John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And to my distinguished colleague from Texas, apparently, pigs have taken flight in the United States Senate because the Republican- controlled Senate has sponsored this very straightforward legislation that calls for these rollbacks. And no one less than the President of the United States, and I will reiterate again, said ``record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks.'' ``I am looking forward to Congress to take about $2 billion of these tax breaks out of the budget over the next 10-year period. Cash flows are up. Taxpayers do not need to be paying for certain of these expenses on behalf of energy companies,'' the President of the United States. But, you know, the real test here, I like to call it the Augie & Ray's test. Augie & Ray's is a little diner in my hometown of East Hartford. I go there frequently, and I have an opportunity to meet with people that are baffled by what is going on here in the United States Congress but surely astounded by the greed that exists in corporate America, especially as it relates to energy prices. These are people, regular people, in the Northeast who have seen their moneys cut for low energy assistance to heat their homes. These are people that are paying huge prices at the gas pump that is chewing up all of the profits that a small businessman makes, and they are wondering aloud what the United States Congress is going to do about it. So the President of the United States, a Republican, and the Republican-controlled Senate call for this rollback that is modest at best; and yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle persist in saying, oh, no, this is much-needed relief for oil companies that receive tax cuts on top of record-breaking profits, while we cut assistance to the poor. People that have to make a decision between the food that they eat, heating and cooling their homes, and the prescription drugs that their doctors tell them to take want relief from their government. We have already made them refugees from their own health care system by sending them to Canada to get the kind of prices on their prescription drugs that they can afford, and now we are squeezing the middle class throughout the Northeast and senior citizens who have nowhere else to turn. This is a modest, modest proposal that Mr. McDermott submitted last week and I submit this week, that the Republican-controlled Senate has already passed. We implore you to embrace this straightforward rollback in a time when oil companies and their executives have made unprecedented profits so that we can provide basic relief to American citizens. I implore my colleagues to vote for this motion.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I don't believe we have any more speakers. I believe I have the right to close. I will reserve that right, and the gentleman can proceed.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4297, the tax reconciliation conference report. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4297 be instructed-- (1) to agree to the following provisions of the Senate amendment: section 461 (relating to revaluation of LIFO inventories of large integrated oil companies), section 462 (relating to elimination of amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures for major integrated oil companies), and section 470 (relating to modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to large integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers), and (2) to recede from the provisions of the House bill that extend the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that would otherwise terminate at the close of 2008.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington, and I join with the distinguished gentlemen from Washington and Michigan, and I associate myself with their remarks. I thank Representative McDermott for bringing forward a practical, pragmatic and effective solution that joins with the Senate in recognizing what we can do immediately to rectify this situation. I say to my colleague from California who receives letters from the elderly, I would like to give him the scores of my e-mails and letters from the elderly who make daily choices between heating and cooling their homes; providing themselves with transportation money that they need to get back and forth to their doctors for their appointments, where they then, because of this administration and Republican control of Congress, have to become refugees of their own health care system and travel to Canada in order to get prescription drugs. If ever there was a need for relief and a focus on a matter that needs urgent attention, it is here in this pragmatic proposal that has been put forward. You have to be aghast when you look at the policy. At least the President has come forward and recognized apparently what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not, that there is a need to roll back these excessive tax cuts. He stated so yesterday. We applaud him for that. But we are confounded by an administration policy that Thomas Friedman best described in terms of its international perspective as ``leave no mullah behind.'' We find ourselves in the confounding situation where we see profits going abroad to the very nations, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Sudan, who in turn fund the madrassas and fund the very people that are working against our men and women in the field and serving this country so valiantly. Here at home the domestic policy becomes ``leave no oil executive behind.'' In the reports that come out daily, CEOs are granted $400 million, while we cut LIHEAP provisions to the very needy in the Northeast and across this great Nation of ours, people who are struggling to make ends meet. ``Leave no oil executive behind'' becomes the hue and cry we hear from the other side of the aisle. In my district, and as I am sure everyone did going home this past week, in talking to a number of people, most notably rock-rib Republicans like John Mitchell, the former mayor of South Windsor, who happens to be the past president of the Independent Connecticut Petroleum Dealers. He said to me, John, you know I care deeply about the people that are being impacted daily by these costs. And he says, I got to tell you, I have been in business for more than 30 years, and I have never witnessed anything like this before. He said, I have been a Republican all my life. He says, but I will be damned if I am going to stand by and watch what is happening to this country and watch what is happening at the gas pumps and what is happening to home heating oil. He said, there is no reason. There are no corollary between supply and demand that is going on here. He says, what this amounts to is nothing more than fear and arbitrarily raising prices based on greed. I was further joined by Gene Gilford, the executive director, who also had the same thing to say with respect to what is going on here. Mr. McDermott has proposed very logical amendments, amendments that the Senate has already embraced that make sense, that only go a small way in terms of the help that we need. Other measures that the Democrats have put forward wait for brave Republicans to come forward and sign discharge petitions so that we can even have an open and honest debate about the escalating prices at the gas pump, and what is happening to our senior citizens and all of our citizens across this country as they deal with the high cost of heating and cooling their homes this past winter and as we approach yet another summer season. So I ask my colleagues on the other side to join us in supporting this measure. Embrace your President, and provided an opportunity to join the very practical and pragmatic provisions that Mr. McDermott has put forward, and then join in signing with Mr. Stupak and others in the vote for the Free Act and the Pump Act that Democrats have been proposing.