John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object, although it is not my intention to object; and I turn to the gentleman from California for an explanation of his request.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that explanation. Clearly, Congress most recently published tributes to President Nixon and in the past President Johnson and President Truman, and I am in concurrence with our distinguished gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his explanation. I applaud the effort to bring this forward. I think it covers four basic principles. First, fairness requires that congressional employees be accorded the same rights and protections as other employees. Second, if the law is right, it should apply to Congress as well as the private sector. Third, if Congress lives by the same laws it applies elsewhere, it will write better laws. And, fourth, the constitutional separation of powers doctrine must be respected. Mr. Speaker, I do hope, however, that we are able at a future time to revisit a GAO recommendation. GAO recommends strongly that the executive director, general counsel and the two deputy executive directors be reappointed to serve subsequent terms in either the same or different positions if warranted. I think that this makes sense, and it is my hope and intent that the committee in working with the chairman can bring this to the floor at a future date. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object, though it is not my intention to object, and I yield to my distinguished colleague from California for an explanation.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the former Representative and Ambassador Corrine Claiborne ``Lindy'' Boggs on the acceptance of her portrait into the House collection. While I did not have the pleasure of serving with Lindy Boggs, I am a great admirer of hers. Her Southern charm is infamous. Her legislative and political knowledge is vast. As a champion of education, women's issues, and civil rights, her accomplishments are many and need not be enumerated. Indeed, it is impossible not to admire, to like, and to respect Lindy Boggs, as we are all beneficiaries of her advocacy. However, I do want to highlight that she shared my commitment to this institution and a love of history. Lindy Boggs believed that a recorded history was important and helped Americans understand the institution of Congress and the House. She successfully worked to establish the Office of the Historian in the House, which was created to collect, preserve, and interpret the documents of the House for Congress, the public and the press. In addition, she chaired the Joint Committee on Bicentennial Arrangements. It is also noteworthy that she served on my Committee, the Committee on House Administration, before taking a seat on the Committee on Appropriations. As an ex-officio member of the House Fine Arts Board, which serves as the clearinghouse for donations of House-related works of art, furniture and artifacts, I am pleased to support the acceptance of the portrait of Lindy Boggs by the House. I would also like to acknowledge Jan Schoonmaker and his efforts with the Lindy Boggs Portrait Committee in making this project a reality. This House has previously recognized the many contributions of Mrs. Boggs by naming a room in the Capitol in honor of her, and I think it is only fitting that the portrait will be hung in The Corrine Claiborne Boggs Room. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating former Representative and Ambassador Lindy Boggs on her receipt of this honor.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. Larson of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan. Indeed, I am pleased to support Senate Joint Resolution 41, commemorating the successful 15-year effort to create the National Museum of the American Indian and requesting the President to issue a proclamation for this occasion. What a day it has been already, having the celebration kicked off this morning. So many Native Americans from my great State of Connecticut are down here for this very special commemoration. I would also echo the remarks and sentiments of the gentleman from Michigan. What a great tribute. This is the 18th such museum that the Smithsonian has put up; and under their tutelage, we know that it is going to continue to be as spectacular as the 17 others that come under their control and auspices. I am equally proud as well that so many tribes in the great State of Connecticut have contributed not only to our great economy and employment there but they themselves have been leaders. The Mashantucket Pequots of Mashantucket have put together their own museum and are going to collaborate here with the national museum. They are both extraordinary sites and worth everyone visiting, as well as have the Mohegans in Connecticut who are also great economic contributors and employers in the State of Connecticut, who have also put together an educational program and archaeological field trips that teach both the culture and the storytelling and the lore of all that are so important. So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud and encourage everyone to support this resolution today. I am pleased to support S.J. Res. 41, commemorating the successful 15-year effort to create the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) on the Mall, and requesting the President to issue a proclamation for the occasion. The legislation was originally introduced by Senators Campbell and Inouye, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Indian Affairs, and passed the Senate on July 22. Many of Connecticut's tribal nations are here this week for the commemoration. The Museum encompasses the culture and history of indigenous peoples throughout the Western Hemisphere, who total more than 35 million. The Museum, which is part of the Smithsonian Institution, opens today at 4.25 acre site southwest of the U.S. Capitol grounds. It is the only national museum devoted exclusively to the life, languages, literature, history and arts of cultures indigenous to the Americas. Earlier today there are a ceremonial procession of Native Americans from the Smithsonian to the Capitol, followed by the Museum dedication ceremony on the Mall and the opening of the Museum to the public. A six-day festival and celebration on the Mall also begins today. Besides the site on the Mall, the Museum also includes the George Gustave Heye Center, a museum in New York; and the Cultural Resources Center, a research and collections facility in Suitland, Maryland. The National Museum of the American Indian is the 18th museum under the control of the Smithsonian. It was formally created by Congress in 1989 after the Heye Foundation in New York City agreed to transfer its own unique collection to the Smithsonian. Construction on the Mall began in 1999. The structure has a unique architectural design using Kasota limestone which gives the appearance of having been weathered by the elements. It is a majestic