Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Of course, as has been pointed out very aptly by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), our country suffered a major tragedy on February 1, 2003. Of course, that was the day that the sky over my home State of Texas was filled with fiery debris from the Space Shuttle Columbia. We all mourn the loss of the seven brave men and women who perished that day, and will never forget their sacrifice. They made the ultimate sacrifices in the cause of space exploration and, of course, in the cause of science.

In the weeks and months since the loss of Columbia and its crew, the focus has been on finding the cause of the accident, not to place blame but to prevent future tragedy. Examination of shuttle debris has been a very important part of that investigation.

We know that it has not been an easy job to collect this. It has been a tedious job, and it has been day in and day out, long hours. It was scattered over at least two States with the bulk of it spread over a wide area of my home State of Texas. Yet within hours of the accident, we had teams of people, men and women, young men and young women, out scouring the countryside for that debris; and it was a very impressive effort.

It involved people from a number of Federal agencies, including personnel from the Federal Emergency Management Agencies, from NASA, from the United States Forest Service, and the EPA among others. It also involved people from State and local agencies who worked very long hours, in all kinds of weather; and it also involved citizens from many States who volunteered their time and volunteered their energy to this task. We owe all of them our thanks.

We also offer our condolences to those who perished when their helicopter crashed during the search for debris.

We know, Madam Speaker, and I also want to note, that there is another aspect of the story that needs to be highlighted, and that is the heartwarming response of my east Texas friends and my neighbors in the search in the area who comprised the search teams. There have been countless examples of folks in Texas opening their homes and hearts to those who have been engaged in the grueling work of debris recovery, and I am very proud of all of them.

The concentrated multiagency debris collection effort that was led by FEMA ended on April 30 when FEMA turned over the responsibilities for any further collection efforts to NASA. While that effort will continue, we can take stock of what has been accomplished today. It is an impressive accomplishment.

Nearly 85,000 pounds of debris, about 38 percent of Columbia's dry weight, was recovered. That was far more than had been hoped for when the search began in February. In addition, nearly 83,000 specific items have been recovered; and more than 79,000 of those have been identified. Most importantly, the board investigating the Columbia accident has said that the debris collected so far has been invaluable in helping them in their efforts to determine the cause of the accident.

Madam Speaker, I think the Nation owes a debt of gratitude to the thousands of individuals and organizations who work so tirelessly to recover the space shuttle debris. I do not personally think that that search is over because, as my colleagues know, common sense tells us and our knowledge of history, of weather facts, there is still snow on the ground in a lot of the area where the shuttle began to come apart. There are some very deep lakes that because of weather hazards we have not really been able to search those.

We need to really wait until that snow vanishes as the summer comes on, to where we can really look particularly around Fallon, Nevada, in that area, where a lot of our indications are that the very first major part of that Shuttle came apart. Then we need to get to the American people not 10 reasons that might have caused it, but get to the cause of it, because we have three more shuttles that we want to send up. We still have to have a presence in space, but we want it to be a safe presence, we want it to be safe for the men and women who will man them.

I think it is to be noted that I introduced House Resolution 222 as a way for this body to express our thanks on behalf of all America. We have a number of cosigners, and I hope we have more. I think it is the right thing to do, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the delegate from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), who is on the Committee on International Relations, a very important committee.

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science, and my fellow Congresswoman from the neighboring county of Dallas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a long-time supporter of NASA, being from the Houston area.

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

I urge the passage of this resolution. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for his participation and his support. He is a man of medicine and a very valuable member of the Committee on Science. I thank him for his input and will expect and appreciate his support of this resolution which I know is coming.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Federal Communications Commission's Triennial Review of the 1996 Telecommunications Act adopted over two months ago on February 20, 2003.

Today, the telecommunications industry waits for some certainty and clarity regarding these new rules adopted by the FCC. These rules, dealing with local telephone competition, have yet to be put to paper so that the affected companies can review the order and make business plans accordingly.

The telecommunications sector of our economy is hemorrhaging. Lost jobs, reduced capital investment and loss of investor confidence have affected nearly every company in this sector. The lack of clarity, as to these new rules, is prolonging this downward spiral.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Commission to act on this issue and do it as soon as possible. This sector is too important to be left on hold.

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

(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, of course I rise in support of this act. It authorizes an interagency research program that will

have enormous consequences for the future of our Nation. It is bipartisan legislation introduced in the Committee on Science by the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), who took the lead on it. It is cosponsored, of course, by Members from both sides of the aisle. This bill, which was ordered reported by a unanimous vote of the committee, will authorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative that is part of the President's budget request.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), and I thank him for his leadership, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) in developing this legislation. I want to thank Chairman Boehlert for working very cooperatively with Democratic leaders and Members and moving the bill through the committee. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for his hard work on the bill. His efforts have led to a strengthening of the outside advisory mechanism for the research program and to a process to help facilitate the transfer of research innovations to commercial applications.

