Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation for the leadership of this committee. We operate in a spirit of civility at all times, and we are all very proud of that.

We as legislators preach about how we want to make this world a better place for those who are to follow. The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act is a first step to increasing the use of renewable fuels, encouraging manufacturing processes that generate less toxic waste and promote the development of materials which can be easily recycled.

I am pleased that my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), has introduced the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Green chemistry is the utilization of a set of principles that reduces or eliminates the use or generation of hazardous substances in the design, manufacture, and application of chemical products.

Over the past decade, there has been increasing interest in a fundamental new approach to environmental protection. In studying green chemistry, we realize that science and technology can help produce processes and products that are both more environmentally benign and economically attractive.

I would like also to take this opportunity to thank the Chair for working in a bipartisan manner and our ranking member, as we often do in the Committee on Science, for incorporating parts of amendments that I introduced during markup in the committee. Most importantly, I appreciate the language that requires a study by the National Academy of Sciences on barriers to commercialization of green chemistry. As was evident by the committee's hearing on H.R. 3970, success at commercialization can be problematic, even for technical innovations that seem to be obvious candidates for exploitation.

The purpose of the study would be to systematically assess successful and

unsuccessful attempts at commercialization of green chemistry innovations here and abroad and attempt to tease out the controlling factors.

In addition, I am pleased that the manager's amendment clarifies that the funds provided by the bill for focused green chemistry research is in addition to the amounts the agency currently spends in its base programs. This addition is also very important, and I would like to thank the Chair for including this in the manager's amendment.

Although there is more work that can be done to strengthen this legislation, it provides the right impetus to encourage the science and manufacturing communities to start in the right direction, not only because green chemistry can save them money now in the short term but because it can also save our planet in the long term.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this legislation, I speak in support of its favorable consideration by the House today. The Subcommittee on Research has a long history of support for efforts to improve K-through-12 math and science education. This bill will help to mobilize greater efforts by the private sector in helping our schools to achieve the goal of higher achievement in math and science by all students.

I would like to commend the Subcommittee on Research and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for originating the concept for this bill and working with me in a collegial way in developing the final product. In particular, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to include language I propose to encourage math and science education in under-represented groups. My language simply emphasizes the importance of recognizing private sector activities that increase the participation and improve the achievements of women and minorities in math and science.

This provision is consistent with this committee's long interest in attracting the interest of, and preparing, all segments of the population in math and science.

This is necessary if the Nation is to satisfy its demands for the science and technology workforce of the future, because the proportion of minorities in the college-aged population is growing. And it helps to ensure that all citizens will achieve a level of technological literacy needed to function in the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to use this opportunity to thank the chair of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), for moving this bill expeditiously to the floor. I am pleased to recommend the bill to my colleagues and seek their favorable support.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the efforts which they have put forth in working on this bill.

I would like to talk to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for just a moment about the continuing challenges before us in getting our State transportation departments to fully obligate funds under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program known as

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his consideration of these issues, and I pledge my strong support to his efforts and any other member of the committee's efforts to make progress in this area.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would dramatically improve an existing law provision, section 104(j), that was enacted as part of TEA 21.

Currently, the U.S. Department of Transportation produces an annual report to Congress on the use of Federal transportation funds by program, by type of investment, and by location within the States. My amendment would simply require that this information be provided to the public as well as via the Internet.

This is a nonpartisan amendment. It is broadly supported by a wide array of program partners, county officials, cities, mayors, metropolitan planning organizations, planners, architects and others.

Consider the current state of practice. Today, if you search the U.S. DOT's Web site for a section 104(j) report, you get ``no documents match.''

Now, the first question that will be asked is: Will this impose a burden on my State? No, absolutely not. This amendment would not impose any additional burden on the States.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, I might add that this is not a heavy burden on the FHWA or U.S. DOT bureaucracy. This information is already collected, processed, and provided for the use of State Departments of Transportation, in a use-friendly format for those users. This amendment simply requires that the same information already being processed be provided to the taxpayers and their representatives.

Why ``user-friendly''? Lack of ease of Congressional oversight on this report led to a $5 billion discrepancy between Table 1 and Table 4(e) in this report in fiscal year 2000.

Because it is not electronically available as a manipulatable table, any summation that is not presented in the table must be done by hand, which is very difficult.

