Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, how appropriate today as we are engaged in battle abroad that we pause to honor Dwight David Eisenhower, and how appropriate that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the great State of Kansas have chosen to erect this statue that will be on display in our Rotunda on June 4 and will then later be moved to a permanent spot in recognition of the great achievements of Dwight David Eisenhower.

I join with the chairman and the entire Kansas delegation in saluting and recognizing this great American, Dwight David Eisenhower.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 84, which would provide for acceptance of a statue of the late President Dwight Eisenhower, presented by the people of Kansas, for placement in the Capitol as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection. Once presented, the statue will become the property of the American people.

The concurrent resolution would also authorize use of the Rotunda of the Capitol on June 4, 2003, for a ceremony presenting the statue of the United States and providing for its display in the Rotunda for six months, after which it would be moved by the Architect of the Capitol to a permanent location in the Capitol selected by the Joint Committee on the Library (JCL).

This is a common form of resolution that Congress has often passed when states are submitting statues for the National Statuary Hall Collection. There is no legal requirement for us to take this action in order to accept the new statue from Kansas, and the practice has not always been followed, but it has been a fairly common practice since the 19th Century.

The arrival of the Eisenhower statue will be historic in one way because this is the first statue ever presented by a state to replace an existing statue in the Statuary Hall Collection. Pursuant to P.L. 106-554, the Legislative Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, enacted in 2000, states are now allowed to replace their existing statues no more frequently than once every 10 years, subject to the approval of the Joint Committee on the Library. No state may ever have more than two such statues as part of the Collection.

On October 9, 2002, members of the Joint Committee, by a written poll, approved the Eisenhower statue as a replacement for that of George Washington Glick, a former Kansas Governor in the 1880's, whose statue was received in the U.S. Capitol in 1914. Disposition of the Glick statue, which remains the property of the United States in the meantime, will also be determined by the Joint Committee on the Library. Pursuant to the statute, ownership of any replaced statue shall be transferred back to the state, subject to JCL approval. I am hopeful that the State of Kansas will find a suitable location for this statue.

Madam Speaker, this concurrent resolution is sponsored by the entire Kansas delegation and honors Kansas' most famous son, President Eisenhower. He is certainly a worthy recipient of being honored by a statue in America's most prestigious collection here in the Capitol. I would also like to compliment Representative Dennis Moore, Jim Moran, Jim Ryan, and Todd Tiahrt of the Kansas delegation for their work on this effort to honor President Eisenhower and I appreciate the opportunity to join with them in this effort by managing this bill for the Minority.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this effort to honor President Eisenhower by joining the Kansas Delegation, Chairman Ney and myself in voting for this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if I might reclaim my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlemen from Kansas and join with them in saluting Dwight David Eisenhower and also rising on behalf of George Washington Glick. I know that the good people of Kansas and the Representatives here will make sure that this historic figure, as well, receives his just place back in Kansas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the men and women who wear the uniform and protect our freedoms. I rise on behalf of their families and loved ones who wait and pray for their speedy and safe return.

This is a solemn moment for the Nation. There has been disagreement here at home and abroad about the policies of preemption. The men and women who wear the uniform don't make policy. They are neither diplomats nor politicians. They are soldiers and their duty is to salute and follow orders. Every member of Congress joins in unwavering support of them and their families for their sacrifice.

I have openly disagreed with the policies that have led us to this moment. This evening we pause as a Congress to salute and honor our troops. And while I strongly disagree with the Administration's policies, this is not the resolution or forum to express my differences. This evening our hearts, our prayers, and our gratitude goes out to the uniformed members of the armed services. God bless them. God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, in the January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address, the President proposed a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells to power cars, buses, trucks, homes and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases. Over the next five years, the proposed hydrogen fuel initiative would develop the technologies and infrastructure to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation.

I rise today to introduce a Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Authorization bill that would fully authorize the President's hydrogen fuel Initiative, providing a total of $1.2 billion over 5 years. Specifically, the bill would fully authorize funding for the President's Fiscal Year 2004 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies budget request at $182 million and provide an additional $1.018 billion across the following 4 years to fully fund the initiative through FY08.