Mr. Chairman, the advancement of civilization has been tied to human capabilities to manipulate and fashion materials. For example, the Stone Age gave way to the Bronze Age, which, in turn, gave way to the Iron Age. The trend has been a better understanding of material properties at a smaller and more detailed level.

We know now that we stand at the threshold of an age in which materials can be fashioned atom by atom. As a result, new materials can be designed with specified characteristics to satisfy any of those specific purposes.

The word ``revolutionary'' has become a cliche, but nanotechnology truly is revolutionary. In the words of a report from the National Research Council: ``The ability to control and manipulate atoms, to observe and simulate collective phenomena, to treat complex materials systems, and to span length scales from atoms to everyday experience, provides opportunities that were not even imagined a decade ago.''

Nanotechnology will have enormous consequences for the information industry, for manufacturing, for medicine, and for health. Indeed, the scope of this technology is so broad as to leave virtually no product untouched.

The potential reach and impact of nanotechnology argues for careful attention to how it may affect society and, in particular, attention to particular downsides of the technology. While some concerns have already been raised that seem more in the realm of science fiction, there are also very real issues with the potential health and environmental effect of nanosized particles.

I believe it is important for the successful development of nanotechnology that potential problems be addressed from the very beginning in a straightforward and in an open manner. We know too well that negative public perceptions about the safety of a technology can have serious consequences for its acceptance and use. This has been the case with such technologies as nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and stem cell therapies.

Research is needed to provide understanding of potential problems arising from nanotechnology applications in order to allow informed judgments to be made by risks and cost-benefit trade-offs for specific implementations of the technology. Efforts must be made by the research community to open lines of communication with the public to make clear potential safety risks are being explored and not ignored.

We cannot once again go down the path where the research community simply issues a statement to the public: ``Trust us, it is safe.'' I am confident that this bill will help accomplish this goal.

My colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), will offer an amendment at the appropriate point to further strengthen this aspect of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 766 authorizes $2.4 billion over 3 years for nanotechnology research and development at five agencies: the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, NASA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and EPA. In addition to setting funding goals, this bill puts in place mechanisms for planning and coordinating and implementation of interagency research programs.

The bill also includes provisions for outside expert advice to help guide the research program and ensure its relevance to emerging technological opportunities and to industry. The advisory committee required by the bill is charged to review the goals, the content, the implementation, and administration of the nanotechnology initiative. The bill provides the administration with the flexibility either to designate an existing advisory panel or to establish a new panel to carry out its role. It is important, I think, whatever approach is used, that the advisory committee encompass a range of expertise needed to assess the technological content of the initiative as well as the education, technology transfer, commercial application, and societal and ethical research aspects of this program.

Equally important, the advisory committee must focus sustained attention on the Nanotechnology Initiative over its lifetime in order to meet the comprehensive assessments required and the requirements specified by this legislation.

So I am pleased that H.R. 766 has identified the need for research to provide understanding of potential problems arising from nanotechnology applications. Annual reporting requirements, added by an amendment in committee by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell), will allow Congress to track the agencies' activities that are related to societal and ethical concerns.

A problem that was identified in the Committee on Science's hearings on the bill is the difficulty that can arise in transitioning results from nanotechnology research into actual products and commercial applications. The gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) successfully proposed an amendment in committee that will help address the problem through greater use of the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Research Program.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as is clear from the hearing record for H.R. 766, this bill enjoys widespread support from the research community and from industry. This is an important bill. It will help ensure the Nation maintains a vigorous research effort in a technology area that is emerging as increasingly important for the economy and for national security.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support its final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Silicon Valley of California (Mr. Honda). I have already explained his importance to this legislation, his background and his ability to lead the development of nanotechnology. I am glad to recognize him as one of authors of this bill.

(Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a very valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Dallas County, Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), my neighbor.

Mr. Chairman, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, we have a great bill. We think that this amendment would help it. I support the bill whether we put the amendment on or not; but it seems to me that this just adds toxicological studies, which simply means in plain American language is we want to add health effects to it. In subsection 5, page 4, line 23, they point and ensure that societal and ethical concerns, including environmental concerns and potential implications of human performance enhancement and the possible development of nonhuman intelligence will be addressed. This simply adds health to it.

