Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Boehlert

Amendment No. 13: Page 7, line 13, after the dollar amount

insert ``(increased by $3,815,000)''.

Page 14, line 8, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $6,550,000)''.

Page 17, line 12, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 22, line 17, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 22, line 23, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Page 25, line 24, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $32,600,000)''.

Page 26, line 1, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

Page 91, line 3, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

Page 97, line 17, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $7,020,000)''.

Page 107, line 16, after the dollar amount insert

``(reduced by $94,985,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the intelligence authorization bill, and I want to start by commending the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for their leadership, their bipartisanship and their commitment. We are all in this together. And while I am at it, I want to compliment the most professional staff that I have seen of any committees in the Congress in my years in this institution.

As a member of the committee, I know well the threats facing our country. They are many. They are varied and they are serious. The job of intelligence is challenging and never ending. All of us, not just in the Congress but across the country, have become painfully aware that while many countries of the world are working with us to promote peace and stability, there are those who are committed to undermining our efforts. The Nation has been exposed to this ugly reality. The memory of September 11 will forevermore be seared on our souls.

Our collective awareness has increased as has our understanding of the

absolute need for a very capable intelligence community. This bill accelerates investment in enhanced capabilities and people to move the intelligence community from being postured from the threats of the past to being positioned to address the increasingly asymmetric threats facing us in the future.

It will not happen overnight, but the changes needed must and will come about at a rapid pace. Rebuilding the infrastructure and retooling for the future is under way even as we debate this issue. Every area of intelligence operations needs support and attention. But I want to focus on what I believe is the most critical need we face, and that is in the area of human intelligence.

Mr. Chairman, the sad fact is that we, of necessity, need to reverse course from the years of decline in investments in the people that make up our cadre of human intelligence officials. This does not mean we should not continue to invest in important technical systems, but we must not become solely dependent on them. Satellites in the heavens and all the sophisticated and complex technologies here on Earth must be complemented by our eyes and ears around the globe. There must be a proper balance between people and machines.

We are proud of our intelligence professionals because of the outstanding work they perform day in and day out, so often putting their lives at risk. What they do and how they do it is not easy. And they have earned our gratitude for their dedication and professionalism.

One of the basic tools that these professionals need in order to do their job is the ability to speak foreign languages. Quite frankly, and this is sad to say, this is a deficient area. I am not at all happy, and I will confess it up front, about the response we have received from the intelligence community leadership on this issue, despite our continuing efforts to improve language skills. We set a clear priority to ensure that we have people with native language capabilities regardless of where we might find ourselves. Yet year after year we have provided an increase in the amount of funds requested for language training, and year after year something happens that is not our intent.

The response to our concerns has been unsatisfactory. Year after year the intelligence community finds ways to avoid implementing these initiatives which are essential to its success.

Mr. Chairman, this year we insist that the community leadership resolve to fix the language inadequacy. No more finessing, no more fudging. Just do it or else.

Our country's intelligence community is still recovering from years of decline. There are fundamental shortcomings that must be addressed, and we will fail in this challenge if we do not adequately restore the resources to a sufficient level to get the job done.

While this budget represents a significant increase over the past years, we support it with the full knowledge and understanding there is a great deal more work to be done. Language being only one of the issues, but this is an issue that we have to pay attention to. It does not do us any good to have some sophisticated satellite costing a jillion dollars up in the heavens taking pictures of Afghanistan, if in the caves there are all these people bent on doing us harm and there is nobody in there who can understand them, communicate with them, or provide us with necessary intelligence. And that is what we intend to correct, and I am proud to say the committee stands strong behind this commitment and we will follow through on it.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the poem of my constituent, Mark E. Crispell of Brooktondale, NY, for submission into the Congressional Record. Mr. Crispell has dedicated this inspirational work to the House and the Senate.

In addition to his gift to Congress, Mr. Crispell has also been able to donate this poem to various VFW and American Legion chapters across the New York State. It has touched the hearts of all who read it, as it honors the men and women who have risked their lives to protect America.

I commend Mr. Crispell for his creativity as well as his thoughtful gift.

America

In the valleys and on the hilltops

you could hear that horrible roar

thousands of men on horseback

riding off to war

red coats on the offensive

us turncoats out of sight

with our blood and a strong belief

we fought with all our might

When the war was over

as the white smoke rolled away

I cried with pain through tears of loss

it's Independence Day

but I'm so young, I'm just a child,

I don't think I can lead

I hope my fathers get together

and write the laws I need

1861, again I heard my fathers say

mount your horses head for the South

the South will head this way

my knees grow weak I could not stand

and to the floor I knelt

oh God if you can hear my cry

remember the pain I felt

The cost of war is so much more

I said to God that day

if Your will be satisfied make it go away

but shots were heard as muskets fired

and white smoke filled the day

young boy hollers, I've been hit

as his brother rides away

When the war was over

I hung my head and cried

and asked myself through my tears

why so many died

it was then God raised my head

to see a black man say

through the pain and tears of loss

it's Independence Day!