Both the Fuel Cell Technology programs and the Hydrogen Technology Programs authorized in this bill are identified as key components of the Administration's FreedomCAR initiative in the FY04 budget proposal and represent a significant portion of the overall programs that make up FreedomCAR. This initiative has also been developed in response to the recommendations of the May 2001 National Energy Policy (NEP), which specifically recommended: (1) the development of next-generation technology, including hydrogen and fusion; (2) Development of an education campaign that communicates the benefits of alternative forms of energy, including hydrogen and fusion; and (3) Focused research and development efforts on integrating current programs regarding hydrogen, fuel cells, and distributed energy.

Additionally, the bill ensures a continued focus on ``core'' fuel cell power plant technology research and development programs that will be necessary to accelerate the technology to meet the goals established to bring this technology to market. These core elements include programs that help to address low cost, high-efficiency, fuel flexible, modular fuel cell power systems, improved manufacturing production and processes, high temperature membranes, cost effective fuel processing for natural gas, fuel cell stack and system reliability, durability and cold start capability.

Pursuing the development of this technology strikes at the very core our national security, economic stability, and environmental conscious. We have before us, for the first time in human history, the technology to provide clean, reliable energy for every person, home, business, and vehicle in America. With this technology, we have the opportunity to end once and for all America's reliance on foreign energy sources while at the same time creating quality jobs for the next century in a new and expanding technological field.

I urge my colleagues to support this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, in a world where too often neighbors have become strangers, the meaning of ``Love thy neighbor'' has dwindled. Fred Rogers never lost that spirit. He accepted us into his neighborhood, into his home, and presented our children with a message that you should be loved for who you are.

``The whole idea,'' said Mr. Rogers, ``is to look at the television camera and present as much love as you possibly could to a person who needs it.''

Fred Rogers recognized the power of television to carry out that message of caring, and become involved in children's broadcasting during its infancy. In the early 1950s he began working in public television at WQED, the first community public television station in the nation. On his lunch breaks, he attended Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and graduated magna cum laude with the Class of 1962 with his Master's in Divinity. The day after graduation he was called to Canada to being MISTEROGERS, the show that would evolve into Mister Rogers' Neighborhood on his return to Pittsburgh a year later.

Mr. Rogers' teaching did not end at the close of each broadcast, or even when he left the studio. Through Family Communications, Inc., Fred Rogers was able to foster girls' involvement in math and science, educate children about the dangers of prejudice, and teach pre- schoolers anger management. Through Safe Havens Training Project, Mr. Rogers was able to educate childcare workers on how to deal with children that witnessed violence, proving them a place where they could feel safe.

Fred Rogers also remained active in the ministry, educating a new generation of ministers at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary's Summer Youth Institute. Mr. Rogers would spend an afternoon with the teenagers, hoping to impart to them the importance of the doctrine of love and caring that he had made the center of his life.

Mr. Rogers was a teacher, an educator, and a presence in many of our children's lives. The neighborhood will miss him.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and wish to associate myself with the remarks of my esteemed colleague from Florida (Mr. Mica) on what has become a quintessential Kodak moment for the Members of this august body. And I look forward to that photo opportunity because I agree with the gentleman that this clearly is a historic moment for the House as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 40, authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda on April 30, 2003, for a ceremony sponsored by the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, pursuant to Public Law 106-292, to observe the days of remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust.

I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, and I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for bringing it before us today, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the new chief deputy majority whip, for introducing it.

Congress provides for this ceremony every year during the spring. Related events will be occurring all over the country. I am proud to acknowledge that it has set a precedent in the State of Connecticut. I presided over that chamber's Holocaust memorial services for 8 years.

These related events provide Americans of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds to reflect on the Holocaust, to remember its victims and to strengthen our commitment to democracy and human rights. It is appropriate that we use the Capitol rotunda, the citadel for the rule of law and the location of so many historic ceremonies, to again draw attention to one of the greatest tragedies in human history. It reminds us that such events must never be permitted to occur.

Each year the ceremony has a theme geared to specific events which occurred during the Holocaust, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has pointed out. This year's theme for the days of remembrance is ``For Your Freedom and Ours,'' to honor the courageous armed resistance of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto to deportation and slaughter in the Nazi death camps.

