Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from Vermont to restore $3 million requested by the Administration for the Department of Energy's Energy Star program. I do so with at least a measure of reluctance because I understand the Appropriations Committee leadership's frustration with the current administration of program and the agency's inability to meet deadlines. As the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and someone committed to the cause of energy conservation and energy efficiency, I am a strong supporter of the goals of the Energy Star program. The program helps identify products that are the most energy efficient products currently available in the marketplace--thereby assisting consumers in reducing their energy costs, encouraging manufacturers to develop more energy efficient products and helping the nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. However, I can attest that timeliness has been a serious problem for DOE's Energy Star program--at least in the development of new standards for energy efficient windows. It is my understanding that several manufacturers, not just one as some have alleged, are ready to go forward with new window products that could help cut energy losses through improved design. These designs meet mandatory codes already in effect in several states. Despite widespread support for the standards, DOE's has been working on this issue for 18 months. The agency has proposed new standards on two occasions, issued a delay to the effective date once and now has withdrawn the proposal entirely pending further analysis. Therefore, I understand the committee's frustration with the program as evidenced by their reduction of the amount requested. I am concerned, however, that the reduction below the requested amount could only further delay these important rules. I appreciate the committee's sensitivity to the window issue and their willingness to provide additional funding for window related research, research that should be used to expedite the decision-making on the proposed new standards and not to delay action further. However, I believe the Energy Star program funds are needed to ensure the fastest possible action. Accordingly, I urge a yes vote on the amendment to restore the program to the level recommended by the Administration.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like to thank the gentleman and pledge to work with the chairman and members of the committee as this bill moves forward to ensure that the funding needed to carry out these important projects is made available.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. As the chairman of the Committee on Science, the committee with jurisdiction over a number of the energy conservation programs funded under the bill, I rise to engage the floor manager of the bill in a colloquy. First, I want to compliment the committee for providing the needed funding for these important research, development and demonstration programs that do so much to advance new energy technologies. One program I am particularly interested in is residential micro cogeneration of energy. In my district, I am familiar with companies that are developing new combined heating, cooling, electricity and hot water that is far more efficient than residential systems which are commercially available today. It is my understanding that funding provided in the bill will allow DOE to undertake the needed testing, evaluation and demonstration of residential cogeneration technologies.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Richard ``Dick'' Sessler for his 12 years of dedicated service to the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees. On June 28th, 2002, Mr. Sessler retired from his post as Executive Director for the Refugee Center. During his tenure, he was instrumental in the successful resettlement of close to 10,000 refugees from Bosnia, Russia, Vietnam, Burma, and Sudan to the Utica, NY area. Mr. Sessler is a visionary and a truly remarkable leader. Under his leadership the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees expanded significantly, initiated innovative services and formed many meaningful partnerships with a large number of community organizations. Mr. Sessler's work with the center dates back to 1990 when he was first hired as Associate Director and later promoted to Executive Director in 1993. During that time the Center has grown tremendously. The Refugee Center now offers three well staffed and well developed programs that have been made more effective: a health program, an education program, and an excellent job placement program. In addition, Mr. Sessler was involved in the establishment of an on-site clinic, night-time English classes (ESL), a dental program, a community relations program and citizenship classes. Upon his retirement, Mr. Sessler plans to continue to offer his services to the refugee community. His plans include consulting and serving as an active member of the Lutheran Immigration Service (LIRS). I am confident that he will continue to offer his knowledge and experience and serve as a tremendous asset to the LIRS. Mr. Sessler's commitment to the Refugee Center should serve as an inspiration to all. Mr. Sessler was and will remain to be well respected and well liked by all that have the pleasure to work with him. He has touched and reshaped the lives of many war-torn men, women and children across the globe by helping them escape brutal religious and political persecution--I commend him for his efforts. I am confident that the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees will continue to maintain its excellent reputation, level of professionalism, and success that Mr. Sessler worked so diligently to instill within it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 413, offered by Mr. Walsh, marking the centennial of Dr. Willis H. Carrier's invention of modern air-conditioning. I can think of no better place to recognize this accomplishment than in the House Chamber--first air-conditioned by Dr. Carrier in 1929--on a 90 degree July day. For the past century, Carrier air conditioning and refrigeration systems have been