So, Federal Highway and the public would have a better product as a result of this amendment and the improved access to this information would improve the accuracy of the reporting. It is my belief that better reporting will lend much greater confidence to us as lawmakers as we fight to increase future spending through FHWA.

Federal funds for public transportation have long operated under much more stringent reporting measures.

My amendment is a simple change that would provide our constituents with some information about how their transportation taxes are being invested. They deserve to know if their tax dollars are being invested back into their community, or if the State is spending them elsewhere, and better understand how and where these resources are being invested on their behalf.

After all, we are talking about how more than $200 billion in the taxpayers' money will be spent over the next 6 years.

By adopting my amendment, this Congress can provide some very basic transparency and accountability with Americans' tax dollars in the Federal surface transportation program.

The time has come for FHWA to deliver us and the public a report that is more than a small stack of computer runs that can only be understood by a handful of financial experts at Federal Highway and U.S. DOT.

Let me close by simply urging my colleagues to accept this modest improvement to current law. It is one of the small things we can do to provide for more transparency and accountability to this process.

Taxpayers pay for this bill, and they deserve to understand more about how their tax dollars are spent on transportation infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I know that this is an amendment that the State of Texas would like to have. I am happy to support my friend from Texas. In fact, I offered the same amendment in committee.

The amendment would change the calculation of toll credits by basing them on the proportion of non-Federal investment in toll projects. Support of this amendment does not mean that we promote or support toll roads per se, but supporting this amendment does recognize that State legislators that have chosen to pursue tolling should be able to have access to toll credits to invest in transportation options such as transit, bicycle, rail, and pedestrian infrastructure as well as road maintenance.

Toll credits create flexibility in the Federal-aid programs. Similar to the Programmatic Match provisions of the Surface Transportation Program, toll credits allow the expenditure of non-Federal funds on one project to serve as the match on another project. The benefit of having toll credits is to enable either a highway or a transit project to exchange a toll credit for non-Federal share of a project's cost.

Mr. Chairman, I include my statement for the Record.

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to support my friend from Texas' amendment. In fact I offered this same amendment in Committee. The amendment would change the calculation of toll credits by basing them on the proportion of non-federal investment in toll projects.

Support of this amendment does not mean that you promote or support toll roads per se. But supporting this amendment does recognize that State Legislatures that have chosen to pursue tolling should be able to have access to toll credits to invest in transportation options, such as transit, bicycles, rail, and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as road maintenance.

Toll credits create flexibility in the federal aid program. Similar to the Programmatic Match provisions of the Surface Transportation Program, toll credits allow the expenditure of non-federal funds on one project to serve as the match on another project. The benefit of having toll credits is to enable either a highway or transit project to exchange a toll credit for non-federal share of a project's cost.

This amendment does not provide any additional money. It simply provides greater financial flexibility by allowing the use of federal funds in a state's apportionment. Without this flexibility, State DOT's will have a significantly diminished number of toll credits and will likely only focus on the growing demands for road maintenance.

My fellow members, if your state does tolling, you will benefit from this amendment. In my state, I have broad support from the Texas Department of Transportation, MPOs, local and state officials, and transit organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I urge you to support this amendment so that we can give States that have decided to toll more flexibility with toll credits so that they can invest in all transportation options.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in honor of Cesar Chavez. Cesar Chavez was born on this day in 1927.

Cesar Chavez once said, ``Real education should consist of drawing the goodness and the best out of our own students. What better books can there be than the book of humanity?'' He believed that ``the end of all education should surely be service to others.'' It is a belief that he practiced until his untimely death.

In Dallas, Texas where I serve, to honor his love for education, the city opened the Cesar Chavez Learning Center. The Center enrolls almost 900 students and maintains an attendance rate of 96.6 percent.

Mr. Chavez could have written his own book on humanity and service to others. He was willing to sacrifice his own life so that others could have a better life. He built a great union through persistence, hard work, faith, and non-violence.

Blending the nonviolent resistance of Gandhi with the organizational skills of his mentor, the social activist Saul Alinsky, Mr. Chavez captured worldwide attention in the 1960's. Leading an initially lonely battle to unionize the fields and the orchards of California, he issued a call to boycott grapes. It soon became the cause to celebrate.

Mr. Chavez, who was described by Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 as ``one of the heroic figures of our time,'' was widely acknowledged to have done more to improve the lot of the migrant farm worker than anyone else.