Between July and September of 1942 the Germans deported nearly 300,000 Jews from the Warsaw ghetto for execution. Cut off from assistance from the outside world, poorly armed resistance forces fought the German military for a month, in April and May of 1943, until the ghetto was finally destroyed. This resistance served as a symbolic victory and protest in the fight against oppression and helped raise the consciousness about the atrocities Hitler was perpetrating in Europe.

While the days of remembrance commemorates historic events in the 1930s and 1940s in Europe, the issues raised by the Holocaust remain fresh in our memories as we survey the political scene in the world today. The nature and tactics of war and the identity of an enemy may change, but what remains is the terror, the cruelty, and the madness of it.

It is especially timely now to encourage public reflection on the faith of Holocaust victims and to remember that there was then and there is still today evil in the world. The ceremony we are authorizing today reminds us that individuals, as well as Nations, can strike a blow to preserve the balance on which human civilization rests.

I urge the passage of this concurrent resolution. I have no additional speakers, but I would just like to thank Matt Pinkus from our staff for his very thorough job and assistance in the comments that I used to address the body today.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Matthew R. Duksa, Sr. of Newington, Connecticut who died November 28, 2002 at the age of 80. Mr. Duksa was a longtime business owner in the First Congressional District and a valued member of the community.

Matt will long be remembered for his commitment to his business and community. He created the Borawski-Duksa funeral home in New Britain in 1949 and the Newington Memorial Funeral Home in Newington in 1952. He was president of both until his death, and held memberships in the Connecticut and National Funeral Director's Associations.

Throughout his life, Matt was intensely devoted to his family, to Connecticut, and to his country. He was a Newington volunteer firefighter for sixteen years, was director of the Newington volunteer ambulance, a member of Polish Businessmen and Falcons Nest #88, as well as a 3rd and 4th degree member of the Knights of Columbus Council 3884 in Newington.

Those who knew Matt, knew him for his integrity, contagious sense of humor, endless curiosity, love of life, and twinkling blue eyes. He will be remembered as respectful of his staff, putting the needs of others before himself, always doing his best, living life to its fullest, and showing love continuously. Matthew Duska will be greatly missed by his friends, family, and his community and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will put an end to the embarrassing legacy that the federal government has created for itself in failing to fully fund our children's education and saddling the states with tens of billions in unfunded mandates. I refer of course to the failure of the federal government to provide for mandatory full funding for the special education program--or IDEA.

Currently, the federal government does not meet the financial obligations for special education it committed to in 1975 when the ``Education for all Handicapped Children Act'' (renamed Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) was first passed by Congress. This shortfall places an onerous financial burden on local communities who must find alternate resources, such as higher property taxes, to fund special education.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a civil rights statute that provides funding to states and helps states fulfill their constitutional obligation to provide a public education for all children with disabilities. IDEA serves more than six and a half million children today. Underlying IDEA is the basic principle that states and school districts must make available a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21, and must be educated with children who are not disabled ``to the maximum extent appropriate.''

Since 1975, Congress has authorized a federal commitment to special education funding at a level of 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure (APPE) on special education services. However, Congress has only appropriated funds to meet between 5 and 16 percent of the APPE, with FY2002 appropriations setting a record at 16.5 percent, or about $7.5 billion. But that is still only little more than a third of the so far embarrassingly unfulfilled, Federal commitment to our children. This has resulted in great burdens being placed on our school districts. For example, in the 2001-02 school year, the last completed school year, the town of Berlin, Connecticut spent $4,721,372 on special education, with all but $361,543 locally funded. This is outrageously short of the oft-stated goal of 40 percent federal financing. One can only begin to imagine the burden IDEA requirements, in the absence of federal funding, impose on our local school districts. We are literally forcing our schools to rob from Peter's education to pay for Paul's when we should fully fund both.

And now with passage of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2003, funding will go up about $1.4 billion. There will be a

lot of congratulatory backslapping because of this great increase. And it truly is a commendable step for Congress, but sadly one which fulfills less than half of the promise. Even with this increase, the federal share rises to only 18.2 percent of the 40 percent. I am sure the people of Berlin will appreciate the few thousand extra dollars they will get as a result of this increase. But the reality is that they need is the hundreds of thousands of extra dollars that is owed to them.

