John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to announce that I am going to vote for H.R. 4755, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2005, for one simple reason: It provides enough resources for the legislative branch agencies to fulfill their responsibilities to the American people during the coming fiscal year. First, I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Kingston and especially Ranking member Moran for all of their hard work on this legislation. Mr. Moran and Tim Aiken of his staff, as well as Tom Forhan of Mr. Obey's staff, worked closely with my staff and me on a number of issues in this bill and this cooperation is much appreciated. In the aggregate, the bill holds legislative branch spending, excluding the Senate items that are not before us, at $2.4 million below the level of new budget authority provided for fiscal 2004. Despite holding at last year's spending level, the Committee on Appropriations has managed to fund the agencies' mandatory increases, including an expected 3.5 percent Federal wage adjustment, and avoid requiring agencies to lay off employees. The Committee was also able to achieve significant savings, year-on-year, because it has benefited from non-recurring items from last year, deferred new capital projects and delayed others. This is appropriate, since our Federal budget deficit has reached mammoth proportions in just 4 years' time. It is hard for me to imagine that when I first came to this House, in January 1999, the Federal budget was in surplus. Today, our Federal deficit has reached massive proportions, eclipsing those considered horrendous in 1990 when the first President Bush was in office. The legislative branch must expect to participate in efforts to reduce that deficit, and this bill strikes an appropriate balance in this regard. While I will support the bill, I want to highlight several matters of interest to me as the ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration, which has authorizing jurisdiction over several accounts funded in the measure, and others. First, I join with the Appropriations Committee in commending the staff of the numerous entities who helped to make last month's state funeral for President Reagan an occasion of which the entire legislative branch could be proud. Without the tireless efforts of countless individuals in the office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Police, the Government Printing Office, the Capitol Guide Service, the Attending Physician's Office, as well as the House and Senate leadership, committees, and others, Americans could not have paid proper respects to their former President. On behalf of my constituents in Connecticut, I wish to thank all of the dedicated legislative branch employees who made that funeral possible. I also thank the Appropriations Committee for its report language encouraging legislative agencies with respect to their employees' use of the transit-subsidy program. Wherever we can encourage Federal employees in the Washington area, and elsewhere, to use mass transit, we can not only clean the air, reduce traffic congestion, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I believe we can make our employees more productive. The program works here in the House and elsewhere, and I am pleased the Appropriations Committee expressed its continuing support. At total funding of $1.1 billion, including the House office buildings, the bill provides sufficient funds for the people's House. I am delighted that the Appropriations Committee has found $3 million to establish a new in-house fitness facility for staff, made a reality through the efforts of the gentlemen from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and Virginia (Mr. Moran), both of whom are devoted to the health and welfare of all our dedicated employees. I am also pleased that the Committee eliminated the prohibition on exploring options for developing a supplemental vision and dental benefit for Members and employees. Many House staff have expressed interest in the availability of such benefits, for which they would pay. I appreciate the work of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who recently discovered that the chief administrative officer was improperly making prepayments for certain Web-related services, Federal law generally prohibits pre-payments for Federal services, and the CAO has moved swiftly to address the problem in his Finance Office. Finally, I hope the sense-of-the-House language included by the Committee at the behest of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), encouraging the use of hybrid and alternative-fueled vehicles wherever possible, will indeed spur the use of these cutting-edge technologies so important to our Nation's future. This bill provides adequate funds for the Capitol Police for the coming year, and eliminates funding for its new mounted unit. Mounted patrols may make sense for the U.S. Park Police, which must operate in the many thousands of forested acres of Rock Creek Park in northwest Washington. But in my judgment, horses, though perhaps harkening back to the ``Charge of the Light Brigade,'' make little sense in the comparatively small, confined, clean and manicured urban park that is the Capitol grounds, given the animals' unavoidable by-products. I also agree with the Committee, which included language prohibiting the study or construction of a fence around the Capitol grounds at this time. The people's House must not, even symbolically, erect a barrier between itself and the people we represent. I am glad this bill authorizes the Office of Compliance to institute a student-loan repayment program. Similar programs, including those established recently in the House and Senate, are designed to help agencies attract and retain qualified employees, and the Compliance Office's needs for talented staff are no different. The Library of Congress will receive adequate funding overall under the bill, enabling it to continue fulfilling its important missions. I appreciate the Committee's decision to provide level funding of $14.8 million for the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, VA. I hope the relevant committees will take whatever action may be required in order to reauthorize the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation, so this important work can continue unabated. The pending bill does not include the $500,000 provided for these activities last year, because the authorizations have expired. There is ample time to reauthorize it before this bill becomes law. I am pleased that the Committee also provided adequate funding for the coming year for the Government Printing Office, which has faced financial trouble. Our House Administration Committee convened an oversight hearing on April 28. We heard from the new Public Printer, Bruce James, who has exciting ideas for how GPO, which has made great strides in the last decade, can continue moving forward in the electronic age. Labor witnesses expressed concerns about Mr. James's plans, and about spending at the agency, which must run like a business and generally earn its keep. I hope the differing views expressed by Mr. James and labor at our hearing, and thereafter, reflect a misunderstanding of each other's goals for the agency in these challenging times. Finally, the Appropriations Committee report includes several far- reaching assignments for the General Accounting Office, directing that agency to examine every legislative branch agency in search of savings and efficiencies, including by ``outsourcing'' of agency functions where appropriate. While I am willing to consider every reasonable way to save the public money in these times of massive Federal budget deficits caused largely by the policies of the present Administration, ``outsourcing'' is hardly reasonable if the term means transferring the performing of inherently governmental functions overseas. I trust the Committee does not mean to suggest, for example, that government printing should be performed overseas. I thank the Appropriations Committee for its work, and look forward to working with the Committee on these and other matters in the months remaining in this session.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

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

