Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention today to Barry Beringer, who served on the House Science Committee for over a decade and was the Committee's Chief Counsel for eight years.

Tragically, Barry was taken from us on September 29, after a courageous fight with pancreatic cancer. Until the very end, Barry was committed to the work of the Science Committee. He remained intimately involved even when he could not make it into the office. He acted as a mentor to our associate counsel through frequent telephone conversations, and he always wanted to do more, even as he was struggling with the fatigue and other ordeals of his illness.

Barry had an enormous impact on all of us who worked with him on Capitol Hill--both as a chief counsel and as a person. Barry served as chief counsel under three Chairmen, and that was no accident. Everyone who knew Barry knew that he could be relied upon for sound and proper advice, that he did not shade his answers. We also knew that he knew the Committee history backwards and forwards, that no one would have a better sense of how to make use of precedent. And, above all, we knew that no one knew more people on the Hill and had better relationships with a wide variety of colleagues. Barry could draw upon these relationships for information, for guidance, for assistance. In all his years on the Hill, Barry made only friends.

The strengths Barry had as a colleague grew out of the strengths he had as a person. He could draw upon so many friends on Capitol Hill because of the warm and decent person he was. Barry did not spend his time ``networking'' or building relationships for utilitarian purposes. He had a network simply because everyone who dealt with him liked him. They knew he was a caring person and a straightforward one. He treated everyone with respect. That is all too rare around the Capitol, and many of the notes we have received about Barry since his death pointed to his basic friendliness and decency.

But those of us who worked with him most closely knew that there was far more to Barry than just a pleasant congeniality. He was smart, funny, passionate, caring and kind. He pursued his interests in politics and history with fervor and good humor.

Yet there was nothing he cared about so much as he cared about his family. He talked often about his wife, Bonnie, and was as proud (and worried) as any parent could be about how his son Francis and his daughter Katie were faring. No one could know Barry without knowing about his family, and Fran gave a moving eulogy for his father.

Barry's loss will be hardest, of course, on his family. But those of us who worked with him all these years will also always have him in our minds and hearts. We still look for Barry when we have a question, and are caught up short by his absence. We tell a joke and wait to hear his laughter, or his quip in response. We look to him to show us how to behave well in difficult situations, and have to rely instead on the memory of how he acted. But that memory will be kept with us and will help us always.

Barry was, among so many other things, a devoted and model public servant. I know this body will mourn his loss and feel his absence for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, in honor of Taiwan's forthcoming National Day, I wish to congratulate Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian and the people of Taiwan for their economic and political successes during the years past.

Economically, the people in Taiwan enjoy one of the highest standards of living. Politically, it is a vibrant democracy with free elections, respect for human rights and a free press.

Taiwan also has a strong relationship with the United States. It is one of our major trading partners. Their students study in our colleges and universities and their people frequently choose the United States to spend their tourist dollars. In addition, their government has given us their total support of our war against global terrorism.

On their forthcoming National Day, I wish to assure our friends in Taiwan that we acknowledge and appreciate the strong ties between our two peoples.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of recognizing Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, and I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) for bringing forward this resolution.

The timing of this resolution is all too appropriate for those of us on the Committee on Science. Just last week we lost our long-time chief counsel, Barry Beringer, to pancreatic cancer at age 57. Barry was, among other things, a dedicated public servant, a tireless community activist, a loyal alumnus of Dickinson College, a dogged Civil War researcher, and a diehard Philadelphia Phillies fan. He was also, more importantly, a devoted husband and father; and his son, Francis, a sophomore at the College of William and Mary gave a moving eulogy for him at his funeral last week. In his eulogy, Francis captured well his father's warmheartedness, decency and humor.

Francis rightly noted that his father exemplified an ideal, which he dubbed being a ``man for others.''

Barry would have been embarrassed and surprised by all the richly- deserved accolades. He was truly a self-effacing man, not the most common trait on Capitol Hill. Last week's ceremony conveyed a true sense of Barry in all of his idiosyncratic uniqueness.

But there was one way in which Barry was not unique. Tragically, horribly, many share his fate every year as victims of pancreatic cancer. This is a cancer that almost always kills. We understand little about its cause, its course or its cure. We must spare no effort or expense in trying to change that, and making more Americans aware of the disease is a step toward accomplishing our goal.

