John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as this week concludes the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month of October, I rise today to reflect on some of the issues that have been brought to the country's attention over the last 30 days. According to the National Cancer Institute there have been over 180,000 new cases of breast cancer among men and women and nearly 50,000 deaths in the United States this year. Breast Cancer disproportionately affects women and is the second leading cause of death for American women. Mrs. Priscilla Davis from Hartford, Connecticut, a constituent as well as the mother of a member of my staff, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2006. Her story is an all too familiar one--a story of fear and confusion on one hand, and courage, strength and hope on the other. Thankfully, Priscilla's breast cancer was detected early and treated before it was too late. Sadly, as the statistics show, many women are not as fortunate. Research, education, and awareness are essential in curbing the mortality rates of breast cancer. I would like to commend organizations like the American Cancer Society and the Susan Komen Foundation for their commitment to making us aware of the symptoms of breast cancer and for their advocacy on behalf of the women and families who have been affected by this deadly disease. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the women and men across the country who share Priscilla Davis's story and in honor of those who have lost their lives to the disease, I ask my colleagues to join me in carrying forward what we learned during this year's National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in the hope that during the next one we will also have cause to celebrate a cure.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Shays for yielding. This is a very difficult time for the Meskill family, whose husband, father, grandfather served as Governor of the State of Connecticut, was a judge in the Second Circuit, chief judge from 1991 through 1992. He served in this body with distinction. He was the former mayor of New Britain, Connecticut. I had the opportunity to work with Governor Meskill, Congressman Meskill, and our hearts and thoughts and prayers go out to Mary, his lovely wife; and his entire family. With that, I would like to yield to the current Congressman from that district, Chris Murphy.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I was not present to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 961, 962, and 963. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 961 on H. Res. 738 expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the Government of Syria's continued interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 962 on H.R. 2089, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Louisiana Armed Services Veterans Post Office''; and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 963 on H.R. 20, to provide for research on, and services for individuals with, postpartum depression and psychosis.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and especially in strong support of our distinguished chairman, who has done so much to continue the steady progress, the steady march towards the safe, secure redeployment of our troops. This body is well served by the legislation introduced by Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Tanner, inasmuch as it provides intelligent and meaningful legislation that will lead to the safe, speedy and responsible redeployment of our troops and once again returns accountability, as this committee has insisted on, to its proper venue within the Armed Services Committee to do the kind of oversight that will be necessitated by this bill. I commend the chairman and all of the staff for their hard work on this.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay great honor to Jo Picone, a Radiologic Technologist from Hartford, CT, who has dedicated her life to the care of others. Since 1948, Jo has worked to ensure the health and well-being of her patients, children, and community. Indeed, although she officially retired from her 38-year ER career in 2000, the 78-year-old continues to work part-time at an outpatient clinic. The daughter of Italian immigrants, Jo graduated from the Massachusetts School of Physical Therapy and Medical Technology, and completed her clinical training at Massachusetts General and Beth Israel hospitals in Boston. She received further training at St. Luke's Hospital in New Bedford, Massachusetts. As a student, Ms. Picone found that she loved the art and science of radiology, as well as the patient care. And this love has certainly stayed with her through the years. While in Boston, Jo was secretary of the Massachusetts Society of Radiologic Technologists. Through this position, she was able to meet influential members of the American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT), an organization with which she has worked closely. For over 50 years now, Jo has been involved with ASRT and state affiliate functions. Her career progressed in Massachusetts; she became a senior technologist at Marlboro Hospital and then chief technologist at Boston State Hospital. It was there that she met and fell in love with Angelo Picone, a psychiatric social worker. They married and moved to Connecticut, where Angelo worked in the Hartford school system. Together, they raised 6 children--five boys and a girl. Though she stayed home when they were young, Jo worked 60-hour weeks in the ER at Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center to put each of her children through college. Jo is well-respected among her colleagues. Many recognize her tireless work on Connecticut's first licensure bill that passed in 1993. Jo is also known for her advocacy in DC in support of the Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility and Excellence in Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy bill (H.R. 583), of which I am a cosponsor. Jo retired in 2000 after 33 years in the emergency room at Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center in Hartford, Connecticut. However, she continues to work at a Saint Francis outpatient clinic throughout the week. Jo also volunteers at Saint Francis for the teen safety program, ``Let's Not Meet by Accident,'' which educates new drivers in high school about the effects of poor decisionmaking. Jo is truly in possession of an upbeat attitude and zest for her profession. Co-workers know her as someone who is fun to be around and full of life. According to one, ``She can out-work anyone half her age.'' I have had the personal experience of having her treat family members with care, professionalism, and the warmth that comes from a nurturing soul. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring the tremendous work and service of Jo Picone. Jo lives by the words of baseball legend Jackie Robinson ``A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.'' I am honored to know such a remarkable individual.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. This is a very important designation because it helps to raise awareness about ovarian cancer and its symptoms. In the State of Connecticut alone, over 300 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year. It is predicted that 190 women in Connecticut will die from ovarian cancer in 2007. Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common female cancer in Connecticut and the fourth most common cause of female cancer death in the State. Although in the United States approximately 20,000 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year and an estimated 15,000 women die of the disease, there is currently no screening test for ovarian cancer. Until there is a cure for this disease it is important to support and recognize the hard work that organizations are doing to raise awareness for this disease and its symptoms. I want to commend organizations like the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, OCNA, for its commitment to ensuring that women are aware of the symptoms of ovarian cancer and for its advocacy on behalf of the women and families who have been touched by this devastating disease. Early detection of ovarian cancer must be our focus and education and awareness are imperative. Studies have shown that if ovarian cancer is treated before it has spread outside the ovary, the 5-year survival rate is 93 percent. However, only 19 percent of ovarian cancers are found at such an early stage. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month and to work to increase awareness about this deadly disease.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act of 2007, which would reauthorize the Federal terrorism insurance program (TRIA) for 15 years. I am pleased that the years spent working on this issue with constituents, the insurance industry, and the financial services industries to build a consensus has produced a bill so widely supported by Members in the House on both sides of the aisle that has the strong support of the business community. I applaud Chairman Frank, the members of the House Financial Services Committee, and Representative Capuano, the chief sponsor of the bill, for their leadership in crafting this critical legislation protecting the safety and security of America. It is estimated that the September 11th terrorist attacks resulted in $40 billion in insured claims, the largest man-made insurance disaster on record. After the 9/11 attacks, given the size of potential liabilities, there was growing concern that insurance companies and reinsurers might not be able to write policies to insure losses due to future acts of terrorism. As a result, the TRIA program was enacted in 2002 in an attempt to prevent an industry-wide catastrophe in the event of another domestic terrorist attack. The TRIA program provides a federal backstop to the insurance industry by providing compensation for a portion of insured losses resulting from acts certified by the Government as acts of terrorism. The law was reauthorized with some changes in 2005 (P.L. 109-44) and will expire on December 31, 2007. Currently, TRIA only covers foreign terrorism; however, this bill would extend TRIA coverage to both foreign and domestic terrorism. The bill would set the ``trigger'' level--the size of an attack at which the Federal Government would provide aid to insurers--at $50 million. According to studies from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the risk of nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorism is uninsurable absent a Federal Government backstop. In response, this legislation would include acts of nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological terrorism in TRIA. The bill would also add group life insurance to the types of insurance for which terrorism insurance coverage must be made available by insurers. Finally, H.R. 2761 would create a 21-member ``blue ribbon'' commission to propose long-term solutions to covering terrorism risk. The goal of this legislation is to protect America's economy during a time of national crisis and is important to the economic security of the business community in Hartford and the Capital Region. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of final passage and for the President to sign this bill into law. The continued insurance and safety of our Nation against terrorist attacks is an urgent and bipartisan issue.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Gail P. Hardy, who became the first African American in Connecticut's history to be appointed to the position of State's Attorney. Ms. Hardy, an 11-year veteran of the Division of Criminal Justice in Connecticut, was appointed to serve as State's Attorney for the Judicial District of Hartford. The appointment was by a unanimous vote of Connecticut's Criminal Justice Commission. As State's Attorney, Ms. Hardy will be the chief law enforcement officer in the Judicial District of Hartford, where she will oversee prosecutions and more than 70 employees in the Hartford district. The district includes Hartford and 18 surrounding communities, along with Superior Courts in Hartford, Enfield and Manchester, Hartford Juvenile Court, and Hartford Community Court. Gail Hardy has an excellent and diverse record both in and outside of the courts. In addition to her impressive work as a prosecutor, Ms. Hardy also served as a probation officer, a public defender, a state child support investigator, an adjunct college professor, and as a counselor in a halfway house. Her past and current colleagues have offered no less than the highest regards to her experience and quality of her work and service. From the courtroom to the community, Ms. Hardy has a record that illuminates her competence and fairness that will serve her well as State's Attorney. The citizens in Hartford's judicial district can have confidence in a criminal justice system that is both efficient and unbiased under Ms. Hardy's leadership. And so today, I rise to congratulate and honor Gail P. Hardy for her outstanding achievements. Ms. Hardy, through years of dedication and service to her community comes to the position of State's Attorney with great experience and knowledge that she will use to continue to succeed in this next chapter in her career. Ms. Hardy also brings to this position a broad perspective that will serve Connecticut's citizens well.