So I pledge allegiance to our flag

for the wars that I've been through

I fought more wars as before

for freedom and for you

so when from afar you can hear me sing

``God shed His grace on thee''

know I'm united under God

for justice and liberty

I was older now and wiser

historically in my teens

but in those days of my youth

food became so lean

but even in my darkest hour

I didn't give up the fight

I plowed the fields for our next meal

thanking God for every bite

And in the 20th century

when at times things seemed their worst

we embraced the changes

God bestowed upon us first

horses learned to fly

their tails grew into wings

letters turned to digits

phones began to ring

cars come here and take us there

never leaving us far behind

technology seems to challenge

my ever evolving mind

Now Vietnam has come and gone

history takes its place

oh, God forgive me for I have sinned

when I tried to hide my face

Desert Storm let's not forget

the blood that you had shed

so men and women could return

to the countries that they fled

And for all the men and women

who will answer a fatal call

I say to you I'll place your name

upon my strongest wall

and when at war and we need it most

our founding fathers will say

hear ye, hear ye,

then you'll hear them pray

Yes I'm fighting hard

as my father's son

so men and women can be free

that's why those wars were won

so it doesn't really matter

where you are and when you say

God bless America

it's Independence Day!

Yes,

God bless America

it's Independence Day!

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter for the Record.

Committee on Science,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2003.

Hon. Duncan Hunter,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the Armed Services

Committee has requested that the Committee on Science waive

its right to a referral on several sections of H.R. 1588, the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. It

is also my understanding that the Parliamentarian's office

has confirmed that the Science Committee has jurisdiction

over several provisions in H.R. 1588.

To expedite the consideration of this bill by the House,

the Committee is willing to waive its right to a referral,

provided that the Science Committee's right to participate as

conferees on those provisions within its jurisdiction is also

protected. I would also appreciate if this exchange of

letters could be included in the record of debate on H.R.

1588 during floor consideration.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Sherwood Boehlert,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, to announce the introduction of a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Postal Service (USPS) Stamp Advisory Committee should issue a stamp to raise awareness about the plight of missing and exploited children. It is only fitting that such an action should occur today, on National Missing Children's day.

My local community was shocked one afternoon in August 1993 when 12- year-old Sara Anne Wood was abducted near her home in Sauquoit, NY. Far too many parents have had to suffer with the agony of not knowing if their child was safe--we need to be more vigilant in protecting our nation's children.

The idea for this stamp should be credited to the Missing Children's Stamp Committee, a grass roots organization of concerned citizens from my district whose goal is to convince the USPS Stamp Advisory Committee to issue a commemorative stamp to raise awareness about the plight of all missing and exploited children nationwide.

The Missing Children's Stamp Committee was formed in January 1996 by Chairman John L. Brezinski, a Herkimer County Legislator, and is a subcommittee of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (Mohawk Valley Branch). In its first year of existence, the Committee received over 35,000 letters of support for their efforts from across the globe, but has run into many hurdles along the way. In the past, the USPS Stamp Advisory Committee has refused to approve such a stamp. Forty-five other sponsors of this legislation and I are calling on the USPS Stamp Advisory Committee to act and issue a stamp to address this critical issue.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 800,000 children are reported missing each year--that's almost 200 each day. According to a recent Zogby International poll of 1,401 adults, more than two-in-three Americans say the USPS Stamp Advisory Committee should issue a stamp raising awareness about the plight of missing and exploited children. The people have spoken and we must respond.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and the forty five other original cosponsors and show their support for this resolution, the need to raise awareness, and the need to protect our children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1904. The bill before us represents a compromise achieved after arduous and intense negotiations which began in earnest last fall. It is certainly not everything that I would have wanted, that is the nature of compromise, but it is a noteworthy attempt to deal with a very real problem of forest fires on lands where fire has been too long suppressed in regions that are increasingly populated.

If used properly, the tools provided in this bill will ease the path of projects that are carefully designed to reduce the risk of fire in those forests where fire would most threaten lives and homes and water supplies. This is not meant to be a bill that increases commercial logging or to give the Forest Service carte blanche. The projects undertaken through this bill ought to be environmentally sound and carefully planned, especially given the remarkably immature nature and state of our knowledge of forest ecology and fire management.

The compromise negotiated with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte), the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the gentleman from Colorado (Chairman McGinnis), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the White House is designed to help ensure that the vision of this bill that I just outlined is actually the one that comes to pass.

Let me describe some of the key elements of the compromise. Most important, the compromise rewrites section 107 to ensure that courts still have the latitude they need when they consider whether to grant injunctions. It does this in several ways.

First, it makes clear that this bill does not change the basic test courts use when deciding whether to issue an injunction. Instead, the bill lays out some matters that must be weighed when courts apply two of the standard tests.

Specifically, the bill makes clear that both undertaking a project and not undertaking a project can have short-term and long-term costs and benefits that need to be weighed. Balancing harms, to use the legal term, is not a simple matter that involves assuming that a project would produce harms that matter only in the short-term or that it would produce nothing other than benefits over the long term.

Third, the bill makes clear that while the court should give weight to the views an agency holds concerning balance of harms, the court has no obligation to defer to the agency and no reason to heed the agency at all if its findings are arbitrary and capricious. In other words, the agency cannot, and I emphasize, cannot, do as it pleases when it pleases.

What all these technical concerns add up to is this: courts will continue to be able to issue injunctions against forestry projects that harm the environment, either while a case is pending or permanently.

The compromise also puts in place other protections against questionable projects. To be more specific, it limits the geographic reach of the expedited projects created by the bill; it requires that an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment be conducted on every project covered by this bill; it removes language that could be construed to weaken the Roadless Rule; it ensures that notice and comment periods will be sufficient to allow genuine airing of fire projects; and it requires experimental projects in response to insect infestations to be treated as true experiments with an objective, outside peer review and with recourse to the courts.

In short, while this bill does create expedited procedures, it is not devoid of safeguards to protect our forestlands, which belong to all the people of our Nation, today and in future generations.