In every congressional district, in every community there are too many people who have had to experience the kind of loss that we on the Committee on Science and this institution suffered last week.

Barry would not want to be remembered as a cancer victim. Indeed, he fought his disease nobly and bravely until his last days, and we will remember him always the wonderful individual he was during a special order on the floor next week. But it does no disservice to Barry to note that one of his many legacies will be that all of us will have a better understanding of the tragic consequences of pancreatic cancer. So I am pleased to see this House taking note of this horrible disease and committing itself to working to save others from what Barry suffered from and from the loss that his family, his friends and colleagues feel today.

Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Donald J. Mitchell passed away on Saturday, September 27, 2003. He is gone, but his life's work and patriotism will never be forgotten.

The life of Donald Mitchell is that of an all-American patriot. In times of war, he served his country as a carrier-based naval aviator in World War II and as a flight instructor during the Korean War.

In times of peace, he served his community. He was an optometrist by profession, but a public servant at heart as a Herkimer town councilman from 1954 to 1957, as mayor of the village from 1957 to 1960. From 1964 to 1972, during times of great change, he served as a New York State Assemblyman. Always

a leader, he was there too as the majority whip. And from 1972 to 1982, during times of great debate and political uncertainty, he served his country once again as one of the most effective members of this great institution, the people's House.

While in Congress, he was progressive and steady. He always took the high road and served his constituents with honor. I should know. During those 7 years, I proudly served as a member of Congressman Don Mitchell's staff. And after his retirement, I was elected to the seat he held.

For me, he was always a role model. Every day since, I have made it my goal as Representative Mitchell's successor in Congress to serve my constituents with the honor and dignity that Don Mitchell brought to the job. Don Mitchell left an indelible mark on the fabric of our society.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Committee on Science, I am an avid supporter of programs that encourage the youth of America to push the limits of innovation and originality in science. One such program is the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge.

Created in 1999, Discovery Communications, Inc., designed the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge as part of the solution to America's chronic underachievement in science and math. The annual national contest responds to evidence that academic performance and interest in science among American students declines dramatically as students become older. This is particularly evident during the middle school years.

For these reasons, the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge identifies and honors America's top middle school student who demonstrates the best skills in leadership, teamwork, and scientific problem solving. More than 6,000 middle school students have entered the challenge since its inception in order to compete for the title of ``America's Top Young Scientist of the Year.'' Since 1999, scholarship awards for the students have totaled more than $400,000 and challenge winners have participated in science-related trips to far-off places, including the Roslin Institute in Midlothian, Scotland, and the El Yunque rain forest in Puerto Rico.

On September 17, 2003, Discovery Communications, Inc., announced the 40 middle school students who have advanced to the finals of the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge. Selected from more than 1,700 entrants, the ``Final Forty'' represent an elite group of young Americans who demonstrated exceptional creativity and communications skills in original science research projects. To commemorate the centennial of the Wright Brothers' first flight, this year's finalists will compete in a multitude of experiments involving the science of flight. The winners will be announced at the awards ceremony on October 22, 2003.

The finalists for the 2003 Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge are: Jeffrey Luttrell of Tempe, Arizona; Tyler Kirkland of Tucson, Arizona; David Edwards V of Tucson, Arizona; Bobby Fisher of Laguna Niguel, California; Jacob Rucker of Del Mar, California; Dana Feeny of Woodside, California; John Reid of Redlands, California; Samantha Bates of San Carlos, California; Patrick Saris of Newbury Park, California; Justin Koh of Bakersfield, California; Taylor Simpkins of Costa Mesa, California; Scott Presbrey of Fort Myers, Florida; Peter Borden of Fort Myers, Florida; Bran Yancey of Miami, Florida; Sravya Keremane of Gainesville, Florida; Sarah Gerin of West Palm Beach, Florida; Joseph Stunzi of Watkinsville, Georgia; Bryce Melton of Terre Haute, Indiana; Anthony Burnetti of Derwood, Maryland; Ethan Roth of Kansas City, Missouri; Elena Ovaitt of Weston, Missouri; Austin Minor of Lee's Summit, Missouri; Rachel Clements of Albuquerque, New Mexico; Leah Crowder of Albuquerque, New Mexico; Michael Klein of Atlantic Beach, New York; Ryan Lee of Hamilton, Ohio; Bogna Brzezinska of Upper Arlington, Ohio; Lorren Kezmoh of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Katie Sloop of El Paso, Texas; Daniel Steck of San Antonio, Texas; Aron Trevino of San Antonio, Texas; Luis Lafer-Sousa of San Antonio, Texas; Elizabeth Monier of Boerne, Texas; Ian Cummings of Clearfield, Utah; Spencer Larson of Springville, Utah; Ryker Watts of Alpine, Utah; Zachary Hopkins of Highland, Utah; Jennifer Gutman of Wheeling, West Virginia; and Erica David of Pinedale, Wyoming.