As a former teacher, member of a school board, State Senator, and now Congressman, I have constantly heard a clear message from local educators and administrators that more resources must be committed to provide fair and adequate educational opportunities to children with special needs, and that the federal government must meet its commitment under IDEA. In the past, ``fully funding'' IDEA has generally been a theme for a handful of others who purport to fully fund IDEA but would take ten long years to do so. My bill recognizes that 25 years is enough to wait and mandates this federal funding now.

Let us be clear, this is a constitutional right. Local school districts do not have the discretion to not fulfill their obligations to children with special needs. Where does the approximately $10 billion in unfulfilled Federal pledges to the States come from? It has to be made up somewhere and will most likely come from other important, but not constitutionally mandated, priorities. This is the real cost of our inaction. It is either a tradeoff in spending or a property tax increase. Ultimately, the Federal Government must choose: either to support it's commitments or stop making them. We cannot afford to continue down this path of broken promises any longer. It does not have to be this way, of course. And I believe our local educational districts, the states and the American people deserve better from us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment Chairman Ney for bringing this important resolution to the Floor so expeditiously. I am also pleased that the Majority has agreed that the right of the minority members to control one-third of the select committee's staff and resources will be protected throughout the funding process.

I am pleased that we can act today to provide interim funding for this new select committee, which was created as a separate order of the House attached to the rules resolution, H. Res. 5, adopted on January 7.

The Select Committee on Homeland Security is charged with developing recommendations and reporting to the House by bill or otherwise on matters relating to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). In other words, it is a legislative committee of the House for matters which fall within its sphere, with referral of legislation to be decided by the Speaker.

The resolution before us today would provide interim funding through March 31, 2003, to get it off the ground and running for a short time, by which time the House Administration Committee will have reported and the House adopted the biennial primary expense resolution providing funding for all committees and select committees of the House for the 108th Congress.

Both sides of the aisle have now named their members of the new select committee, to join the chairman, Rep. Cox, and the ranking member, Rep. Turner of Texas, so it is now ready to conduct business.

I also look forward to seeing the new chairman and ranking member appear in a few weeks to testify before the House Administration Committee about the committee's agenda for the next two years, as we prepare the biennial resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that the Democratic Leader as appointed my good fried the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, as the ranking member of this new committee. I serve with Rep. Turner on the Armed Services Committee, and am delighted that he will have the opportunity to lead our party in rising to the challenges of providing effective homeland security against the international threats facing us today and to expand on his past legislative accomplishments in the field of national defense. He is clearly the right person for a job like this.

Ths is a tremendous challenge. We must protect America from terrorism while defending the freedoms and liberties which are the foundation of our democracy. We must help organize and supervise a major new government department of historic size and responsibility. The House has made a good start with this select committee and its distinguished leadership on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, creation of the select committee will expand the House's ability to deal with these critical issues, but, as with any new entity in a legislative body, it may take some time to fully define its role and what its inter-relationships with the regular standing committees of the House will be. I and the other members of the House Administration Committee look forward to working on a bipartisan basis with the members of the select committee to help make that effort a success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Do Not Call Implementation Act, H.R. 395, which will authorize the Federal Trade Commission to establish a landmark national do-not-call registry that will allow consumers to opt-out of unwanted and harassing telemarketing calls. With passage of this bill, our families will be able to wind down their long days by eating a peaceful dinner without the incessant calling that so often annoys and disrupts our time with our families.

Electronic market capabilities and strategies have become more aggressive as technology has advanced and action needs to be taken to protect the peace and privacy of people in their homes. I feel that this legislation, which is similar to a Connecticut law, goes a long way in accomplishing that. The intention of telemarketers and others are by no means sinister, but Americans must have the means to protect themselves from different kinds of intrusions, including the frequent bothersome telemarketing calls interrupting a family dinner, which this legislation would enable them to do. As different kinds of technology continue to move forward, we must be vigilant in ensuring that the personal privacy rights of our citizens are not being encroached upon.

