John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to report on the ``Good Corporate Citizenship'' of AETNA, a constituent company in my district. During the week of April 26th, approximately 1,100 employees from Aetna's Consumer Markets segment across the country will donate more than 4,400 hours to charitable causes in their communities. Aetna has a long history of volunteerism and contributing to the communities where it operates. In 2003, Aetna and the Aetna Foundation contributed approximately $16.5 million nationally, with nearly $4.4 million directed at entities in Connecticut, Aetna's home State for 150 years. Every day, Aetna employees across the country demonstrate their compassion and commitment to this goal by devoting hundreds of hours of personal time to volunteerism. This commitment has created what is now recognized as Aetna's ``Culture of Caring''--a tradition of volunteerism that has become a part of Aetna's core values. As part of this April 2004 charitable initiative, employees from 20 sites around the country will join together to make an impact in the lives of others. In my home State of Connecticut, this fine group of Aetna employees will focus on assisting The Children's Home of Cromwell, where they will collect school supplies and backpacks for resident children; The American Red Cross, where employees will paint houses and clean yards for low-income housing residents; Foodshare of Greater Hartford, where Aetna staff will participate in the Walk Against Hunger and will sort food at the Hartford Farmer's Market; The Shepherd Home, where employees will collect small appliances and furniture for transitional housing residents; and Community Renewal Team, where Aetna employees will paint classrooms for low-income, inner-city preschools, read to students, and provide nutritional snacks. Being a leader in health care is a source of pride for the entire Aetna community. I am proud to represent Connecticut and Aetna's employees, especially as they demonstrate that corporate responsibility and employee volunteerism are key business objectives, objectives which help make Aetna such an integral part of the local community.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 393, the budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2005. One of the main reasons why I oppose this budget resolution is because it appears to parallel the President's budget by also underfunding the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). I have strongly urged Congress to fully fund the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) for Fiscal Year 2005 and I believe that the funding levels incorporated into this resolution fail to do so. It is disheartening that we are approaching the first presidential election since the 2000 voting irregularities and the President and Congress still appear unwilling to commit the financial resources needed to make HAVA's envisioned success a reality. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for HAVA's passage, this budget resolution seems to provide for only $65 million of the $600 million authorized in that landmark law for fiscal 2005. Under HAVA, the Federal government authorized $3.9 billion to the States to upgrade their voting procedures in the wake of the 2000 election. State and local governments have traditionally borne these costs with virtually no assistance from Congress. By passing and signing HAVA into law, Congress and the President demonstrated that the Federal Government needs to provide States with a minimum of election- related resources and technical guidelines. We must make this modest investment suggested in HAVA. If fully funded by Congress and the President, HAVA will strengthen confidence in our electoral process by facilitating the replacement of outdated voting equipment, the training of poll workers, and the development of improved election procedures. Just this week, the new agency created by HAVA, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), held its first public meeting to discuss election issues. The EAC is now our national resource for Federal election procedures. Thus, the EAC has a very important role in the future of our election process, and an equally important role in ensuring that we do not repeat the frustrations of the past. Mr. Chairman, Congress should guarantee that the work of the Commission and other components of HAVA are provided for in our budget resolution, which is one of the reasons why I oppose House Concurrent Resolution 393 and would like to urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer what I believe is a necessary solution to a problem not addressed in our Founding Fathers' plan for our country's government. I recently introduced a Constitutional Amendment to address the issue of how Congress would continue should a catastrophic event occur. Under this proposal, if a majority of House members are killed or incapacitated as a result of such an event their seats could be immediately filled by temporary appointments made by state