This bill will require careful monitoring along the way; and if the version emerging from conference is worthy of support, our task will have just begun. Implementation must be carefully monitored to make sure the new law lives up to its intended purpose.

Those purposes are worthy, the protection of lives and property; the implementation of sensible forestry projects to prevent fire; the return of our forests gradually to something more like their natural fire cycle.

Right now, this bill is our only chance to achieve these goals. I urge its adoption, and I oppose the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 766.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 766, the National Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. As is the practice of the Committee on Science, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that reflects the important contributions of both majority and minority members of the committee.

I am going to keep my remarks brief today because nanotechnology is a subject on which there is already broad agreement on both sides of the aisle, in the administration and, indeed, in the country at large.

Nanotechnology can be a key to future economic prosperity and might improve our lives, and the Federal Government has an important role to play in supporting the basic research that will make this possible.

Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating and characterizing matter at the atomic and molecular level. It is one of the most promising and exciting fields of science today, involving a multitude of science and engineering disciplines with widespread applications in electronics, advanced materials, medicine, and information technology. Nanotechnology represents the future of information processing and storage. Other future applications include new sensors to detect biological agents, stronger and lighter building materials, new cancer treatments, and more environmentally friendly chemical processes. Some have estimated that a $1 trillion global market for nanotechnology will develop in little over a decade.

With this in mind, I introduced H.R. 766 with the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and with senior members of the Committee on Science on both sides of the aisle as cosponsors. The committee held two hearings on the bill, one on nanotechnology research programs and commercialization efforts, and one on societal and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology. The academic and industrial research communities were articulate in their support of this legislation and on the need to consider the societal, environmental, ethical, and economic questions that will arise as new nanotechnology applications are developed and enter the marketplace.

H.R. 766 authorizes the President's National Nanotechnology Initiative and supports and improves the Federal Government's nanotechnology efforts in a number of ways. It emphasizes interdisciplinary research, it strengthens interagency coordination, it supports increased research on societal consequences of nanotechnology, it encourages commercialization of nanotechnology applications, it requires outside reviews of the program, and it provides incentives for Americans to pursue degrees in science and engineering.

H.R. 766 builds on the excellent budgets that have been put forward by the administration for nanotechnology. It has been endorsed by leading industry groups, and that is very important. A companion bill, S. 189 sponsored by Senators Wyden and Allen, is moving forward in the Senate; and I am optimistic that this bill will be sent to the President's desk in the near future.

In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their able leadership on this important piece of legislation. It has been a pleasure working with them, and their contributions have made this bill a better bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Research.

Mr. Chairman, I have additional requests for time, but those requesting the time are not yet here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) because I think it overspecifies the issues that should be addressed by research directed towards societal and ethical concerns. I also want to point out that the administration, which is championing this initiative and who were of the same mind, opposes this amendment.

H.R. 766 already makes it clear both in the bill and in the accompanying report language that societal and ethical concerns include concerns related to potential societal and environmental consequences associated with nanotechnology development. The language is general in order to permit the broadest range of research on the societal and environmental implications of nanotechnology.

We spent a great deal of time on this very issue during our committee's markup of the bill last week. The committee took particular care as to how societal and ethical concerns were described in the bill and how the national nanotechnology research and development program is required to address them.

We need to have broad authority to ensure that this research can focus on questions that may not seem important to us today but emerge as the science matures. This amendment takes us in the wrong direction by limiting the research on environmental concerns authorized in the bipartisan committee bill to toxicological and environmental impact statements.

The administration opposes the amendment. I do, too. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, who can be against clean, inexpensive energy? I am not, but does it make sense to pick out this one laudable goal and hold it up above all others, including medical advances, homeland security, technology that can drive faster economic growth? Yes, energy is important and this bill recognizes it.

It is an important part of H.R. 766 and it is demonstrated by the portion of the bill that authorizes $265 million for nanotechnology research at the Department of Energy next year alone. That is significant. But energy is not more important than many of the other things that nanotechnology will do. Would you say it is more important than finding a cure for cancer? Or more important than protecting our borders in our fight for homeland security? These are all important, laudable goals, and the bill covers them all.

Once again, we are not just throwing petty cash at this subject. We are devoting $265 million to it. The administration opposes this amendment, and so do I because it is too prescriptive. Therefore, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Let me state at the outset that I support and the administration supports broader public participation. We have been assured by the administration that every meeting will have a set-aside period for public participation, the type of participation that the gentlewoman wants and is a cherished part of our system. So I applaud the gentlewoman's objective but the fact of the matter is we do not need a whole bunch of new panels.

Let me point out, if you want me to use some additional time, this is modeled after the Danish system. I was told that research puts that into question, that sort of formalized structure. A scholarly study on the impact of just such a citizens panel in the United States, not in Denmark, here, concluded that not even those engaged in organizing the U.S. citizens panel thought it had any actual impact. Let me quote from their report: ``The single greatest area of consensus among the respondents was that the Citizens Panel on Telecommunications and the

Future of Democracy had no actual impact. No respondent, not even those government members of the steering committee or expert cohort, identified any actual impact.''

Having said that, does that mean that I agree that we do not need any citizen input? Not at all. I agree with the gentlewoman that we do need citizen input. I applaud her effort, but I have to oppose this particular amendment to be so prescriptive and just to set in motion just who has to do what and when.