setting which enhances the Mall, and the Museum's location along Independence Avenue near the Capitol ensures that it will become one of Washington's premier attractions for visitors. American Indians have played a key role in the Museum's design and fund-raising, as well as the exhibitions and programs. The Smithsonian Institution has developed a special expertise in conceiving and managing museums which move beyond traditional concepts of exhibitions that remain static for decades, and instead allow living and evolving history to be displayed. This is especially appropriate since Native American communities in the United States and Canada, and throughout the Hemisphere, remain vital forces in the cultural identifies of the many new nations with which they have been joined. The Native American communities in the United States remain distinct, highly visible entities culturally, and often politically and economically, in the States where they are located. In this country alone there are more than 500 distinct Native cultural communities recognized by the Federal government, and States recognize still more. There are more than two million indigenous peoples residing in the United States. The Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, in my home State of Connecticut, in addition to being a major employer and economic force in the State due to its well-known casinos, was the first Tribe to make a large donation to the National Museum of the American Indian. Its $10-million donation was, at the time, the largest-ever single contribution to the Smithsonian. Both the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut and the Oneida Tribe of New York later made similar donations. The National Museum of the American Indian has also been the beneficiary of numerous other sizable donations from tribal communities and tribally related organizations. Tribes and tribal organizations have donated nearly one quarter of the approximately $199 million total cost of the Museum building, a testament to the continuing cultural and economic vitality of Indian tribes and their interest in disseminating knowledge to the broader American public. The Mashantucket Pequots also own and operate the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center in Mashantucket. This 308,000 sq. ft. facility houses the largest collection of Native American artifacts in the world. Four full acres of permanent exhibits at the Center depict 18,000 years of Native and natural history in thoroughly researched detail. The Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, along with the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center will continue to work together in a cooperative agreement with the National Museum of the American Indian. The Mohegans have also created many educational resources to bring their contributions to a wider audience. Their Archaeological Field School provides an opportunity to learn about Native American history first-hand. Cultural and community programs bring Mohegan culture to life through presentations of tribal artifacts. It is an honor for me to know personnally so many tribal leaders, including from the Mohegans, Lifetime Chief and former Chairman Ralph Sturges, Chairman Mark F. Brown, Vice Chairman Peter J. Schultz and Ambassador Jayne G. Fawcett; and from the Mashantuckets, Chairman Michael Thomas, Vice Chairman Richard ``Skip'' Hayward, Executive Director of Public Affairs Pedro Johnson, and Councilmember Kenny Reels. Mr. Speaker, the successful completion of the National Museum of the American Indian bodes well for public interest in the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which was created by Congress last year and is in the preliminary stages of development, site selection and fund-raising. I insert in the Congressional Record at this point a chronology of the development of the National Museum of the American Indian prepared by the Smithsonian Institution. National Museum of the American Indian Chronology 1980--Discussions begin between the Smithsonian Institution and the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation in New York City. The Heye collection of 800,000 objects, representing tribes from the entire Western Hemisphere, was one of the largest Native American collections in the world. The talks were initiated by the museum's trustees, and discussions centered on an affiliation with the Smithsonian while still maintaining an independent museum in New York. Although not conclusive in themselves, these early talks lead the way to future negotiations. April 1987--Smithsonian Secretary Robert McC. Adams accompanied Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to New York to talk with officials of the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. May 4, 1987--The board of trustees of the Museum of the American Indian unanimously adopted a resolution providing for an affiliation between its museum and the Smithsonian, and for the relocation of the museum collections to a new building on the National Mall in Washington. May 11, 1987--The Smithsonian Board of Regents approved a motion encouraging the Secretary to ``continue discussions with representatives of the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, about the prospect of a formal institutional relationship between the museum and the Smithsonian.'' Following discussion with the Smithsonian and the Heye Foundation's board of trustees, Senator Inouye introduced a bill (S. 1722) on September 25, 1987, to establish a National Museum of the American Indian within the Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian Institution continues its negotiations with the board of trustees of the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. The Smithsonian Board of Regents approved an ``agreement in principle'' on January 30, 1989 to transfer the Museum of the American Indian collection to the Smithsonian. March 16, 1989--Julie Johnson Kidd, chairman of the Heye Foundation, signed the agreement. The Smithsonian Board of Regents gave its final approval to the agreement on May 8, 1989, and it was endorsed the same day by Secretary Adams. Senator Inouye introduced S. 978 to establish the National Museum of the American Indian on May 11, 1989, and Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colorado), at that time a U.S. representative from Colorado, introduced companion legislation, H.R. 2668 on June 15, 1989. September 12, 1989--Secretary Adams joined Senators Inouye and Campbell for a press conference announcing the Smithsonian's revised policy on repatriation of American Indian human remains in the National Museum of Natural History collections. The legislation establishing the new museum, to be named the National Museum of the American Indian, would incorporate the repatriation policy and appropriate funds for an inventory of human remains in the Smithsonian's collections. November 28, 1989--President George Bush signs legislation establishing the National Museum of the American Indian as part