Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research Amendments Act of 2003. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are a significant threat to human health, commercial

fishing, and recreational water use throughout the United States. My legislation will authorize funding for research to improve our response to this threat and to develop a deeper understanding of these problems.

Harmful algal blooms occur in both marine and freshwater environments, and are often referred to as red tides or brown tides. These dense mats of algae produce toxins dangerous to aquatic life and to humans, some of which are so potent that eating just one contaminated mussel could result in anything from mild nausea to paralysis, and even death in some cases.

Hypoxia occurs when an algal bloom dies and is decomposed by bacteria in the water. This process depletes oxygen to levels so low they cannot support aquatic life, which decreases fisheries production and can produce terrible odors that make the water undesirable for recreational use.

It is estimated that harmful algal blooms cost the U.S. $50 million a year, while hypoxia causes severe conditions in many locations, including the Gulf of Mexico, where a ``dead'' zone the size of New Jersey develops each summer.

Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are also causing problems closer to my home region, the Great Lakes, where these events are more frequently fouling the water. In the past 30 years, major advances were made to improve Great Lakes water quality, but recently scientists have observed an increase in both harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The reasons for this are unclear, but may be related to invasive species changing the way nutrients are cycled in the lakes.

In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. The Act created a Task Force to examine these problems and authorized $19 million annually for research and monitoring activities related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. This March, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, of which I serve as chairman, held a hearing on this subject and found that we need to expand our research efforts to include freshwater blooms, update our assessments of these threats every five years, and improve communication with local resource managers about these efforts. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to address these findings.

More specifically, the legislation expands the authorization of funding to $30 million annually (over the next three years) for research and monitoring efforts on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. It also requires the Task Force to develop research plans on previously overlooked aspects of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, such as: Great Lakes harmful algal blooms; and prevention, control and mitigation methods to reduce the impact of harmful algal blooms.

This legislation also provides a mechanism for regional and local assessments of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, because the causes of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia vary with regional water use, land use, and environment. Additionally, it increases the participation of local resource managers in this process, ensuring that our investment in research produces useful tools for the people dealing with the problems on a day-to-day basis.

The bill reauthorizes funding for programs that have been effective in improving our scientific understanding of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, namely the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program and the Monitoring and Event Response to Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) program. It also requires scientific assessments of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia on a regular basis, providing a means to continuously target our resources in an effective manner.

In conclusion, my legislation provides a research framework for addressing the nationwide problem of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. It improves our ability to understand and predict harmful algal bloom events, adds the Great Lakes as an important area for harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research, and ensures the participation of local resource managers in developing research plans so that the research can be fully utilized by everyone concerned with these important issues. I have been working with my colleague from Ohio, Senator George Voinovich, who is introducing companion legislation in the Senate today. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to pass this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 92, 93, and 94 I missed the votes due to a delay in my airplane flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill that is a critical component in our efforts to combat aquatic invasive species--the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act. This legislation creates a comprehensive research program that supports federal, state and local efforts to prevent invasive species from ever entering our waterways, as well as detection, control and eradication efforts once they are here. It complements a bill introduced today by Mr. Gilchrest in the House and Mr. Levin in the Senate, to reauthorize the National Invasive Species Act. This legislation is a critical component in our battle against these harmful and extremely damaging pests.

In undertaking this effort, I have found that many people wonder-- ``What is an invasive

species? Why it is so crucial to keep them out of the United States?'' It is important that we understand these questions so that we can appreciate the scope of the threat that invasive species pose to our economy and environment.

The introduction of non-native species is not new to the United States. People have brought non-native plants and animals into the United States, both intentionally and unintentionally, for a variety of reasons, since the New World was discovered. Some examples include the introduction of nutria (which is a rodent similar to a muskrat) by trappers to bolster the domestic fur industry, and the introduction of the purple loosestrife plant to add rich color to gardens. Both nutria and purple loosestrife are now serious threats to wetlands. Non-native species may also be introduced unintentionally, such as through species hitching rides in ships, crates, planes, or soil coming into the United States. For example, zebra mussels, first discovered in Lake St. Clair near Detroit in the late 1980s, came into the Great Lakes through ballast water from ships.

Not all species brought into the country are harmful to local economies, people and/or the environment. In fact, most non-native species do not survive because the environment does not meet their biological needs. In many cases, however, the new species will find favorable conditions (such as a lack of natural enemies or an environment that fosters propagation) that allow it to survive and thrive in a new ecosystem.

Only a small fraction of these non-native species become an ``invasive species''--defined as a species that is both non-native to the ecosystem and whose introduction causes or may cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. However, this small fraction can cause enormous damage, both to our economy and our environment.

