John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, they could not afford to sign up. It is impossible to underwrite that actuarially. Every insurance man and CEO will say that. They have sworn under oath that is the case. The gentleman is right about this being a defining moment, not only for the respective parties, but for America and for this Chamber. Between this body and the other body, there are 535 Members. There are over 600 pharmaceutical lobbyists currently working the Hill. It is time to decide who is going to have their say in the well of this House and on this floor, whether it is going to be the money changers or whether it is going to be the men and women of this Chamber who are going to be allowed to vote up or down, to have a say on the proposal that they are putting forth, the Democratic proposal the gentleman has espoused this evening.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas and again applaud both he and the gentleman from Texas for their continued efforts on this floor, along with our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has also been outspoken with respect to this important issue. The gentleman from Texas, I think, outlined very succinctly the issue we face here. So many seniors have waited in anticipation, after hearing every Presidential candidate, both throughout the primary season and then into the election of 2000, talk about how this was the most important issue facing not only seniors, but Americans in general, and to have virtually almost every Member of Congress and members of State legislative bodies as well come forward and say this is the most important issue to seniors. And so while we have universal agreement that this is the most important issue confronting our senior population, to date we have not seen anything come to the floor. What an outrage. What a shame. A great Republican President once said, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but the American public will not be fooled by sleight of hand, will not be fooled by sham proposals. They want a straightforward, direct answer. We should have open debate on this floor about an issue that everyone universally agrees with should be debated. It is our sincere hope that we have a bipartisan resolution. I heard the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) on the floor earlier pleading about the cost of price and the gentleman from Georgia talking about the cost of price and the need for us to get this under control. So, therefore, we ought to have an open debate on this issue, but the American public should be tuned in and understand and be able to see proposals side by each and make up their minds on who is putting forward a proposal that best suits their needs. This generation that has been heralded by Tom Brokaw and others as the greatest generation ever, this generation that has been heralded in the movies, in books, on the radio, what do they say? They say the time for lip service is over, the time for platitudes is through; provide us with a prescription drug policy that works, that is universal. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) pointed out, that should have been included under the Medicare provision in 1965 so that seniors everywhere would have the opportunity to get prescription drugs at a price they can afford. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) articulated it very well earlier. What we have done is we have turned our senior population into refugees from their own health care system, refugees that have to leave their own country and travel to Canada to afford the prescription drugs that they need to sustain their lives. Is that how we treat the greatest generation ever? Is that how we award our veterans for their valiant service, that when they need their Nation most in the twilight of their years, when they want to live out their final days in dignity, we are arguing over the cost of a plan? Then if there is a difference between the plans, and the difference is the cost, let the parties be known by what they stand for and whom they are willing to stand up for, and if it is a matter of cost, then the cost has already been paid, and it has been paid for dearly by the sacrifice of generation after generation of Americans, especially those who came back and rebuilt this Nation, who provided their children with the best education ever, that saw this great country rise to the preeminent military, economic, social leader in the world, and for their thanks they are deserving of living out their final days in dignity. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), I applaud the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), but I recognize deeply as well that there is an outrage that is being perpetrated. Americans everywhere should be phoning in and calling and making sure. Perhaps maybe some would agree and argue and say, you know what, we think perhaps their approach is better. Then fine. This is America. This is a democracy. Let us lay that proposal out as we are told we are going to see next week, but allow the Democratic proposal. I can't believe I am saying this in this Chamber. Allow the Democratic proposal. Of course the Democratic proposal should be presented side by each, and it should be fully debated. That is what Americans expect. That is the premise on which this Nation was founded. Let it take place. Let it unfold as it well should next week when we have an opportunity to see both plans side by each. The only thing more outrageous than the price that everyone agrees on, whether they be from Minnesota or Georgia or Texas, Connecticut or Arkansas, is that these prices are way too high, and the people who are paying the price are our senior citizens, those all too often who least can afford to do it. So, therefore, the only thing that would be more outrageous than the prices that they are already paying would be for us in this body not to have an open and fair debate where every Member gets to come down and speak their mind under an open rule on this, what everyone agrees universally is the most important issue that faces our senior citizens, those in the twilight of their lives who deserve to live out those final days in dignity. I thank the gentlemen from Texas and Arkansas for their support and continue to laud their efforts.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I especially want to comment on the remarks of the gentleman from Texas earlier with respect to insuring this initiative. I hail from the great city of East Hartford, in Hartford, home of the insurance industry, and I am very proud of that. But as the gentleman from Texas indicated earlier, under oath, people in the insurance industry understand that this is a sham; that this is something which simply cannot be underwritten; that actuarially it is impossible to ensure this kind of risk. And they do so candidly. In talking to one CEO, he said this would be like trying to underwrite getting a haircut. So to perpetrate this kind of a sham and a myth on the elderly is outrageous. And the only thing more outrageous is the high prices that they are paying. And the only thing more outrageous than that would be if we do not have an opportunity to present a Democratic alternative here on the floor. I commend the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentleman from Texas for their long-standing work and efforts in this specific area. But even the insurance industry CEOs understand this is a sham; that it cannot work; that it cannot possibly be priced where anyone who need this benefit could afford to purchase the insurance that would cover it.