John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for yielding to me and I especially thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for his very poignant remarks. It is clear that the administration has had a very difficult time in leveling with the American public, and it is also very clear that it has been the Iraq Watch that has been able on a regular basis, and I am so proud to see that you once again have taken to the floor to inform the American public the way you have with regard to what is happening to our troops in the field and what is taking place here on the floor of the Congress. More often than not in traveling home to my district and conducting forums, people will routinely say, why are people not speaking out in the United States Congress? And several have commented that it seems like the only voice they have heard has been the Iraq Watch. So I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and of course the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) who was here earlier. It is rather interesting in listening to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) speak that Bush the elder warned us very succinctly about what would happen if we chose this policy of unilateralism and preemption. He said essentially that if we were to invade Iraq that we would end up being not liberators but occupiers, and we would immediately lose our allied support around the globe and turn Arab nations against us. As Ambassador Jordan said to us on a trip over to Saudi Arabia, in essence, we would accomplish what Osama bin Laden failed to do. There would be a united Islamic jihad against the United States. And so what we have witnessed in the very cavalier statement of saying that ``we are fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them here,'' oversimplifies the problem that we have created for ourselves. In fact, it has intensified the insurrection that has taken place within Iraq. I believe and I am grateful to the Iraq Watch for you constantly bringing forth these issues that the United States has to be both safe, secure and strategic with regard to our troops that are in the field. It is in everyone's best interest to make sure that they have a safe and secure and strategic return home. I especially applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) on the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations with respect to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) in making sure that they have categorized a strategy for success, a strategy that embraces a common-sense approach in a region where we desperately need leadership that starts with the President's ability to level with the American people. And most importantly as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) points out, the need for us to level with our National Guard and Reservists in terms of their deployment, in terms of their commitment to this great Nation of ours and to the American public, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) so eloquently puts forward about the enormous cost that we are incurring that is unpaid for and is only debt that we are heaping on the backs of our children. Also, with respect to tough love with our allies in the region, let us be honest about this. In the Gulf War, the United States expended $10 billion. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) said earlier, we are already over $330 billion and growing. Ten billion dollars because we had the support of the entire world with us. Because Bush, the elder, made sure that we had that kind of support instead of going off with this new policy of unilateralism and preemption that has turned the rest of the globe against us. Many of us stood in this Chamber and voted because we felt strongly about our commitment to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, and the whole world joined us only to find we were abandoned in Iraq because of policies that made little sense and that now, as we learn almost daily about the concocted reasons by which we went into war with Iraq. Yet, if the gentleman will allow me, we find we also desperately need policies in this region that hold the Arab League, Pakistan, India, China, and Russia accountable for making sure that we bring stability to this region. We also need an energy policy here at home, that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has so eloquently spoken about, that embraces alternative fuels, fuel cell technology, and gets us off of this ensnarled position that we find ourselves in, this awful entanglement and dependency on foreign oil, when we know we could extricate ourselves from it if we just embraced the very technology that we can develop here in our own country, here in both my State of Connecticut and across this country, that will embrace the hydrogen economy and the bounty of fuel cell technology that exists out there. We must also embrace religions around the globe. There should be a call on the President's part, and also on the part of religious leaders, to talk about the perversion of terrorism and turning these young men into terrorists by perverting the great teachings of the book. It is so important that we embrace these things conceptually and comprehensively in a manner that will draw the world together in an understanding about what we have to accomplish in that region. General Zinni said it very clearly. We need more troops in this area, but not American troops. We need to take the American face off the occupation here and get the Arab League, get the United Nations, NATO, Russia, China, India and all involved in bringing stability to this region. It is a world responsibility. Our men and women in the services have done their job and done it extraordinarily well. This country simply cannot continue to afford both the human capital and the enormous capital that we are expending, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) points out, over $330 billion. I yield to the gentleman and I apologize for going on.