Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). I think this week and this day and tomorrow are probably two of the most important days to the youth of our country because we are discussing an energy bill, an energy bill that might just lay out what their future might be. If I had a youngster who was a sophomore in high school, a junior or maybe a senior, I would be very concerned about their future if we do not solve our energy problems. Today and tomorrow I think the most important bill that is going to come before this Congress is going to be decided, and I think we are going to pass it. We are going to send it over to the Senate. We are going to go to work on the Senate to try to get those two votes that we have not been able to get in 4 years over there, 4 years. We have to make this out as a generational bill because we are talking about a generation of youngsters that might have to all go overseas to fight a war to bring us some energy here. It is a shame if they have to do that when we have plenty of energy right here at home. I know that back in the early days, and I go back to history sometimes, if you look at the past and see that we should not make the mistakes of the past; but sometimes they light a light for us to see what happened and see what caused it to happen. Back in the 1940s, back in the late 1930s, we had a President named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He made a lot of great speeches. One of the great speeches he made was about fear, about the Great Depression. He said, ``The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'' And he led us out of that Depression. But one of the other speeches that he made that scholars have noted and many people have listened to and many have used it as a part of their thrust in their discussion, he said, ``To some generations much is given, of some generations much is expected, but this generation has a rendezvous with destiny.'' That rendezvous with destiny turned out to be World War II. As we listened on our Philco radios, we heard him make these speeches. He spoke those words. He spoke those words following the action of Cordell Hull, who was Secretary of State then; Henry Stimson, Secretary of War. They had both cut Japan off from energy. We supplied them their entire energy thrust and they depended on us for it. When we cut them off, we should have known that they had to break out and go somewhere. They had to go south into Malaysia. They had to have energy because the country of Japan, who did not hate this country, Admiral Perry had opened them up to trade earlier, but they were forced to go south into Malaysia or do something because they had to have energy. That was an energy war; there is no question about it. I think, as they did when they cut that off with Japan, having 13 months' national existence, war was inevitable and that was an energy war. Sometime later the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, went into the Ploesti oil fields. He went east into the Ploesti oil fields. Their tanks and their airplanes were out of fuel. They had to go east. That was a battle for energy. Energy caused that action. Then George Bush, the father of our present President, just some 10 or 11 years ago sent 450,000 youngsters over to the desert in Iraq. That was a war for energy. Not because we did not like the Emir of Kuwait or we wanted to help him for some reason. It was a war to keep a bad guy named Saddam Hussein, who is now in a cage, from getting his foot on half the known energy sources in the entire world. Nations will fight for energy; there is no question about that. But we do not have to because we can solve our own problems. With this bill, H.R. 6, we can prevent a war. We can drill on ANWR. We can drill up to the depths of the gulf. We can go down 5- or 6,000 feet or 10,000 feet but we cannot get it back up. But with technology we can do that. That is provided for in this bill. We certainly can have energy if we pass this bill. And then our youngsters can say with a great bit of courage and great bit of hope in their voice, What school am I going to attend, rather than what branch of service am I going to have to enter. This country will fight for energy. We do not have to. This Congress has to fight for H.R. 6. We have to pass H.R. 6, and if we do that, our youngsters will not have to fight that war that the past has indicated could happen.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the lives and the upcoming birthdays on February 14 of two outstanding Texas women, Henrietta C. Smith of Greenville, Texas, in the Fourth Congressional District, and her twin sister, Nina Lee Klein of Garland. Henrietta and Nina will celebrate their 85th birthdays with a family reunion in Austin, and I join their children, grandchildren, and many friends in recognition of this joyous occasion. Henrietta and Nina have been excellent role models for their families and for young people who have known them. Henrietta obtained bachelor's and master's degrees from Texas A&M University at Commerce and also attended Miss Hickey's Secretarial School in St. Louis, MO. A resident of Greenville for 54 years, she retired as a vocational counselor from Greenville High School in 1988. Prior to that, she was a guidance counselor at Greenville Junior High School and a sixth grade teacher at Bowie Elementary School. She remains active in the community, as an elder at Grace Presbyterian Church, past president and annual book sale volunteer for the American Association of University Women, and past president of the Greenville Area Retired Teachers and School Employees Association. Nina also has been active in her church as well as various women's groups and is a lifelong homemaker. Although legally blind throughout her life, Nina graduated from Maryville University in St. Louis with a degree in sociology--a significant accomplishment--and has been a productive and active member of her community. Henrietta was married to the late Wilson Smith, who died in 1968. They have three children--Charlotte Wright of Davidsonville, MD, Marsha Smith of Pahrump, NV, and Edward Smith of Fairfield, TX, as well as four grandchildren. Nina lost her husband, Walter Klein, in 1995. Their daughter, Barbara Klein, lives in Garland. Although these sisters live 50 miles apart, they still see each other several times each month. As they celebrate their 85th birthday on Valentine's Day, February 14, with their family, I want to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to extend my best wishes to Henrietta C. Smith and Nina Lee Klein for a wonderful celebration and recognize their many contributions to their families and their communities.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to two outstanding citizens of Denison, Texas, and my dear friends, Lacy and Dorothy Harber, owners of American Bank of Texas and LJH Corporation. Lacy and Dorothy recently received the Denison Area Chamber of Commerce Large Business Award for their efforts in uniting the community through business and employment opportunities. The State of Texas House of Representatives awarded them a Certificate of Recognition for this prestigious award. Lacy and Dorothy have devoted their time, talent, and resources to numerous worthy projects in Denison and Grayson County. They are beloved and respected by all those who know them, and they have been vital to growth and development in Denison. Mary Ellen and I feel very fortunate to count them as our friends, and I am very fortunate to be their Congressman. Mr. Speaker, as we adjourn today, let us address in the House of Representatives these two exceptional leaders of the business world and generous people--Lacy and Dorothy Harber.