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will yield on that.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Service Day, celebrated every year on June 20, but more important to Americans this year than ever before. Following the events of September 11, I, like many Americans, felt the need to respond not only with my checkbook but also with my actions. Indeed, many of us felt a yearning to find meaning in those tragic events by actively participating in our nation's healing process; and we came together in a way that many of us had not seen in generations. Long before that horrifying day, President John F. Kennedy captured what so many of us felt in the wake of our national disaster. He pointed to the need Americans have always had to participate in spreading America's values of freedom, justice and opportunity around the world. ``We have, in this country,'' he said, ``an immense reservoir of men and women anxious to sacrifice their energies and time and toil to the cause of world peace and human progress . . . knowing that he or she is sharing in the great common task of bringing to man that decent way of life which is the foundation of freedom and a condition of peace.'' Americans since September 11 have indeed responded to that calling and contributed their share in our nation's, and the world's, rejuvenation. Yet they have learned what many Americans have known all along: that service benefits not only the recipient of the deed, but the giver as well, in ways far less tangible, but perhaps even more meaningful. Service has always been an answer to man's quest for purpose and meaning in life, elevating him, bringing him closer to people from different backgrounds and teaching him that the world can be improved even through the small acts of individuals. Thus, when President John F. Kennedy asked Americans not to be dependent on our country, but rather to do for our country, we understood what he meant because we knew the value of national service. Our appreciation of its enriching nature ensured our overwhelming response to his call. AmeriCorps is perhaps the most celebrated example of the drive Americans have always had to lend a hand to those in need. Since it was initiated by President Clinton in 1993, more than 250,000 men and women have served in AmeriCorps, providing needed assistance to millions of Americans, particularly in tutoring programs. The Corporation for Public Management, an independent evaluator, found that students tutored by AmeriCorps members completed their homework 67 percent more often, and 75 percent of those students improved the quality of their homework as well. In my district, in the last year alone, AmeriCorps provided in-school and after-school tutoring to 250 children in five elementary schools in order to improve children's language arts performance. The Corps members in my district also tutored 300 disadvantaged students and parents at homework centers and engaged youth in service-learning projects. AmeriCorps, however, is just one of many organizations in my district that I look to as inspiring examples of community service. The Connecticut Commission on National and Community Service is another shining example, dedicated to incorporating volunteerism into a positive personal experience to strengthen communities. Based in Hartford, the Commission envisions a Connecticut in which every citizen embraces the ethic of community service. Through a multitude of service opportunities, individuals will understand the social needs of their communities and will embark on fulfilling their most American of wishes--to help others. By recognizing this opportunity to serve, barriers that have hindered a sense of community will be lifted, and citizens across age, ethnic, racial, and economic strata will come together around a common good. It is therefore incumbent on us here in Congress to do all we can to encourage service in this time when so many Americans are yearning for ways to do their share and find scraps of meaning in the rubble of September 11. Now, more than ever, we can expose young people to the uplifting value of serving their community and their nation. Therefore, I join supporters of national service across the country by calling on my colleagues and on President Bush to expand American's national service programs, such as AmeriCorps. Congressmen Ford and Osborne introduced the ``Call to Service Act'' which seeks to quintuple AmeriCorps service openings to 250,000, expand senior service, create a ``citizen soldier'' for short term military enlistments, and increase the involvement of college work study participants in community service. We must act to pass that legislation and its companion in the Senate in order to ensure that the opportunity to participate in service be available to all Americans. Similarly, the Senate Armed Services Committee has reported legislation creating a citizen soldier option. We must take up these pieces of legislation and move forward so that national service can become not just a special chance for a few but a way of life for all Americans. At a time when Americans from all walks of life are asking what they can do to help make our nation safer, stronger and better, national service offers an answer that points us towards a higher politics of individual and national purpose.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Well, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he is absolutely correct. Again, I think the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has been as dauntless as the gentleman from Connecticut has been in coming down here and addressing this issue, if we do not do something about price, and as the gentleman points out with the ability to negotiate with the large number of Federal employees that we have, we are able to drive down the cost of prescription drugs, so by placing prescription drugs in a Medicare program, which is a Federal program, and as the gentleman points out with the large numbers of people, we are going to be able to negotiate a price that will be fair and competitive for everyone, but it will be, on average, far less. And then the combination of those two things, both being in the Medicare program and having the ability to negotiate down, will be extraordinarily helpful. I think also, in the process, and I was on the floor earlier talking about the need for research and development in aeronautics, we also have to recognize the continued commitment on the part of this country to invest in research and development in these related fields. And I think that that is so essential to our future. We know how productive the field has been. I hail from the State of Connecticut, home of a number of pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry. New Jersey has been a long-standing State that has been influential in terms of some of the major breakthroughs that we have had in pharmacology. So we want to continue to promote that and work together along those lines, but we also want to make sure that we are not doing so at the expense of the elderly population in this country. And that, unfortunately, is what has happened; and we have to put an end to that. I think we have a good plan to do that, and again I commend the gentleman for bringing it to the floor this evening.