Asked what had motivated his stubborn fight, he said, ``For many years I was a farm worker, a migratory worker, and, well, personally-- and I'm being very frank--maybe it's just a matter of trying to even the score.''

But he ultimately failed to realize his dream of forging a nationwide organization. In most of America, farm workers continue to toil for low wages, without job security. They are still vulnerable to exploitation.

Along with thousands of other families during the depression in the Southwest, Cesar Chavez's family fell on hard times. They sought a new life in California. They found it picking carrots, cotton and other crops in arid valleys, following the sun in search of the next harvest and the next migrants' camp.

Mr. Chavez never graduated from high school, and once counted 65 elementary schools he had attended ``for a day, a week or a few months.''

Beginning with the Industrial Workers of the World at the turn of the century, unions tried for decades to organize immigrant unskilled workers, first Chinese, then Japanese and later Filipinos and Mexican- Americans, on whom California growers depended.

But the field hands, their organizing drives vulnerable to the competition of other poor migrants seeking work, found themselves fighting not only powerful growers, but also the police and government officials.

By 1965 Mr. Chavez had organized 1,700 families and persuaded two growers to raise wages moderately. His fledging union was too weak for a major strike. But 800 workers in a virtually moribund AFL-CIO group, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, struck grape growers in Delano. Some of the members of his group demanded to join the strike.

That was the beginning of 5 years of La Huelga--``the strike''--in which the frail labor leader, who was 5 feet 6 inches tall, became familiar to people in much of the world as he battled the economic power of the farmers and corporations in the San Joaquin Valley.

A New York Times article stated, ``He was shy and not an outstanding public speaker. But he showed humility that, with his shyness and small stature, piercing dark eyes and facial features that hinted at Indian ancestors, gave him an image as a David taking on the Goliaths of agriculture.

Mr. Chavez's style was monastic, almost religious. He said his life was dedicated only to bettering the lives of the exploited farm workers. He was a vegetarian, and his weekly salary of $5 was a virtual vow of poverty. Articles about him often spoke of his ``saintly'' and even ``messianic'' qualities.

By 1968, Mr. Chavez had urged Americans not to buy table grapes produced in the San Joaquin Valley until growers agreed to union contracts. The boycott proved a huge success. A public opinion poll found that 17 million Americans had stopped buying grapes because of the boycott.

On April 29, 1993, Cesar Chavez was honored in death by those he led in life. He left this world better than he found it and for that we honor him today.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Republican budget because it cuts funding for the Violence Against Women Programs.

This funding supports most of the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The programs impact the lives of women and children by bolstering prosecution of domestic violence, sexual assault, increasing services for victims by funding shelters and increasing resources for law enforcement personnel. The President's budget proposes to reduce these programs to $362 million, a cut of $22 million.

Since the Violence Against Women Act was implemented, there has been a 25 percent decrease in violence against women. This 25 percent decrease demonstrates the effectiveness of the policing and prosecutions that these programs fund.

Without full funding, thousands of women and children will not be able to access the services they need to escape from domestic violence. We need full funding for these programs to support this vulnerable section of our population.

Violence against women is a global epidemic. It is not a woman's issue and it is not a ``private'' issue. We need to restore the $22 million to the Violence Against Women Programs to show the women, children and families across the country that we are committed to creating a safer and more peaceful world for them.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Cummings, for his steadfast support of the development of this budget alternate. I also want to thank Ms. Majette and Mr. Scott for their leadership. I appreciate and applaud their steady stream of ideas and positions on issues we all care about. I also would like to thank all of the members of the CBC and their staff for their help in completing this very worthwhile project.

The Republican budget proposal clearly ignores the needs of Texas and of all working Americans. The Republican budget borrows from future generations to pay for today's tax cuts and federal spending. It reduces taxes on the wealthiest Americans and slams the door on economic opportunity for working families. Neither of these outcomes is in our nation's best interest.

Madam Speaker, President Bush inherited a federal surplus of $127 billion in 2001. His tax cuts give us a deficit of $521 billion, an all-time record, in 2004. Recently, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that rather than cutting the deficit in half over the next five years, as the President pledged, his budget policies will result in increasing it by $2.75 trillion. That's an astounding and mind-boggling amount to add to the national debt over the coming decade.