The larger issue of privacy in our nation does not end with this legislation, obviously, but rather this bill becomes one of several tools that Congress has been able to employ to protect our citizens. There are still other avenues of privacy that must continue to be safeguarded including wireless services, financial information as well as computers and communications. This legislation is certainly an important step in this direction.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 26, on final passage of H.R. 395, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, today the Distinguished Gentleman from Virginia Mr. J. Randy Forbes and I reintroduced bi- partisan legislation designed to revitalize an industry that is essential to maintaining this country's economic growth, technological superiority, and military preeminence.

Since Orville and Wilbur Wright pioneering flight almost 100 years ago, aviation technology in the United States has reached a level of success and development unparalleled in world history. According to a recent report on ``The National Economic Impact of Civil Aviation,'' the total economic impact of civil aviation exceeded more than $900 billion and 11 million jobs to the U.S. economy in the year 2000, roughly 9 percent of the total U.S. gross domestic product. However, despite the historical strength of this industry, it is clear that the United States is involved in a difficult struggle to maintain our preeminence in the aerospace field, both commercially and militarily.

In January of 2001, the European Union unveiled its plan for gaining dominance in the global aerospace market entitled, ``European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020.'' This plan lays out an ambitious, $93 billion, 20-year agenda for winning global leadership in aeronautics and aviation. In stark contrast to the vision set by the Europeans, the U.S. has cut by half its expenditures on aeronautics research & development (R&D) over the past two decades. This downward trend has coincided with a similar trend in the U.S. share of the world aerospace market, which declined from about 70 percent of the global market to less than 50 percent now. In fact, the recently completed report of the Presidential Commission on the Future of the Aerospace Industry echoed these concerns and stated that ``The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be a global aerospace leader in the 21st century,'' and that ``government policies and investments in long-term research have not kept pace with the changing world.'' In fact, the Commission recommended that ``the federal government significantly increase its investment in basic aerospace research, which enhances U.S. national security, enables breakthrough capabilities, and fosters an efficient, secure and safe aerospace transportation system''.

It was as a result of these negative trends and the importance for the long-term economic and security interest of the United States, that Mr. Forbes and I joined with a bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2003. This bill, which last year received strong support in the other body as well as in the House, establishes a broad-based agenda to reinvigorate America's aeronautics and aviation R&D enterprise and maintain America's competitive leadership in aviation by:

Reversing the trend of declining Federal investments in

aeronautics and aviation R&D by doubling funding over five

years. Funding is increased to $900 million in 2006

(approximately the level they were in 1998), and $1.15

billion in 2008.

Following the recommendations of the FAA's Research,

Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, doubling

funding over 5 years to $550 million in 2008.

Establishing a focal point for aeronautics R&D by re-

establishing an Office of Aeronautics reporting directly to

the NASA Administrator.

Establishing an R&D initiative to develop technologies

within a decade to build commercial no-noise, low-emissions,

and be highly-energy efficient.

Establishing an R&D initiative directed at reinvigorating

the nation's rotorcraft R&D that will address the nation's

civil and military needs for decades to come.

Addressing the need for a long-term Federal R&D effort to

develop technologies for an environmentally-friendly,

commercially-viable supersonic transport capable of flight

over land.

Including independent review mechanisms to ensure that the

agency is pursuing technology concepts in a cost-effective

manner.

Authorizing the establishment of one or more university-

based centers for research in aviation training for flight

crews and air traffic controllers as new technology and

procedures are added to the nation's infrastructures.

Establishing a program of scholarships to help replenish

the nation's pool of aeronautical engineers.

Tackling the problem of delays in and unreliability of the

air transportations system directly by authorizing funds for

NASA to work with NOAA on research to improve significantly

the reliability of 2 to 6 hour aviation weather forecasts.

Providing a significant funding to allow increased

attention to environment and energy-related projects and for

research on increasing the capacity, efficiency and safety of

the air traffic system.