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding, and I join with the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas in addressing this very important issue that in so many respects he has been like the lone sentinel on the watchwall of freedom, making sure that everyone understands the importance and significance of this issue. As the gentlewoman from Texas has pointed out, there is not a weekend that I travel home that I do not hear from senior citizens about this issue, and basically we are all hopeful, as she pointed out, that there would be a solution here, hopefully a bipartisan solution. After all, we have got a Presidential race where both major candidates and the third-party candidate all agreed that we needed to have prescription drug relief for senior citizens, and everybody, at every gathering, talked about the greatest generation ever, and heralded Tom Brokaw's book, and talked about the great sacrifices these individuals have made, and gave them great hope that truly every Member of Congress, most members in local statehouses, all campaigned on the issue in 2000 that we would provide relief for seniors. So everyone every weekend we come home, and there still has not been a debate on the floor. They cry out and ask why, and it is, with hopefully some optimism, that we are going to have an opportunity not only to debate, but hopefully to pass some constructive legislation. I applaud the gentleman for not only reading the article from the New York Times, but for laying out the Democratic initiative. I know from having spoken to colleagues on the other side of the aisle of their deep interest in solving this problem as well. I can express it no better than the woman on 60 Minutes, however, who said, I feel like I am a refugee from my own health care system; I have to get on a bus and travel to Canada in order to get the prescription drug relief that I need, in order so that I am not forced between making the nightly decision between the food I am going to eat, the prescription drugs I am going to provide, and, in our area of the country, whether or not there will be the money there to heat our homes in the winter or cool them in the summertime. These are real, everyday concerns. We wonder sometimes aloud in this body why more people do not vote, why do they not come out. It is because they hear the platitudes and never see the ensuing policy. The time for platitudes is over. As one gentleman said to me the other day, I am grateful that people are finally recognizing the greatest generation ever; I am glad we have been heralded in books and on film and in oratory of every elected official, but what we would really like, what we really need is prescription drug relief. We do not need platitudes. We need prescription drug relief, and that is why this initiative is so important. I happen to have signed on to the Allen bill, which I believe we need to have in conjunction with what we move forward to, irrespective of whatever policies pass here, but I can also say this, and I mean not to disparage anybody on the other side, anyone who at least puts forward a plan and thinks this is a step in the right direction toward dialogue, but in truth, hailing from the First Congressional District, the home of the managed care and health industry, they know that the proposals that have emanated from the other side, at least the ones that advocate having a private sector solution, are unworkable and untenable. Insurance is pretty straightforward when it comes to actuarial concerns, and trying to actuarially underwrite prescription drugs, as one executive told me, is like trying to underwrite haircuts. That is how difficult it would be, and that is what would make this almost impossible to price out. So knowing that this cannot possibly work, knowing the tremendous concern that exists in this body and in the other body to have a remedy for seniors, knowing the great sense of community that we all felt after September 11, is this not the time for us to come together and help out a population that has already lived through one day of infamy on December 7, 1941, and have experienced yet another? We asked people to sacrifice in this Nation, and they have stepped up and done so throughout their lifetimes. Now it is the time for us to pay it forward, to make sure that they have the prescription drug relief that they need to live out their final days in dignity, to be able to get the kind of relief that their doctors have told them they must have to sustain their lives. For the life of me and the people that I represent, they are confounded by the fact that a Congress and an executive branch that believes that this is necessary has yet to move and yet to act. The time is now, and as the gentlewoman from Texas said, we hope that we are able to move bipartisanly with a plan that works; but if not, then let us seize the day here and let us move the Democratic initiative forward, and let there be an up-or-down vote in this Chamber on where people stand on this issue so that senior citizens get to know where people stand on the issue and can distinguish between lip service and platitudes and those that are putting forth a policy that is workable. And collectively I think we owe that to the American public and clearly to those senior citizens. I commend the gentleman once again for bringing this to the forefront.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I stand here very proud of the Democratic initiative and our efforts to bring this to the floor in a timely fashion and hopefully provide the relief that is so desperately needed by our seniors out there.