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay great honor to a dear friend and colleague of mine, Marjorie S. Anthony of South Windsor, Connecticut, who passed away on March 27, 2006. Marge was wonderfully unique in the way she pursued politics and community service. She did it with enthusiasm and love, candor and spirit. Marge was a devoted wife, mother and grandmother. My heart goes out to her family, her loving husband of 48 years, Peter T. Anthony, Sr. Marjorie will be greatly missed by her four children and their spouses: Katherine Kennison and her husband, Ed, of South Windsor; Marybeth D'Onofrio and her husband, Tom, of Ellington; Patty Antonaras and her husband, Sam, of Ellington. Marjorie will also be deeply missed by her 12 grandchildren, Ashley Kennison, Shannon and Trevor Anthony, Matt, Rachel and Vinny Metacarpa, Katie, Tommy, and Christopher D'Onofrio, John, Brittany and Mikala Antonaras. Marjorie leaves behind five exceptional brothers, Charles J. Sullivan and sister-in-law, Maureen, of Riverton, NJ; Michael Sullivan and sister-in-law, Tina, of Atlanta, GA; Thomas Sullivan and sister-in-law, Carole, of South Bend, IN; Patrick Sullivan and Chris Domenick of Marlborough; and Kevin Sullivan of Hartford; her brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Thomas and Jane Anthony of Rocky Hill. Marjorie will also be deeply missed by her many nieces, nephews and cousins who were all a close knit family. Marge led a tremendous life and was an active member of her community. Marge lived in South Windsor for 48 years of her life and graduated from Bulkeley High School. For 30 years of her life, Marjorie was a private business owner, Justice of the Peace, member of St. Francis of Assisi Church and Ladies Society, and State Central Connecticut Woman. Marge served as Past President of the South Windsor Democratic Women's Club, Past Vice-Chair and Secretary of the Democratic Town Committee, Past Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairperson of the Economic Development Commission, Chairperson of the South Windsor Committee for St. Patrick's Day Parade, Past Corresponding Secretary of the South Windsor Historical Society, and Past President of the South Windsor Athletic Booster Club. She was a member of the Board of Directors of the Greater Hartford Transit District, Board of Directors of the Tolland County Chamber of Commerce, and an Advisory Board member for Rockville Bank. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring the life of Marjorie S. Anthony. Marge will be missed by her family, friends and her community. She was a dear friend of mine and my family who join with her family in mourning her passing but rejoicing in her life.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished constituent in my district, Rose Bouziane Nader of Winsted, Connecticut, whose incredible life has provided inspiration to all who have come in contact with her. Rose was a devoted mother, teacher and civic advocate, who passed away on January 20, 2006. Rose Nader lived just 18 days short of her 100th birthday and led a life fulfilled by the inspiration she gave and the nurturing compassion she provided. Rose inspired America's foremost consumer advocate, her son Ralph Nader, and further inspired the rest of her children who are all dedicated to giving back to their community. The following are but glittering excerpts from the outpouring of people who spoke from their heart about this shining example for humanity. ``We have been brought together today by our mother, who was the light of our lives, the anchor, the compass and the vision. These are a few of her main qualities, qualities that we see in many good people. They represent the heights of human beings.''--Ralph Nader. ``She was not a person of many words, but her content contained much memorable wisdom.''--Claire Nader. ``On child-rearing formulas, Mom observed that, `there is no recipe.' On supporting each other, it was `operation cooperation.' ''--Laura Nader. ``She was as fine an expression of the human spirit as I have ever met, and I say this from my heart.''--Phil Donahue. ``I thought she was a remarkable person who lived a remarkable life, going literally from one century to another. ``She was strong, loving, hard-working and modest. All of the virtues were hers. I used to ponder how much she and her husband had seen in their lives for it was a great American story. They had come here in the Twenties with little more than their hopes and their capacity for hard work, and in just one generation they had seen their own children prosper--enriching what was around them and being enriched at the same time. ``What I will remember is her kindness to our family over the years, her sense of obligation to others, and a belief that citizenship demanded a daily commitment. And of course her modesty, in the midsixties, back when Life Magazine was still powerful, the editors put Ralph on the cover. My mother, thrilled by this, immediately called Rose to tell her. `Yes,' said Mrs. Nader, `that's nice. I must get out and get a copy.' We all loved that, the `a copy' reference.'' David Halberstam Journalist, Author, Historian. It has been my experience that what makes this country great are those humble people amongst us who live day to day and perform unheralded deeds for their community. Rose was one of those people. Her life was a testimony of inspiration, humor and compassion, and the love and satisfaction that comes from giving of oneself. How blessed her family is to have had such an influence, how fortunate the community that her works lives on. Epitomized by her world famous son, Ralph, and her daughters, Claire and Laura, who never forget their community and their mother's devotion. President Kennedy was fond of saying that communities reveal a lot about themselves in the memorials they create and the individuals they honor. How fitting it is for the family to establish the Rose Nader Circle: For the Agitation of the Caring Mind. I know all Americans join in saluting Rose Nader. I personally want to be part of the planting of roses throughout Winsted. What a fitting tribute to an extraordinary lady. I am both humbled by her virtue and honored to place her name in the annals of the United States Congress, an institution that could learn much from this incredible American.