Estimating the total economic impact of invasive species is extremely difficult. No single organization accumulates such statistics comprehensively. However, researchers at Cornell University estimate that invasive species cost Americans $137 billion annually. This includes the cost of control, damage to property values, health costs and other factors. Just one species can cost government and private citizens billions of dollars. For example, zebra mussels have cost the various entities in the Great Lakes basin an estimated $3 billion during the past 10 years for cleaning water intake pipes, purchasing filtration equipment, etc.

Beyond economic impacts, invasive species cause ecological costs that are even more difficult to quantify. For example, sea lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes cost approximately $10 million to $15 million annually. However, we do not have a good measure of the cost of lost fisheries due to this invader, which was first discovered in the Great Lakes in the early 1900s. In fact, invasive species now are second only to habitat loss as threats to endangered species. Quantifying the loss due to extinction caused by these invasive species is nearly impossible.

Given the enormous economic and environmental impacts these invaders cause, two clear goals emerge: First, we need to focus more resources and energy into dealing with this problem at all levels of government; second, our best strategy for dealing with invasive species is to focus these resources to prevent them from ever entering the United States. Spending millions of dollars to prevent species introductions will save billions of dollars in control, eradication and restoration efforts once the species become established. In fact, one theme is central to both Mr. Gilchrest's bill and this legislation. It is an old adage, but one worth following--``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.''

To successfully carry out this strategy, we need careful, concerted management of this problem underpinned by research at every step. For example, we know that we must do more to regulate the pathways by which these invaders enter the United States (ships, aquaculture, etc.), which is an important component of Mr. Gilchrest's legislation. However, research must inform us as to which of these pathways pose the greatest threat and which techniques used to manage each pathway are effective. This legislation would help develop this understanding through the ecological and pathway surveys conducted under this bill. In fact, research underlies every management decision aimed at detecting, preventing, controlling and eradicating invasive species; educating citizens and stakeholders; and ensuring that resources are optimally deployed to increase the effectiveness of government programs. These items are also reflected in the legislation, which I will now describe in more detail.

The bill is divided into six main parts. The first three parts outline an ecological and pathway research program, combining surveys and experimentation, to be established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and the United States Geological Survey. This program is focused on understanding what invasive species are present in our waterways, which pathways they use to enter our waterways, how they establish themselves once they are here and whether or not invasions are getting better or worse based on decisions to regulate pathways. In carrying out this program, the three principal agencies I mentioned previously will develop standardized protocols for carry out the ecological and pathway surveys that are called for under the legislation. In addition, they will coordinate their efforts to establish long-term surveys sites so we have strong baseline information. This program also includes an important grant program so that academic researchers and state agencies can carry out the surveys at diverse sites distributed geographically around the country. This will give federal, state and local managers a more holistic view of the rates and patterns of invasions of aquatic invasive species into the United States. Lastly, the principal agencies will coordinate their efforts and pull all of this information together and analyze it to help determine whether or not decisions to manage these pathways are effective. This will inform policymakers as to which pathways pose the greatest threat and whether or not they need to change the way these pathways are managed.

The fourth part of the bill contains several programs to develop, demonstrate and verify technologies to prevent, control and eradicate invasive species. The first component is an Environmental Protection Agency grant program focused on developing, demonstrating and verifying environmentally sound technologies to control and eradicate aquatic invasive species. This research program will give federal, state and local managers more tools to combat invasive species that are also environmentally sound. The second component is a program to develop dispersal barriers--administered by the Army Corps of Engineers--which have been a critical issue in the Chicago Sanitary Canal where Great Lakes managers have been desperately trying to keep the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan from the Mississippi River system. The third component is expansion both in terms of scope and funding of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Fish and Wildlife Service program geared toward demonstrating technologies that prevent invasive species from being introduced by ships. This is the federal government's only program that is focused solely on helping develop viable technologies to treat ballast water. It has been woefully underfunded in the past and deserves more attention.

The fifth part of the bill focuses on setting up research to directly support the Coast Guard's efforts to set standards for the treatment of ships with respect to preventing them from introducing invasive species. Ships are a major pathway by which invasive species are unintentionally introduced; the ballast water discharged by ships is of particular concern. One of the key issues that has hampered efforts to deal with the threats that ships pose is the lack of standards for how ballast water must be treated when it is discharged. The Coast Guard has had a very difficult time developing these standards since the underlying law that support their efforts (the National Invasive Species Act) did not contain a research component to support their work. This legislation provides that missing piece.

