Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Today is a great day for the Great Lakes and the coastal areas. Today is a terrible day for the zebra mussels. And I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member LaTourette for their good work on this bill, because it contains measures to inspect and treat and exchange ballast water to prevent any more of those nasty invasive alien species from getting into this country, and into its waters. It now costs us about $13 billion every year for the damage caused by invasive species. This bill will help stop any future species from coming in, and I hope we will be able to develop methods of treating these critters so that we can get rid of them and once again enjoy the pure waters of this country the way we should. So thanks again to both of you for doing this, and let's get out there and fight those nasty zebra mussels!

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the recognition. This amendment is very important in terms of the total research effort of our Nation. H.R. 5819 would increase the Small Business Innovation Research program set-aside from 2.5 percent to 3 percent, a 20 percent increase. It would also increase the Small Business Technology Transfer program set-aside from 0.3 percent to 0.6 percent, a 100 percent increase. My amendment would remove these increases and keep the current set-asides in place at 2.5 percent for SBIR and 0.3 percent for STTR. This is an extremely important issue. The Science and Technology Committee has worked very hard during the last few years to get the America COMPETES authorization bill signed into law. It has now been signed into law. It establishes a funding doubling path for several agencies under Science Committee jurisdiction, several of which are SBIR and STTR funding agencies. However, finding the money to fund these authorizations has not been so easy, and in fact these increased authorizations have not been appropriated. Several of my colleagues have expressed the opinion that an increase in the set-aside for these two programs was justified by the authorized funding increases in the COMPETES Act. However, as I said, these have not been appropriated. My concern and my purpose behind my amendment is to make sure that we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. If we increase the SBIR and STTR program percentages while other agency's funding remains flat, we begin to severely erode our fundamental research base. I would much rather see us fight over extra funding for our basic research programs, our fundamental research programs, of which a percentage would then transfer into SBIR and STTR. I should point out that my amendment is supported, first of all, by Mr. Obey, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He has spoken to me about it, and asked me to specifically mention that he supports my amendment. I believe it is also supported by a large number of Members, as well as the Association of American Universities, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the Biophysical Society, the Campaign for Medical Research, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the National Association of State and Land Grant Colleges and the Small Business Administration. To quote the President of the Association of American Universities, the change ``would translate directly into cuts in both nominal and real terms in the budgets of most Federal research agencies.'' In real terms, the proposed changes would remove approximately $650 million that is currently provided to researchers, especially those at universities around the country. At the National Institutes of Health, which I believe everyone in this body supports very strongly, if we do not adopt this amendment, the NIH budget would be reduced by $185 million. That is a severe cut. So I urge the adoption of my amendment. I think it actually will improve things. I hope that in the next few years we will get substantial increases in the amount of funding for the various research agencies and SBIR and STTR would receive substantial increases to the percentage that they will continue to receive. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program both were created to stimulate technological innovation, encourage the use of small businesses to meet Federal research and development needs, and increase private sector commercialization of innovations developed from Federal research and development. I believe both programs have been very successful and should be continued, and, on that basis, I support the legislation before us, although I disagree with some aspects of it. The Science and Technology Committee has a long standing interest in promoting innovation and development by small businesses. Through these two competitive programs, the Small Business Administration is charged with ensuring that the Nation's small innovative businesses are a significant part of the Federal Government's research and development efforts. Currently, 11 Federal departments participate in the SBIR program, including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Transportation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation. Of these 11, five departments also participate in the STTR program, awarding $200 billion to small high-tech businesses. The original legislation for SBIR was developed based on the Small Business Innovation Research program of the National Science Foundation. The NSF program was designed to encourage proposals from small science and technology firms in NSF program areas. The current Federal-wide program mirrors the original NSF program, which was also organized in three phases to ensure the most efficient use of resources. Phase I was an opportunity to develop research on important scientific and engineering problems. Projects that were found to be promising after the phase I research stage were given phase II awards to further develop the research project. Phase III is a transition phase that involves commercialization of the products or processes developed in the first phases. Similar to SBIR, STTR is also a highly competitive three-phase program that reserves a specific percentage of Federal research and development funding for small businesses to work in partnership with nonprofit research institutions to help move ideas from the laboratory to the marketplace, to foster high-tech economic development in the United States, and to help to meet the technological needs of the Federal Government. Since the implementation of this program in 1983 through fiscal year 2006, over $20.7 billion has been given in awards for more than 94,660 projects. The Government Accountability Office, which has been charged with assessing this program, has generally found that these programs have achieved the goal of enhanced participation of a small business in research and development fields. Given the interest of the Committee on Science and Technology on the research and development of new technology, our committee has a unique interest in this bill. We have long been concerned about how America competes with the rest of the world in these areas. Many initiatives that have been passed by our committee in this Congress have focused on the need to improve our competitiveness in the world through funding of science education programs and public outreach efforts. I view this legislation as one more way we can reach out to the public to assist American innovation. My only regret with regard to this legislation is that I do not believe it was able to receive the proper attention it warranted by the Committee on Science and Technology. Our committee shares jurisdiction on this legislation, primarily concentrated on the areas of science itself and the amount of science funding. However, the full committee was not given the opportunity to consider this legislation and have its voice heard with regard to its continuation, primarily because there was a great hurry to bring this bill to the floor. Had regular order been provided, I believe we would be bringing a different bill to the floor today. And in view of that, I have offered an amendment that I believe will strengthen the bill, make it sounder in funding, preserve the funding of other resources and other research in the Federal Government, and also provide an opportunity to increase the funding for SBIR and STTR in the future by bringing up the funding for the other agencies of which these two organizations receive a percentage. But I believe the approach in the bill of simply arbitrarily increasing the funding for SBIR and STTR hurts our research efforts in the Nation, and I will speak later on that topic when my amendment reaches the floor. The second reservation is voiced by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia and, if we have time, we will enter into that discussion later and I will give him an opportunity to speak. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. EHLERS. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