of the Smithsonian Institution. May 21, 1990--Secretary Adams announced the appointment of W. Richard West (Southern Cheyenne), as founding director of the new museum, effective June 1, 1990. April 1991--The Smithsonian selected Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates Inc. of Philadelphia to assist the National Museum of the American Indian in developing general architectural program requirements and criteria for the design of the new museum in Washington, D.C., and for a Cultural Resources Center in Suitland, MD, about six miles from Washington where the museum's collections would be housed. June 1992--The Smithsonian selected Polshek and Partners of New York City, Tober + Davis of Reston, VA, and the Native American Design Collaborative to provide architectural and engineering services for the Cultural Resources Center. A preview exhibition, ``Pathways of Tradition,'' a selection of more than 100 objects representing American Indian cultures and creativity, was on view at the Smithsonian's George Gustav Heye Center of the National Museum of the American Indian in New York City from November 15, 1992-January 24, 1993. February 1993--The Smithsonian selected the architectural firm of GBQC of Philadelphia in association with Douglas Cardinal Architect Ltd. of Ottawa, Canada, to create the design concept for the National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall in Washington. October 30, 1994--The museum's Geroge Gustav Heye Center officially opened in the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House at One Bowling Green in New York City. January 1998--The Smithsonian terminated its relationship with GBQC and Douglas Cardinal (Blackfoot) and the Institution assumed responsibility for the design and construction of the museum on the National Mall. Assisting the Smithsonian were Polshek/Smith Group and Johnpaul Jones (Cherokee/Choctaw). September 28, 1999--The groundbreaking and blessing ceremony takes place on the National Mall in Washington, DC, at the site of the National Museum of the American Indian's Mall Museum. The new museum will occupy the Mall's last remaining site. Three planned inaugural exhibitions will feature historic and contemporary aspects of Native life, and will highlight artifacts from the museum's priceless collection. June 26, 2001--The Smithsonian Institution awarded a contract to ``CLARK/TMR, A Joint Venture,'' to build the National Museum of the American Indian. CLARK/TMR is composed of the Clark Construction Company of Bethesda, MD, and Table Mountain Rancheria Enterprises Inc., a construction company that is a subsidiary of the Table Mountain Rancheria of Friant, CA. September 14-15, 2002--A national Pow Wow was sponsored by the museum on the National Mall adjacent to the museum construction site. Approximately 25,000 people attended to watch nearly 500 Native Americans dance over the two-day event. November 20, 2002--A ``topping out'' (a circular section of glass was installed on the roof of the building) ceremony and blessing was held to mark the completion of the major structural elements of the new building. January 15, 2004--The first phase of occupancy of the new museum by staff begins. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) may control the remainder of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following statement on the FY 2005 Funding of the Federal Election and Election Assistance Commission. As Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on House Administration, I am especially interested in the Appropriations Committee's funding recommendation for the Federal Election Commission, the Election Assistance Commission and programs implementing the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). While these commissions and the programs they administer comprise a very small portion of the federal budget, the process of electing federal officials is critical to the health of our democracy. I am pleased that the committee provided full funding for the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC administers campaign-finance and presidential election laws, and in recent years it has received additional responsibilities. Although the process has been contentious at times, I am happy to see that both sides of the committee came together and not only met the authorized funding of $10 million for the EAC, but exceed it by $5 million. I recognize that the President's delay in appointing members to the EAC gave the commission a late start, but I remain hopeful that the EAC can regain lost time during the coming fiscal year. Given the 2000 Florida election debacle and widespread public interest in election procedures, we need to assure voters nationwide of the sanctity of their votes in the electronic age. In the coming year, I expect that the EAC will use this additional money to devote appropriate attention to standards and technology issues with the assistance of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The EAC and its NIST partner must expedite the development of proper standards so the American people can realize the potential of HAVA, especially the election reform programs, which the Appropriations Committee also did not fund. The EAC must also establish the Help America Vote Foundation, as authorized by HAVA, so the foundation can help civic organizations encourage voter participation. Implementing a new federal program like HAVA is often fraught with difficulty. In this case, however, there is not a moment to lose, for it is our democracy at risk. The Committee on House Administration looks forward to working with the FEC, the EAC, state election officials, and interest groups to ensure that federal election laws and programs achieve their important purpose. Again, I would like to commend the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Transportation-Treasury subcommittee for including this critical funding for the EAC.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor David D'Eramo, Ph.D. on the occasion of his retirement as President and Chief Executive Officer of St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center. Not only has Dr. D'Eramo led St. Francis through a period of tremendous change during his sixteen year tenure, he has extended the reach of critical programs and services to our communities through the development of St. Francis Care. His leadership has gone well beyond the walls of the hospital through his volunteer service and the chairmanship of key civic organizations, such as the MetroHartford Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Hartford Arts Council. On a national level, Dr. D'Eramo has been deeply involved in the development of health policy through leadership and service with the American Hospital Association, the Catholic Health Association, and the Association of American Medical Colleges. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. D'Eramo for his many accomplishments and for his contributions to the health and well being of the citizens of Connecticut and beyond.