I think it aids the bill substantially. It brings some common sense to it, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I think it makes sense, and the gentleman who offers the amendment is from Houston, Texas, which is a salient part of the energy thrust. And Texas being one of the 10 States that produces energy for the other 40 States thinks this is important. I think it is important to add it. It is simple. It simply adds including research on the potential of nanotechnology to produce or facilitate the production of clean, inexpensive energy. I think it helps, and I think it is consistent with the rest of the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, Texans cannot only think big, we can think little, too; and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was correct when he pointed out that the amendment directs NSF to provide assistance to the National Nanotechnology Initiative in setting up and running the citizens panels, and I think that has to be in there because otherwise how would they know how to run the citizens panels if they do not hear from the citizens?

I yield to the gentleman from New York. And I think the gentleman is being cooperative in trying to help. I recognize that.

Mr. Chairman, I will wait to see the fruits of the gentleman's labors, and I thank the chairman for this extra work he is going into.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will paraphrase Will Rogers, who said he never met a man he didn't like. I think it is pretty obvious that Ms. Jackson-Lee, who is one of the hardest workers that I know in this Congress, never met an amendment or a bill she could not upgrade and she could not talk about and could not suggest on. I think she stresses the protection of societal and ethical issues.

As I said in my opening statement, I think it is important for the successful development of nanotechnology that potential problems be addressed from the beginning in a straightforward and open manner, and I think that is exactly what the gentlewoman has done. This is the amendment she requested, and this is the time I think to look at this amendment.

We are not going to burn the barn down and run the cattle off if we do not get every amendment we want. The chairman has worked with us and tried to help us. If there is any way to work this out to something less than the request she made, this is the time to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the chairman to get his feelings about whether or not that can be done or whether or not we have to simply put it to a vote of the Congress.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for that, and I yield back to the author to make an answer.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that I have assured the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) that we will give her representation at conference, and I have the greatest belief that the chairman will give us his ear during that time and as much support as he feels is justified at the time and under the circumstances. I am happy to do that for the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

I am pleased to support this legislation. It is the product of a lot of months of work, not only this year, but also in the last Congress we worked hard and worked on into the conference committee. We were able to preserve a lot of the language that was agreed to last year, but never formally adopted by the conferees. I was disappointed in that.

The members of the Committee on Science have worked well together on both sides of the docket to produce provisions that make the Federal Government an enabling partner in energy research and development to enable us to

develop the technologies necessary to conserve energy and use it more efficiently. Provisions in this bill also jumpstart the transition to a hydrogen economy and take the next step of exploring the possibility of fusion energy.

These, of course, are all high-risk, high-payoff, and long-lead time, and in my view an appropriate role for the Federal Government to play in energy.

However, in order to survive to the long term, we have to ensure that supplies of domestic oil and natural gas continue to flow. The transition from an oil and gas economy to one based on fusion and renewable energy will be extremely long. The fact is that it is easy to find and produce oil and gas. That amount has already been consumed. The challenge is getting it, I think, at the more difficult producing horizons. This legislation, I think, does that.

I have always said that the energy policy we need is an incentive to look for it and a reward for finding it. This program actually comes as close to that as any I have seen in the 20 years I have been here.

I am pleased that the Committee on Science has included my ultradeep and unconventional onshore exploration and production R&D provisions in division B. Mr. Chairman, in reality this is actually an important production provision masquerading as an R&D provision.

The estimated volumes of natural gas that can be produced from the middle and western Gulf of Mexico are truly astonishing, 69 trillion cubic feet by one estimate.

Under these provisions, an industry-led consortium will lead a crash program to develop the technologies necessary to drill and produce these hydrocarbons at extreme depths. A companion program will develop the technologies necessary to drill and produce the hard-to-reach oil and gas on shore. I think a crash R&D program will go a long way to meeting the increased demands for natural gas that are expected to occur in the next 15 years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a very valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a special student from Gladewater, TX, Brittany Linder, who was a grand prize winner in the Red Ribbon Week ``I am drug-free because...'' essay contest sponsored by the city of Longview Partners in Prevention. Brittany represents Weldon Intermediate school in the Gladewater independent school district and is a fourth-grade student of Mrs. Cathy Bedair. She is the daughter of John and Blane Linder and the granddaughter of my longtime friend Carolyn Linder.

According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, although recent trends in youth drug use have stabilized, the rates of use remain at high levels. Youth substance abuse, as we know, can lead to many other problems, including the development of delinquent behavior, anti-social attitudes and numerous health risks. These problems not only impact the child but also the child's family, friends, community and ultimately society as a whole.

