John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Professor Lawrence F. Roberge for being awarded the 2005 U.S. Professor of the Year for the State of Connecticut by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, CASE. Professor Roberge earned this award for his work as the associate professor and chair of the Science Department at Goodwin College located in East Hartford, CT in my district. As a dedicated educator for nearly 20 years, Professor Roberge has taught a variety of college science and technology courses. Professor Roberge's expertise and skills aided him in also designing and teaching online educational courses. During his tenure as chair of the Science Department at Goodwin College, Professor Roberge developed multi-media and computer-based teaching tools to aid in the development and training of the Science Department teaching staff. In addition, Professor Roberge was responsible for designing the science curriculum and labs for the nursing program. Professor Roberge was an inspiration in the classroom while he taught courses in chemistry, anatomy and physiology, and microbiology. The Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching award four university and college professors as national winners and also recognize a State Professor of the Year in 40 States, the District of Columbia and Guam. These professors are recognized for their outstanding commitment to teaching undergraduate students and their influence on fellow colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in congratulating Professor Lawrence F. Roberge for receiving this prestigious award. As a former educator, I am honored to recognize Professor Roberge for his exceptional commitment and service to teaching undergraduate students in the State of Connecticut.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report of H.R. 3010, the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006. This bill and the Republican majority are out of touch with the needs of the American public. This legislation is a question of priorities. It is unconscionable that the Republican majority prepares to fund $70 billion in tax cuts with cuts to key education, job training and health care programs. With States across the country struggling to find the dollars to fully implement No Child Left Behind, this bill would cut No Child Left Behind funding by $784 million. With college tuition costs rising, this bill would freeze Pell grant funding at last year's level. With energy costs rising, this bill would also freeze Low-Income Home Energy Assistance funding at last year's level. With 7.4 million Americans out of work, this bill would cut $245 million for unemployment insurance and employment services programs. Additionally, this bill would provide the National Institute of Health, NIH, which works to research and combat diseases like cancer and chronic illnesses such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and ALS, with the smallest funding level increase in 36 years. This bill would also slash $31 million in funding for Preventive Health Block Grants and provides virtually no funding for new Community Health Centers. This bill fails to recognize the continued HIV/AIDS crisis by freezing funding on virtually all components of the Ryan White AIDS Care program, except AIDS Drug Assistance. In total, this bill ignores the health needs of Americans. This bill does not reflect the priorities of the American people. As Members of Congress, we cannot abandon our obligations to our children, to our parents and future generations by cutting vital programs to finance tax cuts bigger than we can afford. I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill and do better for the American people.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is also the gentlewoman from Florida's (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) voice that stood out almost singularly when again the heavy-handed control of this Republican- dominated majority tried to foist the Terry Schiavo incident upon us. I thank the gentlewoman for your strong voice at that time. It was resounding all across this Nation. It was picked up by the Hartford Current editorial board, to name just a few of the people it has impacted. The gentlewoman is right. It is not only specifically we can cite but it is the anecdotes that we can understand. I waited in the Rules Committee until 4 o'clock in the morning to try to get a bill that would provide for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be able to do the same thing that every other nation does for its seniors, and that is to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies. There is no way on that Medicare bill that that is not a germane piece of legislation, but it was denied access to the floor because of the power of its ideas. When the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) suggests that we do not have ideas, we have many ideas. The ideas are squashed by the heavy-handed Republican majority here. So, therefore, there was not a vote that had taken place that would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies so that our senior citizens could get the same kind of benefits and discounts, frankly, that the veterans do through the VA administration here. But in the first 100 days the Democrats take back this Chamber, that is the kind of change the American public can expect to see; and that is why I am so proud of your efforts that you have been doing on a regular basis on this floor. Believe me, it is working. Because people are hearing all across this country. We refuse to be drowned out by the Republican majority and their Republican message machine, a network that is vast and large. And whether it is Pat Robertson's 700 Club or whether it is Rush Limbaugh or Cal Thomas or whether it is the Kato Institute or the Heritage Foundation or all the other entities that converge in synchronized and coordinated fashion to try to stifle your voice, you have stood up and spoke for America. God bless you. God bless America.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) for yielding me time and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and her colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) as well. Mr. Speaker, you know, constituents back in my district have written us. And they have talked about listening to your voices, because truly you have struck a cord with America. More often than not, we go home and we hear from people, why are the Democrats not speaking out, or we do not seem to hear the Democratic message. Well, frankly, in a one-party town, where the Presidency and all of the attendant agencies are controlled by the Republicans, where the House has been in control by the Republicans for more than a decade and where they control the Senate and are now putting a further ideological grip on the Supreme Court, it is in fact a one-party town. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) pointed out, when Democrats even try to get an amendment put to the floor, the heavy-handed Republican majority makes sure that no issues of consequence are voted on in this Chamber. Time and time again, the Democratic message is squelched. You have used the analogy, I have heard throughout, of football. And sometimes when people ask about the Democratic message, the best offense is a good defense. What stands between this ownership society juggernaut of privatization that they want to foist on the American public is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the Democratic party. However underfinanced, however squashed by the heavy-handed Republican majority, we continue to speak out in our only venue that we can, the public venue; and that is why people from my district have applauded the efforts that all of you have made. You know, Roosevelt said it best of our colleagues, They are frozen in the ice of their own indifference. It is that indifference that troubles the American people. You have pointed out how we are basically prevented from working in a bipartisan fashion. But what is even more disturbing is when you reach out to this administration, whether you are mothers and fathers waiting outside in Crawford, Texas, and you find there is indifference to your sons and daughters who have given up their lives, or whether you are on the rooftops of New Orleans and there is indifference to your pleas for help, or whether you have to go to Canada to get prescription drugs because there is indifference to the kind of need that you have, indifference to the kind of energy needs that you will have this winter, it is that indifference that has consumed this body. But because of voices like yours, and I commend each and every one of you, the American public is listening, and there will be a change in the ballot box come 2006 because this message is going to be heard. Yes, we are on the defensive because we have to deal with this enormous juggernaut in Orwellian fashion that continues to perpetrate its message, a false message, a message of false hope and false opportunity, and the only push-back that they are getting are from the voices of Democrats like yourself. I commend each and every one of you, and I thank you for your continued efforts on this floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today sharing the concerns of my colleagues about the dangerous expansion of the eminent domain power and the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. I firmly believe there need to be safeguards against the excessive and unfair use of the government's eminent domain power. Governors and State legislators across the country, including those in my home State of Connecticut, are currently grappling with this important issue. As a former State legislator, I understand that these issues are best reviewed and addressed at the local level. The Federal approach is overly broad and although well intentioned, falls short of protecting the communities it purports to protect. Let me make my position clear, private property is one of the most fundamental rights our founding fathers safeguarded in the Constitution. Property rights deserve the utmost protection from governmental intrusion. As a lifelong resident of Connecticut, I am saddened by the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case and like many in Connecticut and across the country, feel vulnerable to the potential abuse of eminent domain authority. However, I do not feel this bill brings justice to communities or comprehensively secures property rights from the misuse of the local and State government taking authority. By attempting to narrow the scope of eminent domain through broad and vague terms, Congress is assuming to identify what does and does not constitute a local public need--a job historically left to our towns, cities and States. These local municipalities would risk losing much- needed economic development funds should they exercise eminent domain authority that goes outside the ambiguous Federal standard set in this bill. Unfortunately, the people most affected by this punitive measure are not the local and city governments making the decisions or the ones at the bargaining table, it is individuals and families living in communities throughout the city, in neighborhoods that depend on federally funded economic development projects for decent housing and livable communities. These are the ones who will truly be penalized by this bill. Eminent domain is a careful balance of protecting private rights and local public needs. This bill is not yet there. Because of the work still ahead of us, I am voting against this legislation today in the hope that these issues will continue to be addressed during conference with the Senate and that it will work to clarify these remaining questions.