John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlemen from Kansas and join with them in saluting Dwight David Eisenhower and also rising on behalf of George Washington Glick. I know that the good people of Kansas and the Representatives here will make sure that this historic figure, as well, receives his just place back in Kansas.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the men and women who wear the uniform and protect our freedoms. I rise on behalf of their families and loved ones who wait and pray for their speedy and safe return. This is a solemn moment for the Nation. There has been disagreement here at home and abroad about the policies of preemption. The men and women who wear the uniform don't make policy. They are neither diplomats nor politicians. They are soldiers and their duty is to salute and follow orders. Every member of Congress joins in unwavering support of them and their families for their sacrifice. I have openly disagreed with the policies that have led us to this moment. This evening we pause as a Congress to salute and honor our troops. And while I strongly disagree with the Administration's policies, this is not the resolution or forum to express my differences. This evening our hearts, our prayers, and our gratitude goes out to the uniformed members of the armed services. God bless them. God bless America.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in the January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address, the President proposed a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells to power cars, buses, trucks, homes and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases. Over the next five years, the proposed hydrogen fuel initiative would develop the technologies and infrastructure to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation. I rise today to introduce a Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Authorization bill that would fully authorize the President's hydrogen fuel Initiative, providing a total of $1.2 billion over 5 years. Specifically, the bill would fully authorize funding for the President's Fiscal Year 2004 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies budget request at $182 million and provide an additional $1.018 billion across the following 4 years to fully fund the initiative through FY08. Both the Fuel Cell Technology programs and the Hydrogen Technology Programs authorized in this bill are identified as key components of the Administration's FreedomCAR initiative in the FY04 budget proposal and represent a significant portion of the overall programs that make up FreedomCAR. This initiative has also been developed in response to the recommendations of the May 2001 National Energy Policy (NEP), which specifically recommended: (1) the development of next-generation technology, including hydrogen and fusion; (2) Development of an education campaign that communicates the benefits of alternative forms of energy, including hydrogen and fusion; and (3) Focused research and development efforts on integrating current programs regarding hydrogen, fuel cells, and distributed energy. Additionally, the bill ensures a continued focus on ``core'' fuel cell power plant technology research and development programs that will be necessary to accelerate the technology to meet the goals established to bring this technology to market. These core elements include programs that help to address low cost, high-efficiency, fuel flexible, modular fuel cell power systems, improved manufacturing production and processes, high temperature membranes, cost effective fuel processing for natural gas, fuel cell stack and system reliability, durability and cold start capability. Pursuing the development of this technology strikes at the very core our national security, economic stability, and environmental conscious. We have before us, for the first time in human history, the technology to provide clean, reliable energy for every person, home, business, and vehicle in America. With this technology, we have the opportunity to end once and for all America's reliance on foreign energy sources while at the same time creating quality jobs for the next century in a new and expanding technological field. I urge my colleagues to support this initiative.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in a world where too often neighbors have become strangers, the meaning of ``Love thy neighbor'' has dwindled. Fred Rogers never lost that spirit. He accepted us into his neighborhood, into his home, and presented our children with a message that you should be loved for who you are. ``The whole idea,'' said Mr. Rogers, ``is to look at the television camera and present as much love as you possibly could to a person who needs it.'' Fred Rogers recognized the power of television to carry out that message of caring, and become involved in children's broadcasting during its infancy. In the early 1950s he began working in public television at WQED, the first community public television station in the nation. On his lunch breaks, he attended Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and graduated magna cum laude with the Class of 1962 with his Master's in Divinity. The day after graduation he was called to Canada to being MISTEROGERS, the show that would evolve into Mister Rogers' Neighborhood on his return to Pittsburgh a year later. Mr. Rogers' teaching did not end at the close of each broadcast, or even when he left the studio. Through Family Communications, Inc., Fred Rogers was able to foster girls' involvement in math and science, educate children about the dangers of prejudice, and teach pre- schoolers anger management. Through Safe Havens Training Project, Mr. Rogers was able to educate childcare workers on how to deal with children that witnessed violence, proving them a place where they could feel safe. Fred Rogers also remained active in the ministry, educating a new generation of ministers at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary's Summer Youth Institute. Mr. Rogers would spend an afternoon with the teenagers, hoping to impart to them the importance of the doctrine of love and caring that he had made the center of his life. Mr. Rogers was a teacher, an educator, and a presence in many of our children's lives. The neighborhood will miss him.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 40, authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda on April 30, 2003, for a ceremony sponsored by the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, pursuant to Public Law 106-292, to observe the days of remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, and I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for bringing it before us today, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the new chief deputy majority whip, for introducing it. Congress provides for this ceremony every year during the spring. Related events will be occurring all over the country. I am proud to acknowledge that it has set a precedent in the State of Connecticut. I presided over that chamber's Holocaust memorial services for 8 years. These related events provide Americans of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds to reflect on the Holocaust, to remember its victims and to strengthen our commitment to democracy and human rights. It is appropriate that we use the Capitol rotunda, the citadel for the rule of law and the location of so many historic ceremonies, to again draw attention to one of the greatest tragedies in human history. It reminds us that such events must never be permitted to occur. Each year the ceremony has a theme geared to specific events which occurred during the Holocaust, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has pointed out. This year's theme for the days of remembrance is ``For Your Freedom and Ours,'' to honor the courageous armed resistance of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto to deportation and slaughter in the Nazi death camps. Between July and September of 1942 the Germans deported nearly 300,000 Jews from the Warsaw ghetto for execution. Cut off from assistance from the outside world, poorly armed resistance forces fought the German military for a month, in April and May of 1943, until the ghetto was finally destroyed. This resistance served as a symbolic victory and protest in the fight against oppression and helped raise the consciousness about the atrocities Hitler was perpetrating in Europe. While the days of remembrance commemorates historic events in the 1930s and 1940s in Europe, the issues raised by the Holocaust remain fresh in our memories as we survey the political scene in the world today. The nature and tactics of war and the identity of an enemy may change, but what remains is the terror, the cruelty, and the madness of it. It is especially timely now to encourage public reflection on the faith of Holocaust victims and to remember that there was then and there is still today evil in the world. The ceremony we are authorizing today reminds us that individuals, as well as Nations, can strike a blow to preserve the balance on which human civilization rests. I urge the passage of this concurrent resolution. I have no additional speakers, but I would just like to thank Matt Pinkus from our staff for his very thorough job and assistance in the comments that I used to address the body today. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and wish to associate myself with the remarks of my esteemed colleague from Florida (Mr. Mica) on what has become a quintessential Kodak moment for the Members of this august body. And I look forward to that photo opportunity because I agree with the gentleman that this clearly is a historic moment for the House as well. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Matthew R. Duksa, Sr. of Newington, Connecticut who died November 28, 2002 at the age of 80. Mr. Duksa was a longtime business owner in the First Congressional District and a valued member of the community. Matt will long be remembered for his commitment to his business and community. He created the Borawski-Duksa funeral home in New Britain in 1949 and the Newington Memorial Funeral Home in Newington in 1952. He was president of both until his death, and held memberships in the Connecticut and National Funeral Director's Associations. Throughout his life, Matt was intensely devoted to his family, to Connecticut, and to his country. He was a Newington volunteer firefighter for sixteen years, was director of the Newington volunteer ambulance, a member of Polish Businessmen and Falcons Nest #88, as well as a 3rd and 4th degree member of the Knights of Columbus Council 3884 in Newington. Those who knew Matt, knew him for his integrity, contagious sense of humor, endless curiosity, love of life, and twinkling blue eyes. He will be remembered as respectful of his staff, putting the needs of others before himself, always doing his best, living life to its fullest, and showing love continuously. Matthew Duska will be greatly missed by his friends, family, and his community and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring his life.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment Chairman Ney for bringing this important resolution to the Floor so expeditiously. I am also pleased that the Majority has agreed that the right of the minority members to control one-third of the select committee's staff and resources will be protected throughout the funding process. I am pleased that we can act today to provide interim funding for this new select committee, which was created as a separate order of the House attached to the rules resolution, H. Res. 5, adopted on January 7. The Select Committee on Homeland Security is charged with developing recommendations and reporting to the House by bill or otherwise on matters relating to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). In other words, it is a legislative committee of the House for matters which fall within its sphere, with referral of legislation to be decided by the Speaker. The resolution before us today would provide interim funding through March 31, 2003, to get it off the ground and running for a short time, by which time the House Administration Committee will have reported and the House adopted the biennial primary expense resolution providing funding for all committees and select committees of the House for the 108th Congress. Both sides of the aisle have now named their members of the new select committee, to join the chairman, Rep. Cox, and the ranking member, Rep. Turner of Texas, so it is now ready to conduct business. I also look forward to seeing the new chairman and ranking member appear in a few weeks to testify before the House Administration Committee about the committee's agenda for the next two years, as we prepare the biennial resolution. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that the Democratic Leader as appointed my good fried the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, as the ranking member of this new committee. I serve with Rep. Turner on the Armed Services Committee, and am delighted that he will have the opportunity to lead our party in rising to the challenges of providing effective homeland security against the international threats facing us today and to expand on his past legislative accomplishments in the field of national defense. He is clearly the right person for a job like this. Ths is a tremendous challenge. We must protect America from terrorism while defending the freedoms and liberties which are the foundation of our democracy. We must help organize and supervise a major new government department of historic size and responsibility. The House has made a good start with this select committee and its distinguished leadership on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, creation of the select committee will expand the House's ability to deal with these critical issues, but, as with any new entity in a legislative body, it may take some time to fully define its role and what its inter-relationships with the regular standing committees of the House will be. I and the other members of the House Administration Committee look forward to working on a bipartisan basis with the members of the select committee to help make that effort a success.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will put an end to the embarrassing legacy that the federal government has created for itself in failing to fully fund our children's education and saddling the states with tens of billions in unfunded mandates. I refer of course to the failure of the federal government to provide for mandatory full funding for the special education program--or IDEA. Currently, the federal government does not meet the financial obligations for special education it committed to in 1975 when the ``Education for all Handicapped Children Act'' (renamed Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) was first passed by Congress. This shortfall places an onerous financial burden on local communities who must find alternate resources, such as higher property taxes, to fund special education. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a civil rights statute that provides funding to states and helps states fulfill their constitutional obligation to provide a public education for all children with disabilities. IDEA serves more than six and a half million children today. Underlying IDEA is the basic principle that states and school districts must make available a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21, and must be educated with children who are not disabled ``to the maximum extent appropriate.'' Since 1975, Congress has authorized a federal commitment to special education funding at a level of 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure (APPE) on special education services. However, Congress has only appropriated funds to meet between 5 and 16 percent of the APPE, with FY2002 appropriations setting a record at 16.5 percent, or about $7.5 billion. But that is still only little more than a third of the so far embarrassingly unfulfilled, Federal commitment to our children. This has resulted in great burdens being placed on our school districts. For example, in the 2001-02 school year, the last completed school year, the town of Berlin, Connecticut spent $4,721,372 on special education, with all but $361,543 locally funded. This is outrageously short of the oft-stated goal of 40 percent federal financing. One can only begin to imagine the burden IDEA requirements, in the absence of federal funding, impose on our local school districts. We are literally forcing our schools to rob from Peter's education to pay for Paul's when we should fully fund both. And now with passage of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2003, funding will go up about $1.4 billion. There will be a lot of congratulatory backslapping because of this great increase. And it truly is a commendable step for Congress, but sadly one which fulfills less than half of the promise. Even with this increase, the federal share rises to only 18.2 percent of the 40 percent. I am sure the people of Berlin will appreciate the few thousand extra dollars they will get as a result of this increase. But the reality is that they need is the hundreds of thousands of extra dollars that is owed to them. As a former teacher, member of a school board, State Senator, and now Congressman, I have constantly heard a clear message from local educators and administrators that more resources must be committed to provide fair and adequate educational opportunities to children with special needs, and that the federal government must meet its commitment under IDEA. In the past, ``fully funding'' IDEA has generally been a theme for a handful of others who purport to fully fund IDEA but would take ten long years to do so. My bill recognizes that 25 years is enough to wait and mandates this federal funding now. Let us be clear, this is a constitutional right. Local school districts do not have the discretion to not fulfill their obligations to children with special needs. Where does the approximately $10 billion in unfulfilled Federal pledges to the States come from? It has to be made up somewhere and will most likely come from other important, but not constitutionally mandated, priorities. This is the real cost of our inaction. It is either a tradeoff in spending or a property tax increase. Ultimately, the Federal Government must choose: either to support it's commitments or stop making them. We cannot afford to continue down this path of broken promises any longer. It does not have to be this way, of course. And I believe our local educational districts, the states and the American people deserve better from us.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 26, on final passage of H.R. 395, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' personal explanation