legislatures. We need look no further than the Continental Congresses and Constitutional Convention, to understand that such a temporary solution would be successful. I believe that a functional House, even in a temporarily modified form, is far better than no House at all. The temporary appointments would be afforded full Member powers, until vacancies are filled by a special election. However, a temporary Member could not be a candidate in the election for the seat he or she holds, and the temporary Member must be of the same political party as the Member who previously held the seat. There is no way the Founders could have foreseen the need to address such an issue. The terrorist acts that take place nearly every day across the globe were not a part of their world. That's why I believe a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to enable the House to reconstitute itself as quickly as possible. We have amended the Constitution to address presidential succession and the appointment of Senators in the case of vacancies, but the House has no such constitutional safeguard in the event of a catastrophe. That doesn't make sense. If the Senate can accept an appointment to fill an entire term, then a temporary appointment should not be that offensive to the concept of democracy, and therefore, should be acceptable for the House. I offered this Constitutional amendment (H.J. Res. 89), because I believe that proposals to expedite special elections and make temporary appointments are not mutually exclusive. I support the idea of a new statute that seeks to expedite special elections and fill House seats quickly in the event of a catastrophe, but this needs to be done in concert with a Constitutional Amendment for temporary replacements and with respect for views of the states. As for other proposals that address this issue only through expedited special elections, I am certainly willing to review any compromise opportunities. However, I do not believe, nor does the secretary of state from my home state of Connecticut believe, that it is reasonable to expect that we can hold special elections within 45 days after a disastrous event has wiped out hundreds of Members. Also, expedited special elections won't reconstitute the House fast enough to deal with pressing legislative matters. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 taught us that Congress needs to act quickly on critical pieces of legislation to deal with the aftermath of a crisis. Should such an event occur again and many Members of Congress die, the country will not have the luxury of waiting for special elections to occur in order for the people's business to continue. To avoid taking action now to prevent this scenario would be a dereliction of our duty. My proposed Constitutional Amendment also addresses vacancies created by the incapacity of a Member of the House, which cannot be addressed by a mere statute. 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. As a former history teacher and long-serving member of the Connecticut State Senate, I feel very strongly about the need to preserve the institution of Congress. In December, I held a Continuity of Congress Forum at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford, Connecticut. I invited local academic leaders, who are experts in Congressional operations, to discuss current House proposals about how Congress would continue should a catastrophic event occur. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this Constitutional Amendment. This is certainly an issue that is difficult for all of us to address--our untimely demise or incapacitation. Yet, given the level of terrorist activity in our world, it would behoove us to recognize that we need a mechanism for temporary appointments should a catastrophic event occur in the House of Representatives.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

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

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to join my distinguished colleague from Ohio and support this motion and associate myself with his remarks. In the quarter century since its inception, C-SPAN has become an institution. No organization has done more to enhance America's understanding of its government, its history than the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network. More than 85 million households have access to C-SPAN today, and millions regularly tune in to see their government in action. That is the way it should be. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned the outstanding contribution of Brian Lamb, and truly we should acknowledge the great efforts in his vision to bring government to the households of every single American. I am proud to say as well that in the State of Connecticut is CT-N, which again is modeled after C-SPAN, which provides an opportunity to view the local legislative bodies and municipalities and actions so, in fact, people from their homes, especially many who are inbound, get an opportunity to participate in government on a regular basis. Madam Speaker, today, especially on the eve of St. Patrick's Day, it is great to acknowledge the true father of C-SPAN in this Chamber and that is the legendary Speaker Tip O'Neill. Tip O'Neill was fond of saying that social policies brought many poor into the great American tent of opportunity. During his years as Speaker, many Americans were brought into the Halls of Congress via television. His decision to support televised coverage of the House of Representatives ushered in a new era of government accessibility. House TV went through its growing pains, but its success eventually influenced the Senate to follow suit, voting to let itself be televised in 1986. When future generations remember Tip O'Neill, the man who served the longest consecutive term as Speaker, they may well remember him as the man who let Americans see their government at work as well. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to join my distinguished colleague in support of his motion. In the quarter-century since its inception, C- SPAN has become an institution. No organization has done more to enhance Americans' understanding of their government and history than the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network. More than 85 million households have access to C-SPAN today, and millions regularly tunein to see their government in action. This is as it should be. Like microwave ovens, cellular telephones, the Internet, and other developments of this modern age, C-SPAN has become part of daily life for millions of Americans. Not only would we notice immediately if C- SPAN disappeared, most of us can't remember how we lived without it. Think of it Madam Speaker. Before Brian Lamb transformed his vision of a television network devoted solely to public affairs into reality, Americans unable to visit the House gallery had to rely on others' reports about what their representatives said and did here. On March 19, 1979, all that changed. Beginning on that date, Americans could see and hear for themselves, immediately, directly, and unfiltered by others. And while Americans may at times have disagreed with what they have seen or heard on the House floor since them, there is no question that Americans appreciate C-SPAN, and the cable-television industry, for enabling them to see and hear it. I know I was grateful for the opportunity to appear on C-SPAN for the first time on July 26, 2001, to talk about fuel cell technology. Look how far C-SPAN has come in the past quarter-century. On that first day, four employees could broadcast gavel-to-gavel coverage of House proceedings, over one network initially available to fewer than 4 million homes. Today, C-SPAN offers government and politics coverage over three television networks, one radio network, and over its website, c- span.org, all of it round-the-clock and accomplished without public funds. Not only can Americans now watch the floor debates of both the House and Senate, they can see interest groups, academics and ordinary citizens explore pending issues and offer their advice to policymakers. In addition to covering Congress, C-SPAN points its cameras at presidents and other executive-branch officials whenever possible. It covers state proceedings, including gubernatorial ``state-of-the- state'' messages, legislative debates, and even voting in the electoral college. Madam Speaker, C-SPAN offers wonderful programming for everyone with a passion for public affairs. History have learned much by taking field trips to presidential libraries, birthplaces, and elsewhere on the ``C- SPAN School Bus.'' Viewers are again this year traveling the ``Road to the White House,'' with its through coverage of the 2004 campaigns. The ``Lyndon Johnson Tapes'' offer a fascinating glimpse into a turbulent period. Bibliophiles can explore authors and their works on ``Book TV'' all weekend long. Anglophiles can revel in British politics with ``Prime Minister's Questions'' when Parliaments is sitting, and enjoy the pomp of the state opening each November. C-SPAN has even covered the Canadian and Australian parliaments which, like this Congress, derive their traditions from the ``mother of Parliaments'' in London. I'm so proud that C-SPAN's commitment to educating Americans about their government has inspired individuals in my home State of Connecticut. The same historic leap of faith that was taken 25 years ago by C-SPAN, was also taken by State policy-makers and broadcast experts alike in 1999. That year marked the launch of CT-N, also known as the Connecticut Network. From the beginning, the mission of CT-N has been to connect citizens to State government and public affairs programming. Connecticut Network provides unfiltered television and Web-cast coverage of all three branches of State government. CT-N viewers can watch the legislative sessions of the State Senate and House of Representatives, as well as committee meetings and public hearings, executive branch agency and commission meetings, and selected oral arguments before Connecticut's