Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a preamble, let me say one of the things I am proudest of in my 23 years in this great institution is the record that I have tried to establish to expand opportunity for all, and I have worked diligently on every committee on which I have served to expand opportunities for minorities. This committee recognizes the importance of that as the members of the committee will tell the gentlewoman who has offered the amendment. We are concerned. We care. We back up our words with deed. But I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment proposes to take scarce Federal funds to build buildings for private industry. I cannot imagine why we would use taxpayer money in that way. The idea is apparently for the Federal Government to build buildings on the campuses of minority institutions, which is an undefined term by the way, that would then in some way be turned over to the private sector.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Reclaiming my time, reading from the language of the amendment. ``The Administrator shall establish and carry out a pilot program to make grants to minority institutions for the development of physical facilities and infrastructure to be provided by NASA prime contractors for use in the performance of research, development, test and evaluation.'' I am not quite sure we can understand that. We on a bipartisan basis have some real problem with this language.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Reclaiming my time, there are some real problems with the drafting of this amendment because I am reading specifically language from the amendment. ``Development of physical facilities and infrastructure to be provided to NASA prime contractors.'' Maybe then the gentlewoman should withdraw the amendment and make sure we are understanding fully the clear intent of it so that we can work on it in a constructive manner in conference. But with that let me continue my statement because I have made a clear offer. The Federal Government has pretty much gotten out of the business of funding the construction of campus buildings because we simply do not have the money, and funding research and equipment is a better use of Federal funds. But funding construction in this manner where the final user of the building would be private industry makes the notion even more questionable. And the language of the amendment, quite honestly, is so vague that it is not clear how anyone would benefit from this unusual financial handout. That is not the way we should be handling the taxpayers' money. Let me once again offer to the gentlewoman in the spirit that this committee always operates, we will be glad to work with her on clearly defining the language and the intent so that as we go to conference committee, then perhaps we can come to some area of agreement. But as it now stands, I strongly oppose it.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the Women's Rights Movement. Today marks the 157th anniversary of the first Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and hundreds of other influential women planned, organized, marched and petitioned to achieve women's suffrage. These women produced the Declaration of Sentiments, which urges women's equality with men before the law, in education and employment. The declaration also was the first pronouncement demanding that women be given the right to vote. Their efforts brought the issues of equality and freedom to the forefront and forced people to examine the roles and rights of women in society. In a time when the United States is spreading freedom and democracy across the globe, we must honor the women who helped establish gender equality right here at home. These women exemplify courage and their fight for freedom must be remembered and celebrated. The recent success of the Iraqi people in their quest to vote is continued proof that all people want to have a say in the way their government functions and represents its citizenry. The United States must continue its quest for freedom and democratic rights for all people. I am proud to have the Women's Rights National Historical Park and the National Women's Hall of Fame in my Congressional district. The Women's Rights National Historical Park is comprised of the Wesleyan Chapel (the site of the first women's rights convention), Declaration Park (which displays the full text of the Declaration of Sentiments), and the Stanton Home. The National Women's Hall of Fame is a tribute to some of the greatest women in the history of the United States. The Hall continues to honor women's achievements and bring women's accomplishments to the foreground by annually inducting women whose contributions to society have been of great value to the development of their country. I encourage all people to visit and learn more about the women and the events that led to women's equality in the United States.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I note the committee's strong support for parallel electric hybrid buses. I agree, we must encourage the use of low-emission technologies as a way to reduce air pollution from our Nation's bus fleet. I would like to point out that series-type hybrid systems, although they operate differently from parallel systems, strive to meet the same goals. Regardless of their operating systems, I believe there is value in these technologies and hope the chairman will join me in encouraging their use. I would welcome any comments the Chair might care to make.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the arts motivate and inspire people of all ages to engage in learning, and that is what this is all about. Students who take regular arts courses are proven to score on average 90 to 100 points better on their SATs than students that do not take arts classes. Students that attend arts courses are shown to have better attendance, lower dropout rates, participate in more community service and have a higher self-esteem. That sounds to me like a pretty darn good investment in the youth of America. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 180) to support initiatives developed by the Firefighter Life Safety Summit and the mission of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation and the United States Fire Administration to reduce firefighter fatalities and injuries, to encourage implementation of the new ``Everyone Goes Home'' campaign to make firefighter safety a national priority, and to support the goals of the national ``stand down'' called by fire organizations.