Brittany speaks to this issue in her essay: ``I am drug free because if I take drugs, I would not be able to realize my dreams. I would not be able to be a good teacher, or mother. If I take drugs, I would hurt valuable brain cells and when I found my dreams, I would not be able to do it.''

The essay entries from area fourth-graders were judged by LeTouneau University students. Throughout our Nation, dedicated teachers, parents, clergy, law enforcement officers, healthcare providers, local government officials and community volunteers are involved in various drug-prevention programs that raise awareness among our young people of the dangers of drug use and help those already suffering the consequences of such use. Beginning these programs at a young age is one key to their success, and I commend programs such as the Drug Free Week essay contest that seek to instruct and involve our young people in this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Brittany on her winning essay and commend her for taking a strong stand against the use of drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for myself and for Chairman Boehlert of the House Committee on Science to recognize Oliver R. Smoot, vice-president for external voluntary standards relations at the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), as he begins his term as the President of the International Standards Organization (ISO). It is a high honor and a major achievement to be asked to be the leader of the World's standards community but it is not surprising that Ollie Smoot is the one chosen. Mr. Smoot has long been a pillar of the standards community, most recently as President-elect of ISO and as Chairman of the American National Standards Institute, the organization which represents the United States in international standards matters and oversees the establishment of U.S. national standards. The ISO, which was established in 1947, serves as the world's primary entity for the adoption of uniform international standards that are relied by all of us every day. Without international agreement on how we measure, determine quality, and provide for health and safety life as we know it today would not be possible. ISO quietly, but effectively, has spent over 50 years helping over 140 nations reach agreement on the standards that underlie world trade, manufacturing, scientific research, and many other aspects of our lives. Since its founding only three other Americans have held the office of President of this worldwide federation.

We are fortunate that Oliver Smoot is ready, willing, and able to undertake major challenges since his service comes at a pivotal time when the importance of international standards is rapidly increasing. There may never have been a time when ISO faced bigger challenges. As tariffs and other trade barriers wane and world trade increases, the pressures to harmonize standards in many fields increases. As the world becomes more interdependent, the importance of international standards grows. As challenges to ISO's one-country, one vote system of representation mount, having a strong leader at the head of ISO becomes more and more essential. Fortunately, Mr. Smoot has an extensive background in standardization and conformity assessment policies both at the national and international level; he has been a strong leader in numerous ANSI Board-level committees and task forces and has served as chairman of the Institute's Finance Committee and Patent Group. As chairman of the ANSI Organization Member Council, he facilitated ANSI's policy-setting activities affecting more than 250 standard developers, professional societies, trade associations and academic institutions interested in standards, certification and conformity assessment. Balancing the needs of 140 nations can't be that much harder than presiding over the conflicting needs of everyone in the United States who has an interest in standards. If anyone is prepared for the challenge of running the ISO, we assume Oliver Smoot is. He has come a long way from the establishment of the standard ``Smoot'' as an undergraduate at MIT.

Mr. Smoot will be the guest of honor, on Wednesday the 26th of February at a House of Representatives reception to celebrate his new tenure as President of the ISO. I hope that many of you will take the opportunity at that point to congratulate Mr. Smoot personally. Oliver R. Smoot is a great American who has labored long for the betterment of Science and the global economy and I am pleased that this week he is getting long-deserved recognition of this service.

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). He is a friend of mine. He is a neighbor of mine. Our boundaries are contiguous. They talk about redistricting and I have always said, If they ever put me in Sam's district, he will have the best campaign manager in the world. It would be me because no one would want to run against this great man with his history, his background, the gifts he has given to this country, the suffering that he has suffered for this country.

I rise in support of this resolution and call for a full accounting of the 1,902 members of our Armed Forces who still remain unaccounted for in unmarked graves or uncharted jails somewhere out there. Among those we honor today are Sam Johnson and a number of others that together they put together a series of codes of communication with one another.

This resolution marks the 30th anniversary of his return home from being held captive for 7 years. Can you imagine that? Seven years. I think almost half of that in solitary.

If you have ever shaken hands with him you will feel the hands of a man who has had every bone in both of his hands broken, probably from holding the bars and being hit with bamboo, being beaten and treated unmercifully at the hands of an enemy.

In April 1966 during his 25th combat mission over North Vietnam, Major Johnson was shot down. He was taken prisoner. He was taken near Hanoi where he and his fellow POWs were subjected day and night to physical and mental abuse but refused to give up sensitive information on the American military campaign, using tap codes at the camp where they were able to keep in contact with one another.

Mr. Johnson began his career in the United States Air Force after graduating from my alma mater, Southern Methodist University. He served his country with distinction in the Vietnam War as well as the Korean War.

