John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Barbara Bailey of Connecticut, who died yesterday at the age of 93. Mrs. Bailey was the wife of the late John M. Bailey, who was the legendary Democratic Party chairman of Connecticut, and was also the chairman of the national Democratic Party in the 1960s. Mrs. Bailey's passing marks the end of an era in Democratic politics in the State of Connecticut. Mrs. Bailey will long be remembered as the matriarch of the Democratic Party during its golden years, not only for her public service, but also for providing the state with two outstanding public servants--Chief State's Attorney John M. Bailey, Jr. and my distinguished predecessor, former U.S. Representative Barbara B. Kennelly. All her life, Mrs. Bailey was intensely devoted to her family, to Connecticut, and to the Democratic Party. She and her husband led the state, and the national party, with class and distinction. In all her years her interest and love of people willing to serve in public office never wavered. Throughout her life, Mrs. Bailey never held public office, yet she was indeed a public servant. She served the public through her immeasurable commitment to her family and the causes she truly believed in--including the rights of women and the struggle of the disadvantaged. She served on the board of Trustees for the University of Connecticut for 10 years and received numerous honors and accolades for her civic work. Over the years, the Bailey's hosted presidential candidates, ambassadors, and dignitaries from all over the world. Mrs. Bailey's trademark was her grace, her dignity, and the way she made everyone around her feel welcome and at home. She was part of an age in Democratic politics that saw the first Catholic elected President of the United States. She was the co- recipient, along with U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, of the ``Keepers of the Flame'' award in 1988, which honored those who kept alive the memory and legacy of President John Kennedy. Her love for the people of Connecticut and politics was superceded only by the devotion she had to her family. The legacy Mrs. Bailey leaves is everlasting and is carried on through her children and grandchildren who continue to serve the state with distinction. Mrs. Bailey was an exceptional person whose humanity, class and grace touched everyone she came in contact with. The nation, the State of Connecticut, and most of all her family, will truly miss her.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to show my strong support for H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001, sponsored by my colleagues Don Young of Alaska, James Oberstar of Minnesota, Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, and Corrine Brown of Florida. As you know, this bill would authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002 in six main areas: operating expenses; acquisition, construction, and improvement; research, development, test, and evaluation; retired pay; alteration of bridges; and environmental compliance and restoration. In addition, it sets end of the year strength levels for active duty personnel and establishes military training levels. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and as a representative from a State with a substantial Coast Guard presence, I have had the opportunity to witness the efforts and initiatives of the essential life-saving mission of the U.S. Coast Guard. For over two centuries, it has been saving lives from Maine to Guam. Last year alone, the Coast Guard saved 5,000 recreational and commercial boaters, inspected over 34,000 vessels, maintained 50,000 aids-to-navigation, managed 13,000 marine pollution incidents, intercepted 4,200 illegal immigrants, and seized over 130,000 lbs. of pure cocaine. However, the U.S. Coast Guard is being asked to do more with less. In my own State of Connecticut, the Coast Guard employs over 900 active members, in addition to the cadets at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London. There are also sizable search and rescue stations in New London and New Haven, as well as a research and development center in Groton. I would like to commend the outstanding work of the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus, chaired by my colleagues Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, Gene Taylor of Mississippi, and Howard Coble of North Carolina. I strongly agree with its assertion that unless the Coast Guard's current budget crisis is dealt with in a timely fashion, the Coast Guard may be forced to make cuts in search- and-rescue services, reduce hours at sea, consolidate small boat stations, and compromise its other crucial missions. Based on the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus' findings, it is clear that certain pressing problems merit our immediate attention. First, the Coast Guard has assumed a variety of increased responsibilities-- from drug interdiction to fisheries management to environmental cleanup--while like other services, they have been unable to adequately compensate its personnel, causing many of its best and brightest to leave the Coast Guard for the private sector. Second, although the U.S. Coast Guard is currently the seventh largest naval service in the world, its cutter fleet is also one of the oldest--currently 40th out of 42. Finally, many of its cutters, buoy tenders and aircraft are reaching the end of their life expectancy. Unfortunately, with its budget rising insufficiently in real dollars in the past, the Coast Guard has not been able to address capital expenditure issues. This Coast Guard Authorization Act will help address this situation by authorizing $5.4 billion for Coast Guard programs and operations. According to testimony by Admiral James M. Loy to the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the fiscal year 2002 budget request will help to restore the readiness of Coast Guard personnel while ensuring that all of the agency's missions are performed at a level that can be sustained by its infrastructure. In conclusion, I applaud the past efforts and service of the U.S. Coast Guard, and I urge all of my fellow Members to vote with me in support of this bill.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my most admired colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman Joe Moakley of Massachusetts. Joe Moakley was the quintessential Boston Irish public servant. For more than 50 years he served his nation, his state of Massachusetts, and the hard-working men and women of South Boston in one form or another. In the long, and inspiring tradition of such great men as former Speaker Tip O'Neill, Joe was the kind of Representative that has shown time and time again that he is a leader on the national and international stage, yet remained ever loyal to the people of South Boston and all of Massachusetts. When I first arrived here as a freshman member in 1999, Joe Moakley, who was the Dean of the New England House delegation, was one of those remarkable people I looked to as a model of how I wanted to conduct myself as a Member of Congress. With character, dignity, devotion, and loyalty, Congressman Moakley continues to serve as a constant reminder that we are indeed part of a noble profession. Joe Moakley's remarkable time in public service began when he was a mere 15 years old, when he enlisted in the United States Navy for service in the South Pacific during the Second World War. After graduating from college in Florida, and law school, Joe Moakley ran for the Massachusetts State Legislature in 1952 where he served until 1960. And in 1964, he was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate where he served until 1970. It was in 1972, after briefly serving on the Boston City Council, that he was first elected to the United States House of Representatives from the 9th District. It was not long after he began his second term that he gained a seat on the House Rules Committee, where he still serves today as Ranking Member. In 1989, he was made Chairman of that Committee. As Chairman, he conducted himself with his characteristic sense of integrity and humor. Through all his years of service, he worked tirelessly for his District, giving them the same full measure of devotion that he gave to other matters, such as human rights abuses in Central America, which he helped investigate and report on. His actions helped expose injustice, and likely contributed to the end of a brutal civil war in El Salvador. I've always believed that the measure of a person's life is not contained merely in the years they spend in office, but rather in how their actions in office continue to positively affect the neighborhoods, District and people they served, long after their time in service has drawn to a close. If a person's actions have improved the life of even one person, or one family, or one community, then there is no end or limit to what their service has meant to others. And for Joe Moakley, there is no end in sight. No matter how long I spend as a member of this body, I am now, and will always be, proud to say that I served with Joe Moakley.