keeping our offices and homes cool. The man responsible for this phenomenon is Carrier's founder, Dr. Willis Haviland Carrier. Born on a farm in Angola, New York in 1876, the only child had a humble upbringing yet possessed high hopes from the start. At the time he could not have known the worldwide impact his invention would create. It would boost industrial production. It would change the face of urban architecture, including providing comfort cooling to some of the world's most prestigious buildings. It would improve health care for millions. It would allow unimagined industries to flourish. Today, Carrier Corporation, the company that bears the founder's name, is an $8.895 billion organization providing heating, cooling and refrigeration solutions in more than 172 countries around the world. The nearly 43,000 worldwide employees of Carrier Corporation create comfort wherever people work, live or play--from private residences and apartments to grand hotels; from sprawling factories to soaring office towers; from theme parks to centuries-old cultural centers. Overall, the air-conditioning industry totals $36 billion and employs more than 700,000 people in the United States. One hundred years later, we benefit now more than ever from Dr. Carrier's invention. I urge my colleagues to pass the Resolution.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong supports of H.R. 3482, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security chairman, for his excellent work in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), Judiciary chairman, former chairman of the Committee on Science, where he received his best training. From his years of service on the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Wisconsin understands that research and development are critical weapons in the war on terrorism as well as our fight against all forms of crime. We know that the next war, the current war, the ongoing war, is going to be won as much in the laboratory as on the battlefield. Mr. Speaker, title I of the legislation enhances penalties for cybercrime and allows for better cooperation between law enforcement and the private sector to investigate cybercrime. This is critical. However, in the interest of time, I will limit my comments to title II of the bill before the House today. Title II establishes an Office of Science and Technology within the Office of Justice Programs at the Justice Department. It is a needed step forward in our fight against all forms of crime and terrorism. I have said repeatedly, the war on terrorism, like the Cold War, will be won in the laboratory as much as on the battlefield. That means that, as in the Cold War, we must properly organize our government to put the most into and get the most out of our academic, government and industry laboratories. Criminal use of technology, specifically information technology, is now commonplace. We rely on computers, the Internet, cell phones and pagers every day. But so, too, do the criminals and terrorists. Increasingly criminals are becoming more and more sophisticated. Online fraud, identity theft, child pornography, computer intrusions, hacking and introduction of viruses are all on the rise. Unfortunately, U.S. law enforcement is often ill-equipped to counter this criminal high tech trend. It is particularly true for State and local law enforcement that often lack the resources, training and expertise to effectively use advanced information technology to stop crime. Currently the Justice Department does support the development of new technologies, mostly through the National Institute of Justice, to serve the needs of law enforcement and corrections agencies, but the effort as it stands today is unfocused and limited. That is why I have sought for over 3 years to establish an office for science and technology within the Department of Justice with the mission of improving the technical capabilities of law enforcement at all levels. The bill before us today would do just that. Let me also note that this bill would not create a new bureaucracy. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has scored this bill as revenue-neutral. Rather, the bill would transfer existing assets within the Justice Department to give the agency an improved science and technology capability to better respond to threats posed by technically savvy criminals and terrorists. This is a commonsense proposition. U.S. law enforcement agencies traditionally do not have research and development capabilities like those found in the military. Rather than creating a new R&D infrastructure for law enforcement, we must find ways to help law enforcement gain access to the scientific expertise found in our colleges and universities as well as our defense and national laboratories. H.R. 3482 does this by explicitly authorizing DOJ's existing network of regional technology assistance centers, the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers. These centers are able to leverage existing defense capabilities in sensitive areas such as information security, chemical, biological and nuclear security to provide Federal, State and local law enforcement access to the best technologies available to meet these emerging threats. In my home district, one such center is leading the Nation in the fight against cybercrime and all forms of crime. This is the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, Northeast Region, located at the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate at Rome, New York. A prominent example of the center's work was the establishment of the highly successful Utica Arson Strike Force in 1997. In less than a year, the city went from worst to first in the Nation in the rate of arson convictions. Leveraging the high tech expertise of the Air Force research laboratory, the center was able to create affordable technology tools for the Utica task force's use. While the track record of the center and others around the Nation is impressive, the amount of resources available for technical assistance is meager. The entire center system, as well as the science and technology function within the Department of Justice, needs a clear congressional mandate and an adequate budget. This bill would bring needed focus to R&D in support of law enforcement and establish the Office of Science and Technology as a key liaison between DOJ and other Federal research agencies. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Science recently heard testimony from a distinguished panel of the National Academy of Sciences about the need for greater science and technology investment to combat terrorism. For this reason, the Committee on Science unanimously approved the creation of an under secretary for research and development in the proposed Homeland Security Department. The bill before us today is consistent with this vision. As we move forward in this process, I hope to forge a close working partnership between DOJ's Office of Science and Technology and the new Homeland Security Department. I look forward to working with Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Smith and all members of the Committee on the Judiciary to ensure appropriate coordination of effort to help combat terrorism and to ensure that more and more State and local first responders have access to first-rate scientific and technological expertise.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment that clarifies a number of issues in the bill. It reflects the discussions between the committee and the administration, especially the White House and the Department of Commerce. It also includes language worked out with the Committee on Appropriations. So I appreciate the willingness of both the White House and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Appropriations to work with us to bring this bill to the floor with their support. This is an en bloc amendment that clarifies or alters several different sections of the bill. First, the amendment clarifies that members of investigative teams should be treated as contract employees, thereby shielding them from liability. Second, it clarifies that team members not recommend code changes or further research in the unlikely event that they do not believe any code changes or further research is necessary. Third, it expands the types of criminal investigations that would require NIST to stop serving as the lead agency at the site of the building collapse. Fourth, the amendment clarifies how certain decisions of the Director of NIST can be enforced. Fifth, it clarifies that all expenditures in the bill are subject to appropriations. Sixth, it clarifies in two separate places that the bill gives NIST no regulatory authority over the adoption of building standards, codes and practices. Finally, it changes the authorization to ``such sums,'' which is fitting, given that it is impossible to predict how many investigations will be conducted in any given year. We hope there will not be any. There are no ongoing expenses associated with the bill. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward and carefully negotiated amendment, agreed to in a bipartisan fashion, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I approach the task of bringing this bill to the floor with great solemnity. H.R. 4687 is, in many ways, a memorial to those who lost their lives on September 11 and a tribute to their families, who have joined together to advocate for this measure in the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety. It is fitting, therefore, that we are discussing this bill as Congress pulls together a Department of Homeland Security, another reaction to last fall's attack. Both H.R. 4687 and the Department are intelligent, targeted efforts to discern and apply the lessons of September 11. While the National Construction Safety Team Act will not do anything as dramatic as help us foil terrorist attacks, it will save lives in a more workaday manner than anti-terrorism legislation. The idea behind this bill is simple: we cannot make our buildings safer unless we understand what goes wrong when they fail. That has been a basic principle of engineering from its inception, and the Federal Government has been long involved in efforts to learn from building failures. But we learned from our Committee on Science hearings into the investigation that followed the World Trade Center collapse that our investigation system has its own failures. This bill is a carefully crafted attempt to address each and every failure that hampered the investigation into the World Trade Center collapse. The first problem was that no Federal agency was clearly charged with investigating building failures. The bill solves that problem by giving the National Institute of Standards and Technology clear responsibility to handle the investigations. Second, nothing ensured that investigations would begin quickly enough to preserve valuable evidence. The bill solves that problem by requiring NIST to act within 48 hours of a building failure. Third, no Federal agency had the investigative authority it needed to ensure access to all needed information. The bill solves that problem by giving NIST clear authority to enter sites, access documents, test materials, and move evidence, as well as clear authority to issue subpoenas. Fourth, nothing ensured that the public was kept informed of the progress of the investigation. The bill solves that problem by requiring NIST to provide regular public briefings and to make public its findings and the material that led to those findings. We have listened to expert witnesses, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Nation owes a great debt of gratitude to the American Society of Civil Engineers, which conducted the Trade Center investigation under the aegis of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We have responded with a measure targeted precisely to remedy the issues that came to our attention. And we base the bill on a highly successful model: the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal agency that investigates airline crashes. I should emphasize this bill is not just about responding to terrorist attacks. It will come into play anytime a building failure has lessons to teach, whether the building failed from a natural disaster or human action, regardless of whether