John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the House's attention H.R. 3490, a bill introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing and the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and me to repeal a requirement that the Government Printing Office make certain payments to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in connection with voluntary separation incentive programs, or ``buy- outs.'' In a buy-out, an agency seeking to trim its workforce offers employees cash incentives to leave the rolls voluntarily, saving the agency and the taxpayers money. In 1998, Congress authorized buy-outs at GPO for 3 years, later extended through fiscal 2004. The new Public Printer, Bruce James, has used this authority for the first time this year. To defray the GPO program's cost, Congress provided $10 million in the fiscal 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. Similar to buy-out provisions applicable throughout the executive branch at the time, the GPO-specific buy-out legislation requires the agency to pay 15 percent of the value of the salaries of those participating in the buy-out to the Office of Personnel Management, to be credited to the civil-service retirement fund. The 15 percent requirement necessarily raised the cost of buy-outs to agencies and discouraged their use. Last year, in the act establishing the Department of Homeland Security, Congress repealed the 15 percent requirement for the entire executive branch, leaving the Government Printing Office unaffected. A similar requirement on the General Accounting Office will expire next month. Mr. Chairman, the Public Printer asked the Committee on House Administration for the provision that became H.R. 3490, and I believe the House should enact it. I know of no reason that, having repealed the 15 percent requirement for the executive branch, Congress should not repeal it for GPO as well. The Public Printer expects to save $21 million annually from buying-out 312 employees under the law as it now stands, a sizeable sum. By relieving GPO of the 15 percent requirement, the Public Printer could offer approximately 100 additional buy-outs, saving up to $7 million more, for a total of $28 million a year. I want to thank the Public Printer, Bruce James, for bringing this matter to the committee's attention so promptly and thereby providing us the opportunity to realize these additional savings. It has been a pleasure to work with him and especially with his Director of Congressional Relations, Andy Sherman, to bring this proposal forward before the end of this session of the 108th Congress. While I am disappointed that we were unable to enact this bill before adjourning, I am hopeful we can do so shortly after the second session of the 108th Congress convenes.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Christian ``Chris'' Hendricks, Deputy Inspector General of the House of Representatives, for his outstanding service to the House for the past 6 years, and to the Federal Government for over 27 years. Chris will retire at the end of this year. During his distinguished career, Chris gained wide experience in the Defense Department and other civilian agencies, as well as the House, and amassed considerable skill as a certified public accountant, certified internal auditor, and certified information systems auditor, to name only a few of his impressive professional credentials. Chris certainly made good use of his experience here in the House, and my staff and I have found his counsel invaluable as we strive to continuously improve the House's financial and administrative operations. I particularly appreciated his diligence in ensuring that the minority members of the House Administration Committee have been kept informed. Chris has provided important advice on a wide array of projects ranging from the security of our computer systems, to the deployment of emerging technology and the development of critical financial systems, improved services to Members, and the safety and security of House facilities. Not only did Chris share his knowledge and expertise here in the House, he shared it with others through his active involvement in auditing organizations and by teaching others seeking to achieve professional certifications of their own. A consummate professional, Chris will be sorely missed by all of his colleagues, but he can take great satisfaction in the improvements made here in the House that resulted directly from his contributions. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Chris on his career and thank him for his outstanding service to the House. Please join me in wishing Chris and his wife Nancy much happiness as they pursue new challenges in the years ahead.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as this session of Congress draws to a close, the entire congressional family in the House of Representatives must confront the impending retirement of one of our most beloved members, Nurse Margaret Mary McHugh O'Neill. While we are happy for Margaret as she draws to a close her career in Federal service, those of us who bid her farewell are doubtless more than a little worried about how we will make do without her. Irish by heritage, a New Englander by birth, and a saint by temperament, Margaret has surely touched the lives of countless men and women all over the world as she has worked in her chosen profession, nursing. As the proud wife of an Army officer, Margaret accompanied her husband Michael, and later their beautiful daughter Kathleen, around the world, setting a shining example of the best that the nursing profession has to offer. During her peripatetic career, Margaret has left her mark on the Army, the Red Cross, and elsewhere. Most recently, for the last dozen years Margaret has looked after the health and welfare of Members and staff of the House as an Occupational Health Nurse, posted in the Attending Physician's Health Unit in the Longworth Building. Upon my arrival in the House in 1999, I had no idea how fortunate I was to draw a room assignment in the Longworth Building. But I quickly realized how lucky I was, and remain to this day. Shortly after being sworn in, my Administrative Assistant took my wife Leslie and my sick daughter Laura down to Nurse O'Neill so that Laura could be treated. Later that first year, he also took me down to visit the nurse. I have to say that my wife and I, as well as our children, were charmed by Margaret's wit and soothing disposition. My family, the staff in both my personal and House Administration Committee offices, and I have sought Margaret's wise counsel, in far more than just medical matters, more than she can ever know, and I am sure we are not alone in this respect. Always there to minister to the physically sick and injured, as well as to salve an occasional bruised ego, or even merely to offer a cheery moment's respite from the many pressures of Capitol Hill, the effects to Margaret's toils on behalf of the rest of us over the years have been nothing less than miraculous. If you don't believe me, ask anybody who has ever visited her office. On most days, her office has more closely resembled a delicatessen, as the door opened and closed dozens of times an hour as her many patients sought her help and advice. I dare say sometime ago Margaret really should have installed one of those ``take-a-number'' dispensers so her patients could know how far down the queue they were. Of course, I use the word ``patients'' in the technical sense; the more correct term would be ``admirers,'' ``confidants,'' or perhaps most simply, ``friends.'' I am certain that in a long career of public service, Margaret has not grown rich in the material sense. But in the practical and spiritual sense, I am confident that Margaret is among the richest women on earth, blessed by the admiration, friendship, good wishes and prayers of the thousands of lucky persons whose good fortune it has been to have known and worked in her midst through the years. While Margaret's congressional career may be drawing to a close much to our dismay, in truth, Margaret is merely expanding her horizons in search of others to serve professionally and spiritually. Margaret intends to continue her good works into her next career ministering to the needs of parishioners of St. Peter's on Capitol Hill, and studying theology. My staff and I find it comforting to know that Margaret will be nearby, where we can continue to seek her advice and counsel. Of course, being nearby, we hope and pray that she will visit us often, so we can continue and strengthen our friendship in the months and years ahead. Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House family are privileged to know Nurse Margaret O'Neill. It has been a joy to work with Margaret, and all of us here in the House have been truly fortunate to benefit from her countless good works over these years. Please join me in thanking our dear friend Margaret for her tireless efforts in our behalf, and in wishing her, Michael and Kathleen the best as Margaret changes careers and duty stations yet again. May Margaret always look back fondly upon her days with the House, as we surely will.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I was unavoidably detained on Monday, December 8, 2003, during rollcall vote Nos. 672 and 673 on H. Res. 493, a resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 672 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 673.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, although I have objections to the overall bill and I oppose the overall conference report on H.R. 2673, the Consolidated Appropriation Act 2004, I rise today to support the additional $1 billion dollars in funding that has been included in the Omnibus spending bill for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This funding is in addition to the $500 million request by the President and approved by the House in the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004 section of this Omnibus spending bill. HAVA was signed by the President over a year ago in response to the frustrations experienced by both voters and candidates during the 2000 election cycle. Reportedly, between four to six million Americans went to the polls in November 2000 and for a variety of reasons they were denied their right to vote and to have their vote counted. The causes for this denial of democracy range from faulty machinery to wrongful purges from voter lists to poorly designed ballots. Thanks to the leadership of the bill's co-sponsors, my House Administration colleague, Chairman Bob Ney, and former Ranking Member Steny Hoyer, with HAVA we now have the foundation for a much more efficient voting system, and the much needed increase in funding over the $500 million requested by the President necessary for its full implementation. The additional funding for HAVA will be used to educate voters about voting procedures as well as about their rights; make polling places more accessible to people with disabilities; create statewide voter registration databases that can be more effectively managed and updated; improve ballot review procedures, allowing voters to ensure that the ballots they cast are accurate; and create provisional balloting systems to guarantee that no eligible voter is ever turned away at the polls. Lastly, I would like to commend the chief sponsors of HAVA in the Senate, Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), for their bipartisan efforts to secure the additional funding in the other body. But the fight is far from over; the Senate needs to confirm the four nominees chosen to run the new Election Assistance Commission (EAC). In addition to being charged with overseeing the full implementation of HAVAs, the EAC will function as the clearinghouse for information on election management. This information will be necessary to ensure that the 2004 election cycle runs smoothly, and I would urge the other body to act on these critical nominations as quickly as possible.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the concurrent resolution sponsored by the distinguished Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing and the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney]. On November 12, 2003, it was my pleasure to attend the Congressional Research Service's conference exploring the transformation of the House speakership during the last 100 years. I was able to attend nearly all of this very interesting conference and was able to gain a much greater understanding of the way the speakership has changed over the years as well as the history of this great institution. I am hopeful that by printing the remarks made at this event and distributing copies to our colleagues, they will also be able to similarly benefit from it as well. Entitled ``The Changing Nature of the House Speakership: The Cannon Centenary Conference,'' the symposium offered those of us keenly interested in the history of this institution a remarkable insight into the development of the speakership in the modern period. Under the leadership of Daniel Mulhollan, the Director of the Congressional Research Service, participants enjoyed remarks by our distinguished present speaker [Mr. Hastert], and all the living former speakers, Newt Gingrich, Tom Foley, and Jim Wright. Several other former members of the House, and a number of scholars, delivered remarks, including Dr. Robert Remini, author of the preeminent biographer of Henry Clay, a seminar figure in the development of the speakership during the 19th Century. Dr. Remini's presentation was, as always, especially thoughtful and entertaining, whetting the appetite of all of us eager to read the congressionally authorized history of the House, which he is now writing. The resolution provides for the printing of the transcript of the conference as a House document, thus ensuring that the remarks and other materials discussed in this historic event will remain available for present and future Members, scholars, and others intrigued by the ongoing history of this honorable institution in which we have the pleasure to serve today. I want to thank Dan Mulhollan and CRS for organizing the conference, and all who participated. I would also like to commend the chairman and his very able majority staff director for the Joint Committee on Printing, Maria Sophia Robinson, for introducing this printing resolution. I would also like to note the hard work of Mike Harrison who covers Joint Committee on Printing matters for me and whom I consider to be the minority staff director of the Joint Committee for the House. Just last month we expedited a housekeeping bill to resolve a longstanding problem affecting the Congressional Record Index Office. I am delighted that we have again moved so quickly to take up another issue under our joint committee's jurisdiction, I would like to call on my colleagues to join in urging the passage of this resolution. The concurrent resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the record and regret that I was unavoidably detained on my way to the floor on November 21, 2003 to vote on rollcall vote Number 636, on H.R. 3491, the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. Some may claim that this legislation is the answer to the high prices seniors are paying for their prescription drugs. That is far from true. The reality is that this legislation is a Medicare privatization plan masquerading as a prescription drug relief bill. The big winners in this bill are not the seniors that desperately need relief, but pharmaceutical companies and big business. Does this conference report strengthen the Medicare program that seniors know and trust? The answer is no. It includes a premium support demonstration project that is the first step towards forcing all seniors to choose private insurers to get the prescription drug benefit they need, or to pay more to stay in the traditional Medicare program. This bill having any effect at all is contingent upon the willingness of HMOs and insurance companies to participate, and the track record does not paint a positive outlook. We in Connecticut remember HMOs pulling out of Medicare Plus Choice plans because they simply could not make a profit. Does this conference report allow the Government to negotiate the costs of prescription drugs and provide relief to seniors? The answer is no. The bill specifically prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from leveraging the tremendous buying power of the Federal Government to negotiate lower drug prices for 40 million Medicare recipients, a system the VA currently uses. Does this conference report allow reimportation of drugs from other industrialized nations so that seniors will be able to purchase less expensive drugs? The answer is no. It ignores the reimportation measure that this House passed this summer and places the decision in the hands of health officials who have vocally opposed reimportation. Does this conference report help low-income seniors who need help the most? The answer is no. First, the proposal actually reduces coverage for the 6.4 million lowest-income and sickest beneficiaries who qualify for Medicaid today. It prohibits Medicaid from helping these beneficiaries with copayments or from paying for prescription drugs not on the formularies of the private insurers administering the new Medicare benefits. It also leaves behind 3.9 million seniors that would have qualified under the Senate bill. One reason for this is the imposition of an invasive assets test. This means that seniors with modest savings will not receive any assistance with the cost of their premiums, the deductible, co-payments, or the cost of the medications while they are in the $2,850 coverage gap. Does this conference