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw my colleague's attention to a tragic anniversary. It was twenty years ago today that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the first report of what is now known as HIV/AIDS. I ask my colleagues to join with me today in renewing our commitment to conquer HIV and AIDS and to support efforts to end the spread of HIV. Today marks the beginning of the third decade with AIDS, and almost 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS worldwide. Here in the United States, increased social awareness and HIV/AIDs initiatives have created a perception that the AIDS pandemic is over. However, AIDS/HIV continues to destroy American families, neighborhoods, and communities. Women and children are especially susceptible to the disease. Between 1994 and 1998, the number of women living wth AIDS nearly doubled. Moreover, there are an estimated 120,000 to 160,000 women living with HIV. It is especially alarming that seventy-eight percent of the AIDS cases in American women ages 20-24 are minorities. Minorities account for over two thirds of the new AIDS cases reported in this country, and people of color account for more than half of AIDS cases worldwide. Children are fast becoming the innocent victims of HIV; the number of children living with HIV and AIDS is at an all-time high. Even communities that were leading in the battle against HIV/AIDS have suffered set backs in the last few years. The gay community, which was the first community mobilize and educate itself shortly following its tidal wave of infections in the early 1980s, is seeing increases in infection rates that had long lingered between 3 and 5 percent. A recent report by the CDC suggests that there is resurgence of HIV infection in the gay community, especially among African-Americans and Hispanics. In comparison to other regions of the world, America has escaped the epidemic proportions of AIDS seen around the world. Sub-Saharan Africa has been far more severely affected by AIDS than any other part of the world. The United Nations reports that 25.3 million adults and children are infected with the HIV virus in the region, which has about 10% of the world's population but more than 70% of the worldwide total of infected people. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who have worked tirelessly to the awareness of the members of this body of the conditions in Africa. Since the onset of HIV/AIDS in 1981, we here in Congress, have attempted to address the issue. Not knowing of the complications and aggression of HIV/AIDS, in FY81 the Department of Health and Human Services received $200,000 in discretionary funding for HIV/AIDS. Today, Health and Human services receives close to $5 billion for HIV/ AIDS programs, and the overall federal government spends close to $12 billion on programs for HIV/AIDS research, education, and prevention. This funding allows agencies such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to support programs for state and local prevention activities. Programs In 1990, Congress passed the Ryan White Comprehensive Resources Emergency (CARE) Act. I am proud to say that here in this sometimes divisive body, we were able to come together and vote unanimously for the reauthorization of the Act in 2000, thereby assisting metropolitan areas and states with their health care costs and support services for individuals and families affected by HIV/AIDS. This legislation is vital to helping those who are most affected by this disease and who often do not have the means to combat this disease. Shortly after we passed the Ryan White CARE Act, I received a letter from a former student of mine who has been living with AIDS. In her touching letter, my former student applauded our efforts here in Congress, ``I am very pleased that we have seen an increase in funding for the Ryan White CARE Act to help those living with this horrible disease and all of their families too. Now, hopefully with all the funds we can care for a lot of people and try to keep them as well as possible...'' Mr. Speaker, we cannot jeopardize the well being of those living with HIV/AIDS and must ensure that funding for HIV/AIDS is retained. I commend the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Pelosi, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, whom I have joined in sending a letter to encourage President Bush to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) programs. The letter also encourages President Bush to support funding for disease prevention, the Ryan White CARE Act to improve health care for people with AIDS, and the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative. With rates of infection on the up swing and so concentrated, we cannot let these programs lag; the risk is too high. It is paramount that we persevere in our efforts against HIV/AIDS. As we begin our third decade battling this disease, I maintain that we focus our energies on those who are most vulnerable to infections: women, minorities, and children. We must also redouble our efforts to educate our citizens, especially our youth, on how to protect themselves from HIV infection. In addition, we must not ignore our humanitarian duty to those suffering around the world. The strides we have made in the past two decades are numerous; and we should celebrate our victories. However, we cannot overlook the individuals who are unable to fight this disease alone. I ask my colleagues, on this the 20th anniversary of the AIDS/HIV, to remember the past and stand in solidarity to renew our nation's commitment to this global crisis.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution commending Clear Channel Communications and the American Football Coaches Association for their efforts in providing a means for locating the nation's missing, kidnapped, and runaway children. As a member of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, I have witnessed the dedication of both Clear Channel Communications and the American Football Coaches Association and am pleased to say their efforts have been outstanding. In 2000, an estimated 750,000 children were reported missing. This figure marks a decrease of twelve percent since 1997, when the number of missing children was at an all time high. In my home state of Connecticut, 293 children were reported missing as of May 7, 2001. Connecticut is fortunate in that there are few non-family child abductions. Clear Channel Communications and the American Football Coaches Association have greatly contributed to increase awareness and parental education in our effort to safely return missing children. In September of 2000, the American Football Coaches Association collaborated with Clear Channel Communications to raise millions of dollars to provide free fingerprint kits for parents. Using the ID kit, parents can take and store their children's fingerprints in their own home. Their efforts were part of the National Child Identification Program created in 1997. In the program's first year, two million kits were distributed to parents at college football games, and 8 million kits were distributed overall. Programs such as these are invaluable to our nation as we try to locate our nation's missing, kidnapped, and runaway children. I urge all of my fellow Members to vote with me in support of H. Con. Res. 100 and commend Clear Channel Communications and the American Football Coaches Association for their service to our country and reaffirm Congress' commitment to missing and exploited children.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, for Roll Call Vote No. 145, on final passage of H.R. 1, I was present in the Chamber and engaged in the debate on this bill as indicated by my previous vote on the Motion to Recommit (Roll Call Vote No. 144) and subsequent vote on the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1836. Although I intended to vote ``aye'' on final passage of this bill, my vote was not registered. I ask unanimous consent that this statement appear immediately after Roll Call Vote No. 145 in the permanent Congressional Record.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 143, the Cox of California amendment, I inadverently voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 143. I intended to vote ``nay.