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, the cold night brought me into the cancered bowels of this capital place. Barren halls and walkways and crawl space in front of me and inside cerebral tunnels. It is here, away from now. I come to face the ghost of Abercrombie. Who walked these paths and is remembered for not so hallow words. Who bragged sincerely of life and death long before the funeral chant. As cold and dark and empty and hollow as these moments are, it is here in the mind's basement that we face this white ghost. Abercrombie who is still here. Have hope--nothing ends.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the participants of the House Fellows Program on the completion of their weeklong program. As an initiative of the Office of the Historian, this has been a unique opportunity for a select group of secondary education teachers of American history and government. This week-long workshop is designed to help educators improve the knowledge and understanding of the ``People's House.'' One of the goals of the program is to develop curricular materials on the history and practice of the House for use in schools. Each Fellow will prepare his or her brief lesson plan on a Congressional topic of their choosing, and these plans will become part of a teaching resource database on the House. During the school year following their participation in the House Fellows Program, each Fellow will have the responsibility to present their experiences and lesson plans to at least one in-service institute for teachers of history and government. Over the next 5 years, in selecting a teacher from every congressional district, the House Fellows Program will be able to impact over 10,000 high school teachers, providing an inside account of how the House of Representatives functions, energizing thousands of students to become informed and active citizens. I had the honor of meeting the Fellows last night and know that all Members will join me in congratulating the following teachers who have successfully participated in this week's program: Mr. Frank Coburn, Red Bird Mission School, Beverly, Kentucky (KY05, Rogers); Ms. Jennifer Collier, Mt. Diablo High School, Concord, California (CA07, Miller); Ms. Deborah Hejl, Fishers High School, Fishers, Indiana (IN05, Burton); Mr. Paul Hodges, PikeView High School, Mercer County, West Virginia (WV03, Rahall); Mr. Rick Kelm, Ripon High School, Ripon, Wisconsin (WI06, Petri); Ms. Tisha Menchhofer, Lakota East High School, Liberty Township, Ohio (OH08, Boehner); Mr. Christopher Lazarski, Wauwatosa West High School, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin (WI05, Sensenbrenner); Mr. Christopher Swanson, Cloquet Senior High School, Cloquet, Minnesota (MN08, Oberstar); Ms. Robin Wanosky, Weston High School, Weston, Massachusetts (MA07, Markey); Ms. Erin Wigginton, Pulaski County High School, Dublin, Virginia (VA09, Boucher). As many of my colleagues already know, the first bill I sponsored upon becoming a Member of Congress in 1999 was the History of the House Awareness and Preservation Act, which directed the Librarian of Congress to oversee the writing of a history of the House of Representatives. Once this bill was signed into law (P.L. 106-99), the Librarian of Congress very wisely chose the eminent historian and author, Dr. Robert V. Remini, to write the history, which was published in 2006 under the title of The House. The project was so well received that the Speaker of the House re-established the Office of the Historian in 2005 and appointed Dr. Remini as the House Historian. Madam Speaker, I would like to urge all of my colleagues to join me in thanking the Office of the Historian for sponsoring this program. Under the leadership of Dr. Remini and Dr. Fred Beuttler, along with their staff; Michael Cronin, Anthony Wallis, interns Michael Weiss and Laura Neff; the Office of the Historian is dedicated to fulfilling the goals of the History of the House Awareness and Preservation Act by conserving and presenting the history of the House of Representatives, the ``People's House.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud Mr. Stark, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Pallone for their outstanding leadership in bringing this bill before us today. I turn to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and say to them, do not remain frozen in the ice of your own indifference towards the needs of children in this country. It is imperative that we pass this bill. It is imperative not because of the statistics and the numbers, but because these are our children and our kids. That you find the time and the money to blindly put forward into reconstruction efforts in Iraq, but not the time, not the effort to make sure that kids in our own country receive the necessary funding that they need. It is written that the difference between CHAMP and CHUMP is ``U.'' Do not become the vote that turns away the children in this country. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of the underlying bill, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 121. This resolution calls on the Government of Japan to finally acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility for the coercion of over 200,000 young girls and women into sexual slavery during World War II and the colonial occupation of Asia in the 1930s and '40s. Known to the world as ``Comfort Women,'' these women suffered unimaginable dehumanization. These women deserve a justice that is long overdue. While the facts of these crimes are incontrovertible, Japan has not officially accepted responsibility for these atrocities. The Japanese government needs to recognize these injustices so that wounds of these women can begin to heal. With less than 300 ``comfort women'' alive today, we can no longer turn a blind eye to these women's stories and sacrifices. It is our moral obligation to urge Japan to restore the dignity that was stolen from so many women over 50 years ago. I commend Representative Honda for his deep commitment to this issue and for championing the meaningful underlying legislation. The history of the comfort women is the history of the world, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 986 and commend Representative Courtney for his outstanding work. Joe Courtney, in so many ways, is a story about so many people who come to the House of Representatives, not unlike ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' and finds out that, when he presents a bill that's straightforward and works diligently at it and presents it on the floor, only to find that opposition rises where there should be unanimity. Now, my good friend and colleague from Utah