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the life of the distinguished Civil Rights leader, Rosa Parks who died Monday, October 24, 2005 at the age of 92. A woman of great character and conviction, Rosa Parks inspired a generation to change the course of history. For half a century, the story of Rosa Parks--of a woman with the courage to challenge an unjust system, has been marked in history as a lesson for both young and old. While riding a bus home from her job in Montgomery, Alabama on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks defied the segregation laws of the time and refused to give up her seat to a white passenger. She was then arrested and fined $14. Her bold and single act of defiance sparked a 381-day boycott of the Montgomery bus system by the African American community and ultimately the breakdown of segregation in the south. Born Rosa Louise McCauley on February 4, 1913 in Tuskegee, Alabama, she married Raymond Parks in 1932 after briefly attending Alabama State College in Montgomery. As the first female member of the Montgomery chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Rosa Parks worked tirelessly with her husband to encourage and increase voter participation in the African American community. Following the couple's move to Detroit, Rosa Parks began her 20-year service to the 14th district of Michigan as an administrative assistant in Congressman John Conyers, Jr.'s office. She also founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development to encourage leadership among Detroit's youth in 1987. Although modest about the pivotal role she played in the Civil Rights movement, Rosa Parks has been recognized with some of the most prestigious awards and honors in the country. Among her many awards, she was the recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is our Nation's highest civil award for merit and integrity, and the Congressional Gold Medal, which is the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions. She was also awarded the Springarn award by the NAACP that recognizes the highest achievements amongst African Americans and the Martin Luther King Jr. Award that recognizes those who work for social change through nonviolent means. The longest journey begins with the smallest step. Rosa Parks' actions seemed small on that December day, but they accelerated the Civil Rights movement and enkindled a passion for equality in a generation. I had the honor of joining our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Lewis, in March to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights March in Alabama and the many heroes who were inspired by Mrs. Parks. I was moved by their struggles and motivated by their strength. However, the journey towards true equality remains unfinished and the most fitting tribute to Mrs. Parks would be for us to continue that fight in her memory. And so today, I join the country in bidding farewell to a true American hero and inspirational leader. Mrs. Rosa Parks will be greatly missed by her family, the Nation and the world.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 65, a resolution of disapproval of the 2005 base closure and realignment recommendations. I am proud that my state delegation--commonly referred to back home as ``Team Connecticut''--was successful in saving Sub Base New London from closure. Together our congressional delegation, Governor Rell, members of the New London community and military experts put together an airtight case for the survival of the base. As a result, the commission realized what Connecticut knew all along: That Sub Base New London is not only a critical asset to our State, but a vital part of our current and future national security. The members of the 2005 BRAC Commission were given an extraordinary responsibility and performed their duties in a thoughtful and responsible manner. However, they were given the job of examining a flawed proposal based more on achieving the bottom line then ensuring the security of our Nation. If passed, H.J. Res. 65 would put an end to the current BRAC process--one that I have long believed to be the wrong process at the wrong time for our Nation. Since 2002, I have voted in the Armed Services Committee and on the floor to either repeal or delay BRAC 2005 because I have felt all along that the process had serious flaws. With 150,000 of our men and women in uniform serving overseas in the Middle East, continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and failures to meet recruiting goals, now is not the time to close or realign major portions of our military infrastructure. We should not be closing and consolidating bases and infrastructure here in the States now, when in another two years we may be bringing a significant amount of troops and equipment back from Europe and other forward deployed locations and we would have to spend more money again to reopen or recreate space for them. We should not be closing or realigning before the completion of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which projects the threats our nation will face and guides our force structure for the next two decades. The Commission simply and rightly called conducting BRAC before the completion of the QDR ``inverse'' and ``illogical.'' This is simply the wrong time for BRAC. The final report before us for consideration includes a wide-ranging realignment of the Air National Guard that was completed without the input or consultation of our State Governors and Adjutants General. Rather than conducting an inclusive process--as in the case of the Army National Guard recommendations--the Pentagon chose to craft their Air Force proposal by shutting out the very people that both the law and common sense dictate need to be included in changes to State Guard units. As a result the final Air Force recommendations disproportionately impact the Air National Guard, with 37 of the final 42 Air Force recommendations making changes to Air Guard units in States across the Nation. Governors and Adjutants General widely opposed this plan, citing the impact on recruiting and retention of Guard members, lack of consultation, and reduced availability of personnel for vital State emergency response and homeland security functions. Although the Commission ultimately approved a scaled down version of the Pentagon's Air National Guard plan crafted in the final days of their work, the final BRAC report states that the lack of coordination between the Pentagon, Governors and Adjutants General ``unnecessarily cost the Commission additional time and resources and damaged the previously exemplary relationship between the Air National Guard and the Air Force.'' This misguided recommendation hits home in my district and State, where the 103rd Fighter Wing at Bradley Air National Guard base is slated to lose their A-10 Warthogs--leaving Connecticut as the only State in the Nation without an air national guard flying mission. In presenting our case to the Commission, our message was simple: The Pentagon not only used flawed data that did not take into account many of the unique capabilities of Bradley, but failed to consult our Governor in major changes to our State's militia. While Adjutant General Thaddeus Martin, the staff of the 103rd and the State delegation made a strong case for Bradley, the base was unfortunately included in the final realignment plan. The men and women of the ``Flying Yankees,'' and indeed all the members of the Air National Guard, deserve better than an ad-hoc transformation plan that has the potential to seriously impact the future of these citizen soldiers and their mission. In late August 2005, I joined Connecticut Governor Rell, Attorney General Blumenthal and Senators Dodd and Lieberman in filing suit to prevent the realignment of the Bradley Air National Guard base. We were forced to take this action because the law is simple and clear: the Bradley A-10s cannot be removed without the consent of our Governor. Regardless of the result of today's vote, Connecticut has the law on its side and I am confident that we will secure the future of the ``Flying Yankees.'' One of our most important duties is to provide for the defense of our Nation. We should not be closing and realigning our bases at a time when our nation is engaged in the Middle East and faces unprecedented threats from abroad. Rejecting BRAC 2005 is simply the right thing to do for our men and women in uniform, the security of our nation, and for the future of our Air National Guard. I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 65.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on H. Con. Res. 248, honoring the life and work of Simon Wiesenthal and reaffirming the commitment of Congress to the fight against anti- Semitism and intolerance in all forms, in all forums, and in all nations. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 520.