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Do Not Call Implementation Act, H.R. 395, which will authorize the Federal Trade Commission to establish a landmark national do-not-call registry that will allow consumers to opt-out of unwanted and harassing telemarketing calls. With passage of this bill, our families will be able to wind down their long days by eating a peaceful dinner without the incessant calling that so often annoys and disrupts our time with our families. Electronic market capabilities and strategies have become more aggressive as technology has advanced and action needs to be taken to protect the peace and privacy of people in their homes. I feel that this legislation, which is similar to a Connecticut law, goes a long way in accomplishing that. The intention of telemarketers and others are by no means sinister, but Americans must have the means to protect themselves from different kinds of intrusions, including the frequent bothersome telemarketing calls interrupting a family dinner, which this legislation would enable them to do. As different kinds of technology continue to move forward, we must be vigilant in ensuring that the personal privacy rights of our citizens are not being encroached upon. The larger issue of privacy in our nation does not end with this legislation, obviously, but rather this bill becomes one of several tools that Congress has been able to employ to protect our citizens. There are still other avenues of privacy that must continue to be safeguarded including wireless services, financial information as well as computers and communications. This legislation is certainly an important step in this direction. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today the Distinguished Gentleman from Virginia Mr. J. Randy Forbes and I reintroduced bi- partisan legislation designed to revitalize an industry that is essential to maintaining this country's economic growth, technological superiority, and military preeminence. Since Orville and Wilbur Wright pioneering flight almost 100 years ago, aviation technology in the United States has reached a level of success and development unparalleled in world history. According to a recent report on ``The National Economic Impact of Civil Aviation,'' the total economic impact of civil aviation exceeded more than $900 billion and 11 million jobs to the U.S. economy in the year 2000, roughly 9 percent of the total U.S. gross domestic product. However, despite the historical strength of this industry, it is clear that the United States is involved in a difficult struggle to maintain our preeminence in the aerospace field, both commercially and militarily. In January of 2001, the European Union unveiled its plan for gaining dominance in the global aerospace market entitled, ``European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020.'' This plan lays out an ambitious, $93 billion, 20-year agenda for winning global leadership in aeronautics and aviation. In stark contrast to the vision set by the Europeans, the U.S. has cut by half its expenditures on aeronautics research & development (R&D) over the past two decades. This downward trend has coincided with a similar trend in the U.S. share of the world aerospace market, which declined from about 70 percent of the global market to less than 50 percent now. In fact, the recently completed report of the Presidential Commission on the Future of the Aerospace Industry echoed these concerns and stated that ``The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be a global aerospace leader in the 21st century,'' and that ``government policies and investments in long-term research have not kept pace with the changing world.'' In fact, the Commission recommended that ``the federal government significantly increase its investment in basic aerospace research, which enhances U.S. national security, enables breakthrough capabilities, and fosters an efficient, secure and safe aerospace transportation system''. It was as a result of these negative trends and the importance for the long-term economic and security interest of the United States, that Mr. Forbes and I joined with a bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2003. This bill, which last year received strong support in the other body as well as in the House, establishes a broad-based agenda to reinvigorate America's aeronautics and aviation R&D enterprise and maintain America's competitive leadership in aviation by: Reversing the trend of declining Federal investments in aeronautics and aviation R&D by doubling funding over five years. Funding is increased to $900 million in 2006 (approximately the level they were in 1998), and $1.15 billion in 2008. Following the recommendations of the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, doubling funding over 5 years to $550 million in 2008. Establishing a focal point for aeronautics R&D by re- establishing an Office of Aeronautics reporting directly to the NASA Administrator. Establishing an R&D initiative to develop technologies within a decade to build commercial no-noise, low-emissions, and be highly-energy efficient. Establishing an R&D initiative directed at reinvigorating the nation's rotorcraft R&D that will address the nation's civil and military needs for decades to come. Addressing the need for a long-term Federal R&D effort to develop technologies for an environmentally-friendly, commercially-viable supersonic transport capable of flight over land. Including independent review mechanisms to ensure that the agency is pursuing technology concepts in a cost-effective manner. Authorizing the establishment of one or more university- based centers for research in aviation training for flight crews and air traffic controllers as new technology and procedures are added to the nation's infrastructures. Establishing a program of scholarships to help replenish the nation's pool of aeronautical engineers. Tackling the problem of delays in and unreliability of the air transportations system directly by authorizing funds for NASA to work with NOAA on research to improve significantly the reliability of 2 to 6 hour aviation weather forecasts. Providing a significant funding to allow increased attention to environment and energy-related projects and for research on increasing the capacity, efficiency and safety of the air traffic system. The basic premise of the legislation is that the U.S. can best meet the R&D challenge mounted by the Europeans and others through focused R&D investments that will enable future aircraft and rotorcraft technologies that are extremely quiet, fuel-efficient, and low in emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The development of such aircraft will enable the U.S. aviation industry to dominate anticipated aviation markets, as well as create new markets in cities and regions whose airports have been underutilized because of perceived negative environmental impacts. In addition, the new aviation capabilities could allow innovative approaches to meeting the future demand for travel by the American public, open up new possibilities for the future national air traffic management system, and make aerospace technologies more environmentally friendly. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Ohio's own Wilbur and Orville Wright achieving the world's first successful powered flight, thus leading the way for 100 years of American domination in aviation. But now, facing new and serious challenges, leadership will be required to sustain our aerospace industry to make it as vibrant a symbol of America's might in the 21st century as it was in the 20th. This legislation is an opportunity for the country to signal its commitment to a strong and robust aviation sector and its intent to revitalize it in the face of new global challenges. America has long recognized that its long-term strength and security, and its ability to reach and sustain high levels of economic growth, depends on maintaining its edge in scientific achievement and technological innovation. If we lose our edge in the areas where we are most vibrant, as it is happening now, our economic prospects will be dimmed and our security will be threatened. Aviation was born in America nearly 100 years ago; it is not slipping to number 2 on our watch.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, exploring the unknown has always been perilous. Magallan died in the Philippines defending his men as they were circumnavigating the globe. Lewis and Clark faced numerous dangers as they were exploring the bounds of the American frontier. There is no longer any terra incognita, so man's curiosity has led him to explore space. We are still literally light years away from exploring what our grandchildren will one day be familiar with. As we embark on our quest to find out what our galaxy holds, we have almost forgotten that it takes a great deal of bravery to strike out into the unknown, and that it is not without great risk. On February 1 we were reminded of the danger that we had almost forgotten. Among the seven crewmembers was Dr. Kalpana Chawla. Dr. Chawla grew up in an impoverished small town in India where women are not expected to get an education, much less float in the weightlessness of space. Nevertheless, she persevered, and is an inspiration to anyone in grinding poverty whose dreams may be laughed at. Pilot Willie McCool was the son of a Vietnam veteran who finished second in his Naval Academy class, evidence that we are sending the best and brightest out on these dangerous missions so they may accomplish these important objectives. Navy Captain David M. Brown was a gymnast at the College of William and Mary, and when he addressed the campus in September he noted that what he was doing was similar to what the College's founders did when they came over from England, and that they faced similar risks. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Michael P. Anderson watched Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the historic Apollo 11 flight in 1969, and the excitement never left him. He served as an inspiration to minority children across the United States as he was one of the first African- Americans to join NASA in 1994. The shuttle's commander, Rick D. Husband, was a model of perseverance. He tried and failed three times to get into NASA, but he never gave up hope that one day he too could soar into the cosmos, and on the fourth try was accepted. He was a talented pilot who had been able to fly since the age of 18. Navy Commander Laurel Blair Salton Clark was no stranger to the dangers of the unknown; she had conducted medical evacuations from submarines before joining NASA. Finally, there was Illan Ramon. He was the son of a Holocaust survivor and had fought in the Yom Kippur War and the Iraeli-Lebanese conflict, so his bravery was proven well before that fateful Saturday morning. he was an Israeli Air Force pilot who served as an inspiration to his country, which is in a time of turmoil, doubt and suffering. He showed us all that space does not belong to America, but that it is for all of mankind to experience, regardless of nationality or religion. Columbia's name comes from Christopher Columbus. He too faced the dangers of hurtling into the unknown, yet without him America would not be what it is today. We were the first nation to put men on the moon because we are instilled with Columbus's spirit of wonder, curiosity, and adventure. We want to learn and explore, know everything there is to be known and then share it with the world. This is why we have NASA, why we have space shuttles, and, regrettably, why these seven souls lost their lives over Texas that blue morning. For their service and dedication to this vision, I thank them on behalf of my constituents and my children. Their lives will be filled with inspiration and wonder thanks to these brave heroes' dedication and commitment to the noble enterprise of scientific discovery.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 7, apparently the card did not register a ``yes'' vote. Let the Record show had the machine recorded the vote, I would have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation and with the opportunity to engage the chairman in a colloquy if the gentleman would see fit. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and especially the outstanding work that was done by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), whom this great piece of legislation is named after, and at this point I would like to enter into a colloquy as it relates to concurrent receipt and concerns I have with the language that are outlined in the bill. With respect to the bill, my specific questions deal with sections that talk about what will happen to any retiree who has at least a 60 percent disability rating or more for combat-related disability and the various categories that it breaks that down into. Under those specific categories are: A, if the disabling condition was incurred as a result of armed conflict; B, while engaged in hazardous service; C, under conditions simulating war; and D, caused by an instrumentality of war, examples of which include a person steps on a mine, accidents involving military combat, sicknesses or caused by fumes or gas or military ordnance. And I want to know if that applies specifically to Agent Orange and Gulf Syndrome?

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

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I assume that would apply to Gulf Syndrome as well. I know in Connecticut, having constituents that have been afflicted, I believe under the new language that this would be applicable; but inasmuch as it is not specifically outlined here, the gentleman's comments are most appreciated.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to unite this body and the Nation behind the Spratt resolution of which I am a proud cosponsor. The Spratt resolution both strengthens the President's hand and demonstrates national resolve. It preserves the constitutional authority that resides with this Congress and does not abdicate our role to the United Nations. Many have stepped forward, including many notable Republicans, Mr. Scowcroft, Mr. Eagleburger, Mr. Baker, and several others, who understand the deep importance and abiding concern that many of us on this aisle share with not only them, but people all across this Nation. Thomas Friedman spoke at a recent book tour about the consequences of our doctrine, long term, and its effect, and he was struck by the one man in the audience who came up to him and reached into his wallet and produced but a picture of his children. It spoke volumes. We need say nothing else. Support the Spratt alternative. Dick Cheney's Song of America (By David Armstrong) Few writers are more ambitious than the writers of government policy papers, and few policy papers are more ambitious than Dick Cheney's masterwork. It has taken several forms over the last decade and is in fact the product of several ghostwriters (notably Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell), but Cheney has been consistent in his dedication to the ideas in the documents that bear his name, and he has maintained a close association with the ideologues behind them. Let us, therefore, call Cheney the author, and this series of documents the Plan. The Plan was published in unclassified form most recently under the title of Defense Strategy for the 1990s, as Cheney ended his term as secretary of defense under the elder George Bush in early 1993, but it is, like ``Leaves of Grass,'' a perpetually evolving work. It was the controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft of 1992--from which Cheney, unconvincingly, tried to distance himself--and it was the somewhat less aggressive revised draft of that same year. This June it was a presidential lecture in the form of a commencement address at West Point, and in July it was leaked to the press as yet another Defense Planning Guidance (this time under the pen name of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld). It will take its ultimate form, though, as America's new national security strategy--and Cheney et al. will experience what few writers have even dared dream: their words will become our reality. The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful. The Plan is disturbing in many ways, and ultimately unworkable. Yet it is being sold now as an answer to the ``new realities'' of the post-September 11 world, even as it was sold previously as the answer to the new realities of the post-Cold War world. For Cheney, the Plan has always been the right answer, no matter how different the questions. Cheney's unwavering adherence to the Plan would be amusing, and maybe a little sad, except that it is now our plan. In its pages are the ideas that we now act upon every day with the full might of the United States military. Strangely, few critics have noted that Cheney's work has a long history, or that it was once quite unpopular, or that it was created in reaction to circumstances that are far removed from the ones we now face. But Cheney is a well-known action man. One has to admire, in a way, the Babe Ruth-like sureness of his political work. He pointed to center field ten years ago, and now the ball is sailing over the fence. Before the Plan was about domination it was about money. It took shape in late 1989, when the Soviet threat was clearly on the decline, and, with it, public support for a large military establishment. Cheney seemed unable to come to terms with either new reality. He remained deeply suspicious of the Soviets and strongly resisted all efforts to reduce military spending. Democrats in Congress jeered his lack of strategic vision, and a few within the Bush Administration were whispering that Cheney had become an irrelevant factor in structuring a response to the revolutionary changes taking place in the world. More adaptable was the up-and-coming General Colin Powell, the newly appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, Powell had seen the changes taking place in the Soviet Union firsthand and was convinced that the ongoing transformation was irreversible. Like Cheney, he wanted to avoid military cuts, but he knew they were inevitable. The best he could do was minimize them, and the best way to do that would be to offer a new security structure that would preserve American military capabilities despite reduced resources. Powell and his staff believed that a weakened Soviet Union would result in shifting alliances and regional conflict. The United States was the only nation capable of managing the forces at play in the world; it would have to remain the preeminent military power in order to ensure the peace and shape the emerging order in accordance with American interests. U.S. military strategy, therefore, would have to shift from global containment to managing less-well-defined regional struggles and unforeseen contingencies. To do this, the United States would have to project a military ``forward presence'' around the world; there would be fewer troops but in more places. This plan still would not be cheap, but through careful restructuring and superior technology, the job could be done with 25 percent fewer troops. Powell insisted that maintaining superpower status must be the first priority of the