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the gentleman's idea of balance. I think it is also important that, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) indicated, it is important not only that we do this in balance, but we do this bipartisanly. Certainly energy is not a partisan concern. It is something that we all share. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it starts with the concept of becoming independent: becoming independent from the foreign suppliers of our energy. And so in seeking to become energy independent, we have to move to alternative sources. We have to be willing to embrace conservation at the very core of what we are going to do, understanding that it is very hard in principle and that there are limited resources throughout the world and that we have an overriding responsibility, being large consumers of energy ourselves, to conserve here in this Nation. We also have a responsibility to make sure that we are moving forward technologically in the most efficient manner. It seems to me with the over preoccupation and the emphasis on more drilling, that we are fighting yesterday's wars and yesterday's battles. What we need to do is move forward aggressively and embrace the technology that can truly make us energy independent. President Kennedy was able to establish a goal for this Nation. He said back in 1960 that we ought to be able to put a man on the moon in 10 years. With American ability, intellect and know-how, we were able to achieve that goal. We need to establish the same goal here in this country by simply stating that we will be energy independent from foreign sources in the next 10 years, so that by 2011 we will no longer be dependent upon OPEC nations. Coincidentally as we have seen in the past, when Americans embrace alternative and renewable energy, and we put the full weight of this Nation behind a concept and an idea, the price will automatically be driven down in terms of the current cost of oil. We find ourselves in an awful situation, not only on the West Coast, but all across this Nation as we look at the price of oil. When my colleagues consider just in 1999 that the cost of oil was $60 billion annually to this country, it now costs this Nation $120 billion. Mr. Speaker, I am proposing that we invest 1-120th of that, $1 billion, into fuel cell research. Why fuel cells? Fuel cells are just a small part of the larger picture, along with conservation, along with nuclear power, along with making sure, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) pointed out, that we take advantage of existing drilling opportunities that are in this country and not open up new, virgin territories and virgin land, but focus on a technology that can provide us independence from foreign competitors and inefficiencies that we see in the old economy, and also independence from the awful effects that happen from pollution. Fuel cells, for example, can relieve the atmosphere of more than 2 million pounds annually of CO2 that are currently spewing into the environment. They can also remove more than 40,000 pounds of noxious pollutants that are unnecessarily being spewed into this atmosphere. It is our moral responsibility to make sure that we are stepping forward to do this. If we do not embrace the plan, if we do not make the investment, as the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, those moneys to fund this cannot come from expansive drilling in the ANWR, they have to be the commitment of the United States Congress. We are the appropriators. We should be making sure that we are making this investment now to be energy independent, to be more efficient and to protect our environment by embracing technologies like this that will allow us to move forward in the future, so that we will find our senior citizens, as the gentleman pointed out, in Wisconsin and California and in Connecticut that do not have to make the decision between the food they are going to put on their table, the prescription drugs that their doctors have asked them to take, and the energy that they need to heat and cool their homes and propel their automobiles. This technology, with fuel cells, we can get 80 miles to the gallon in an SUV. We can run silent. We can run clean, the by-product of which is vapor. So with the green energy, with this new technology, with the willingness for us to roll up our sleeves and invest in a new technology that is both clean, efficient, and will provide us with this independence that we need from foreign sources is the way for this Nation to go. We have started down this path before with respect to renewables. Coincidentally, when the Nation moves forward aggressively and starts to embrace these alternatives, what we see is the market respond by the lowering of the cost of oil and its production. I believe the best way to lower costs immediately is to aggressively pursue those kinds of policies; but this time the United States must be committed to achieving that goal by the year 2011 of being energy independent, and if we stick to that course not only will we drive down the costs in the short term but in the long term we will be independent of our reliance on foreign products. We will be independent of the old inefficiencies that have hurt our economy, and we will be independent of the disastrous effects that have enveloped our entire environment. I thank the gentleman again for his leadership and look forward to working with him, and compliment my other colleagues.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Yes.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) in his outstanding efforts in the area of energy, conservation, and making sure that this environment is one that is livable and safe for all of us. These are the citizens that we were sworn to serve and protect. I think it is incumbent upon Congress, it is a moral responsibility as much as it is a legislative responsibility, for us to move forward along these lines. I commend the gentleman for the leadership he has provided.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Basically it is water vapor. The newest technology with respect to fuel cells is taking advantage of our most abundant element, making sure we are taking advantage of hydrogen. It is the most abundant element we have here in our universe, so let us capitalize on that, let us utilize it in a scientific manner and apply the great American know-how of turning this around. Our foreign competitors in both Japan and Germany are already further along in terms of automobile production, especially in the use of fuel cells, but give America the research and development opportunities, provide our great research universities, provide our great corporate entities with the opportunity to get not only the backing of R&D dollars but the commitment of the Federal Government to produce so that we can streamline activities and drive the cost of production down in the long term, and then we will wean ourselves off of dependency on foreign governments.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman is absolutely correct. This is a technology that has been around for more than 40 years. We all know that the Apollo was powered by fuel cells; that we have the ability to go to the Moon and Mars and beyond. And certainly if we have the technology to go to the Moon and Mars and beyond, we have the technology available to get back and forth to work and to heat and cool the buildings that we live in and the buildings that we use. This is not something that has to be created. This is something that we need to make sure we are producing more of. By utilizing the Federal Government and State and local municipalities through pilots and saying, look, we will provide the incentives to power the fleets of automobiles, to make sure that the school buses, the military buses, the mail trucks are powered by fuel cells, to have alternative sources and backups of fuel cell power buildings where we know that the energy shortage cannot afford to be derailed at all but there must be continuous operation, that the fuel cell is the most dependable way for us to achieve this goal. There are other alternatives out there. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), one of our colleagues, has introduced legislation on fusion. There are other great sources of renewables. Combined, together, I think we have a great opportunity to achieve that goal by 2011.