report help cancer patients? The answer is no. It falls well short of the drug and practice reimbursements needed to provide millions of cancer patients with the care they need. Will this conference report prevent employers from dropping health insurance for their retirees? The answer is no. Though incentives were added to encourage employers to maintain their retiree plans, the Congressional Budget Office estimates 2.7 million retirees will lose the existing coverage they rely upon and countless others may have their benefits reduced. Furthermore, it does nothing to protect retired teachers, firefighters, police officers, State and local government employees, and those who worked for nonprofit organizations. Does this conference report help the hospitals and doctors struggling to meet the needs of their patients? The answer, surprisingly, is yes. It provides an increase in the Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital cap for rural hospitals and urban hospitals with fewer than 100 beds. It increases payments for indirect medical education that would provide increased funding for the twenty Connecticut hospitals that have medical education programs. Also, it eliminates the 4.2% reduction in payments to physicians in 2004 and replaces it with a 1.5% increase for the next two years. These provisions are positive. But, this was intended to be a prescription drug relief bill and these positives are by far outweighed by the negatives of this legislation. So, who are the winners in this conference report? The answer is pharmaceutical companies. They will receive the majority of the $400 billion that this legislation will cost. But, even better for them, they will not be forced to lower their prices. The Government will not be allowed to negotiate prices and seniors will not be allowed to purchase imported drugs from other industrialized nations. Apparently, the industry's army of lobbyists and $22 million in campaign contributions were effective. Who are the losers? The answer is seniors, the ones this bill was meant to assist. They asked for prescription drug relief and we are trying to give them a Medicare privatization bill. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this conference report.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution commending Afghan women for their participation in the Afghan government. Overcoming a history of suppression under Taliban rule, the women of Afghanistan have worked to strengthen women's rights in Afghanistan's new democracy. Prior to Taliban rule, Afghanistan had a Constitutional democracy that affirmed women's rights, including the right to vote and equal pay provisions. However, under control of the Taliban, women were silenced and denied basic-fundamental rights to healthcare, education and employment. Today, Afghan women have emerged to help build a brighter and more stable future for Afghanistan. Afghan women are more involved than ever in the Afghanistan government. Currently, there are two women holding high-ranking positions in Afghanistan's transitional government. Additionally, on September 5, 2003, the third annual conference of Women for Afghan Women (WAW) met in Kandahar to draft an Afghan Women's Bill of Rights to present to President Hamid Karzai. These rights include mandatory education for all women, protection and security from gender abuse, freedom to vote and the ability to run for all elections. Afghanistan is at a crucial transition point and it is imperative that the United States continue its support in promoting democracy and equality for both men and women of Afghanistan. I urge all of my fellow Members to vote with me in support of H. Res. 393 and commend the women of Afghanistan for their contributions and involvement in the Afghan government.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), who is an outstanding member of our committee.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the first lady of the District, who is the ranking member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the chairman duly noted in his remarks who was so instrumental in bringing this legislation before us. (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3491 on this historic day and to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a living legacy on the culmination of 17 years of work in this House to create this national museum within the Smithsonian. His effort has been part of a broader campaign spanning nearly 90 years to obtain recognition for the contributions of African Americans to our Nation's history and culture. The chairman has said it well. This is a proud day for all Americans and indeed for our country and for this great Chamber. This gentleman of vision will rise later and address this issue. I also want to congratulate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as the chairman mentioned, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), who has jurisdiction over the project. She vigorously presented the views of the citizens of our Nation's capital who live in the shadow of many museums, monuments, and other historic structures representing America's living history. She is, as we all know, the First Lady of Washington, D.C. I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and especially for the sensitivity and his deep appreciation for the historic significance and importance of this issue to his fellow colleagues and to this Nation we are all pledged to serve. He not only expedited the hearings, but he also brought this bill to the floor in a timely manner, so that to paraphrase Martin Luther King, we might be able to say here at last, here at last, thank God Almighty, this bill is here at last. In addition, I want to thank the majority staff members, Paul Vinovich, who is here today, and George Hadijski. Their efforts, as people on this committee know, in order to move this bill forward were so critical, and again their great sensitivity and concern and outreach to all parties, I think, is testimony to how this committee works and certainly a tribute to the chairman of this committee, and I cannot thank them enough for what they have done this evening. It brings great pride to African Americans, Americans in general, and it makes it an honor for all of us to be a part of it. I would be remiss if I did not commend the minority committee staff as well, Susan Brita of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and of course the irrepressible and irresistible Matt Pinkus for his great contribution to the Committee on House Administration and for their work on this bill and previous Congresses on behalf of the two House committees of primary jurisdiction. We are also here today due to the work of the National Museum of African American History and Culture Plan for Action Presidential Commission, created by Public Law 107-106, which presented this report and recommendations to us on April 2, 2003. In addition to the Commission, the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian has consistently supported the museum while helping us create a new entity that can be appropriately managed within the traditional Smithsonian framework of governance. I am equally proud of the fact that the AMISTAD America not only supports this, but will be a key part of this museum. I had the great honor to bring many of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus to Connecticut when we christened the Amistad, and indeed that was a highlight for me and so many of my colleagues to come to Connecticut and see the christening of this historic boat, and what a historic journey that has been as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who was responsible for this bill being on the floor.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying what great pride I have this evening, especially to stand with two colleagues who will definitely be in that museum, to be here with two outstanding Members of Congress who are a living legacy, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Their deeds speak so highly of their commitment. This week we will celebrate or look back on the passing of President Kennedy. President Kennedy was fond of saying that communities reveal an awful lot about themselves in memorials, monuments that they create. What a great and lasting tribute my colleagues are leaving through their great efforts with the establishment and creation of this museum. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing this project through to its fruition. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in unfortunate opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. After months of closed door deliberations between Majority Republicans in both chambers, the Conference Report is being rushed to the floor after being filed at 3 a.m. this morning. Additionally, in order to ensure that no one has an opportunity to actually read and examine the text of the Conference Report, the rule they are bringing it to the floor under waives the normal three-day layover requirement in the House Rules established to ensure Members and the public have the opportunity to review what should be the public business of any operating democracy. I remain concerned about many provisions that I understand are in the bill, some of which are provisions that were never considered by either legislative body in the House, and by the many provisions that were approved by both chambers and have mysteriously disappeared from the Conference Report. For example, the last minute inclusion of provisions that would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the sole authority over natural gas pipelines, would leave my home state of Connecticut powerless to stop construction of natural gas pipelines through Long Island Sound. These provisions are opposed by Governor Rowland and many other Connecticut State officials. The bill waives Clean Air Act requirements, it bars the EPA from taking actions to protect drinking water, it promotes nuclear proliferation by reversing long-standing nuclear policies to not reprocess nuclear waste, it provides more than $23.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies to big energy companies and more than $11 billion to oil and gas companies, just for starters. That's from just a few minutes opportunity to actually look at the text of the bill, let alone determine what the long-term consequences of these actions might be. Despite these problems, I do want to extend thanks to Science Committee Chairman Boehlert and his staff, who were able to stay above the bitter partisan fray the encompassed so much of the drafting. His leadership on the Science Committee, his willingness to discuss ideas and work with each individual member on his committee to craft a truly bipartisan bill that reflects the makeup of his Committee and the constituencies its members represent should be the model for legislative deliberations in this body rather than the exception. In particular, I have enjoyed working with the Chairman on the important fuel cell and hydrogen research provisions in the bill, including the establishment of a $25 million five-year fuel cell transit bus demonstration program and language addressing key fuel cell vehicle and research programs. It is a shame that so many good efforts and intentions have been swallowed in what has become a haphazard collection of secret back room negotiations and special interest paybacks. The American people deserve an energy policy drafted by the legislative leaders they elected to Congress, not one written by lobbyists in downtown Washington, DC.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1588, the FY 2004 Department of Defense Authorization bill. However, I believe that this bill is far from perfect. It does not fully support veterans' disability issues, collective bargaining for civilian personnel, and protection for the environment. It is unfortunate that these issues suffered due to the political process. I did support the motion to recommit in hopes that these critical issues could be further discussed, but that motion failed. If we were not in a time of war I would not support this bill. Yet, our brave men and women deserve all the protections and assistance we can provide, and I will do all I can to support them. While I am voting against the report, I do support the outcome of the Conference Committee regarding overseas voting provisions for the military. I am pleased that language referring to ballots submitted by members of the military stationed overseas was not included in the report. The issue of ensuring the integrity of overseas military members' ballots has been addressed in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and I believe we must await the full implementation of HAVA before considering any changes. Therefore, I did not believe that some of the suggested changes were necessary.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize a tremendous turning point in our country's voting rights history. One year ago today, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which was overwhelmingly passed with bi-partisan support, became a federal law. The 2000 elections proved to be frustrating for both candidates and voters alike. Sadly, it highlighted issues in our voting system that needed improvement. Thanks to the leadership of the bill's sponsor, my House Administration colleague, Chairman Bob Ney, and the support of former Ranking Member Steny Hoyer, we now have the foundation for a much more efficient voting system. During the past year, this foundation has indeed started to take shape. As a result of HAVA, a program has been established to pay states to replace their punch card and lever voting machines. Last month, my home state of Connecticut unveiled a pilot project with four different types of electronic voting machines that will be used in eight towns next week on Election Day. This is a remarkable advancement for Connecticut voters, who have been using lever voting machines almost exclusively for over 50 years. What makes HAVA so notable is that it is not solely about financial support. It takes into account the entire voting experience before, during, and after citizens enter polling places. HAVA educates voters on voting procedures as well as on their rights; makes polling places more accessible to people with disabilities; creates statewide voter registration databases that can be more effectively managed and updated; improves ballot review procedures, allowing voters to ensure that the ballots they cast are accurate; and creates provisional balloting systems to guarantee that no eligible voter is ever turned away at the polls. On Monday, the Senate Rules Committee held a hearing to confirm the four Election Assistance Commissioners nominated by President Bush, who are responsible for implementing HAVA. One of the four nominees, Garcia Hillman was recommended by Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and I wholeheartedly support the Leader's selection. Garcia Hillman, has effectively handled both domestic and international issues. Her areas of expertise include nonprofit management, public policy and program development, political services, the interests and rights of women and minorities; citizen participation in the development of public policy and community affairs; and elections related issues, including voting rights. I believe we would be hard-pressed to find someone more dedicated than Ms. Hillman to strengthening the voices of all citizens, including those who are disabled. I hope that Ms. Hillman and the rest of the nominees are confirmed by the full Senate before they adjourn for the year. I urge full funding of the Help American Vote Act to ensure that the 2004 elections do not repeat the trouble-plagued elections of 2000. The act of voting for our government representatives is a sacred right of all Americans. It is our duty, through HAVA, to inspire them to use that right. President Lyndon Johnson most succinctly stated this duty as he spoke to Congress on March 15, 1965, to implore them to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965: ``There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to ensure that right (to vote).''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, last night I testified before the Rules Committee as they were preparing to draft the rule governing debate on this Supplemental Appropriation bill, and I made a sincere plea that just as we are fighting to provide freedom for the Iraqi people, I hoped that we in Congress would be allowed the same kind of democratic freedoms to debate and vote on the many issues related to this bill. Once again I was disappointed by the decision of the Rules Committee to not act and protect my amendments and dozens of others put forward by my colleagues so that they might be considered during debate on this bill. So I find it very difficult to support this request from the President, which would address none of the outstanding concerns I have raised about providing for accountability on the cost of the war, about developing a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq and for troop deployments, and finally about not placing the burden of the cost of the reconstruction entirely on a future generation of American taxpayers. Last year I voted against the Resolution on this floor that sent us to war against Iraq, opposed to the policies of preemption and unilateralism and of giving an open ended and undefined mandate to wage war in Iraq. I coauthored an alternative at that time that would have required the President to work through the United Nations to build international support culminating in a new U.N. resolution authorizing military action in Iraq and providing for an expedited consideration of a use