U.S. military. ``We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, `Superpower Lives Here,' no matter what the Soviets do,'' he said at the time. He also insisted that the troop levels be proposed were the bare minimum necessary to do so. This concept would come to be known as the ``Base Force.'' Powell's work on the subject proved timely. The Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989, and five days later Powell had his new strategy ready to present to Cheney. Even as decades of repression were ending in Eastern Europe, however, Cheney still could not abide even the force and budget reductions Powell proposed. Yet he knew that cuts were unavoidable. Having no alternative of his own to offer, therefore, he reluctantly encouraged Powell to present his ideas to the president. Powell did so the next day; Bush made no promises but encouraged him to keep at it. Less encouraging was the reaction of Paul Wolfowitz, the undersecretary of defense for policy. A lifelong proponent of the unilateralist, maximum-force approach, he shared Cheney's skepticism about the Eastern Bloc and so put his own staff to work on a competing plan that would somehow accommodate the possibility of Soviet backsliding. As Powell and Wolfowitz worked out their strategies, Congress was losing patience. New calls went up for large cuts in defense spending in light of the new global environment. The harshest critique of Pentagon planning came from a usually dependable ally of the military establishment, Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee. Nunn told fellow senators in March 1990 that there was a ``threat blank'' in the administration's proposed $295 billion defense budget and that the Pentagon's ``basic assessment of the overall threat to our national security'' was ``rooted in the past.'' The world had changed and yet the ``development of a new military strategy that responds to the changes in the threat has not yet occurred.'' Without that response, no dollars would be forthcoming. Nunn's message was clear. Powell and Wolfowitz began filling in the blanks. Powell started promoting a Zen-like new rationale for his Base Force approach. With the Soviets rapidly becoming irrelevant, Powell argued, the United States could no longer assess its military needs on the basis of known threats. Instead, the Pentagon should focus on maintaining the ability to address a wide variety of new and unknown challenges. This shift from a ``threat based'' assessment of military requirements to a ``capability based'' assessment would become a key theme of the Plan. The United States would move from countering Soviet attempts at dominance to ensuring its own dominance. Again, this project would not be cheap. Powell's argument, circular though it may have been, proved sufficient to hold off Congress. Winning support among his own colleagues, however, proved more difficult. Cheney remained deeply skeptical about the Soviets, and Wolfowitz was only slowly coming around. To account for future uncertainties, Wolfowitz recommended drawing down U.S. forces to roughly the levels proposed by Powell, but doing so at a much slower pace; seven years as opposed to the four Powell suggested. He also built in a ``crisis response/ reconstitution'' clause that would allow for reversing the process if events in the Soviet Union, or elsewhere, turned ugly. With these now elements in place, Cheney saw something that might work. By combining Powell's concepts with those of Wolfowitz, he could counter congressional criticism that his proposed defense budget was out of line with the new strategic reality, while leaving the door open for future force increases. In late June, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Cheney presented their plan to the president, and within as few weeks Bush was unveiling the new strategy. Bush laid out the rationale for the Plan in a speech in Aspen, Colorado, on August 2, 1990. He explained that since the danger of global war had substantially receded, the principal threats to American security would emerge in unexpected quarters. To counter those threats, he said, the United States would increasingly base the size and structure of its forces on the need to respond to ``regional contingencies'' and maintain a peacetime military presence overseas. Meeting that need would require maintaining the capability to quickly deliver American forces to any ``corner of the globe,'' and that would mean retaining many major weapons systems then under attack in Congress as overly costly and unnecessary, including the ``Star Wars'' missile- defense program. Despite those massive outlays, Bush insisted that the proposed restructuring would allow the United States to draw down its active forces by 25 percent in the years ahead, the same figure Powell had projected ten months earlier. The Plan's debut was well timed. By a remarkable coincidence, Bush revealed it the very day Saddam Hussein's Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. The Gulf War temporarily reduced the pressure to cut military spending. It also diverted attention from some of the Plan's less appealing aspects. In addition, it inspired what would become one of the Plan's key features: the use of ``overwhelming force'' to quickly defeat enemies, a concept since dubbed the Powell Doctrine. Once the Iraqi threat was ``contained,'' Wolfowitz returned to his obsession with the Soviets, planning various scenarios involved possible Soviet intervention in regional conflicts. The failure of the hard-liner coup against Gorbachev in August 1991, however, made it apparent that such planning might be unnecessary. Then, in late December, just as the Pentagon was preparing to put the Plan in place, the Soviet Union collapsed. With the Soviet Union gone, the United States had a choice. It could capitalize on the euphoria of the moment by nurturing cooperative relations and developing multilateral structures to help guide the global realignment then taking place; or it could consolidate its power and pursue a strategy of unilateralism and global dominance. It chose the latter course. In early 1992, as Powell and Cheney campaigned to win congressional support for their augmented Base Force plan, a new logic entered into their appeals. The United States, Powell told members of the House Armed Services Committee, required ``sufficient power'' to ``deter any challenger from ever dreaming of challenging us on the world stage.'' To emphasize the point, he cast the United States in the role of street thug. ``I want to be the bully on the block,'' he said, implanting in the mind of potential opponents that ``there is no future in trying to challenge the armed forces of the United States.'' As Powell and Cheney were making this new argument in their congressional rounds, Wolfowitz was busy expanding the concept and working to have it incorporated into U.S. policy. During the early months of 1992, Wolfowitz supervised the preparation of an internal Pentagon policy statement used to guide military officials in the preparation of their forces, budgets, and strategies. The classified document, known as the Defense Planning Guidance, depicted a world dominated by the United States, which would maintain its superpower status through a combination of positive guidance and overwhelming military might. the image was one of a heavily armed City on a Hill. The DPG stated that the ``first objective'' of U.S. defense strategy was ``to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival.'' Achieving this objective required that the United States ``prevent any hostile power from dominating a region'' of strategic significance. America's new mission would be to convince allies and enemies alike ``that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.'' Another new theme was the use of preemptive military force. The options, the DPG noted, ranged from taking preemptive military action to head off a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack to ``punishing'' or ``threatening punishment of'' aggressors ``through a variety of means,'' including strikes against weapons-manufacturing facilities. The DPG also envisioned maintaining a substantial U.S. nuclear arsenal while discouraging the development of nuclear programs in other countries. It depicted a ``U.S.