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my strong support for H.R. 622, the Hope for Children Act. I am proud to be joined by so many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle as an original cosponsor of this important legislation that will remove some of the unnecessary financial burdens that have long plagued the adoption process. I believe that it will also pave the way for children to be raised in safe, caring environments by an adoptive family. It is estimated that the average adoptive family can spend from $8,000 to $30,000 to adopt a child. In addition, the lack of adoptive families leaves children in an intermediate state, waiting for an average of four years for an adoptive family. The Hope for Children Act will increase the tax credit a family receives for adopting any child to $10,000, up from the current amount of only $5,000 and $6,000 for special needs children. This credit will make adoption more affordable for middle-class families. Under current law, the tax-credit will expire on December 31, 2001 for non-special needs children; however, under the Hope for Children Act, the tax credit will be permanently extended. Also, the credit would be indexed to inflation, meaning that as inflation rates rise, so would the tax credit the adopting family receives, for all families with incomes below $150,000. In my District, I have witnessed the beneficial effects of outside funding for adoption services. In September 2000, the Catholic Family Services of Hartford, Connecticut, was awarded $250,000 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to help increase the number of Latino children placed in adoption and the number of Latino families that are licensed for adoption and foster care. The program is designed to help facilitate the moving of children out of the child welfare system and into permanent adoptive homes. This project helps those in the community help themselves and provides loving homes to children who deserve them. This has been a wonderful service to provide children with and the best way to safeguard their future. Mr. Speaker, adoption is a very sensitive and personal matter. Adoption is an option left to couples that, often times, have endured an intense personal trauma. The least we can do is to lift some of the financial burdens brought on by the adoption process to let adoptive families focus on the most important ingredient in the process, the children. I applaud the strong commitment so many of my colleagues have made to the Hope for Children Act. It is my hope that passage of the Hope for Children Act will put children into loving and secure homes. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman and also recognize that the current Speaker also hails from the great State of Connecticut and is doing an outstanding job. I want to applaud the gentleman from Oregon for his leadership in every aspect here in the Congress as relates to our environment most notably, as was pointed out by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), in the area of livable communities but also in recognizing the need to make sure that a core component of any energy plan has got to be conservation, that overall the number of examples that he put forward, if followed, should serve as the cornerstone to any policy moving forward. I also join with my colleagues from California and the Northwest as well and not only sympathize but empathize with the problems that they currently face and understand that today it may be California but tomorrow it could be Connecticut. And so as a Nation, we must pull together and make sure that we are enacting sound public policy. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of fingers that could be pointed and a lot of blame that could be distributed, but for a number of years, several different White Houses and Congresses have not addressed this issue the way that it should be tackled. I believe that first and foremost and piggybacking on the comments of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), that we need to lay out a strategy that has an end goal. I suggest that we start that end goal by saying we will be independent of foreign oil resources within a 10-year period and that we should instruct the Department of Energy to devise a strategic plan that will take us there. The process of attaining that goal is much like establishing putting a man on the Moon as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) was alluding to. When you establish a goal for yourself and then set out to achieve that goal, you can accomplish great things. It seems to me pretty clear that along with conservation, along with renewable resources and assorted other policies that we must pursue, we must above all else have a specific goal. When you consider that in 1999 the cost of importing oil from abroad was $60 billion and now that is estimated to be something closer to $100 billion in cost, that money could be better spent at developing alternative energy sources. Specifically, I feel that the energy systems of the future and most notably fuel cells hold the key to provide us with both the power and efficiency we need to get 60 to 80 miles per gallon out of an SUV and also the by-product of which is vapor that is clean. This kind of environmentally sound policy, this kind of energy alternative is exactly the kind of can-do spirit that took us to the Moon. And what got us to the Moon frankly were spacecraft that were powered by fuel cells. If we can go to the Moon and go on to Mars, certainly we can get to and from work. Later this month, I hope to bring an SUV to the Capitol and encourage everyone to drive that automobile powered by fuel cells to see its efficiency, to see how this actually works and the cutting edge technology, which in combination with conservation is the path for us to go down. I applaud my Democratic colleagues for the initiative they took in the press conference the other day. These are the concerns that the American people long for us to address. We need bipartisan cooperation. We do not need committees that meet in secret. We need to have an open, public forum and dialogue to produce the best possible results, with a common goal and common mission to make us no longer energy dependent and make us much more energy efficient with a conservation ethic that places us in a position where we can provide the kind of energy and means that the people we are sworn to serve richly deserve. I thank the gentleman again so much for his leadership in this area and I look forward as always to working with him on his agenda of livable communities and the great, great job that he has done in terms of bringing conservation to the forefront here in the United States Congress.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution honoring the National Science Foundation for its fifty years of service to the Nation. As a member of the Science Committee, I have had the opportunity to witness the efforts and initiatives of this important federal agency and am pleased to say that their recent achievements have been outstanding. Fifty years ago, the National Science Foundation was created to ensure that this great Nation would continue to be the world leader in discovery, learning, and innovations in the sciences, mathematics and engineering. Without the tireless efforts that this agency and its employees have put forth, the many technological strides our Nation has made in the preceding decades would never have come to fruition. Mr. Speaker, as the Federal Government's only agency dedicated to the support of education and fundamental research in all scientific and engineering disciplines, the National Science Foundation has been one of the most important contributors to many progressive projects. One such program that touches close to home for me is CONNSTRUCT, Connecticut's Statewide Systematic Initiative for science education. This project has received approximately $15 million from the National Science Foundation since 1991 to implement a comprehensive restructuring of science and mathematics education in my home state. This ten-year National Science Foundation investment demonstrates a significant partnership with Connecticut to ensure that all students are exposed to challenging mathematics and science curricula. It also ensures that the students are taught by well-prepared teachers who use stimulating instructional practices, and are supported by school districts and communities that expect all students will take, learn, and be able to use their knowledge to continue learning throughout their lives. Programs like this have been invaluable to our society. That is why I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 1472, a bill to double the funding of the National Science Foundation. This bill provides for 15 percent annual increases in the agency's budget for Fiscal Years 2002 to 2005 that, together with the 13 percent increase for the current fiscal year, would double the Foundation's budget over that period. The increases provided for in H.R. 1472 will allow the agency to go forward with substantial new and ongoing initiatives, such as the deployment of broadband networks for schools and libraries. Mr. Speaker, without the significant contributions that the National Science Foundation makes to these many projects across our Nation, we would be far less competitive in our technology-based world. I applaud the past efforts and achievements of the National Science Foundation and I urge all of my fellow Members to vote with me in support of H. Con. Res. 108, which reaffirms this Congress's commitment to support research, education, and technological advancement and discovery through the National Science Foundation.