that action was intentional. So I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It is a simple lifesaving measure. It has the support of the groups who worked to put together our Nation's life safety codes, like the Civil Engineers and the National Fire Protection Association; and it is fully supported by the administration. There are a lot of thanks due to a lot of people for helping to assemble this important measure. I want to thank the professional staff on both sides of the aisle on this Committee on Science. I want to thank all of my colleagues who invested so much of their time and energy and talent into producing this document, particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), who was a real leader, and my colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci), who have been key right from the beginning in working with us every step of the way. And Sally Regenhard, a wonderful woman, who has been there every step of the way representing the families, guiding us and inspiring us. And Dr. Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers. What a magnificent job they did under some very difficult circumstances. There are a lot of people who deserve credit for where we are today. But the basic point is this: we are taking action that, hopefully, will prevent something like this from ever happening again. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize enough the sensitivity with which the committee handled this very important assignment and the leadership provided by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), whom I am about to yield time to. They were very sensitive and compassionate in dealing with the families and helped to craft a bill that we can all be proud of. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci), someone who has been with us every step of the way, a very valuable member of the Committee on Science.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 4687.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying if a forensic expert were brought into the Committee on Science and asked to examine this piece of legislation, he would find on it the fingerprints of just about every single member of the committee, Democrat and Republican alike. The hallmark of this committee, as has been mentioned during this debate, is the inclusion. We want the ideas from everyone on the committee. I am proud to report to my colleagues in the House that this is an engaged committee. People are involved in helping to shape responsible public policy. I am very proud to serve in the capacity of chairman of a committee that is serving with such distinction addressing the needs of the American people. We have just been through 10 years, from March of 1991 to the end of the first quarter of last year, the longest period of sustained growth in modern history for the economy. That growth was largely driven by science, math, engineering, the technical people who are part of this Information Revolution. We had a slight downturn last year, and then we had 9-11, but we are on the rebound now. If we are to experience, to realize, the next era of sustained growth in our economy, we are going to have to be dependent on our own people, our people who are well trained, our universities that teach these very important subjects. We cannot rely on just people from abroad to come rescue us, and that is too often the case now. We have got to grow our own, right here. And so I am proud to present this bill to the House, to my colleagues, and to urge its adoption.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3130 proposes a simple and direct solution to a clear and urgent problem. The problem is that fewer and fewer American college students are majoring in mathematics, engineering, technology, or science, particularly in the physical sciences. This is a source of growing concern for many reasons. First and most obviously, the Nation needs to constantly replenish its supply of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to have a workforce that can compete in this increasingly technological world. The U.S. cannot assume that it can rely forever on immigrants, foreign students, and temporary emergency visa programs to meet its long-term workforce needs. Yet that is exactly what we are doing right now. But the problem goes beyond filling jobs that explicitly call for someone with a science degree. In today's world, just about every job has a component that is informed by science and technology, from the assembly line to the boardroom. Yet we have fewer and fewer Americans who have the background to understand and analyze technical information. Indeed, just to be an active citizen today requires more scientific background than was the case just a few years ago. Just think of how often this body turns to institutions like the National Academy of Sciences because so many policy questions today require a firm grounding in science. So we need to have more, not fewer, Americans trained in science and technology fields if we are to be a competitive economy and if we are to have a skilled workforce and an active polity. Now, reversing the current trends which have long been in the making is not easy. Many of the problems begin as early as elementary school; and this House has passed several major bills to address those problems, including H.R. 1 from the Committee on Education and the Workforce and H.R. 1858 from the Committee on Science. But not all of our problems reside at the K through 12 level. The statistics show that many students enter college intending to major in science, math, and engineering, but change course before declaring a major. Some of these students, of course, may just not be right for the field, but the attrition rate is far too high for that to be the whole story. The problem is, rather, that our colleges and universities by and large do not do enough to encourage students to remain in science, math, and engineering. Indeed, sometimes students are actually discouraged. We cannot afford to have that continue. H.R. 3130 takes aim at this problem directly by providing incentives for colleges and universities, including community colleges, to