At a time when science and technology plays such an enormous role in our lives, I believe it is imperative that we continue to support and nurture the next generation of young scientists. I would like to congratulate these students for their dedication and hard work in the name of science and wish them all good luck during the 2003 Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge.

I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 362, a resolution that honors our Nation's sportsmen for their importance and contributions to American society and recognizes the many benefits associated with outdoor sporting activities on our Nation's economy.

My good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and I, working with our partners at the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, drafted this resolution in honor of the 32nd observance of National Hunting and Fishing Day on September 27, 2003. This resolution is strongly supported by the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, and over 40 sportsmen and conservation groups, including Ducks Unlimited and the National Rifle Association.

The thousands of sportsmen in my district have much to be grateful for in upstate New York. From the Adirondacks to the Catskills to the Finger Lakes and the wonderful waterways throughout my district, I am privileged to represent such a pristine place. My district is home to some of the Nation's most captivating trout fishing rivers and rich hunting land, and I will continue to lead the charge in Congress to promote conservation efforts to keep the air we breathe and the water we drink clean and safe for future generations. My experience has proved to me that our Nation's sportsmen are among the most responsible stewards of our precious environment. I am their partner.

In addition to their important role as conservationists in the field, sportsmen are an integral component of economic success in New York and across the Nation. In 2001 alone, the over-38 million sportsmen nationwide directly injected $70 billion into our Nation's economy. New York State's 714,000 bow and gun hunters and 1.5 million anglers had a $56.2 million impact on the Empire State. Hunters, anglers, and trappers also contributed to over 29,000 jobs in New York State. Mr. Speaker, jobs is my favorite four-letter word.

Following in the steps of Theodore Roosevelt, one of our Nation's truly great conservationists, really the first truly great conservationist, we must work together to ensure that our open spaces enjoyed by sportsmen are protected for use for years to come. Clean water and clean air are essential to enjoying activities like hunting, fishing, and trapping. They are recreational, they are good for the mind, and they are good for the spirit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we include the following letter of support for H. Res. 362 from over 40 sportsmen and conservation organizations in the appropriate place in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring our Nation's sportsmen and vote in favor of H. Res. 362.

September 10, 2003.

Hon. Richard Pombo, MC,

Chairman, House Committee on Resources, Longworth HOB,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall, MC,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Resources, Longworth HOB,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Pombo and Congressman Rahall: The listed

sportsmen conservationist organizations, representing

millions of sportsmen and women across America, are writing

in support of H. Res. 362, a resolution recognizing the

importance and contribution of sports men and women to

American society and our nation's economy.

With the coming of fall, a time-honored tradition for

America's 38 million-plus sportsmen begins anew. Fall marks

the beginning of the hunting season and often offers some of

the best fishing. It is a time for families and friends to

spend quality time in America's great outdoors, to escape the

fast-paced life of suburbia, and to appreciate the beauty and

bounty of nature. It provides an opportunity to pass down

skills and traditions that reach back for generations, and to

foster an understanding and appreciation of nature and the

role of conservation and wildlife management.

For sportsmen there is also a responsibility for good

stewardship for America's wildlife and natural resources.