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Gasoline for America's Security Act and in strong support for the substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). Our Nation is facing a real energy crisis. The people of Connecticut, and millions of Americans, are paying record amounts to fill their gas tanks. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that in the upcoming winter, homeowners in the northeast can expect to pay almost 30 percent more to heat their homes. American families will pay hundreds, if not thousands, more in extra energy costs this year. This will be a hard year for too many Americans. Yet, in the name of Hurricane Katrina the House majority leadership is pushing a bill that does nothing to reduce our dependence on oil, lower gas prices, or help Americans get through the upcoming winter. We cannot solve high gas prices by throwing money at oil companies. We need to bring some real transparency into the oil industry and shine the brightest possible light on how these companies--making billions in record profits are squeezing every possible dollar out of the American people. It's our American families who are struggling to heat their homes and fill their tanks this winter that need relief, not big oil. I was honored to join the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Slaughter) in offering an amendment that would have ended the practice of wholesale price discrimination by prohibiting oil companies from restricting the source of a dealer's supply of gasoline. This amendment, based on legislation proposed by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, would have gotten straight to the heart of high gas prices by freeing our local gas stations from the hold of big oil companies. The hard truth is that our small local gas station owners are just as much at the whim of big oil companies as the rest of us. They are locked into restrictive franchising agreements that require them to purchase their supply from a single wholesaler. As a result many of these owners, who may own two or more stations in different towns, often have to pay different prices on the same gas on the same day, depending on where their stations are located. Our amendment would have simply freed station owners to find the most competitive and fair market price to purchase their supply and pass real savings on to their customers. Last night, while I was waiting at the Rules Committee to testify on our amendment, I had the opportunity to listen to many of my colleagues offer amendments that would have significantly improved this bill. From increasing fuel efficiency, addressing the natural gas crisis and making our Nation energy independent, it was clear to me that there are many worthwhile ideas that deserve real debate on the House floor. Unfortunately, as they do time and again, the majority rejected these excellent amendments in favor of pushing a bill that will do nothing for Americans paying high energy costs. Instead of throwing taxpayer dollars at an industry making record profits, let us debate the real issues that are driving up the cost of energy. Let us take on the price gouging and market manipulation that is happening at all levels of oil production and distribution. Let us have a real discussion on how we can free our nation from dependence on foreign oil and develop the hydrogen and fuel cell technologies that will lead our energy future. These debates are not taking place on the House floor today. The American people deserve better.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Threatened Endangered Species Act, the so-called ``reform'' that will dismantle our Nation's most fundamental wildlife protection law and in support of the bipartisan Miller, Boehlert, Dingell, Gilchrest, Dicks, Saxton, Tauscher, Kirk Substitute. I am disappointed at the missed opportunity for the House to strike a real balance in the protection of rare species facing extinction and landowners from future government constraints. While I agree that the current Endangered Species Act, ESA, needs improvements and updating, the controversial bill before us today does little to improve the current ESA. Among other things, the Threatened and Endangered Species Act would remove the federal protection of critical habitats that are necessary for the recovery of a species. I also find it extremely disturbing that my colleagues are so intent on establishing an entirely new entitlement program to pay landowners for compliance at the taxpayers' expense at the same time they are working so hard to privatize entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. I believe there is more we can do to support the goals of the ESA. That is why I support the bipartisan substitute amendment offered by Representative George Miller and Representative Sherwood Boehlert. This compromise amendment would proactively conserve species using both real science standards and conservation incentives for landowners. This amendment maintains several provisions in the underlying bill, but would, among other things, take a more comprehensive approach to recovery plans and create an advisory board to provide scientific advice to the Interior Department about applying the best science when enforcing endangered species law. It took decades for many of our Nation's species to reach the point of extinction. It is unrealistic to propose that there will be a quick fix to the recovery of animals and plants facing decline. For over 30 years, the ESA has been a work in progress. Now is not the time to turn back the clock on wildlife protection. Environmental preservation is about self-preservation and about the land we are leaving our children. As Members of Congress, as responsible citizens, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting real reforms to the ESA by supporting the bipartisan substitute amendment and rejecting the underlying bill.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) that would allow Head Start centers to partner with colleges, universities and community-based organizations to recruit and train college students to serve as mentors and reading coaches to preschool children. Early childhood is a critical time for children to develop reading, language and cognitive skills. For 40 years, Head Start has worked to increase the overall school preparedness for the Nation's young children in low-income communities. As Congress moves forward to reauthorize Head Start and make a number of changes, the reauthorization should include meaningful programming to improve the offerings of Head Start programs. This amendment, that allows Head Start centers to partner with an institution of higher education or a community-based organization in order to recruit and train college students to serve as mentors and reading coaches to preschool children, and would allow children to receive the personal instruction and attention they need to be successfully prepared for school. One-to-one learning is a proven teaching method that strengthens cognitive skills in young children. Mentors provide children with the additional support they need to boost comprehension and self- confidence. Back home in my district in Connecticut, the Jumpstart Hartford program is an excellent example of this type of comprehensive learning partnership. Jumpstart Hartford, in partnership with the University of Hartford, facilitates one-on-one instruction with students from the University and young children from low-income families in Hartford. The program places special focus on developing stronger language, literacy, social and initiative skills. The program has made significant gains in narrowing language and literacy gaps with its young children. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment that would allow mentor partnerships in Head Start and make real progress towards preparing all children in Head Start for success in school and throughout life.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me start by associating myself with the remarks of the distinguished Democrat from Tennessee and the accolades that have been given to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) who was on the floor earlier, for the hard work and effort that they have put forward. My amendment cuts right to the chase of a deep and abiding concern that I and a number of small manufacturers in the State of Connecticut and, I dare say, across this Nation have. We all know the statistics: 3 million Americans employed in manufacturing have lost their jobs, 110,000 in this year alone; 57,000 jobs have been lost in the State of Connecticut since 2001. The genesis of this amendment came at a Chamber of Commerce meeting when small businessmen got up and spoke out with great alarm, wondering out loud how is it that we can have a Department of Agriculture and not a department of manufacturing that focuses on these issues. Where is the ombudsman and voice for us at the national level? They prevailed upon me to introduce this legislation. I am proud to say it is endorsed by the National Council for the Advancement of Manufacturing and the IAM, to name a few. But the focus here is to make sure that we have an individual within a department that is doing its job. Now, the President has appointed a so-called ``manufacturing czar,'' but he has no budget and he has no resources. This amendment is straightforward and pragmatic. It redirects and reorients the already existing resources that we have in order to create a position whose sole focus becomes manufacturing and who becomes the ombudsman for the small manufacturer who is crying out as they continue to see their jobs outsourced overseas, as they see very little voice that they have in terms of the larger scale dealing with the WTO and a number of the trade agreements that come forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman not opposing me, and I appreciate and I understand his unwillingness to debate what Mr. Frink has been able to accomplish in his position to date. The hard truth is that we have not been able to accomplish much, and the reason is, I think as everyone knows, it has become intuitively obvious to the National Coalition for the Advancement of Manufacturing, that he is located within the bowels of an administration and given no budget and no resources to carry out a goal that all of us agree needs to be accomplished. So that is why we take and reorient existing resources to accomplish that goal; so there is no new bureaucracy that is created, it is just reoriented and refocused in a manner that will provide a voice, with resources and a budget, to speak out on behalf of manufacturers. This bill is not of my creation. It comes out of the mouths of those people who are directly impacted: the small manufacturers all across the State of Connecticut and this great Nation of ours. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) who understands these issues and understands what is happening in our State of Connecticut with regard to manufacturing.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) whose sentiments that he expressed earlier today are mine, as well, with respect to this bill. I have the greatest admiration for my colleagues on the other side, but I have to go home and face constituents who wonder aloud why they do not have a voice, an ombudsman, and why moving at a snail's pace in this direction cannot wait.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of an honorable gentleman from my home state of Connecticut, Mr. Ralph Nader, to submit for the Record a copy of testimony that he earlier submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing regarding the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Nominee Judge John Roberts. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I ask that this statement be made part of the printed hearing record. In 1994 I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Stephen G. Breyer by President Clinton to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In that testimony I called attention to the importance of balance in the way our laws handle the challenges of corporate power in America. I said: ``For our political economy, no issue is more consequential than the distribution and impact of corporate power. Historically, our country periodically has tried to redress the imbalance between organized economic power and people rights and remedies. From the agrarian populist revolt by the farmers in the late 19th and early 20th century, to the rise of the federal and state regulatory agencies, to the surging trade unionism, to the opening of the courts for broader non- property values to have their day, to the strengthening of civil rights and civil liberties, consumer, women's and environmental laws and institutions, corporate power was partially disciplined by the rule of law.'' Today it is more important than ever for all Supreme Court Justices and, in particular, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to have the inclination and wisdom to realize that our democracy is being eroded by many kinds of widely reported systemic corporate excesses. Giant multinational corporations have no allegiance to any country or community, and the devastation and other injustices they visit upon communities throughout the United States and around the globe have outpaced the countervailing restraints that should be the hallmark of government by, for and of the people. Unfortunately, the structure and scope of these hearings are not likely to devote a sufficient priority to the corporate issues of our times. In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``I hope we shall . . . crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.'' Imagine his reaction to the corporate abuses of Enron Corp, HealthSouth Corp., Tyco, WorldCom or Adelphia Communications Corp to name only a few, along with the drug, tobacco, banking, insurance, chemical and other toxic industries. The corporate crime and greed of today tower over the abuses of the ``moneyed corporations'' of Jefferson's day. The economic power of giant corporations is augmented by a flood of Political Action Committee (PAC) money and other donations that shape the quality and quantity of debate in our country and consequently drive our society to imperatives that are increasingly more corporate than civic. You will hear about Judge Roberts from several perspectives, but it is safe to assume that questions and testimony about Judge Roberts' views on corporate power and the rule of law will be inadequate given the broad and profound impact giant corporations have on our democracy. An important procedural and substantive corollary is the important role our civil justice system plays in expanding the frontiers of justice and in giving individuals the ability to hold ``wrongdoers'' accountable in a court of law. ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice,'' said the famous jurist, Learned Hand. Unfortunately, powerholders, corporations and other institutions which are supposed to be held accountable by the civil justice system, are striving to weaken, limit and override the province of juries and judges. Some companies, led by insurers, have used expensive and focused media to promote the view that civil juries are too costly and too unpredictable. This narrow and short-sighted perspective is contrary to the long-standing tenets of our democracy and in particular the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution. The civil jury system of the United States embraces a fundamental precept of tested justice: ordinary citizens applying their minds and values can and do reach decisions on the facts in cases that often involve powerful wrongdoers. This form of direct citizen participation in the administration of justice was deemed indispensable by this nation's founders and was considered non-negotiable by the leaders of the American revolution against King George III. But the civil jury is more than a process toward bringing a grievance to resolution. The civil jury is a pillar of our democracy necessary for the protection of individuals against tyranny, repression and mayhem of many kinds and for the deterrence of such injustices in the future. Our civil jury institution is a voice for and by the citizenry in setting standards for a just society. Jury findings incorporated in appellate court decisions contribute to one of the few authoritative reservoirs of advancing standards of responsibility between the powerful and the powerless--whether between companies and consumers, workers, shareholders and community or between officialdom and taxpayers or citizens in general. Knowing the evolution of the common law and the civil jury provides compelling and ennobling evidence of this progression of justice. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, ``The founders of our Nation considered the right of trial by jury in civil cases an important bulwark against tyranny and corruption, a safeguard too precious to be left to the whim of the sovereign, or, it might be added, to that of the judiciary.'' As the hearing unfolds, I suggest that the members of the Judiciary Committee devote some time to areas beyond those that are traditionally the focus of witnesses and questioning by Committee members and ask fundamental questions about the views of Judge Roberts, a former corporate lawyer at Hogan & Hartson, regarding corporate power and the civil justice system. In the spirit of expanding the criteria by which the Committee and the public can measure Judge Robert's judicial and civic philosophy, I offer the following questions for you to pose to the nominee. Some of the questions are narrowly focused and some are broad-gauged. But, in their totality they constitute the broad kind of ``litmus test'' that should be applied in selecting and confirming all judges. In short, does the nominee, having met the threshold requirements of competency, believe that the rule of law should be used to broaden and deepen, procedurally and substantively, our democracy--even if it means the rights of the giant corporation or powerful interests must be circumscribed to protect the rights of the individual citizen and of our communities--rural or urban, large or small? In pursuing its own line of questions, the Committee should not let its exploration of the nominee's views be artificially restricted. Judicial nominees have given two reasons for refusing to answer questions, but these reasons are contradictory. First, they say, if they publicly express their views, it will compromise them if the issue comes before the Court. Second, they say, judges do not decide legal issues in a vacuum: they only decide a concrete dispute in a specific adversarial context. Accordingly, some nominees claim it's silly or inappropriate, for example, to say whether they believe the Constitution protects the right to abortion, because Justices don't decide cases by asking such abstract questions. They face a particular statute, challenged by a particular party directly affected in a particular way, and the resolution of that dispute will turn on all those particulars. This second response has a degree of merit--and undercuts the first reason for refusing to answer most questions. Precisely because neither nominees nor the public can know in what context issues will reach the Court (if at all), it is not problematic for nominees to discuss their views. They should not say how they would decide an actual pending case, but, short of that, it is fine for them to discuss issues because that in no way commits them to taking sides in any actual dispute--such disputes are invariably context- specific. For example, a nominee may be asked about the doctrine that treats a corporation as a ``person'' entitled to various constitutional rights. His or her thoughts on this issue will not tell us what he or she will do if such an issue is raised in a case before the Court. The latter may depend on the nature of the corporation (non-profit? media? multi-national?), the nature of the claimed right, and much more. Moreover, even if the nominee testifies that he or she disapproves the doctrine, as a Justice the nominee may hold that the question is settled law. Or if a nominee says that he or she agrees with the doctrine, a new circumstance--or a party making a new argument--may lead the nominee to hold otherwise. Nothing a nominee says guarantees that he or she will decide any case any particular way. Nothing that is said has to be fixed in stone. Judges do give opinionated public speeches, do they not? It may be wondered whether, in light of the above, any purpose is served by asking the nominee his views. The answer is yes. It's no secret that nothing a nominee says binds the nominee once he or she receives an office with life tenure. Nominees can't and shouldn't be bound. But especially with a nominee who has a limited public record, the hearings provide some basis for gauging the nature and quality of his ideas, about his philosophy of due process for example. At any rate they have that potential--if Senators do their job and do not accept a nominee's self- serving refusal to answer questions. At the outset, it would behoove the Committee to establish the parameters the nominee will use in fashioning responses to your questions by asking: What criteria are you using to determine if you will directly answer or not answer questions posed to you by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee? If the Court has recently ruled on a matter, will you provide the Committee with your views on the Court's ruling? If a matter is long settled, will you provide the Committee with your views on the Court's ruling? Once this baseline has been established, the following questions should shed light on nominee's approach to some major issues of our day. 1. Lloyd Cutler, speaking as a prominent corporate attorney, once said: ``There is one point I want to make clear: we believe in the arguments that we make.'' Do you believe the arguments you have made on behalf of your corporate clients? 