Supreme Court. The network is managed and operated by the Connecticut Public Affairs Network, a not- for-profit company founded to educate citizens about State government. Having served as Senate President Pro Tempore during the years prior to the launch of CT-N, I recall those early discussions about how we could provide television coverage of State Capitol proceedings. It was a daunting task, since at that time only a handful of State legislatures were airing government activities. Yet, no one doubted that such programming would one day exist in Connecticut. CT-N is now available in more than one million households in the State. What a thrill it is for me to now see CT-N's camera persons walking the halls of the State Capitol when I'm back in the district. They are now part of the Capitol press corps, ready to cover breaking news at a moment's notice. Why does CT-N's viewership continue to grow every year? It's because CT-N President and CEO Paul Giguere is constantly looking for new opportunities for government programming, and creating unique educational resources. For example, ``Joining the Debate: A Guide to Testifying at Public Hearings'' is a video produced by CT-N; ``CT-N State Civics Toolbox'' is a free teacher resource combining research, discussion, and mock legislature classroom activities with video of actual legislative debates from the Connecticut General Assembly; ``Capitol News Briefings'' are programming segments that follow the story from hearing rooms to assembly chambers; and ``State Agency Close-Ups'' are CT-N video segments that describe each executive branch agency in detail. Americans are certainly more educated about national public policy issues that affect them thanks to C-SPAN. In Connecticut, CT-N gives citizens the tools and education needed to understand these same issues closer to home. Madam Speaker, Senator Claude Pepper of Florida introduced legislation providing for broadcasting both houses of Congress in 1944. More than three decades later, in 1977, the House passed legislation to broadcast its proceedings, thus making C-SPAN possible. The vote on the necessary resolution, sponsored by Trent Lott, now a Senator from Mississippi, was 342 to 44, an overwhelming expression of hope that broadcasting would benefit both the American people and the House. I was not here then, but I bet the results of the last 25 years have exceeded the House's expectations many times over. On behalf of my constituents in Connecticut, and the House, I am proud to offer my congratulations to Brian Lamb and the entire staff of C-SPAN on its 25th anniversary of House broadcast coverage. Thanks to C-SPAN, our democracy is stronger, making America a better place for us all. I have no doubt that, 25 years hence, C-SPAN will have made even greater strides than it has in its first quarter-century. I urge everyone to tune in and watch C-SPAN prove me right. Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill On many a pleasant Thursday night, his former aides say, House Speaker Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill would slip away to his beloved Cape Code for a weekend of golf. After all, even if the Congress were holding a Friday session, the speaker could tune in to C-SPAN to keep an eye on the floor, and he could phone instructions to his staff on Capitol Hill if he saw something he didn't like. Years later, former House Speaker Tip O'Neill would call televising the House of Representatives ``one of the best decisions I ever made.'' In 1977, his first year as speaker, the Massachusetts Democrat agreed to put House television on his agenda; by March 1979, the first live, gavel-to-gavel telecast of the House went our by satellite to 3.5 million cable homes. ``Thanks to television, the House of Representatives is now recognized as the dominant branch of Congress,'' wrote Speaker O'Neill in his 1987 autobiography, Man of the House. However, wary of its impact on the legislative process, Tip O'Neill had not always supported House television. ``We were disgusted with how the major networks covered the Republican and Democratic conventions,'' he wrote. ``If a delegate was picking his nose, that's what you'd see. . . . No wonder so many of us were skittish.'' But after six years of debate on the issue, the new speaker saw it was time to move ahead. So, with the help of Democratic Party leaders, a proposal was crafted that gave the office of the speaker control of the television cameras. ``That,'' he says, ``struck me as a reasonable compromise.'' On October 22, 1977, the House passed a measure permitting full coverage of its sessions--on its own terms and with tight controls--by a vote of 342-44. After the measure passed, a telecommunications task force headed by Rep. Charlie Rose (D-North Carolina) helped Speaker O'Neill lay down the rules for the telecasts. A $1.6 million system was installed. Cameras would be trained on the speakers at the podium, and would not be allowed to pan the chamber. During 15-minute votes, an electronic vote tally would cover the