of force resolution by the Congress at that time. The Bush Administration and the Republican Majority in Congress strenuously opposed this proposal, and it was ultimately voted down. It was voted down because we were told by President Bush and his supporters that there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, who was planning on a moment's notice to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. We were told that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaeda and the September 11th terrorist attack on the United States. We were told that we had a strong international coalition of allies poised to take action and share the burden of war and peace with us. We were told that we had a plan for post-war reconstruction and finally, that Iraq had the financial resources and infrastructure to pay for its own reconstruction. Yet here we are today, almost a year later, debating an $87 billion supplemental appropriation bill for ongoing military action and reconstruction in Iraq. This is in addition to the roughly $79 billion supplemental that Congress appropriated for this war last April. We have yet to find Saddam Hussein or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is no viable international support for this policy. There remains no plan for reconstruction, and President Bush's father knew full well about these potential problems in pursuing this type of policy in Iraq. In his book, ``A World Transformed,'' which was published before his son took office, he wrote: ``Trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives midstream, engaging in `mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs . . . Apprehending [Saddam Hussein] was probably impossible. We had not been able to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would immediately have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.'' While the Administration continues to be unable to provide any details about what the last $79 billion Congress appropriated for this war was spent on or what the costs of a continued U.S. presence in Iraq might be, an analysis conducted by Congressman Spratt, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, concludes that if Congress approves the 2004 supplemental the President has submitted, and does not spend any new money on Iraq after 2004, the cost to the United States, including interest on the public debt, will reach $178 billion over the next decade. This includes only the cost of operations in Iraq, and excludes all estimated costs from 2003 and 2004 supplementals related to Afghanistan. The point has been made repeatedly about the need to sacrifice. Yet the only people sacrificing for this country currently are the men and women who wear the uniform. Further burdens shouldn't be placed upon them and their children, both incurring more deficit and having this nation pay for this by increasing the already burdensome national debt. I have drafted amendments to address many of my concerns with this bill, and my first amendment proposes that we pay for the President's $87 billion supplemental appropriation request for ongoing military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers. It would reduce the total tax cut of the wealthiest top .7 percent of Americans from $690 billion to $600 billion over the term of the tax cut by reducing the top tax rate to 38.2 for the 6-year period between 2005 and 2010. The top rate for wealthiest .7 percent of Americans has dropped this year from above 39 percent down to 35 percent. This amendment would affect less than 5 percent of the $1.8 trillion tax cut enacted during the last 3 years. I would like to stress that it does not take away the tax cut. The tax rate for the top .7 percent of Americans would still be lower than it was last year. Instead of receiving 100 times the tax cut that middle-class America received, at $600 billion the top .7 percent of Americans would still get 60 times what the middle-class American gets. They would still receive $1 billion more than every other American combined will get from the tax cut. The average income of the top .7 percent of Americans is $1 million per year. This amendment would affect, at a minimum, people who have an income before standard deductions and exemptions of over $400,00 in gross income. It would also affect those with a net taxable income of over $312,000 after deductions and exemptions. It does not impact or change individuals' capital gains tax rates or dividend exemptions. My second amendment seeks to provide accountability to the American people on the President's Iraq foreign policy. Specifically, it would provide the full request to the Department of Defense to meet the needs and re-supply American service men and women deployed around the world. It also would provide $4.5 billion for security, law enforcement, justice, public safety and public safety infrastructures, Iraqi boarder enforcement, enhanced security communications, and the establishment of the Iraq Defense Corps. However, it would limit to $5 billion the funding for other discretionary Iraq reconstruction efforts of the administration until April 2004 unless the Congress enacts specific legislation authorizing additional funding requested by the President for reconstruction in Iraq. It requires the President to submit a detailed report to Congress by March 2004 estimating the total cost of U.S. operations, setting out a strategy for securing international support, a schedule, including costs and timetables for an establishment of Iraqi armed forces and a security force, an estimated schedule of the establishment of an Iraqi constitution and an estimated schedule of U.S. deployments and ultimate withdrawal from Iraq. Finally, this amendment would require the President to certify in a report to Congress that the U.N. Security Council has authorized a multi-national force under U.S. leadership and provides a central role for the U.N. in the political and economic development and reconstruction. The report must also certify that U.S. reconstruction efforts are being implemented according to a detailed plan that includes fixed timetables and costs, with a significant financial contribution from other nations. The third amendment I am proposing calls for the General Accounting Office to conduct a detailed study of the policy of preemption and unilateralism and its effect on the military deployment capabilities, readiness, recruiting and retention rates, morale, total force structure, and end strength of the Armed Forces, including the Reserve components. Finally, when I held a town hall meeting on Monday night, October 13, about this supplemental appropriation request, I heard the story of Pene Palifka of East Hartford. Her son, Bill, is serving in the 248th Engineer Company in Iraq. She came forward and provided the money herself to get a Kevlar vest for her son over there, because as it has been reported and as I heard directly from soldiers serving in Iraq when I visited there in August, there is a shortage of roughly 40,000 of these vests. That's simply wrong. Congress appropriated funding in the last supplemental to procure and distribute these vests last April, but this still has not been done. So, my fourth amendment provides for the direct reimbursement from the United States Treasury to service members or their families who purchase protective body armor for deployments as part of the global war on terrorism. However, I understand that because the Rules Committee did not act to protect these amendments that they would be subject to a point of order and that I will be blocked from getting a vote on them. We should be able to debate these issues. We should be able to vote on these issues. I will continue to pursue these efforts and seek answers to the many questions we all still have about this policy, but I cannot support this bill if it does not address or make progress on these fundamental issues.