2. Do you believe limits on television station ownership abridge the free speech rights of corporate broadcasters? 3. What is your view of the First Amendment rights of the listeners being paramount to those of the broadcasters as articulated by the Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969)? 4. Do you see a problem when corporations are treated as equal participants, with every right to use their First Amendment rights to dominate public policy debates such as those that occur in state and local referenda? 5. Do you believe the Court should uphold state and Congressional limits on corporate political expression in order to equalize contributions to public debates? 6. Do you believe that a strict reading of the Constitution provides for the treatment of corporations as ``persons'' under the law for purposes of equal protection, freedom of speech or due process of law? And, if so, what in the Constitution's text provides a basis for this belief? 7. Many observers complain that law firms representing large corporations routinely abuse the discovery process in order to delay and harass their opponents. Have you observed that phenomenon? If so, what should be done about it? 8. In 1986, in Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1 (1986) the Supreme Court (5 to 3) struck down a state regulation as violating a utility company's ``right of conscience'' under the First Amendment. What makes the case particularly unsettling is its disconnectedness to opinions past and future. As Justice Rehnquist observed in his lengthy dissenting opinion in the case, ``the two constitutional liberties most closely analogous to the right to refrain from speaking--the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and the constitutional right of privacy--have been denied to corporations based on their corporate status.'' Do you think it makes sense to attribute a right of conscience to a commercial corporation? 9. Would any trade agreement, such as GATT, NAFTA, or CAFTA ever require Senate ratification as a treaty? 10. Does the President have complete discretion to determine whether an international trade or other agreement must be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds treaty approval? If not, what are the criteria that determine when an international agreement must be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds treaty approval? 11. Are there limits on Congress' power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over a particular issue? If so, what are such limits? 12. Do you believe victims of defective products that meet federal standards should be limited from recovering damages from the manufacturers of the defective products? 13. Do you believe Congress should federalize and pre-empt state products liability common law in any or all sectors? 14. Plaintiffs' trial lawyers have been blamed by their corporate critics for all sorts of problems with the economy and legal profession. Do you believe that those representing injured persons in product liability and medical malpractice cases are harming America? 15. So-called tort-reform is aimed at restricting the amount of non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, a party can receive. Are you concerned that this interferes with the traditional role of juries and judges to find facts and mete out appropriate justice? 16. Do you believe the use of the government contractor defense should be limited in nonmilitary procurement? If so, how? 17. Some people say the Ninth Amendment can play no substantive role in protecting rights, that it's merely a statement of principle or reminder of limited government. Do you agree? 18. A number of legal scholars argue that the 11th Amendment has been interpreted by the Court to shield states from liability for wrongdoing in a way that blatantly contravenes the original intention of the Amendment. Are you familiar with that scholarship and do you find it persuasive? 19. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for a contractual arbitration clause to contract away substantive contract law, tort, or statutory rights? For instance, can an arbitration clause require arbitration of a worker's Title VII rights and at the same time limit the worker's compensatory damages to $200,000? Can that same clause require the loser to pay the winner's attorney's fees? Can that clause require that the parties to arbitration bear their own attorney's fees? 20. Describe the presumption against preemption of state law. Does it apply in some or all instances where federal law is said to preempt state law? 21. Is the presumption against preemption of state law (by federal law) similar to the plain statement rule that demands that Congress speak with unmistakable clarity if it wishes to override the states' sovereign immunity? If the presumption against preemption is not similar to the plain statement rule, explain how it is different? 22. How is the presumption against preemption applied in cases where federal regulatory law (regulating, for instance, drugs, boats, pesticides, motor vehicles, and the like) is said to preempt state tort law that provides monetary remedies to compensate for injuries caused by a product that the federal government regulates? 23. Do you believe Congress should pre-empt the state-law- based medical malpractice system? 24. What are your views on the ``American rule'' as opposed to the English rule under which the losing party in litigation generally pays the winner's costs, including attorney's fees? 25. What has been your reaction or views on Congressional funding levels for federally funded legal services programs over the last two decades? Should government be responsible for funding representation for poor people in civil litigation where important property or liberty interests are at stake? Or should that be mainly or entirely a private function? 26. Some scholars and judges believe that ``Originalism'' is the only principled method of constitutional interpretation. Do you agree? 27. Do you believe that a declaration of war by Congress is Constitutionally required for the United States to engage in war? 28. Does a Congressional delegation of the war-making discretion to the President in the form of a war resolution meet the test of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution? 29. What level of equal protection scrutiny was applied in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)? 30. What is the precedential effect of Bush v. Gore? In other words, what kinds of equal protection claims does Bush v. Gore control or apply to? After Bush v. Gore, may a political entity (city, county, state) holding an election use more than one type of voting methodology (paper ballots, standard machines, punch cards, etc.) knowing that the error rates (whether through undercounts or otherwise) are different from one methodology to another? 31. Is there a need to amend our open government laws to make the President subject to them in whole or in part? Would such amendments be constitutional? 32. Do you believe arguments before the Supreme Court should be televised in the way C-SP AN televises Congressional deliberations? 33. In your view, is the Freedom of Information Act functioning properly at this time? If not, what are the major problems facing the Act? 34. In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U S. 598 (2001) case, the Court rejected the argument that a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change (the catalyst theory) in the defendant's conduct is entitled to attorney's fees. Does the rejection of the catalyst theory of fee recovery in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon decision apply across-the-board to federal fee-shifting statutes? If not, to what kinds of fee-shifting statutes is it likely to apply and to what kinds is its application more doubtful? 35. Brian Wolfman, Director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group notes, ``The Bush administration says that Buckhannon applies to [Freedom of Information Act] FOIA cases, even though Congress stated explicitly, when it enacted FOIA, that fees should be available when FOIA cases settle. The Bush Justice Department has consistently argued to expand Buckhannon to every pro-consumer and civil rights statute in every conceivable situation.'' What approach (or approaches) to statutory construction of Congressional enactment was evident in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon decision? How would you describe the reliance on (or lack of reliance on) legislative history in the majority's reasoning in that case? Do you believe the Bush Justice Department is applying the Buckhannon decision correctly? 36. From both a legal (constitutional) and practical perspective, what is your view of the trend in the federal judiciary toward releasing more of its opinions in ``unpublished'' form, i.e., where the relevant court accords no precedential effect to the decision for other cases? 