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to recognize Ralph Mayrell for his achievement at the 2003 Veterans Day Program in Wills Point, TX. Ralph's speech, Diversity in America, won the essay contest sponsored by local veterans at Wills Point High School. Ralph Mayrell, a senior at Wills Point High School, is an active member of both his school and his community. He is a frequent participant in academic events, such as the University Interscholastic League, in which he often serves as both coach and competitor in numerous events. He also competes in the National Forensics League and the North Texas Debate Association. Additionally, Ralph volunteers his time to the National Honor Society, an organization that stresses academic achievement and local community involvement, and extracurricular programs such as Science Geek Week, an academic summer camp for local youth. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend and congratulate Ralph for his achievement at the 2003 Veterans Day Program and for his continued academic and community involvement.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to pay tribute to Bonnie L. Gentry, a dedicated educator and sister of Buck Crowley, my long-time friend and assistant in the district. Bonnie passed away on February 2, 2002, and in March of this year, the Mesquite Independent School District recognized her by naming its 30th elementary campus in her honor. Born in Fate, TX, to R.L. and Mattie Crowell, Bonnie received her teaching certificate at the age of 14. For the next 54 years, she served as both teacher and principal for the Rockwall and Mesquite Independent School Districts. In 1959, she became Mesquite's first female principal when she was appointed to the position at Ben F. Tisinger Elementary. She held the position until her retirement in 1974. In addition to her teaching career, Bonnie also served in such organizations as the Texas Retired Teachers Association, the Order of the Eastern Star, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and Delta Kappa Gamma. She is survived by her brothers Herman Crowell, R.S. ``Bob'' Crowell, and M.L. ``Buck'' Crowell; sisters Christine Davison and Leona Strain; and numerous nieces and nephews. Bonnie will long be remembered as a devoted and caring educator who touched the lives of many. On behalf of her family, friends, students, and the Mesquite Independent School District, I would like to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to pay my last respects to Mrs. Bonnie L. Gentry.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, in honor of Taiwan's National Day on October 10, 2004, I wish to salute President Chen Shui-bian and the Taiwanese people for their many economic and political accomplishments. Even though Taiwan is a small island nation with few natural resources, it has prospered. With one of the world's largest foreign exchange reserves, Taiwan's 23 million people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. President Chen believes that every citizen of Taiwan ought to enjoy the right to work, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to an education, the right to medical care, the right to participate in elections, and the right to social security in the event of unemployment, illness and disability. In his May 20 inaugural address to his people, President Chen expressed his hope that Taiwan-China ties could be strengthened and urged cooperation in building a dynamic ``peace and stability framework'' for cross-strait interaction. I hope that talks will resume toward that end. Even though Taiwan and the United States do not have formal diplomatic ties, our two peoples are very close. In terms of trading relations with us, Taiwan is our eighth largest trading partner, thus providing many jobs for our manufacturers. In addition, more than 30,000 Taiwan students study at U.S. colleges and universities. The United States is the number one destination for most of Taiwan travelers. The U.S. and Taiwan share many values in common, such as attachment to freedom, democracy, and human rights. As Taiwan celebrates National Day, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Taiwan's many accomplishments and offering our support to President Chen as he provides leadership, vision, and direction for Taiwan.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to recognize Paul Foerster, resident of Rockwall, Texas and recipient of a gold medal in the Games of the XXVIIIth Olympiad in Athens, Greece. On August 21, 2004, Paul Foerster, and his teammate, Kevin Burnham, won the men's team gold medal for the United States in the 2004 Olympic Regatta for sailing in the 470 Class. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the entire 4th District of Texas, I would like to take this opportunity to commend and congratulate Paul for his outstanding performance and representation of the United States in the Games of the XXVIIIth Olympiad.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to recognize Sherman Independent School District's Reading Recovery program In 2001, President George W. Bush signed a landmark law, the No Child Left Behind Act, which stresses academic achievement for all students and includes more accountability for student results. The Sherman Independent School District's Reading Recovery program meets and exceeds the standards and guidelines of that law. Reading Recovery is a highly effective, short-term intervention involving one-on-one tutoring for low-achieving first graders. Students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students demonstrate that they can read within the average range of their classmates, their lessons are discontinued. Sherman's Reading Recovery program is a big success. At the Reading Recovery site located at Crutchfield Elementary School, students who completed the program passed the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) test by a rate of 92 percent last year. The gains made by these students are truly impressive--they had higher text reading gains than their peers, had low levels of placement in special education classes, and had high levels of advancement to the next grade level. Reading Recovery is precisely the kind of program our schools need to advance the goals of the No Child Left Behind law. Research issued by the U.S. Department of Education finds that students tutored according to the Reading Recovery model read more proficiently than 75 percent of their untutored peers. This program is a valuable part of a comprehensive literacy plan and supplements good classroom teaching. On behalf of the students, teachers, and administrators of the Sherman Independent School District's Reading Recovery program, I want to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to commend their successful efforts to leave no child behind.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Republic of Kazakhstan on its continued--and steady--progress toward building a democracy. In particular, I note the recent parliamentary elections held in Kazakhstan on September 19. While the elections show that Kazakhstan has work to do in order to more fully meet international standards for democratic elections, they were a significant improvement over past elections. Earlier this year, I was visited by members of the Kazakhstan Embassy. Among other information I learned that Kazakhstan gained its independence in 1991. It held its first multiparty election in 1994. In 1999, the republic conducted parliamentary elections that were widely criticized by the international community. Since that time, Kazakhstan passed a much-improved law on elections, held twelve televised debates, conducted effective voter education, permitted more than 1,000 election observers to monitor the elections, and registered 12 parties-- including an opposition party that had been refused registration in prior elections. These are all positive steps forward for Kazakhstan-- steps that were unthinkable in past elections. I thanked them for their visit--and assured them that as Chairman of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, I looked forward to working out mutual energy thrusts helpful to both Kazakhstan and the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight to my colleagues an essay published by United Press International on September 25, 2004, and written by Gregory Fossedal, entitled ``Outside View: Big progress in Kazakhstan.'' The essay provides a balanced assessment of the recent Kazakh election. Unlike many of his colleagues, Mr. Fossedal examines the elections within the context of Kazakhstan's young history. He looks at how far Kazakhstan has come since its independence and how it compares with its neighbors. Moreover, the essay makes a compelling case that, considering Kazakhstan's geographic and demographic position, its steady progress is important to U.S. security. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read this essay and I would like to have the text of this essay placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. [From United Press International, Sept. 25, 2004] Outside View: Big Progress in Kazakhan (By Gregory Fossedal) Washington, DC, Sept. 24 (UPI).--Kazakhstan held national elections on Sunday, prompting comments from a number of outside observers, and all the local opposition, that the vote was a step backwards for democracy. Was it that--or was it just not as much progress as democracy-lovers around the world, including me, might hope for? To answer that question, we need to decide what Kazakhstan's admittedly sloppy democracy today is being compared to: the Kazakhstan of several years ago, other countries in the region 10 years ago, or Russia, China, Iraq or Florida? By most of these standards, the country seems to have made mild but steady improvement. Progress, that is to say, motion towards a goal. Furthermore, considering Kazakhstan's geographic and demographic position, it's a steady improvement that's important to U.S. security and democracy in general. Measuring a democracy's progress at the low end of development is a tricky matter, but Kazakhstan's recent vote appears to have at least two positive signposts. First, the vote was held, and with numerous international observers. Some of these, especially as covered in the major press, had complaints about both voting mechanics and the social backdrop against which the vote took place--especially including reports of ``intimidation'' of some voters on Election Day, and the lack of a paper trail from voting machines used by about 20 percent of the voters. In fact, to an extent, that's the point. Kazakhstan has now held a competitive election, with a largest number of international observers per capita compared to (say) recent votes in Venezuela, Indonesia or the Philippines. Critics can point out flaws, document the ruling party's heavy- handedness, and urge future improvements. The most balanced report to emerge, by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, generated Western headlines saying the election ``failed the democracy test'' (The New York Times) and even was ``fraudulent'' (The Washington Times). But the report itself noted positive areas of ``progress'' as against previous Kazakh elections--the relevant unit of comparison. Professor Frederick Starr of Johns Hopkins, who was in Kazakhstan as an observer, judged the voting to be fundamentally improved over recent Kazakh standards. ``Overall . . . the election was ``a step forward, not withstanding the imperfections,'' he said in a statement issued in Astana on Monday. Unfortunately, such views were not widely quoted in the international press. Second, and more important, if the results hold up, at least one opposition party will be seated in the Kazakh Parliament. This is an important signpost in democratic development--as the evolution of Mexico, the Philippines, Pakistan, Turkey, and other countries shows. Looking back at countries that have completed a successful democratic transition, opposition seating is normally a key inflection point. This doesn't mean that Kazakhstan will be a full democracy shortly, or even in five or 10 years; the government could always crack down and reverse direction. It is, however, forward motion. In social terms, Kazakhstan also parallels some of the developments seen in Mexico or the Philippines in the 1980s. Income is surging, the economy has grown at an 8 percent to 12 percent pace each of the last five years. This, in turn, is generating a middle class with greater access to information, and insistence on freedom of expression. Kazakhstan doesn't enjoy much of a domestic free press, for example. But foreign newspapers and magazines are available in most cities. Mobile telephone usage has more than tripled over five years. In 1997, there were as paltry 15,000 Internet users. This rose to more than 70,000 in 2000, more than 150,000 last year, and probably exceeds 200,000 today. That's still small for an emerging middle-income country with 16 million people. But of course, every such user has family, friends, and business associates. In emerging democracies, as in Poland in the 1980s, information can spread quickly. As well, Kazakhstan now has a number of independent service providers less amenable to direct government control. The government has tried to block access to critical news sources at home and abroad. Such efforts, however, are generally doomed to failure unless one goes all the way and imposes direct, government-controlled net access only-- something the government has stepped back from doing. Sergei Duvanov of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting outlined how Kazakhs were able to get around many of the blocks in an interesting 2001 report. As well, President Nazarbaev, stung by international criticism of his efforts to regulate speech, has rescinded a number of the 1998-2000 decrees. This is not to say that immutable economic or social forces will bring about a full Kazakh democracy no matter what the authorities do. Countries like China, for example, have much wider Internet access and a larger middle class--but still no elections, and no substantial opposition parties. In Kazakhstan, however, the Internet and other information sources act in combination with independent parties, muddy elections--but elections nevertheless--and what should be a parliamentary opposition. And the government has moved gradually (tortuously gradually; perhaps) towards more freedom; not less, since the country achieved independence in 1991. The election itself raised several problems. For example, a Monday item in The New York Times, ``Intimidation Alleged in Vote in Kazakhstan,'' starts with a quote harshly condemning the elections from Dos Kushyn, who is described as ``the director of the Network of Independent Monitors,'' which placed 2,000 observers around the country. This caught the attention of at least one seasoned Kazakh observer who sent me a number of pre-election clips referring to approximately 1,000 accredited election observers in the country--total, from all outside groups. How could one fellow, running an organization never mentioned before, have 2,000 observers? It turns out that Dos Kushyn is an opposition figure and whatever 2,000 ``observers'' he fielded, few were accredited. This doesn't mean their opinions should be dismissed. But neither should his complaints be taken at face value, still less as coming from a wholly disinterested group. Most Western press quoted only Kazakh officials defending the election or putting it in context. In other words, they presented criticism from independent sources, and praise only from the government, whose motives are likely to be questioned by any skeptical reader. What they didn't do was refer to the numerous independent observers, some cited above, who said that on balance, the election didn't meet Western standards--but was an improvement. The government also used voting machines, which are, indeed, a problem--especially given that the computers Kazakhstan deployed, like some of those coming into use in a number of U.S. states, left no ``paper trail.'' This is not a best practice. One can sympathize, however, with the government's decision to go with expensive, high-tech systems from the West, thinking this would buy some credibility. The United States--which in contrast to Kazakhstan is allowing a total of 20 (that's right, 20) independent observers for its 2004 vote--should be a little reticent about raising this complaint. Still less should U.S. policy aim at punishing the country with economic aid restraints and sanctions, as some in Congress have proposed. Unlike