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. This legislation is a much needed step towards ending the unprecedented tragedy taking place in Sudan, and its consideration today is long overdue. Over the past 3 years, the world has watched as the situation in Darfur has escalated into an unprecedented humanitarian and human rights crisis. Since February 2003, civilians in the impoverished Darfur region of Sudan have been subject to indiscriminate killings, abductions, torture and rape at the hands of the Janjaweed--a lawless militia that has the alleged support of the Sudanese government. It is clear that the government of Sudan has offered their tacit approval for these attacks, and in many instances has engaged in air and ground strikes to augment the Janjaweed assaults on the people of Darfur. The scope of this ongoing tragedy is hard to imagine. The numbers, unfortunately, speak for themselves. An estimated 3.5 million people are starving and some 2 million have been displaced from their homes, including hundreds of thousands who have fled to Chad for refuge. When then Secretary of State Colin Powell called the crisis in Darfur ``genocide'' in September 2004, an estimated 50,000 people had been killed. That number may now reach as high as 400,000 today, with 180,000 of these deaths occurring in the past 18 months alone according to the United Nations. These numbers continue to grow everyday; however we may never fully appreciate the enormous human toll these atrocities have taken on Sudan, the continent of Africa, and the world. The atrocities taking place are nothing less than a human tragedy, a world wide cause that we cannot ignore--and yet the international community remains essentially paralyzed and unable to stop it. To date, there have been 8 rounds of peace talks, the deployment of 6,000 African Union troops, 6 U.N. Security Council resolutions and declarations of genocide by the administration and this Congress. Despite this pressure, the Sudanese government has steadfastly refused to take any constructive steps towards ending this humanitarian crisis. As the leader of the free world and a role model for human rights and democracy, we must live up to our own example. To this end, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act takes several important steps toward increasing pressure on the government of Sudan to end the current crisis. Among its many provisions, this legislation strengthens sanctions on individuals and governments responsible for, or connected to, the atrocities in Darfur. It also provides strong support for the expansion of humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts in the region, and calls for the suspension of Sudan's membership in the United Nations. While this legislation alone will not end the atrocities in Darfur, it will send a strong message to Sudan and the world community that the U.S. is serious about bringing an end to the violence. Many grassroots groups around the country, such as the Connecticut Coalition to Save Darfur, have been working to educate policymakers and the public on the urgent need for action in this troubled region of the world. Their efforts have ensured that the crisis in Darfur stays in the public mind and today's consideration of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act is a testament to their tireless work. I am proud to support this legislation, and strongly urge its quick approval in conference so that we can get this important bill to the President's desk without delay.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative to H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act that would help more students and families pay for higher education. With millions of American families struggling to pay for college, it is critical that Congress act to make college more affordable. Unfortunately, H.R. 609 does little to increase the access and affordability of higher education and actually cuts $8.7 billion from student aid programs. This bill would, among other things, freeze the authorized level of maximum Pell Grant scholarships $200 above the current level through 2013. With the cost of tuition rising more than 6 percent every year, a flat-lined $200 increase provides no relief for the 37,500 students in my home state of Connecticut that receive Pell Grants. According to the College Board, the typical student who borrows to finance a bachelor's degree at a public college or university graduates with $15,500 of debt and at private nonprofit institutions graduates with $19,400 debt. To assist students and families struggling with this debt, Congress passed legislation in 2002 that lowered the interest rate cap on student loans to 6.8 percent starting in July of 2006. However, the bill on the floor today would raise the interest rate cap to 8.25 percent. As a result, the typical student borrower, with $17,500 in debt, would be forced to pay as much as $2,600 more in interest on those loans. In contrast, the Democratic alternative would cut interest rates in half for students with subsidized loans--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent--which means $2.5 billion in interest rate relief for middle and low income families. The Democratic substitute would also create a pilot program for year round Pell Grants, simplify the student loan application process, and provide loan forgiveness for nurses, highly- qualified teachers in bi-lingual and low-income communities, librarians, first responders and other public servants. As a nation, we must invest in higher education if we are going to boost America's economic competitiveness and continued prosperity. Hardworking families and students deserve better. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the underlying bill and supporting the Democratic alternative that would truly make college more accessible and affordable to more Americans.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question so that the House can consider a critical amendment that would strengthen the CFIUS review process. As we know all too well from the recent controversy over the Dubai ports deal, the current process for reviewing foreign takeover of national infrastructure is deeply flawed. Federal law currently allows the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) up to 30 days to examine a potential sale and determine whether to begin a more thorough 45-day security investigation. This process is meant to examine the national security implications of handing over critical infrastructure to foreign companies. However, as we now know, far too often the committee forgoes a deeper review of these deals. CIFIUS has investigated an estimated 1500 foreign investment transactions since it was established, of which 25 have gone into the 45 day review and only one has been blocked. Defeating the previous question would allow the House to consider an amendment offered by Mr. Sabo that is blocked by the underlying rule. The Sabo amendment would strengthen the current CFIUS process by requiring all foreign transactions that could result in foreign control of any asset or infrastructure that affects national security to undergo a full review. It mandates a more critical look at these deals by ensuring a 75 day security review of CFIUS transactions and requires the President to either approve or disapprove all deals. The amendment also requires that Congress be notified of Presidential approvals and allows for Congress to overturn decisions within 30 days with a joint resolution. In total, these changes would bring some common sense reform to a process that is central to the security of our vital infrastructure and the American people. The Dubai Port World deal showed that the actions of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) need to be taken out of the shadows and brought into the light. Congress should not be rubber- stamping the Administration's backroom deals, it should be reviewing them thoroughly. While H.R. 4939 will put an end to the already dead Dubai Ports World deal, focusing on this one transaction ignores the larger flaws in the CFIUS review process and the wide gaps in our port security. This important amendment deserves nothing less than an up-or- down vote.