screen. Proceedings of the legislative body would be covered live, uninterrupted, and ``gavel-to-gavel'' and would be offered to all accredited news organizations. Only C-SPAN, however, committed itself to telecasting the House of Representatives whenever it was in session. The speaker recalls that some members of the House continued to grumble about the television measure after it passed. ``Many of the members, of course, were skeptical. . . . Today, of course, it's hard to imagine Congress without it, and the results of our broadcasting experience have exceeded my wildest hopes,'' he says. It may have taken a few years, but House TV gained a loyal following among those members who saw the potential of the unblinking television eye. ``I see a young fellow come on the floor with a blue suit and a red necktie, hair groomed back, and an envelope under his arm,'' the speaker explained, ``and I know that he's going to make a speech and that speech is for home consumption. His office has already notified the local media that he's going to be on and he's going to give a talk.'' The audience for congressional telecasts grew as well. Just five years into its run, the speaker was calling the audience for Congress ``unbelievable.'' One avid viewer was the speaker himself, who said, ``I really enjoy when I come in at night and put it on and see a committee hearing.'' During his eight years of congressional TV coverage, the speaker became a familiar figure to many Americans. People began to recognize the speaker when they saw him in airports or on the street. Appearing in a televised interview with C-SPAN to mark House TV's fifth anniversary in early 1984, Speaker O'Neill said, ``Television is here to stay now. . . . Everywhere I go, people say, `Well, I saw so-and-so on the show,' or `I listened to this bill,' or `What are your views on that? '' He said he believed that coverage of the House had ``whetted the curiosity of America as far as the running of the government is concerned,'' call it ``very informative for the American people.'' Within months, though, a controversy would follow the speaker's rosy assessment. In May 1984, Speaker O'Neill asserted his control over the House cameras, provoking cries of protest from House Republicans and leading to a disruption on the House floor. In the process, the way that television covers the House underwent permanent change. On May 10, 1984, the speaker ordered House cameras to break with precedent and provide a full view of the empty House chamber during Special Orders speeches. With Rep. Robert Walker (R-Pennsylvania) on the floor, the camera for the first time showed a representative gesturing and talking to a chamber of empty seats. Minority whip Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), watching in his office, dropped what he was doing and raced to the floor to denounce the surprise camera angle as ``an underhanded, sneaky, politically motivated change.'' The press picked up on the story immediately and gave it the name of ``Camscam''; Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales called it a ``knockabout slugfest'' and wrote that ``the brouhaha over control of the cameras has ignited the House and in the process served to dramatize again the huge presence television has in the political process.'' ``Camscam'' came to a head on May 15, when harsh words flew on the House floor between Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) and Speaker O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill called a Gingrich speech `'the lowest thing I have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress''--a remark that the House parliamentarian ruled out of order. The speaker's words were taken down and the phrase was struck from the official congressional record, the first such rebuke to a House speaker in this century. In time, ``Camscam'' died down, but today the cameras continue to show the whole chamber during Special Orders, giving audiences a fuller view of the post-legislative business proceedings. Later, in response to an initiative by the Republican leadership, cameras also started showing varied shots of the House members during votes. Slowly, the early restrictions on what the viewing audience could see through television were easing. Speaker O'Neill, 75, likes to say that his social policies brought many poor people into ``the great American tent of opportunity,'' During his years as speaker, many Americans were brought into the halls of Congress via television. His decision to support televised coverage of the House of Representatives ushered in a new era of government accessibility. House TV went through its growing pains, but its success eventually influenced the Senate to follow suite, voting to let itself be televised in 1986. When future generations remember Tip O'Neill--the man who served the longest consecutive term as speaker--they may well remember him as the man who let Americans see their government at work.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the senior member of that delegation.