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it has been my observation that a proposal of that nature is something I have aptly named, in my opinion, the Marie Antoinette plan. We all know in history the story of Marie Antoinette, who, when approached about the plight of the French citizens saying they were starving because they had not bread, she replied, well, let them eat cake. What this privatization proposal, the buying of a drug benefit, is, is seniors crying out that we need prescription drug relief and, in an insensitive manner, saying, they need prescription drug relief, let them buy insurance. It just simply is actuarially not capable of being written at a price that anyone could remotely pay for, and so, therefore, the skepticism with respect to this, I think, has been well chronicled. But we are a better body than that. We need to rise above this and speak to the better angels that exist in this body and appeal, as I have heard Members from both sides come down with their concern to address this. We need the membership of both sides to have a debate on this and to pass a bill that seeks to provide relief for our senior citizens, and we need to do so because of the commitment and promises that have been made by virtually every Member in this Chamber.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I think that is very charitable because I think it is next to impossible to underwrite for that kind of a circumstance, and while I think the industry has gone out of their way not to offend the powers that be, I think when we ask them directly, is this possible, could they possibly come up with a solution, the answer, frankly, is no. And so we ought to just get on with it and recognize that every day that we do not respond to the concerns, that is another senior at night that is sitting down and making that decision between food, between cooling their homes in the summer or heating them in the winters, and the prescription drugs that they have to buy. I am sure it is true for my colleague in New Jersey, as it is for me in Connecticut. I have been going home now, I have only been a Member for 2 years, but over the last 3\1/2\ years in telling people that this is what we are fighting for down here, and they watch TV, probably the only generation that watches consistently C-SPAN, and they say, we hear the Members talking about it, but we see no action from our Congress, a Congress that can come together in an instant and bail out the airlines when there was a crisis at hand, a Congress that can respond when it needs to, and yet here are these valiant citizens have been reaching out, in many respects storming the United States Capitol, whether it be through e-mail, whether it be through their various organizations and associations, speaking out again, emphasizing that this is the number one issue that they face. Everyone agrees that perhaps, and most notably, this should have been included under Medicare in 1965 in its inception, and we probably would not be here this evening talking about that; but it was not, so, therefore, the Democratic proposal is logical from the outset. As my colleague heard me say earlier, I think we have to go deeper in terms of the kinds of cuts that we can get in the cost of the prices, which will make it even more affordable. And to those ends, I think we have to engage the pharmaceutical industry to help out that valued industry as well, and not at the expense of research and development, that they have invested in this and the great products they have turned out. This is a wonderful industry. But when you can travel to Canada or Mexico or anywhere in the Western industrial society and get prescription drugs that are 40 percent less, on average, there is something wrong here. It is up to us to sit down and have frank conversations that address that issue as well. We can do so under the sanity of a policy that is put forward under Medicare, where it should rightfully belong. And again I applaud the gentleman for bringing this forward.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would add, and I speak for myself here, but looking at this problem long term, I certainly for one am more than willing to extend opportunities to pharmaceutical companies who have invested their own money, who have done the research and development in bringing a product to market to allow them the opportunity to recoup the moneys on research and development, but as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) adroitly points out, not in the advertising field, not in the promotional areas, not through the gifts to docs and trying to influence people one way or another, but truly as a research and development component and for the risks that they have taken in terms of bringing these things to market. Clearly, we do not live in a risk-averse society, but what we should be doing is rewarding risk once it has been able to come to the market and provide them with an opportunity and award them, so to speak, for the valiant research and development that they have done.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Well, the great irony here, and again if the gentleman will yield, a gentleman who I have great respect for, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), was down here on the floor earlier talking about this anomaly, I will say, where we are talking about free markets being able to set the price. And what has happened here in this country, the great shame that has taken place here in this country is that the profitability or the profits garnered in this industry have been done almost exclusively on the backs of the elderly and those who can least afford to pay it. And why do we know this and why have we asserted that it is a free market approach? Because every survey, every study that has been done, whether it be internally in our own country, whether it be in Mexico, in Canada, whether it be in the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, or Germany, what we found consistently is that their citizens are able to enjoy, on average, a 40 percent differential in terms of what they pay, not for generics but for the exact same prescription drugs. Shame on us. And that is why I think people in this body, if we are allowed an opportunity to vote, and I cannot even believe as an American that I am standing here on the floor of Congress and saying if we are allowed the opportunity to vote. These are the people that we are sworn to serve, and yet bringing this issue that universally everybody agrees with to the floor has been the most agonizing, painstaking process. I hope that, as the gentleman has pointed out, the efforts are, in fact, real. If they are not, I hope the Members of this body, bipartisanly, join together to issue some form of discharge petition, like we did on campaign finance reform, and come together, both sides, to address the concerns of our seniors; put aside the special interests, whatever they may be, and come up with a plan that provides relief for these seniors.