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), my brilliant co- chair. And I also did not see him at the Boston convention; but, nonetheless, he would have been welcome, as was everybody there. This is indeed a moment for us to celebrate the outstanding job that was done both in Boston and New York, led by Mayors Thomas Menino and Michael Bloomberg, respectively. Their tireless efforts to make the 2004 major-party conventions such successful events are deeply appreciated. Mr. Speaker, I commend the two police commissioners, Kathleen O'Toole of Boston and Raymond Kelly of New York, now there is diversity for you, for making it possible for the delegates to nominate their candidates, which of course is the purpose of the convention. I also want to thank the thousands of other public employees who helped to make this possible, not only the Boston and New York municipal governments but also at all levels, Federal, State, and local; and of course as the chairman has already pointed out, the outstanding job that was done by our Capitol Police and all the security that went into these two wonderful events. I would especially like to thank the Massachusetts delegation for the hospitality that they provided for each and every one of us, and of course their two great Senators, Senator Kennedy, for which this was a homecoming, and Senator Kerry as well, who was featured prominently in Boston as well, and our outstanding House delegation here from Boston as well. So I thank the chairman and join him in these remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to draw my colleagues' attention to a bill I have introduced to address concerns that have been expressed about political organizations referred to as ``527's''. This bill, H.R. 5013, would give the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Election Commission, and the American people a better understanding of 527 organizations by attempting to subject them to the same type of reporting requirements as PAC's and other political organizations. This bill would make 527's, which is the section of the Internal Revenue Code under which they are registered, more transparent through the four main components of this bill. First, any political organization that meets defined minimum financial requirements must disclose this information to the Department of the Treasury. Second, political organizations that raise, spend or intend to raise and spend over $25,000 in an election year will have to file disclosure reports with the IRS monthly. Previously, organizations in this category were only required to file quarterly. Third, organizations that have less than $25,000 in receipts must file quarterly. Fourth, the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Election Commission must work together to improve the database disclosure system. This bill will provide the American people with more information about who is donating to the political process and how that money is being spent. If we want to inspire and encourage more Americans to participate in the political process, we must make all aspects of the process accessible to them. The guidelines in my bill will expose political organizations' donors and demonstrate they have nothing to hide. Moreover, this information will help Americans to make more informed choices. I believe that efforts to restrict 527 organizations could raise First Amendment concerns and may merely result in their reconstitution as 501(c)4, 501(c)5 and 501(c)6 organizations, which have virtually no public disclosure requirements. I believe that it would be more beneficial to our political process to mandate greater transparency of 527's rather than attempting to shut them down or otherwise curtail their participation in the political process. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the third anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and to remember those who lose their lives that day, especially the residents of Connecticut and of my district. We should take time on each anniversary of September 11, 2001 to honor the dead, their families and those who continue to serve as the nation's first lines of defense against acts of terrorism and disasters. We will not forget the selfless firefighters, police officers and emergency medical workers who confronted chaos and terror that day and lost their lives as they gave everything to save others. We owe a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid to the first responders and members of our military who continue to work each day protecting our communities and our nation. No matter how many years pass, our memories and our grief will not fade, nor will our determination to defeat terror throughout the world and attack its root causes. We must focus the incredible resources of this nation on capturing Osama bin Laden and destroying his al Qaeda network that are responsible for the events of that day. We would also be well served by implementing the recommendation made by the September 11th Commission to help prevent future attacks. The nation will remain defiant in the face of terror and threats and must never waiver from the things that make us great: our freedom, our liberty and our democracy. 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. The profound outrage and indescribable sadness all Americans felt that day is now part of the soul of the Nation. Nothing can change what happened in New York, Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon, but we owe it to those who died to be the good citizens and to build a stronger Nation in their memory.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate ESPN on its 25th anniversary. At 7 p.m. on September 7, 1979, the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network began broadcasting SportsCenter from Bristol, CT in my district. Bill Rasmussen had the crazy idea that a 24-hour sports cable network might be a success. It started with a single building with no running water and a control truck on cinderblocks showing such odd sports as Australian rules football and darts. Twenty-five years later, he has proven to be right. That single building has grown into nine control rooms, 31 edit suites, more than 2,000 television monitors, and a library of over a million tapes. ESPN is now one of the most widely known brand names in the world and more than 90 million people are exposed to ESPN each week. It has expanded its networks to include ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPNEWS, ESPN Deportes, ESPN Today, and ESPN Radio. ESPN.com receives over 2.3 million page views during peak hours with its instant score updates. Meanwhile, workers stuck in their cubicles from 9 to 5 can find a diversion for a few minutes reading Page 2, Page 3, and the Sports Guy's insight on what it means to be a Red Sox fan. ESPN the Magazine has reached a circulation of 1.7 million in just five years and won the National Magazine Award for General Excellence in 2003. ESPN Zone restaurants in eight