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 152 which acknowledges the 75th anniversary of Mystic Seaport: the Museum of America and the Sea. This resolution recognizes the efforts of the staff, volunteers, and trustees of the museum in preserving America's great maritime tradition. Mystic Seaport is also one of the jewels of my home state of Connecticut. Since the 1600's, the Mystic Seaport has been a center for shipbuilding. Between 1784 and 1919, Mystic Seaport contributed more than 600 vessels to the American maritime enterprise. After the advent of steam power and railroads, wooden shipbuilding began to decline. Three Mystic, Connecticut residents, Edward Bradley, Dr. Charles Stillman, and Carl Cutler created the Marine Historical Association on December 29, 1929 to prevent the disappearance of the American maritime tradition. Today, the Marine Historical Association is known as Mystic Seaport: the Museum of America and the Sea. Since the inception of the Mystic Seaport Museum, it has become the largest maritime museum, and the fourth largest history museum in the nation. The Seaport's membership represents 25,000 people from all 50 states and 30 countries. More than 1,500 volunteers assist Mystic Seaport's 300 employees each year. Mystic Seaport has helped increase awareness and appreciation of America's maritime tradition. The museum features the largest collection of watercraft in the nation, which includes four National Historic Landmark vessels. The vessels include the Charles W. Morgan, the last wooden whaling ship in the world, and the Sabino, the last coal-fired steam ship still in operation. The Mystic Seaport Museum's Collections Research Center functions as a dynamic resource for maritime research. The G.W. Blunt White Library is one of the leading collections of maritime research material in the world. Recently, the library has assembled a virtual run of the earliest published American ship registers. The Mystic Seaport Museum has made significant contributions in maintaining the cultural integrity of our nation's maritime legacy. Mystic Seaport was also involved in the construction of a replica of the freedom schooner Amistad, which serves as a floating classroom and monument to those who lost their freedom or their lives due to the transatlantic slave trade. I was privileged to attend the launch of the Amistad in March 2000 at Mystic Seaport with a delegation from the Congressional Black Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring Mystic Seaport's role in preserving America's maritime culture. For the past 75 years, Connecticut has been proud to be the home of the Mystic Seaport Museum, which continues to be a vital protector of the Nation's nautical history.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the lifelong dedication of Reverend John F. Edwards, who will retire this month after 50 years of active ministry. As the Pastor of The Church of the Incarnation, in Wethersfield, Connecticut in my district, Father Edwards was an inspiration and source of strength for those he met during his service to the priesthood. Father Edwards experienced a religious calling and entered the St. Thomas Seminary in Bloomfield, Connecticut, where he remained from 1947-1949. On January 6, 1955, Reverend Edwards was ordained as a priest at St. Brendan's Church in New Haven, Connecticut by The Most Reverend Henry J. O'Brien. Shortly thereafter, Father Edwards received temporary assignments in Washington Depot, Connecticut and as Chaplin at St. Mary's Hospital in Waterbury. In April--August 1955, he received a permanent assignment as a Chaplin at St. Francis Hospital in Hartford, Connecticut. In August of 1955, Father Edwards returned to St. Thomas Seminary, where his vocation developed and strengthened, and served as a teacher and administrator from 1955-1981. During his 26 year tenure, Father Edwards taught history and mathematics and became Principal of the high school at St. Thomas Seminary. In his final 6 years at St. Thomas Seminary, Father Edwards served as Director of The Permanent Diaconate Program of the Archdiocese of Hartford, which was a program that proved to be instrumental in fulfilling the needs of the Archdiocese. He also served as a weekend assistant at St. Helena Church in West Hartford, Connecticut from 1967-1980. Father Edwards was an inspiration in the classroom and in his community. Father Edwards arrived at St. Joseph Church in Meriden, Connecticut in 1981, where he continued his service for 11 years as part of a Team Ministry with Father Mark Jette. In 1992, Father Edwards was appointed Pastor of The Church of the Incarnation where he continued to be a dedicated pastor, devoted spiritual leader, and friend. For the past 4 years, he has been the Dean of the Suburban Hartford Deanery where he fostered fellowship within the Greater Hartford Area. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in thanking and honoring Reverend John F. Edwards for his 5 decades of service to the people of Connecticut. The parishioners of the Church of the Incarnation will miss his dedication and quiet thoughtfulness. Please join me in congratulating Father Edwards on his retirement and wishing him many enjoyable rounds of golf.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for the FY06 Defense Appropriations Bill. This rule, unfortunately, does not allow consideration of the Pelosi Amendment--an amendment critical to our current and future efforts in Iraq. We consider the situation in Iraq this week in the midst of growing public concern over the way this administration has, and continues, to execute the war. For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the public believes that our campaign there has not made the United States safer. Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable and two-thirds say the U.S. military is ``bogged down.'' Nearly six in ten say the war is not worth fighting. To date, the lives of nearly 1,700 men and women in uniform have been lost, and another 12,000 have been injured. Close to 200 billion in taxpayer dollars have been spent without a clear plan for success. And today, we are no closer to true success in Iraq than we were since the days of ``Shock and Awe.'' The Democratic Leader's amendment is simple--it asks that this administration report to Congress within 30 days with their ``Strategy for Success'' in Iraq. The Pelosi amendment requires the President to explain how he will ensure that there are well-trained Iraqi military, border and police forces that can ensure the security of Iraq and that there is political stability in the country. This amendment isn't about setting a hard date for withdrawal, or leaving Iraq before we finish what we started. This amendment, rather, simply ensures that Congress--and the American people--know what milestones and criteria by which our Nation will judge success in Iraq. Without such a guide, we will continue to be left with an open-ended military commitment with no end in sight. Our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less than clear milestones that lead us to the day when we can bring them home. To get to that day, we need to know how we are going to assess the capabilities and readiness of Iraqi security forces and when we can expect them to take over vital security missions in their country. We need to know the number of U.S. and coalition advisors needed to support Iraqi security forces. And, finally, we need to know the benchmarks by which we will measure the political stability of Iraq. The fog of war is thick in Iraq, and this administration has only added to it by sticking to their vague notions of success and stability. But the President can cut through the fog by providing clear and demonstrable criteria by which we can judge our progress and, hopefully, success in Iraq. Since the start of this war, I and many of my colleagues have implored the President to level with the American people and our troops over the true cost and end strategy for the war. It is time for the administration and Congress to be honest with us about a path forward in Iraq--a path towards a success that brings our men and women home and restores our credibility at home and abroad. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and allow consideration of a critical amendment that will give our Nation a clear path forward in Iraq.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 243, a motion ordering the previous question on H. Res. 314, a rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the Department of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on this motion.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and strongly support his amendment. Let me also add and thank the very thoughtful colloquy that was conducted by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the distinguished chairman from New York (Mr. Walsh). Clearly, his involvement and assistance is much needed and greatly appreciated. But as a State and, I daresay, for the Northeast as an entire region that has been targeted, when you look at statistically what is going on here in the 17 communities, as the gentleman noted, that are in dire shape, and you look at the length of time as we project out, you now understand why communities have such enormous apprehension about this. Or as Peter Finley Dunne would say, ``Trust everyone, but cut the cards.'' And in the case of the BRAC hearings, we feel that we need a new deal. I further would just say in listening to the distinguished Chair, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and again, I applaud him personally for his efforts, while there will be more money available for cleanup from the sale of the El Toro Marine Air Station, the amount needed is over $3.6 billion. Even with these new funds, we are less than one-third of the way there in terms of the funding. One-third of the way there, and we are adding on all these new communities. And in looking at what the BRAC findings initially have projected, and especially looking at the State of Connecticut in terms of the cleanup, how drastically underestimated they have been in those areas as well. So these are very disturbing, and that is why I again thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for raising this very important and thoughtful amendment, a common-sense approach, that before we proceed to a fifth round, that we make sure that we address these very important issues that impact all of our communities. If we are going to have trust in this process, as the gentleman has appropriately pointed out, then Congress cannot abrogate its responsibility. It has to assume that responsibility and assure these communities that are going to be impacted, if we are to proceed in a strategic and very important, common-sense approach to this issue.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous question on H. Res. 298, the rule providing for the Military Quality of Life Appropriations Bill for FY06. Memorial Day will soon be here, and members of this body will head home to join Americans all across the country in celebrating those who serve, and have served, our Nation. These brave men and women undeniably deserve our praise and enduring gratitude for all they have done to defend our nation and secure our freedom. While grateful words and thoughtful recognition is right and necessary, it is incumbent on us in this Congress to ensure that words are met with action. Over 1 million of our active-duty and reserve soldiers have served to date in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women--like their predecessors before them--were promised a life time of health care in return for their service to our country. However, as these young soldiers return home, they find that this promise has not been kept by this Congress or the current Administration. Today, more than 50,000 veterans are waiting in line for at least 6 months for veterans' health care--and that problem will only get worse with the growing numbers of returning soldiers from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. As of May 2005, VA had treated only about 85,000 of the 360,675 veterans from these deployments. In 2006, the Department expects to treat 5.2 million veterans--double the number in 1995. And the overall medical care inflation rate for 2003 was close to double the inflation rate. It is telling that major veteran service organizations call this bill ``totally inadequate'' and tantamount to veterans being ``kicked to the curb.'' The current proposal before us is no less than $2.6 billion below the amount needed to maintain current V A services. The majority is nothing if not consistent, and has once again blocked attempts to fully fund the VA. The Obey amendment, blocked from even being considered on the floor today, would have increased spending on veterans health services by a total of $2.6 billion over H.R. 2528 This amendment means real improvements to medical services to meet increased demand for mental health services, prosthetics and amputee care, and for priority 8 veterans. It adds $300 million to upgrade and improve accessibility to VA medical facilities, restoring most of the $400 million cut in the bill. And it does so by reducing the tax cuts for millionaires by about 8 percent--so instead of a $140,000 tax cut, the millionaire filer would get $129,000 tax cut. When compared to all our veterans have fought for and sacrificed, this seems like the least that we can do. When Americans serve their nation in the military, whether it is the Second World War or the current war in Iraq, this government makes the promise of a lifetime of guaranteed healthcare. It is outrageous that after all the lip service and rhetoric paid to American veterans, the Republican Majority then turns around and reduces funding for their healthcare. It is long past time that Congress match rhetoric with real action to ensure veterans receive the level of service they were promised. As my good friend Mr. Taylor of Mississippi said last night on this floor, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been there for us. Now it is our turn to be there for them. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and finally give our veterans the health care system they deserve.