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

Mr. EHLERS. I am prepared to close, Madam Chairman.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, the substance of the bill is good. I support the general intent of it. I am very concerned about several aspects. One of those is the size of the increase of the allocation, which is going to hurt our Nation's research effort in its totality. Secondly, the issues raised by Dr. Gingrey which involve giving perhaps too much control and power to the venture capitalists. And, third, the issues relating to the other issues that Dr. Gingrey brought forth regarding category I and category II funding, and the interplay between the two. If we can solve these problems I would hope to support the bill.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. EHLERS. I would just like to offer a few closing comments. First of all, I thank you for your offer to work on this problem together. As you know from working with me on this so often, I totally support research in all areas. My concern in this case is that we would be giving some money to one agency and taking it from others. I think we should work together to increase the funding for both, and all boats will rise. If we manage to give the appropriate amount of money to the research institutions, then SBIR and STTR will automatically increase because of that. So if we work together from that standpoint, I think we will be in total agreement. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and would like to comment on this amendment. I have no great objection to it, but I am not terribly excited about it, either. Let me comment. I personally would prefer, if we are going to show preferences here and use the money for that purpose, I would really prefer that we use those funds to give preference to those organizations that submit proposals for doing research and developing areas that will reduce carbon emissions. I think in the long run that might be better for the Nation than simply rewarding those who have taken steps within the organization rather than developing new ideas and inventions that can apply to everyone in the Nation. So, as I said, I will not oppose it, but I did want to make that suggestion.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, would the gentlelady yield?

Mr. EHLERS. I am not necessarily in opposition to this amendment, but I just have to express a concern, and that is that we have been going round and round on this issue for a couple of years on venture capital getting involved. I always like the emphasis in this to be on the ``S,'' the Small Business Innovation Research Program, and I worry about getting two venture capital companies involved together on a project. With 500 employees each, you are talking about the equivalent of a company with a thousand employees. How many will fit in this category? For example, even though I have an industrial community, there is no company in my district that would be considered funded by venture capital and that would have that number of employees. Does this then disadvantage smaller communities like mine? Mine is not that small, a few hundred thousand. But nevertheless, we wouldn't qualify at all in this category. My concern, if I may express it, and perhaps you can reassure me on this, my concern would be that the money would tend to flow to those areas of the country that have the large venture capital companies, and areas such as Michigan, which as you know is in a one-State repression, would not be able to put together programs that would fit this particular part of it. I am really concerned about keeping all small businesses in every part of the country fully involved in this. I wonder if the gentleman can give me some reassurances or an explanation on this.

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentlewoman please yield?