talks about the concern of imminent domain, and yet the bill clearly forbids this. More important than the bill, however, that local authorities in the communities of Salem, East Haddam and Lyme and the entire Connecticut legislature, as well as the Republican Governor from the State of Connecticut, as well as the entire Connecticut delegation, including Republican Chris Shays. It seems as though Mr. Courtney has, perhaps, committed the grievous sin of coming to Washington and being able to accomplish more in 6 months than his predecessor accomplished in 6 years. For this, he is to be punished. This bill should be by unanimous consent, an acclamation, because of the way it was worked on, because of the kind of support that it has, because of how important it is to the citizens of the State of Connecticut, who, indeed, on a local level and at the State level through the legislature, and for a party that claims to be for States' rights, why they would oppose the will of the local entity, and the State legislative body, and the Governor of the State of Connecticut, is somewhat astounding. Now, I am sure if that happened in Utah, if the legislature in Utah passed it, if the Governor in Utah agreed with it and local municipalities approved of it in the impacted region, you would oppose it as well. I think not. But such is the case here. And I am pleased that the gentleman from Arizona outlined and articulated this very important piece of legislation for the citizens of the State of Connecticut. As I said, and I will repeat again, it has the support of the entire Connecticut delegation, including our two United States Senators. Why? Because this is a project that has been worked on for 10 years, because it has gone through a very thoughtful process. And the difference being that they finally elected an individual who is effective, who has the capability of bringing people together on all sides of the issue and making sure that he gets the job done. Congratulations, Joe. Job well done.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007, which would make historic investments in conservation, nutrition and renewable energy while maintaining a strong safety net for America's farmers and ranchers. For the first time, this Farm Bill cracks down on farm subsidies and would redirect more than a half billion dollars to working family farmers and ranchers. The legislation would provide $4.6 billion in funding for important conservation programs, which includes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Farm Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). As a member of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, I am pleased that this bill would provide $3.2 billion in funding for renewable energy research, development and production in rural America. This will expand the role of U.S. agriculture in our movement to greater energy independence. In addition, this Farm Bill would provide more than $1.5 billion in critical funding for specialty crop and organic growers in the United States. Under this bill, $365 million in mandatory funding would expand the specialty crop block grant program. The block grants are provided to states, including Connecticut, to support projects in research, marketing, education, pest and disease management, production, and food safety. The legislation would also increase and expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program to schools in all 50 States, which will continue to encourage healthy diets to our Nation's children. More than 11,000 dairy farmers in the Northeast will benefit from the extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program in the bill. Hunger in America is a reality for more than 11 percent of households. To this end, the legislation would make a long overdue funding increase for Food Stamps and nutrition programs by $4 billion over the next five years. Among other things, the bill would reform the program by indexing asset limits and eliminate the current cap on childcare costs to help the working poor meet rising costs. This will benefit the estimated 210,000 individuals in Connecticut who receive food stamps every month. The legislation before us today was a collective effort from members of the House Agriculture Committee who made new investments and important reforms in this Farm Bill. I would like to especially thank Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson for his leadership in putting forward a comprehensive bill that meets the 21st century needs of the United States and enhances programs in Connecticut. I urge my colleagues to vote for a new direction in our Nation's agriculture policy.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 (H.R. 2831), which is an important step in ensuring the fair and equal pay deserved by women in our workforce. Women have made tremendous strides forward in America's workforce. Earlier this year I was proud to see the election of the first female Speaker of the House. Today, women serve as executives at some of America's largest corporations and in distinguishing professions such as medicine and law. However, 43 years after the Civil Rights Act was enacted by Congress, women such as Lilly Ledbetter continue to struggle to receive payment equal to their male counterparts. These women, who perform the same jobs with the same responsibilities, on average earn only 77 cents for every dollar that their male counterparts earn. They have had to overcome one obstacle after another on their way to earning equal pay and equal respect for their work. On May 29th, 2007, the United States Supreme Court threw yet another obstacle into the path of women in the workforce with the decision of Ledbetter v. Goodyear. According to this decision, if an employee fails to file a claim within 180 days of their employer's decision to pay them less, rather than when she receives a discriminatory paycheck, she will be barred forever from challenging the discriminatory paychecks that follow and forced to live with the discriminatory pay for the rest of her career. If this is allowed to stand, it will be a severe setback to women everywhere. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2831, which would restore protections guaranteed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for victims of pay discrimination who are entitled to justice and fair pay. Contrary to what opponents of this legislation have said, this bill does not eliminate the statute of limitations on claims. What it does is ensure that the clock on the statute of limitations begins once a discriminatory paycheck is received rather than from the point a decision was made to discriminate against an employee. Every discriminatory paycheck will be a new violation of this law and restart the clock for filing a claim. Until the Ledbetter decision, this was the accepted understanding of Title VII and this bill will restore the law prior to Ledbetter. Mr. Speaker, we must continue the fight for pay parity begun by Congress over 40 years ago. I would like to thank Chairman George Miller for his leadership on this important issue in the House Education and Labor Committee. This piece of legislation, as well as the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 1338) introduced by my good friend Representative Rosa DeLauro of which I am also a cosponsor, are needed to ensure women continue to receive equal treatment. I urge all my colleagues to stand up for women workers and vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition of the Flake amendment, and I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished lady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). I think she has articulated and laid out very eloquently the argument, an argument that is put forward on this floor that makes all the sense in the world, especially as we seek, in the ensuing days and next week, to talk about farmers and, in essence, fishermen. I don't think there is any greater representation of the American way and the American way of life and rugged individualism than through the eyes of people that labor in agriculture or aquaculture. And so, when you take a look at this very modest earmark so eloquently defended by Ms. DeLauro, it is surprising to me, especially as someone who is the co-Chair of the Congressional Shellfish Caucus, that this amendment would be drawn against such a regional way of looking and promoting and fostering aquaculture and making sure, especially in light of the concerns that Ms. DeLauro raises with regard to foreign entities importing into our country without the kind of care and caution that we know comes from home-grown fisheries, and in this case, shellfish, and the science behind this and the coming together. Government operates best when it operates as a collective enterprise, and this process here, contrary to what the gentleman is saying, is most democratic in terms of representing those fishermen and those farmers who rarely get a chance to come to this floor themselves. But through their representative process, whether it's Puget Sound or whether it's Long Island Sound, from coast to coast, we make sure that their concerns get represented and that there is an opportunity, through this earmark, to make sure that we provide them with the necessary research to continue to foster and grow. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished Congresswoman from California, Barbara Lee for her work on H.R. 2929, which bans permanent military bases from being established in Iraq. She has long been a voice on ending the war in Iraq and I commend her and the work of Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey for their fortitude on this issue. I would also like to recognize Congressman Tom Allen and Congressman David Price for their commitment and contributions to the bill. In-line with the Iraq Study Group report, this bill would prohibit the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases. It would also prohibit the United States from exercising control over Iraqi oil resources. This bill signals a larger issue and bigger picture--our presence in Iraq is not permanent. Let it be clear to the Bush Administration and the Iraqi people that this Congress will not support an open-ended military occupation in Iraq. The American people have spoken. The American Congress has acted. If necessary, we will go on the record everyday until we bring the troops home--we owe it to them and their families. I am proud to support this bill and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Skelton for yielding me this time. They buried Andre Craig, 24 years old, last week. He died in the service of his country. His family held a press conference prior to that and said, he was exhausted. Mr. Skelton has put forward a piece of legislation, not a resolution, a bill that address the men and women in the armed services, that addresses the problems that they face on a daily basis in Iraq. There is a difficult choice today to be made. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are honorable people. They understand as well exactly what it is like to go to a funeral service, to look into the eyes of these families, many who have been deployed three and four times, who are stretched to the maximum. You know what they are experiencing. It is hard to reconcile, because we know you are honorable people, the indifference that seems to lie in the choice between the blind loyalty to the worst foreign policy endeavor in the history of the country and the men and women who are there paying for it every single day. You are right, emotions run deep. How many more of these services will it take for us to face the truth and the facts? People have come to this floor and said, well, you know that the President is going to veto this. One thing we know for sure is where the President stands and what he has said he will do and how this will be passed on to another administration. But the thing here is what we will do, what you will do. Find your voice. Speak on behalf of the troops. Follow Ike Skelton.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. But over in the Senate, and most of the general public isn't aware of this, they have a cloture rule. Cloture in the Senate means it takes 60 votes in order to pass something, which is why Mr. Rich in his article prevails upon Mr. Warner, a senior Republican, to rein in Mr. McConnell. Now Mitch McConnell in the Senate has indicated that they continue to be obstructionists. Almost every single vote that has taken place over in the Senate, every single issue becomes a cloture vote which means that there are 60 votes needed in order to pass. Of course with only 50 Democrats in the United States Senate, that becomes impossible. So they become the obstructionist not only in the effort to strategically withdraw our troops and support the military and to revert back to a policy that makes sense, but also on every other issue that Democrats have been able to bring before and pass in this House of Representatives. So, Mr. Meek, I am pleased to join with you this evening and thank you for coming to the floor with this.