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would just close by saying that this accounts for more than 17 percent of our Nation's GDP, it provides for 71 percent of our exports, and funds 67 percent of our Nation's R&D investments. That is what we are talking about when we are addressing this issue of manufacturing. Roosevelt said it best about this administration, ``They are frozen in the ice of their own indifference,'' indifference towards working people and indifference towards the small manufacturers of this country.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in thanking both the ranking member and the distinguished chairs for the hard work which has been put forward on this bill. I just think we need an administration worthy of their ideas. As we look at this particular bill, I want to go into the genesis of this thought. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) has pointed out in his opening remarks, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) initially included this in his approach to the administration. It is strongly needed. At a Chamber of Commerce meeting in my district between the communities of Bristol, Berlin and Southington, they talked at great length. In fact, if I closed my eyes, I was astonished, it seemed like I was at an AFL-CIO meeting, and yet they were talking about the concerns that small manufacturers have today and the need to have a strong voice within the Department of Commerce. They wondered out loud how is it in this great country of ours we can have a Department of Agriculture and not have a department of manufacturing, and not have at least an under secretary who is going to speak out on their behalf. Candidly, they would say to me after the meeting, when we first saw labor being outsourced, when we first saw what was happening to labor, we kind of looked the other way, never thinking we would be next. Now we know it is happening to us, and now we need to have a strong voice in Congress and the administration. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said before he hoped what we could achieve is something in the area of benign neglect. Would it be it was just benign neglect. What we have in this case is outright negligence on the part of Congress by not dealing with these issues; and if I dare say, plain indifference on the part of this administration to the problems that individuals are facing. It is because of that indifference, indifference to the labor force, indifference to the small manufacturers, indifference to the working people and the hard work which has been put forth on behalf of these individuals and the loss of jobs in this country that we put forward this amendment. This amendment simply states very clearly to create an under secretary within the Department of Commerce so we can refocus once begin the great energies and harness the great engine of industry here in this country. In doing so, we did so within existing resources. We did so knowing that we did not want to have another assistant to the assistant to the assistant and mix that with service sector industries. We wanted what the manufacturers wanted, an under secretary who would focus on the area of technology. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

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

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his comments. I see that our time has expired and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) has arrived.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for the opportunity to speak for 5 minutes. Two of our esteemed colleagues are en route here, and I would like to take this 5 minutes to further thank the Members who have been involved in the Iraq Watch. I say so from the bottom of my heart because I think at the end of the day there has been a great discussion that has been going on within this body, but unfortunately, in so many respects, it has not fully reached the American people, or it has in drips and drabs; and I commend our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were down here in the previous hour. I think, as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has suggested, we need to have that kind of frank discussion and debate that all too often really does not take place on this floor. It is an important dialogue that the American public needs to hear. I believe in the final analysis it is not the shock and awe of our military and the strength that it has that determines America's greatness, but rather, the strength of our ideas and our ability to express those ideas not only here on the floor but for citizens who are out there listening, for them to partake and ultimately put in their own words, with their own voice, from their own heart and head, their feelings about these issues. So often I go back to my district and so many of them will ask why is no one speaking out about these issues, and not understanding the workings of the House of Representatives and not understanding that so many times meetings are actually going on in committees that do not happen to make it on to C-SPAN, but also wondering where the voice and conscience of the country is, and the Iraq Watch has done an outstanding job in terms of making sure that there has been this opportunity to reach out to the American public and inform them in a nonpartisan way about these issues and raise these questions that are so important for the American people to digest, especially as we face upcoming elections that will determine the fate and course of the Nation. If we consider that in the previous election, less than 50 percent of the American people voted and understanding that in the aftermath of September 11 there has been a great outpouring of patriotism and citizenship, and what better way to express that than by going out and voting and immersing and involving one's self in the issues of the day, it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to make sure that we inform and educate the general public; but it is equally responsible that the public have an opportunity to express their concerns.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. There is an important article that was written in Harper's Magazine by David Armstrong back just before the outbreak of the war. The title of the article was ``Dick Cheney's Song for America.'' In there he goes back and talks about the concept for this plan being hatched by the then-Secretary of Defense and the two Under Secretaries which at the time were Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. The goal was to be the lone force in the Middle East. The plan that was put forward was a bold one: To go forward and overtake Baghdad. It was rejected at the time. It was rejected by Colin Powell. It was rejected by Bush the elder. It was rejected by the most outspoken people against this war back in 2002 in this invasion and that was Jim Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Eagleburger. So as the gentleman said at the beginning, this is not a partisan effort. This is an understanding of the wrong turn the Nation has taken with respect to foreign policy. Again, I commend the members of the Iraq Watch for their vigilance.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii, and most of all I want to thank the esteemed Members who have participated week in and week out in the Iraqi Watch. I think you do a service to the country. As the gentleman from Massachusetts was saying, our troops have performed extraordinary under unbelievable circumstances. I, like many of you, have traveled to the Middle East three times, twice to Baghdad in the last 9 months. I can recall vividly when Tommy Franks was before our committee and I asked him about the policies of preemption and unilateralism and how he felt about that. The general paused and looked at me and said, ``Well, Congressman, that is above my pay grade.'' He says, ``But we have long learned in my service to the country that we are able to distinguish between those who wave the flag in Washington and those who have to salute it and follow orders.'' As the Iraqi Watch has done throughout this, commending our troops for their valiant effort, but as our leader Nancy Pelosi says, our troops in many respects need policies that are worthy of our sacrifice. It is clear to me that the Pentagon, the civilian Pentagon's ideological reach has exceeded our military grasp and has, as has been pointed out here this evening, has placed our men and women in harm's way. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), a valued colleague of ours, in describing the ongoing turf battle between the Department of Defense and the Department of State, concludes that there were plans that were separately conceived, poorly coordinated, based on false assumptions, poor intelligence and outright lies from Ahmed Chalabi, that have placed our men and women in the situation that we find ourselves today. Because of your nightly efforts, and I assure you, people in my State of Connecticut and throughout my district, the First Congressional District in Hartford, have heard. I have conducted several forums back in my district, and I find them incredibly informative in the sense that people want to come out and speak out about this issue, because, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has pointed out, this is not a partisan issue. This is about the soul of the country and who we are and what direction we plan to go. And it is important, as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) said earlier this evening, that we have this open dialogue and debate, a real dialogue with the American people, about our future, about our brave men and women, and how we intend to proceed now that we find ourselves in this quagmire called Iraq, moving forward. Yes, it can be acknowledged that it was a good thing to be rid of Saddam Hussein. But in traveling to the Middle East and talking to Ambassador Jordan in Saudi Arabia a year before the outbreak of the war, he warned prophetically that if we unilaterally and preemptively strike Saddam Hussein, that what we will do is unwittingly, unwittingly accomplish what Osama bin Laden failed to do and create a united Islamic jihad against the United States. We find that our brave men and women now who are over in Iraq are faced with people pouring over the borders answering the call to jihad. The United States has to proceed in a manner, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) pointed out, that allows us to stand up, in as timely a fashion as we possibly can, the Iraqi Army, civil defense, and police. But as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) also points out, if the Iraqi people do not embrace democracy as much as we want them to, it is up to them ultimately to embrace this democracy. And if our presence there only inhibits that, then there has to be an ongoing examination and dialogue of an appropriate exit strategy for us that is strategic in its thinking. Tactically, the United States and our men and women who wear the uniform have performed brilliantly, but we have not strategically had a plan that will allow this government to stand up the way all of us want to see it happen.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, as the Ranking Minority Member of the House Administration Committee, which has legislative and oversight jurisdiction over the Smithsonian Institution, I rise today to note that the Appropriations Committee has approved $628 million for the Smithsonian in Fiscal Year 2005. This represents an increase of $23 million over Fiscal Year 2004 and a cut of $8.2 million from the Administration's FY 2005 request. The cut was not unexpected given the current budget deficit and the chaos surrounding the Congressional budget process in the absence of a concurrent resolution on the budget for FY 2005. The $8.2 million cut came from a variety of sources, not enough to cause significant damage to any vital program or function this year, and some of the reductions can be made up for in the future. I especially hope that additional funds can be found next year for improving the facilities and maintenance at the National Zoo, which has been the subject of major controversy in hearings before the House Administration Committee during this Congress, and which will likely be addressed by the National Academy of Sciences when it issues its final report, requested by our Committee, on the operation of the Zoo later this summer. The Smithsonian Institution has a maintenance backlog of $1.5 billion throughout all of its facilities. When some structures are in a state of such disrepair that they pose a danger to the public and to the staff, as well as, in the case of the National Zoo, to the animals; we have to be prepared to act eventually to address the big picture. I hope that the time will come sooner rather than later for us to provide this critical funding for the Zoo. Although I am pleased that this bill provides the minimum amount of funding for the Smithsonian, I hope that in the future we can do more to support the museums which benefit so many of our citizens and the critical scientific research the Smithsonian conducts which is so important to our understanding of ourselves, our planet, and our universe.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I join with the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) in support of this motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution to authorize the use of the Capitol Rotunda to honor President Reagan and I would urge all Members to do likewise. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad occasion for our country. Last Saturday, June 5, 2004, Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, departed this life, and now belongs to the ages. Since I was first elected to this House in 1998, I did not have the privilege of serving with President Reagan. But I certainly wish I had known him. President Reagan's engaging smile, his reassured demeanor, and his boundless optimism about America, her people and her future, were literally contagious. And the contagion surely did spread, Mr. Speaker. The overwhelming grief since President Reagan's death reflects the American people's respect for the man, and their gratitude for what he accomplished for present and future generations. While he may now be gone, he will never be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, as the Congress and the nation mourn our 40th President in the Capitol Rotunda, we might recall the many memorable moments that occurred under this great Dome during his 8 years in office. Indeed a harbinger of things to come, President Reagan asked that his inauguration take place for the first time on the West Front of the Capitol, so he could look out across the Mall toward the west. Not only did this vista accommodate more people attending the ceremony in person, it symbolically shifted the ceremony's focus toward the vast reaches of the country, where most Americans live. Of course, President Reagan delivered all of his State of the Union messages, and addressed other joint sessions of Congress, from right here in the House Chamber. Once, after Congress had wrapped an entire year's worth of appropriations bills into one mammoth measure, he dramatically plopped a huge stack of paper--not even printed, but instead, Xeroxed copies--onto the desk with a ``thud.'' He implored lawmakers never to repeat the practice. Unfortunately, it has done so repeatedly in the years since that speech. It was a bad practice in President Reagan's time, and it is a bad practice today. President Reagan's second inaugural took place in the Rotunda, driven inside by the cold winter of 1985. While some television viewers might have been disappointed at the cancellation of the outdoor inaugural and the accompanying parade, I am sure many parents of high-school students scheduled to march in the festivities were relieved. In another thoughtful gesture, the President paused during his inaugural address to note the passing of a Democratic Representative, Gillis Long of Louisiana, who had died hours before. Throughout his life and career, President Reagan was always considerate of others. Perhaps this attribute reflected the Midwestern values of his native Illinois, and the fact that Ronald Reagan came from humble beginnings. Born in 1911 in Tampico, Illinois, Reagan's family soon moved to the town of Dixon, where he was active in swimming and other sports, drama, and the student government at the local high school. In 1932, the future President graduated from Eureka College, with a degree in economics and sociology. Popular among his peers and clearly blessed with a radio announcer's voice, after graduation Reagan embarked on a radio career. A journey to Los Angeles to cover a sporting event led to a Hollywood screen test, which in turn led to a contract at Warner Brothers studios. Reagan made more than 50 movies, including ``Knute Rockne: All- American,'' from which he earned his lifelong nickname for playing the famous Notre Dame athlete George Gipp. In the last reel of the film, legendary Notre Dame football coach Knute Rockne inspired his 1928 team, who was losing a game to Army, by telling them George Gipp's dying remarks, which were: Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, tell