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you for yielding. I just have to express some concern. We already had a preference earlier for organizations that have exhibited concern about their carbon footprint. And I don't object to the one about veterans, but I worry about getting too many preferences involved here. And Uncle Joe, who's trying to build a widget in his barn, may just fall in the cracks because he doesn't meet any of these preference categories. I don't particularly oppose this one about transportation. Everyone knows we need improvements in that. But there are so many different areas, I don't want to bog down the SBA in dealing with these requests by having to worry about preference after preference. So basically I'm issuing a warning here. Let's watch it in the future, and let's make sure we don't add too many preference requirements or it becomes very, very cumbersome.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Perhaps the best part about this particular bill and our action on it is to inform us once again how important it is to remember those who have served this country well and have passed on, and to not forget them, because in this case, an entire community, after a period of 145 years, forgot the significance of this individual. I rise today in support of this bill to designate the Ionia, Michigan, Post Office, located in my district, as the ``Alonzo Woodruff Post Office Building.'' Earlier this year, students from Ms. Maureen Powell's eighth grade American social studies class at Ionia Middle School heard about Alonzo Woodruff and the fact that the community had neglected him. They raised private funds, with the assistance of VFW member Commander Denny Craycraft, to place a monument honoring Alonzo Woodruff in front of the Ionia Courthouse. I attended that ceremony and learned a great deal about Alonzo Woodruff, a sergeant on the Union side during the Civil War, who was an amazing man and did much for his country. A Michigan native, Sergeant Woodruff was born near Detroit in 1839 and was married to Harriet Hill in 1859 in Ionia County. Alonzo Woodruff was 22 years old when he joined the Union cause in 1861. At the Battle of Hatcher's Run in Virginia, Sergeant Woodruff fought, in hand-to-hand battle, to save and free a fellow soldier. He did this again on the same day by charging Confederate lines single-handedly to rescue another comrade held by a Confederate soldier. Sergeant Woodruff even made the Confederate soldier his prisoner. For these actions, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Both Patricia Provot and Sandra Provot Elmer, great-great- granddaughters of Alonzo Woodruff, support this initiative, as does Mayor Dan Belice of the city of Ionia. It is most appropriate to honor Sergeant Woodruff by naming this post office building in his honor. We must remember the sacrifices made not only during the Civil War, but in every war, by prominently displaying Sergeant Woodruff's name in the Ionia Post Office. It is my hope that more people will remember and honor the bravery of all our young men and women who are fighting for our country. I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to raise an issue about Small Business Innovation Research funding and also Small Business Technology Transfer Research funding. This bill which is coming up before us increases SBIR by 20 percent and increases STTR by 100 percent. These increases seem totally out of line to me, particularly since that money comes out of the research budgets of the other agencies of the Federal Government. I have offered an amendment, which I am very grateful to the Rules Committee for making in order, which would remove those increases. Let me explain why it is important to remove those increases. It is because the money for those is taken away from the current fundamental research programs of the Federal Government. In fact, these increases will remove $650 million from the other research funds at various agencies. Just to give an example that we are talking about real money here, note that just for NIH alone, at a time when agency funding increases are below inflation level and we are simply not putting enough money into health research, this particular change in SBIR and STTR will reduce the NIH budget by $185 million. Now we would not think if a proposal came to the floor to directly reduce NIH and NSF funding, we would not even think about bringing it to the floor or even bringing it up for a vote. Yet this particular provision was put in the Small Business bill without the full consent of the Science Committee. It was presented to us in such a short time span, we couldn't even have a meeting of or mark-up by the full Science Committee, which happens to have jurisdiction over this particular payment. We managed to have a hearing before a subcommittee, and that was the extent of the Science Committee's involvement. I think this was done without full thought and I don't believe any of my colleagues are interested in reducing the funding for the National Science Foundation, or the Department of Defense, or the NIH at a time like this. So I thank the Rules Committee again for putting this motion in order. I also wanted to say my amendment is supported by the Association of American Universities, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the National Association of State Land-Grant Colleges, and also the National Academy of Sciences. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, as an environmentalist and a protector of our Great Lakes, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2830's ballast water management requirements and its stated goal of eliminating aquatic invasive species from our waters. Ballast water management and the broader issue of aquatic invasive species is a matter that has received far too little attention, given its dramatic impact on the economy and the environment. For several years, I have strongly supported a comprehensive approach to stopping the influx of aquatic invasive species, and this bill provides a very, very good start. Although aquatic invasive species enter into ecosystems through many different pathways, such as natural migration, attaching themselves to ships, and aquaculture, the most common pathway is through ballast water. Ballast water is pumped on board a ship to control its stability at sea. Ships often take on ballast water at an initial port and discharge it at their destination port. When a ship pumps harbor water into its ballast tanks, it usually also sucks up aquatic species from that harbor. When those ballast tanks are emptied, those aquatic species are introduced into a new ecosystem and they become invasive species. Since some ships are capable of holding millions of gallons of ballast water, the potential for spreading invasive species is large. Once an invasive species takes hold in a new environment, it has the ability to disrupt the balance of an ecosystem and cause significant environmental and economic harm. In the United States, invasive species cost tens of billion of dollars each year. For example, Zebra mussels have cost the various entities in the Great Lake's basin an estimated $5 billion for expenses relating to cleaning water intake pipes, purchasing filtration equipment and so forth. Sea lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes cost approximately $10 million to $15 million annually. And on top of these expenses, there is the cost of lost fisheries due to these invaders. For these reasons, combating aquatic invasive species is a central element of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration strategy to protect and restore the Great Lakes. However, invasive species are not just a problem in the Great Lakes. Invasive species also affect coastal regions throughout the United States. From the Chinese mitten crabs in the North Pacific, to Asian sea squirts in New England, to New Zealand boring pill bugs in the Pacific Northwest, to Asian carp in the Mississippi River, to Zebra mussels across the United States, these foreign invaders cause significant economic and ecological damage throughout North America. If we do not pass this bill into law, we are just opening the door for many more invasive species to arrive via ballast water. The goal of H.R. 2830 is to eliminate invasive species in ballast water by 2015. To meet this goal, the bill requires vessels operating in U.S. waters to be outfitted with ballast water treatment systems that meet interim standards starting in 2009, with more stringent standards starting in 2012. This is an excellent bill. I urge everyone to support it and vote for it.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss this bill and, first of all, to commend Mr. Holt for his efforts and his concerns. He is sincerely and extremely concerned about accuracy in voting, and what can be done to make certain that the results are accurate. He expressed that in his first bill, H.R. 811, which did not receive committee consideration. I spent considerable time with him trying to work out the details of that bill, but we simply could not reach agreement or even come close to agreement. I commend Mr. Holt again for his concern and his persistence, as he authored H.R. 5036. When I reviewed it with him I thought this might be a much better basis for agreement and, that by working together, we might be able to achieve that. Unfortunately, we have not achieved full agreement on it, although we did get it out of committee. I supported it out of committee because I thought it should reach the floor for floor debate. I anticipated that it would be taken up under a rule where we might have the possibility for an additional compromise, but that has not happened. There are a number of issues that still remain. I agree with Mr. Holt that we should have some type of redundancy in our recording systems. I disagree that it has to be paper. I think there are other methods of achieving redundancy. Recently we had an exposition in the House Administration Committee room where we had demonstrations of equipment which shows redundancy in an electronic fashion, and I think would be fully as reliable as redundancy in paper. Another area where we disagree is in the hand counting of ballots. I have enough experience with elections in local politics to recognize that hand counting is not as accurate as almost any machine counting that I have seen. There are ways of achieving what Mr. Holt wishes. I think the optical-scan method is certainly a valid one, and that is what the State of Michigan uses. Other States are beginning to go use that. But the final blow to our efforts was the judgment of the CBO that it was $685 million for 1 year. I realize that Mr. Holt had estimated that would be the cost in his original bill. In fact he had included it as an authorization in his original bill. But having the CBO report that large sum that casts a pall over this particular bill in respect to the opinions of the Members of this body, and I am afraid that is likely to be the death knell. In summary, I certainly commend Mr. Holt for his concerns. I commend him for his efforts. I just don't think we have achieved enough agreement to effectively make this a bipartisan bill. Therefore, I suspect it will not pass, and I will have great difficulty supporting it at this point. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. I yield 4 minutes to the Republican whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, who has considerable voting experience, Mr. Mica.

Mr. EHLERS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).