-led system of collective security'' that implicitly precluded the need for rearmament of any king by countries such as Germany and Japan. And it called for the ``early introduction'' of a global missile-defense system that would presumably render all missile-launched weapons, including those of the United States, obsolete. (The United States would, of course, remain the world's dominant military power on the strength of its other weapons systems.) The story, in short, was dominance by way of unilateral action and military superiority. While coalitions--such as the one formed during the Gulf War--held ``considerable promise for promoting collective action,'' the draft DPG stated, the United States should expect future alliances to be ``ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished.'' It was essential to create ``the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S.'' and essential that America position itself ``to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated'' or in crisis situation requiring immediate action. ``While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman,'' the document said, ``we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends.'' Among the interests the draft indicated the United States would defend in this manner were ``access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, [and] threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism.'' The DPC was leaked to the New York Times in March 1992. Critics on both the left and the right attacked it immediately. Then-presidential candidate Pat Buchanan portrayed candidate a ``blank check'' to America's allies by suggesting the United States would ``go to war to defend their interests.'' Bill Clinton's deputy campaign manager, George Stephanopoulos, characterized it as an attempt by Pentagon officials to ``find an excuse for big defense budgets instead of downsizing.'' Delaware Senator Joseph Biden criticized the Plan's vision of a ``Pax Americana, a global security system where threats to stability are suppressed or destroyed by U.S. military power.'' Even those who found the document's stated goals commendable feared that its chauvinistic tone could alienate many allies. Cheney responded by attempting to distance himself from the Plan. The Pentagon's spokesman dismissed the leaked document as a ``low-level draft'' and claimed that Cheney had not seen it. Yet a fifteen-page section opened by proclaiming that it constituted ``definitive guidance from the Secretary of Defense.'' Powell took a more forthright approach to dealing with the flap: he publicly embraced the DPG's core concept. In a TV interview, he said he believed it was ``just fine'' that the United States reign as the world's dominant military power. ``I don't think we should apologize for that,'' he said. Despite bad reviews in the foreign press, Powell insisted that America's European allies were ``not afraid'' of U.S. military might because it was ``power that could be trusted'' and ``will not be misused.'' Mindful that the draft DPG's overt expression of U.S. dominance might not fly, Powell in the same interview also trotted out a new rationale for the original Base Force plan. He argued that in a post-Soviet world, filled with new dangers, the United States needed the ability to fight on more than one front at a time. ``One of the most destabilizing things we could do,'' he said, ``is to cut our forces so much that if we're tied up in one area of the world . . . and we are not seen to have the ability to influence another area of the world, we might invite just the sort of crisis we're trying to deter.'' This two-war strategy provided a possible answer to Nunn's ``threat blank.'' One unknown enemy wasn't enough to justify lavish defense budgets, but two unknown enemies might do the trick. Within a few weeks the Pentagon had come up with a more comprehensive response to the DPG furor. A revised version was leaked to the press that was significantly less strident in tone, though only slightly less strident in fact. While calling for the United States to prevent ``any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests,'' the new draft stressed that America would act in concert with its allies--when possible. It also suggested the United Nations might take an expanded role in future political, economic, and security matters, a concept conspicuously absent from the original draft. The controversy died down, and, with a presidential campaign under way, the Pentagon did nothing to stir it up again. Following Bush's defeat, however, the Plan reemerged. In January 1993, in his very last days in office. Cheney released a final version. The newly titled Defense Strategy for the 1990s retained the soft touch of the revised draft DPG as well as its darker themes. The goal remained to preclude ``hostile competitors from challenging our critical interests'' and preventing the rise of a new super-power. Although it expressed a ``preference'' for collective responses in meeting such challenges, it made clear that the United States would play the lead role in any alliance. Moreover, it noted that collective action would ``not always be timely.'' Therefore, the United States needed to retain the ability to ``act independently, if necessary.'' To do so would require that the United States maintain its massive military superiority. Others were not encouraged to follow suit. It was kinder, gentler dominance, but it was dominance all the same. And it was this thesis that Cheney and company nailed to the door on their way out. The new administration tacitly rejected the heavy-handed, unilateral approach to U.S. primacy favored by Powell, Cheney, and Wolfowitz. Taking office in the relative calm of the early post--Cold War era, Clinton sought to maximize America's existing position of strength and promote its interests through economic diplomacy, multilateral institutions (dominated by the United States), greater international free trade, and the development of allied coalitions, including American-led collective military action. American policy, in short, shifted from global dominance to globalism. Clinton also failed to prosecute military campaigns with sufficient vigor to satisfy the defense strategists of the previous administration. Wolfowitz found Clinton's Iraq policy especially infuriating. During the Gulf War, Wolfowitz harshly criticized the decision--endorsed by Powell and Cheney--to end the war once the U.N. mandate of driving Saddam's forces from Kuwait had been fulfilled, leaving the Iraqi dictator in office. He called on the Clinton Administration to finish the job by arming Iraqi opposition forces and sending U.S. ground troops to defense a base of operation for them in the southern region of the country. In a 1996 editorial, Wolfowitz raised the prospect of launching a preemptive attack against Iraq. ``Should we sit idly by,'' he wrote, ``with our passive containment policy and our inept cover operations, and wait until a tyrant possessing large quantities of weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated delivery systems strikes out at us?'' Wolfowitz suggested it was ``necessary'' to ``go beyond the containment strategy.'' Wolfowitz's objections to Clinton's military tactics were not limited to Iraq. Wolfowitz had endorsed President Bush's decision in late 1992 to intervene in Somalia on a limited humanitarian basis. Clinton later expanded the mission into a broader peacekeeping effort, a move that ended in disaster. With perfect twenty-twenty hindsight, Wolfowitz decried Clinton's decision to send U.S. troops into combat ``where there is no significant U.S. national interest.'' He took a similar stance on Clinton's ill-fated democracy-building effort in Haiti, chastising the president for engaging ``American military prestige'' on an issue'' of the little or no importance'' to U.S. interests. Bosnia presented a more complicated mix of posturing and ideologics. While running for president, Clinton had scolded the Bush Administration for failing to take action to stem the flow of blood in the Balkans. Once in office, however, and chastened by their early misadventures in Somalia and Haiti, Clinton and his advisers struggled to articulate a coherent Bosnia policy. Wolfowitz complained in 1994 of the administration's failure to ``develop an effective course of action.' He personally advocated arming the Bosnian Muslims in their fight against the Serbs. Powell, on the other hand, publicly cautioned against intervention. In 1995 a U.S.-led NATO bombing campaign, combined with a Croat-Muslim ground offensive, forced the Serbs into negotiations, leading to the Dayton Peace Accords. In 1999, as Clinton rounded up support for joint U.S.-NATO action in Kosovo, Wolfowitz hectored the president for failing to act quickly enough. After eight years of what Cheney et al. regarded as wrong- headed military adventures and pinprick retaliatory strikes, the Clinton Administration--mercifully, in their view--came to an end. With the ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency, the authors of the Plan returned to government, ready to pick up where they had left off. Cheney of course, became vice president, Powell became secretary of state, and Wolfowitz moved into the number two slot at the Pentagon, as Donald Rumsfeld's deputy. Other contributors also returned: Two prominent members of the Wolfowitz team that crafted the original DPG took up posts on Cheney's staff. I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, who served as Wolfowitz's deputy during Bush I, became the vice president's chief of staff and national security adviser. And Eric Edelman, an assistant deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush Administration, became a top foreign policy adviser to Cheney. Cheney and company had not changed their minds during the Clinton interlude about the correct course for U.S. policy, but they did not initially appear bent on resurrecting the Plan. Rather than present a unified vision of foreign policy to the world, in the early going the administration focused on promoting a series of seemingly unrelated initiatives. Notable among these were missile defense and space-based weaponry, long-standing conservative causes. In addition, a distinct tone of unilateralism emerged as the new administration announced its intent to abandon the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in order to pursue missile defense; its opposition to U.S. ratification of an international nuclear-test-ban pact; and its refusal to become a party to an International Criminal Court. It also raised the prospect of ending the self-imposed U.S. moratorium on nuclear testing initiated by the President's father during the 1992 presidential campaign. Moreover, the administration adopted a much tougher diplomatic posture, as evidenced, most notably, by a distinct hardening of relations with