them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper. I don't know where I'll be then, Rock, but I'll know about it, and I'll be happy. Needless to say, the inspired Fighting Irish went on to win the game despite their numerous injuries and underdog status. Today, millions remember Reagan as ``the Gipper,'' and far fewer remember George Gipp. Reagan became even better known in the 1950s by working in television, appearing on such early programs as ``Death Valley Days'' and the ``General Electric Theater.'' Reagan lived the rest of his life in California, where in the 1960s, he became active in politics. Though a Democrat, even becoming president of the Screen Actors' Guild, he supported Richard Nixon in 1960 and Barry Goldwater in 1964. In 1966, as a Republican, Reagan won the first of two terms as governor of California. In the tumultuous year of 1968, Governor Reagan briefly sought the Republican presidential nomination, but lost to his fellow Californian, Richard Nixon. In 1976, the Governor challenged President Gerald Ford for the GOP presidential nomination, and nearly won it at the Kansas City convention. In 1980, he won the nomination and the election, where he received nearly 51% of the popular vote and carried 45 states. Of course, we were all stunned on March 30, 1981, when an assassin shot the President and several others outside the Washington Hilton. Little did we know at the time how close the President came to dying of his wounds. The President went on to survive not only his 1981 gunshot wound, but also, in 1985, a bout with colon cancer. President Reagan was, and his memory is, beloved in this town. He readily agreed with House Speaker Tip O'Neill's admonition, at an early meeting, that ``after 6 o'clock, we're all friends.'' President Reagan worked to make friends not only with Speaker O'Neill, with whom he often disagreed on policy matters, but with countless others in Congress and around the country. The President's willingness to reach across the aisle and work in a constructive way, refusing to take politics personally, was a hallmark of his approach to governing. I wish others would follow his example in today's poisonous political environment in this city. In 1984, President Reagan handily won re-election with over 58% of the popular vote carrying 49 states. By the day he left office in January 1989, he was, despite massive budget deficits and the Iran- Contra arms-for-hostages scandal, one of our most beloved presidents. Mr. Speaker, the solemn state occasion authorized in this resolution will provide an official opportunity for the American people to mourn our former a head of state. This ceremony will be rich in history, and include the use of the Lincoln catafalque, originally built for the state funeral of our 16th President in 1865. This observance will enable Americans, through the Congress and others able to attend, to bid an official, fond farewell to President Reagan for his long career and many contributions to the rich fabric of our nation. I am honored to play a role in these proceedings in my position as Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on House Administration and to represent the many residents of Connecticut who revere President Reagan and his memory. In their behalf, and mine, I offer Mrs. Reagan and the entire Reagan family the condolences and the thanks of a grateful nation for the President's service. I would like to close by joining our Committee on House Administration's Vice Chairman in urging our colleagues to pass this resolution and win one last victory for the Gipper.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the efforts of our colleague Representative Brian Baird to secure House consideration of the issue of amending the Constitution of the United States to ensure the continuity of Congress. I had hoped for hearings on this critical issue in the Judiciary Committee, followed by ``regular order'', and I had hoped for consideration of a number of Constitutional amendments sponsored by Members of the House, including H.J. Res. 89, which I introduced. One subcommittee hearing conducted 2 years ago does not really do this subject justice. Many Members were looking for an opportunity to use the normal legislative process to develop and perfect their proposals regarding the continuity of the House, relying on the collective wisdom of the Members, and input from constituents. Such a discussion could have helped to educate both Members and the public on the importance of a Constitutional amendment. But because the truncated process foreclosed on that option, I did not submit my joint resolution to the Rules Committee. Should the opportunity arise, I will vote to recommit this joint resolution to the Judiciary Committee, in the hope that there can be an open discussion, and broad debate on the matter. And I will vote for Rep. Baird's amendment, H.J. Res. 83, on final passage, in the hope that all Members who support the concept of a Constitutional amendment, will similarly express themselves on the worthiness of that objective, even though we may differ about which amendment would best serve this Nation. For I think this issue will arise again, and perhaps there will be an opportunity in the next Congress to more fully discuss and debate the issue. Sen. Cornyn's proposed Constitutional amendment is making its way through the Senate, so the issue is bound to arise again in some form. While I believe the need for a Constitutional amendment is self- evident, I understand other Member's reservations about tinkering with the Constitution. Nonetheless, I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the question of what the Legislative Branch--not just the House-- could constitutionally do in the weeks or months following an attack, if deaths and incapacitation left either chamber bereft of a quorum, incapable of legislating, or so unrepresentative as to deligitimize any actions it might take. H.R. 2844, the ``Continuity of Representation Act'', which passed in April, and which called for special elections within 45 days after a certain number of vacancies occurred in the House, did not address that question. I think we need to be realistic about the consequences of a non-functional Legislative Branch at what is likely to be the most critical juncture in our Nation's history. And I would like to put to rest the notion that the continuity of Congress debate is in any way partisan. There is no partisan content whatsoever to this issue. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are advantaged or disadvantaged by any of the ideas we are discussing. The vote on H.R. 2844 should have put that notion to rest, when a majority of Democrats voted for the bill, joining all but a handful of Republicans. Members will no doubt recall that in the days and weeks following September 11, 2001, the House passed numerous pieces of vital legislation, which allowed the government to function both in war, and in furtherance of domestic policy goals. We did not hand out a ``closed for business--trust the Executive'' sign. We exercised the checks and balances essential to a stable and mature democracy, and we got the job of legislating done in record time. In the absence of a Constitutional amendment, there is the sad prospect that the National could be governed by either martial law, or by other extra-Constitutional actions by the Executive, of potentially dubious legal status. This would be happening at the most critical time in the Nation's history, since that would be the only means left to run the government without a functioning Legislative Branch. And that would trample upon one of the core principles of the Framers of our Constitution--our system of checks and balances. The Framers feared a powerful executive. And in the early days of our Republic, the office of President was fairly weak. However it has grown stronger over time, as the institutions of government have evolved, and as the Nation's needs have changed. The essential roles of Congress includes restraining the Executive, and that role remains paramount in maintaining our democracy today. We cannot predict how the Executive, claiming potentially dictatorial powers, will operate in the absence of a functioning Legislative Branch, or whether such actions will withstand legal challenge. But we do know how to prevent this situation from ever occurring. We need only to remove our heads from the sand, and take the proper steps to legally address the issue under the Constitution. While it is essential that we protect the ``people's House'' by