Through excise taxes on sporting equipment, license fees and

conservation stamps such as the federal duck stamp, sportsmen

directly contribute $1.7 billion every year for conservation

programs. The total economic contribution of sportsmen

amounts to $70 billion annually, with a ripple effect

amounting to $179 billion per year. To put this in context,

if sportsmen were a corporation, they would rank #11 on the

Fortune 500 list.

September 27th marks National Hunting and Fishing Day, so

we are asking that you and your colleagues expeditiously move

this resolution so that the House of Representatives can

approve it and reaffirm the appreciation for America's

sportsmen on Capitol Hill.

Sincerely,

American Sportfishing Association; BASS/ESPN Outdoors;

Bear Trust International; Boone and Crockett Club;

Bowhunting Preservation Alliance; Buckmasters American

Deer Foundation; California Waterfowl Association;

Campfire Club of America; Congressional Sportsmen's

Foundation; Conservation Force; Conservation Fund.

Dallas Safari Club; Delta Waterfowl; Ducks Unlimited;

Foundation for North American Wild Sheep; Houston

Safari Club; Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage

Trust; International Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies; International Hunter Education Association;

Izaak Walton League of America; Mule Deer Foundation.

National Rifle Association; National Shooting Sports

Foundation; National Trappers Association; National

Wild Turkey Federation; North American Grouse

Partnership; Northwest Sportfishing Industry

Association; Orion The Hunter's Institute; Pheasants

Forever; Pope and Young Club; Pure Fishing; Quail

Unlimited, Inc.

Quality Deer Management Association; Rocky Mountain Elk

Foundation; Ruffed Grouse Society; Safari Club

International; Texas Wildlife Association; The Wildlife

Society; U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; Whitetails

Unlimited, Inc.; Wildlife Forever; Wildlife Habitat

Council; Wildlife Management Institute.

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

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the conference committee for both ISTEA and TEA-21, I was totally immersed in developing the transportation enhancements program and ensuring its long-term viability. As authorizers, we were very specific about the 10 percent mandatory set-aside and feel that section 114 of the fiscal year 2004 Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act changes the laws that this House created. This constitutes a major legislative change in the highway bill and is without question the wrong way to go.

The transportation enhancement program accounts for a mere 2 percent of the overall funding of the highway program. Many people do not realize this because while the funding amount may be small, the benefits local communities receive make a tremendous impact on the character and vitality of towns and villages across America.

Transportation enhancements have improved the health and environment as well as the economic well-being of our communities by funding more than

17,000 projects. These projects have ranged from restoring streetscapes on local main streets to preserving landmark roads and bridges to revitalizing old transportation facilities.

Transportation enhancements create an environment where cyclists and pedestrians can safely coexist with motorists while also improving the landscape of a community. Nationwide communities have enhancement projects that they are very proud of. Whether a trail or a bike lane or a streetscape enhancement or a pedestrian bridge, these small projects are oftentimes how a community identifies itself and takes great pride in these projects with tourists and visitors, and that produces economic vitality. These projects also help to decrease congestion and improve the quality of the air we breathe, further adding to the quality of our life.

I could go on and on listing various groups that support transportation enhancements and benefit from them. They range from mayors and Governors and park directors to hikers and bikers and farmers. My own State Department of Transportation has requested us to make the set aside mandatory because of the tremendous benefits derived from the program. To appreciate the value of the transportation enhancements program, one needs only to imagine the pathways teaming with strollers and rollerbladers and people biking to work. Picture the historic transportation structures that have breathed life and vitality into declining downtown areas.

Mr. Chairman, I included for the Record the remainder of my statement, and urge strong support of the Petri-Olver enhancement amendment.

The enhancement program has encouraged communities to come together and craft a vision for revitalizing their downtown areas, for constructing networks of pathways along creeks and rivers, and for preserving the transportation history of this country.

This process builds support from a broad swath of interests, including elected officials, business owners, walkers, bicyclists, fans of historic preservation and neighbors. The Enhancement program serves as a catalyst, leveraging more local investment, as one project builds support for the next. Our investment in the Transportation Enhancement program is modest, but the rewards are immeasurable. I urge strong support of the Petri/Olver amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the outstanding work he is doing with a very difficult bill under tough fiscal restraints. I think he has demonstrated repeatedly his recognition of the importance of providing the resources necessary to meet so many demands on the Treasury.