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, Hubert Humphrey once said, ``The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.'' Right now we are failing this test. America has over 40 million elderly and disabled Americans who rely on prescription medication to maintain their way of life. Over the past few years, prescription drug costs have skyrocketed and a prescription drug benefit plan for seniors is long overdue. Many seniors are faced with the choice of paying for the medications they need or paying for the food on their table and the heat in their home. This is not a choice they should be forced to make. The Federal Government should not be turning its back on those who have done so much for this country. A prescription drug benefit should come under the traditional Medicare program that seniors know and are comfortable with, not placed in the hands of HMOs and private insurers. The experience with Medicare+Choice HMOs leaving Connecticut is proof that private insurers will not buy into this program. Few insurers will be willing to buy into this program, at least for an extended period, because drug costs are risky and expensive to cover and because it is not actuararily feasible for them to make a profit. But don't take my word for it, listen to the words of Chip Kahn, former president of the Health Insurance Association of America. He said, ``I don't know of an insurance company that would offer a drug-only policy like that or even consider it.'' He went on to say that it would be like ``insuring against haircuts.'' Prescription drug prices are virtually unregulated in the United States, as opposed to most other nations. Internationally, seniors pay dramatically less for prescription drugs, while pharmaceutical companies are leaving other countries to enjoy the largely unregulated market in the United States. Nations like Canada are no longer developing innovative drugs. In the European Union, health care quality is dimishing and investors are wary of EU pharmaceutical companies because of the uncertainty of profits due to price controls. Thus, American seniors are shouldering the burden of pharmaceutical research and development for the entire world. The real problem lies in the cost of prescription drugs. American seniors pay drastically more than in any other place in the world. A solution needs to be identified that reduces this burden without stifling the innovative research that sets America's health care industry apart from the rest of the world. I believe the solution lies in an idea that is already being used by the Federal Government. Prescription drug prices have been successfully lowered for seniors enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. The secretary leverages the power of the VA purchasing population (6.9 million people) to negotiate substanially lower drug prices. The VA also makes heavy use of generic drugs and mail order purchasing. An investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services in 2001 found that the VA paid, on average, 52 percent less for a list of 24 drugs than did Medicare. The legislation I am introducing today, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense, to negotiate the prices of prescription drugs purchased by the Federal Government and by Medicare recipients. By using this successful model, seniors will be able to realize actual savings in their prescription drug costs. As I noted earlier, the United States is the home of major pharmaceutical innovation, due in part to its largely unregulated market. I think that it is vitally important for the United States to maintain its preeminence in this area and my legislation would require the Secretaries to take into account the goal of promoting the development of breakthrough drugs in negotiations with manufacturers. Pharmaceutical companies should be rewarded for their innovative work and their role in improving the lives of so many Americans. However, American seniors should not be the only ones shouldering this burden. I believe it is incumbent on the Federal Government to step in and provide some relief to seniors, many of who live on fixed incomes, who rely on these drugs to maintain their quality of life. Additionally, my legislation creates an ombudsman within the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that savings are being passed along and resolve disputes between the manufacturers, sellers, and purchasers of prescription drugs. Additionally, the Secretary will be required to report to Congress regarding the effectiveness of this act in achieving reduced prices for Medicare beneficiaries. We now have an opportunity to pass the test Vice President Humphrey handed down to us. My legislation would provide seniors with the relief they need without stifling American innovation and the creation of lifesaving medications. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and treat those in the twilight of life with the respect they deserve.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland and the former Speaker of their House for his insight and elaborating on the history of this outstanding museum. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry is a state-of- the-art facility, as both the chairman and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) have pointed out. It is a state-of-the-art facility that uses innovative communication tools to deliver its message about proper oral health care. Its permanent exhibition, ``32 Terrific Teeth,'' extends over 7,000 square feet on two floors of the building. It provides a vast array of historical artifacts, as has been mentioned; and it is especially important for children. I was particularly glad to hear the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) talk about the tooth fairy, because we hope that the tooth fairy is kind to the Members and all of the employees with regard to a dental plan here, so I concur with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) as well. I am very proud, as well, of my home State of Connecticut that has its own place in the annals of dental history in this country. Three people in particular, I believe, deserve appropriate recognition for their Yankee ingenuity and for providing outstanding contributions to the field of dentistry: Horace Hayden, who was the first dean of the dental school in Baltimore; Horace Wells, who is the father of anesthesia; and also James McManus, who is one of the leading members on the Connecticut Dental Society who established a scholarship fund at the time for $10,000 that is now worth more than $1 million, and provides an opportunity for those people seeking to enter the field of dentistry. I would also like to thank two dentists from my district hailing from the great community of West Hartford: both Dr. Bill MacDonnell and Dr. Paula Stern, both who have practices in dentistry in West Hartford, Connecticut, for their dedication to their field and their commitment to make sure that this kind of important legislation was supported and passed. I would also like to further thank Beth Bellizzi from my staff for providing some of the key research in this area. I urge unanimous passage of this bill. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 52, which recognizes the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution in Baltimore, Maryland, as the official national museum of dentistry in the United States. The Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry is a state-of- the-art facility that uses innovative communication tools to deliver its message about proper oral health care. Its permanent exhibition, ``32 Terrific Teeth,'' extends over 7,000 square feet on two floors of the building. It provides a vast array of historical artifacts, interactive exhibitions, life-sized models and recreated environments. Tour programs especially for children and theme-based family programs help young people understand the everyday importance of dentistry. I am very proud that my home state of Connecticut has its own place in the annals of dental history in this country. Three people in particular used their Yankee ingenuity and determination to provide outstanding contributions to the field of dentistry. Horace Hayden, born in Windsor, sought to raise the academic bar for the next generation of dentists. In 1840, he became dean of the first United States dental college, the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery. One of the buildings on the college's former campus now houses the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, which is located on the Baltimore campus of the University of Maryland. Dean Hayden's educational achievement is commemorated in a monument in his home town of Windsor. Four years after Dean Hayden began to shape the future of dental education, Horace Wells made a discovery that would forever change the way dental treatments are performed. Dr. Wells, who was from Hartford, discovered anesthesia in December 1844. Dr. Wells was declared the ``discoverer of anesthesia'' by the Connecticut Legislature in 1848, by the American Dental Association in 1863, and by the American Medical Association in 1870. A statue of Dr. Wells and a plaque noting the location of his office remind all who visit Hartford of his incredible contribution. Unlike his dental colleagues Hayden and Wells, who made a significant impact in their lifetime, Dr. James McManus led a life of quiet dedication. Dr. McManus, a Hartford resident, was the first president of the Connecticut State Dental Association. His wife was so inspired by his devotion to the field of dentistry that she established a $10,000 endowment in his name. Her loving gift is now worth close to $1 million dollars. Among its many contributions, the James McManus Fund of the Hartford Dental Society provides dental scholarships and operates the Smile Mobile, which travels