The CBC budget fights for social justice. It advocates for the poor that are left out and forgotten, and more specifically African Americans and other neglected minorities. The budget of the Congressional Black Caucus fully funds No Child Left Behind, it provides funds for school construction, and it increases funding for other education and job training programs. The CBC alternative also provides funding for the minority health initiative, health insurance for the uninsured, it supports child nutrition programs, it funds job creation programs under the SBA, and it extends unemployment insurance benefits. The alternative budget also eliminates the disabled veteran's tax.

The funding for these important domestic needs comes from two sources: (1) a reduction in the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for an individual's adjusted gross income that exceeds $200,000, and (2) the closing of tax loopholes, abusive tax shelters, and methods of tax avoidance. These funds total an estimated $35.5 billion in FY05, and are used for the domestic and deficit reduction portions of the alternative budget.

I ask, Madam Speaker, that Members of this body give serious consideration to both the debate and to the challenge.

Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because it cuts most programs for women, most especially for Violence Against Women programs.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks about the Republican budget because it cuts funding for the Violence Against Women Programs.

The funding for violence against women supports most of the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The programs impact the lives of women and children by bolstering prosecution of domestic violence, sexual assault, increasing services for victims by funding shelters and increasing resources for law enforcement personnel. The President's budget proposes to cut funding for these programs to $362 million, a reduction of $22 million.

Since the Violence Against Women Act was implemented, there has been a 25 percent decrease in violence against women. This 25 percent decrease demonstrates, the effectiveness of the policing and prosecutions that these programs fund.

Violence against women is a global epidemic. It is not a woman's issue and it is not a ``private'' issue. We need to restore the $22 million to the Violence Against Women Programs to show the women, children and families across the country that we are committed to creating a safer and more peaceful world for them.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon and I thank my colleague from Maine for being willing to come to the floor and talk about a very serious issue.

I also applaud my colleagues for their hard work in bringing us together this afternoon, I think there will be others, to talk about a serious public health crisis that our country faces. That crisis is caused by mercury pollution. It is not only a national problem, it is also a very local one as well. The State of Texas leads the Nation in mercury pollution. Mercury emission from power plants is the major culprit. These plants dumped 8,968 pounds in 2001 alone. As a result, the whole gulf coast region has been placed under a consumption advisory. Our major fishing lakes are subject to such advisories.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Texas are urging us to take prompt and effective action to clean up mercury pollution from power plants. The Environmental Protection Agency's current proposals on mercury fall far short of what the law requires. The agency's proposals fail to protect the health of our children and our environment. This is especially true for Texas, where mercury emissions would increase, not decrease, under the proposed plan. We ask the EPA to carry out the requirements of the Clean Air Act to protect our Nation from toxic mercury contamination. We urge the agency to impose a 90 percent reduction in the mercury leaching from coal-burning power plants.

Last year, EPA proposed two alternative rules to address mercury emissions. Unfortunately, both of these proposals failed to meet clean air directives under section 112(d) for cleaning up mercury. EPA's proposals permit far more mercury pollution, and for years longer, than the Clean Air Act allows. This is playing games with the health of our Nation. Time and again scientists around the world have proven the toxicity of mercury. The agency's own scientists just released a study finding that approximately 630,000 infants, as my colleague said earlier, that were born in the United States in the dawn of this millennium had blood mercury levels higher than what is considered safe. This is a doubling of previous estimates.

Mercury emissions have also contaminated 10 million acres of lakes and 400,000 miles of streams. Soaring mercury levels have triggered advisories warning America's 41 million recreational fishermen that the fish they catch may not be safe to eat. Furthermore, evidence continues to mount that mercury causes reproductive problems in wildfowl populations such as loon and mallard ducks. Other fish-eating wildlife populations are at risk as well.

Mr. Speaker, we can address this public health and environmental problem if we just would do it. According to many States, industry experts and past EPA analyses, the technology to dramatically clean up these plants is available and affordable. I am concerned that EPA does not fully analyze the range of controls recommended by State utility and environmental and public health members of EPA's advisory group on this rule. I do not know what is holding EPA hostage, but once again they are failing to fulfill its reasonability to adopt standards that protect the public health and environment.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to call on EPA to develop appropriate mercury standards that reduce mercury emissions in the shortest time possible to protect public health and the environment. I thank my colleague for this opportunity to make a statement on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the United States forces in Iraq. I also salute the troops from 34 other nations who have also fought to liberate Iraq from the clutches of tyranny and despotism.