My staff tells me we tried very hard, because we talked in committee about this and I offered to work with the gentlewoman to strengthen the requirements for public participation in the underlying legislation. The staff have had conversations back and forth and apparently we could not bridge the differences. But let me assure the gentlewoman that she is absolutely right in calling for public participation. I want public participation. So does the administration. I just do not think we have to be so prescriptive in this bill as to set the parameters for that public participation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the staff is busy discussing, as we always do as a committee on bipartisan basis, a way to accommodate our mutual interest.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are working this out. So the gentlewoman has kindly withdrawn her amendment from consideration; and during this interim period, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) will be up next with her staff. Staffs are trying to work out language that assures both sides that we get what we want, active citizen participation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, during the time that the gentleman has been speaking so eloquently, the majority and minority have reached an agreement on the gentlewoman from Texas's (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) amendment which has been withdrawn, and now she is willing to offer a compromise amendment that we are prepared to accept. So I thank the gentleman for his input, and I anxiously await the words of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think we worked out a very fine compromise that ensures the citizen input, and the majority is pleased to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I share the commitment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to ensuring that research is conducted on the social and ethical issues relating to nanotechnology, but believe that this amendment does not take the preferred approach.

Our committee has given this issue a great deal of consideration, and we decided rather than going to just one center, but to fully integrate research on the social, environmental and ethical issues into the research being conducted under the entire National Nanotechnology Initiative. This ensures that social, ethical and environmental implications research will be fully grounded in the science of nanotechnology and that scientists conducting nanotechnology research will be aware of and be active participants in research on the social and societal implications of their work.

The provisions were further strengthened in committee by amendments offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).

The Jackson-Lee amendment is derived from a provision contained in the Senate bill that takes us in the opposite direction. It creates a stand-alone research center financed by the National Science Foundation. Based on our experience with the Human Genome Program, this will undermine our effort to ensure that social, ethical and environmental issues are part of the fabric of each nanotechnology center grant, and nearly guarantees that research on important societal and ethical concerns will not be relevant to or influence the research actually being conducted.

So rather than just focusing on one center, we wanted to build it, weave it, into the entire fabric.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, I am not prepared to go that far, and I usually go very far in trying to accommodate the wishes of all the members of my committee, regardless of affiliation or position on the dais.

But the fact of the matter is we have made a conscious determination that rather than focusing on one center we are going to weave this into the entire fabric of the whole nanotechnology initiative. For that reason, I think we better address the issue.

Therefore, while I am reluctant to oppose, I do oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Was it Will Rogers that said I do not belong to an organization? No, never mind, I will not go into that one.

The fact of the matter is we are in general agreement on societal and ethical concerns and we have to pay a lot of attention to it, as we should. But I am unwilling to say that we have to devote an entire center to that one subject area, when in fact we are addressing that need by asking all of the centers or all of the research engaged under the National Nanotechnology Initiative to take into consideration societal and ethical concerns.

So I think we are actually broadening it in a way, without being so prescriptive that says we have to have brick and mortar in one location in America, and that is the solution to the problem.

I do not think that is the solution to the problem. I think it is to energize every single person who is operating under a research grant under this National Nanotechnology Initiative to be ever-mindful of the societal and ethical concerns.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me observe here that I am not unwilling to spend the taxpayers' money for a good reason, to support a wide range of programs that provide for a better lifestyle and improvement in our society.

But one of the reasons why our government is so big and so all- pervasive is that we have a bill like this and we say, now, we want everybody involved in a national nanotechnology initiative to be concerned about societal and ethical concerns; and we want all of these grants, and we want the grantees to pay attention to that. Then we say, in addition to that, we are going to build this new center over here, and I do not think we need the new center.

If we were silent on this very important subject area in the rest of the bill, then I would probably be jumping up and down in support of the Jackson-Lee amendment, but we are not silent. We have had the whole history of our committee deliberations, the whole history of this floor debate, and congressional intent is very important and it is clear in our intent: we want to address societal and ethical concerns. But there are going to be a whole bunch of people financed by the Federal Government saying that we do not need a brand-new center to do it.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the words of my constituent, Jessica Mattiace of Moravia, NY, for submission into the Congressional Record. Jessica was chosen as the winner of the Veterans of Foreign Wars broadcast scriptwriting contest for 2003.

Each year, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, VFW, of the United States and the Ladies Auxiliary conduct a Voice of Democracy audio/essay competition designed to give high school students the opportunity to voice their opinion on their responsibility to our country. This year, more than 80,000 secondary school students participated in this contest competing for the 59 national scholarships. The contest theme for this year was ``Freedom's Obligation.''

I applaud the VFW for continually providing this outlet for young people to share their personal views and coordinating this worthy competition each year. I also congratulate Ms. Mattiace on her achievement and wish her best of luck in her future educational ventures.

Freedom's Obligation

(By New York Winner--Jessica Mattiace)

It echoes through our courtrooms, sings in our churches, whispers in our hearts--freedom, the very lifeblood of America, the very marrow of our homeland. For this right our fathers fought, and for it they died. So that you and I might say we truly are free, a life was yielded, a heart ceased to beat, a soul, enflamed with the ardent desire to be loosed from the bounds of oppression and persecution, was severed from its mortal frame. How often is such a blessing taken for granted! How often is it abused! How often is it reduced to a right to do whatever one pleases. But this is not what so many men and women gave their lives for. They sought to create a land where all would be granted equal rights, but not where liberty would be considered license for immorality. In our quest to protect and preserve the freedom that has been endowed to us by God, and guaranteed to us by the blood of our fathers, we have created another sort of enslavement, the enslavement to such false ideas of freedom. Freedom has not been granted to us for nothing, and it is our duty to defend it at every moment.