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Bradley amendment to H.R. 1815 to postpone the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations until Congress receives critical reports from the Overseas Basing Commission and the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review. Quite simply, this is the wrong process at the wrong time. Even as 100,000 of our men and women are in uniform are serving overseas in the Middle East and our armed services continue to miss their recruiting goals, this Administration has rushed forward with a plan that closes 33 major bases across the country. We should not be closing and consolidating bases and infrastructure here in the states now, when in another 2 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. Since the Pentagon released their recommendations on May 13, the BRAC commission has moved swiftly forward with its job. Yet even as BRAC begins to hold regional hearings and site visits as early as next week, the Pentagon has yet to release the detailed and facility specific information that was used to formulate their recommendations. The BRAC process has the potential to drastically impact communities surrounding facilities slated for closure or realignment, and it is vital that this process be as open and opaque as possible. However, if the department continues to delay the release of this information, these same communities will be unable to asses or challenge the Pentagon's recommendations in the limited time they have remaining. Anyone familiar with the 103rd Fighter Wing at Bradley, the Sub base in New London, and the assets both bring to our national defense are at a loss to explain these recommendations. The 103rd calls home an international airport with the capability and resources to host a range of aircraft, large and small--including Air Force One. Yet, the Pentagon apparently deemed Bradley unable to retain their current aircraft or take on more. In New London, one finds incredible and dynamic synergy between the base, the Sub School and an industrial base capable of manufacturing and repairing today's most advanced vessels. Yet, the birthplace of the modem submarine service was unable to garner enough military value points in the Pentagon's review to stay off the BRAC list. Were other options explored? How did each score in critical evaluation areas? Did the Pentagon accurately asses both bases and their capabilities? Will leaving the state, like several others, without a flying unit affect recruiting and retention for the Air National Guard? These are all questions that hold the key to the future of the ``Flying Yankees'' and the Sub base--questions that cannot be answered until the Pentagon levels with us and countless other bases around the country facing the same delay. I sincerely hope that there is no agenda behind this delay. But the clock is ticking and deadlines are fast approaching. Next week, four commissioners will visit the New London Submarine base without ever seeing the facility specific data that led to its recommended closure. And, in little over a month, Connecticut will have the opportunity to present its rebuttal to the recommendations to the commission. The submariners, airmen and communities affected deserve the most thorough and extensive review possible because once these recommendations are implemented, they can never be undone. There is no doubt that Connecticut was hit hard by BRAC, but this is not a political or parochial issue. This is an issue of ensuring the best possible defense of our Nation, and the best possible resources for our men and women in uniform. But neither this Congress, nor the BRAC Commissioners, can make a judicious and thoughtful review of these recommendations with the lack of data and shortened timeframe we now face. In 2002 I voted in the Armed Services Committee to repeal the BRAC process outright, and again in 2003 to postpone it for 2 more years, because I have felt all along that the process had serious flaws. However, there is still time to put on the brakes before we reach the point of no return. That time is now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak of the inspiration and strength of Ray and Leesa Philippon and their family in confronting the ultimate sacrifice, the loss of their son Lance Corporal Lawrence R. Philippon, who on Mother's Day, May 8, tragically lost his life while serving his country in Iraq. In 2002 Lance Corporal Philippon answered his country's call to service and joined the United States Marine Corps. Again stepping forward for his country, Lance Corporal Philippon came up and gave up his position with the Washington, D.C. Color Guard to become an infantryman with the 3rd Battalion Second Marines deployed to Al Qaim, Iraq. In the eulogy, Ray Philippon spoke of his son's courage, his ability to overcome life's obstacles, his Forrest Gump-like philosophical manner in dealing with life. He was proud of his family, his fidelity to the Marine Corps, his commanders, his President. He was 22 years old. Ray Philippon; his daughter, Emilee; and Olivia Lawrence, Larry's fiancee, spoke eloquently and emotionally. How this father, a veteran himself, found the strength and composure to deliver a compelling, humorous, and heartfelt tribute to his son is among the remarkable traits of the human character. He transcended his pain and heartache and credited his strength as coming from his son. He capped his comments with a final salute to his son that left no dry eye in the church. Reverend Miller quoted Scripture and the New Testament, repeating the refrain: ``No greater love can a man have than to lay down his life for his friends.'' Governor Rell rose and spoke tearfully and with empathy as both a mother and the State's chief executive. Her heartfelt response, her grace veiled only by her tears of motherly sympathy, were equally moving. As we all pause this Memorial Day to honor the fallen, our hearts are filled with gratitude for those brave soldiers, like Lance Corporal Philippon, who have laid down their lives for their country but also for their families who gave their sons and daughters to military service. In honor of those soldiers and families, I hereby submit for the Record his mother's farewell, a letter Leesa Philippon composed on Mother's Day, the day she learned of her son's death. This letter's sincerity, love, and implicit truth comes shining through as radiant and bright as her love for her son. I hereby submit this letter for the Record, which reads: ``My Dear Sweet Boy Larry, I know how busy you were on Mother's Day. Your commanding officer's message apologized that mothers may not get a call on their special day. I knew that if you could find a way, you would call. Your voice always calmed my fears. The day passed, and, again, I prayed for your safe return home. I detailed my prayers, trying to think of every danger you might encounter. No IEDs, no enemy mortars, no friendly fire, no disease. And, God, please bring Larry home safe, unharmed and of sound mind and body. But then they came, two Marines marching to my door, carrying a cross that was so very painful to bear. ``Larry, you played such a huge part in our lives. You were a Guidon bearer and team leader all along. You marched through our lives and led us to wonderful places. You imprinted your love on our hearts. It was a joy to watch you grow and play. We laughed endlessly at your antics on and off fields of grass and ice. You led us on an incredible patriotic journey with your badge of courage. We anxiously waited those 13 long weeks of boot camp to pass and we would be able to hold you in our arms again. You conquered Infantry school and you called home every day, keeping us informed from foxholes, rifle ranges, and even bars. I will never forget answering the phone and hearing my 21-year-old son say `Hi, Mommy.' Your daily calls home meant so much to me. ``Marching on, you paraded us through our Nation's capital. You impressed us with your precision and pride. You walked in the sunshine