cities serve as the ideal place to grab a bite and watch the game. ESPN's signature program, SportsCenter, has developed a cult following and many viewers will admit to watching multiple episodes of the same sports report back-to-back-to-back. It has touched all corners of the globe with locally produced episodes in Canada and Brazil, a Spanish version for the rest of Latin America, China, India, and Taiwan. SportsCenter has not only helped create sports superstars, its personalities have become stars in their own right. Chris Berman, Keith Olbermann, Bob Ley, Greg Gumbel, Dan Patrick, Stuart Scott, and Craig Kilborn have become celebrities and their vernacular has become the language of the sports fan. Not to be forgotten is the major role ESPN has played in the expansion of women's sports. Who would have thought in 1979 that the NCAA women's lacrosse national championship game would be shown in front of a national television audience? Or that the highest rated basketball telecast ever on ESPN would be the 2004 NCAA women's basketball championship, won by the University of Connecticut. That includes more than 6,000 men's and women's basketball games. Where else can young girls aspiring to become the next Mia Hamm watch their heroes? Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Bill Rasmussen for his crazy idea and thanking ESPN President George Bodenheimer and all the folks at Bristol U. for their passion and dedication to bringing the wonderful world of sports into living rooms 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I am proud to say that ESPN is in the First Congressional District and I wish you 25 more years of success.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, last year we saw an alarming increase in the number of fire related deaths in nursing homes. Fires at nursing homes in Hartford, CT and Nashville, TN claimed the lives of 31 residents, many of whom were elderly or bedridden. In both cases, these buildings were considered ``up to code,'' in that they met all fire codes and regulations applicable to their age and construction. These codes exempted both buildings from laws requiring them to be equipped with sprinklers because they were considered too old, and too costly, to retrofit. Most in the nursing home industry say this is an economic decision, that homes simply cannot afford the cost of retrofitting their facilities with sprinkler systems. The people of Hartford and Nashville, however, would say that this gap in fire protection is too high a cost where the safety of their loved ones is concerned. With reduced mobility and heath related impairments, the nursing home population is significantly more vulnerable in fire related emergencies. Although it has been repeatedly proven that the presence of fire sprinklers significantly improves the chances of survival for older adults during a fire, the GAO reports that 20 to 30 percent of the approximately 17,000 nursing homes nationwide do not have an automatic fire sprinkler system. While some states have already taken action to ensure that their nursing homes are equipped with sprinklers, far too many lack such life saving and common sense requirements. Today, even after last year's fires, there is no comprehensive federal standard for the inclusion of sprinklers in the nation's nursing homes. While the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services last year adopted the 2000 edition National Fire Protection Association's Life Safety Code, which required that new and renovated nursing homes be equipped with sprinklers, this new policy did not address the lack of sprinklers in already existing older homes. As a result, thousands of homes are allowed to operate ``up to code,'' yet lacking a life saving sprinkler system. Last week the GAO released a study on nursing home fire safety which concluded that ``the substantial loss of life in the Hartford and Nashville fires could have been reduced or eliminated by the presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler systems.'' The report also found that ``federal oversight of nursing home compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate,'' and has led to inconsistent monitoring of fire safety standards, incomplete data on sprinkler coverage, and an alarming gap in nursing home fire protection. Above all, the report underscored the need for immediate action. To this end, I have introduced the Nursing Home Fire Safety Act to eliminate the threat of fire for the 1.6 million elderly and disabled Americans living in nursing homes. Under this bill, all nursing homes participating in Medicare and Medicaid would be required to be fully equipped with automatic fire sprinklers within 5 years. With 97 percent of all nursing homes participating in these programs, this bill would protect the greatest number of Americans possible. This bill also addresses what is generally seen as the biggest hurdle to installing sprinklers--the cost. Under my bill, any nursing home that has to pay to install sprinklers to meet this new requirement would be fully reimbursed through either Medicare or Medicaid. These reimbursements would be for the total cost of installing a sprinkler system, and would in no way impact any payment, service or program already offered through either program. Although the 108th Congress is winding to a close, I feel it is important to introduce this bill now and take this crucial first step to begin a long delayed dialogue on nursing home fire safety. Many groups have been looking at this problem for over a year now, and will all undoubtedly have different ideas on an ideal solution. In light of the new information put forward in the GAO report, I look forward to working with them to improve this legislation and to find the best way to ensure that our nursing homes have the safety equipment they need to keep their residents safe from fire. Mr. Speaker, the federal government has turned a blind eye to this problem for far too long. ``Up to code'' is simply not enough when it comes to protecting the lives of our nation's nursing home population. The fires in Hartford and Nashville demonstrate the terrible and unacceptable consequences of allowing nursing homes to continue to lack vital life saving safety equipment. It is time for Congress to take action to protect our nation's most frail and vulnerable, and prevent similar tragedies in the future. I urge my colleagues to join me in helping to make nursing homes in their districts, and around the country, safe from the threat of fire.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful comments. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has led the effort here in the House and petitioned to Secretary Ridge.