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker I regret that I was out of the Chamber on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 and was unable to return before time expired on rollcall vote No. 32 on HR 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. Had I been allowed to record my vote, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 32.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 2271, a bill that circumvents the regular legislative process and fails to truly improve the PATRIOT Act. Last year, I rejected the PATRIOT Act reauthorization and the conference report because I thought Congress could strike a more reasonable balance in empowering law enforcement and protecting civil liberties. I was concerned then, as I am now, that the reauthorization language would remove the protection of sunsets to most of the PATRIOT Act, which was critical to earn support for such sweeping legislation in 2001. These sunset provisions ensure that Congress will continuously be able to take a closer look at how law enforcement powers are implemented and the effectiveness of balancing security and freedom. I continue to believe that Congressional oversight over one of the most fundamental challenges of our time would not hinder our society but enhance it. First, let us be clear about what we are voting on today--an amendment to a conference report. Conference reports are not amendable. Conference reports are the product of conference committees that have hammered out the differences between House and Senate versions of legislation. A conference report is one of the last stages of the legislative process and it must be wholly rejected or accepted by the two chambers. Since the Majority and the Administration cannot pass the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report on its merits through the regular legislative process, the House must now consider a bill that amends the report. Instead of being honest with the American people that the conference report is flawed, the Majority is attempting to maneuver legislation through the House that they purport will ``fix'' the underlying problems of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization and fast-track the bill to President Bush's desk. Even if this ``fix'' was added to the conference report, many discrepancies in the protection of privacy, civil liberties and Congressional oversight still remain. For example, with no meaningful changes to the conference report, access is still allowed to sensitive personal records, including medical, business and library records (Section 215) and national security letters that request personal information are still issued with no judicial review (Section 505). Today, I reject the idea that the Majority and the Administration can use this bill as political cover to gain enough support for passage of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. The fact remains that the PATRIOT Act reauthorization still needs more work, more safeguards, and more oversight. As the 109th Congress continues to discuss protecting the homeland and civil liberties, I challenge my colleagues to have an open review and debate on improving the PATRIOT Act, and to work together-- in a bipartisan manner--to strengthen national security in a way that is consistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms this country was founded on.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today concerned that H.R. 4745, legislation making a supplemental appropriation for the Small Business Administration disaster loan program, is another example of the continued mismanagement of the Gulf Coast recovery effort. This $712 million supplemental comes before us today as we discover that the SBA will completely run out of funding for disaster loans sometime in the next week. It is clear that the $441 million previously appropriated to this program was far from adequate to meet demand for the loans. As a result, the SBA has approved only 37 percent of the 280,000 disaster loan applications the agency has received and is facing a backlog of over 105,000 applications. Of the loans approved, only 10 percent have been actually paid to the homeowners and small businesses that are relying on this critical funding to rebuild their livelihoods in the wake of this unprecedented natural disaster. How this administration could so grossly underestimate the need for these loans is beyond me. From the very beginning, the response by our Government to this disaster has been wholly inadequate--and this shortfall is just another sad example of the consequences of the poor planning, lack of leadership and incompetence demonstrated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Rebuilding the Gulf Coast is going to take a long term commitment of will and resources by the Federal Government. Yet, time and again, this administration has failed to level with Congress and the American people on the full costs needed to support the rebuilding effort. The needs of the families, small business and communities of the Gulf Coast are too important to be shortchanged by estimation errors or budgetary gimmicks. I hope that any Katrina legislation this Congress may consider in the next few months includes a full accounting of the funding truly needed to meet our commitment to the Gulf Coast.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I attended the heartfelt memorial service of Mrs. Coretta Scott King. Mrs. King was a model citizen and will truly be missed by the Nation. Last week the House debated H. Res. 655, which honored the life and accomplishments of Mrs. Coretta Scott King. This resolution recognized her contributions as a leader in the Civil Rights Movement and expresses condolences to the King family on her passing. Coretta Scott King was born on April 27, 1927, in Heiberger, Alabama. Mrs. King graduated from Antioch College with a degree in music and education and was granted a scholarship to study concert singing at the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston, Massachusetts. It was in Boston where she met a young theology student, Martin Luther King, Jr., who was attending Boston University, and her life was forever changed. They were soon caught up in a dramatic series of events that sparked the modern Civil Rights Movement. Dr. King was recognized as the face of the movement, called upon to lead various marches from city to city, with Mrs. King right by his side, encouraging citizens, regardless of race, to defy the laws of segregation. On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. Channeling her grief, Mrs. King concentrated her energies on fulfilling her husband's work by building The King Center in Atlanta, Georgia, as a living memorial to her husband's life and dream. However, Mrs. King's greatest accomplishment was yet to come. She set out to establish her late husband's birthday as a national holiday, and that dream came to fruition when Congress declared the first observance of this national holiday in 1986. Today, the holiday is marked by annual celebrations in over 100 countries. Mrs. King was an influential public figure and is referred to as the ``First Lady of the Civil Rights Movement.'' She was a world-renowned speaker who gave hundreds of speeches both abroad and at home, and was active in organizations such as the National Council of Negro Women and the Women's Strike for Peace. Mrs. King was also known for her writing, most notably for her autobiography, My Life With Martin Luther King. Jr. Mrs. Coretta Scott King had a vision and she had the wherewithal to keep that vision alive. The journey towards equality for all has been greatly advanced by her work and accomplishments. Mrs. Coretta Scott King is a true American hero and will dearly be missed by her family, the Nation, and the world.