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said earlier in the evening that while this is a benefit that will clearly benefit everyone with regard to prescription drugs, you said that this was like part D of the Medicare program. Could you explain that again, because I think this is the thing that most seniors understand. I know in the State of Connecticut, for example, we have a program for seniors as well. By this coming under a Federal program and the Federal Government offering this to its recipients, this is going to allow a State that is currently doing this to offer greater benefits to people and reach upward where I believe some of the people are harmed the most by prescription drugs and are in desperate need of relief.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to discuss a very important issue for our Nation. I am most proud to introduce in a bipartisan fashion legislation entitled the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act, H.R. 4653, to which we are also continuing to seek cosponsors. Since the historic flight of Mr. Lindbergh more than 75 years ago this past May, the United States has risen to commercial air dominance, so much so that in this fast-growing industry in 1985 we dominated the market, controlling more than 73 percent of the commercial aircraft industry. Since 1985, however, the United States has been on a perilous slip, so much so that today we control under 50 percent of the global market. The reason I have such great concern about this is because it impacts us not only from a commercial standpoint but also from a military standpoint. I would draw my colleagues' attention to this first projected chart that we have here. This was a report issued that said ``Buy European.'' Basically, it is saying that the Europeans have set out on a vision, a vision that they call Aeronautical Vision 2020, to capture the market by the year 2020. And so what we see going on in Europe these days is direct subsidization of their industry, direct subsidization by Air Bus, direct subsidization that leads both to the creation of jobs and the ability to take control of this market away from the Americans. The depth of this concern and the strategy behind it is well thought out and well planned. Here in this country, and rightfully so, we are driven by quarterly returns, driven by the fact that our shareholders of our respective industries expect a good return on their dollar. In order to compete with us long term, what the European Union has recognized is the need to directly subsidize their industry. In the process, Americans continue to shed jobs. We only have to look at the reports of what has happened to Boeing, Lockheed, General Electric, and Pratt & Whitney and understand the concern of a number of Members in this House of ours about the loss of jobs that has occurred, while the European Union would suggest that they are more than willing to spend the kind of money that is necessitated to keep jobs in Europe, recognizing that as we continue our efforts here in this country adhering to quarterly returns that they will be able to augment their industry and make sure that they continue to employ people as we continue to shed jobs here in the United States. This has long-term ramifications militarily for exactly that reason. Because if we continue to shed jobs here in the United States, we lose the critical mass of highly trained, highly skilled employees who have been the backbone of the aerospace industry here in our great Nation. They have also been the backbone of making sure that we have an unparalleled military and command of the airspace. But if we continue on this precipitous slide, we will soon find ourselves in the position where American-made when it comes to aerospace will no longer be the case. If you look at these charts, what we have found is that the United States' share of aerospace markets has fallen dramatically. There is a direct correlation between what has happened since 1985 in terms of our share of the market and our willingness to invest in research and development. What we have witnessed is a precipitous dropoff, again where we have gone to more than 70 percent share of the market down to under 50 percent of the market. By the same token, we have seen our investment rise from greater than $30 billion in research and development to under 15. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to point this out. I hope that Members will sign on to H.R. 4653. I look forward to further discussions. June 10, 2002. Hon. John B. Larson, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Larson: The Aviation Coalition endorses H.R. 4653, the ``Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2002.'' The Aviation Coalition is comprised of professional societies and trade groups representing more than 1 million engineers, scientists and researchers. In recent years, our Coalition has expressed concerns that reducing federal funding for aviation research and technology will jeopardize the nation's leadership in providing the technologies needed to develop the next generation aircraft, improve aviation safety and security, and attract the next generation of aerospace scientists and engineers. Assuring the nation's ability to develop innovative technologies to inhibit future terrorist usurpation of the nation's air transportation system, as well as to develop advanced technologies for our air defense network is of paramount importance. Over the last decade, funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) aeronautics research and development (R&D) program has fallen by approximately 50 percent, and unfortunately this trend is continuing. The Administration's Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) budget request of $541.4M for aeronautics is a reduction of $58M from FY02 appropriated funding. We strongly support your efforts to counter the dramatic decline in U.S. research and development spending in aeronautics. The ``Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2002'' will provide a funding basis for NASA to plan and implement a program to achieve the objectives of their ``Aeronautics Blueprint-Toward a Bold New Era of Aviation,'' which we strongly support. We believe such a program is vital to U.S. Aviation and a necessary response to accelerated research and development by the European Union and other global competitors. By introducing this legislation, you have also taken the first step to address a recommendation of the President's Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry for ``the Administration and Congress to work together to fund a new R&D initiative to develop a new 21st Century air transportation system for the nation.'' We commend you for leadership in introducing this important legislation, and we look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress, in re-establishing the investment in aeronautics research and development as a national priority. If you have any questions, please contact Kathryn Holmes at holmesk@asme.org or 202/785-3756, Ext. 390.