I want to enter into a colloquy to draw attention to one particular program in this bill that is of great concern to him and to me.

Last fall, President Bush signed into law the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act of 2002, which had passed the House by a vote of 400 to 12. Under the act, the National Science Foundation should be spending $105 million in fiscal 2004 in activities under that act; yet NSF requested only $35 million for cybersecurity and was not necessarily directing that the money be spent in accordance with the provisions of the act.

Given the importance of cybersecurity research, is it the chairman's view that in its current plan for fiscal year 2004 NSF should fund cybersecurity research activities under the act at a level as close to the authorized level as possible?

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree then that the level must be significantly above the $35 million level?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and look forward to continuing to work with him and all my colleagues in the House for whom this is such an important subject to strengthen our Nation's research enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Science may have until 4 p.m. Friday, August 29, 2003 to file the following late reports: H.R. 1085, NASA Flexibility Act of 2003, as amended; H.R. 2608, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2003, as amended; H.R. 2692, the United States Fire Administration Authorization Act of 2003, as amended; H.R. 2734, Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act, as amended; and finally, H.R. 2801, Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003, as amended.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern about proposed cuts to conservation, energy, rural development and research program funding in this year's Agriculture Appropriations Bill. I realize this year has been especially difficult in light of the need for funding cuts. However, there are a number of programs that I feel are critical, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Security Program, the Wetland Reserve Program, and the Renewable Energy Systems, Energy Efficiency Grants and Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grant Programs.

Passage of the 2002 Farm Bill was a bipartisan victory for conservation, renewable energy and rural America. It contained landmark conservation, renewable energy, research, and rural development programs. The bill authorized nearly $3 billion for USDA conservation programs in FY 2004, including for funding for working lands incentives programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Security Program. However, the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations Bill would reduce these critical programs.

By providing funding for working lands programs like EQIP and CSP in the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress dramatically increased funds to help farmers manage working lands to produce food, while also enhancing water quality and wildlife habitat. EQIP shares the cost of a broad range of land management practices that help the environment, includes more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides, and promotes innovative technologies for manure management. CSP is a new program that will link conservation payments to gradually increasing levels of performance. Overall, these programs will provide farmers the tools and incentives they need to meet major environmental challenges.

In addition, farmers have offered to restore more than 600,000 acres of lost wetlands by enrolling farmland into the Wetlands Reserve Program and restoring them. The Agriculture Appropriations Bill proposes to cut, rather than increase, funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which provides perpetual easements on farmland land and wetland restoration funds, this significantly reducing the benefits of the program.

The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program [(Sec. 9006) of the Energy Title] and the Value-Added Agricultural Market Product Development Grants Program [(Sec. 6401) of the Rural Development Title] were designed to spur the growth of renewable energy within the agricultural sector. Unfortunately, the House Appropriations Agriculture bill eliminates mandatory spending for both programs.

Congress provided $23 million a year in mandatory funds under section 9006 of the Farm Bill to provide grants, loans, and loan guarantees to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses for the development of renewable energy projects and energy efficiency improvements. Sec. 9006 will help farmers save money by lowering their energy costs through efficiency improvements, and by enabling them to produce some of their own on-farm power. It also provides farmers the seed money needed to develop and market their renewable energy resources. This funding was embraced by the administration and both houses of Congress. However, today's bill only provides only $3 million in discretionary funding for section 9006.

The Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grant program, under Sec. 6401 of the Farm Bill, provided $40 million a year in mandatory funding. The program was created to spur development of new uses for agricultural products, and the 2002 Farm Bill amended the program to include renewable energy. [The House Agriculture Appropriations Bill only provides $13 million in discretionary funding for Rural Cooperative Development Grants. Of this amount $4,000,000 is for value-added market development grants.]

Empowering America's farmers to produce clean, renewable energy is critical if we ever hope to achieve energy independence. By integrating renewable energy development initiatives throughout the Farm Bill, America's farmers can receive the support they need to develop their renewable energy resources, including bioenergy, wind, solar, and geothermal.