all the way. We watched you soar even higher the day that you waltzed Olivia into our life. She fit so well into our plans, and I knew she would take good care of you. I was happy to share you with her. Then your dream to deploy came true and our hearts with dread. Oh, Larry, how thankful I was to go and see you before you left. That time I spent with you is so precious to me. You introduced me to your Marines. You were always mindful to ask them to curtail their leatherneck language in front of your mom, saying to them, `Hey, this is my mom. Watch your mouth.' ``Then it came time to say good-bye. I prayed, and God graced me with calmness so that I could look you in the eyes. Without a quiver in my voice, I opened my heart and told you how deeply I loved you, how happy I was to be your mother and that I would see you when you came home. Olivia and I stood side by side. We held each other up as we watched the buses filled with courageous and brave Marines drive away. You'll be happy to know that Olivia picked up that Guidon and has called me every day. Oh, dear Larry, no one will ever fill your magic shoes. So many people loved you. It is so evident in these past days. Our home has been filled with love from family, friends, community, and even those we never met. You will continue to guide us into the future of your family. We must regroup and, as we learned entering the Marine Corps, `adapt and overcome; we thank God for your presence in all our lives. He is working so faithfully to turn the evil that took you away from us into everlasting love. Your flag will continue to wave in our hearts. We proudly stand and watch you lead your fallen comrades to the Gates of Heaven. ``Look for me when I get there, and we will walk hand in hand together again. ``Semper Fi, love always, Mom.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and H.R. 2520, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act that we debated earlier today. Both bills would expand stem cell research, which holds tremendous promise to curing and treating some of the most devastating diseases and conditions facing Americans today. This issue is about medical research coupled with high ethical standards and providing hope to those most in need--it should have no role in any party's political agenda. In 2001, President Bush announced that for the first time federal funds could be used to support limited research on human embryonic stem cells, specifically ``existing stem cell lines where the life and death decision has already been made.'' Under this policy, only 78 embryonic stem cell lines are eligible for use and according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), only 22 of those lines are viable for human research. Since 2001, 128 embryonic stem cell lines have been developed that are ineligible for federally funded research. Both bills--the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act that would create a new federal program to collect and store umbilical-cord-blood cells and expand the current bone-marrow registry program and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act that would increase the number of stem cell lines that can be used in federally funded research--establish much-needed ethical standards and expand the possibilities of stem cell research for new treatments and cures. According to the NIH, in the United States more than 4 million people suffer from Alzheimer's disease; one in every four deaths is from cancer; and every hour of every day, someone is diagnosed with juvenile (type 1) diabetes. These brave individuals battling life-threatening and debilitating diseases are not responsible for policy or debate, but they will be the ones most affected by the outcome of today's vote. The President was quoted by the Associated Press over the weekend saying, ``I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is--I'm against that. And therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it.'' This legislation will not create life for the purpose of destruction. These bills will expand the scope of research that the Bush Administration has already approved. It is unfortunate President Bush would dash the hopes of so many people looking for medical answers through research. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues join me today in advancing science and supporting H.R. 810. Congress and the Administration must not withdraw from progress, but embrace the immense opportunities that expanded stem cell research can have for the future and wellbeing of our Nation's public health.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the record and regret that I could not be present today, Thursday, May 19, 2005 to vote on rollcall votes Nos. 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198 and 199 due to family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 190 on calling the previous question on H. Res. 287--The rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2361--Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 191 on an amendment to H.R. 2361 to increase funding for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) by $4,800,000 and to reduce funding to the National Endowment for the Arts; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 192 on amendments en bloc to H.R. 2361 to insert ``oil'' after ``offshore'' on page 53, line 12 strike ``and natural gas'' on page 53, line 20 and to strike ``and natural gas'' on page 54 line 3; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 193 on an amendment to H.R. 2361 to reduce funding for the Environmental Protection Agency--Science and Technology by $130 million and to increase funding for the Environmental Protection Agency--Hazardous Substance Superfund by $130 million; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 194 on an amendment to H.R. 2361 to increase funding in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by $100 million; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 195 on an amendment to H.R. 2361 to increase funding for Wildland Management by $27,500,000, to increase funding for hazardous fuels reduction activities and to reduce funding for the National Endowment for the Arts--Grants and Administration by $30 million; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 196 on an amendment to H.R. 2361 to prohibit the use of funds from being made available for the selling or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 197 on an amendment to H.R. 2361 to reduce total appropriations in the bill by $261,591,250; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 198 on the motion to recommit H.R. 2361 to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 199 on passage of H.R. 2361--Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Wednesday, May 18, 2005 to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 and 189 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 181 on calling the previous question on H. Res. 283--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1817--Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 