populating it with popularly elected representatives from the 50 states, it is also essential that we protect the ``people's interests'' by taking action to prevent the Legislative Branch from ever being shut down for weeks and months following a catastrophic event. I want to take a moment to discuss my own proposal, which I believe is less cumbersome and more straightforward than some of the other concepts. It would provide for the appointment of temporary Members of the House by state legislatures or, in some instances, by state governors, to serve pending the filling of vacancies through special elections. I think this procedure would be less cumbersome than using lists of potential successors which Members would have to create each and every time they ran for office. In the next Congress, I might consider leaving the appointment power to governors alone. My amendment would require that all temporary replacements be from the same political party as the Members they succeeded, and that their tenure cease as soon as a popularly elected successor presents credentials to the House. I look forward to future hearings to debate that aspect of the proposal, since issues have been raised as to how someone's party affiliation can be determined in some states. The amendment would also bar the temporary replacements from seeking office in the next election for the House, in order to ensure that they focus on representing their new constituencies, and coping with the emergency, rather than creating fund-raising committees and filming television commercials. The subject is also deserving of significant debate, since I know some have argued that temporary replacements should have the right to present themselves to the public for election in our democratic system. I believe, however, that during a crisis following a potential attack, it is more important to keep the government running, and there is nothing in my amendment which would bar these temporary replacements from running at a future time, after they have finished discharging the responsibilities of the office to which they were appointed. My proposed Constitutional amendment also addresses the complex subject of incapacity, by giving Congress the power, by law, to address it. The issue is better suited to examination in a law-making, or rule- making process, rather than to being specified in detail in the Constitution. As ranking member of the House Administration's Committee, which has jurisdiction over the incapacity question, I hope to press for Committee debate on the subject. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the Record, the text of H.J. Res. 89, and a section-by-section summary of the resolution, and yield back the balance of my time. H.J. Res. 89 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: ``Article -- ``Section 1. A smaller number than the majority of the House may resolve that a vacancy exists in the majority of the number of seats of the House of Representatives provided by law. ``Section 2. After the adoption of a resolution under section 1, the legislature of any State in which a vacancy in the membership of the House of Representatives exists shall convene a special session to appoint an individual to fill the vacancy. ``Section 3. If the legislature of a State does not convene a special session under section 2 during the 5-calendar day period which begins on the day after the date the House adopts the resolution described in section 1, or if the legislature convenes a special session during such period but does not appoint an individual to fill a vacancy in a seat during the 3-calendar day period which begins on the date the legislature convenes the special session, the chief executive of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy. ``Section 4. An individual appointed under this article shall meet the qualifications for service as a Member of the House of Representatives, and shall serve as a Member until an election is held to fill the original vacancy. The State shall provide for such an election at such time and in accordance with such procedures as may be provided by law, except that the individual appointed under this article may not be a candidate in the next election for the House. An individual appointed under this article shall be a member of the same political party as the Member of the House who previously held the seat. ``Section 5. The procedures and requirements described in sections 2 through 4 shall apply only with respect to a vacancy existing as of the date of the adoption of the resolution described in section 1 or a vacancy first occurring during the 20-calendar day period which begins on such date. In the case of a vacancy first occurring during such 20-calendar day period, section 3 shall apply as if the reference to the date on which the House adopts the resolution described in section 1 were a reference to the date on which the vacancy first occurs. ``Section 6. For purposes of carrying out the provisions of this article, Congress shall have the power by law to specify circumstances constituting when a vacancy happens in the Representation from any State in the House of Representatives, and to address the incapacity of Members of the House of Representatives. ``Section 7. Congress shall have power to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.''. Summary of House Joint Resolution 89, a Constitutional Amendment Introduced by Representative John B. Larson To Allow Temporary Appointments To Fill Vacancies in the House of Representatives Section 1. A smaller number than a majority of the House may resolve that a vacancy exists in the majority of the number of seats in the House provided by law, triggering the temporary appointment provisions. Section 2. The legislature of any state in which House vacancies exist shall then convene a special session to appoint persons to temporarily fill the vacancies. Section 3. If the state legislature does not convene within five calendar days after passage of the House resolution, or if the legislature does not complete selection of temporary House Members within a period of three calendar days beginning on the date of convening, the governor is required to make the appointments. Section 4. Members serving temporarily in the House by appointment must meet the constitutional requirements for service in the House, and will exercise the full powers of membership until the vacancies are filled by election as provided by law. A temporary Member may not be a candidate in the succeeding election and must be of the same political party as the Member who previously held the seat. Section 5. The temporary appointment authority applies to vacancies which exist at the time of adoption of the resolution by the House, or to any additional vacancies which occur within 20 days thereafter. If vacancies occur within this 20-day period, the time limits relating to action by the state legislatures and governors begin again with respect to those House seats. Section 6. For the purposes of this article, Congress shall have the power by law to specify circumstances constituting when a vacancy happens in the House, and to address the incapacity of Members of the House. Section 7. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article through appropriate legislation. The article would become part of the Constitution if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states within seven years of the date of its submission to them.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary dedication of a young woman from West Hartford, Micaela Connery, who has been awarded the 2004 Prudential Spirit of the Community Award. This award program was created five years ago and is part of a broad initiative by Prudential to encourage young people to become involved in community service. This year's honorees received national recognition, a $1,000 cash award, and an engraved silver medallion. Among the 20,000 applicants, Micaela is one of only 104 students who received the Prudential Spirit of the Community Award for her acts of volunteerism. As a sophomore at Conard High School, Micaela was inspired by her cousin with special needs and single-handedly created a program that showcases the talents of students with and without special needs in theatrical performances. The first production of Micaela's Unified Theater, consisting of 20 students, half with special needs and half without, raised over $500 in donations. The success of Micaela's hard work has spread throughout Connecticut and lead to the formation of Unified Theater, Inc. which provides start-up assistance to other schools. Micaela demonstrates the highest level of compassion, dedication and achievement among the youth today. As a young adult, she already understands the positive nature of community as she describes through her work in the program, ``every member is an equal. Every member works together in equal collaboration. What makes Unified Theater different is that we see ability where others see disability.