both China and North Korea. While none of this was inconsistent with the concept of U.S. dominance, these early actions did not, at the time, seem to add up to a coherent strategy. It was only after September 11 that the Plan emerged in full. Within days of the attacks, Wolfowitz and Libby began calling for unilateral military action against Iraq, on the shaky premise that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network could not have pulled off the assaults without Saddam Hussein's assistance. At the time, Bush rejected such appeals, but Wolfowitz kept pushing and the President soon came around. In his State of the Union address in January, Bush labeled Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an ``axis of evil,'' and warned that he would ``not wait on events'' to prevent them from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States. He reiterated his commitment to preemption in his West Point speech in June. ``If we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long,'' he said. ``We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge.'' Although it was less noted, Bush in that same speech also reintroduced the Plan's central theme. He declared that the United States would prevent the emergence of a rival power by maintaining ``military strengths beyond the challenge.'' With that, the President effectively adopted a strategy his father's administration had developed ten years earlier to ensure that the United States would remain the world's preeminent power. While the headlines screamed ``preemption,'' no one noticed the declaration of the dominance strategy. In case there was any doubt about the administration's intentions, the Pentagon's new DPG lays them out. Signed by Wolfowitz's new boss, Donald Rumsfeld, in May and leaked to the Los Angeles Times in July, it contains all the key elements of the original Plan and adds several complementary features. The preemptive strikes envisioned in the original draft DPG are now ``unwarned attacks.'' The old Powell-Cheney notion of military ``forward presence'' is now ``forwarded deterrence.'' The use of overwhelming force to defeat an enemy called for in the Powell Doctrine is now labeled an ``effects based'' approach. Some of the names have stayed the same. Missile defense is back, stronger than ever, and the call goes up again for a shift from a ``threat based'' structure to a ``capabilities based'' approach. The new DPG also emphasizes the need to replace the so-called Cold War strategy of preparing to fight two major conflicts simultaneously with what the Los Angeles Times refers to as ``a more complex approach aimed at dominating air and space on several fronts.'' This, despite the fact that Powell had originally conceived--and the first Bush Administration had adopted--the two-war strategy as a means of filling the ``threat blank'' left by the end of the Cold War. Rumsfeld's version adds a few new ideas, most impressively the concept of preemptive strikes with nuclear weapons. These would be earth-penetrating nuclear weapons used for attacking ``hardened and deeply buried targets,'' such as command-and- control bunkers, missile silos, and heavily fortified underground facilities used to build and store weapons of mass destruction. The concept emerged earlier this year when the administration's Nuclear Posture Review leaked out. At the time, arms-control experts warned that adopting the NPR's recommendations would undercut existing arms-control treaties, do serious harm to nonproliferation efforts, set off new rounds of testing, and dramatically increase the prospectus of nuclear weapons being used in combat. Despite these concerns, the administration appears intent on developing the weapons. In a final flourish, the DPG also directs the military to develop cyber-, laser-, and electronic-warfare capabilities to ensure U.S. dominion over the heavens. Rumsfeld spelled out these strategies in Foreign affairs earlier this year, and it is there that he articulated the remaining elements of the Plan; unilateralism and global dominance. Like the revised DPG of 1992, Rumsfeld feigns interest in collective action but ultimately rejects it as impractical. ``Wars can benefit from coalitions,'' he writes, `` but they should not be fought by committee.'' And coalitions, he adds, ``must not determine the mission.'' The implication is the United States will determine the missions and lead the fights. Finally, Rumsfeld expresses the key concept of the Plan: preventing the emergence of rival powers. Like the original draft DPG of 1992, he states that America's goal is to develop and maintain the military strength necessary to ``dissuade'' rivals or adversaries from ``competing.'' with no challengers, and a proposed defense budget of $379 billion for next year, the United States would reign over all its surveys. Reaction to the latest edition of the Plan has, thus far, focused on preemption. Commentators parrot the administration's line, portraying the concept of preemptory strikes as a ``new'' strategy aimed at combating terrorism. In an op-ed piece for the Washington Post following Bush's West Point address, former Clinton adviser William Galston described preemption as part of a ``brand-new security doctrine,'' and warned of possible negative diplomatic consequences. Others found the concept more appealing. Loren Thompson of the conservative Lexington Institute hailed the ``Bush Doctrine'' as ``a necessary response to the new dangers that America faces'' and declared it ``the biggest shift in strategic thinking in two generations.'' Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley echoed that sentiment, writing that ``no talk of this ilk has been heard from American leaders since John Foster Dulles talked of rolling back the Iron Curtain.'' Preemption, of course, is just part of the Plan, and the Plan is hardly new. It is a warmed-over version of the strategy Cheney and his coauthors rolled out in 1992 as the answer to the end of the Cold War. Then the goal was global dominance, and it met with bad reviews. Now it is the answer to terrorism. The emphasis is on preemption, and the reviews are generally enthusiastic. Through all of this, the dominance motif remains, though largely undetected. This country once rejected ``unwarned'' attacks such as Pearl Harbor as barbarous and unworthy of a civilized nation. Today many cheer the prospect of conducting sneak attacks-- potentially with nuclear weapons--on piddling powers run by tin-pot despots. We also once denounced those who tried to rule the world. Our primary objection (at least officially) to the Soviet Union as its quest for global domination. Through the successful employment of the tools of containment, deterrence, collective security, and diplomacy--the very methods we now reject--we rid ourselves and the world of the Evil Empire. Having done so, we now pursue the very thing for which we opposed it. And now that the Soviet Union is gone, there appears to be no one left to stop us. Perhaps, however, there is. The Bush Administration and its loyal opposition seem not to grasp that the quests for dominance generate backlash. Those threatened with preemption may themselves launch preemptory strikes. And even those who are successfully ``preempted'' or dominated may object and find means to strike back. Pursuing such strategies may, paradoxically, result in greater factionalism and rivalry, precisely the things we seek to end. Not all Americans share Colin Powell's desire to be ``the bully on the block.'' In fact, some believe that by following a different path the United States has an opportunity to establish a more lasting security environment. As Dartmouth professors Stephen Brooks and William Woblforth wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, ``Unipolarity makes it possible to be the global bully--but it also offers the United States the luxury of being able to look beyond its immediate needs to its own, and the world's, long-term interests. . . . Magnanimity and restraint in the face of temptation are tenets of successful statecraft that have proved their worth.'' Perhaps, in short, we can achieve our desired ends by means other than global domination.