to dozens of schools every year to teach children about proper dental health. In addition, the James McManus Fund of the Hartford Dental Society and the Horace Wells Club of Connecticut are founding benefactors of the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry. I'm sure these three dental pioneers could never have imagined the challenges today's dentists face in their effort to keep patients healthy. According to the American Dental Association (ADA), tooth decay is not just a child's problem. Adults of all ages can have cavities, too. Dentists are concerned that sugar-filled sodas, sweetened fruit drinks, and non-nutritious snack foods have become a regular part of their patients' diets. The ADA also notes that eating patterns and food choices among children and teens are important factors that affect how quickly youngsters may develop tooth decay. Equally as alarming is the link that scientists are making between oral health problems and other diseases in the body. In the July 31, 2003 online edition of the journal Stroke, researchers found that the more teeth a person has lost, the more likely he or she is to have both advanced periodontal infections and potentially clogging plaques in the carotid artery, the vessel that feeds the brain. Good dental care can be achieved, but not without education. That is why the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry is such a vital resource, and why it should be designated as the official national museum of dentistry. Furthermore, this designation will highlight the critical public health role of the dental community. I would like to thank two dentists from my district who assisted me in my research of Connecticut's dental history: Dr. William A. MacDonnell and Dr. Paula D. Stern, both of whom practice dentistry in West Hartford, Connecticut. Their dedication to the field of dentistry and commitment to their patients would make the Connecticut dental mavericks they followed--Hayden, Wells, and McManus--very proud. I would also like to thank my colleague, Representative Elijah Cummings for introducing this bill, which acknowledges the valuable education the museum provides. He has long supported this tremendous learning institution. I know he would be joining me on the floor today to urge its passage, but he is attending the funeral of the husband of our deal colleague, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I concur with the chairman's sentiments about a dental plan. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 52, which recognizes the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution in Baltimore, Maryland, as the official national museum of dentistry in the United States. Let me acknowledge from the outset the hard work of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who is the primary introducer of this bill, along with all of the members of the Maryland delegation. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is unable to be here this afternoon. He is attending the funeral services of Mervyn Jones, the husband of our beloved colleague and dear friend and classmate of mine, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the chairman for his historical reference. I am pleased to join with the chairman in support of this legislation to transfer control of the Congressional Record Index Office to the Government Printing Office. The gentleman has ably explained the bill. The Public Printer, who asked for this legislation, has submitted a detailed justification that the chairman has included in the Record. I want to thank the chairman and the Joint Committee on Printing and particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) for his thorough explanation of the bill, the staff director of our joint committee, Maria Robinson, for her hard work, and my joint committee staff director, who I am pleased to have back, Michael Harrison, for his detailed work on this job. I would also like to thank the director of the Office of Congressional Affairs at the GPO, Mr. Andrew Sherman, who was so helpful in putting this legislation together, as well as so many other projects. I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman in support of this legislation to transfer control of the Congressional Record Index Office to the Government Printing Office. The gentleman has ably explained the bill. The Public Printer, who asked for this legislation, has submitted a detailed justification that the chairman will include in the Record. Suffice it to say that circumstances have changed in recent years, creating a need for the modification recommended in this bill. A law dating back to the mid-19th Century, now codified as Section 902 of Title 44, United States Code, gives the Joint Committee on Printing the duty to appoint and fix the pay of ``competent persons'' to prepare a periodic index to the Congressional Record. In addition to appointing the indexers and fixing their pay, the joint committee for many years actively supervised and directed the indexers' day-to-day work. The indexers have been treated as congressional employees for leave and retirement purposes. However, unlike other congressional staff, whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, the Public Printer pays the indexers out of the GPO revolving fund, and is reimbursed from the Congress's appropriation for its own printing and binding. The Public Printer provides supplies and equipment for the indexers' use, also on a reimbursable basis. The indexers perform their work on GPO premises, some distance from the Capitol, and naturally their work is closely linked to the production of the Congressional Record itself. Madam Speaker, if it ever made sense for the Joint Committee on Printing to have the responsibility to appoint the indexers, set their pay, and provide day-to-day supervision for the Index Office, that day ended in 1998 when the 105th Congress chose not to provide further appropriations for the JCP. That decision deprived the JCP of its separate professional staff, which had previously supported the joint committee in the discharge of its responsibilities, including management of the Index Office. Now those responsibilities fall upon our Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, both of which are responsible for many matters in addition to printing. Under these circumstances, it makes sense to transfer the Index Office to the Public Printer, as he has proposed, leaving the JCP to establish policy to guide the Public Printer's exercise of his responsibility. The bill does that and nothing else. The Public Printer has assured our committee that the transfer's effect on those now employed as indexers will be minimal, and on the thousands who use the index, invisible. For me, this is key. The Congressional Record is a linchpin of Congress's ongoing effort to ``keep America informed,'' which phrase is GPO's slogan. Readers of the Record know it is the Index that makes the Record a truly useful research tool. Congress could not properly keep America informed without the dedicated professionals of the Congressional Record Index Office. It is fitting that upon enactment of this bill, they will join the many dedicated professionals of the GPO. Madam Speaker, I know of no opposition to this bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlemen from Massachusetts and Hawaii who have been integral in organizing these nightly hearings and providing the American public with an opportunity they otherwise would not receive to hear about what is going on. I am fortunate, aside from serving on the Committee on Armed Services, to have recently traveled to Iraq with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), probably this body's most learned individual with regard to foreign policy and military issues, especially as they relate to intelligence. We were very disturbed this evening to find in a partisan manner that we were unable, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) has indicated, frustrated, in fact, by the fact that we can just not even get information to come forward in this body. Even more disheartening is the fact that apparently The Washington Post, CNN, the Washington Times, and others have information that the United States Congress cannot even obtain. I am particularly concerned because of our troops that are in the field; and one would think at home that there would be an accounting, recognizing that there is a creditability gap that exists here in this country with our own people, clearly one around the world, but with our own people and with our troops that we would be doing our very best to level with them. Let me explain that anecdotally I was before a group of Reservists and National Guard families in Connecticut last Thursday evening as the adjutant general from Connecticut struggled to try to explain to them why their deployment has been extended. And