The basic premise of the legislation is that the U.S. can best meet the R&D challenge mounted by the Europeans and others through focused R&D investments that will enable future aircraft and rotorcraft technologies that are extremely quiet, fuel-efficient, and low in emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The development of such aircraft will enable the U.S. aviation industry to dominate anticipated aviation markets, as well as create new markets in cities and regions whose airports have been underutilized because of perceived negative environmental impacts. In addition, the new aviation capabilities could allow innovative approaches to meeting the future demand for travel by the American public, open up new possibilities for the future national air traffic management system, and make aerospace technologies more environmentally friendly.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of Ohio's own Wilbur and Orville Wright achieving the world's first successful powered flight, thus leading the way for 100 years of American domination in aviation. But now, facing new and serious challenges, leadership will be required to sustain our aerospace industry to make it as vibrant a symbol of America's might in the 21st century as it was in the 20th. This legislation is an opportunity for the country to signal its commitment to a strong and robust aviation sector and its intent to revitalize it in the face of new global challenges. America has long recognized that its long-term strength and security, and its ability to reach and sustain high levels of economic growth, depends on maintaining its edge in scientific achievement and technological innovation. If we lose our edge in the areas where we are most vibrant, as it is happening now, our economic prospects will be dimmed and our security will be threatened. Aviation was born in America nearly 100 years ago; it is not slipping to number 2 on our watch.

Mr. Speaker, exploring the unknown has always been perilous. Magallan died in the Philippines defending his men as they were circumnavigating the globe. Lewis and Clark faced numerous dangers as they were exploring the bounds of the American frontier. There is no longer any terra incognita, so man's curiosity has led him to explore space. We are still literally light years away from exploring what our grandchildren will one day be familiar with. As we embark on our quest to find out what our galaxy holds, we have almost forgotten that it takes a great deal of bravery to strike out into the unknown, and that it is not without great risk.

On February 1 we were reminded of the danger that we had almost forgotten. Among the seven crewmembers was Dr. Kalpana Chawla. Dr. Chawla grew up in an impoverished small town in India where women are not expected to get an education, much less float in the weightlessness of space. Nevertheless, she persevered, and is an inspiration to anyone in grinding poverty whose dreams may be laughed at. Pilot Willie McCool was the son of a Vietnam veteran who finished second in his Naval Academy class, evidence that we are sending the best and brightest out on these dangerous missions so they may accomplish these important objectives. Navy Captain David M. Brown was a gymnast at the College of William and Mary, and when he addressed the campus in September he noted that what he was doing was similar to what the College's founders did when they came over from England, and that they faced similar risks. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Michael P. Anderson watched Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the historic Apollo 11 flight in 1969, and the excitement never left him. He served as an inspiration to minority children across the United States as he was one of the first African- Americans to join NASA in 1994. The shuttle's commander, Rick D. Husband, was a model of perseverance. He tried and failed three times to get into NASA, but he never gave up hope that one day he too could soar into the cosmos, and on the fourth try was accepted. He was a talented pilot who had been able to fly since the age of 18. Navy Commander Laurel Blair Salton Clark was no stranger to the dangers of the unknown; she had conducted medical evacuations from submarines before joining NASA.

Finally, there was Illan Ramon. He was the son of a Holocaust survivor and had fought in the Yom Kippur War and the Iraeli-Lebanese conflict, so his bravery was proven well before that fateful Saturday morning. he was an Israeli Air Force pilot who served as an inspiration to his country, which is in a time of turmoil, doubt and suffering. He showed us all that space does not belong to America, but that it is for all of mankind to experience, regardless of nationality or religion.

Columbia's name comes from Christopher Columbus. He too faced the dangers of hurtling into the unknown, yet without him America would not be what it is today. We were the first nation to put men on the moon because we are instilled with Columbus's spirit of wonder, curiosity, and adventure. We want to learn and explore, know everything there is to be known and then share it with the world. This is why we have NASA, why we have space shuttles, and, regrettably, why these seven souls lost their lives over Texas that blue morning.

For their service and dedication to this vision, I thank them on behalf of my constituents and my children. Their lives will be filled with inspiration and wonder thanks to these brave heroes' dedication and commitment to the noble enterprise of scientific discovery.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 7, apparently the card did not register a ``yes'' vote. Let the Record show had the machine recorded the vote, I would have voted in the affirmative.