Our armed forces have performed with the utmost skill and bravery. They deserve our gratitude and support. They have not only been warriors in the heat of the battle and in the fog of war, they have also served as change agents, transforming upheaval into pace.

However, both time and the facts have proven that we were led into war with the weapons of mass distortion. We have since learned that our reasons for sending our troops to Iraq were based on faulty intelligence.

Assumptions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were incorrect. President Bush admits that the United States has no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, despite the Administration's timing conflating al-Qaeda-led terrorism and Saddam's regime.

Plans for rebuilding Iraq were woefully inadequate, and cost estimate absurdly low. Rather than catalyzing Mideast peace, the region is again awash in violence.

The Administration's arrogant dismissal of our allies' concerns has made it all the more difficult to win their financial and military support for post-war efforts.

One part of winning the war against terror is proving to the world that America stands with freedom, champions the weak and aids the righteous. We are failing in that effort.

The Administration has boasted that America, as well as the world, is now safer because of the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Twenty-five million Iraqis will attest to this. While the threat of Saddam Hussein may be gone, al-Qaeda is still a clear and present danger. As recent news headlines attest, the people of Spain are reeling from the dastardly acts of this hydra-headed monster.

The war in Iraq and the intensified conflict in the Middle East has increased anger at the United States, and people throughout the world have lost faith in America's foreign policies.

America's foreign policies should be driven by human rights, justice and equality--values that would decrease the threat to terrorism--and not by corporate interests.

I agree with this resolution on two points: the Iraqi people have been courageous and Saddam Hussein was a brutal and dangerous dictator.

A year ago, my constituents demanded answers to their many questions. How much would a war with Iraq and subsequent occupation cost taxpayers? How would this be paid for when the federal government is running large deficits? Will it be worth it? How long will we be there? All of these questions about Iraq remain unanswered.

I told them that there were no guarantees that we could replace the current regime with a viable alternative that would bring stability and peace to the region.

I hoped my grim predictions were wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I would never turn my back on our troops and our commitments. Our Nation is at war. We do know that the sons and daughters of all our many communities are engaged in the dangerous and unpredictable duties that are carried by the Armed Forces in a time of war. Our military, including overburdened national reservists, are stretched thin and remain vulnerable to deadly attacks.

Mr. Speaker, Iraq was neither an immediate or imminent threat to the security of the American people. Iraq's structural integrity did depend on fear, violence, illicit oil revenue and the illegitimate authority of one man and the party he led.

But was that enough to justify the more than 565 lost lives of American soldiers and more than 2000 wounded that will have to return to their communities where jobs are not available?

Post-war chaos and disorder in Iraq has proven to be just as destructive to human life as the actual war.

I believe this resolution fails to point out that following the devastation of World War II, the United States showed tremendous leadership in the world as we created international institutions and a framework of international law to prevent war and to sustain and maintain peace.

We were the leaders in promoting a world where conflicts could be resolved peacefully and cooperatively. While never perfect, this system of international institutions has been remarkably effective.

I and many others around the world are shocked and dismayed by the unilateral, confrontational approach that the Bush Administration has taken in the world arena.

We must recognize the consequences in the world community of our rejection of Kyoto, of the International Criminal Court, of the treaty to ban land mines, and our own withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

We must be mindful about how our criticism of the UN and NATO are heard throughout the world community.

We have to recognize that after 9-11, the world came together in solidarity with our loss, working with us to find the perpetrators, to break up Al Qaeda and to arrest its leaders.

It should have been abundantly clear that fighting terrorism and protecting American security would require friends and allies; cooperation, not confrontation.

Yet, the Adminatration instead engaged in a singled-minded drive to achieve its Iraqi objectives at a deadly cost instead of developing a policy to deal with Iraq by working with our allies, by working with the world community.

Even if the Administration gets what they want this time, what is the long term damage to our international relationships? How will it impact our efforts to stop terrorism and protect the security of the American people?

I am worried. The people that I represent are very anxious. My colleague from Maine earlier circulated a dear colleague about this resolution. I would like to emphasize the points he highlighted in his Dear Colleague:

The Republican leadership has scheduled four hours of

debate today on H. Res. 577, regarding this resolution.