Listen to this: he earned two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, one Bronze Star of Valor, two Purple Hearts, four Air Medals and two Outstanding Unit Awards. He also served as a director of the Air Force Fighter Weapons School, popularly known as Top Gun and co-authored the first Air Force tactics manual for fighter pilots.

I am honored to count the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) as my good friend and his wife as our good friend. I hold him in high regard and respect very much the work he has done in strong support of our men and women in the military. As one of the few men and women in Congress who has fought in combat, he is a valued and respected advisor on military readiness for all of us here on this floor.

I also appreciate his tireless work on retirement, health and labor issues. Since being elected to Congress he has risen to the post of the highest-ranking Texas member on the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education and the Workforce, where he serves as chairman on the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

Madam Speaker, I proudly support this resolution and join my colleagues today in honoring this man and the men and women who served in Vietnam. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) is a true American. I am also proud to record our thoughts today on behalf of those on all wars and remember Sam Johnson, who school children, 200 years from now, will read about this great man. God bless him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a special student from Gladewater, TX, Brittany Linder, who was a grand prize winner in the Red Ribbon Week ``I am drug-free because . . .'' essay contest sponsored last fall by the city of Longview Partners in Prevention. Brittany represents Weldon Intermediate school in the Gladewater independent school district and is a fourth-grade student of Mrs. Cathy Bedair. She is the daughter of John and Blane Linder and the granddaughter of my longtime friend, Carolyn Linder.

According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, although recent trends in youth drug use have stabilized, the rates of use remain at high levels. Youth substance abuse, as we know, can lead to many other problems, including the development of delinquent behavior, anti-social attitudes and numerous health risks. These problems not only impact the child but also the child's family, friends, community and ultimately society as a whole.

Brittany speaks to this issue in her essay: ``I am drug free because if I take drugs, I would not be able to realize my dreams. I would not be able to be a good teacher, or mother. If I take drugs, I would hurt valuable brain cells and when I found my dreams, I would not be able to do it.''

The essay entries from area fourth-graders were judged by LeTourneau University students. Throughout our Nation, dedicated teachers, parents, clergy, law enforcement officers, healthcare providers, local government officials and community volunteers are involved in various drug-prevention programs that raise awareness among our young people of the dangers of drug use. Beginning these programs at a young age is one key to their success, and I commend programs such as the Red Ribbon Week that seek to instruct and involve our young people in this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Brittany on her winning essay and commend her for taking a strong stand against the use of drugs.

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

I am here, of course, to add my strong support for the resolution that is before us here today. I was at the Johnson Space Center yesterday in Houston for the memorial service, and I listened as the President offered a tribute to the crew of the space shuttle Columbia. I think he did a wonderful job of expressing the sentiments of all Americans, and it gave me a good feeling to be there. I felt good to be a part of the condolences to the families that were in attendance.

Today I am really pleased that the House of Representatives is pausing to recognize our debt as a Nation to the brave men and women who perished in the space shuttle. It is also fitting that this body offer our collective condolences to the families, which we did, and to the friends; and the President did a very good job of that. The astronaut in charge of the astronauts had something personal to say about each one of them. It was very fitting, and I know that I speak for all Members when I say that our thoughts and our prayers are with the families of these great American heroes. Their loss is a great loss to them. It is a personal loss to them as it is a great and tragic loss to our country.

We all watched with horror the tragic events of last Saturday unfolding. There will be time I think in the coming days to turn our attention to examining the evidence of the circumstances that led to this tragedy as well as the implications for America's space program. We have to do that. We have to look ahead. We have to go forward. That is necessary and important work, and the Congress will have to do it.

Today, however, I think should be a day for us to celebrate the lives of these heroes and to mourn their deaths. In that regard we must never forget that the shuttle astronauts were doing the important work of our space program. They were extending the frontiers of knowledge and working to benefit the lives of all of us through the important scientific research they were conducting on their flight.

Our Nation's achievements in space have been so impressive. We have taken it for granted. Their excellence almost put us to sleep as to the dangers that awaited the crews that we sent. We forget that their work was filled with risk. They often made it look easy and made it routine, but space exploration is still a dangerous mission, astronauts or explorers who are willing to risk their lives to improve life back here on earth, and those are the Columbuses and the Magellans of space.

Mr. Speaker, at a time of tragedy words are usually inadequate to express the depths of our sorrow. The crew members of the space shuttle Columbia were very special men and women. They set a shining example for all of us in the way we ought to live our lives. We solute them, and we mourn their passing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus; and pending that, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) be permitted to control the balance of the time.