Finally, the sixth and final part supports our ability to identify invaders once they arrive. Over the past couple of decades, the number of scientists working in systematics and taxonomy, expertise that is fundamental to identifying species, has decreased steadily. In order to address this problem, the legislation sets up a National Science Foundation program to give grants for academic research in systematics and taxonomy with the goal of maintaining U.S. expertise in these disciplines.

Taken together, both my legislation and Mr. Gilchrest's represent an important step forward in our efforts to prevent invasive species from ever crossing our borders and combat them once they are arrive. New invaders are arriving in the United States each day, bringing with them even more burden on taxpayers and the environment. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to deal with this problem, and so I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution and to offer my heartfelt prayers on behalf of the families, friends and loved ones of the seven crew members who lost their lives aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. Our whole nation mourns with them.

While this has been a terrible accident, it is important to note that this is only the third accident in the history of the United States space program to result in the loss of life. My home of Grand Rapids, Michigan, especially feels and understands the pain of this loss, as one of our native sons, Roger B. Chafee, was among the first Americans to lose their lives in the space program when the Apollo 1 cabin was engulfed in a launch pad fire during testing in 1967.

Obviously, we do not have a full understanding of what happened last Saturday, but

I am certain that we, as a nation, will do everything we can to understand what went wrong. As we conduct this investigation, we must commit ourselves to the proposition that the cause of exploration in which these astronauts died will continue. I strongly urge my fellow Members of Congress and the nation as a whole that we must continue to develop our space science program. These missions serve several goals, including valuable scientific and technical research and fulfilling the call of humanity to explore and expand our knowledge.

For example, experiments conducted by the astronauts aboard Columbia will enhance our earthquake preparedness and safety, foster our efforts for cleaner air, and assist in strengthening human health. But, beyond the technical value of science in space, with each mission we are deepening our understanding of the conditions and effects of space on the human body. Each piece of knowledge is a stepping stone to further space exploration, enabling a fuller understanding of our universe and satisfying the call of stepping into the unknown.

This endeavor of exploration and discovery is the most appropriate way that we can honor the men and women that President Bush eulogized as ``Seven lives of great purpose and achievement'': Mission Commander Rick Husband; Pilot William McCool; Payload Commander Michael Anderson; Mission Specialists Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, and Laurel Clark; and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon. May our continued dedication to the work they pursued with their lives be our most significant memorial.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 13 I was not able to vote because my airplane flight was delayed one and one-half hours due to weather problems in the midwest. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a very important piece of legislation, the ``United States Weather Research Program Act of 2003.'' The human toll and dollar loss from severe weather events is staggering. Each year this nation experiences more than 1,500 weather- related fatalities and more than 15 billion dollars in damage to property.

The Weather Research Program is a partnership among academic and commercial communities and several government agencies--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S.

Navy and many others. Led by NOAA, the program supports government and university-based research to improve severe weather forecasts and better utilization by emergency managers as well as the public.

This legislation authorizes $46.5 million over three years and emphasizes research on hurricanes and heavy precipitation events through better observations and modeling. Another important goal for the program will be to improve the communication between weather forecasters and the public and emergency managers when it is needed most. The bill also provides for the development of centers where research can be tested in real life environments to more quickly move research and new technology into operation--and save lives in the process.

I look forward to working with the agencies involved in this program, the research community, and my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to codify the Executive Order that established the Invasive Species Council and gave the Council responsibility for coordinating all invasive species activities across the Federal government (Executive Order #13112, issued in 1999). Invasive species, such as the snakehead fish and zebra mussel, cause an enormous economic, ecological and human health toll on the United States every year. There are over 20 different Federal agencies involved in prevention, eradication, control, monitoring, research and outreach efforts to deal with the threat of invasive species, and this Executive effort seeks to make these efforts more coordinated, effective and cost-efficient. Better management of invasive species efforts across Federal agencies is critical to an effective response to this threat, and the Executive Order was the right first step. However, it is only the first step. Congress now needs to pass this legislation to give the Council more authority to effectively meet this threat.

Since its inception, the Council has made progress in achieving its mandate. In particular, in 2001 the council issued the National Management Plan to provide a general blueprint of goals and actions for Federal agencies to better deal with invasive species. While this broad plan lacks detail in some areas, it is a good first step toward focusing the various Federal efforts on common goals and coordinated actions. In addition, the Council established a Federal advisory committee consisting of 32 members from a broad array of stakeholders. The advisory committee has met several times in order to provide guidance on the development of the National Management Plan and on Federal agency actions regarding invasive species in general.

While the Council has had some success, its authority to coordinate the actions of Federal agencies has been limited. The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently recognized this problem, stating that agencies did not incorporate the components of the National Management Plan into their annual performance plans. In addition, GAO recommended that the Council study whether or not a lack of legislative authority has hampered its mission. Key agencies of the Council have already recognized this lack of authority as problematic and have supported codification of the Council in testimony before a November 2002 joint hearing of the House Resources and House Science Committees on aquatic invasive species.