182 on passage of H. Res. 283--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1817--Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 183 on an amendment to H.R. 1817 to increase funding for the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General to $200 million; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 184 on an amendment to H.R. 1817 to prohibit any of the money in the DHS authorization bill to come from an increase in airline ticket taxes; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 185 on an amendment to H.R. 1817 to clarify the existing authority of State and local enforcement personnel to apprehend, detain, remove, and transport illegal aliens in the routine course of duty, and requires DHS to establish a training manual on this matter and set forth simple guidelines for making that training available; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 186 on an amendment to H.R. 1817 to call for the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report to Congress on: the number and types of border violence activities that have occurred; the types of activities involved; a description of the categories of victims that exists; and a description of the steps that DHS is taking and any plan that the Department had formulated to prevent these activities; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 187 on an amendment to H.R. 1817 in the nature of a substitute to authorize $6.9 billion over H.R. 1817 in homeland security funding and includes a number of policy proposals to close security gaps and to restructure the Department of Homeland Security; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 188 on the motion to recommit H.R. 1817 to the Committee on Homeland Security; and, ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 189 on passage of H.R. 1817--the Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY 2006.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the record and regret that I could not be present today, Tuesday, May 17, 2005, to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, and 180 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 174 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 278, providing for consideration of H.R. 2360 making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 175 on Agreeing to the Resolution as Amended on H. Res. 278, providing for consideration of H.R. 2360 making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 176 on an Amendment to H.R. 2360 to increase funding (by transfer) by $50 million to State and local governments for the defense of chemical plants by first responders; ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 177 on an Amendment to H.R. 2360 to prevent the use of funds in contravention of a provision in the illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (PL 104-208) that prevents Federal, State or local government officials from prohibiting or restricting government agencies or officials from sending or receiving information to Federal immigration officials regarding an individual's immigration status; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 178 on an Amendment to H.R. 2360 to insert anew section at the end of the bill to prohibit the use of funds from being used to close any detention facility operated by or on behalf of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that has been operational in 2005; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 179 on an Amendment to H.R. 2360 to insert a new section at the end of the bill to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants to assist States in conforming with minimum drivers' license standards by appropriating $100,000,000. For taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $1,000,000, the amount of tax reduction shall be reduced by 1.562 percent; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 180 on final passage of H.R. 2360, a bill making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and dedication of an East Hartford legend and community sports leader, the late Ray McKenna. In honor of his memory, I am submitting for the Record a letter to the editor by Don Pitkin in the East Hartford Gazette. [From the East Hartford Gazette, Mar. 10, 2005] Letter To the Editor (By Don Pitkin) To the Editor: Ray McKenna, the Sports Legend, icon, humanitarian, and more importantly, the friend we all lost a week ago. Much has been spoken and chronicled about his many accomplishments and the giving of himself. Any attempt to try and say more along those lines would be to repeat what has already been stated. Now is the time to try and envision what Ray has been, or is doing, since he left us. It is easily believed that on his journey to his new ``Burnside,'' he is thinking of those he will be joining. How many will there be? What have they been doing? Are there any sports activities there? It soon became clear what he would do first. He would look for his old coach and mentor, Mr. John ``Crafty Jack'' McGrath. Once arrived it didn't take long. Everyone knew Mr. McGrath. After all, the residents in this area all came from East Hartford. Ray will be surrounded by those he has known for years. After the greetings and reminiscing is over, Ray gets right to the point. Are there any sports here? Are there are athletes from East Hartford around? There are! Who are they? Will you help me find them? And off Ray went with Coach. Ray spotted them even before he and Coach got there. Someone was banging out fly balls for Al Jordan and Johnny Lichatz to chase down. Then it was a grounder to the left of Ed Cox at short. The scoop and the toss to Bill Wood at second and the throw to Long John Gorman at first. It was wide, but John snared it and made the swipe to tag the imaginary runner. Over there, isn't that Andy Senicrope pitching to Bill Luika? Then it was like they were all as one when they spotted Ray and came to greet him. It was talk, talk, yak, yak for a while. Ray brought up the subject of playing as a team. They were all from the 1938 team of East Hartford High. The only ones missing, Bobby Brown at third and Pitkin in right. Now the vision changes. It is a month later. Someone has filled the vacancies and Coach has found others from his past teams. They are all wearing the knicker length baseball pants. On the front of their shirts it is East Hartford, and on the back, Ray's '38 Team. They look pretty sharp as they work out. Word is that they have joined the Eastern Division of the newly formed Sky League. Yes! Ray had an important role in this endeavor. If any of you would like to see them play their first season, it is quite easy. Walk out into your yard, tilt your head back and look up into the blue. Now close your eyes. Did you see that? Loika threw out the man trying to steal. Just stay like that. This is only the third inning. There is more coming. You all know the rest of this vision. Mr. Editor. If you should happy to be in touch with Ray, please tell him that when I am finished here, I will join them with glove and shoes in hand. P.S. Good Luck guys! Thanks, Don Pitkin of East Hartford Note: Don Pitkin is a graduate of East Hartford High School, Class of 1938. He and East Hartford Gazette Sports Editor Ray McKenna were teammates.