increase the number and quality of science, math, engineering, and technology majors. Under the bill, the National Science Foundation would provide grants to improve undergraduate science, math, and engineering education that are contingent on the grantee increasing the number of graduating majors in those fields by a specific amount without reducing quality. This is a direct and targeted approach that should make a real difference in the culture of our Nation's colleges and universities. I should note that NSF is already beginning to try this approach. Congress appropriated money for fiscal year 2002 to begin implementing H.R. 3130 on an experimental basis in advance of the bill's enactment, and the President has proposed continuing the program next year; but the program cannot be fully ramped up without this bill. H.R. 3130 also creates a number of other important programs to improve undergraduate education, including grants to enable colleges and universities to expand successful, innovative undergraduate programs; grants to enable faculty to improve their teaching skills; and grants to help colleges purchase new research equipment for undergraduates. It also expands the National Science Foundation's summer research program for undergraduates. Finally, the bill establishes a rigorous evaluation program so we can really learn what approaches to improving undergraduate education work and which ones do not. We have been flying by the seat of our pants for too long in this regard, and this bill will finally provide some reliable data and analysis on undergraduate reform. So H.R. 3130 is a good bill that promotes targeted steps to improve undergraduate education that will make a real difference. As with all good bills, this one reflects the work of many hands. I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and his staff for working so cooperatively with us on this bill, as they have on all education legislation. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking minority member of the Committee, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the primary Democrat sponsor of this bill, and all our minority Members for their contributions to this bill which passed in our committee by voice vote because it reflected ideas that originated on both sides of the aisle. I want to mention two Members of the minority specifically, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), as they should have been mentioned as cosponsors of the bill, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and other Texans on the committee for making sure that others in their State could compete fairly for grants under this bill, even though some Texas programs are organized differently from those in other States. I also want to thank many companies and high-tech industry groups such as Tech Net and higher education groups such as the American Council on Education that have actively supported this bill and helped us get it to the floor. This bill is supported, and it deserves everyone's support because it has widespread impact. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3130) to provide for increasing the technically trained workforce in the United States, as amended.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material in the Record on the bill just passed, H.R. 3130.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of today's resolution honoring the tremendous achievement of the United States Men's Soccer Team in the 2002 FIFA World Cup games. As this team of players, their coaches, and staff gathered together and set out for the games in Korea and Japan, they faced many challenges. They were flying thousands of miles to play the world's best teams in unfamiliar stadiums and to endure the harsh glare of skeptical sportswriters. It is fair to say that those skeptics have changed their minds. In the opening match against Portugal, our American team dominated the game and walked off with a three to two win under their belt. Critics thought it was a fluke. Coach Bruce Arena and his team were about to prove them wrong. The U.S. team went on to a draw with Korea and then a qualification for round two, despite an outcome that placed them behind Poland. No one was ignoring Team USA anymore. June 17 the U.S. team defeated the Mexicans in an outstanding showing in a final showing of 2-0. Our neighbors to the south were headed back to North America, and the U.S. soccer team was moving onward. I joined over 200 people here on Capitol Hill to watch the U.S. play Germany on June 21 in the early morning hours. I know I was not the only one on the edge of my seat throughout that heated match. What a game. Soccer fans across this great country have been rewarded for their dedication to this sport. In a Nation filled with wonderful sports teams and opportunities, it was fantastic to see our citizens come together to support a national team that has sometimes been overlooked. I have always considered myself to be one of the luckiest Members of Congress, the Hall of Fame representative, because I get to represent the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, the Boxing Hall of Fame in Canastota, the Long Distance Hall of Fame in Utica and the magnificent new Soccer Hall of Fame in Oneonta, all in the heartland of New York. The folks in Oneonta sparked my interest in soccer and got me so enthused that I helped found the Congressional Soccer Caucus. As a representative for the Hall of Fame and the co-chair of the Caucus, I would like to encourage continued support for soccer everywhere. Youth soccer programs across the Nation offer opportunities to millions of children from all backgrounds of every ability level to come together and learn the value of teamwork and sportsmanship. We need to take full advantage of increased public awareness for soccer that this World Cup has offered. Let us continue to promote youth programs so that we might watch young soccer stars work their way to the top in future World Cups. How can anyone who claims to be a sports fan ever forget the thrilling U.S. women's World Cup championship team of 1991? It hardly seems possible that a decade has passed since that dramatic moment in U.S. sports history. That was then. This is here and now. I would again like to extend congratulations to the men's U.S. World Cup team and their supporters. I look forward to seeing several of these talented young men as future inductees in the Soccer Hall of Fame in Oneonta, New York, and I look forward to our continued success in men's and women's USA soccer.