The legislation I am introducing today essentially keeps the existing structure of the Council intact, while at the same time it addresses issues raised by GAO by giving the Council a clear statutory mandate.

First, the legislation maintains the Executive Order's statement of administration policy that Federal agencies should not undertake actions that may lead to the introduction or further spread of invasive species without careful consideration of the costs that the proposed action may cause. The legislation requires that the Council for Environmental Quality, in conjunction with the Council, issue guidelines for Federal agencies to help them consider the consequences of any proposed action. The intent of this provision is to create a common set of guidelines by which all Federal agencies can measure their actions, not to give individuals a private right of action against government agencies that take actions regarding invasive species.

Second, the legislation makes some modifications to the existing institutional structure of the Council. The membership of the Council will remain the same; however the legislation updates the membership, as described by the Executive Order, to reflect additional agencies that have been added since 1999. It also makes the Council an independent entity within the Executive Branch, to be chaired on a rotating basis by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce. This is a change from the Executive Order, which called for the Council to be housed within the Department of Interior and chaired by that agency. If the Council is to be a truly independent entity that can work with all Federal agencies, this change is necessary.

Third, the legislation retains the duties of the Council as described by the Executive Order (including development of an updated National Management Plan), but it adds some new duties in order to give the council more tools to use in coordinating Federal programs. In particular, the Council must submit an annual list of the top priorities in several different areas related to addressing the threat posed by invasive species. The legislation also specifically calls upon the Council to work with Federal agencies during the budget development and submission process in order to ensure that budget priorities reflect the priorities of the National Management Plan. The legislation also calls on the Office of Management and Budget to develop a crosscut budget of all invasive species efforts in the Federal government. This is a necessary tool for the Council to coordinate efforts among the various Federal agencies.

Finally, the legislation retains the existing Invasive Species Advisory Council to serve as an important contributor to the ongoing dialogue between the Federal government and stakeholders to ensure that the Federal government acts in the most effective way.

This legislation will help further the Federal government's efforts to combat invasive species, and I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I can only echo the words of congratulation that he has offered.

Just to give a little more information about Grand Valley State University, it did not start until 1960, with 223 students. If they fielded a football team that year, it would have consumed 10 percent of the student body. And in 42 short years, they went from that to a rather large University of 20,000 students, more than 48,000 alumni, and winning the national championship in the NCAA. It is an astounding record.

Also, I might mention that the main campus is in the west Michigan area, represented by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), from whom we just heard; but the downtown campus is in my district. That consists of many graduate studies programs, engineering, and post- graduate course offerings.

It is a remarkable record of success. I have to pay tribute to the former president, Arend (Don) Lubbers, who served from 1968 through 2001 and did an incredible job of taking a fledgling university and building it into a full-grown university. In fact, the football stadium at Grand Valley is named after him, and is called Lubbers Stadium. The current president, Mark Murray, succeeded Lubbers in 2001. He has been there a short time and has done a great job of continuing the work there.

Football and sports are not the be-all and end-all of the university experience, especially in Michigan, where we have a strong orientation towards academic performance. But President Lubbers understood that successful sports teams are a source of pride for the students, staff, administration, and alumni of the schools they represent. In this respect, Grand Valley State University Lakers have ably represented their university and all of west Michigan in their march to the national championship.

The opportunity of playing on national television in the Division II championship game in each of the past two seasons has given Grand Valley State University national exposure it never would have received otherwise. I wish to congratulate the team for their tremendous performance this year. They came within one game of winning the national championship last year. They came back determined to win it this year, and they did.

Congratulations are also due to Coach Brian Kelly, who was named last night as the American Football Coaches Association's Division II National Coach of the Year. He has done an outstanding job there. I also want to congratulate senior quarterback Curt Anes, who received the Harlan Hill Trophy, which is Division II's equivalent of the Heisman Trophy. He is also a First-Team All American.

Senior wide receiver David Kircus, also a First-Team All American, set numerous NCAA Division II and school records throughout his career.

In addition, congratulations are due to offensive lineman Dale Westrick and defensive lineman Keyonta Marshall, both named First-Team All Americans.

Also, I have to congratulate not only the school, not only the team, the coach and the players, but also the supporters of the Grand Valley State University Lakers, who set a conference attendance record. That shows their loyalty and their support for the university and for their sports teams.

So I am very pleased that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has offered this resolution. I am very pleased to join him in commending Grand Valley State University and their football team for their very, very, very fine performance.