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2002, Reverend Mychal Judge responded to the attack on the World Trade Center as a New York City Fire Department chaplain. He braved the fire, falling debris, and chaos on the scene to administer last rites to victims in the lobby. Father Judge paid the ultimate price for his heroic actions; he too lost his life on that tragic day. Under the existing Public Safety Officer Benefit program, chaplains of fire and police departments are not eligible for public safety officer benefits. While no amount of money can replace their fallen brother, Father Judge's two surviving sisters currently cannot receive benefits from this program. This bill, H.R. 3297, will extend Federal death benefits to officially designated chaplains of volunteer and professional police and fire departments that were killed in the line of duty. This will broaden the number of eligible beneficiaries. The bill also addresses the issue of deceased public safety officers without immediate families. Nine public safety officers died on September 11 without spouses, children, or surviving parents. H.R. 3297 will expand the Public Safety Officer program to extend death benefits to the beneficiary named on the deceased officer's life insurance policy. All expanded benefits will be effective as of September 11, 2001. Benefits are intended to pay for burial of the fallen officer and grief counseling services for the family. Mr. Speaker, I fully support H.R. 3297 to extend the current Federal death benefits to the families of chaplains killed while responding to police and fire emergencies. I cannot think of a finer way to honor the brave officers that lost their lives on September 11, and in other emergency situations. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3297 to remember the public safety officers that have lost their lives in service to our great Nation by voting in favor of the bill.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am here to rise in strong support of this legislation. I understand the inherent interest of West Wendover and Wendover and how important it is for them to be connected. I applaud the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), as he always does in his first rate and capable manner of bringing forward the interests of his constituents here to the floor of Congress. This is a difficult situation, but not unlike many situations that we face in this Nation. In the case of prescription drug relief, for example, people in our country feel like they are refugees from their own health care system. Point of Order

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. It complicates the problem. I thank the Chair for his indulgence and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, my point was as much as, just as people in between the lines, the current lines that exist in Utah and Nevada and between East Wendover and Wendover, find a difficulty with what they are presented with, this is analogous to what people are up against in this country. Many seniors in my district have to travel from Connecticut to Canada to seek prescription drug relief. Point of Order

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I again would just point out that East Wendover is a desolate mining town of only about 1,500 residents and is largely in debt. Several public hearings have been held by the city councils on the east and west to determine whether East Wendover should be annexed to West Wendover. Opposition to the annexation has emerged primarily from residents and business interests in West Wendover concerned with the economic impact of acquiring East Wendover's debt. Supporters argue that the acquisition of East Wendover's airport, which once housed the Enola Gay, would attract more tourists to the city's casinos. Although there has been no vocal opposition to the annexation based on disagreement with Nevada's more liberal laws, most published reports note the large presence of a Mormon population in Utah. And again these are the problems that the citizens face here. Again, I would like to commend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for the outstanding job that he has done representing his constituents. I only hope that other constituents across this country who struggle with similar kinds of issues, though they are not specific to these lines, but when we cross boundary lines for prescription drugs and turn people that otherwise would be able to receive them----

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of a bill designed to improve the security, economy, and standard of living of all Americans, the Investing in America's Future Act, H.R. 4664. The bill accomplishes this by putting the nation's premier science agency, the National Science Foundation, on track to double its budget in five years. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that America has long recognized that its long-term strength and security, and its ability to recover and sustain high levels of economic growth, depends on maintaining its edge in scientific achievement and technological innovation. Biomedical advances have permitted us to live longer, healthier, and more productively. Advances in agriculture technology have permitted us to be able to feed more people at a cheaper cost. The information revolution can be seen today in the advanced instruments schools are using to instruct our children and in the vast information resources that are opened up as a result of the linkages created by a networked global society. Our children today can grow up to know, see, and read more, be more diverse, and have more options in their lives for learning and growing. Other emerging technologies--such as nanotechnology--have untold potential to make our lives more existing, secure, prosperous, and challenging. Many companies also recognize this and they, therefore, focus their industrial, economic, and security policies on the nurturing and diffusion of technological advancement through all levels of society in a deliberate fashion. Countries that follow this path of nurturing innovation focus a lot of their efforts into recruiting and training the very best engineers and scientists, ensuring that a pipeline which pumps talented and imaginative minds and skills is connected to the needs of the country's socio-economic and security enterprise. It always pays to be mindful of the fact--especially in the wake of the September 11 events--that there is a strong and tight linkage between our national security and the level of science and technology proficiency in America. Our strength and leadership in the world is based on the might of our defense, strength of our economy, and the quality of our education system. Without any one of these three components the global preeminence of the nation suffers. These three components are, in turn, maintained on a foundation of strong leadership in the business of scientific and technological innovation, which keeps the engines of progress moving forward. To remain a strong nation, we must ensure that the single most important element that keeps us dynamic, innovative, prosperous, and secure--and therefore strong--is there for us: our science and technology