This amount of debate time allocated to this non-binding

resolution is equal to the amount the Republican leadership

allowed on the 2003 tax bill (one hour) and the Medicare bill

(three hours) combined.

Mr. Speaker, I believe all of Congress and all of America stand by our troops, but we think it is absolutely incumbent upon this Administration to answer our questions instead of debating a resolution with sound and fury while signifying nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3473.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honor to rise before this body as a strong supporter of the H. Con. Res. 357.

I first want to thank my distinguished colleague, Ms. Watson for her diligent work on this resolution. And I also wish her a speedy recovery.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of people like Dorothy Height that we can all enjoy the freedom that America bestows upon her people. Ms. Height is a pioneer and trail-blazer. Like other pioneers, both celebrated and unknown, she has opened the doors of opportunity to all, making America the free country it is today.

From the very beginning, Dorothy Height was a crusader. During the depths of the Great Depression she managed to do something very few of her contemporaries were able to accomplish.

She knew that education was a key to making one's way in the world and the way to enlighten the path for others. She graduated from New York University with a bachelors and a master's degree in Education in 1933.

Immediately afterward, she launched a career in civil rights. She has remained on the battlefield for six decades. Her first venue for advocating the rights of others was the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA). Here she led an advocacy movement aimed at improving conditions for black domestic workers.

Within the YWCA, she worked to integrate an organization that still had separate facilities for blacks and whites. Because of her determined and dogged efforts, women of all racial backgrounds could use the same facilities with the same privileges.

Her leadership at the national level resulted in the YWCA adopting an interracial charter in 1946 that called on the organization and its members to stand against racial injustice in the United States.

After her work with the YWCA, Ms. Height became president of the National Council of Negro Women. She steered the organization through the civil rights struggle of the 1960's.

She helped organize voter registration in the South, at a time when it was dangerous and nearly impossible to be an African-American voter below the Mason-Dixon line.

Ms. Height also organized voter education programs and scholarship programs for student civil rights workers.

In 1970 Dorothy Height expanded the goals of the NCNW to encompass vocational training and assist women in opening businesses, forms of education that were not readily available to women at the time.

Since then, Dorothy Height has served as a social services expert on local, state, and federal governmental committees concerned with women's issues. She has also led numerous campaigns for the war on drugs, encouraging youngsters to take advantage of education and vocational training.

Mr. Speaker, in 1996, the United States Government recognized Dorothy Height's achievements with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to join my friend, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Watson, in support of this most appropriate use of the rotunda of the Capitol of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, let me hasten to thank the leaders of this resolution and all of the cosponsors and our esteemed leaders of the committee.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 507, expressing the profound sorrow of the House of Representatives on the anniversary of the accident that cost the lives of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia.

Let me express my appreciation to all of the members of the committee that has been nonpartisan and cohesive in considering all of our concerns coming before that esteemed committee.

I am very certain that the lives of these people have not been lost in vain. This space exploration research program has been one of the most successful research programs in the history of our country. We know that because we have investigated, we have listened to reports that we will improve upon what caused this accident, and we can hopefully say that this will never happen again.

Over 40 years ago the foresight of persons that came along before us caused us to get into this type of research. We also owe those leaders some homage for their foresight, and I am hoping that we will then have the foresight to continue the research.

Human space exploration is inherently risky. Distance, speed and environment that cannot support human life combine to make human space flights particularly precarious. Unfortunately, the world has new evidence of the dangers associated with space exploration. Millions watched as images of a singular, brilliant point of light in the sky became two, three and four points of light as the Space Shuttle Columbia broke apart over my home State of Texas and my hometown of Dallas.

Today we honor these brave men and women on the anniversary of their fateful 16-day mission dedicated to research in physical, life and space sciences. This most unfortunate and tragic loss of five men and two women, representing the faces of a diversity of races and nationalities, will be mourned for these great American heroes and heroines, and we will never forget the reasons why they were in space, exploring how we can make life better on this Earth.

Mr. Speaker, on January 28, 2004, due to an illness, I unfortunately missed four recorded votes on S. 1920. I would like the Record to reflect that had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 8, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 9, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 10, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 11, I would have voted ``aye.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 672, I missed due to unavoidable circumstances. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''