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

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to thank again the dean of the New England delegation and of Massachusetts for his thoughtful comments about the beloved Tip O'Neill and again associate myself with the remarks of the esteemed chairman from Ohio. Indeed, this is a very important event and certainly one where both Mr. Lamb and Mr. O'Neill deserve justified recognition. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I support S. Con. Res. 93, which authorizes planning for the use of the Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2005, for the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President and Vice President of the United States. We traditionally pass this measure to begin the period of security planning and rehearsal for the inaugural, since the Rotunda is routinely used for ceremonial purposes during the inauguration and could host the event itself, depending on the weather at that time. The 108th Congress does not formally authorize use of the Rotunda through this measure, since it will expire on January 3, 2005, like all concurrent resolutions which are not made part of permanent law and must be renewed in the 109th Congress. However, it initiates the period of pre-event planning necessary to bring one of our democracy's most memorable and historic ceremonies to fruition smoothly and safely. I urge its adoption. The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 94, the traditional measure which establishes the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies during the 108th Congress to begin work on preparations for the presidential inaugural ceremonies at the Capitol on January 20, 2005. The joint committee we are creating today expires on January 3, 2005, but will be renewed at the start of the 109th Congress to conclude its work. Congress routinely passes this concurrent resolution every 4 years at about this time. The Speaker, majority leader and minority leader are customarily appointed by the Speaker to represent the House on the joint committee. I urge adoption of the concurrent resolution. The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize two outstanding individuals who have dedicated their lives to encouraging all Americans to participate in our government through the voting process. Under the authority granted to me by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), I have appointed two election experts, Joseph F. Crangle of Buffalo, NY and Hilary O. Shelton of Washington, DC, to serve as national voting procedure advisors to continue improving the election process in the wake of the 2000 elections. HAVA established a four-person body called the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). I am appointing Mr. Crangle and Mr. Shelton to the Board of Advisors, which will serve essentially as the EAC's board of directors. The board consists of 37 members representing a range of groups involved in elections. I am very confident that with their decades of election experience and dedication to the voting process, Joseph Crangle and Hilary Shelton will have a tremendous impact on the EAC. It is my hope that they and the other 35 members of the board will examine the many issues involved in administering fair and accurate elections in this country, including the concerns that have been raised regarding the security and reliability of electronic voting systems. I am grateful for the advice of my colleague from New York, Representative Charlie Rangel, who informed me about Mr. Crangle's decades of experience and dedication to the election process. It is truly an honor for me to appoint him for this position. Joseph Crangle served as chairman of the Erie County Democratic Party from 1965 to 1988; as chair of the New York State Democratic Party from 1971 to 1974; as a delegate to every Democratic National Committee from 1968 to 1992; and as a member of the Democratic National Committee's Executive Committee from 1972 to 1988. Mr. Crangle is regarded as one of the leading experts in the country on voter registration and ``get- out-the-vote'' programs. He is an attorney for the law firm of Colucci and Gallaher, P.C. in Buffalo, NY. Hilary Shelton's commitment to improving our election system was evident during the development of the Help America Vote Act. He worked tirelessly during the entire legislative process to ensure that this bill became law. Mr. Shelton is the Director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Prior to working for the NAACP, he was the Federal Liaison Assistant Director of the Government Affairs Department of The United Negro College Fund. In addition, he worked for the 9.5 million member United Methodist Church advocating on numerous public policy issues including civil rights, access to higher education, and voting rights. He serves on the national boards of directors for the Center for Democratic Renewal, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the U.S. Census Advisory Board. Members of the Board of Advisors serve a 2-year term in a strictly advisory capacity; they have no rule-making authority. Once all the appointments have been made and the EAC is fully functional, the board will begin its duties. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Crangle and Mr. Shelton as they begin their positions on the Board of Advisors. They are truly two of the best advocates in the country for our election process. I am confident that future generations of voters will be inspired to make their voices heard, because of the contributions of these two remarkable Americans.