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in thanking and honoring Miss Micaela Connery for her inspiration and dedication to the West Hartford Community.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. I'd like to thank Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, and my Subcommittee leaders Chairman Weldon and Ranking Member Abercrombie and Chairman Hefley and Ranking Member Ortiz for all their hard work and efforts to put together a great and bipartisan bill. The bill we are taking up on the floor today contains a number of very important provisions beyond its routine function of providing for the yearly defense budget. Specifically, Section 304 includes language that provides authority to the Secretary of Defense to reimburse a member of the Armed Forces for the cost of protective body armor purchased between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2003 by the member, or by another person on behalf of the member, for use by the member while deployed in connection with Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom if the member was so deployed and was not issued protective body armor before the member became engaged in operations or situations described in 37USC310(a)(2), regarding ``Special pay: duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger''. This language is a direct result of both the effort and sacrifice of my constituent Pene Palifka of East Hartford, whose son, Bill, was serving in the Army National Guard's 248th Engineer Company in Iraq. On Monday night, October 13, 2003, I held a public forum about the FY04 Iraq supplemental appropriation request in my District where I first met Pene Palifka and heard her story. When her son Bill was deployed, he was deployed without the Army's new Interceptor body armor, because as it had been reported and as I heard directly from soldiers serving in Iraq when I visited there in August 2003, there was a shortage of roughly 40,000 of these vests at that time. Out of concern for her son's safety, she came forward and provided the money herself, about $1,100, to purchase body armor for her son. Many other families and soldiers have had to do the same, and that is simply wrong. Congress appropriated funding in the FY03 Emergency Wartime Supplemental that was signed into law in April 2003 to procure and distribute additional vests. But, as became evident by the time the Iraq Supplemental Appropriation bill was before Congress last October, there were various manufacturing and procurement issues preventing these vests from making it to the front, and this shortage continued to exist through the early part of this year, prompting many soldiers or their families to take matters into their own hands. While the Congress and the Department of Defense have worked to address these shortfalls since then, this bill fulfills the government's responsibility to reimburse the people who stepped in and spent money out of their own pocket to equip the soldiers serving in the Global War on Terrorism with equipment that Congress intended the Department of Defense to provide. The next issue I would like to point out and commend our Committee leaders for is working with all of us to find the resources to make eliminating the so-called ``widows tax'' possible. This bill eliminates the social security offset under the SBP by increasing the annuities paid to survivors of military retirees who are 62 or older from 35 percent of retired pay to 55 percent by March 2008. The surviving spouses of our military servicemen and women deserve their full benefits. Finally, this bill includes a 2-year BRAC delay, an important pause at a time when we must all reassess the priorities of the military and its requirements to provide for the national security of this country in a post 9/11 environment.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, next Monday the Post Office on Weston Street in Hartford, CT will be renamed in honor of one of Connecticut's most dedicated public servants, Barbara Kennelly. This gesture is a small but lasting tribute to an extraordinary woman who has fully devoted herself to the cause of public service for her city, her state, and her nation. Considering her roots, Barbara's twenty three years of service to Connecticut should come as no surprise. Born Barbara Ann Bailey, she grew up in one of Connecticut's most well-known and influential families. Her father, John Bailey, was chairman of the state Democratic Party, and later served as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Her mother was active in democratic state politics and her brother served as the chief state attorney for Connecticut. She grew up surrounded by those who dedicated their lives to public service, and Barbara learned well from their example. Following in her family's footsteps, Barbara was elected to the Hartford City Council in 1975. After serving four years on the council, Barbara was elected Secretary of the State of Connecticut. Continuing her service on behalf of the people of her beloved state, she was elected to Congress in a special election in 1982. On her arrival in Washington, Barbara quickly rose through the ranks and earned the respect of members from both sides of the aisle. Her seventeen-year record in the House clearly reflects her strong commitment to the needs of working families in Connecticut and the nation. She fought hard for legislation to enforce child support collection, provide tax credits to the working poor and extend health care coverage to uninsured children. While known for her willingness to compromise, she never forgot the needs of the people she represented. During her time in Congress, Barbara broke the ground that finally brought women into the House leadership. Clearly demonstrating a capacity for pragmatic and dynamic leadership, Barbara was appointed as the third woman in history to serve on the House Ways and Means Committee and the first woman to chair a subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee. In August 1991, Barbara served as Chief Deputy Majority Whip under Speaker Tom Foley, a post in which she served until her election as Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus in 1994. With her historic ascension to this post, her colleagues made Barbara the chamber's fourth highest-ranking member, and the first and only woman at that time in the elected leadership. Again heeding the call to serve the people of Connecticut, Barbara accepted the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1998. Although her run for the governorship was unsuccessful, Barbara was not only to simply fade away into the background. Reflecting her service as Ranking Democrat on the Social Security subcommittee, President Clinton appointed her Associate Commissioner of the Social Security Administration in 1999. Today, she works tirelessly on behalf of our nation's seniors as President of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I am truly honored to present the district she so ably served for seventeen years. While Barbara's legacy is so much larger than the bricks and mortar of a post office, it is a lasting tribute to a woman who dedicated her life in service of the people of Connecticut for nearly a quarter of a century. Barbara's is a presence sorely missed in this chamber, and I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the legacy and ongoing service of this truly extraordinary public servant.