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the record and regret that I could not be present today, Thursday May 12, 2005 to vote on roll-call vote nos. 171, 172 and 173 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote no. 171 on H.R. 627--to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 40 Putnam Avenue in Hamden, Connecticut, as the ``Linda White-Epps Post Office''; ``yea'' on rollcall vote no. 172 on H. Res. 266--supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day; and, ``yea'' on rollcall vote no 173 on H.R. 2107--the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund Act of 2005.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the Record this article that appeared in the Hartford Courant on May 9, 2005. It poses the idea of investing the Social Security surplus in the financial markets. The future of Social Security would be addressed through the strength of these markets without the uncertainties of the stability of individual private accounts. The author also addresses some of the concerns that have been raised about this idea. As you can see, there are many thoughts that can be brought to the table to address the future of Social Security and to utilize the forces of the financial markets without being wedded to private accounts. Additionally, there are many issues surrounding personal retirement savings and pension security that deserve to be looked at carefully. [From the Hartford Courant, May 10, 2005] Push-Button Picks Just Too Simple (By Dan Haar) The Social Security private accounts tour passed through Hartford Monday with some downhome remarks from Treasury Secretary John W. Snow that called to mind H. Ross Perot, who sounded open-minded but wasn't. Snow was in town pushing President Bush's scheme to move much of the Social Security trust fund into private accounts, where you and I can watch our retirement accounts grow and wither and maybe grow back again. The private accounts would cost an estimated $2 trillion to set up, and they would do nothing on their own to fill the Social Security shortfall. These are not points of debate. Still, Snow said, ``I challenge all of our critics to say, if you think you've got a better idea, what is it?'' He added, echoing Perot without the irony of anatomy, ``We're all ears.'' Well there is a better idea--but sadly, the administration is all fists in fighting it back. That's because private accounts are not on the list of features the Bush folks are willing to do without. The idea behind the private accounts is that workers could choose to invest their money in stocks. not just the long- term bonds the trust fund uses today. Over time, on average, company shares earn higher returns than bonds. Social Security could meet its obligations without raising payroll taxes, and poof! We wipe out much of our $11 trillion deficit. If tapping into the stock markets would work in private accounts. why can't it work for the trust fund as a whole? Why can't the fund simply set a target of stockownership-- say, 25 percent--and gradually ramp up to that target, without giving Aunt Martha fits over the state of her personal account? The financial results would be identical to Bush's plan. The start-up cost would be lower because it could be done over a period of years. Aunt Martha, who may already have plenty of worries about her 401(k) and other private savings, could rely on a predictable stream of retirement income, no matter what--just like uncle Chester had back in the day. The fund could achieve returns based on decisions by the best and brightest financial minds--not the twitches of a nervous household, multiplied by 100 million. Last week, a ranking Treasury official told me the problem is that Social Security would end up meddling in the stock markets--a dangerous thing if, say, someone in power wanted to help or hurt General Electric Co. But that worry is easy to wave off with a pair of laws even this Congress would pass without much debate: All stocks must be part of broad index funds, and never could the Social Security Administration vote in company proxies. On Monday, Snow produced another answer: Allowing the fund to invest as a whole in stocks produces a short-term surplus, ``and short-term surpluses become subject to the spending proclivities of Congress.'' ``This,'' Snow said of the private accounts, now echoing Al Gore, ``is a lock-box.'' It's true that Congress--and our free-spending president, by the way--have borrowed heavily from today's Social Security surpluses. But it's hard to believe that federal spending rises just because the surplus is there. It rises because we have rising needs, and because the political system we have causes it to rise. Anyway, there are better ways to rein in federal spending than to needlessly take trillions of dollars out of the system and put them in a place--your hands and mine--where they will cause new grief. The administration's real goal here is not to advance Social Security, but to push its social agenda, the so-called ``ownership society.'' Funny, median family income adjusted for inflation--the most important measure of how typical Americans are doing-- has fallen three straight years and is headed for a fourth as Bush showers tax breaks on companies that aren't hiring. Whose ownership society is this? Democrats and their allies at AARP in the Social Security debate have offered little in the way of real solutions. John Rother, director of policy and strategy for AARP--defending his hilariously exaggerated, slam-dunk anti-personal account TV ad campaign--told me the idea of allowing the trust fund to invest more broadly makes sense. But he said the public isn't ready for that discussion. Despite the lack of a cohesive public debate, the trust fund investment idea may emerge as a dark horse. On Monday, the Yale School of Management announced a working paper by finance professor Will Goetzmann that shows exactly how such a system might work. Goetzmann envisioned an independent agency, similar to Fannie Mae, that would manage the Social Security fund. It could issue its own bonds and sell contracts, like annuities. It could invest in all sorts of sophisticated instruments that individual accounts couldn't touch, such as commercial real estate, commodity indexes and short-term Treasury notes. Goetzmann calculated a portfolio mix that would most closely mirror the rise in U.S. wages. That's the measure Social Security uses to set payouts to retirees. ``It's a fairly broadly diversified portfolio,'' Goetzmann said Monday. Setting the right investment mix, he said, ``is a very sophisticated question that is not going to be answered with a few oversimplified choices on a menu.'' And getting to that point in the debate will not happen as long as we have officials on both sides who give us an oversimplified menu of political arguments, and nothing more.