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 657, a resolution honoring the contributions made by Catholic schools nationwide. These schools provide students with an education that instills a lifelong development of moral, intellectual, and social values in America's young people. Our Nation's Catholic schools provide excellent opportunities for learning. Today, nearly 50 percent of students enrolled in U.S. private schools attend Catholic schools. In Connecticut, over 39,000 students are enrolled at 148 Catholic schools throughout the State. Catholic schools provide educational opportunities to a broad cross-section of our society. With over 7,000 schools and current matriculating classes of greater than 2.5 million students, it is estimated that about 27 percent of students enrolled are minorities. Catholic schools also encourage greater levels of student-teacher interaction through their small class-size ratio. The 160,000 faculty that teach at these schools provide students with both an intellectually stimulating and values- based education. As a former student of St. Rose's School in East Hartford, Connecticut, I would like to praise the outstanding efforts of the Sisters of Notre Dame for providing students with strong academic and moral values. The Catholic education I received at St. Rose's School has guided me throughout my career in public service. At St. Rose, I was taught the valuable lessons of good works toward others and society's special obligation to consider first the needs of the poor. The Catholic teachings have given me a valuable framework for life, and have enabled me to achieve personal and professional goals. Again, I am proud to support H. Res. 657. As we celebrate Catholic Schools Week, we must honor the role these schools play in promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future for this Nation. I am proud that these schools continue to nurture students dedicated to their faith, to their values, to their communities and to their families. These schools develop the leaders of tomorrow with effective leadership and character.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Mr. Speaker, how appropriate that we bring this piece of legislation in the early morning, deep in December, as our Nation braces for yet another cold winter. To my Democratic colleagues I say, you know, do not be too harsh on our Republican colleagues. Take heart in what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said. Remember this, that they are not bad people. In fact, they can be very well intended, but more often than not they are frozen in the ice of their own indifference, frozen in indifference to the cries of people from the rooftops of New Orleans or to fellow colleagues who come to the floor from Bay St. Louis and New Orleans and talk about people who still live in tents, frozen in their indifference to the elderly in this country who are refugees from their own health care system and have to go to Canada to get prescription drugs, frozen in that indifference and yet come to this Chamber with the temerity to talk about spending. We agree with you on spending. It is just that you lavish your spending on the oil companies and the pharmaceutical companies and only ask of the least amongst us to provide for the sacrifice that this Nation and you are going to place upon their backs. Roosevelt had it right: You are frozen in the ice of your own indifference.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposiiton to the so-called Pension Protection Act and in support of the Democratic motion to recommit. There is no question that our Nation is facing a pension crisis. Over 34 million American workers currently rely on the benefits they receive from a defined benefit pension plan to make ends meet. Yet, with the growing number of corporations cutting pension benefits or declaring bankruptcy, people are increasingly concerned about their retirement security. More and more, American workers are facing the prospect of seeing their employers use our Nation's bankruptcy laws to back out of their pension promises and turning their obligations over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)--which only partially funds promised benefits. Unfortunately, the bill before us today is a missed opportunity to provide American workers with real pension protection. H.R. 2830 makes significant changes to the rules for defined benefit pension plans, increases the premiums that companies pay into the PBGC, and does nothing to prevent companies from dumping their pension obligations on American taxpayers. According to the Chief Investment Officers of over sixty percent of our Nation's largest pension plans, these likely will lead to cuts or terminations of existing plans. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would add over $70 billion to the federal deficit and fails to improve the PBGC's financial condition by increasing the agency's financial shortfall by $2.5 billion. Rather than allowing an open debate on this important issue, the majority leadership has chosen to close this bill from amendments or even allow consideration of a Democratic substitute. The Miller/Cardin motion to recommit protects American pension benefits by making it harder for companies to declare bankruptcy and abandon workers pensions, protects worker's retirement security by providing employers with pension funding stability and gives the airlines the tools they need to shore up their employee pension plans. This alternative would provide American workers with real pension protection, rather than continued retirement insecurity. Mr. Speaker, today's legislation is the latest in a series of attempts to privatize profits and socialize losses. It is my sincere hope that as we move into conference, we can produce legislation that will protect the hard earned pension benefits of our Nation's workers.