other countries in what one observer has called ``the scud belt,'' Kazakhstan doesn't need piles of aid (Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq) to hold votes or stay on the democratic path. It hasn't built or tried to build nuclear weapons (Pakistan, India, China). It seems, knock on wood, to be moving the right way--as opposed to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others. This is said not to criticize the other countries mentioned, but to point out that the Kazakhs are building democracy quietly and by tugging their own bootstraps, and without evident imperial ambitions or terrorist-nationalist resentments. Kazakhstan is an important potential ally to the United States, Russia, and its neighbors in the ``war on terror.'' It's also a potential bulwark for the faintly democratic tide among countries with large (about 45 percent) Muslim populations. There is a prospect of a ring of democracies on the borders of China and Iran, the better to raise the heat on those undemocratic states. And large Muslim-population states--Turkey, Indonesia, the Philippines, Mongolia, and potentially Iraq and Afghanistan--serve as examples and proof that Islam need not be anti-democratic. Thus Kazakhstan is moving in a democratic direction--too slowly, but not going the wrong way. The right response for friends of democracy is to offer encouragement. If matters reverse, it's time for some mild sticks. Working slowly by contrast, should bring soft applause and some small carrots.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of Tyler, TX, the late Bob Hobkirk, who passed away on July 29, 2004, at the age of 88. Bob Hobkirk served in the U.S. Army for 4\1/2\ years during World War II as a drill sergeant and weapons instructor. He was employed by Hormel Food Company for 43 years, until he retired in 1977. Bob was one of the first presidents of Camp Fannin, a veteran's association, that was originally the site for training soldiers in World War II. Bob was a loving man who had a ``heart of gold.'' He devoted his life to helping veterans of Camp Fannin and was commonly the ``go-to'' man when something needed to be resolved. His tireless spirit and heart-felt devotion were an inspiration to members of Camp Fannin and the community of Tyler. Bob is survived by his wife of 60 years, Lois Gimble Hobkirk. Bob suffered a stroke 19 months prior to his death, and Lois never left his bedside during the duration of his illness. Their marriage was blessed with two daughters and a son. Jody Henning, Judy and her husband Olan Gotcher, and Robert ``Bob'' Jr. and his wife Pam survive their father. Bob is also survived by his granddaughter Tracy Henning, four sisters- in-law, and numerous nieces and nephews. Mr. Speaker, as we adjourn today, on behalf of friends, fans, Camp Fannin, and the community of Tyler, I would like to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to pay our last respects and honor the life of this great Texan and veteran's advocate--Bob Hobkirk.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the majority leader, Mr. DeLay, and Chairman Bob Ney for bringing this timely resolution, H. Res. 796, to the floor today. I also want to thank the cosponsors for their interest in this bipartisan bill. H. Res. 796 recognizes and supports efforts to promote greater civic awareness among the people of the United States. The resolution recognizes those organizations and groups that actively promote voter registration and participation, as well as those communities and schools that have instituted civic awareness programs. The resolution also encourages local communities and elected officials at all levels of government to promote greater civic awareness among the electorate and greater participation in the upcoming elections. The Constitution of the United States establishes a representative form of government, and throughout our Nation's history, many groups of people have fought, protested, rallied, and died for the right to vote. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution represent some of those hard-won voting privileges. The percentage of Americans registered to vote unfortunately has declined in the last 10 years. There is no better time to make citizens more aware of the importance of exercising their right--and their responsibility--to vote. Voting is fundamental to our representative form of government--and as Members of Congress we must support and promote civic awareness and participation. Our democracy is a government of all the people, by all the people, and for all the people. All those eligible to vote have an equal voice in determining the future of our great Nation. H. Res. 796 promotes greater awareness of one of the greatest privileges we have as American citizens--the right to vote--and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in supporting this timely measure.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to recognize Dr. John Coble of Greenville, Texas, recipient of the 2004 American Optometric Association's Optometrist of the Year award. After serving his country in the United States Army and Texas Army National Guard, Dr. Coble graduated from the University of Houston College of Optometry and began his distinguished career as an optometrist. He currently practices optometry in Greenville where he also serves as clinical staff at Presbyterian Hospital and as a liaison to the Medicare Carrier Advisory Committee. He is also active in the North East Texas Optometric Society, the Texoma Optometry Society, and the Student Texas Optometric Society. Dr. Coble frequently dedicates his time and skill to a number of civic and volunteer organizations. He is active in the Greenville Chamber of Commerce, the Greenville Rotary Club, and the United Way of Hunt County. Additionally, Dr. Coble is involved in mentoring local youth, performing vision screenings for the Dallas Headstart program, coaching YMCA baseball and basketball teams, and serving as Boy Scout Leader. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 4th District of Texas, I would like to congratulate and commend Dr. Coble for his recognition by the American Optometric Association and his continued involvement in the community.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, on July 2, 2004, an esteemed writer and community supporter, Florence Fogle Keahey, died in Bonham, TX. Florence Fogle Keahey was a noted writer in Fannin County. Born and raised on a farm near Ivanhoe, Florence quickly developed a love of the written word. She won her first prize at the age of 10, and she had several of her poems published in high school. Florence enrolled in the Correspondence School of the Newspaper Institute of America and was a reporter for many years with the Sherman Democrat. She wrote several articles, poems and stories for newspapers in Bonham, Sherman, Denison, and Dallas. While her writing skills were impressive, she also devoted herself to serving the community of Fannin County. She was an organizing regent for the George Blakey Daughters of the American Revolution, a charter member of the D. Rowlett Chapter of Daughters of the Republic of Texas, a member of the Bonham Womens' Club, Iris Society, Texas League of Women Voters, Poetry Society of Texas, and the Democratic Women's Club of Fannin County, and president of the Ivanhoe Community Center. Florence also served Fannin County as its treasurer for 28 years. Florence is survived by her daughter, Dottie Keahey Davis, grandchildren, Leasa Liles, Mitch Scott Davis and his wife, Melissa Lance Davis. Florence was also the loving grandmother of 5 great- grandchildren, and friend to a number of nieces and nephews. Florence will be long remembered as a consummate community supporter. While she has left her home, her writings will live on as a testament to her intelligence and love for the citizens of Fannin County and Texas. On behalf of her many friends and fans, I want to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to pay our last respects to this beloved woman--Florence Fogle Keahey.