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Thursday, May 12, 2005, to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 169 and 170 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 169 on an amendment to H.R. 1544 to limit the number of Urban Area Security Initiative grants during any given fiscal year to 50; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 170 on passage of H.R. 1544--Faster & Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Wednesday, May 11, 2005 to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 164 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 268; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 165--an amendment to H.R. 1279; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 166--an amendment to H.R. 1279; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 167 on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 1279 with instructions; and, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 168 on passage of H.R. 1279--Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Tuesday, May 10, 2005, to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 162 and 163 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 162 on H. Res. 193--expressing support to the organizers and participants of the historic meeting of the Assembly to Promote the Civil Society in Cuba on May 20, 2005, in Havana; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 163 on H. Res. 142--supporting the goals and ideals of a ``Rotary International Day'' and celebrating and honoring Rotary International on the occasion of its centennial anniversary.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Thursday, May 5, 2005, to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 159, 160, and 161 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``No'' on rollcall No. 159 ordering the previous question on H. Res. 258--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1268; ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 160 on the motion to recommit the Conference Report for H.R. 1268 to the conference committee with instructions; and, ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 161 on agreeing to the Conference Report for H.R. 1268--Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Wednesday May 4, 2005 to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 153, 154, 155, 156, 157 and 158 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 153 on the motion to recommit H.R. 366 to the Committee on Education and the Workforce; ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 154 on final passage of H.R. 366--The Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act; ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 155 on H. Con. Res. 127--Calling on the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to transfer Charles Ghankay Taylor, former President of the Republic of Liberia, to the Special Court for Sierra Leone to be tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law; ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 156 on H. Res. 195--Recognizing the 60th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day and the Liberation of Western Bohemia; ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 157 on H.R. 1185--Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act; and, ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 158 on H. Res. 233--Recognizing the 60th anniversary of Victory in Europe (V-E) Day during World War II.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Tuesday, May 3, 2005 to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 151 and 152 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 151 on the motion to table H. Res. 253, the Conyers Resolution Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 152 on H. Res. 228--Observing the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Republic of Vietnam to the Communist forces of North Vietnam.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the dedicated men and women who serve my district, the State of Connecticut, and our nation as firefighters. Today, across the country, over 1.1 million career and volunteer firefighters stand ready to answer our calls for help. In 2003, our 30,524 fire departments responded to 22.4 million alarms--an average of one every 20 seconds. They work and volunteer countless hours ensuring the safety of others, and if needed, are ready to risk their life to save another. Firefighters are truly on the front lines of protecting our communities and our nation, and in recent years their role has extended beyond just putting out fires. Today, firefighters serve as the first responders for medical emergencies, provide search and rescue services to victims trapped in burning or collapsed buildings, handle hazardous materials and extract injured persons from car accidents. Above all else, they provide hope to those in need in times of danger and despair. I have met many of the men and women who serve as firefighters in the first district of Connecticut, and I am proud to represent such brave and dedicated public servants. Each and every day, these selfless heroes give their all to protect our communities and our families. I thank them for their service and urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 188.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the lifelong dedication of Firefighter Neil Laribee, who after 52 years of service has retired from the Southington Volunteer Fire Department. The son of a fireman, Neil Laribee first volunteered to fight fire for the town of Southington in 1952. A dedicated public servant, Neil has protected the Southington community for over fifty faithful years. Known around the Plantsville Engine Company #2 firehouse as ``Deke,'' he has been instrumental in shaping the Department throughout the years. Neil has been a loyal friend and source of fire and rescue information to both new and veteran fireman at Company #2. As one of Southington's most experienced firefighters, he has held leadership positions including Company Secretary and a Company Trustee. Neil Laribee has spent his life protecting lives and serving his community and his presence in the Southington Volunteer Fire Department will be certainly missed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today to recognize the lifelong dedication of Fireman Neil Laribee and thank him for his years of service to the town of Southington.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the record and regret that I was unavoidably detained on Thursday, March 17, 2005 during Rollcall Vote Nos. 82 and 83 on H. Con. Res. 95, as well as Rollcall Vote No. 84 on H. Con. Res. 32. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on Rollcall Vote No. 82, an amendment offered by Congressman Obey to H. Con. Res. 95, ``no'' on Rollcall Vote No. 83; an amendment offered by Congressman Hensarling to H. Con. Res. 95, and ``aye'' on Rollcall Vote No. 84 on H. Con. Res. 32, expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the occupation of the Republic of Lebanon by the Syrian Arab Republic.