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) in introducing the Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2005. As millions of Americans visit their friends and family in nursing homes in this holiday season, they want to know that their loved ones are safe from the threat of fire. However, it would disturb many to learn that the Government Accountability Office estimates that 20 to 30 percent of the 17,000 nursing homes across the country still lack a full fire sprinkler system. Unfortunately, families in my district have seen tragic results of a nursing home fire first hand. In February 2003 sixteen residents of a nursing home in Hartford were killed in one of the worst fires in the city's history. Another nursing home fire in Nashville, Tennessee later that year took the lives of fifteen people. In both cases these buildings were older facilities that had been allowed to operate without an automatic fire sprinkler system. A July 2004 GAO report found that ``the substantial loss of life in the Hartford and Nashville fires could have been reduced or eliminated by the presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler systems,'' and that ``federal oversight of nursing home compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate.'' And, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), there is no record of a multiple death fire in a nursing home equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. It has been almost 2 years since the tragic fires of 2003, yet the federal government has taken only small steps to increase fire safety in nursing homes. To date the only concrete action the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken to improve fire safety is requiring nursing homes without a sprinkler system to install battery operated smoke detectors. While this is a good first step, the rule has been criticized by fire safety advocates since the smoke detectors do not need to be hard wired to the building's alarm system or 9-1-1. Experts agree that it's not a matter of ``if' there will be another nursing home fire, but when and how bad. It should not take another tragedy to remind us how vulnerable our nursing homes are to fire. According to the GAO and industry experts, the single biggest obstacle preventing most nursing homes from installing sprinklers is the cost. Already burdened by the increasing cost to care for their residents and shortfalls in the Medicare funding they rely on, they simply cannot afford these systems. In addition, while CMS has it within their authority to increase fire safety standards and mandate the installation of sprinklers, it has repeatedly shied away from doing so because of the cost that would be passed on to nursing homes. That is why we are introducing this legislation today. The Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2005 would provide low interest loans and need-based grants to nursing homes in the greatest need of assistance in tackling the high cost of installing sprinklers. The loan program would assist nursing homes that cannot afford the up-front cost of retrofitting their facilities, but could afford to pay back a low interest government backed loan. The grant program would target those nursing homes in the greatest need of financial assistance in installing sprinkler systems by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give priority to facilities that lack the resources to install these systems on their own. In addition, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that every nursing home in America should be equipped with full sprinkler systems within 5 years and that CMS should move quickly to adopt stronger fire safety standards. Together, these provisions will ensure that nursing homes have access to the financial resources to overcome the cost of providing their residents with the fire safety protection they need. The Hartford and Nashville fires demonstrated the terrible and unacceptable consequences of allowing cost to stand in the way of fire safety. Congress has ignored this problem for far too long and it is time for us to take action to ensure that our nation's most vulnerable are safe from the threat of fire. Again, I thank Mr. King for joining me in this important initiative, and urge our colleagues to join us in helping to make nursing homes in their districts--and around the country--safe from the threat of fire.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative to H.R. 4297, Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act that would provide real tax relief to working families and help the economy grow. The underlying bill is more of the same--more fiscally irresponsible policy. The President's policy of ``stay the course'' is not working; it's not working in our foreign policy, domestic policy, budget policy or tax policy. More of the same is just not working and now is the time for a new direction. Unlike the reckless tax bill on the floor, the Democratic alternative would help more Americans help themselves and ensure that as a country, we move forward together. Among other things, the Democratic measure would exempt every family making less that $200,000 from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The Democratic measure would also provide $42 billion in targeted tax cuts including, deductions for state and local retail sales taxes, deductions for college tuitions expenses, a research and development tax credit, a small business expensing tax credit, and a larger earned income tax credit for the families of those serving in Iraq. Most importantly, the Democratic alternative would be fully offset instead of pushing the country further into debt like the Republican bill. The truth is that more than one-half of all taxpayers would get less than $30 in tax relief from this bill, while those who make over a million dollars a year would get an average tax break of $32,000. Supporters of the capital gains and dividends tax cuts have tried to characterize them as offering benefits that are more broad-based than AMT relief. However, in reality, households with incomes between $100,000 and $500,000 would receive 87% of the benefit of AMT relief, compared to 62% of the benefit for capital gains and dividends tax cuts. Where are the priorities of this House? What message are we sending to the American people? It's time for a new direction because more of the same failed policies aren't working. Americans deserve better. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the underlying bill and supporting the Democratic alternative that would provide real tax relief and strengthen our country.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in strong support of the Prescription Drug Flexibility Act for seniors. You know, we ask an awful lot of our senior citizens, so many of whom, as Tom Brokaw has eloquently penned, are a part of the greatest generation ever. After traveling home this past Thanksgiving for the break and having an opportunity to conduct hearings throughout my district and speak to seniors directly, they did not realize that what we have asked of them in signing up for the so-called prescription drug plan under Medicare part D, that they are now required to be accountants, attorneys and actuaries in order to be able to fill out this form. It is a travesty that for so many of our seniors they find this not only confusing and complicated, but very difficult as well, and are unsure as to whether or not they are going to receive any specific relief. That is why I have introduced legislation that I believe is both pragmatic and provides the opportunity for seniors to seek relief from the burdensome task that faces them. Specifically, this legislation would accomplish three things. First and foremost it would extend for 2 years the time period in which seniors have to sign up. I think it is incredible to think that we could get 42 million people to sign up for a program in 6 months where in the State of Connecticut they have 44 choices in options to choose from. In many States it