37. Should federal judges attend seminars which are funded by private corporations (or by foundations that are funded by such corporations) that have matters of interest to the corporations before the courts? 38. Do you believe a government attorney, in a subordinate position, should be forced (under penalty of discharge) to work on a case or argue a position that he or she believes is illegal, unconstitutional or unethical? Or should government lawyers have a ``right of conscience'' like other professionals? 39. What kinds of participation in civic life may federal judges continue to be involved in once they assume their judicial positions? 40. How many hours or what percent of their work time do you think partners in major firms should devote to pro bono work each year? 41. How many hours on average did you bill per year as a partner and at what rates? 42. How many hours on average did you bill per year as an associate? 43. What was the nature of your pro bono work and approximately how much time per year did you devote to pro bono work? 44. Corporate attorneys and legal scholars have written books and articles decrying unethical or fraudulent billing practices in large corporate law firms. An article in the Summer 2001 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics titled Gunderson Effect and Billable Mania: Trends in Overbilling and the Effect of New Wages states that unethical billing practices are ``a pervasive problem in law firms across the country''--do you agree? 45. Did you ever observe unethical billing practices when you were in private practice? 46. If so, what was the nature of and who were the protagonists of such practices? I hope these questions, whether asked orally or submitted to the nominee in writing for response, spark a robust, constructive debate between the Committee members and the nominee. Such exchanges should provide the Senate and the larger public with insights into how Judge John G. Roberts will, if confirmed as Chief Justice, perform his duties.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for the time. The citizens of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama deserve nothing less than the citizens of New York and New Jersey and Connecticut, those in Pennsylvania and our own Pentagon who received an independent commission, one that was heralded for its results and for its independence and its ability to work together. It served as both healing the Nation and bringing people together. The citizens of those States, the residents of the city of New Orleans deserve the same as the great City of New York. The citizens who were stranded in the Superdome or in the convention center deserve nothing less than what this Nation received with an independent commission. The spouses of so many of our Members, who have not been recognized at all, deserve nothing less than to make sure the efforts that have gone on already and the answers that everybody seeks are provided by an independent commission, an independent commission blessed by both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), coming together in the way that we should as a country. We all stand prepared to work together. The citizens of Louisiana and Mississippi and the great City of New Orleans deserve nothing less.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3672, the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act. This bill is a modest first step towards assisting the states so severely effected by Hurricane Katrina and the many poor and underserved Americans who rely on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. This bill will extend TANF in a number of ways that will aid those in need along the Gulf Coast and those states who have taken in the evacuees from this disaster. It will extend TANF funding for the entire Nation for the next 3 months and allow States to receive advance payments. Additionally, it will increase TANF funding for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama by 20 percent. It will also provide flexibility to neighboring states for reporting requirements and in using TANF contingency funds and unspent prior year TANF funding for assisting disaster evacuees. Finally, it waives work requirements and time limits for hurricane victims in need of short-term assistance. While this legislation is a good first step, its focus is short- sighted and fails to consider the months and years that will be required to return the Gulf Coast to normalcy. It fails to address the need for child care assistance for evacuees trying to find some form of employment to support their families. There are likely to be thousands of children in need of foster care or family support services and this bill fails to address that need. It also does nothing for the roughly 11,000 jobless workers in the Gulf Coast region who are within 6 weeks of exhausting their regular unemployment benefits. The haunting images we have seen on the news should be a wake up call to Congress that millions of Americans are still stuck in a cycle of poverty. Just last week, the Census Bureau released data that showed income for the typical American family fell by $1,670, 5.4 million more people slipped into poverty, and 6 million more joined the ranks of the uninsured. These are the issues that should be at the top of our priority list in Congress. We are taking a positive step today to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina in the next few months. However, we need to think long term about the cost and efforts needed to lift up the people in the Gulf Coast. I hope to never see again the images of people too poor or too sick to evacuate their homes in times of an emergency. Nor do I wish to see a response so slow or inept that thousands lived in squalor for days. We should never forget those images and that memory should spur us to improve the TANF program to ensure that no American ever feels forgotten by the United States Government and the people it represents.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the fourth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and to remember those who lost their lives that day, especially the residents of Connecticut and of my district. As each year passes, it becomes even more important for us to remember the victims who died on September 11, 2001 and honor those who continue to serve as the Nation's first lines of defense against acts of terrorism and disaster. Their memory should keep us vigilant against threats and thankful for the many blessings we have as citizens of this Nation. We thank the selfless firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical workers who confronted chaos and terror 4 years ago and lost their lives trying to save their fellow Americans in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon. This reminder is all too vivid in the wake of the recent tragedy on the Gulf Coast caused by Hurricane Katrina. Some of the very same first responders who assisted in the time following the terrorist attacks are down in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama helping those families rebuild their lives. We owe them our eternal gratitude for their service and compassion. However, as we have seen in the Gulf Coast states, we still have much work to do to respond to threats, both from terrorists and nature. We must focus our resources as a nation to ensure that first responders can act rapidly and communicate seemlessly with Federal, State, and local officials. Terrorists still remain a threat to our Nation and other free and democratic societies. We were all shocked and saddened by the bombings in London on July 7, 2005. The images we saw in London that day were all too familiar to the images we will never forget from 4 years ago. Our deepest sympathies went out to our friends in Great Britain who have stood so strongly by the United States in our war on terror. These bombings and the memories of September 11 further strengthen our convictions to defeat terror throughout the world. As Congress works to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, our immediate response to the terrorist events that stunned our Nation, we must learn from the subsequent 4 years that have passed. To curtail the freedoms of Americans in the name of fighting our enemies would be a disservice to the memory of September 11 and every American who has given their life or put themselves in harm's way to defend this Nation and its people. As we pause to reflect this September 11 and remember those whose lives were lost that day, let us also remember the things that make our Nation great: our freedom, our liberty and our democracy. These memories will give us the will to be better citizens and build a stronger nation.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the so-called HEALTH Care Act of 2005. Quite simply, the problems that we should be addressing today are burdensome malpractice insurance rates, patient safety, and access to health care. This bill addresses none of these. In another attempt to cede power from States to the Federal Government, this bill would impose nationwide limits on the compensation injured persons can receive in medical malpractice cases. We have all heard the stories of doctors leaving their practices because they cannot afford their malpractice insurance rates. For the 6-year period from 1998 through 2003, medical malpractice insurance premiums in my State of Connecticut increased, depending on the insurance company, between 37 percent and 241 percent for internal medicare, 35 percent and 185 percent for general surgery, and 45 percent and 128 percent for obstetrics/gynecology. During that same period of time, the consumer price index only rose 13 percent and the medical consumer price index rose 24 percent. I certainly cannot imagine running a business where one of my expenses was that out of line with the rest of my income and expenses. How can we expect doctors to do that when they provide such an important service to us all? The end result is the loss of good doctors practicing and diminished access to health care. The bill we are debating today does not address the underlying problem and has many flaws. First, it would remove authority on the issue of tort reform from States, where it has traditionally resided, and preempt various areas of State law, including