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to the former mayor of Sherman, TX, Tom Osburn, who died on August 6, 2004. Tom Osburn was a selfless and devoted servant to the community of Sherman. Community leaders remember him as a man who worked constantly for the good of Sherman. If there was a problem, Tom was ready and willing to fix it. Friends recall that he was instrumental in getting a new building for the Texoma Council of Governments when a mold- infestation was discovered in the old building. The Old Settler's Park in Sherman was getting run down, so Tom led an effort to renovate the facility. He also made citizens feel as if they were integral to the success of the community. Rev. Jim Pledger stressed that Tom was a good mentor who encouraged people, through events like Great Days of Service, to give back to Sherman. Tom and his wife, Jo Ann, arrived in Sherman in 1990. Tom served as TXU's district manager for the Texoma District. The Osburns quickly became an integral part of the community. In addition to serving as Mayor from 1999-2003, he was a member of the city council from 1998- 2003. Tom also served on the Board of Directors of the Sherman Chamber of Commerce, the Boy Scouts of America, the American Cancer Society, the United Way, the Texoma Area Paratransit System, the Grayson County Rehabilitation Center, the Sherman Minority Recruitment Scholarship Foundation, and the Grayson County Juvenile Alternatives. Tom further gave his time and energies to the community as chairman of the Administrative Board of the First United Methodist Church, chairman of the Wilson N. Jones Memorial Hospital Foundation, and president of the Sherman Rotary Club. He served as president of the Board of Directors of the Texoma Council of Governments, and it isn't surprising that he was chosen this year as the Texoma Council of Government's Person of the Year for Grayson County. Tom was a devoted family man. He met his wife, Jo Ann, at New London High School. They both graduated from the University of Texas at Austin after Tom played college basketball at Tyler Junior College, where his team took second place in the nation. Besides Jo Ann, Tom is survived by three children, Chris, Tim, and Beth, five grandchildren, and a sister, Pat Sager of Tyler. The community of Sherman feels a deep and abiding loss by the death of Tom Osburn. Rarely has an individual made such a lasting and permanent mark on a town and its citizens. On behalf of his many friends and fans, and the community of Sherman, I want to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to pay our last respects to this honorable man--Tom Osburn.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following speech that was delivered by Mr. John Browne, Group Chief Executive of Beyond Petroleum (BP) to the Washington Press Club on March 23, 2004 entitled, ``Energy--the Medium Term Outlook.'' The level of interest in energy issues and energy security has grown steadily over the last three years. A whole series of events have reminded people both of the importance of secure energy supplies in a modern economy and of the challenges involved in matching available supplies to growing global demand. Concerns have been expressed--here in the U.S., in Europe and in many other parts of the world. BP is the largest producer of oil and gas here in the U.S., and the second largest private company in our sector in the world. We work in over 100 countries--exploring for, producing, distributing and selling oil and gas in areas ranging from Russia to Angola from Germany to China. So we hear the concerns expressed from many sides. I want to try and separate the concerns which are real, and which need to be managed--from those which are false, and which need to be discarded before they distract us from the serious agenda. I want in particular to emphasize the point that ``self sufficiency'' can't be achieved through protectionism. Trade is essential and we have to ensure that trade can thrive. I'll talk about the U.S. position--and I'll try and set that position in its proper context--which is the global energy scene. And I'll focus on facts--because facts should be the basis of good policy. At one level this is a very simple issue. It is about demand and supply. The demand for energy is driven by demography and economic performance. By the number of people who can afford to buy the energy they need. Today the world's population is estimated at 6.3 bn. That figure grows by almost 10,000 an hour. In ten years time there will be almost another 1 billion people on earth. 7.2 bn by 2015 according to the most authoritative estimates from the U.N. More and more of those people will be able to afford to buy the energy they need. Economic growth continues to extend prosperity to more people every year in China and India and in other emerging economies. The Chinese economy has quadrupled in size over the last twenty years and China is now the 2nd largest single consumer of energy in the world after the U.S. Today the world will use some 190 million barrels of oil equivalent--that is expressing all the different forms of energy supply--natural gas, coal, nuclear and so on in terms of a common unit of measurement. That energy is used in homes, in industry, in offices, in power stations and in transportation. Technology is gradually making the use of that energy more efficient. The energy intensity of each extra point of GDP growth has fallen over the last thirty years and continues to fall. But the fall is gradual. The combination of more people and more prosperity will mean that the demand for energy will rise. The most recent estimates of the International Energy Agency suggest that world energy demand will rise by a third to around 240 mbdoe by 2015. How can that demand be met? Some place their faith in renewable and alternative forms of energy supply. Power from the wind and the waves. Power from solar panels. We believe those are important sources of future supply. We in BP are investing in research and development work in photovoltaics--the technology which supports solar power--and at various other forms of alternative energy supply. One day one or more of those new sources will provide a significant proportion of global energy demand. But the evidence is that day is still a long time off. Today all the renewable and alternative forms of energy supply provide just 2.5 per cent of world demand, the bulk of which currently comes from biomass. Solar power provides just 0.001 per cent. Or to put it another way--all the solar power in the world would meet Washington's energy needs for just 6 days per year. Research continues--here in the US and in many other countries. But in every case we are still at the stage of research and experimentation. We believe renewables will provide material supplies of energy in the long term. But the long term could be 20 or 30 or more years away. The estimate from the International Energy Agency is that in 2015 they will provide only 3.3 per cent of total demand. What sources then will meet the demand? Some people believe that the key lies in the potential of nuclear power. That is certainly possible. But it seems a remote possibility on the timescale of a decade. Nuclear currently supplies 7 per cent of world energy demand. The first generation of nuclear stations are reaching the end of their natural lives. Last year only 2 new nuclear stations were commissioned and public doubts both about safety and about the uncertain long term costs continue to constrain new investment. In the US, no new stations have been commissioned for over two decades while in Europe the forecasts suggest that on current trends nuclear capacity in Europe will decline rather than increase over the next ten years. And that leaves hydrocarbons--coal, oil and gas--to meet the balance. The mix will vary from one country to another. China for instance will no doubt continue to use large volumes of coal but in terms of convenience, oil and gas seem set to remain the fuels of choice. In reality, energy security is about the supply of oil and gas to meet demand which could grow, again taking the IEA figures, to around 93 mbd of oil and 64 mbdoe