unfortunately, the adjutant general gets about the same kind of information that Members of Congress do. And the American people are beginning to understand that this administration simply will not level with them. And whether it is the deployment of our troops, whether it is the actual costs that are involved, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has pointed out, whether it is an accounting for the $80 billion already appropriated, forget about the $87 billion that they are asking for, and some are saying it is more than that, but not even being able to account for that in a very reasonable amendment that was put forward by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Tommy Franks in front of our committee made a very telling point that the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) observed. We queried him about whether or not these policies, some of the very issues contained in this report, the policies of preemption and unilateralism, whether they are working; and to be quite frank and honest, he said, look, these are issues that are above my pay grade. But I will say this: there is a big difference between those who wave the flag and those who salute the flag. Those who salute the flag, the men and women of our armed services have performed extraordinarily for this Nation. They deserve such a debt of gratitude to us; we all should drop to our knees nightly and thank them and praise them for their effort. But those who are waving the flag over here, the neoconservative preemptive unilateralist movement that has given this Nation a hard right turn away from the policies of deterrence, diplomacy, and containment and towards the policies of preemption and unilateralism are taking the country in the wrong direction. All we are doing is asking for information and data that this country and this body needs in order to make an informed decision. That is why I am so proud of our colleagues who have come here nightly to make sure that the American public at least know that this is not a Congress that is sleeping. It is just a Congress that has been muffled by virtue of the fact that we are in the minority.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Thursday, September 25, 2003, to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 520, 521, 522, and 523 because I was attending a funeral in my District. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 520 on H.J. Res. 69--Continuing Resolution through October 31st; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 521 on H.R. 3161--To Ratify the Authority of the FTC to Establish a Do-Not-Call Registry; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 522 on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1 to accept provisions in the Senate and House bills to avoid cuts to rural hospitals, ensure access to health care for rural communities and provide guaranteed prescription drug coverage; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 523 on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1588 to accept provisions in the Senate bill to provide TriCare health coverage for reservists called to active duty.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for her kind words. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his remarks. I thank as well the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for their consideration of this legislation, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) for his help in assisting bringing this important legislation to the floor. I would be remiss not to mention, as the gentlewoman did, the involvement of the entire Connecticut delegation, with special thanks to United States Senators Dodd and Lieberman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for their tireless efforts as well. A hearing was conducted on this back in April with the National Park Service testifying in favor of this study going forward. We have also, as was noted by the gentlewoman, received numerous support from State and local public officials, the State's oldest continuous published newspaper, and many civic groups, neighborhood groups, the Connecticut Historical Society and others who support this wholeheartedly. The historical significance is paramount. This actually was the seat of the industrial revolution. Connecticut has long been known as being an arsenal for democracy dating back to our Revolution, and Samuel Colt is known most famously for the Colt 45 and the gun that won the West. What is not known in history is the effort of Elizabeth Colt. Samuel Colt died at a very young age, and it was Elizabeth Colt who for 42 years managed this business and made it the most successful precision manufacturing business in the world at the time. It was the business to which Henry Ford came to study. It was the business in which both Pratt and Whitney were interns, and later were the pioneers of manufacturing Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines. It was here that people came to look at precision manufacturing; but Elizabeth Colt, who would have been among the Fortune top 10 at the time, did not even have the right to vote. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has talked frequently about how she was able to break through the glass ceiling and become the first to make history. Well not only did Elizabeth Colt make history, she also made a difference, as I know our leader will as well. In doing so, Elizabeth Colt was able to focus on housing concerns in the region, she was able to focus on the need to bring in assurances to help out workers in the workplace, and so she became a study not only in terms of precision manufacturing, but how to build a community around an industrial base. It is for this reason and at the dawn of our industrial revolution, and the fact that this was the first American overseas factory, that this community enterprise of State government and the private sector is worthy of this study and, as indicated, was unanimously passed by both the Senate and by the respective committee and subcommittee in this body. I urge its support today, and thank all of those for their kind words and help in bringing this to fruition. It is an outstanding achievement for the city of Hartford and the citizens of Coltsville, and a great step forward for America in recognizing the genius of Samuel Colt and the long-overdue recognition of Elizabeth Colt.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Former Chief State's Attorney John M. Bailey, one of the most dedicated and well-respected public officials to have served the state of Connecticut, who passed away Monday, September 22, 2003. To know Jack Bailey was to respect him. As Connecticut's longest- serving Chief State's Attorney, Jack defined law enforcement for nearly three decades with his boldness, commitment, and integrity. Jack's initial dabble in politics began with his White House internship for President Lyndon B. Johnson, the work at the 1964 and 1968 Democratic national conventions, and ended after a primary race for the 2nd Congressional District in 1974. Although politics was the family business, with Jack's father, the legendary Democratic state and National Committee Chairman John M. Bailey, and sister, the former Connecticut Secretary of State and U.S. Representative Barbara B. Kennelly, Jack's true passion was for law. A graduate from Catholic University School of Law, Jack became a career prosecutor and at the age of 35, was appointed Hartford State's Attorney. Jack was my longtime friend and colleague and I remember his Chief State's Attorney appointment in 1993, when I was still serving in the state Senate. I knew then that he would change Connecticut's justice system, and he did. Prior to this appointment, Jack served as the State Attorney for the Hartford Judicial District where he challenged the system and launched grand jury investigations in Enfield and investigated corruption within the Hartford Police Department. His office targeted drug and gang violence, prison riots, and developed a successful unit to investigate unsolved homicides. In 2002, Jack's failing health forced him to resign as Chief State's Attorney. There is no known cause or cure for ALS, a motor neuron disorder that makes swallowing, talking and breathing increasingly difficult. He faced this disease the way he faced life, with courage. I will forever have the sincerest respect for Jack, who battled this illness with Irish will, dignity, and faith. Love of family, community, state, and nation were hallmarks in his life. Our hearts go out to the entire Bailey family, especially his beloved wife Dee and his sons John and Brian. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in remembering and honoring the life of Jack Bailey, a remarkable man who will be greatly missed by his family, friends, and the state of Connecticut he served so well. God Bless him and his family.