important consumer protections. Each State has its own issues with regard to medical malpractice and tort law and a one-size-fits-all solution imposed by the Federal Government is not the answer. Second, it would restrict the ability of injured patients to be compensated for their injuries. An inflexible $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages would punish victims of malpractice and cause significant inequalities in compensation for women, children, seniors, and lower-income workers. A woman who loses a pregnancy or her fertility is not judged to have high economic value, but juries can recognize the human value of her losses. A child with no job or income will obviously have a limited economic value, but juries can recognize the human value of his future. Even with the same injuries, a corporate CEO would receive a much larger economic damage award than a minimum- wage worker or a mother who stays at home to raise her kids, but a jury can recognize the human value of their pain and suffering. My final objection to this legislation is the manner in which it was brought to the floor. It was never debated in committee and was reported to the floor with a closed rule. In fact, the Rules Committee has rejected 67 amendments to this legislation over the past 3 years. This is the third time the House has voted on this legislation in the past 3 years and the third time it has been the wrong answer for doctors and patients. This is just another example of the majority bringing the same legislation to the floor year after year knowing that it will go nowhere because it is the wrong answer for Americans. Legislation offered by the ranking members of the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Dingell, have been ignored as well as legislation offered by the gentlewoman from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth. Americans deserve to have all of these bills debated side by each. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by urging my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 5 and working on real solutions for reasonable malpractice rates, improved patient safety, and accessible health care.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unfortunate opposition to this DR-CAFTA agreement. represents a real missed opportunity for this Congress and this Administration to engage in a real meaningful negotiation to improve trade relations between the United States, the Central American countries, and the Dominican Republic. Unfortunately, this agreement represents a step backward from over 20 years worth of U.S. laws and enforcement efforts. The pact falls short of the standards that any 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. Whoever the winners, they're not the American or the Central American worker. I support free--and fair--trade, but that isn't what CAFTA will accomplish. At a Chamber of Commerce meeting in my district, I was struck by the fact that many small manufacturers were outraged at the lack of focus by the Administration in protecting their industry and their jobs. In fact, had I closed my eyes I would have thought I was at an A.F.L.- C.I.O. rally. In a moment of candor, one of the manufacturers said, when large companies started downsizing their labor force and outsourcing their work to us we were silent, we couldn't conceive that it was only a matter of time before we too would be outsourced. When will the government do something about this race to the bottom? That's how my district sees this, and I share their view. Unfortunately, this is a missed opportunity, an opportunity where frankly CAFTA countries told us they were more than willing to accept stronger provisions if they had only been asked to. Violations of international labor standards should not be held to a different standard than other violations on matters like intellectual property. Supporters of CAFTA also point to the fact that labor standards and working conditions will be monitored by agencies like the International Labor Organization, part of the United Nations which established international labor standards and which verifies that these standards are met. I guess now with this trade agreement the Administration is running out of American Jobs to outsource and has moved on to official U.S. government functions. Since when are we are going to allow the United Nations to determine whether or not other counties are in compliance with our treaties? In the typical ``bait and switch'' tactics of the Republican Majority, what they are not telling you here is that just a few weeks ago, they approved an $82 billion funding cut Proposed by President Bush to the principal agency that supports foreign labor standards technical assistance, virtually assuring that no oversight or enforcement will ever actually take place. Jobs are now America's fastest-growing export. We should be exporting our values and market goods not our jobs. As the world's richest nation, we have a moral obligation to lift the standard of living of the world's poor. It is double-speak for the President to say he wants to promote democracy to the south of our borders but pushes a trade agreement that consigns subsistence workers to economic bondage and forces American businesses to compete on an uneven playing field. This is the wrong trade agreement for the United States and for Central America. I urge my colleagues to vote no and send this treaty back to President Bush to be renegotiated.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. Today we face a problem. An estimated 45 million people are without health insurance. The number of uninsured has risen in almost every year since 1989 and is expected to continue its rise in the near term. Most people in the U.S. who have health insurance obtain it through their employer or a family member's employer as a workplace benefit. Due to the rising cost of health coverage, small employers are far less likely than larger employers to provide health insurance to their workers and almost half of the uninsured work for, or are family members of employees who work for, small employers. The Small Business Health Fairness Act would not address this problem. As a former small business owner, I understand the need for employers to offer benefits like health insurance to attract the best employees. I also understand the desire to offer benefits to employees to reward them for their efforts in making their business a success. Small businesses are a vital part of our economy, and it is critical that we provide them with affordable heath coverage that not only covers their employees, but helps reduce the ranks of the uninsured in our Nation. Unfortunately, the association health plans created by H.R. 525 would actually reduce health care benefits and coverage. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 600,000 of the 45 million uninsured would receive coverage as a result of this bill. The CBO also found that almost 75 percent of workers would actually see their premiums rise. These numbers are evidence that this legislation will not address the problem. The bill raises numerous other concerns as well. It would create an uneven playing field where Federal law would provide one set of favorable rules for employers who join association health plans and a different, less favorable set of rules for those who do not. Association health plans would be exempt from most State benefit requirements, including those that ensure access to emergency services, mental health services and cancer screening. They would be free to choose healthier individuals who are cheaper to insure and leave behind those most in need of health care coverage. Finally, association health plans under this bill would be allowed to license themselves in a State with looser consumer protection provisions than the State they offer coverage in, leaving consumers open to fraud and abuse. These loopholes will not address the problem. However, today we will offer a real solution to this problem. The substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, would address the needs of small businesses by providing them with the same access to health benefits as Federal employees through a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan. This plan would provide coverage to all small businesses and their employees, ensuring that every worker gets the coverage they need regardless of age, sex, race or any other factor. Additionally, it would commit Federal funds to aid small businesses in offering health insurance to employees. Finally, it would work within existing State laws and not preempt state regulations regarding health care coverage. This substitute will help small businesses more, cover more of the uninsured, and protect the rights of States. Unfortunately, without the Kind/Andrews amendment, I cannot support the Small Business Health Fairness Act. This is the fourth time the House has voted on association health plans and the fourth time it has been the wrong answer for small businesses and the uninsured. This is just another example of the Majority bringing the same legislation to the floor year after year knowing that it will go nowhere because it is the wrong answer for Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Kind/Andrews amendment, which would provide real solutions to help our Nation's small businesses and cover the 45 million uninsured Americans.