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Well, let me first and foremost congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), and Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Murphy for continuing to come to the floor, the 30-somethings, and talk about issues that are so important to this country. There is no more important issue before this Congress or this country, than the war in Iraq. There is no more important issue to the American public. But it is clear, and I think General Odom stated it best, because as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) pointed out, this Congress, with its small Democratic majorities, has done what it can to end the war in Iraq and put a bill on the President's desk. The President opted to veto that bill. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle opted to stay the course with the President of the United States. As General Odom says, and I quote, ``The end game will start when a senior senator from the President's party, or a senior Member from the House of Representatives, much as William Fulbright did to LBJ during Vietnam, stands up and says no, stands up and says let's end the war.'' Let's create the kind of strategic withdrawal that we need in order to preserve our troops, in order to maintain our military's readiness, in order to bring sanity back into the lives, especially the reservists and the National Guard who have put out so much for us. We are going to go home at the end of this week and celebrate the Fourth of July while our troops are slugging it out there, while this administration goes through some endgame strategy where they sound like the Bobbsey twins getting together and say, ``Well, now, all of a sudden, September 15 is only a snapshot of perhaps what will happen.'' A snapshot. To the men and women who are putting their lives on the line every single day, it's time to end the war. That will only happen in this House of Representatives and in the United States Senate, as was pointed out by General Odom, when Members on the other side of the aisle recognize that they have to stand up and say ``no'' to the President. They hint about it. They talk about it. Meanwhile, while they dither, we lost more than 23 soldiers this past weekend. How much longer can the insanity continue here without a strategy that provides us with the strategic withdrawal to an over-the- horizon force as has been advocated on this floor by colleagues on both sides of the aisle? Why is it that Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who has the nerve on the Republican side to talk about it without fear of being called unpatriotic or in fact booed in an audience? This Chamber should be a chamber where we have the opportunity to speak truth to power. Thank God for people like Wayne Gilchrest. Thank God for people like Walter Jones. But Members on the other side of the aisle need to join with this majority so that we can create an override if the President remains obstinate, along with the Vice President, in this myopic pursuit of victory. Victory. No definition of what ``victory'' is, other than ``staying there for as long as it takes.'' We see that the Iraqi government is not living up to its proposals, that the surge is an entire failure. Yet, people come to the floor and people present in the newspapers arguments that somehow the surge might work, what it just needs is a little more time, or perhaps what it needs is even more troops. It is time to end this war. It is time to make sure that we have people on the other side of the aisle that are willing to speak truth to power and face up to the fact that it is in the best interest of our country, that it is the very American thing to do, to stand up for our troops, to provide for our families that are here at home worried sick about the prospect of sending their loved ones into this insurgent civil war nightmare we have come to call Iraq. The American public is way ahead of this Chamber, way ahead of the Senate. We plead with our colleagues, especially as we go forward to this July 4 weekend, to find the courage of our forebears and to stand up, since we are the body that decides on war. You have Senator Warner saying that he ought to reconsider the authorization of this war, to do what they did in Vietnam, to recognize that the Congress, during that era, stood up and deauthorized the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that put an end to an unjust war. We know now, of course, that we found no weapons of mass destruction. We know now that we had no exit strategy. We know now that this administration's closest adviser that they took into their bosom was Ahmed Chalabi, who ultimately ends up saying, ``So what? I lied to you. So what? I lied to you. You got what you wanted. You had a civil war in your country. The Iraqis are going to have to have a civil war in their country.'' Americans soldiers, men and women who have served this country with honor, go over there to fulfill their duty to their country. We have a duty and a responsibility here to make sure that we are doing everything within our power to make sure that they are safe and secure. Instead, we have stuck them in the middle of a civil war. The military objectives of this war have long since been accomplished. It is time to bring the troops home. I commend Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan for having come to this floor day in and day out and discussed this thing. But we have to turn it up. Especially for those of you in our viewing audience, continue to turn it up at home. Turn up the conversation and the dialogue that so many have taken to the streets, to protest, to talk about moving other Members of this great body to come and arrive at the same conclusion that most Americans have. It is time for the safe, secure and strategic withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Mr. Meek, I thank you for the opportunity to come down here and address, along with you, Members of the 30-something Group, who have continued to speak truth to power here. I especially want to commend Mr. Ryan from Ohio for his efforts, as well.