is as many as 60, 65 choices that people have to pursue in order to make sure they are making the right decision. And, of course, if they have not signed up in time or they are given misinformation, they receive a penalty for that starting at 1 percent a month and accumulating forward. Just out of simple fairness to the people we are sworn to serve, we ought to make sure that we are extending the time period, and this legislation calls for a 2-year extension. The legislation further goes on to look at a provision that is commonly referred to as the ``lock-in provision.'' What that means for those that are struggling with this part D is that while the HMOs and insurance companies can opt out of their formularies or of their coverage, you are locked in for at least a period of a year. Well, common sense and fairness would say that if a company is covering you and say you are on Lipitor and then they opt out of that coverage, you ought to have the same right without penalty to opt out and get the kind of coverage that you need and desire. The third thing that this bill does is also recognize that in the State of Connecticut, more than 44 choices, unfortunately there will be some companies that give misinformation and, again, maybe intentionally, maybe not, but the only people who will pay a penalty in this circumstance are the elderly. We think it is only fair that if they give out misinformation, if they tell people that they have a credible plan and they do not, that they ought to be subject to a fine. In fact, the troubling thing about this whole piece of legislation, which I was proud to vote against, is that there are no fines for the HMOs or the insurance companies or the people that mislead the elderly. The only fine that this legislation seeks is to fine the elderly if they do not sign up for a program. So this legislation seeks a $10,000 fine per incidence for those who provide misinformation to the elderly. Now, it is instructive, of course, as to how we got there. This vote, as many know, was passed on this House floor at 5:30 in the morning by one vote. The travesty of this legislation is that on page 59 of this 700-page document, it specifically excludes the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating directly with the pharmaceutical companies. Now, that, by the way, is exactly what the VA Commissioner does on behalf of our veterans. In the State of Connecticut, our veterans pay a $7 co-pay. When we look at our senior citizens and when we look at this bill and when we think of the cost that has been incurred without the creation of any new bureaucracy but simply by having the Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, not even having to travel outside to Canada and becoming refugees within their own health care system, Americans ought to be entitled to get the same kind of deep discounts that we provide our veterans. That, in fact, is exactly what other nations of the world see fit to do for each one of their citizens, which is why, as Mr. Emanuel pointed out earlier, in the United States we are paying on average 60 percent more for prescription drugs than our neighbors in Canada and Mexico and, in fact, in all the industrialized nations of the world. Why? Because they negotiate directly. And the pharmaceutical industry is not losing any money abroad. So I think it is morally incumbent upon this Congress to take up that legislation that will correct that process. But what passed that fateful day is law; so we must advise our seniors to proceed cautiously and hopefully providing them a window in time where they can make the correct decision. There will be, as some of the advertisements say that are paid for with Medicare and Social Security dollars, an opportunity for some to benefit; and I encourage them to do so.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Stealth Tax Relief Act, H.R. 4096, a temporary fix to a much larger, more overhanging problem, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Originally intended to ensure wealthy taxpayers paid their fair share, the AMT has become a tax on the middle-class. Without adjustments for inflation like the federal income tax, the AMT targets a growing number of people each year. Taxpayers in states with high property taxes and high local and state income taxes, in states like my home state of Connecticut, are most hard-hit by the AMT. In fact, Connecticut faces the third highest AMT tax liability in the nation. H.R. 4096 will pass the House today and again, the House will evade its responsibility to find a real solution to the AMT attack on the middle-class for another year. The Majority seems to find plenty of time to cut social programs, increase the deficit, and afford estate, capital gains, and dividends tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, while consistently dragging their feet to fix a tax that targets 17 million working middle-class families. According to the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Congressional Budget Office, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have, in fact, tripled the size of the AMT problem. The American public deserves better. Last month, I supported a Democratic proposal in the House Ways and Means Committee that would have totally eliminated the AMT for all families with incomes under $200,000. Unfortunately, this measure was rejected along party lines. I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 2950, the Individual Tax Simplification Act that would among other things, repeal the AMT. However, to date, the bill has received no attention by the House Ways and Means Committee. And now today, I am disappointed that the Majority brought the underlying bill to the floor under the suspension calendar, a procedure which blocked the opportunity to offer an amendment to fully repeal the AMT. Americans need real solutions to address these problems, not band- aids and bumper sticker slogans. In the absence of a real and viable solution, I will support this temporary extension. In the meantime, I encourage my colleagues in the House to stop discounting this crisis and work together to pass real reforms to the AMT.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4388, the Tax Revision Act. Among other things, H.R. 4388 includes an extension of a critical tax provision that our troops and their families rely on to make ends meet when deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Working Families Tax Relief Act (PL-108-311), which we passed last year, included language which ensured that military families are not unfairly prevented from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) because the combat pay they rely on to make ends meet is tax free. Ordinarily only those with taxable earned income are eligible for the EITC. However the only source of income for many military families is the tax free combat pay of a spouse deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. As a result, before we passed last year's legislation, many low-income military families were unable to claim the EITC based on the tax free status of their family members' combat pay. The last thing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan need to worry about is their families' taxes. The extension of the EITC combat pay provision will ensure that the families of our brave men and women in uniform are not unfairly and inadvertently punished when their loved ones are deployed abroad. The tax treatment of combat pay for EITC purposes is not controversial. However, it was not included in the larger reconciliation bill on apparently technical grounds that the refund portion of the EITC is a budget outlay and therefore cannot be included in the bill. The substitute that Democrats offered in Committee contained a provision, rejected by majority, that was designed to continue full EITC benefits to our military families and which did not run afoul of the budget rules. I worry that this bill is for show and merely meant to help make some on the other side of the aisle feel better about the tax cut bill they will support tomorrow which helps the wealthy and ignores working and military families. I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that this important legislation is made into law.