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 on H. Con. Res. 180.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1970s, a report by the President's National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, entitled ``America Burning,'' presented a dismal assessment of fire safety in the United States. The report found that the U.S. had one of the worst, one of the worst, fire safety records in the industrialized world with nearly 12,000 citizens and 250 firefighters lost to fires annually. In the years that followed that seminal report, the U.S. Fire Administration was created. Fire prevention and fire safety awareness programs were made a priority in communities across the country. And by 1980, deaths suffered from both citizens and firefighters had been significantly reduced. These improvements steadily continued into the 1980s, and by the end of the 1990s, firefighter deaths had been reduced to an average of about 100 annually. A dramatic drop; still too many. Unfortunately, after 3 decades of great progress, firefighter deaths are disturbingly once again on the rise. In 2003, 112 firefighters lost their lives in the line of duty. Last year 117 died. And so far this year, there have been 58 deaths, on pace for about 130, which is about a 30 percent increase over the average of the previous decade. That, Mr. Speaker, is totally unacceptable. These troubling statistics have triggered an unprecedented effort by the leadership of America's fire service to address this problem, and the concurrent resolution before us today recognizes and supports those efforts. Specifically, the concurrent resolution supports three important efforts, which I will briefly describe. First, the resolution supports the 16 fire safety initiatives developed at a recent Firefighter Life Safety Summit convened by the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. The initiatives were developed to support the U.S. Fire Administration's goal, developed under the strong leadership of Administrator David Paulison, of reducing firefighter fatalities by 25 percent within 5 years and 50 percent within 10 years. We are talking about life. The initiatives range from broad ideas on the need for cultural change within the fire service related to safety to specific goals such as the development of national standards for training, certification, and physical fitness. The second effort recognized by this concurrent resolution is the ``Everyone Goes Home'' campaign to make firefighter safety a national priority. The campaign, led by the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, intends to raise fire safety awareness and bring fire prevention to the forefront, using the 16 fire safety initiatives as a blueprint for change. And the third effort recognized by this concurrent resolution is a national ``stand down'' for firefighter safety. Today, all across the country, fire departments are being urged to suspend all nonemergency activity and instead focus entirely on firefighter safety, calling attention to the unacceptable number of line-of-duty deaths and injuries. During the stand down, fire departments will talk about the causes of line-of-duty deaths, check apparatus and equipment, discuss health and safety regulations, review fire ground safety issues, and take stock of training needs and fitness goals. The International Association of Fire Chiefs has also requested that all volunteer departments conduct a special safety meeting the evening of June 21, today, or as near to this date as is possible. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to bring attention to the firefighter safety problem that the fire service is facing today and recognize the importance of these efforts. But this problem, of course, cannot be addressed with one day of recognition. It will take years of steadfast commitment and cooperation by those in the fire service as well as the general public to achieve the fire safety goals set forth by the U.S. Fire Administration. But I am confident that if we work together, we will be successful; and I am hopeful that today's stand down marks an important turning point in our struggle to reduce line- of-duty deaths by firefighters. And let me just add parenthetically that I am proud to be a Member of this great institution, the Congress of the United States, which has been responsible for initiating the Fire Safety Grant Award program, the SAFER program, providing resources. They get enough words from us on Capitol Hill about how supportive we are of the fire services. They want deeds, and we on a bipartisan basis have followed through by providing literally hundreds of million of dollars to firefighters across the country to get the necessary lifesaving equipment they need to do the job we expect of them: protecting us in our homes and our neighborhoods, our communities. So we all should take a brief moment to pat ourselves on the back for what we have done responsibly to respond to the problem. But that is not enough, and the fight continues, and I am proud to be a warrior in that fight. None of us had to be drafted. We enlisted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In wrapping up, I just want to recall a story about when I was a freshman Member of this great body 23 years ago. I sat on the Committee on Science, and we have jurisdiction over firefighter programs. I recall one of the witnesses being asked if there was a distinction between the professional and volunteer firefighters, and one of my senior colleagues at the time quickly demanded recognition from the chair, and he said to that Member asking the question, There are no amateurs in this business; they are all professionals. Some are paid, some are volunteer, but they are all professionals. The recognition of that has prompted all of us to initiate the fire safety Grant program, to initiate the SAFER program. We expect so much of our firefighters. They need the resources to do the job that we demand that they do every single day. All of us in our consciousness have a new appreciation for what the firefighters of America do as a result of 9/11 when 343 firefighters lost their lives. They gave their all for this Nation. Since then, we have developed in some quarters, where there was no prior recognition of the need of the fire service, a new appreciation for what we have to do. Once again, let me credit this institution. We are often criticized for not being as responsive as some would like to some of the issues facing us across this country. But this institution, on a bipartisan basis, has responded to the call. Today's resolution is about words and concepts and ideas, but more meaningful is the action, the deeds that we do by appropriating money, by following through to make certain that money is used for its intended purpose and used wisely, and it is. So this, in a sense, is an affirmation of our great appreciation for the firefighters, the men and women all across America on a very professional basis who daily are providing some measure of security for us in our homes and in our communities, and in our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I am a little bit surprised that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), who is a former member of the Committee on Science, and let me add a valuable member of the Committee on