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and join with both my colleagues in terms of their comments this evening as it relates to health care. I especially want to laud the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his efforts. Oftentimes he is the lone sentinel, if you will, on the watchtower of health care for everyone in this Nation. With more than 44 million people without insurance and access to health care across this Nation, I think Americans listening in often wonder, as we talk to an empty Chamber, is there anyone home? Does Congress listen to the concerns that we have? To the gentleman's earlier point, I think that in the last campaign I do not think that there was a person in this Chamber or clearly either Presidential candidate that did not take almost blood oaths with respect to providing prescription drug relief for senior citizens, and to making sure that Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid would be taken care of. I am sure that the President is well-intended, but as the gentleman points out, the proof is not only in the budget, but in the resolve of those of us in this building to address these issues forthrightly. Many of us, like the gentleman, have done surveys in our district with respect to prescription drugs, or have been home to town meetings or on radio talk shows where we have listened to call after call of the elderly, pleading to provide them with some relief, those elderly who have to choose between the food they are going to put on their table, the heating or cooling bills they are going to have to pay to their utility companies, or the prescription drugs that their doctors require them to take. We know from the studies that the cost of the very same prescription drugs that they need for blood pressure, for relief from arthritis, they can get at half the price in Canada or Mexico. I can say it no better than the woman on 60 Minutes who said, ``I feel like I am a refugee from my own health care system in this country.'' Will not Congress listen? Let us not judge these first 100 days on the basis of civility, and I give the President credit for changing the tone, but let us judge these first 100 days on the resolve to truly reach out and help the greatest generation. Is it only lip service that we are paying Americans all across the country, or are we firmly committed to come forward and allow them to live out their final days in dignity, allow them not to be faced with the godawful choice between the food on their table and the prescription drugs their doctors are recommending that they take? These are important decisions. When I go home to my district, people say, ``You are not doing anything down there in Congress. It does not seem as though the rhetoric during the campaign lives up to actual action on the floor of either Chamber.'' Sadly, they are right. I applaud the gentleman. I said to the people back in my district, I am going to continue to come to the floor of this House and continue to speak out on the need for us to provide the kind of relief that our citizens need. In this time of prosperity, in this time when we have the resources, there is no excuse to turn our backs on the elderly. They should hold our collective feet to the fire on this issue, because both parties, all candidates, campaigned on this issue. Now it is a question of delivering on this issue for the people we are sworn to serve. We would do well to heed the advice of Hubert Humphrey, and remember that those in need during a time of prosperity, whether they be the children in the dawn of their life, the elderly in the twilight of their life, or those in the shadows of their life who need our help and assistance, this is the time for us to act and respond. I thank the gentleman again for providing this opportunity in this special order for people to address the concerns of health care, and specifically for me tonight to be able to talk about the need for prescription drugs.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. There is no question. The compromise lies right ahead of us. I think what frustrates the American public is they see us talking before an empty Chamber and they are wondering why the collective body is not addressing these important issues; why they just seem to linger on and on and on with no resolve. I have a veteran from my hometown who has won three Purple Hearts whose monthly pension does not equal what he pays in terms of prescription drugs. This is what people are really seeking relief from. I agree with the gentleman, people back home have talked passionately about a Patients' Bill of Rights. Certainly the concern is there for the uninsured that exist in this country, and the costs that our hospitals are experiencing, as well, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. But invariably, the real gut level emotion that I hear from people is that they are being really hurt by the lack of a policy, the lack of a program that will allow them to have the drugs that their doctors know that they need in order to survive. Shame on us for not continuing to move that forward. When I say ``us,'' I mean Democrats, Republicans alike. The President, the Cabinet, all of us, we know that this is an important issue to all of them. I thank the gentleman for being one of the lone sentinels, as I said earlier, who comes down here on a regular basis and makes sure that the public understands that there are people out there that care, that there are people willing to stand up and fight for what they believe is right, and people who feel that this is a higher priority than a tax cut.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 182, Eight Mile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2001, sponsored by my colleague Rob Simmons from Connecticut. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank and commend Mr. Simmons and my other colleagues from Connecticut who have co-sponsored this bill. This bill would authorize the National Park Service to conduct a study of Connecticut's Eight Mile River for possible inclusion as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was established by Congress in 1968 to recognize and support exceptional rivers. Connecticut is a State proud of its heritage and natural beauty, ranging from the Connecticut River, to the Litchfield Hills, to the Long Island Sound and the Eight Mile River in Eastern Connecticut. The Eight Mile River and the watershed that supports it is an outstanding ecological system. The designation of the Eight Mile River as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System will offer federal protection and mutually agreed conservation policies that are all desperately needed in a time when the condition of this river is in danger. This free-flowing river is home to a variety of fish and wildlife and provides cultural, recreational, and scenic benefits that State, local officials, and area residents support. It is a pleasure to see how a project can work in bringing a community together for the greater good of protecting our natural environment. As a supporter of the Eight Mile River, its recognition and conservation, I am proud to stand here today as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 182 that highlights one of Connecticut's treasures and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention a true leader in the First Congressional District of Connecticut, and a good friend of mine, Dr. Evan Dobelle. For the past six years, Dr. Dobelle has served as the President of Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. In those six years, he has expanded that role of president of the private college to that of an effective leader in the surrounding urban community--transforming the outlook and prosperity