Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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 Eddie Bernice Johnson) amendment which has been withdrawn, and now she is willing to offer a compromise amendment that we are prepared to accept.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. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT

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

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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.)

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, with sadness, I want to join my colleagues in memorializing the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia. All of us on the floor today are trying to do the same thing: we are trying to fill a palpable absence with tangible words. It is quite literally an impossible task and all the more heartrending because we witnessed the moments when the shuttle vanished into thin air. I can only begin to imagine the pain felt by the crew's colleagues and friends and family and those who knew these men and women not just as the brave heroes that we have come, perhaps too late, to fully appreciate, but also as individuals, each with his or her unique personality, accomplishments, and responsibilities. They, much more than us, must live with the absences created by Saturday's tragedy. But it is not just absence we are acknowledging in our remarks. It is also a presence. The names and faces and stories of the Columbia crew are now engraved in our hearts and minds, not just because they died, but because they lived. They were brave, dedicated, and talented; and they set an example for us all. They are as much an inspiration in death as in life, and they join a long line of explorers who have sacrificed their lives charting the future for all of us. We are in their debt. Yesterday, at the memorial service in Houston, I was taken with the quiet dignity so evident on the part of so many. We, in an hour of pain and sorrow, took our lead from the families. They must know that the Nation, indeed the world, is grieving with them. And as I sat there thinking about lifetimes of achievement snuffed out in a moment of tragedy, I did what so many of us have done. All of us associated with the investigation are determined to find out what went wrong and to fix it. And then we must move on with exploration, with the search for new frontiers. That will be the enduring legacy for the Columbia Seven. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns); and before he begins, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) be allowed to control the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I have the high honor and privilege of announcing that on Sunday, July 27 in Cooperstown, New York, baseball's mecca, the newest class of greats will be inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Today at 2 o'clock, the Baseball Writers Association of America announced that greats Eddie Murray of the Baltimore Orioles and Gary Carter of the New York Mets will consist of the class of 2003. You are all invited to Cooperstown, New York, on July 27.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for initiating this tribute. It is well deserved, for a guy that I have had the pleasure of knowing for 20 years. We came together in 1982 in the freshman class. Over those 20 years, I have had a chance to get to know this distinguished and very fine gentleman very well. He is a versatile guy in so many respects. He is a many-dimensional guy and one who has devoted a generation to service in the House and to service of the people of Pennsylvania. He will be missed. I think it is so fitting that he came in here as a winner in 1982 and he leaves here as a winner tonight with his signature legislation.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5710, a bill too long delayed, which will establish a Department of Homeland Security. I want to acknowledge the perseverance of the President and the Leadership, which has enabled this bill to come before us today. I also want to acknowledge the long weekends and nights of hard work that went into this bill, especially by Margaret Peterlin and the rest of the Majority Leader's staff. We appreciate the close working relationship our staff on the Science Committee has had with the Leadership staff. Mr. Speaker, I'll be quite brief today because I outlined the Science Committee's perspective on this bill when H.R. 5005 passed in July. Let me just say now that I am delighted that the Department of Homeland Security will have an Under Secretary for Science and Technology. As I keep saying, the war against terrorism, like Cold War, will be won as much in the laboratory as on the battlefield. With that in mind, we felt it essential that the Department have a directorate and an Under Secretary with clear responsibility for R&D across the Department. I'm pleased that just about everyone has come around to this point of view. I believe that cybersecurity and R&D will be among the areas in which the Department will make its greatest contribution. These are areas in which the Department will not just improving coordination among existing agencies, but will have to build new capacity from the relatively limited building blocks that are being transferred into the Department. I urge passage of this bill.