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a moment, I thank you again, because I do want to say that Frank Rich wrote an important column in The New York Times yesterday, and it is one that I will submit for the record. I think it also lays it out pretty clearly. I would like to quote here. First he is quoting retired General William Odom. ``For the Bush White House, the real definition of victory has become `anything they can get away with without taking blame for defeat,' said the retired Army General William Odom, a national security official in the Reagan and Carter administrations,'' when Frank Rich spoke to him most recently. ``The plan is to run out the Washington clock between now and January 20, 2009, no matter the cost.'' ``A precipitous withdrawal is also a chimera, since American manpower, material and bases, not to mention our new Vatican-sized embassy, can't be drawn down overnight.'' And here is the important thing that I think Mr. Rich says. ``The only real choice, everyone knows, is an orderly plan for withdrawal that will best serve American interests. The real debate must be over what that plan is. That debate can't happen as long as the White House gets away with falsifying reality, sliming its opponents and sowing hyped fears of Armageddon. The threat that terrorists in a civil war- torn Iraq will follow us home if we leave is as bogus as Saddam's mushroom clouds. The al Qaeda that actually attacked us on 9/11 still remains under the tacit protection of our ally, Pakistan. ``As General Odom says, `the endgame will start when a senior senator from the President's party says no,' much like William Fulbright did. That's why in Washington this fall,'' he goes on to say, ``eyes will turn once again to John Warner, the senior Republican with the clout to give political cover to other members of his party who want to leave Iraq before they are forced to evacuate Congress. In September, it will nearly be a year since Mr. Warner said that Iraq was `drifting sideways' and that action would have to be taken if this level of violence is not under control and this government is able to function. ``Mr. Warner has also signaled his regret that he was not more outspoken during Vietnam. `We kept surging in those years,' he told The Washington Post in January, as the Iraq surge began. `It didn't work.' Surely,'' Rich goes on to say, ``he must recognize that his moment for speaking out about this war is overdue. Without him, the Democrats don't have the votes,'' and I repeat, without Republicans, ``the Democrats don't have the votes to force the President's hand. With him, it's a slam-dunk. The best way to honor the sixth anniversary of 9/ 11,'' as we take up this week the 9/11 Commission response, ``is to at last disarm a President who continues to squander countless lives in the names of those voiceless American dead.'' Mr. Speaker, I include the entire Frank Rich article for the Record. [From the New York Times, June 24, 2007] They'll Break the Bad News on 9/11 (By Frank Rich) By this late date we should know the fix is in when the White House's top factotums fan out on the Sunday morning talk shows singing the same lyrics, often verbatim, from the same hymnal of spin. The pattern was set way back on Sept. 8, 2002, when in simultaneous appearances three cabinet members and the vice president warned darkly of Saddam's aluminum tubes. ``We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,'' said Condi Rice, in a scripted line. The hard sell of the war in Iraq--the hyping of a (fictional) nuclear threat to America--had officially begun. America wasn't paying close enough attention then. We can't afford to repeat that blunder now. Last weekend the latest custodians of the fiasco, our new commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and our new ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, took to the Sunday shows with two messages we'd be wise to heed. The first was a confirmation of recent White House hints that the long-promised September pivot point for judging the success of the ``surge'' was inoperative. That deadline had been asserted as recently as April 24 by President Bush, who told Charlie Rose that September was when we'd have ``a pretty good feel'' whether his policy ``made sense.'' On Sunday General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker each downgraded September to merely a ``snapshot'' of progress in Iraq. ``Snapshot,'' of course, means ``Never mind!'' The second message was more encoded and more ominous. Again using similar language, the two men said that in September they would explain what Mr. Crocker called ``the consequences'' and General Petraeus ``the implications'' of any alternative ``courses of action'' to their own course in Iraq. What this means in English is that when the September ``snapshot'' of the surge shows little change in the overall picture, the White House will say that ``the consequences'' of winding down the war would be even more disastrous: surrender, defeat, apocalypse now. So we must stay the surge. Like the war's rollout in 2002, the new propaganda offensive to extend and escalate the war will be exquisitely timed to both the anniversary of 9/11 and a highstakes Congressional vote (the Pentagon appropriations bill). General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker wouldn't be sounding like the Bobbsey Twins and laying out this coordinated rhetorical groundwork were they not already anticipating the surge's failure. Both spoke on Sunday of how (in General Petraeus's variation on the theme) they had to ``show that the Baghdad clock can indeed move a bit faster, so that you can put a bit of time back on the Washington clock.'' The very premise is nonsense. Yes, there is a Washington clock, tied to Republicans' desire to avoid another Democratic surge on Election Day 2008. But there is no Baghdad clock. It was blown up long ago and is being no more successfully reconstructed than anything else in Iraq. When Mr. Bush announced his ``new way forward'' in January, he offered a bouquet of promises, all unfulfilled today. ``Let the Iraqis lead'' was the policy's first bullet point, but in the initial assault on insurgents now playing out so lethally in Diyala Province, Iraqi forces were kept out of the fighting altogether. They were added on Thursday: 500 Iraqis, following 2,500 Americans. The notion that these Shiite troops might ``hold'' this Sunni area once the Americans leave is an opium dream. We're already back fighting in Maysan, a province whose security was officially turned over to Iraqi authorities in April. In his January prime-time speech announcing the surge, Mr. Bush also said that ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.'' More fiction. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's own political adviser, Sadiq al- Rikabi, says it would take ``a miracle'' to pass the legislation America wants. Asked on Monday whether the Iraqi Parliament would stay in Baghdad this summer rather than hightail it to vacation, Tony Snow was stumped. Like Mr. Crocker and General Petraeus, Mr. Snow is on script for trivializing September as judgment day for the surge, saying that by then we'll only ``have a little bit of metric'' to measure success. This administration has a peculiar metric system. On Thursday, Peter Pace, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the spike in American troop deaths last week the ``wrong metric'' for assessing the surge's progress. No doubt other metrics in official reports this month are worthless too, as far as the non-reality-based White House is concerned. The civilian casualty rate is at an all-time high; the April-May American death toll is a new two-month record; overall violence in Iraq is up; only 146 out of 457 Baghdad neighborhoods are secure; the number of internally displaced Iraqis has quadrupled since January. Last week Iraq rose to No. 2 in Foreign Policy magazine's Failed State Index, barely nosing out Sudan. It might have made No. 1 if the Iraqi health ministry had not stopped providing a count of civilian casualties. Or if the Pentagon were not withholding statistics on the increase of attacks on the Green Zone. Apparently the White House is working overtime to ensure that the September ``snapshot'' of Iraq will be an underexposed blur. David Carr of The Times discovered that the severe Pentagon blackout on images of casualties now extends to memorials for the fallen in Iraq, even when a unit invites press coverage. Americans and Iraqis know the truth anyway. The question now is: What will be the new new way forward? For the administration, the way forward will include, as always, attacks on its critics' patriotism. We got a particularly absurd taste of that this month when Harry Reid was slammed for calling General Pace incompetent and accusing General Petraeus of exaggerating progress on the ground. General Pace's record speaks for itself; the administration declined to go to the mat in the Senate for his reappointment. As for General Petraeus, who recently spoke of ``astonishing signs of normalcy'' in Baghdad, he is nothing if not consistent. He first hyped ``optimism'' and ``momentum'' in Iraq in an op-ed article in September 2004. Come September 2007, Mr. Bush will offer his usual false choices. We must either stay his disastrous course in eternal pursuit of ``victory'' or retreat to the apocalypse of ``precipitous withdrawal.'' But by the latest of the president's ever-shifting definitions of victory, we've already lost. ``Victory will come,'' he says, when Iraq ``is stable enough to be able to be an ally in the war on terror and to govern itself and defend itself.'' The surge, which he advertised as providing ``breathing space'' for the Iraqi ``unity'' government to get its act together, is tipping that government into collapse. As Vali Nasr, author of ``The Shia Revival,'' has said, the new American strategy of arming Sunni tribes is tantamount to saying the Iraqi government is irrelevant. For the Bush White House, the real definition of victory has become ``anything they can get away with without taking blame for defeat,'' said the retired Army Gen. William Odom, a national security official in the Reagan and Carter administrations, when I spoke with him recently. The plan is to run out the Washington clock between now and Jan. 20, 2009, no matter the cost. Precipitous withdrawal is also a chimera, since American manpower, materiel and bases, not to mention our new Vatican City-sized embassy, can't be drawn down overnight. The only real choice, as everyone knows, is an orderly plan for withdrawal that will best serve American interests. The real debate must be over what that plan is. That debate can't happen as long as the White House gets away with falsifying reality, sliming its opponents and sowing hyped fears of Armageddon. The threat that terrorists in civil- war-torn Iraq will follow us home if we leave is as bogus as Saddam's mushroom clouds. The Qaeda that actually attacked us on 9/11 still remains under the tacit protection of our ally, Pakistan. As General Odom says, the endgame will start ``when a senior senator from the president's party says no,'' much as William Fulbright did to L.B.J. during Vietnam. That's why in Washington this fall, eyes will turn once again to John Warner, the senior Republican with the clout to give political cover to other members of his party who want to leave Iraq before they're forced to evacuate Congress. In September, it will be nearly a year since Mr. Warner said that Iraq was ``drifting sideways'' and that action would have to be taken ``if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function.'' Mr. Warner has also signaled his regret that he was not more outspoken during Vietnam. ``We kept surging in those years,'' he told The Washington Post in January, as the Iraq surge began. ``It didn't work.'' Surely he must recognize that his moment for speaking out about this war is overdue. Without him, the Democrats don't have the votes to force the president's hand. With him, it's a slam dunk. The best way to honor the sixth anniversary of 9/11 will be to at last disarm a president who continues to squander countless lives in the names of those voiceless American dead.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. As you have said on more than one occasion on the floor, Mr. Ryan, what we have needed all along here is a diplomatic surge, not a military surge. It is such a shame that we have abandoned so much of American foreign policy. In fact, more than 50 years of American foreign policy that were centered around deterrence, diplomacy and containment. Instead, we went into the wrong-headed policies of preemption and unilateralism, which have brought us to the quagmire that we are in today. It breaks my heart to travel with Jack Murtha to Bethesda and see the young men and women who are there, who have become the heroes, of course, in our country, but victims of a myopic, failed strategy with no exit in sight. How much longer can the American public, or for that matter, this body, put up with the slogans that ``we will stand down as the Iraqis stand up,'' when more of our troops are needed and less Iraqis continue to join us; when they decide that they are going to take the next couple of months off while we slog it out in a civil war? Our soldiers don't know in many respects who the enemy is over there, because oftentimes they are getting played, one religious sect against another, settling ages of old scores rather than accomplishing any kind of goal of establishing a democracy or establishing a government or people that are going to stand up so that we can stand down.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. You have been resilient in making this point, but I want to amplify a point you made, if I might. Again, I think Frank Rich says it fairly well. I think he puts a great deal of responsibility on Senator Warner.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The article in the New York Times written by Frank Rich. I think Mr. Warner has been on record publicly for having stated what he has. You mentioned the fact that this House has accomplished a tremendous amount, including, and I know you are going to reiterate it with your charts, including a number of agenda items that were accomplished in the first 100 legislative hours.