The environmental and geopolitical risks associated with continued dependence on foreign oil are simply unsustainable. Dependence on fossil fuels has affected public health and our environment and unnecessarily diverted American dollars abroad when they could be kept at home. Long term, the United States must develop realistic alternatives to dependency on fossil fuels and these funds will enable us to begin sooner rather than later. American farmers are fully capable of and want to become part of a long-term solution to ending this harmful dependence. And, they can do so knowing that renewable energy production represents new income streams for their farms.

Protecting funding for projects like those listed above is crucial because they represent a first step toward enlisting the help of the agricultural sector in a quest toward energy independence. I hope that as we complete the FY 2004 appropriations process we can enhance the funding for these innovative programs.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes. I just want

to rise in support of this bill and to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) for his efforts, particularly to strengthen the Office of Science in the Department of Energy. This is a good bill. There were some differences of opinion early on. We worked out those differences of opinion in a responsible way.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I just want to make two points about it.

First, I want to thank Chairman Hobson for his efforts to strengthen the Office of Science. This critical, but often overlooked Office, is a critical supporter of research in the physical sciences. It also supports crucial work related to genomics and homeland security. And it runs laboratories that provide research tools for a wide range of scientists throughout the country.

In this year's Energy bill, H.R. 6, the House, led by Representative Biggert, who chairs our Science Committee's Energy Subcommittee, authorized major increases for the Office of Science. This bill makes a downpayment on those authorizations.

The bill also specifically recognizes the importance of the administration's new, interagency supercomputing initiative. Our committee held a hearing on the issue this week, and I look forward to working with Chairman Hobson in this area that can have a major impact on American competitiveness.

I also want to draw attention to section 301 of the bill, which requires competition of laboratory contracts. While I disagree with some of the details of the provision, I agree that we need to come up with a competition policy that will provide predictability for the labs and accountability from the labs. We must develop the tools to improve laboratory management without causing undue disruption or imposing excessive costs. In this too, I look forward to working with Chairman Hobson.

Because section 301 constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, Chairman Hobson and I have exchanged letters describing our agreement on how we will move forward on this section. I ask that they be placed in the Record at this point.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Science,

Washington, DC, July 17, 2003.

Hon. David Hobson,

Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water

Development, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thanks for meeting with me today to

discuss Section 301 of the Energy and Water Appropriations

bill for fiscal 2004 (H.R. 2754). As you acknowledged,

Section 301 constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill

and would normally be subject to a point of order.

In today's discussion, however, you agreed that you would

consult with the Science Committee throughout your conference

negotiations on Section 301 and that you would not make any

conference agreement on Section 301 that did not meet with

our approval. As a result of those commitments, I will not

object to the waiving of points of order against Section 301.

Like you, I believe the management of the Department of

Energy (DOE) laboratories is an important issue that requires

more attention from the Congress. As you know, the Science

Committee has held hearings on this complex issue. We look

forward to working with you to fashion a competition policy

that will provide greater accountability and more attentive

management without causing needless disruption of the

laboratories' scientific research or imposing unnecessary

additional costs.

Sincerely,

Sherwood Boehlert,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary, but it is. The administration has announced its intention to propose a series of changes to the roadless rule that would significantly reduce its scope and weaken its effectiveness. And it is moving forward with these changes even though the Forests Roads Working Group, a group of sportsmen's groups, has recommended leaving the rule as it is for now.

So this amendment may be our last and only chance to save the roadless rule, one of the most significant land protections measures in recent decades. The roadless rule will protect watersheds, foster bio- diversity and enable future generations to appreciate untrammeled wildness.

Now that is not to say that there are not legitimate arguments against the roadless rule. Members may oppose the roadless rule because they believe these areas should be logged or because of economic concerns or because of a philosophical objection to any limitation on the use of our national forests. But we are not hearing those arguments because they are not very popular and they do not have much emotional appeal.

Instead, we are hearing arguments against the roadless rule that are, in a word, bogus. We are hearing arguments that run directly counter to the facts. We are hearing rhetoric that is literally incendiary, with pictures to match. We are hearing Members shout ``fire'' in a crowded legislative chamber.