of natural gas by 2015. That would represent a 20 per cent increase in oil demand from today's level and a 45 per cent increase in the consumption of gas. Can the oil and gas industry meet that demand? In physical terms the answer is clearly yes. The resources are there. The world holds some 1,000 bn bbl of oil which has been found but not yet produced, and some 5500 tcf of natural gas--also found but not yet produced. At current consumption rates that is 40 years of oil supply and 60 years of gas. In addition the US Geological Service estimates that some 800 bn bbl of oil and 4500 tcf of natural gas are yet to be found. So in terms of physical resources, energy security is within reach. But I believe there are two fundamental elements of risk which we have to deal with to ensure that security. The first is environmental--the risk that as the evidence of impact of human activity on the world's climate mounts we will be forced to take dramatic and potentially damaging action to avert the danger. That is a risk for the medium and longer term--not for today but we believe that precautionary action now could avert the risk. We believe that it is possible to keep atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below the level at which sustainability is threatened--which on the currently best available scientific evidence is around 500 to 550 parts per million. There are various available paths by which that can be achieved--and there will be no single solution. Different countries can make different contributions to the overall objective and if we can establish a legitimate trusted emissions trading system-- linked regionally--I believe we can reduce the risk without imposing a major cost on the economy. The real risk in this area is if we do nothing until it is almost too late. At that point the costs could be much higher. The other element of risk arises from the fact that supply and demand are not typically co-located. One of the key issues of energy security over the next decade will be the growing trade in both oil and gas which will be necessary to match supply to demand. By 2015 there will be at least four major energy importing regions in the world. Europe, Japan, China and the United States. Europe will be importing around an estimated 80 per cent of its daily needs of both oil and gas. The US rather less--but still more than 65 percent of its oil and around 30 per cent of its gas. By 2015 trade will likely account for almost 70 per cent of world oil demand-- some 64 mb/d--and 20 per cent of world gas demand. Is that trade secure? Can the US and others rely on trade rather than retreating to a policy of self sufficiency with all the costs which that could involve in terms of the environment and competitiveness? I think the answer to that is also yes, but we can't take anything for granted. Genuine energy security needs sustained, long term engagement and action by both the industry and by Government. The issue of security arises not so much from the growing volume of consumption or the required trade growth but because the resources needed to supply the world's growing demand are concentrated in a relatively limited number of countries. There are a number of sources of supply to the world market. Let me mention just three. The Caspian, through the Baku to Ceyhan pipeline which is now under construction, is scheduled to be producing and exporting 300,000 barrels per day by the end of 2005. Trinidad is now exporting some 200,000 barrels oil equivalent per day in the form of natural gas and the expansion plans which are now being carried through should double that figure by 2006. Indonesia is likely to be producing 1.5 million barrels per day oil equivalent and exporting 800,000 bdoe of that by the end of this decade. But however important these activities and those in other countries are, the inescapable fact is that even with all those areas developed successfully, the bulk of world traded supplies of both oil and gas for the future will almost certainly come from just three regions. The Middle East, Russia and Africa. Going back to the estimates published by the IEA--which represent a fair consensus of informed opinion--of the 64 mbd of oil likely to be traded in 2015, well over 80 per cent will come from those three areas. For natural gas the figure is around 50 per cent. That is the global picture. What about the US? US energy demand is now 46 mbdoe of which two thirds is provided by oil and natural gas. The forecasts suggest that oil and gas demand will continue to grow so that by 2015 the US will be using around 21 mbd of oil, mainly in transportation and around 13 mbdoe of natural gas. In terms of resources the US remains strong. The US has more domestic supplies than any of the other major importing regions. Alaska continues to produce just short of 1 million barrels per day and though oil production is declining, technology is progressively expanding the commercial life of Prudhoe Bay. The real strength for the future though lies in the Gulf of Mexico--in the deep water, which is producing 1.5 million barrels per day and which looks set to produce as much as 2.7 mb per day from 2010 onwards. The gas position is also strong. As well as gas in the lower 48, and in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico, there are extensive supplies--perhaps as much as 100tcf in Alaska which are ready to be brought to market once the infrastructure is in place. That's a strong position--but the US will still need imports and will still look to the world market to supply the balance of its needs through the next two decades. The forecasts suggest that the US will be importing some 13 mbd of oil and 3 mbdoe/day of natural gas in 2015. What conclusions can we draw from all that? What do we need to do today to ensure that this country and its trading partners in Europe and Asia and elsewhere enjoy sustainable energy security? The first conclusion is that these are single global markets. Oil, and increasingly gas are traded internationally. Every area will seek to develop its own resources rationally, but there is a competitive limit to that--set by the cost of development. The cost of self sufficiency for any area would be prohibitive. Trade and open markets have the sustained development of world economy over the last half century and I believe they can and will continue to do so. That applies to energy as much as to any other product. Energy prices will be set by the international market, and prices will affect the economy and the export markets of every country in the world. Energy security can't be achieved in one country. To deny the reality of the global economy would be dangerous and costly. Secondly, the growth in trade worldwide means that everyone has an interest in the development of the widest possible range of available supplies to limit dependence on any single country. It would be dangerous, economically and strategically, to allow a situation to develop in which the US or any other region was dependent totally or very substantially on countries in the Middle East or any other single producer. At the moment the US imports some 11 mbd of oil. But those imports come from 57 different countries and no one country supplies more than 17 per cent. That is a good position to maintain. And to do so the US has to maintain the open flow of investment--to ensure that the international industry can invest with confidence in exploration and development across a diverse set of countries. The best estimate of the total investment required to generate the flow of supplies necessary to match demand in 2015 is $2,000 bn. That means that investment by the oil and gas industry will have to be even higher than the $160 bn per annum which has been the average over the last few years. In financial terms I don't doubt that those resources can be found. But each individual investment by each company will be dependent on the climate for investment in the country concerned. That is why we are doing so much to support the principle of transparency--to ensure that the revenues we generate are used wisely in the interests of the