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in an effort to unite this body behind the Spratt resolution. I oppose House Joint Resolution 114 because this resolution sets a dangerous new precedent in foreign policy, a policy of preemptive first strikes and go-it-alone unilateralism. This is a radical departure from long-standing United States policy of deterrence, diplomacy, containment and collective security. We are drifting away from the successful coalition-building of former- President George Bush in Desert Storm and our current President's administration's coalition that is currently prosecuting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are united behind the President in his continued prosecution of this war on terror, a mission we need to relentlessly pursue and not be deterred from. We are united behind the President in our efforts before the United Nations, and strongly support a tough, new, robust, unfettered weapons inspection process that is currently being negotiated by Colin Powell. We are in unanimous agreement about the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the atrocities he has perpetuated against other nations and his own people, and the need to remove him. We stand united behind our men and women of our armed services no matter the outcome of the vote. Where we differ is not whether, but how, we address this threat. As former Secretary of State Jim Baker points out it is not whether to use military force to achieve this, but how we go about it. While we address the near-term danger presented by Saddam Hussein, we must be equally mindful of the dangerous long-term consequences of first- strike, go-it-alone policy. To that extent, there is a notable divide in past and current Bush administrations and within this Congress and amongst people across this Nation. This divide stems from those advocating the abandonment of long- standing policy in favor of going it alone. This is not about the use of force. I voted for the use of force in Kosovo and in Afghanistan. It is about the preemptive and unilateral use of force. The United States is the undisputed preeminent military, social and economic leader in the world; but there are many issues we simply cannot solve alone. Issues like the environment, disease and global economic stability are but a few examples and only further underscore the problematic concerns of our ongoing debate about going alone. There is no question that we have the military might or that we will prevail against Iraq or any nation. But what lingers is whether we have the restraint as the world's lone superpower to lead by the rule of law and use our terrible swift swords only as a last resort. The goal of the administration is to isolate Saddam Hussein and bring about his demise. In the process we must make sure that it is not the United States that is isolated and alone. For even with all our military might and resources, we cannot solve all the global problems by ourselves. The internationalist wing of the Republican Party best expressed the perils of preemption, in going it alone in Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security Advisor to both President Ford and former President Bush, who has argued that attacking Iraq will take away from the effort against the war on terror and do long-term damage to the stability needed in the Middle East. Retired generals like Norman Schwarzkopf and Secretary of State Eagleburger, hardly appeasers, come down on the side of caution and coalition building. General Zinni, retired Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command, talks about the need to be intensely involved in the peace process between Israel and Palestine. In staying focused on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, he wonders aloud about those in the administration who have never served in the military who seem so anxious to place our troops in harm's way; and those in the administration who characterize heroes like General Wesley Clark, former Commander in Chief of the U.S. European Command, who urged the two-step approach of the Spratt resolution and calls them dreamers. This is a time that the President, Congress, and the people need to be united. It is why we have introduced the Spratt resolution. This resolution strengthens the President's hand and demonstrates national resolve. It preserves the constitutional authority that resides with Congress and does not abrogate our role to the executive branch. The people in my district feel strongly about this and have spoken out in town hall meetings. They are deeply opposed to a go-it-alone policy; and while understanding the potential threat posed by Saddam, they want us to pursue the course the President outlined before the United Nations. Make no mistake, there is broad support for the President and implicit understanding of the awesome responsibility he bears as Commander in Chief. There is also an equal expectation that elected representatives will ask the tough questions and will measure the consequences and collateral damage of our actions. Our system is one of checks and balances; and clearly from my perspective, the use of force preemptively and unilaterally needs to be held in check, debated, discussed and not rubber stamped in a climate of fear and crisis. The people's House must question the unintended consequences of this new policy. What are those consequences? What will be the collateral damage associated with preemptive unilateral attacks? I say it can be said no better than our Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Robert Jordan, when I asked him if we were facing a gathering storm in the Middle East. He replied, no, Congressman, you are from New England. Surely you have read the book or seen the movie. This is not a gathering storm. This has all the makings of the perfect storm. Our relationship with our allies in the Middle East in the prosecution of the war on terrorist is fragile. There is great unrest in the region from economic instability to religious fanatics spewing hate towards the United States. A preemptive unilateral attack on Saddam Hussein could accomplish what Osama bin Laden failed to do, and that is unite the Islamic world in a jihad against the United States. Going it alone may well bring down a tin pan dictator, but will the consequences of that be the recruitment of tens of thousands of new terrorists bound for our shores? Thomas Friedman, noted New York Times columnist, spoke at a recent book tour about the long-term consequences of our doctrine, and I was struck by the reaction of a man who simply reached into his wallet and showed a picture to Friedman of his children. Nothing else need be said. Support the Spratt amendment.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 450, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 428, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Her Majesty Queen Sirikit of Thailand on her visit to the United States from October 4 to 16, 2002. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues in the House are undoubtedly aware, Thailand and the United States have been friends for almost two centuries. Our formal relations extend back 169 years to the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between our two nations on March 20, 1833, during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson, the seventh United States President, and the reign of His Majesty King Phra Nang Klao, or King Rama III, of the Chakri Dynasty. This Treaty was the first such treaty that the United States had concluded with any Asian country and it contains a pledge to establish ``a perpetual peace'' between our two countries. I believe that this pledge has been honored during the long and happy relationship between Thailand and the United States as we have so often fought side by side and have made countless sacrifices for one another in defense of our common values. I'd also like to remind my colleagues that His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej Maharaj, Thailand's present King, was born some 75 years ago in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where His father, His Royal Highness Prince Mahidol, was studying at the Harvard Medical School. In addition to highlighting the strong ties between the United States and Thailand, the Queen's visit to the United States will allow also us to become more aware of the many charitable organizations which She has founded and has worked so hard to make successful. One of the more important of these is the Foundation for the Promotion of Supplementary Occupations and Related Techniques, or SUPPORT. SUPPORT was founded in 1976 under Her Majesty's royal patronage and chairmanship and provides outlets for local wares and handicrafts from all regions of the Kingdom. The promotion and sales of these items provide extra income- generating occupations for farmers who find it difficult to subsist on farm incomes alone. By supporting these cottage and indigenous industries, the Foundation also help keep alive dying arts, such as traditional clay ``chao wang'' dolls and tie-dye ``mud-mee'' silk. Many of my colleagues and I are looking forward to seeing the display of products and activities of the SUPPORT Foundation at the gala dinner which will be presided over by Her Majesty at the Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress on October 9. One of the highlights of the Queen's visit will be to preside over the premier of the Thai film The Legend of Suriyothai at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts here in Washington. This critically acclaimed film by one of Thailand's most experienced film[chyph]makers, Prince Chatrichalerm Yukol, is an epic historical motion picture that portrays one of Thailand's foremost heroines, Queen Phra Suriyothai. She fought and died to protect Her husband and king's life and Her actions united Her people to win a war against an invading army in the 14th century. During Her visit to the United States, Queen Sirikit will also travel to Houston, Texas, where She will be presented with The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Award for Humanitarian Service. This award will recognize Her Majesty's lifelong dedication to improving the health and well being of the people of Thailand and for international leadership in health and the environment. Former President and Mrs. George Bush will also host tea for Her Majesty during Her stay in Houston. Mr. Speaker, given the importance of our relationship with Thailand and in recognition all Queen Sirikit has done to improve the lives of Her subjects and people throughout the world, I rise today to welcome Her Majesty to the United States and to urge my colleagues in joining me in honoring one of the world's most respected humanitarians.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote No. 400 today. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote No. 402 today. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yea.''