This is a dangerous tact for the opponents of the Inslee amendment. It is dangerous not only because it is misleading, it is also dangerous because fire is a deadly, serious issue, and it should not be thrown around for political convenience. That will make it harder to take the real steps necessary to prevents wildfires, and those steps are already difficult enough.

What are the actual facts about fire and the roadless rule? Here is what the science tells us.

Wildfires are nearly twice as likely to occur in forests with roads than in roadless areas, regardless of the cause of fire. Reducing the number of roadless areas would increase the likelihood of wildfires.

Eighty-eight percent of forest fires are caused by people. Those fires are four times as likely to occur in a forest with roads, more evidence that reducing the number of roadless areas would increase the likelihood of wildfires.

Roadless areas generally have not been logged and, therefore, are less susceptible to catastrophic fire. The dense underbrush that promote fire is most prevalent in areas that have been logged. That is still more evidence.

When fires do occur in roadless areas, they are unlikely to endanger human life or property because roadless areas are remote. Reducing the number of roadless areas would increase the risk that fires would result in the loss of life and property.

The roadless rule allows activities to reduce the threat of fire in roadless areas such as clearing out smaller diameter or more fire-prone trees. That is called thinning. It is allowed.

It is allowed. The roadless rule provides an exemption allowing roads to be built in roadless areas to fight forest fires. These are the facts that ought to underline this debate. If my colleagues want road- building in the most remote and pristine areas and stretches of our national forests, then do not support the roadless rule, but do not claim the opposition to the rule out of concern for risk of fire or the environment. That just does not withstand scrutiny.

I urge my colleagues to support the Inslee amendment. It is sound policy, and it will not increase the risk of fire.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the House floor House Concurrent Resolution 80, which encourages support for the Peace Parks Foundation of South Africa in helping to establish and develop transfrontier conservation areas or peace parks in sub-Saharan Africa.

In 2001, I had the opportunity to visit South Africa with the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). We saw firsthand the positive achievements of the Peace Parks Foundation, a nonprofit organization headed by conservationist Dr. Anton Rupert.

In general terms, peace parks are very large, ecologically significant natural areas that straddle the borders of two or more countries and that are attractive to visitors.

Peace parks allow wildlife to follow natural migration patterns and help conserve the magnificent native flora and fauna of the region. Very importantly, peace parks help support sustainable local economic development and regional peace and stability. Boy, are those worthy objectives. These are some of the issues President Bush discussed just last week when he visited South Africa and Botswana and several other African nations.

Africa's competitive advantage in the international tourism industry lies in its unique and diverse ecosystems that include everything from deserts to rain forests. A recent study estimated that, with adequate infrastructure, the various transfrontier conservation areas could support about 8 million visits by tourists per year. Tourism is a wonderful job creator. Leaders of southern African governments have recognized this and have shown committed enthusiasm for the peace parks. They know peace parks can help alleviate poverty by creating business opportunities for communities and jobs paid for by tourism dollars. I applaud their foresight in recognizing this path to sustainable economic development.

Economic realities and the consequences of war and political instability have helped erode conservation efforts in Africa. The incredible variety of Africa's wildlife and natural habitats should be protected and conserved for future generations. The Foundation's contributions to biodiversity conservation is significant because the space it seeks to protect covers large areas; and, in Africa, everything seems to be large.

Since December, 2001, 22 transfrontier conservation areas have been identified by the Foundation and now enjoy the support of governments in the region. This unusual, but successful, approach deserves our encouragement and support.

The process by which peace parks are created requires extensive consultations between interested parties, including governments, local communities, private landowners, and civil society. In addition, since peace parks straddle borders, their creation also requires cooperation between nations. Thus, the creation of peace parks contributes to the peace and stability for which the people of Africa yearn.

I am pleased to be able to say that in September 2003 Botswana and South Africa will sign an agreement establishing a new peace park. African leaders such as the revered former President Dr. Nelson Mandela and the leaders of Southern African Development Community countries, strongly support the Peace Parks Foundation. Dr. Mandela himself has said of peace parks, ``I know of no biological movement, no philosophy or no idealogy which does not agree with the peace parks concept as we see it going into fruition today. It is a concept that can be embraced by all. In a world beset by conflict and division,'' Dr. Mandela goes on to say, ``peace is one of the cornerstones of the future. Peace parks are building blocks in this process, not only in our region, but potentially the entire world.''