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. I would like to associate myself with his remarks and those of my colleague from the Second Congressional District in Connecticut. We are indeed so proud in Connecticut; in fact, you could say that we are in a state of euphoria with the outstanding achievement by the men's and women's basketball teams. Randy Smith, the great sports journalist for the Journal Inquirer in Connecticut and perhaps one of the greatest sportswriters in this country, remarked, ``The poets contend that April is the cruelest of months, but the poets never met Diana Taurasi or Emeka Okafor or the UConn Huskies.'' What an extraordinary time this was. What exemplary teams, the kids that participated and played on those teams, their coaches and, of course, the great fans of Connecticut. Connecticut was able to overcome in so many respects what is commonly referred to as a curse at the start of a season when they were both named preseason to be the number one teams in men's and women's basketball respectively. So to have that burden placed on you and that expectation at the outset of a season is quite a challenge. You immediately become the target of what in collegiate sports has become the most competitive of our sports, basketball. As was noted by the gentleman from Ohio, when you look at March Madness and see how it reverberates in this Chamber and throughout the country, you get to understand and appreciate the enormous task that these kids faced and their coaches in their fulfillment of a dream that was extraordinary. I further would like to acknowledge the teams that they played against as well. The majesty that we have come to know as collegiate athletics is such that the victories that you achieved are enhanced by the competition that you play along the way. In the Final Four, both Minnesota and Tennessee distinguished themselves as outstanding teams in that tournament on their way to the women's Final Four, two teams that Connecticut was able to defeat. By defeating them, because of the competition and because of the great play and the heart of both of those teams makes the Connecticut victory even greater. The same is true in the men's game, with victories over both Duke, an extraordinary program in history and college basketball, and Georgia Tech. Both teams played extraordinarily throughout the tournament. Again, Connecticut's victory is only that much greater by the competition that it faced and the wins they were able to achieve during those games. I would like to also point out that the great poet, Arthur O'Shaughnessy, used to say, ``For each age there are dreams that are fading and dreams that are coming to birth.'' The dream is now fading as we had a huge parade in Connecticut with more than 350,000 people pouring out to see our victorious champions, but it is also one that is coming to birth as child after child, as I observed the parade, could hear them cry out and point out to their mothers and fathers, there's Diana Taurasi, there's Emeka Okafor, there's Ben Gordon, there's Coach Auriemma, there's Coach Calhoun. They become full of the same kind of dreams that these coaches and athletes were able to execute on the courts. And we think, quite frankly, without putting undue pressure on them that they will be able to continue to perform at the highest of levels. I especially want to acknowledge two people who know more about the ups and downs of this team, the ins and outs of Connecticut basketball, who, in fact, live it daily, and I guess one could say nightly as well. They often do not get the credit that they deserve and perhaps are not mentioned as frequently as they should be as well, but we can see them nightly in the stands watching and observing; and with each steal, with each turnover, with each made basket and blocked shot, their aspirations and those for the team that they root for go up and down with the great fans of Connecticut. But they are also notable for what they do beyond the basketball court and their countless contributions to charitable organizations, and I am referring, of course, to the spouses, Pat Calhoun and Kathy Auriemma, and I want to especially salute them.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Connecticut Men's and Women's basketball teams for this historic double championship wins in the 2004 NCAA Tournament. Today, thanks to men and women of the Huskies, Connecticut is a state of champions. Earlier this month, the nation learned what the people of Connecticut knew long ago: the skill and sportmanship of the UConn Huskies is the stuff of legends. After the ups and downs of the regular season, UConn went on to dominate the NCAA tournament and emerged as the first school to win both the men's and women's tournaments in the same season. On April 6, 2004, the Husky men brought home their second national title with an 83-72 win over the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets. The next night, the Lady Huskies went on to beat the Lady Vols of the University of Tennessee, 70-61, fulfilling yet another historic achievement by being the second team to capture three consecutive national titles. This has been an unprecedented year for the Huskies, and Jim Calhoun, Geno Auriemma, Chris Dailey, Tom Moore, George Blaney, Clyde Vaughan, Andre LaFleur, Tonya Cardoza, Jamelle Elliot, Jack Eisenmann, and the entire UConn basketball program should be commended for their unmatched leadership and pursuit of excellence on and off the basketball court. Once again this year, the men and women of the Huskies have proven themselves to be the best players in the country. Players like Emeka Okafor and Diana Taurasi personify the skill, hard work and dedication it takes to succeed. I know that I join many UConn fans when I say that I look forward to watching Diana play for the Phoenix Mercury, and wish Emeka and Ben Gordon luck in the NBA draft this summer. The men and women of the UConn Huskies have long been a source of pride for the State of Connecticut. Their success is a reflection of the very best qualities of our student athletes, and will no doubt inspire young boys and girls in our state and across the country to achieve their goals. Not only do the huskies have the best players in the country, they have the best and most dedicated fans. For proof of this, one needs to look no further than the crowd of 300,000 excited UConn fans that lined the streets of Hartford for the Husky victory parade this past Sunday. The size of the crowd, roughly three times the city's own population, clearly demonstrates that the Huskies have a special place in the hearts and minds of the people of Connecticut. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the UConn men's and women's basketball teams and celebrating their success. They are truly a credit to their families, to their University, to the great state of Connecticut, and to the nation as a whole.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. I again want to join with my colleagues in what is a euphoric day for us to be on this floor. I see the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) is here, and I just wanted to again commend the team from Georgia Tech that did beat us at the very start of this year, and we learned from that experience, and I do think that what we have witnessed here in this country, there is such a great love for collegiate sports throughout the country, and rightfully so, at all levels and in all sports. But I think we have established a new standard here, and it is something that I think is historic, and that is why these victories themselves present one for the ages. Just like we had Ruth's 60 home runs, the DiMaggio hitting streak, the UCLA 10 basketball championships, the men's American hockey team victory over Russia, this standard that has been set where both the division one men and women's team win successively on back-to-back nights, national championships will become the new standard for all collegiate sports to aspire to, especially, as is in the case of basketball, where both men and women's teams play. So this is an exceptional accomplishment. For the women, as has been pointed out by both the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the outstanding job that they have done to do this three times in a row and to have the fifth championship that the Geno Auriemma has been able to bring home to the State, extraordinary, and Jim Calhoun's second championship as well. This truly was one for the ages. It is one that we will truly enjoy and appreciate long throughout our lives and only can aspire to try to achieve that goal again, but what a goal and what a standard to strive for. And the academic success of our athletes should be pointed out as well. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) mentioned that Emeka Okafor was named the Most Outstanding Player of the tournament, and indeed he was and demonstrated that time and time again, but he also is an example for all students all across this country about academic excellence. Graduating in 3 years with a 3.7 grade average speaks highly of the quality of the individuals that come to the University of Connecticut, participate in their athletics program, and succeed in the manner that Emeka Okafor has as well. So it is a wonderful tribute to a great university, to a tremendous State, and I am just honored to be on the floor here this afternoon with our colleagues to talk about that.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