of both the school and the community. It is now with bittersweet enthusiasm that I must wish Dr. Dobelle well as he embarks on his newest endeavor to become the President of the University of Hawaii. Never one to shy away from a challenge, Evan Dobelle began his commitment to the community in his twenties, serving two terms as the Mayor of Pittsfield, MA. At age 31, Dr. Dobelle was selected United States Chief of Protocol for the White House and Assistant Secretary of the State with the rank of Ambassador under the Carter Administration. Before assuming his position at Trinity College, he served as Chancellor and President of City College of San Francisco, and president of Middlesex Community College in Lowell, MA. He holds a bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees in education and public policy from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and a master's in public administration at Harvard University. In 1995, Evan Dobelle came to Hartford to serve as the eighteenth president of Trinity College; a school synonymous with rigorous academics, but also known for its location in economically depressed area of Frog Hollow. It is a picture of pristine academia located within the heart of one of Hartford's forgotten neighborhoods. With Trinity, Evan faced one of his toughest challenges. Not only did he have to enhance the quantity and quality of applicants, and increase Trinity's endowment, Evan was responsible for improving relations with the neighborhood surrounding the gates of Trinity. Recognizing the benefits that both the community and the school had to offer one another, Evan embraced the surrounding neighborhood and called upon both the community and the college to work in partnership for mutual improvement. While successfully achieving the goals outlined for enrollment and endowments, Dobelle also used his innovation and leadership to play a vital role in orchestrating and executing the Learning Corridor, a $250 million neighborhood redevelopment project, consisting of four public elementary schools, a boys and a girls club, a center for family services, a limited housing renovation, and effectively satisfying the third requirement of his presidency and creating a national model. It is for this accomplishment he will be remembered so fondly for by the people of the city of Hartford. The Learning Corridor redevelopment project has been one of the most celebrated and successful ventures the City of Hartford has seen. It is due largely in part to the dedication and leadership of Dr. Evan Dobelle. In his six years as president of Trinity College and a resident of the City of Hartford, Evan Dobelle has become an inspiration to his adopted community in Hartford. Dr. Dobelle has gone beyond the call of duty and done a tremendous job not only for Trinity College, but the entire city of Hartford. I commend him for his excellent work, and wish him the best, as I know he will give nothing less than that to the students of the University of Hawaii and its surrounding communities.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the work of the human rights program at Trinity College in Hatford, Connecticut for its dedication to increasing awareness of human rights injustices around the world and the active role it has taken in the campaign against such abuses. Because of the tireless efforts of Maryam Elahi, the Director of the program, Trinity College boasts a human rights program that is believed to be the only undergraduate interdisciplinary human rights program in the United States, challenging its students to become active participants in the fight against human rights violations around the world. This Friday will mark yet another instance of Trinity's dedication. On March 30, 2001, the Human Rights Program will be hosting a ceremony calling attention to the plight of three teachers being held as political prisoners in Myanmar, the country formerly known as Burma, Ms. Ma Thida Htway, Mr. U Ye Tint, and Ms. Ma Khin Khin Leh. Their story has caught the attention of many world leaders including Her Majesty, Queen Rania al-Abdulla of Jordan. I am honored to have Queen Rania as a guest of the First Congressional District and as the keynote speaker of Friday's ceremony. The three teachers were arrested in July 1999 with a dozen other activists in connection to a march that had been planned commemorating the assassination of independence hero General Aung Sand and supporting the National League for Democracy (NLD). Ms. Ma Thida Htway, an elementary school teacher, was arrested for attempting to organize the 1999 uprising and creating a human rights movement. Mr. U Ye Tint, a private tutor, was helping students of the uprising produce pamphlets. Ms. Ma Khin Khin Leh, a nonpolitical, was arrested together with her three-year-old daughter, after the Military Intelligence was unable to locate her political activist husband. After five days her daughter was released; however, Ma Khin Khin Leh sits in an unspecified prison for a life sentence. The two others were also sentenced to lengthy prison terms in a trial that fell short of the international standards for fair trials. All have been brutalized and tortured because of their political beliefs. This cannot continue. The plight of these three teachers is just one of many human rights abuses which occur everyday. I have joined my distinguished colleagues and co-chairs of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Wolf, and many of my other colleagues, in a letter to Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt, Secretary of the State Peace and Development Council of the Union of Myanmar, calling on him to review their cases and release them immediately and unconditionally. It is my hope that our efforts will generate a victory in the battle for the three teachers; and ultimately, have a positive impact on the war against human rights abuses. Here in the United States, we take for granted the inalienable rights afforded to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The freedoms of speech, expression, and assembly are all rights exercised by American citizens everyday. We often forgot these rights, which our forefathers fought so vigorously to ensure, are not freedoms enjoyed by all citizens of our world. I praise Trinity College for recognizing the significance of this international epidemic and urge my colleagues to join in the international campaign to combat these horrific violations of human rights.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 39, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the repeal of valuable and beneficial workplace safety standards. We now stand on the edge of turning back a measure that would have significantly improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of working people, without even maintaining the pretense of a working together in a bipartisan manner. There are substantive and, perhaps most importantly, procedural grounds why I must oppose this. This worker safety rule was not simply created over night. This vote today will in fact erase a process that was 10 years in the making. It was also based on a 2-year study by the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences which concluded that there is a great deal of scientific evidence showing repetitive workplace motions cause injuries that can be prevented through ergonomic intervention. I have serious problems with the way this issue was brought before us in the House. In this situation, the resolution was rushed to the floor with little or no warning, and this vote will completely eliminate the worker safety rule, using a little known, never before used procedure, the Congressional Review Act. This resolution also prohibits the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from issuing a similar rule to protect the safety of workers, which clouds the issue further. Eliminating the rule under these circumstances rolls back years of investigation and review, and will force the effort to improve worker safety to start over from scratch, where it began more than 10 years ago. A more proper course of action would be to allow the rule to be adjusted, rather than wipe it away all together. For all the positive talk about bipartisanship that has been heard in recent weeks, we have seen remarkably little on this matter. Debate has been stifled, and instead of forging a compromise between both sides that allowed the rule to be adjusted, this vote was taken to completely eliminate the rule. I believe that this repeal will be a serious blow to working people in the United States. These ergonomic standards were designed to curb repetitive motion injuries for American workers in a wide-range of professions, including nurses, cashiers, truck drivers, construction workers, meat cutters, and those who operate computers. These are all people who are especially susceptible to injuries--which are often times crippling--caused by repetitive motion, heavy lifting, and forceful exertion. In 1999, it was estimated that more than 600,000 people suffered from such injuries, and they account for one-third of all serious job- related injuries a year, making them the leading safety and health problem in today's workplaces. I believe these standards would have resulted in savings to the companies that have opposed them. This issue concerns people who, because of their injuries, are unable to work and provide for their families and for themselves, and that causes lost productivity, which results in economic loss for business and the country. In 1999, the Bureau of Labor Standards estimated that the cost of these injuries is $45-50 billion each year. These injuries account for perhaps a third of employers' costs under state worker compensation laws. So despite abundant evidence pointing in the direction of needed ergonomic standards for workplaces, this rule has been repealed, and the safety of working people has been ignored.