Dr. Mandela was so right.

I thank those Members who joined me in introducing this resolution, and I ask the support of all Members in adopting this resolution to honor the important achievements of the Peace Parks Foundation in helping the people of sub-Saharan Africa find peace and stability and economic benefit through their preservation of some of the world's most rare and beautiful wildlife and natural places.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a different world than we did 2 years ago, a world where the threat of attack from biological and chemical agents remains high. Here on Capitol Hill we know this all too well. We were all victims of a vicious attack using anthrax and poisoning our own postal system. The attack shut down half of an entire branch of our government and lives were lost. A very real threat became a sad reality.

Project BioShield will take the necessary steps to provide greater protection for Americans from those malicious attacks, to research, develop, manufacture and stockpile effective drugs and vaccines. In order to make this plan a reality, the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health must have a strong infrastructure of laboratories and facilities designed for research on the most dangerous of pathogens.

The research stage of this process is the most important part of developing a broad and effective basis for this project. In my own district, there is an effort underway to build a national biocontainment laboratory to be administered by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. This state-of-the-art facility would take on the daunting task of testing these dangerous agents that could threaten our communities, and they have got the charge to come up with the vaccines and drugs necessary to effectively deal with them. I am fully supportive of this plan and hope this critical facility will soon call upstate New York home.

Development of these vital medical countermeasures to biological and chemical agents can take years. With the building of new facilities to do the research and expedite the development of vaccines, more diseases may one day

be eradicated or at least treatable to avoid mass casualty from any type of attack.

I am pleased that Project BioShield may offer assistance to enterprising companies like Viral Therapeutics of Ithaca, New York, that are currently producing needed vaccines and is interested in answering the call to expand research and development as well as production.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my service on the Select Committee on Homeland Security and our determined effort to give the American people what they desire and deserve, a comprehensive and balanced effort to protect them from the evils of biological and chemical weapons. This legislation is designed to do exactly that. I commend all those involved with the formulation of this bipartisan product for the American good.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. Overall, this is a reasonable bill, given the budgetary constraints. It could have been an even better bill if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had not decided that it was more important to make a political statement, to score political points than to make progress.

As was mentioned earlier in the debate on the rule, I was prepared to offer an amendment that would have moved $95 million from fossil fuel research and development, money that the administration did not request, into a range of conservation accounts.

The impact of my amendment would have been to free up more money for such popular and important programs as the Federal and State Land and Water Conservation Fund, State wildlife conservation programs, historic preservation, forest legacy, and urban parks and recreation. This money is desperately needed for these important programs, and the amendment was backed by just about every single environmental and sportsmen's group. So this was an amendment that would have done some real good for the American people, real people.

But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided they did not want the amendment to pass. Why not? Was it because they opposed putting more money into conservation programs? No. Was it because they thought the amendment would cause any harm to the public? No. Was it because they thought the amendment was bad for the environment? No.

The only reason this amendment was being vociferously opposed is because that seemed like a way to score political points. They did not want anything to pass that would demonstrate Republican support for conservation and the environment. What a sad commentary on the state of American politics.

So, instead of a good debate on conservation that would have led to an increase in spending for programs that benefit the American people, we are going to have a pathetic and pointless debate about a make- believe proposal that would reduce the tax cut. My colleagues know and I know that is going nowhere.

I hasten to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the tax cut battle is over. The bill was passed by the Congress, signed by the President.

Here are the choices we face. Either go with the Boehlert amendment, adding $95 million to very important programs in the area of conservation and protecting the environment, or do nothing. The other side opted to do nothing because they wanted to have a political advertisement. We all know about the obscene cost of political advertising, but $95 million per statement is pretty darn expensive, and the American people are the losers. Sad day.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman in the aisle makes a good point. We have worked well together across the center aisle, Republicans and Democrats. We have to work across the center aisle. We have worked well over the years. This time that cooperation stopped at the center aisle because a conscious decision was made not to go forward with a $95 million add-on which we could embrace warmly but rather to go forward with nothing because they want a partisan statement.