Although as humans ``Endowed by our Creator,'' as we are told by the Declaration of Independence, ``with certain inalienable rights,'' these have not been given to us without responsibilities. There exists in this country especially, a legacy of liberty which has been passed on from generation to generation, safeguarded and sustained by its citizens. But this freedom is not immutable. We, as Americans, must rise to the responsibilities that face us. When not backed by people, by Americans motivated with the same passion and fervor as the founders of this land, our freedom is but a feeble idea quickly whisked away.

Has it become this today within our very borders? Although it must still be protected from outside threats, the real threat, the real danger is right here. It is threatened every single time a human life is disregarded or disrespected. With every unborn child prevented from ever taking its first breath, freedom is stifled and its very heart violated. With every hateful word or deed against a person's race, consent is given to forfeit the liberation of an entire country. It truly is a dreadful form of povery when such crimes against life are committed. How can a man stand upon his feet and proclaim his freedom, when he holds the stolen liberty of another in his hands? How can he defend the very thing that he has denied to others? No, it is not possible to secure for oneself what has been usurped from others. When the value of freedom is overlooked in a single human form, it is overlooked for all of humanity. Without compromise, this freedom must be defended and all obstacles and impediments standing before it must be defeated.

Our obligation to protect freedom begins within our homes, in our day-to-day life choices which affect others. What we value shows in our daily lives, and is reflected in our government. We are under a government put in place by ourselves and for ourselves. What is allowable, what is just, what is humane is before us to decide. We make the decision not merely by how we vote, but by how we speak, how we act, how we live.

In our refusal to forfeit human rights and dignity through our every action, we become a powerful testament to true freedom and liberty for all. To act in this way is our obligation; this is what we have been called to do by those who first ensured for us our freedom. We must live as free people, people valuing the liberty of all. Only then shall we truly be free. Only then shall this freedom be our possession, and only then will we be able to defend it from those who might attempt to snatch it from us.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for the purpose of control.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think all Members know what this amendment is about. In fact, we had a lengthy debate on a similar amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I when the energy bill came up just 2 years ago. So many of my colleagues may be wondering why do we have to have this debate again. Well, a lot has changed in the intervening 2 years, changes that make this amendment even more important and even harder to oppose. What has changed?

First, over the past 2 years our Nation's oil consumption has continued to rise, and we have become even more dependent on foreign oil. Guess what most of that oil is used for? Transportation. Not electricity generation, not home heating, not industrial production, but transportation.

As the chart beside me shows, domestic production can provide the oil we require to meet almost all of our needs except transportation. And our demand for oil for transportation just gets larger and larger and larger. We have an insatiable appetite. But that does not have to be the case. Other sectors of our economy have become more oil efficient, but transportation has not.

What else has changed over the last 2 years? We have finally learned that SUVs are not a boon to safety. In fact, Dr. Jeffrey Runge, the chief auto safety official for the Bush administration, has made pointing out the safety failings of SUVs something of a crusade.

Not only do SUVs make driving unsafe for the people that may collide with them, SUVs are not especially safe for the people who drive them. SUVs are three times as likely as cars to roll over and cause death. So the argument that we cannot change SUVs because they advance the cause of safety is pure hogwash.

The third change over the past 2 years is that we have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt that automakers are perfectly capable of building SUVs with greater mileage. In fact, every place but Washington, D.C. they brag about it, as they should. GM and Ford have both announced plans to bring out an SUV that gets 40 miles per gallon in the next model year, not years down, the next model year. What we are told is impossible on the House floor turns out to be perfectly possible on the auto assembly floor.

In fact, it is possible and affordable to make even further improvements in SUV mileage with current available technology. This page of Automotive News, hardly a left-wing rag, spells out those technologies and their costs specifically.

The other change that has occurred in the past 2 years is we have had time to absorb the findings of the National Academy of Sciences' study. My colleagues may remember that the academy released a major, long- awaited study on fuel economy standards on the eve of the energy bill which was debated 2 years ago. That timing enabled all sorts of ridiculous claims to be made about what the study said because few had the opportunity to actually read it.

Now we all know exactly what the experts have said. There is nothing in the academy study that suggests we cannot improve CAFE standards. That is why the auto companies tried so hard, and unsuccessfully, I might report, to challenge the study.

Probably the most important point the academy had to make is on page 70 of their report. The academy said, ``It is technically feasible and potentially economical to improve fuel economy without reducing vehicle weight or size and, therefore, without significantly affecting the safety of motor vehicle travel.'' I hope we will not be hearing any nonsense this year about CAFE standards threatening safety. Those arguments should be a dead letter.

Now, let me dispense with two changes over the past 2 years that the opponents of this amendment may bring up. The first is that the administration recently announced an increase in CAFE standards. The administration should be congratulated for acknowledging the need to improve fuel economy. Give credit where credit is due, but the 1.5 mile per gallon increase over 3 years sought by the administration is minuscule, far less than what is needed and far less than what is possible.

But frankly, the opponents of this amendment ought to be embarrassed to bring up the administration's proposal. After all, the last time around, the authors of H.R. 6 told us that any increase in CAFE greater than a half mile per gallon over a decade would spell disaster for the economy. Now they have changed their tune. In fact, the authors of H.R. 6 will defend whatever the status quo is at any given moment because that is easier than debating what we could actually be doing to improve fuel economy.