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let me also congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I join my colleagues from the Massachusetts delegation and those Members of the House who have come to the floor today to pay honor and tribute to an outstanding American, a quintessential Irish statesman who I think, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) pointed out, is not only a link to the past but a handshake and a look into his eyes is peering into the future. I spoke with Joe the other day, and he said with a great deal of pride how he assumed office on the same day that Tip O'Neill was taking John Kennedy's place in the House of Representatives and John Kennedy was going on to the Senate and Joe Moakley was taking Tip O'Neill's place in the great State of Massachusetts Assembly. Mr. Speaker, Joe Moakley simply embodies everything that is rich about public service and public life. I commend the delegation for its salute and tribute to Congressman Moakley. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my most admired colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman Joe Moakley of Massachusetts who today is the subject of legislation before this body, that has been written in his honor. Joe Moakley is the quintessential Boston Irish public servant. For more than 50 years he has served his Nation, his State of Massachusetts, and the hard-working men and women of South Boston in one form or another. In the long, and inspiring tradition of such great men as former Speaker Tip O'Neill, Joe has been the kind of Representative that has shown time and time again that he is a leader on the national and international stage, yet has remained ever loyal to the people of South Boston and all of Massachusetts. When I first arrived here as a freshman Member in 1999, Joe Moakley, who was then and now Dean of the New England House delegation, was one of those remarkable people I looked to as a model of how I wanted to conduct myself as a Member of Congress. With character, dignity, devotion, and loyalty, Congressman Moakley continues to serve as constant reminder that we are indeed part of a noble profession. Joe Moakley's remarkable time in public service began when he was a mere 15 years old, when he enlisted in the U.S. Navy for service in the South Pacific during the Second World War. After graduating from college in Florida, and law school, Joe Moakley ran for the Massachusetts State Legislature in 1952 where he served until 1960. And in 1964, he ws elected to the Massachusetts State Senate where he served until 1970. It was in 1972, after briefly serving on the Boston City Council, that he was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from the 9th District. It was not long after he began his second term that he gained a seat on the House Rules Committee, where still serves today as ranking member. In 1989, he was made chairman of that committee. As chairman, he conducted himself with his characteristic sense of integrity and humor. Through all his years of service which he continues today, he has worked tirelessly for his district, giving them the same full measure of devotion that he gave to other matters, such as human rights abuses in Central America, which he helped investigate and report on. His actions helped expose injustice, and likely contributed to the end of a brutal civil war in El Salvador. I have always believed that the measure of a person's life is not contained merely in the years they spend in office, but rather in how their actions in office continue to positively affect the neighborhoods, district, and people they served, long after their time in service has drawn to a close. If a person's actions have improved the life of even one person, or one family, or one community, then there is no end or limit to what their service has meant to others. And for Joe Moakley, there is no end in sight. No matter how long I spend as a Member of this body, I am now, and will always be, proud to say that I served with Joe Moakley.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my bill, the Energy Independence Act, designed to ensure the energy self-sufficiency of the United States by the year 2010 through targeted investments in an emerging green energy technology called fuel cells. 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. The technology I refer to is called a fuel cell. This technology has been with us since it was first used to power the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, and is still powering NASA's fleet of space shuttles. It has finally matured to a point where stationary power plants are providing reliable commercial power today and is prepared to demonstrate its advantages to the general public in clean, quiet, and efficient residential, bus, and car applications. Current stationary fuel cell demonstrations within the Department of Defense have showed an energy cost savings of over $3 million, and another unit in service at South County Hospital in Rhode Island is saving an estimated $60,000 to $90,000 in energy costs per year. Perhaps the most important attribute of stationary fuel cell power generators in the new, high tech economy is that they nearly eliminate brownouts and other power outages that disrupt the sophisticated and critical systems operating many businesses today. For example, at the First National Bank of Omaha in Nebraska, where milliseconds without power can mean millions of dollars in lost revenues, the stationary fuel cell installed as the major component of an integrated assured power system is helping to provide power at 99.9999 percent reliability, which is equal to a power interruption of one minute every six years. The environmental benefits of this new technology are also astounding. For example, the PC25 stationary power plant, which is the only commercially available until today, has been installed at 29 Department of Defense facilities throughout the United States since 1995. These fuel cells are estimated to have eliminated 399 tons of SOx, 159 tons of NOx, and over 20,000 tons of CO2. Compared to a typical combustion-based generator, each individual fuel cell unit eliminates more than 40,000 pounds of air pollutants, including NOx and SOx, as well as two million pounds of CO2 emissions per year. Finally, fuel cells have the capability to cleanly process methane emissions from landfills and anaerobic digester gases from wastewater treatment facilities into energy, thereby preventing these harmful emissions from degrading the environment. This technology presents us with an extraordinary opportunity, at a critical time in this country's development. As you are aware, the United States imported an average of nearly 11 million barrels of oil per day last year from foreign countries to meet our domestic energy needs, totaling nearly 4 billion barrels during all of 1999. Even at last year's comparatively modest average price of $15 per barrel, that adds up to more than $60 billion spent on foreign oil. With The current oil crisis has served to remind us, after nearly two decades of complacency, how fragile the relationship is between our energy sources, the vitality of our economy, and the livelihood of every man, woman, and child in this country. The price of a barrel of crude oil reaches into every corner of our society, from affecting the cost of transporting food from our farms and