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney), my good friend. I rise today in support of this resolution to reaffirm that our Federal elections should not be postponed in the event of terrorist attacks, as our chairman has eloquently stated in his remarks. I stand in support of this resolution because of the matters contained in the resolving clauses. Number one, the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any Presidential election to be postponed; and, number two, no single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election. This is the meat of this resolution. I further join with the gentlewoman (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader, in calling for the United States to be an example for democracies around the world, and that means holding our elections on schedule. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, who spoke out so eloquently on this issue, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has already circulated in the immediate comments following some of the press with respect to this issue and garnered more than 150 signatures, as the chairman has indicated, along bipartisan lines. The Union has stood for over 225 years and has never had a Federal election postponed or cancelled. Not in time of war, not in time of economic turmoil, and not in time of natural disaster. We should not start now. We as a country will not bend in the face of threats to our democracy. The United States was founded on the ideas of hope and freedom. Those who believe that they will break those pillars with the threat of terror are misguided. I have requested a briefing from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to learn how his Department plans to work with Congress to safeguard the November elections and on reducing the risk of attack. I join with the committee chairman and we share the concerns, and we all hope and pray and abide that no such attacks will occur, and yet we must be prepared for those contingencies. I would suggest that while we are mindful of security and the safety of voters, we should not focus on these issues to the extent that they damage democracy by frightening voters away from the polls. Americans should go to the polls in record numbers to show our determination that we take our democracy seriously. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, and I again want to add both my praise and thanks for the leadership of our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), in bringing this resolution to the floor. We are the greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are known throughout the globe for our great strength and resolve. We are known for the great strength of our military and our armies and the shock and awe that they create. But the most awesome thing that we have, the thing that sticks out in everybody's minds, what makes us the Nation that we are, is our freedom of expression and our right to vote. That is why this is such an important resolution and such an important issue. In the final analysis, it will not be the strength of our armies; it will be the strength of the individual and collective thoughts of our citizens that are expressed on the day we vote that makes us the Nation that we are. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this resolution to reaffirm that our Federal elections should not be postponed in the event of terrorist attack. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Chairman and thank his staff for drafting this resolution. I stand in support of this resolution because of the matters contained in the resolving clauses (1) the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any Presidential election to be postponed; and (2) no single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election. This is the meat of the resolution, and others can debate about the meaning of the ``whereas'' clauses--and I am sure there will be lots of different interpretations. I further join with Leader Pelosi in calling for ``the United States to be an example for democracies around the world, and that means holding our elections as scheduled.'' I would also like to thank the ranking minority member of the Homeland Security subcommittee Jim Turner and Representative Lynn Woolsey for their leadership on this very important issue. This union has stood for over 225 years and has never had a Federal election postponed or cancelled. Not in time of war; not in time of economic turmoil and not in time of natural disaster. We should not start now! We as a country will not bend in the face of threats to our democracy. The United States was founded on the ideals of Hope and Freedom! Those who believe that they will break those pillars with the threat of terror are misguided. I have requested a briefing from Homeland Security Secretary Thomas Ridge to learn how his department plans to work with Congress to safeguard the November elections and on reducing the risk of an attack. I would suggest that while we must be mindful of the security and safety of voters, we should not focus on these issues to the extent that it damages democracy by frightening voters away from the polls. Americans should go to the polls in record numbers to show our determination that we take democracy seriously. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to comment, as well, that I appreciate the spirit of my colleague's comments and what he had to say, and I think that votes being conducted does truly matter. In the legislative process, would it be that every time we passed a piece of legislation did we not think the problem had been solved? So I agree that we have to continue to follow through on this issue. But I think the chairman is correct in terms of looking at the gravity of this situation and an individual, and, as the gentleman pointed out in his remarks as well, understanding completely that that authority should derive with the United States Congress. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to again associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Chair from Ohio. I want to thank the distinguished chairman for moving so resolutely to address the problem caused by last year's appropriations bill. This predicament, which he has thoroughly outlined and that his legislation would correct, could properly become a case study for why the House rules prevent appropriation bills from including legislative provisions and vest the responsibility for such matters in the authorizing committees. I support and applaud the chairman's determination to ensure that the Library of Congress does not become a weak point in the Capitol's security perimeter. That, Madam Speaker, we simply cannot afford. I have, as well, a letter from James Billington, where he quotes, I think, very appropriately that ``the Library has been without an adequate police force for more than a year. The U.S. Capitol Police received funding to hire 23 officers that, under the 2004 legislative branch appropriations bill, were to be detailed to the Library of Congress. As a practical matter, we cannot get them until we have approval of a memorandum of understanding between the Capitol Police and the Library. The 2004 appropriations bill removed the Library's ability to hire police employees, and an additional 10 officers have left our