The second change my opponents may bring up is that this is not exactly the same amendment as 2 years ago. That is true. But the standard in this

amendment should not be any tougher to achieve. In fact, we have given the automakers more time to improve fuel economy than we did 2 years ago. Two years ago we proposed an average among all cars and light trucks of 27.5 miles per gallon by 2007.

This amendment translates roughly into 30 miles per gallon by 2010, 3 additional years, and this amendment, like our last one, is flexible. We all want to give flexibility when possible.

The acoumeters can decide whether they want to reach these levels by improving the mileage of cars or SUVs or both. It does not set a specific standard for SUVs.

So, in short, there is more reason than ever to approve this amendment. Without this amendment the bill will do nothing, absolutely nothing, to improve energy efficiency in the sector of our economy that uses the most oil.

How can we be silent on fuel efficiency if this bill is going to accomplish anything at all? Our amendment would save more oil than would be produced from drilling in ANWR even under the most optimistic scenarios, and those figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. So it ought to be hard to argue against this amendment with a straight face.

This amendment will not prevent anyone from buying an SUV. This amendment will not reduce safety. This amendment will not require acoumeters to produce any vehicle they have not already announced that they are building. This amendment will save consumers money and, boy, we all want to do that. This amendment will put the Nation on the road to true energy independence. This amendment deserves widespread support, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this amendment are making up the arguments as they go along: Anything goes, no matter how outrageous or how wrong.

Safety. There is no compromise on safety necessary. That is not my opinion, that is the opinion of the National Academy of Science. We will not make cars lighter, we will make them smarter.

No job losses. That is as phony as a $3 bill. Americans are not going to stop

buying cars, they are just going to buy cars that are more fuel efficient, and the consumer wins. That is common sense.

Twenty-five years ago the CAFE opponents said, if we have CAFE standards, all America will be driving compacts or subcompacts. Ten years later, that is absolutely ludicrous. There are more SUVs on the road than ever before.

We have 15 minutes to debate the most important safety-promoting amendment for the bill. This is not a debate, it is a sound bite.

Support Boehlert-Markey.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is very clever, well crafted. It is designed to give people cover to say they oppose Arctic drilling when, in fact, they might not. Let us be clear: if Members oppose Arctic drilling, the vote that counts is voting ``yes'' on Markey-Johnson. That is the vote that matters substantively, and that is the vote that counts politically.

This amendment purports to protect the environment by limiting the impact of drilling to 2,000 acres throughout the Arctic refuge. Guess what, the drilling was already going to occur on a limited number of acres. This amendment does not change a thing. The fact is that 2,000 acres is a lot of territory in an area that is now undisturbed. What is worse, the impact of this drilling will be felt far beyond the borders of those 2,000 acres. We are talking about migratory wildlife, among other vulnerabilities. They do not notice artificial, man-made boundaries. So vote against this amendment which protects nothing. It will not protect ANWR, and it will not provide cover for those seeking to put a happy face on an environmentally devastating vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey- Johnson amendment, which would protect the pristine area that was originally set aside by that radical Republican environmentalist, Dwight David Eisenhower. This amendment would protect ANWR by simply striking the sections of H.R. 6 that would open the area to drilling. It is that simple.

We can have lots of spirited debate about the science and impact of drilling and other essential matters related to this issue, but I will leave that to others. For me, this is an issue of fundamental principle: what right do we have as human beings, and what sense does it make as a Nation, to open a pristine area to oil drilling when we are not willing to take the simplest, easiest steps to conserve oil?

Raising CAFE standards would have been the only truly significant conservation measure in this bill. By doing so, more oil would be saved quicker than even the most optimistic projections of economically recoverable oil from ANWR. As a friend of mine likes to say, go figure.

Opening ANWR without any consideration of taking serious conservation steps is simply irresponsible. We are denying future generations a wilderness because we refuse to take painless steps to control our own generation's appetite for oil. I do not know when that kind of thinking became conservative, but I do know for eons that kind of gluttony has been considered wrong.

The proponents of drilling add insult to injury with their spurious arguments in favor of drilling. It is only a few thousand acres, they say. That is like saying, do not worry, the tumor is only in your lungs. The drilling will have impacts that will affect wildlife throughout the area.

The proponents say the drilling in Prudhoe Bay has seen no ill environmental effects; but in reality, some of the largest environmental fines in history have been paid because of damage in the Prudhoe Bay and the open-for-business north slopes, $22 million since 1999 alone.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The purpose and intent of this bill are simple. Legal manufacturers of legal products that are sold legally and purchased legally and used legally should not be held liable for the subsequent illegal misuse of their products somewhere far down the chain. Our Nation's firearm manufacturers have been providing high-paying, stable jobs for generations and have become part of the American tradition. They are supplying our Nation's hunters and target shooters and other sports enthusiasts with quality products which, once again, are legally manufactured, legally sold, legally purchased, and legally used for legal activities.

My district is home to three such manufacturers, Remington Arms, the Ithaca Gun Company and Dan Wesson Firearms. Founded in 1816, Remington Arms has been a faithful supplier of quality firearms to this country in times of conflict and war and has been a leader in the commercial market for sporting arms and ammunition and accessories. For over 187 years, the company has set the standard for safe and responsible use of firearms.

The Ithaca Gun Company was founded in 1880, and it too has a proud and rich history. Today with the fast pace and rush-rush mode that is evident in just about everything, it is refreshing to know that every Ithaca gun is still finished and assembled in the same way as it was over 100 years ago, by the hands of a skilled Ithaca gun maker.