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the freedoms we enjoy and the opportunities that abound for all Americans are the products of sacrifice on the part of so many. Often at far distant places in the world and under great stress. There are literally tens of thousands of stories, so many of which involve what it is widely acknowledged to be ``The Greatest Generation.'' One such story, that of Army Air Force Second Lieutenant William Wolber, is of heroic dimensions. It was relayed to me by a mutual friend and neighbor, Fred Carville of New Hartford, New York. Here it is, in the words of Mr. Carville: Second Lieutenant William Wolber served in the Army Air Force during World War II. He was a bombardier serving in the 8th Air Force, 466th Bomb Group, which flew the B-24 Liberators out of England. On one mission into Germany there were 12 planes in the formation flying in three flights of four planes each. Wolber's plane was flying in formation as plane three of the first flight. The standard procedure was for all planes of the mission to follow the lead plane of the first throughout the entire mission. Radio silence was of the utmost importance. On this particular mission planes one and two of the first flight were downed by enemy flak. Plane three (the one Bill was in) then took on the role of ``the lead plane'' for the return flight to England. All remaining planes were now taking their lead from plane three. However, Bill's plane, number three of the first flight, (for some reason) did not have a navigator on board during this particular mission. Second Lieutenant William Wolber, bombardier, assumed the role of navigator. He evaluated the situation, looked at the navigator's maps and equipment. Based on target information Wolber determined a heading for the return flight and passed the bearing he had calculated on to the pilots to follow. According to Bill's recollection, it was a very overcast day and the entire return flight was over cloud cover. There were no visual observations to aid in determining the correct return flight path. Bill continued to estimate the progress of the flight using the maps, heading, air speed, etc. All of the remaining planes of the mission continued to follow the lead of his plane. At one point Bill told the pilot ``we should be over the field, drop down through the cloud cover.'' The pilot dropped down through the cloud cover and lo and behold there was the field as Wolber had calculated. All remaining planes of the mission landed without incident. Bill continued his role as bombardier and flew 32 missions. I have thanked Carville for sharing that story with me. Because it says so much about the character and courage of a fellow American, I want to share it with you, my colleagues in the House of Representatives. But I want to add a postscript. I, like Mr. Carville, have been a friend and neighbor of Bill Wolber for years and yet never learned of that eventful mission in enemy territory during a peak period in a great world war until just recently. I wasn't surprised. You see, Bill Wolber is one of the finest, most decent, patriotic citizens I have ever had the privilege of meeting and getting to know. Bill Wolber is a quiet, unassuming guy who, I suspect, was always a giver, one who did things for others whenever the opportunity was there because it was ``the right thing'' to do. I'll bet deserved recognition never crossed his mind. I know he doesn't talk much about helping others, he just does it. And that is why he and his contemporaries like him have earned the accolade ``The Greatest Generation.''

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank our colleagues on the Committee on Resources, and especially my good friend and neighbor, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), for working with us to reconcile the different versions of the bill that emerged from our two committees. This is an important bill that reauthorizes a program that is vital to the Nation and to my home State of New York. In New York, the Sea Grant Program conducts important research that has helped preserve commercial and recreational fishing from the Long Island Sound to Lake Erie. The Sea Grant Program, through its research and extension activities, funds good science; and most importantly, it ensures that that good science is put to use. It is a model program. Like any program, the Sea Grant Program can be improved; and this bill takes critically important steps to reform it. These steps will, among other things, address the concerns that lead the administration to suggest moving the program to the National Science Foundation. The most significant feature of this bill is that it will ensure that more Sea Grant Program funds are distributed through the merit-reviewed competitions. Under the bill, any new money the program receives can be used solely for national strategic investments and/or competitive awards to the State Sea Grant programs. We expect the competitions among the State programs to mirror National Science Foundation merit-reviewed competitions. Only those programs that are the best run and the most successful, and that can make the clearest case for why they need the additional money, should share in any funds that Sea Grant receives above the fiscal 2002 level. The amount of funding a meritorious State receives should be based on its demonstrated needs and not on any previous assumptions about funding formulas. This competition will ensure that the taxpayers are getting their money's worth out of Sea Grant, and will create an incentive for every one of the State programs to ensure that their research and extension activities are exemplary. Mr. Chairman, Sea Grant is an excellent program that we are making even better. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)