Science, I am a little surprised he would be offering this amendment. Let me say what I have said many times in response to earlier amendments. We cannot be decimating a valuable program so another can do a little bit better, and that is what this amendment would do. The National Science Foundation is not exactly flush with cash these days. The appropriators deserve to be congratulated for the funding they have been able to find; but let me remind Members, it is not as much as NSF received in fiscal year 2004. The approval rate for grant applications is down 20 percent. The approval rate in some subfields, some specialties, is in the single digits. Meanwhile, NSF is being asked to take on more responsibilities, such as footing the bill for the ice-breaking activities in the Antarctic. This is not the time to be cutting NSF. NSF does not have cash to spare. Even the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) recognizes this because he proudly joined us in signing a letter requesting far more money for NSF than this bill provides. That letter talks about how vital NSF programs are to our Nation's economic future. If one takes the long view, it is kind of ironic to take money away from NSF to find funding for local law enforcement. If our economy falters, then crime will surely go up. And if we do not invest in basic research, then over time our economy surely will falter. We should not be doing this. This is not the right way to approach it. I urge opposition to this amendment which will take money away from a vital cash-strapped agency which is dealing with our future. No one will fund basic research if the Federal Government does not. That is not true of local law enforcement. So I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for their hard work on this bill. I believe they have done everything within their power to support the National Science Foundation, given the funds available. To that end, I would like to work with the chairman and his subcommittee to bolster the future allocation for fundamental science. We cannot let our investment stagnate or slip. I know they understand, and we all need to appreciate, the impact innovation has on jobs in our economy. We need to remain dedicated to investing in innovation; and I want to stand by Chairman Wolf, and once again let me express my deep appreciation and to stand by the chairman and to offer to help in this very important process.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment. This is a delicately balanced bill and the Obey amendment would destroy that balance. The account that the gentleman from Wisconsin is reducing funds the President's space exploration initiative, and also NASA's Earth science, space science, and aeronautics programs. All of these programs are at a critical point and are struggling for funds. At a time when we are trying to keep important Earth science missions on the drawing board, at a time when we face increased costs for both the Hubble space telescope and its planned successor, the James Webb space telescope, at a time when we are contemplating significant changes in our aeronautics program, at a time when we are trying to create new technologies to return to the Moon, this arbitrary cut proposed in this amendment is simply not appropriate. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. An appropriations bill is all about balance. All of us have programs in this bill we would like to see funded a little more or a little less. But the question before us is whether the bill strikes the overall balance among programs, given the fiscal constraints that we all face. And I think that with this bill, the appropriators did an outstanding job with their balancing act. We should be very cautious about throwing off that balance. Let me give you an example from a program under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science. Is the National Science Foundation lavishly funded? Hardly. The appropriation for NSF, for example, is not even enough to bring the agency back to its 2004 funding level. The committee recognized the importance to our Nation's future of funding long-range basic research at our Nation's universities, but the committee could not find the money to provide anything like the authorized level of funding. That is the kind of balancing act the committee had to pull off throughout the bill. Now this arbitrary across-the-board amendment comes along that would unravel all of this, and I oppose it. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate President Chen Shui-ban and the people of Taiwan, as they celebrate the close of the 1st year of President Chen's second term in office. Taiwan and the United States share universal values of freedom, human rights, and democracy. Based on these common principles, our two countries work together closely politically and economically. Taiwan is our 8th largest trading partner, and we are Taiwan's largest trading partner. There are more than 270 direct flights between the United States and Taiwan every week and more than twenty eight thousand Taiwanese students currently studying in the United States. We hope that this relationship will become even closer in the years ahead, as President Chen continues his leadership. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues here in the Congress have recently written a letter to Lee Jong-wook, Director General of the World Health Organization, asking him to support Taiwan's bid for observer status in the World Health Assembly, the WHO's governing body. Taiwan has a modern, world-class health care system and has lent its talent and resources to people in need throughout Asia and around the world. As such, Taiwan has much to contribute to global health and deserves a place under the WHO umbrella, and it is important that they be given the opportunity to do so. President Chen continues to call for resumption of dialogue between the PRC and Taiwan to ensure that any resolution of the ``Taiwan Question'' is through peaceful means. He remains committed to promoting the establishment of a peaceful and stable mechanism for cross-strait relations, a goal that we here in the Congress certainly share with him. Maintaining the status quo between the PRC and Taiwan is of paramount importance to the United States. Once again, I congratulate President Chen and his 23 million countrymen.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, every invention, each new scientific concept, every technical advance in the history of mankind has been challenged and analyzed and debated, and properly so. Change makes us uncomfortable, forces us to design new paradigms; but in the final analysis, it is man's fundamental obligation to use science for the betterment of mankind. In this instance, we are called upon to heal diseases that have plagued and bewildered us for centuries. It would be unconscionable and irresponsible should we fail to live up to our obligation in this critical matter. The moral and ethical question is this, do we destroy embryos, simply discard them, embryos that will never be implanted in a womb but which can advance stem cell research to cure historic illnesses? The answer is, no, we should move forward with important scientific research, forward movement which will be enhanced in a measured way by passage of the measure before us.