enterprise. In short, we need to support the NSF and we need to support this bill. I am honored to be a sponsor of this important legislation in the United States House of Representatives and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th Celebration of the Sisters of Mercy mission in the state of Connecticut. Since their founding in Hartford in 1852, the Sisters have established many important organizations, including St. Mary Home for the Aged, 1880; the Ministry for the Deaf-American School for the Deaf, 1896; Academy of Our Lady of Mercy, 1905; Saint Joseph College, 1932; Mercy High School, 1963; Our Lady of Mercy School, 1964; Foreign Mission in Guatemala, 1981; Mercy Center at Madison, 1973; Mercy Housing & Shelter, 1983; Trust House Collaborative Learning Center, 1996; and the Collaborative Center for Justice, 1999. The Sisters have turned their original stated purpose of the care of orphans and other works of Mercy into selfless acts that have improved the lives of millions of individuals. Their work in education alone has influenced countless numbers of students who have in turn contributed to the development of both the Church community and the Connecticut community as a whole. The Sisters of Mercy have consciously identified the most pressing needs of the community and effectively used their resources to address those needs. Whether it be helping the economically poor, sick, elderly, imprisoned or ignorant, showing a special concern for women and children, or carrying out foreign missionary work, the actions of the Sisters can be described as nothing less than altruistic. They have supplemented time- honored strategies with conventional methods to address human needs in health care and pastoral and social services. The Sisters have generously provided for the spiritual welfare of thousands. In July 1991, 7,000 Sisters of Mercy united as the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas to become an international community. The Institute includes 25 regional communities with 5,500 members who serve in North, South and Central America, the Caribbean, Guam and the Philippines. The Sisters of Mercy of the Americas sponsor or cosponsor seven major national healthcare systems, 20 colleges and universities, 20 elementary and preschools, 39 secondary schools, and hundreds of affordable housing developments. They also serve in programs ranging from hospices for persons with HIV/AIDS, to adult literacy centers and resettlement programs for refugees. It is the hope, on this Sesquicentennial Celebration, that their continued energy will allow them to focus on the state's residents and those beyond its borders who are in need for many years to come. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the Sisters of Mercy for 150 years of service and commitment in the state of Connecticut. Personally, I would also like to thank Sister Patricia Rooney, RSM for her tireless work and effort, as well as my dear friend and former boss, Sister Marita Charles, RSM, who was principal of St. Mary's School in East Hartford, CT.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the month in which we celebrate the 75th anniversary of Charles Lindbergh's historic flight across the Atlantic to introduce bi-partisan legislation designed to revitalize an industry that is essential to maintaining this country's economic growth, technological superiority, and military might. Since Lindbergh's flight, aviation technology in the United States has reached a level of success and development unparalleled in world history. The overall success of our economy and our armed forces is strongly linked to the strength of the U.S. aerospace industrial base. 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 aerospace 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% of the global market to less than 50% now. Furthermore, the Administration has proposed to further cut aeronautics research by $58 million at NASA and $20 million at FAA for next year. As a result of these negative trends and the importance for the long- term economic and security interest of the United States, I joined with a bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act. This legislation 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 2005 (approximately the level they were in 1998), and $1.15 billion in 2007. Following the recommendations of the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, doubling funding over 5 years to $550 million in 2007. 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. The goals would challenge NASA, industry, and academia to come up with revolutionary approaches to the propulsion, structures, avionics, and other technologies needed for such an initiative to succeed. Such technologies would be developed on a more ambitious timetable than is envisioned by the Europeans in their Vision 2020 plan. 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. The objective of the legislation is for the Federal government to work with industry and academia to achieve challenging aeronautics goals--not to fund ``make-work'' activities. 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. The legislation is designed to reflect Congress' intent to respond to the challenge laid out in the European Vision 2020, through vigorous and robust increases to the FAA and NASA's aeronautics R&D funding. Seventy-five years after Charles Lindbergh's ingenuity and bravery began America's almost century-long dominance in aviation, leadership is required to sustain our aeronautics industry to make it as vibrant a symbol of America's might in the 21st century as it was in the 20th. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary dedication, hard work, and ability of the 2002 National Collegiate Athletic Association's Women's Basketball Champions, the Huskies of the University of Connecticut. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolutin--to honor the University of Connecticut women's basketball team for their incredible achievement. On Sunday, March 31, the Huskies completed their perfect season with a hard-earned victory over the Oklahoma Sooners. With a record of 39 wins and no losses, the Huskies were named for the second time in three years as the NCAA champions. Of the five starters this season, four were seniors: Sue Bird, Swin Cash, Tamika Williams, and Asjha Jones. During their four years at the University of Connecticut, they had a record of 136-9, made three Final Fours, and won two National Championships. They were only the fourth team in women's college basketball history to go undefeated, tying the record for the most wins. Throughout the season the team had an average margin victory of 35.4 points, and never trailed in the second half of a basketball game. Members of the team won various awards this season. Sue Bird won the Wade Trophy for National Women's Player of the Year, Naismith Player of the Year, and was selected for AP First Team All-America Honors. Swin Cash an sophomore