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

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas and associate myself with his remarks. I rise to reject, without prejudice or malice, the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bill. As has been mentioned, this is not partisan disagreement because the issue does not advantage or disadvantage either party. This is a disagreement on the wisdom of the proposed policy. I am against the bill because it fails to correct the most egregious problems caused by forcing all States to conduct elections within 45 days of the Speaker's announcement of mass Member fatalities. Regardless of how one feels about a constitutional amendment to address congressional continuity, we should defeat this bill because it will not work in practice and does not address the need to ``stand up'' the Congress immediately following a disaster. It does not support the immediate restoration of representative democracy, a key element in the Connecticut Compromise, noting that as important as it is that the people elect representatives, it is equally important to note that the people they send here represent the States. I want the Members in this body, because this is a difficult and complex issue, to understand its complexity; and the best way that I have seen to relate this to Members is to evoke two images in their mind. The first image is that of Members of this body, huddled in the Capitol Police office, waiting to hear word of what happened from our leaders who were somewhere, and who later that afternoon conveyed to us over the phone what had transpired and what happened and asked that this body not return here to the Capitol, out of concerns for safety. The Members there rejected that overwhelmingly, and came en masse--and in one of the most remarkable and memorable moments in our history-- stood on the steps of the House--united. It is a moment I will always cherish and remember, and I want my colleagues to reflect on that, it was an important symbol that we sent out to our people. Immediately standing there, Democrat and Republican, Senate and House, all united. The other image is this: not too long after that event, we convened in this House, a joint caucus called by the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from Missouri (Minority Leader Gephardt). The issue was different. It dealt with anthrax. There were concerns, purportedly a deal had been agreed to, signed off by the President and the Senate, that because of concerns as they related to safety, that we would close down this Chamber, and people would go home. It was not met agreeably amongst the caucus. But our leaders appealed to our better angels, and we agreed to go home. The Senate did not. Recall, if you will, how you and your colleagues felt viscerally when the papers reported that the Senate was here, and the House had gone home. I asked the Committee on Rules to make four amendments in order. The Committee on Rules only made two in order. My two proposed amendments, which were taken prisoner by the committee, would have allowed States to use their regular means of selecting candidates, and would have avoided trampling on 40 years of voting rights laws. Under this bill, political parties must select candidates within 10 days of the Speaker's declaration, or give up their place on the ballot. So much for the participatory process of candidate selection. In my heart, and I thought it was great discussion in front of the Committee on Rules, I agree with what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) had to say. He suggested in the Committee on Rules that this issue is of such gravity, and such importance, that it actually transcends the normal committee processes, and that, in a joint committee, much like the one that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) called, we should discuss this issue amongst ourselves. These are complex issues that require us to examine them throughly, but I do not believe the underlying bill provides that. Some of the things eloquently addressed by the gentlemen who are proposing the underlying bill, do protect, do promote, and do give great glory to this body and its grand tradition. Others have spoken equally eloquently on that issue as well, in talking about the need for representative democracy to be promptly installed, while making sure that in fulfilling the mission of having people duly elected, we do not trample on the democratic rights and the processes by not allowing enough time. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the millions of Jews who perished in the Holocaust and extend my support to today's annual Days of Remembrance ceremony at the U.S. Capitol. The Days of Remembrance ceremony, along with the creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, were established by Congress to permanently honor these victims. The lasting legacy of the museum and today's annual ceremony is not only to remember those who perished, but also to educate the world about human rights. The 2004 Days of Remembrance asks us to pay tribute to the memory of the Jews of Hungary, who were deported 60 years ago in the final stages of World War II, and to honor those courageous individuals as well as the few organizations and countries who attempted to rescue them. When I served in the Connecticut Senate as Senate President Pro Tempore, I had the great honor of presiding over the Days of Remembrance for 8 years. These ceremonies were incredibly moving. They inspired all in attendance to reflect on how such tremendous horror could happen in a civilized world. Every memorial candle lit by survivors and their family members was a testament that the eternal flame of life may flicker and dim, but it can never be extinguished. One family in particular that understands this painful moment in history all too well is that of my colleague from Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman's wife Hadassah, is the daughter of Auschwitz death camp survivors. Although her father, Rabbi Samuel Freilich, has died, he bravely confronted his memories of Auschwitz by writing the book, The Coldest Winter. Hadassah Lieberman was part of the U.S. delegation who attended the ceremony to mark the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. I can't possibly begin to know what that trip must have meant to her. Yet, I do know that her courage to travel to this place of horrible evil, and the courage of every survivor and their families, is truly remarkable. This year's Days of Remembrance theme is ``For Justice and Humanity.'' Sadly, thousands around the world have not found justice from the crimes against humanity that they have endured. A United Nations Commission on Human Rights statement issued yesterday indicates that human rights violations around the world are far from eliminated. The Commission agreed to assist countries that have recently experienced violence or are still combating insurgencies, such as Afghanistan, Nepal, Timor-Leste, Cambodia, Haiti, Burundi, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, Liberia, Somalia and Sierra Leone. Today's ceremony is a critical reminder that the fight against repression and violence is a difficult battle. Yet, it also reminds us that while the capacity to hate does exist in this world, an equally potent capacity for hope, for courage and for justice also exists.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, especially with so many in the gallery today, I rise to defend John Kerry from the onslaught on the floor today, a decorated veteran in Vietnam, a person who received three Purple Hearts and the Silver Star for serving with distinction. And now, because he is a candidate for President of the United States, he receives the unbridled attack from the opposition. We ought to rise above this here on the floor of the House and across the Nation in this debate. What we need to do is focus on the issues that this country desperately needs to address, seniors that need prescription drugs, people that are out of work and unemployed. What we need is leadership, the kind of leadership that John Kerry provided in the fields of Vietnam, that he has provided with distinction in the United States Senate, and that he will provide as President of the United States.