force through attrition. Unless,'' as the chairman's bill provides, ``action is rapidly taken to remedy this situation, we will soon have a police force staffed at only two-thirds of its authorized strength, clearly unacceptable in today's world.'' I trust, as the chairman has indicated, that the Senate will follow his leadership in this regard. Again I applaud his efforts to prevent the usurpation of the authorizing committee's responsibility. I urge the passage of this. Madam Speaker, I support the Chairman's motion and urge its adoption. Section 1015 of Public Law 108-7, enacted on February 20, 2003, provided for the merger of the Library of Congress Police into the United States Capitol Police. The section, which originated in the Senate and was enacted in the Legislative appropriation for fiscal 2003, was never the subject of formal hearings in the Committee on House Administration. Section 1015 provides that the merger of the two police forces will not take place until an implementation plan, developed by the Chief of the Capitol Police and submitted to the Capitol Police Board, the Librarian of Congress, and the appropriate committees, has been approved. Pending that approval, which has not yet occurred, Section 1015 authorized the Librarian to fill vacancies in the Library Police ranks with applicants who satisfy the employment standards of the Capitol Police, to the extent practicable. Seven months later, Section 1006 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for 2004, another provision not subjected to hearings in our committee, eliminated the Library's authority to hire police officers pending the merger with the Capitol Police. During fiscal 2004, Section 1006 allows the Librarian to select and recommend to the Capitol Police enough qualified officers to replace those which the Library loses through attrition this year, and up to 23 more. Nevertheless, the restriction on the Library's hiring of police officers has in practice resulted in a serious manpower shortage for the Library. The Librarian, Dr. Billington, has warned our committee that if nothing changes, the Library may soon have a police force staffed at two-thirds of its authorized strength. I certainly agree with Dr. Billington that such a posture is unacceptable in these perilous times. Madam Speaker, the Chairman's bill would restore the Library's authority to hire police officers pending the merger. Under the bill, the Librarian must still, to the extent practicable, hire individuals who meet the standards of the U.S. Capitol Police, as determined by the Capitol Police chief. Since it is not clear at this time how soon the merger implementation plan may win the approval of the appropriations and authorizing committees involved, including the Committee on House Administration, restoring the Library's control over its police hiring is the prudent course for us to take. Madam Speaker, the Library of Congress is the nation's preeminent cultural institution. This Congress should take every reasonable step to assure the proper protection of the Library's 4,000 employees, millions of books and artifacts, and its capital facilities, so the Library can continue serving the American people and their Congress. Restoring the Library's ability to hire enough qualified police to support its mission is not only reasonable, but essential. I want to thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] for moving so resolutely to address the problem caused by last year's appropriations bill. This predicament, which the chairman's legislation would correct, could properly become a case study for why the House rules prevent appropriations bills from including legislative provisions, and vest the responsibility for such matters in the authorizing committees. I support and applaud the chairman's determination to ensure that the Library of Congress does not become a weak point in the Capitol's security perimeter. That, Madam Speaker, we simply cannot afford. I trust the Senate will follow the chairman's leadership in this regard. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a letter on this subject from the Librarian of Congress: The Librarian of Congress, July 15, 2004. Hon. Robert Ney, Chairman, Committee on House Administration, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on Tuesday regarding the library's Police force. I truly appreciate your call and concern. The Library has been without an adequate police force for more than a year. The U.S. Capitol Police received funding to hire 23 officers that, under the 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, were to be detailed to the Library of Congress. As a practical matter we cannot get them until we have approval of a memorandum of understanding between the Capitol Police and the Library. The 2004 appropriations bill removed the Library's ability to hire police employees, and an additional ten officers have left our force staffed at only two-thirds of its authorized strength--clearly unacceptable in today's world. I do not see any realistic alternative solution other than a short-term detail of U.S. Capitol Police officers to the Library of Congress police for filling this devastating gap in our police manpower. The memorandum of understanding currently before the House Administration Committee will accomplish that goal and return our police staffing to safe levels. The outcome of any merger of police forces must be decided by the Congress. The Library will work with you and all other stakeholders on the architecture of this solution. But we must have this immediate infusion of police officers. With true appreciation for all that you do for the Library of Congress, I am, Sincerely, James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). As the chairman has pointed out, I am as well pleased to support Senate Joint Resolution 38 which appoints Eli Broad to a 6-year term as citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to fill that vacancy. Senate Joint Resolution 38 passed the Senate on June 9, 2004. An identical bill, House Joint Resolution 99, was introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), who continues to serve on the board of regents with distinction. Mr. Broad has been recommended by the board of regents to replace our former colleague, Barber Conable, as the chairman pointed out. Mr. Conable retired from the House of Representatives in 1985 and passed away on November 20, 2003. I especially, again, want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for his leadership in bringing this nomination to the floor. He has been a regent of the Smithsonian Institution since 1999 and has been diligent in his duties to promote its effective operation, even in the face of his increasing leadership responsibilities here in the House. Madam Speaker, the board of regents, as the chairman has noted, was created in 1846 as a governing body of the Smithsonian Institution and currently has 17 board members. Eli Broad, who has been recommended to become its newest citizen regent, is a distinguished business leader who built two Fortune 500 companies over a 5-decade career. As founder of the Broad Foundation, he has focused on philanthropy, promoting art, education, scientific and biomedical research and civic development. Mr. Broad is well qualified for this post, and his wide array of experience will be an asset to the Smithsonian Institution in the years ahead. I urge approval of this joint resolution and its enactment so Mr. Broad may attend the next meeting of the board of regents currently scheduled for September. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support S.J. Res. 38, to appoint Eli Broad to a six-year term as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to fill a vacancy. S.J. Res. 38 passed the Senate on June 9, 2004. An identical bill, H.R. Res. 99, was introduced by Representative Matsui. Mr. Broad has been recommended by the Board of Regents to replace our late former colleague, Barber Conable of New York, who retired from the House of Representatives in 1985 and passed away on November 20, 2003. After his retirement, Rep. Conable was generous in his continuing contributions to the Congress, including his service on the advisory board created by the History of the House Awareness and Preservation Act, which was enacted in the 106th Congress and which I had sponsored. The bill authorized the writing of a major new volume on the history of our institution by a major scholar in the field, and that work is currently being undertaken by Professor Robert Remini, professor emeritus of history at the University of Illinois--Chicago. Representative Matsui, who introduced the House's companion legislation (H.J. Res. 99), has been a regent of the Smithsonian since 1999 and has been diligent in his duty to promote its effective operation, even in the face of his increasing leadership responsibilities here in the House. He has been an exemplar of broad public service to the American people in a variety of roles. On a more personal note, Bob is closely associated with his work to help the Smithsonian shape the ``More Perfect Union'' exhibit in the National Museum of American History. That exhibit examines the experiences of the Nisei, Americans of Japanese descent, many of whom, like Bob Matsui and his family, were interned during World War II. It is a significant contribution to public awareness of that tragic era. The Board of Regents was created in 1846 as the governing body of the Smithsonian, a unique trust equity created by Congress, and is currently composed of 17 Members, including six Members of Congress, three from each chamber. The positions of the nine citizen regents of the Smithsonian were created to bring a variety of expertise from business, politics, science, education and the arts to complement the other regents and provide additional perspective in the funding and management of the Smithsonian's infrastructure and worldwide network of initiatives. Eli Broad, who has been recommended to become the newest citizen regent, is a distinguished business leader who built two Fortune 500 companies over a five-decade career. He is chairman of AIG Retirement Services Inc., formerly SunAmerica Inc., and founder-chairman of KB Home, formerly Kaufman and Broad Home Corporation. As founder of the Broad Foundation, he is focused on philanthropy, promoting art, education, scientific and biomedical research and civic development. Since 1984, the Broad Art Foundation has loaned portions of its extensive collection to more than 400 museums and university galleries worldwide. Mr. Broad was the founding chairman of the board of trustees of The Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, and is currently a trustee and member of the executive committee of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Since 1999, The Broad Foundation has worked to improve urban public education through better governance, management and labor relations and has committed over $400 million to support innovation in the Nation's largest urban school systems. Mr. Broad has also been active in a variety of civic projects to promote and improve the city of Los Angeles. In June 2003, in a partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University and Whitehead Institute, the Broads announced the founding gift to create The Eli and Edythe Broad Institute for biomedical research. The Institute's aim is to revolutionize clinical medicine through genetic research and to make knowledge freely available to scientists around the world. Mr. Broad is a member of the board of trustees of CalTech. He also served as chairman of the board of trustees of Pitzer College and vice chairman of the board of trustees of the California State University system. Mr. Broad is well-qualified for this post and his wide array of experience will be an asset to the Smithsonian in the years ahead. I urge approval of the joint resolution and its enactment so that Mr. Broad may attend the next meeting of the Board of Regents currently scheduled for September. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I rise today in strong support of the resolution to honor the United States' fourth Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall by issuing 400,000 commemorative coins for the 250th anniversary of his birth. Chief Justice Marshall served in each of the three branches of government and, as the fourth Supreme Court Justice, was one of the most influential forces in building the federal government as we know it today. John Marshall began his service to our country as a member of the Continental Army under George Washington. He fought alongside Washington in battles in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania and endured the harsh winter at Valley Forge. After the war Mr. Marshall became a lawyer and began his political career. He was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates and then to the U.S. Congress as the Representative from the Richmond District in Virginia. His superior understanding of the law earned him the position of Secretary of State under the Adams' Administration. It was from here where he rose to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It was in the Supreme Court that John Marshall made the greatest contributions to American history. Having served for 34 years, Chief Justice Marshall remains the longest serving Chief Justice. He has offered over 500 opinions and presided over such landmark cases as McCulloch v. Maryland and Marbury v. Madison, which established the power of judicial review and was the first decision to declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional. The opinions delivered from the Marshall Court have shaped the basic fundamentals of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. I believe that Chief Justice John Marshall's life-long legacy should be recognized. Therefore, I urge my fellow Members to vote with me in support of H.R. 2768 and honor Justice Marshal as one of the most influential figures in American history.