Diana Taurasi were selected to the All-America Second Team, Asjha Jones made the All-America Third Team, and Tamika Williams received Honorable Mention All-America. Coach Geno Auriemma was selected as Naismith Coach of the Year and 2002 Russell Athletic/WBCA Division I National Coach of the Year. Those associated with women's college basketball have claimed that this Husky basketball team is among, if not, the best team in the history of the Women's game. I believe the ultimate compliment was paid to this team when Pat Summitt, coach of the Tennessee Lady Vols, said: ``[Geno's] done a great job with them and they're big play people all across the board. And what I really admire about this Connecticut team is how hard they play and how inspired they are in every possession. I did not recall seeing a player not play hard every possession. And that speaks for their character and what they brought to the court tonight against us. But I may do to the graduation and cheer. You think they'll let me go? I might be there. I would like to extend my personal congratulations to the UConn Husky women's basketball team. The entire State of Connecticut is proud of the Husky team, which has helped turn Connecticut into the center of women's college basketball. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution and to celebrate the talents of this exceptional team.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of myself and with my two colleagues from New Mexico, Tom Udall and Heather Wilson, to honor and place on the record the outstanding achievement and accomplishments of a native son of Mayberry Village in East Hartford, Connecticut. It is with great pride that we introduce for posterity the achievements of Donald Elliott Flanagan. The Head Coach of the Women's Basketball team at the University of New Mexico has excelled at his position. How fitting that he is being inducted into the legendary Ray McKenna's ``Tap-Off Club'' Hall of Fame. While the Congressional Record embodies the nation's history and the achievements of great Americans, we want to be clear that we remember Donald Flanagan first as one of Jim and Barb's six children, or simply as ``Donny''. While many will point to Don's athletic achievement, hard work and dedication we would like to mention a few childhood experiences that helped mold him. I have long maintained that Mayberry Village is the cradle of coaches and to their credit we know that Jim and Barbara Flanagan gave birth to four of them: Jay, Donny, David, and Jon. (Sorry Kev, the C.Y.O. doesn't qualify). Mayberry is unique. How many neighborhoods have produced coaches of international talent like Harry Parker (Harvard Crew & The Olympics)? Or nationally recognized coaches like Jay Flanagan (Track & Field) and Donny (Basketball), and statewide coaches like Al Pelligrinelli (Football), Bill Barron (Track), Dick Brimley (Track), Maureen Rodgers (Basketball), and Craig Jordan to name a few. Fundamentals are important, and so is competition, but few neighborhoods offer the athletic amenities of Mayberry where Donny honed his competitive skills. He started early with mastering the monkey bars at the Little Red Schoolhouse. The true competitor emerged when he beat out ``Bubby'' Balkus on the gymnastically challenging Tarzan Swing. Manning the fastest washing machine box ever to traverse the big hill, digging a series of tunnels that would rival the Vietcong, and defeating Lester Wells regularly at tunnel tag are further testimony of his skills. The daring dexterity with which he led the labor field regulars along the Hockanum narrowly escaping the pursuit of the Clancy brothers was a true cross country experience that kept the likes of Ray Ramsey and Bill Mudano from the long arm of the law. Don Flanagan, arguably the greatest women's basketball coach at New Mexico, may not seem like a man afraid of much, but he is, of flying. The idea that Flanagan is still a white-knuckler when it comes to air travel is rather paradoxical, however considering the heights to which he has taken UNM women's basketball in his first five years as head coach of the program. Flanagan is entering his seventh season at UNM and has a career record of 144-71. Flanagan took over this struggling program and the Lobos have improved remarkably under his guidance. They have captured a conference regular-season championship, a conference tournament title and have made five consecutive postseason appearances, including the school's first-ever NCAA bid in 1998. In fact, Flanagan posted a won-loss record at Eldorado High School in Albuquerque that will never be duplicated in New Mexico. His incredibly 401-13 career record in 16 years was good for a winning percentage of 97.0 percent. Flanagan's accomplishments included 14 different tournament championships, 15 district championships, winning streaks of 77, 74, 69, 66, and 60 games and, his teams averaged 25 wins a year for 16 years. During those 16 years, Flanagan's teams at Eldorado High School went undefeated nine times. In 1987, Eldorado was honored as Albuquerque Sports Hall of Fame Team of the Year. Additionally under Flanagan, Eldorado was ranked nationally seven different years including 1980, 1981, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1991, and 1992. And it didn't stop there. The honors for Flanagan have rolled in continuously year after year after year. Following the 1997-98 season, Flanagan was inducted into the Albuquerque Sports Hall of Fame for a lifetime of achievement. He was nominated for the National High School Coach of the Year honors on three occasions (1985, 1994, and 1995) and was named Region VRI Coach of the Year for 10 consecutive years (1985- 1994). He was named Albuquerque Sports Hall of Fame Coach of the Year (1992), Bank of America Coach of the Year (1993 & 1994), Albuquerque Tribune Coach of the Year (1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1987, and 1990) and Albuquerque Journal Coach of the Year (1980, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1990, and 1992). Flanagan earned his bachelor of arts from Fort Lewis College in 1971 where he was a member of the honor roll. He was also honored during college as a member of the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference All- Academic team. Flanagan, 56, and his wife Wahleah, have three children, Sean, 31, Shane, 25, and Brent, 23. Donny was a natural who we always looked up to and admired. Athlete, leader, competitor, friend, a credit to his family, his community, his states of New Mexico and Connecticut and the nation. I know Jim's smiling from ear to ear and we in East Hartford join with all the Flanagans in relishing this great moment. How proud Pop Elliot, and your Mom would be to see you being honored by the town you grew up in and by a legend like Ray McKenna. It is with great pride and admiration that I am joined by my colleagues Tom Udall and Heather Wilson to pay tribute to another kid from the Village. Congratulations Donny.