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4340, the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This agreement is an example of the success that bi-partisan engagement on trade issues can generate, and this agreement should be a model, a starting point, for how we can achieve success in the future. During consideration of this agreement in the Ways and Means Committee, Democrats expressed their concern about the treatment and application of international labor standards in the agreement. Since that time, both the Administration and Bahrain have worked at our urging to include Bahrain's commitments to begin applying international labor standards immediately in their county as well as their timetable to bring all of their laws into ILO compliance as conditional and enforceable elements of the agreement. In other words, as we argued during the CAFTA debate, workers rights should enjoy the same level of protection we place on goods and intellectual property rights, a balance that was sorrowfully left out of the CAFTA agreement. In addition to this, the Bahraini government has demonstrated its world leadership by recently becoming one of the first Arab League nations to remove its boycott on Israeli goods and services. These steps are encouraging, and indicate that countries are willing to accept minimum standards if the United States insists they be part of free trade agreements: The agreement shows that working together bipartisanly on trade issues will produce agreements that address the standards we feel every trade agreement America signs onto should meet: the broad fulfillment of America's economic interests, the opening of fair markets for America's goods and services and the reversal of America's ever-growing trade deficit.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to submit for the Record the following commentary written by Keith Burris which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on November 21, 2005. It is one of the most thoughtful and accurate commentaries on the plan for action in Iraq proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). I agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion, ``John Murtha is trying to save lives now. He is right. And courageous. And the loyal friend of those who fight.'' Supporting Our Troops (By Keith C. Burris) Everyone knows that public support for the president's war in Iraq has eroded. We know it not only because we read the newspapers and their reports about the polls but because so many of us are a part of that erosion. After 9/11, most of us were capable of a knee-jerk reaction. Most Americans felt, ``We have been attacked; we cannot just sit back and wait for the next attack.'' Most Americans supported attacking Afghanistan, because, to the extent that there was a Terrorist Central, that was it. Invading Iraq was a tougher sell. But Americans were inclined to trust their government, even though the memory of the Vietnam War was fresh in our minds. That was a war in which thousands of young soldiers fought bravely and some 50,000 died. They were told, and we were told, that they fought for freedom; to contain communism; and, to paraphrase what was then being taught senior officers at the Army War College: If we fought the bad guys over there, we might not have to fight them over here. Today, the young men and women fighting in Iraq are told the exact same things, and the nation is today told the exact same things, except that the word terrorism may be substituted for communism. Our leaders went into Vietnam with good, even noble intentions: To ``help those people'' and to give them what we have--freedom and democracy. But our leaders didn't know enough about the history or the culture of the region. They didn't have a clear political or military objective. They didn't have adequate military power to subdue the country. So they got bogged down in a civil war in which they could not be sure about their allies and they sent our soldiers to fight a guerrilla war in which tactics were as unfocused as strategy and mission. And then they began to lie. The newest Nixon tapes show that the president actually instructed his aides and the military to lie. Our government broadened the war--into Cambodia. It told us it didn't. It got caught in the lie. And then the Nixon administration told the Congress and the public our troops were out when they were not. It's easy, explained the commander-in-chief to his deputies--we say one thing and do another. Indeed, the entire war was based on what is now called ``false intelligence.'' President Lyndon Johnson told the Senate that an American ship had been fired on in the Tonkin Gulf. It hadn't been. The final stage was flag waving: President Johnson, President Nixon, and their allies and aides said that people who suggested we had to correct this massive, tragic mistake--negotiate a political end and get the troops out-- were demoralizing our troops and aiding and abetting the enemy. In other words, they were treasonous. Don't criticize the war effort while there are men in the field, we were told. But if the war was not criticized, and a correction of course was not made while the war was going on, and the president would not or could not exert sufficient military effort to win the war, how would the war ever end? It could only end as it did. By sputtering out. But with ultimate Viet Cong victory and hasty American retreat by the U.S. troops that remained. Meanwhile, between the time the nation realized it had made a mistake, roughly 1968, and 1975, many thousands died. Many fine foot soldiers. Many naval men patrolling waters they would give up, take back, and ultimately give up again. Many Marines. Many, many Vietnamese civilians. And all for what? None of it stopped the triumph of communism or the subsequent triumph of capitalism in Vietnam. We got it wrong. But, worse, once we realized we got it wrong, we ``stayed the course,'' and then our leaders told us lies. The biggest lie was: The way to show devotion to the troops is to support a war without a goal; without adequate military strategy or resources; without a chance of victory. If you love the boys, don't question the war. In reality, that attitude killed a lot of boys who should not have died. The biggest lie was that patriotism is blind acceptance and sacrifice of our country's young. But something stopped Abraham before he slew his son Isaac. Maybe it was the voice of God. Or maybe it was the voice of questioning and of reason.