long term development of the countries in which we invest. Corruption is an enemy of development, an enemy of business [because it raises costs], and an enemy of energy security. The third conclusion is that we have to ensure that the necessary resources and infrastructure are built. That applies here to projects such as the Alaskan gas pipeline which could bring 1 million barrels per day oil equivalent to market, and to the development of LNG terminals which can open up channels of imported supply from Trinidad and West Africa. But the same point applies internationally--because infrastructure is necessary to bring resources to market from areas such as the Caspian and Siberia. In all these areas investment now will bring greater security for the future. I want to use this occasion to thank the US Government--under two administrations--for their sustained support for the development of the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan pipeline. The line which will enhance energy security for the world as a whole could not have been built without that support. Fourth, we have to continue to develop technology--pushing the edge of what can be done with the resources we have. Extracting more, and using them more efficiently. That ranges from the Deep water, where we and others are now producing from fields in over 7,000 ft of water--two and a half times deeper than was possible ten years ago; to the progressive extension of recovery rates in Alaska; to the sort of work we have underway with our partners in the automobile sector to combine advances in lubricants, in fuels and in engine technology to lift the level of productivity in vehicles. All those steps are necessary, and many if not most of them will start here in the US--because this is a world technological leader. So to summarise: We can't take energy security for granted, and we can't achieve it through protectionism. Demand is rising and the substitutes for oil and gas are a long way off. There is no physical shortage. Technological advances must be deployed both to increase the amount of energy which can be produced and to ensure that it is used with the maximum possible efficiency. Finally, and most importantly, the risks to energy security are political and cannot be resolved by the private sector alone. The private sector has a vital role to play--particularly international companies such as BP. We have to explore and invest in the development of diverse sources of supply and in the infrastructure to bring it to market. But as companies we work within a space defined by public policy decisions. Actions by Governments are crucial in keeping the market open to investment, and ensuring that trade continues to be free and open. Those actions will determine whether those of us in the private sector can make successful long term investments in the development of resources and infrastructure. Diversity of supply is crucial. If we want to avoid undue dependence on just one region such as the Middle East, we have to invest in technology and in trade--raising investment confidence to ensure that supplies and infrastructure are in place to bring oil and gas from areas such as Russia, West Africa and the Caspian. The challenge is to align the medium and long term perspective I have been describing with the inevitably shorter perspective of Government. That has always been the case but the need to achieve that alignment between the actions of the public and the private sector has never been more important than it is today. If we can achieve that alignment I believe we can ensure that secure supplies of energy continue to be available to consumers here in the US and internationally.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the honorable actions of Brandon J. McDaniel, for which he was duly awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Corporal McDaniel received the award for superior performance of his duties as an avionics technician, Marine Attack Squadron 231, Detachment Bravo, Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific, on October 22, 2003. The 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit was tasked with providing defensive counter air support to Air Force One and the President of the United States during his October visit to Bali, Indonesia. After an AV-8B was forced to return to the ship due to a generator malfunction, Corporal McDaniel proactively removed key components from another AV-8B and when the disabled aircaft landed, he quickly removed the faulty components and reinstalled serviceable components, enabling the aircraft to be returned to the air within an hour. His quick thinking and sound decision-making directly contributed to the success of the mission and protection of the President during his Far East tour. Corporal McDaniel's initiative and selfless devotion to duty exhibited the highest standards of the Marine Corps and Navy. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Corporal Brandon McDaniel on his medal and commend him for his professional achievement and outstanding service to our Nation.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to recognize an outstanding veteran of World War II who dedicated much of his life in service to our country--Howard Snell of Tyler. Mr. Snell devoted 21 years to service in the U.S. Navy, moving through the ranks from cook to chief sonar technician. During that time, he engaged in 17 World War II battles, including the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor and the monumental showdown at Midway. Now at the age of 81, Mr. Snell has found himself in the middle of another battle--with cancer. Yet in a display of his trademark determination, Mr. Snell was one of the proud veterans present at the May 29 dedication of the National World War II Memorial in Washington. He postponed his first round of chemotherapy so that he could attend the ceremony, fearing that starting the treatment before his trip would cause him to miss the dedication--and that was simply not an option for this World War II veteran who serves as an official of the national Survivors of Pearl Harbor Association. Throughout his life, Mr. Snell has upheld the high standards of conduct befitting a soldier and a gentleman. As we adjourn today, it is my privilege to recognize such an outstanding American and veteran--Mr. Howard Snell--and wish him well as he fights another of life's battles.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct privilege to pay tribute to an outstanding member of the Judiciary and longtime U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge William Steger, who recently received the Justinian Award during Law Day festivities in Tyler. Judge Steger has served as a U.S. District Judge in East Texas for more than thirty years, culminating a career dedicated to the highest principles of ethics and justice in the profession of law. Nominated by President Richard Nixon, Judge Steger began his judgeship on December 29, 1970, in the Eastern District of Texas, presiding in Beaumont and also holding court in Paris, Texarkana, Sherman and Marshall. He moved to the Tyler Federal courthouse, where he currently presides, in September 1978. He assumed Senior Active Status duty as U.S. District Judge on December 31, 1987, and since that time has closed approximately 6,500 cases. Among his noteworthy rulings, Judge Steger in 1975 ruled that a private hospital, although receiving State and Federal support, was not prohibited from establishing policies denying use of its facilities for elective abortions. In 1980 he presided over one of the first cases applying the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, resulting in conviction of numerous county officials for offenses ranging from solicitation of murder to facilitation of gambling activity. Other cases resulted in convictions for illegal narcotics transactions--one of which resulted in the government seizing properties that were later auctioned for over $10,000,000 and deposited in the U.S. Treasury. A 1950 graduate of Southern Methodist University Law School, Judge Steger engaged in the private practice of law in Longview from 1951 to 1953. In 1953 he was appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower as U.S. District Attorney in East Texas and remained in the post until 1959 when he resigned to enter private practice in Tyler. He was a partner in the firm of Wilson, Miller, Spivey and Steger from 1959 to 1970, until his appointment as U.S. District Judge. From 1952 to 1970 Judge Steger was an active member of the Republican Party of Texas. In 1960 he was the Republican candidate for governor, and in 1962 he was the Republican nominee for U.S. Representative in the Third Congressional District, receiving 48 percent of the vote. He served as State Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas from 1969 to 1970. Judge Steger was born in 1920 and attended public schools in Dallas. He graduated from Woodrow Wilson High School in 1938 and attended Baylor University from 1938 to 1941, when his pre-law studies were interrupted by World War II. Less than 24 hours after Pearl Harbor was attacked, Judge Steger withdrew from Baylor University and volunteered for service. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps on January 5, 1942, as cadet and received his Pilot Wings and Commission as 2nd Lieutenant on November 9, 1942. He flew 56 combat missions as a fighter pilot in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy and attained the rank of Captain. After being honorably discharged, he entered SMU Law School in 1948 and received his LLB Degree in 1950. Judge Steger is married to his wonderful wife of 56 years, Ann Hollandsworth Steger. They had one child, Merritt Reed Steger, who passed away as a young man. Judge and Mrs. Steger have been active members of their community. ``Through his efforts, he's made a significant contribution to all aspects of life in Smith County and the State of Texas,'' said U.S. District Judge T. John Ward in presenting the Justinian Award to Judge Steger. I also want to commend the Smith County Bar Association, the Smith County Bar Foundation, the Smith County Lawyer's Auxiliary, the Smith County Young Lawyers Association, the Tyler Area Association of Legal Professionals and Tyler Teen Court, Inc., who in conjunction with the American Bar Association, sponsor Law Day each year to honor local attorneys and civic leaders as well as students who participate in Teen Court and an essay and poster contest. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to celebrate the life of this esteemed jurist and outstanding American who answered the call to service in World War II, serving with distinction in that endeavor, then dedicated his life to serving the cause of justice and defending the principles upon which this Nation was founded. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in paying tribute today to U.S. District Judge William Steger and to express our sincere appreciation for his service to his community, the State of Texas, and our Nation.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen and beloved family man, the late Roy Burke Head, Jr., of Whitesboro, who passed away on April 7 at the age of 92. A stranger to none, he was affectionately known to his friends and family as R.B. or simply ``B.'' R.B. was a kind and generous man who devoted his life to his family, his community, and his country. He served in the U.S. Army for 5 years and for 50 years worked as a buyer for the wholesale grocery firm, Tyler and Simpson. He retired to pursue his interests of cattle, photography and reading. R.B. also was active in his community, serving as an elder and church treasurer of the First Presbyterian Church. He was a longstanding member of Kiwanis Club--serving for almost 40 years and touting a perfect attendance record until the last few months of his life. He was an avid sports fan, and no distance was too great for him to travel to watch his grandchildren's sporting events. R.B. also was a devoted family man. He leaves behind his loving wife of 61 years, Lucile Allen Head; his children Judith Anderson Reedy and husband Rick of Frisco, and Sally Burke Light and husband George of Collinsville; seven grandchildren; four great-grandchildren; brother Bill Head and wife Anne of Austin; sister-in-law Mary Ann Allen of Whitesboro and many other family members. R.B. was a man of honor and integrity who was admired and respected by all those who knew him. He will long be remembered for his leadership, his compassion, and his enthusiasm for life. As we adjourn today, let us do so in memory of this outstanding citizen, Roy Burke Head, Jr.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). Cape Canaveral is in his district. He is a long-time member of the Committee on Science and Subcommittee on Space, and is now a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, which oversees the Space Station, and one of the major leaders in the space thrust.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), another member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), chairman of Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on this day 35 years ago, two Americans stepped onto the surface of the Moon and ushered in a new era in space exploration. The astronauts of Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, not only made history, they also fulfilled an American dream. Their successful Moon landing was the culmination of years of preparation by hundreds of thousands of people in government, in industry, and universities. And they became heroes to all Americans in the process. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy laid out a goal of landing an American on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. On July 16, 1969, NASA launched the Apollo 11 spacecraft into orbit to fulfill this quest. The successful mission demonstrated the United States' technological and economic power, and it established our Nation as the leader in space exploration from that moment to the present. During their walk on the Moon, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took pictures, planted an American flag, and gathered rocks, tangible items to take back to Earth for posterity. They also gave the world a sense of wonder and awe and an enthusiasm about future space travel. Astronaut Neil Armstrong's first step on the lunar surface was indeed a ``giant leap for mankind,'' but it was also a first step toward a new era of discovery and innovation. The next three decades witnessed enormous strides in space exploration and research. Experiments conducted on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station expanded health research into our most threatening diseases. Microgravity experiments helped scientists fight infections, produce medicines to treat patients who have suffered from strokes, and combat osteoporosis. From the development of MRI technology to microchips, the scientific partnerships between NASA and American universities and companies continue to ensure our Nation's viability, increase our Nation's competitiveness, and help drive our economy. As Buzz Aldrin said before Congress, the footprints on the Moon ``belong to the American people, and since we came in peace for all mankind, those footprints belong also to all people of the world.'' Michael Collins told Congress, ``Man has always gone where he has been able to go. It is that simple. He will continue pushing back his frontier, no matter how far it may carry him from his homeland. Someday, in the not too distant future, when I listen to an earthling step out onto the surface of Mars or some other planet, I hope to hear him say: `I come from the United States of America.' '' We are the keepers of this dream. As we celebrate today's anniversary, we can also rekindle this vision. Venturing to the Moon, Mars and beyond is challenging, but our citizens have never shied away from a challenge. As a democratic people who look to the future for inspiration and solutions, we have a destiny to continue to lead in space travel. In a world marred by conflict, we can once again usher in an era of peaceful exploration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)