Dan Wesson Firearms, located in Norwich, New York was founded back in 1968 by the great grandson of D.B. Wesson, co-founder of Smith & Wesson. They too place an enormous amount of skill and craftsmanship into each firearm they manufacture.

Remington Arms, Ithaca Gun Company and Dan Wesson Firearms are three classic examples of responsible American companies that take pride in producing quality products while at the same time employing thousands of American men and women, and I am proud to have them located in my district.

It is time we put a stop to frivolous lawsuits against our Nation's responsible gun manufacturers. Those frivolous lawsuits not only cost manufacturers dearly in terms of what should be unnecessary legal costs, but they also cost America's sportsmen dearly in terms of the added charge which has to be built into the price of every firearm for those same unnecessary legal costs.

Support our responsible firearm manufacturers and our honest law- abiding sportsmen, and join me in support of this measure.

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

Who would have thunk it? The Syracuse Orangemen, not even rated in all the preseason polls, are national champions. And they provided a thrill a minute as they made the journey from being out of sight and out of mind to number one.

Ever since its first season, the Syracuse University's men's basketball team has been winners. In its inaugural season, Syracuse held opponents to a combined 51 total points and went on to a winning record. That inaugural year was 1900, and the record was two wins and one loss; 103 years and 1,462 wins later, the Syracuse basketball team has reached the promised land: NCAA national champs.

Head Coach Jim Boeheim has 653 of those wins over 27 seasons. That kind of record and longevity says something about this superior coach and decent human being. He is a winner; no one can dispute that. As Casey Stengel would say, ``You can look it up.'' But most of all he is a teacher, a man with a proven ability to transform raw talent into skilled practitioners of the game. He does it with his measured and methodical and patient and persistent approach. Yes, he is a winner, but that is a team endeavor. More than that, he is an inspired and inspiring teacher. And we all know that is a solo act. And that is what produces champions.

Further, he is the embodiment of an upstate New Yorker. He has remained loyal to his school and loyal to his community. For 27 years, he and Syracuse have been synonymous. That loyalty and longevity, combined with hard work, have paid off big time, not just for Jim Boeheim and not just for Syracuse University, but for all who love the game and watch with admiration and respect when the underrecognized and underappreciated come out on top. They got to that lofty position the old-fashioned way: they earned it.

Congratulations, Coach Boeheim and Syracuse University. Pardon our pride, but so many of us are bleeding Syracuse orange; and we are all, in the phrasing of that colorful commentator Dick Vitale, 'cuse crazy.

Mr. Speaker, we are submitting these Rules to the Congressional Record for publication in compliance with Rule XI, Clause 2(a)(2).

Rules Governing Procedure for the Committee on Science

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate one of my constituents, Major Sebastian ``Mike'' Convertino III.'' Major Convertino will be promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel on February 28 at a ceremony in the Hall of Heroes at the Pentagon.

Major Convertino, who hails from my hometown of New Hartford, NY, has enjoyed a successful and meritorious career in the United States Air Force. Currently assigned to the Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems Directorate Joint Staff at the Pentagon, he began his career in the Air Force as a ROTC cadet at Union College in Schenectady. He received his Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and began an exciting and praiseworthy career in the Armed Forces.

Major Convertino has been decorated with a series of impressive awards, including: Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, and NATO Service Medal.

I am proud to have such a dedicated and talented individual hail from my district. Major Convertino represents the kind of outstanding individuals that man our Armed Forces. I wish Mike, his wife Kimberly, and their daughter Alexandra a great deal of success and all the best for the future.

On behalf of the 24th District of New York, as well as the entire House of Representatives, congratulations--you have made us all very proud.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 140th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation celebrated on January 1, of this year. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the integral work of Central New Yorkers in the struggle to end slavery.

During the troubled decades just before our Civil War, many citizens of what is now New York's 24th District joined, and led, fellow abolitionists across the nation to help slaves gain the freedom due to all Americans. Whether they offered hounded refugees a place to hide for the night, educated former slaves, published activist newspapers, or spoke out in the chambers of Congress, these men and women live on in the collective memory of our nation as brave champions of basic human rights and dignity.

En route to Canada, houses and churches throughout Central New York formed some of the main lines of the Underground Railroad. One heavily trafficked depot in Madison County was the home of Garrett Smith, a philanthropist who gave much of his time, money, and energy to the anti-slavery cause. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to dedicate Smith's estate as a National Historic Landmark last spring. Thanks to legislation signed by our distinguished Governor of New York, George Pataki, in tandem with the Network to Freedom Act, passed by Congress and signed by the president in 1998, many other stops along the Underground Railroad in Upstate New York have recently been brought to light and preserved.

Garrett Smith, who was born in my own hometown of Utica and lived most of his life in Peterboro, was elected president of the nationally prominent New York State Anti-Slavery Society on October 22, 1835, at the organization's founding convention. A dedicated group successfully launched the Society that day at the Peterboro Presbyterian Church after their meeting had been broken up by a hostile mob the previous day. A few streets away from the convention site in Peterboro lived James Caleb Jackson, the editor of several abolitionist newspapers. Beriah Green, another founding member of the New York Anti-Slavery Society, came from nearby Whitesboro where he served as president of the Oneida Institute, an interracial college. Green's Institute turned out noted abolitionists such as Jermain Loguen, a former slave lauded for his influential autobiography, To Set the Captives Free. Loguen was later chosen to act as Stationmaster of Syracuse's Underground Railroad. Another escaped slave who became a renowned abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, lived in Rochester, New York, where he published his newspaper, The North Star.