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3070, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005. In particular, I am happy to see that important provisions in regards to the future of our nation's aeronautics policy were included in the bill before us today. Over 4 years ago, the European Union unveiled its plan for gaining dominance in the global aerospace market entitled, ``European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020.'' This plan laid out an ambitious, $93 billion, 20-year agenda for winning global leadership in aeronautics and aviation. In stark contrast, however, NASA aeronautics funding has declined dramatically over the past decade, from a high of $1.54 billion in 1994 to $906 million just last year. As a result, the United States has put its leadership in cutting edge aeronautics R&D at risk. We are losing high paying jobs and intellectual capital critical to our economy and national defense. The only way the U.S. can continue to create high wage, high value jobs and maintain aerospace leadership is to innovate faster than the rest of the world. To do this, we need an exciting and robust NASA aeronautics program that not only revitalizes current research but also fosters future innovation. This requires a long term national investment in critical research of emerging technologies and the training of highly skilled Americans to lead our aeronautics industry into the future. H.R. 3070 is a step in the right direction. While it does not authorize the levels of funding necessary to fully robust NASA's aeronautics programs, it does authorize an additional $60 million more than the President's FY06 budget request. In addition, the bill requires the President to answer Europe's aeronautics plan by developing a national aeronautics policy to guide NASA's aeronautics programs through 2020. This is bill is a good start, but there is still much more that Congress can--and must--do to ensure that America does not lose its edge in aeronautics research. I applaud the work of Mr. Gordon, the ranking member of the Science Committee and Mr. Udall, the ranking member on the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, for their hard work in ensuring that aeronautics R&D was not forgotten in this bill. Their efforts were integral in ensuring that many of the provisions of H.R. 2358, the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act, were included in the bill before us today. Again, I thank the members of the Science Committee for their dedication to the American aeronautics industry, and look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that NASA has the direction and resources necessary to once again make America the unsurpassed aeronautics leader in the world.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today disappointed at the missed opportunity for the House to strike a reasonable balance within the PATRIOT Act that empowers law enforcement and protects civil liberties. There is more to protecting American's security than peeking into people's reading habits or medical records. Protecting America means securing our ports and borders, supporting our first responders, and ensuring that our transit systems, nuclear power plants and schools are safe from those who seek to do us harm. Frankly, Americans are still at risk. There are large gaps that still remain in critical areas that leave Americans vulnerable to the threat of terrorism. For example: Our greatest threat remains an attack by a weapon of mass destruction. But funding for cooperative threat reduction programs to secure unaccounted for nuclear material in the former Soviet Union have remained stagnant since 9/11, taking a backseat to other priorities like expanding tax cuts and privatizing Social Security. There are almost 2,000 fewer border inspectors and agents than were called for in the 2001 PATRIOT Act. The hard truth is we need more. Of the 2,000 border patrol agents called for in the Intelligence Reform Act, the Republican majority has funded only 500 this year. This leaves our borders dangerously unprotected. Funding for first responder programs, our front line defense against terrorists at home, has dropped 27 percent in the past three years, from a high of $3.3 billion in 2003 to $2.4 billion in 2006--funds which help our towns and cities hire, train and equip our police, firefighters and medical responders. While 32 million Americans use public transportation every day, we have spent only $250 million on transit since 9/11, compared to the $18.2 billion we've spent on aviation. This leaves our buses, trains, subways, highways and bridges dangerously vulnerable to the kind of attacks we saw in London. Almost four years after 9/11, only five percent of incoming cargo containers are inspected for hazardous materials. Ninety-five percent of American trade comes through our 361 seaports every year, yet there is no dedicated funding steam for port security. Despite the threat, the President requested no money for port security in FY 2006. Every day, Americans are asked to empty their pockets, remove their shoes and have their baggage inspected before boarding an airplane. However, most of the cargo loaded onto passenger and cargo airplanes still goes uninspected. Protecting America is not a partisan issue, it is a matter of priorities. This version of the PATRIOT Act may be slightly improved over the last one, but let's not take our eye off the ball. There is still much more to be done to protect America. Either we take real action to close our security gaps, or the terrorists will find them and exploit them. The debate today is not about the key issues that will really protect America. It is not even about the whole PATRIOT Act. It is about the reauthorization of 16 highly controversial provisions of the original PATRIOT Act scheduled to expire at the end of the year. This sunset was critical to earn support for such sweeping legislation, when in the shadow of the September 11th terrorist attack, the Administration pushed Congress to quickly pass legislation that would provide vast new powers to law enforcement. The sunset provisions would ensure Congress would be able to take a closer look how this authority was implemented and at its effectiveness of balancing security and liberty. I was hopeful that that an open amendment process would allow the House to address the many concerns of the Members of this House and the American public have with the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, the House Majority has chosen to prohibit an open debate and consideration on the most sensitive and controversial issues surrounding this bill. In fact, most of the amendments they have allowed to be considered have very little to do with the provisions that are up for reauthorization. This means some of the most controversial provisions of the bill would become permanent, including Section 213, the ``sneak and peek'' provision that allows secret searches and seizures. Only two of the most controversial provisions, such as Section 215, the ``library provision'' that allows access to library and bookstore records, credit card information, medical records and employment histories, would be allowed to be reexamined, but not for another 10 years. Amendments that could have strengthened the protection of privacy and civil liberties that could have made this a better bill were prohibited from even being considered or debated. The single most alarming part of this bill is that it would remove the protection of sunsets to most of the PATRIOT Act. Oversight, review and debate are all the result of a healthy democracy. We should not be afraid to improve that the PATRIOT Act every two or four years. Revisiting the PATRIOT Act is a good thing. Congressional oversight over one of the most fundamental challenges of our time would not hinder our society but enhance it. The 9/11 Commission warned, ``the terrorists have used our open society against us. In wartime, government calls for greater powers, and then the need for those powers recedes after the war ends. This struggle will go on. Therefore, while protecting our homeland, Americans should be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task, but we must constantly strive to keep it right.'' This bill does not keep it right. The American public deserves better, they deserve security and liberty. I stand with Benjamin Franklin who said, ``he who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.'' Congress' record should match its rhetoric. Protecting America from terrorism means inspecting cargo on passenger planes, inspecting cargo in our ports, securing unaccounted nuclear material in the former Soviet Union and providing our first responders with the resources they need to be our first line of defense in the war on terror. Protecting America is about real priorities that can and will protect the homeland, which unfortunately are not part of the bill before us today.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. If the gentleman will yield, I want to say as well that I mentioned I conduct forums all the time, and I am most proud to say that at a forum recently in West Hartford, where over 400 people attended, that one of the questions that came forward from one of my constituents was in praise of one of our colleagues, one of our Members, and that is the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who I truly believe, as important and as critical as I think the Iraq Watch has been, if there is a profiles in courage award that should be given, it should be for this humble man of conscience. When residents of the State of Connecticut recognize Members of Congress, like yourself who have come here, but especially in the case of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who has gone against the grain and is merely speaking from his heart and from his conscience and speaking directly to the American people about his feelings, about his discussions that he has had with his constituents about this war that we are involved in, a war that he voted for but has come to the principled conclusion, and in a safe, secure and strategic manner, as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has outlined on the Committee on Armed Services, and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has called for in terms of very severe and tough guidelines and deadlines that the President and this administration must meet, all with an eye in mind of a strategy for success, yet my constituents say this all the time, where was Congress during all of this? Shakespeare said, ``Would Caesar be a wolf if the Senate was not a sheep?'' And that is so true, but not for the Iraq watch, speaking out consistently. And not for people like the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who was able to come down to this floor and talk from his heart and from his head about what he truly feels and believes. That is what makes us the great Nation that we are, and that is what I think gives the American public hope; that people like yourself, who have been at this for some time and who continue to come down here and speak in the words not only of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) but of the reservist who is going back to Iraq for the fourth time.