly assigned to the Doorkeeper, was assigned to the Clerk. The committee then began the process of reviewing the statutes relating to the administrative and legislative operations of the House, and it soon became clear that there had never in the history of the House been a comprehensive revision of these statutes. Therefore, the committee began the process of cleaning out the cobwebs. Many of the statutes technically in effect date back to the last century. For example, among the statutes repealed by this bill are the provisions relating to contracting for horses and wagons for the House. As someone who is intensely allergic to horses, I am pleased to see that section repealed. The committee considered a total of 414 statutes, a very sizable amount. Of these, 65 will be repealed outright by this particular bill. On August 3, 1995, the committee issued committee order No. 41 which created the Members' representational allowances or MRA. This committee order combined into the MRA the clerk hire allowance, the official expenses allowance, and the official mail allowance, as recommended by the auditing firm of Price-Waterhouse following the first-ever House audit. This makes all Members responsible and accountable for the expenditures in their office, and they have complete authority in the manner in which they allocate the funds within these various accounts which are now combined into one account. Following creation of the Members' representational allowances, the committee adopted regulations for expenditures from the MRA. These regulations are collectively known as the Congressional Handbook. These regulations govern all expenditures from allowances provided to pay for clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail during the 104th Congress. Since January 3, 1995, the committee has granted no exceptions to any of its regulations, and that is very important to note because under the potpourri of different regulations and statutes we had accumulated over the more than 200-year operation of the House, many were so cumbersome and unworkable that exceptions became the rule rather than the exception. Under the administration of the current chairman of the House's Committee on Oversight, I note that the chairman, Mr. Thomas, vowed that there would be no exceptions, and that the rules would be rewritten to take into account the changing nature of the House of Representatives and to ensure that no exceptions would be necessary. He has fulfilled his commitment on that count. Generally, title I of the bill contains provisions relating to allowances and accounts in the House of Representatives and other administrative matters. Title II of the bill contains technical and conforming amendments and repeals relating to administrative reforms. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this bill to the House. I certainly recommend that it be passed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2739) to provide for representational allowance for Members of the House of Representatives, to make technical and conforming changes to sundry provisions of law in consequence of administrative reforms in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes, as amended.