William Seward, former senator of New York, governor of New York, and Secretary of State, remains one of the best-known abolitionists to hail from New York's 24th Congressional District. Born and raised in the area, Seward gave voice to his constituents' outcry against slavery. He and his wife, Frances, opened their home in Auburn, NY to fugitive slaves moving north along the Underground Railroad, and they became the personal friends of Harriet ``Moses'' Tubman, the iconic leader of the slave exodus to Canada. As a lawyer, Seward defended fugitive slaves in court. During his early career in Congress he led the anti-slavery wing of the Whig party.

Many credit Seward's radical statement that Congress had to answer to a moral law ``higher than the Constitution'' as disqualifying him from running for President in 1860. When it became clear that Lincoln would win the ticket of the Grand Old Party, then a grand young party, Seward campaigned tirelessly for Lincoln, and was soon appointed Secretary of State under the new president. In that office, Seward played a crucial role in the formation of Lincoln's anti-slavery policy. He drafted the Emancipation Proclamation alongside the President, and the final document now bears his signature.

Before the Civil War, Harriet Tubman bought a house from Seward in his hometown of Auburn, NY, where she continued to conduct for the Underground Railroad despite the $40,000 reward posted for her capture. After the Emancipation Proclamation, with the Promised Land a little closer, Ms. Tubman settled down to a quieter life in Auburn.

Those who fought to end slavery and so extend the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to truly all Americans won a great victory with the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, but the struggle did not end there. Amy Post, Martha Wright, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and other abolitionists and women's rights activities, many of them from Upstate New York, organized a petition drive to gain the signatures of hundreds of thousands of women calling for a constitutional amendment to end slavery. When the petition was first presented to the Senate in February of 1864, nearly one-fifth of the signatures came from New York State. By the end of 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment was law.

I hope my colleagues will join me in applauding the historic legacy of freedom and human rights left by the good people of Upstate New York.

I would like to thank Peter A. Wisbey, Executive Director of the William Seward House, Anne M. Derousie, a historian with the Women's Rights National Historical Park, Michael J. Caddy, Jr., historian, and Milton C. Sernett, Professor of History at Syracuse University for the information they provided me for this occasion. I would also like to insert into the Congressional Record essays about the Emancipation Proclamation and the abolitionist movement in New York's 24th Congressional District written by students from Letizia Magats' class at Owasco Elementary and Jacquelyn Aversa's class at Casey Park Elementary School in Auburn, NY.

While reading the work of these children I was delighted to find that many of the students had been inspired by their history lessons to dream of a future America that continues to embrace the values of Upstate New York abolitionists, in new contexts. The hope of Auburn's youngest generation of thinkers reminded me of these words of Abraham Lincoln, spoken in 1865 at his second inaugural address, and still relevant today: ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds.''

A Collective Essay From Fifth Graders at Owasco Elementary School in

Auburn, NY

The Emancipation Proclamation was a solution to the problem

of slavery in the United States. President Abraham Lincoln

was influenced to write this document by abolitionists who

wanted to see the system of slavery come to an end. This new

Law passed during the Civil War. Many of the abolitionists

who influenced President Lincoln were from the area that

is today a part of the 24th Congressional District of New

York State. Several of these abolitionists were William

Seward, Harriet Tubman, Emily Howland, Martha Coffin

Wright, and Lucretia Coffin Mott.

William Seward helped the cause of the Emancipation

Proclamation by persuading President Lincoln to be more

involved with abolishing slavery. As Lincoln's Secretary of

State, he helped Lincoln write it. Seward was active in his

belief that slavery must be abolished, he was a leader of the

Anti-slavery wing of the Whig party, used his home on South

Street in Auburn, New York, as a way station for the

Underground Railroad and as a publishing center for anti-

slavery literature. He became a good friend of Harriet

Tubman, a conductor on the Underground Railroad. Harriet

Tubman, called the ``Moses of her people'', dedicated her

life to the belief that all people were equal and that

slavery was evil. As a runaway slave, she showed great

courage and dedication to her beliefs by leading more than

three hundred slaves to their freedom. Eventually Harriet

Tubman bought a home in Auburn, New York and used it to care

for the elderly and needy people. The dedication of Quakers

to the abolition of slavery was also important in bringing

about change. Emily Howland lived in Sherwood, Cayuga County,

New York. She was an educator who started schools in the

South for freed slaves and used her home as a way station for

the Underground Railroad. Her beliefs that all were equal saw

her turn to the cause of women's suffrage. She worked closely

with Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony in the fight for

equality for women.

Lucretia Coffin Mott and her sister Martha Coffin Wright, a

resident of Auburn, New York, were also Quakers, who belonged

to the American Anti-slavery Society and formed the Female

Anti-Slavery Society. After the Civil War they co-founded the

American Equal Rights Association and the National Women's

Suffrage Association. They made a difference in the abolition

of slavery and women getting the right to vote. They were

courageous in the fight for civil rights for all people

regardless of their color or gender.

As you can see, many citizens of Cayuga County not only

believed in equal rights for all people, but also actively

worked to bring about the change that resulted in the end of

slavery and giving all people their civil rights.

(By Timothy Berry, Ashley King, Jamie Bruno, Marissa

Rescott, Christina Granato, S. Michael Watson, Maura Bradley,

Kelsey Helinski, Mary Doyle, Colleen Cregg, Olivia Perek,

Breanna Handley, Alaina Schoonmaker, and Connor Entenmann.)