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I again would like to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), who is eloquent and noteworthy in his praise. This has been a historic afternoon in so many respects, pausing to honor the works of Glenn Brown in the historic writings as they relate to this great Capitol facility, pausing to reflect and remember and reserve the great rotunda to participate in the Days of Remembrance with regard to the Holocaust, and now to step forward and pay homage and honor a living legend. I urge all Members to join all of us in supporting the distinguished chairman's motion. There can be no more appropriate use of the Capitol rotunda than for a ceremony to honor Dr. Dorothy Irene Height for a lifetime of achievement of social equality and justice. The author of the original legislation, our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), could not be here today, but deserves credit for having had the persistency to make sure that not only would Dr. Height receive the gold medal, but also that we would, as this Congress is required, reserve the rotunda for this great ceremony. It is important for me today to note that Dr. Height is in my home State of Connecticut at a book signing as I speak. I am pleased that the appropriate ceremony will be approaching next month. Congress reserves its highest civilian honor for men and women whose contributions to American society exemplify the highest traditions and ideals of public service. By every measure, Dr. Dorothy Height's lifelong commitment to the principles of freedom, equality, and social justice compels this award. Beginning during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt and continuing to the present day, Dorothy Height has fought to promote human and civil rights throughout our society. For decades she has worked tirelessly to promote the appointment of qualified women to senior Federal positions. As president of the National Council of Negro Women since 1957, Dr. Height has been an especially forceful advocate for the advancement of African Americans. In addition, and on a personal note, I would like to acknowledge the work of Mrs. Mary A. Ballard, who leads the Hartford section of the National Council of Negro Women in my home district. Mr. Speaker, as Congress recognized last year, there is no doubt that America is a far better place thanks to the labor and commitment of Dr. Dorothy Height on behalf of not only those among us who face the burdens of injustice but all of us. She deserves great credit. The use of the Capitol rotunda to award the gold medal to Dorothy Height is not only fitting; it is required and long overdue. I urges all Members to join in supporting the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of humility and strong support for House Concurrent Resolution 359, authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda for the Days of Remembrance ceremony on April 22. During the week of April 18, similar Holocaust remembrance days will take place all across this country, as the distinguished gentleman from Florida pointed out. As this body has done every year since 1979, Congress will use the historic rotunda location to reflect on one of the most painful moments in all of world history: the Holocaust. This very special day of remembrance, along with the creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, was established by Congress to permanently honor these victims. They were created not only to remember those who perished but also to educate the world about human rights. The 2004 Days of Remembrance asks us to honor 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. This year's theme is ``For Justice and Humanity.'' It has specific poignancy for me as a Member from Connecticut, knowing that Hadassah Lieberman's mother was part of that. I had the honor in Connecticut as Senate President to preside over the Days of Remembrances for 8 years. I often reflect on how solemn and important those ceremonies were, and still are. I can still see the survivors and their family members coming forward to light the candles and the solemnness of the occasion. Given the current conflicts around the world, it is especially important to remember the message of the Holocaust victims who said, do not forget us. We cannot forget them or the evil that sent them to their deaths. Tragically, we need only to watch the nightly news to realize that this evil still exists in the world. The ceremony we are authorizing today reminds us that when we respect the lessons of the past, we strengthen the values of every future generation. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this concurrent resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Florida. As a sponsor of this resolution, I join our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and I am happy to help bring this publication to fruition. It has been a pleasure for me to work with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) on this and other such collaborative matters as they regard the history of our great institution and the history of this Capitol. The gentleman from Ohio will recall that we worked together in developing a history of the House, and his long-standing appreciation of the history of this great institution of ours and history in general go a long way towards keeping those relationships that accrue on our committee and throughout this institution at a level of deep understanding about the process and the procedure that goes on in this glorious building on a regular basis. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has outlined the importance of Glenn Brown's landmark two-volume History of the United States Capitol. Clearly, history should be updated from time to time, especially with the kind of annotated pictures that we can now provide for people, which yet unfolds the richness of this great institution and this marvelous building. People that come to work here on a daily basis and those that visit the Capitol cannot help but be in awe of the marble and the alabaster of Statuary Hall and all the great symbolism and history represented here. So for us not to make sure that these publications continue to go forward and further enlighten and provide historical research and data about our institution would be a travesty. Therefore, I am delighted to join with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and again want to applaud the outstanding leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and his willingness to collaborate on this specific publication, an interest that is both near and dear to both of our hearts with regard to historic preservation. For more than two centuries, this Capitol has stood as a shrine to our democracy and a beacon to millions across the globe. We must preserve not only the bricks and mortar of this Capitol but also its history. The volume printed pursuant to this resolution will make a substantial contribution to that preservation. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this motion. As the sponsor of the resolution, I join the distinguished chairman in support of his motion, and I am happy to help bring this publication to fruition. It has been a pleasure to work with the chairman in the past 5 years on matters of common interest, especially related to congressional history. The gentleman may recall that shortly after he became the chairman of the House Administration Committee, I visited his Longworth office and discussed placing a greater emphasis on the history of this institution. We have had significant success in this respect, as the gentleman had while serving in his state's legislature in Columbus. I look forward to working with the chairman further on history-related matters in the months and years ahead. Mr. Speaker, the American people revere this historic Capitol, the temple of our democracy, and they are rightly proud of what it has come to represent. In the more than 227 years since our Founding Fathers charted a new course for our civilization, this experiment in self- government has not only survived, but flourished. The ideals symbolized by this Capitol inspire millions around the world, giving hope that they and their descendants may someday enjoy the liberty that Americans cherish. Over a century ago, Congress celebrated the Capitols' centennial by publishing Glenn Brown's landmark two-volume History of the United States Capitol. Brown's handsome volumes chronicled the development of the Capitol and its art collection to that time. Brown's work set a new standard for architectural history, affecting the development of the Capitol, and of the capital city, in the years that followed. The Capitol has changed considerably in the last century, and present generation should take care to document those changes and preserve the history of this magnificent structure for the future. Plans for an updated, annotated edition of the Glenn Brown History began as the Capitol's 2000 bicentennial approach, and Congress authorized such a volume in 1993. Today, only the final proofreading work remains, save for this renewed printing resolution, before the Government Printing Office can proceed to publish. The new annotated volume will update the Glenn Brown work, correcting errors, adding new historical context and enhanced color photographs, among other improvements. The new edition, prepared by the Architect of the Capitol with the support of the U.S. Capitol Preservation Commission and the U.S. Capital Historical Society, will be published under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing in consulting with the House Clerk and the Senate Secretary. The joint committee plans a single-volume format that is both economical and reader- friendly but, like the original, worthy of this splendid structure. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the motion. This body should ensure preservation of the Capitol's history, just as in 1999, with the gentleman from Ohio's strong support, the House passed my bill authorizing a written history of the House itself. That House history, being written by the distinguished historian Dr. Robert Remini, is well underway. As entertaining as he is learned, Professor Remini participated last November in the Cannon Centenary Conference on the modern speakership. Those fortunate to hear the professor's remarks left both enlightened and eager to read the completed work chronicling the House's role and contributions to America's history. Mr. Speaker, for more than two centuries this Capitol has stood as a shrine to our democracy and a beacon to millions across the globe. We must preserve not only the bricks and mortar of this Capitol, but also its history. The volume printed pursuant to this resolution will make a substantial contribution to that preservation, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), former advisor to President Clinton.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the most distinct voice in the House of Representatives and one of the most distinguished Members.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we note today the passing of a distinguished former Member of this House, Paul Simon of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for offering this motion, and I also thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) for introducing this resolution. I regret that I did not have the privilege of serving with Paul Simon. He retired from the Senate 2 years before I came to the House. I may not have served with Paul Simon; but like millions of Americans, I certainly knew of him and admired him greatly. Paul Simon's reputation extended far beyond the geographic borders of the Land of Lincoln. Through a distinguished career that began at age 19 as a newspaper editor and publisher and led him to seats in both houses of the Illinois general assembly, lieutenant governorship, and on to both Houses of the United States Congress, Paul Simon enjoyed a reputation of honesty, integrity, and diligence. Known for his trademark bowties, Simon championed reform and the cause of the less fortunate than himself. Mr. Speaker, Paul Simon, the statesman, was a great American who made a difference during his long career in public life. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the ``Show Me State'' (Mr. Clay).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), my neighbor and good friend.