ranches to the dinner table, to affecting the cost of each one of us traveling to and from work, to affecting our very survival at home during cold winter and hot summer months. We stand now on a fundamental crossroad in this country. We have the ability to provide for the economic and national security of the nation by integrating this new technology into our economy. The elimination of noxious chemical emissions into our environment and the freedom of not being bound to existing energy producing monopolies represent a potential impact on our society in the next century as profound as any of the achievements of the 20th century, from the elimination of small pox and polio, to the development of the Internet, to human's first flights in space through which this technology was born. However, bold action is needed, with courage and vision to lead the way. Over the next five years, my legislation would invest approximately 1/60 of the nation's total yearly expenditures on foreign oil to develop and demonstrate fuel cell technology that can power our homes, businesses, and vehicles. My bill calls for a $1 billion 5-year investment that should eliminate our reliance on foreign energy sources by 2010 and improve world environmental conditions by reducing overall consumption of fossil fuels and the harmful chemical emissions they produce. Specifically, the Energy Independence Act: Directs the Secretary of Energy to transmit to Congress within one year a strategic plan to ensure the United States is energy self sufficient by the year 2010. Authorizes up to $20 million for completion of this plan. Authorizes a total of $140 million over 3 years to establish a federal pilot program to purchase up to 100 commercially available 200 kW fuel cell power plants or up to 20 mW of power generated from commercially available fuel cell power plants for use at federally owned or operated facilities. Gives site selection priority to sites that (1) are classified as non-attainment areas under Title I of the Clean Air Act; (2) have computer or electronic operations that are sensitive to power supply disruptions; (3) need a reliable uninterrupted power supply; (4) are in a remote location or have other factors requiring off-grid power generation; or (5) need to maintain critical manufacturing or other activities that support national security efforts. Authorizes a total of $140 million over 3 years to establish a program for the demonstration of fuel cell proton exchange membrane (PEM) technology in commercial, residential, and transportation applications. Authorizes a total of $150 over 3 years to establish a comprehensive Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration Program to address hydrogen production, storage, and use in transit bus applications. Promotes the application of technology developments and improved manufacturing production and processes for proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell technology. Directs the various agencies of the federal government that maintain fleets of federal vehicles to develop plans to transition the fleets to incorporate fuel cell technology by 2010. Directs that any life-cycle cost benefit analysis undertaken by a Federal agency with respect to investments in products, services, construction, and other projects shall include an analysis of environmental and power reliability factors. Authorizes $110 million per year for five years to establish a grant program for state and local governments (requiring a 10 percent non- federal funding match) to make investments for the use of fuel cell technology in meeting their energy requirements, including the fueling as a source of power for motor vehicles. Just as steam power generated the first real industrial revolution in the 19th century, and power from fossil fuels generated the tremendous technological growth seen in the 20th century, fuel cells are ready to power the country and the world in the 21st century and beyond. This legislation is an important step in this process, and the government must play a role in this transition for several reasons. First and foremost, it will provide for the security of the country in both economic and military terms by eliminating our reliance on foreign energy sources. Second, we have a long-term responsibility to our seniors and to other people living on fixed incomes to see that they will one day have an opportunity to live within their means without being forced to choose between putting food on their tables, gas in their cars, or buying oil to heat their homes. Third, there is the opportunity within the government's infrastructure to most easily begin a widespread integration of this technology. Fourth, the spread and use of this technology has the opportunity to create a contribution in economic growth and in job creation every bit as significant as the development of the high tech industry during the last decade. Finally, as government regulations increasingly call for stricter clean air and other pollution limits, fuel cells can provide an effective way for states and communities to meet these new environmental challenges. Specifically, the federal government can take a leadership role in transitioning and commercializing this technology by using the powerful leverage of large volume government purchases of fuel cells to power government facilities, including federal housing facilities, as well as its fleets of vehicles. Further, given the significant amount of federal assistance to states and local communities for public transportation, the federal government can play an important role in helping communities meet their transportation needs and meet clean air requirements at the same time. State and local governments and organizations can take the lead on this as well, by integrating this new technology in community planning efforts and municipal transportation programs, and I have included a significant grant program to help local governments interested in participating in this endeavor. We have the opportunity to provide leadership, solutions, and opportunities at this critical juncture in our nation's history that can profoundly improve the security and independence of every American, providing a safer, more secure, more productive, and cleaner environment for generations to come. We must not allow this opportunity to be lost.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and I appreciate his great leadership on this very important issue before Congress. I think it is instructive to those that are listening today on a Saturday afternoon that we are here continuing to press this vitally important issue. We are here for the people that Tom Brokaw appropriately recognized as the greatest generation ever, those people who persevered through the great Depression, who won the Second World War, who came home and rebuilt this great country of ours, provided for interstate commerce and made sure that we had school systems that were second to none so that we have risen today to be the preeminent military, economic, cultural and social force in the world. All they are asking for is to live out their final days in dignity. I can say it no better than the woman who was on 60 Minutes who said, ``I feel like I am a refugee from my own health care system, a refugee from my own health care system because I have to travel to Canada to get the prescription drugs that my doctor has recommended I take because I cannot afford them here in my own country.'' That is why we need the legislation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) has sponsored, that the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) spoke about. That is why it is so important, as it should have been in 1965, that we follow the President's lead and the Vice President's lead in making sure that we make prescription drugs part of Medicare. As the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) has pointed out as well, also following along the lines of the Allen bill which so many of us have supported here as well, that makes nothing short of common sense, that will not cost one new dollar in terms of adding onto bureaucracy, no new tax dollars, but just using the Federal Government as a resource, and pulling those Medicare recipients along with those Federal employees that already receive a discount, thus driving down the cost of prescription drugs for our elderly. Everywhere I go across my district I can think of no more poignant issue where people have been calling upon Congress to put down their partisan differences. Instead, we get a charade. We get a charade of proposals claiming to have been for or have passed something akin to prescription drug relief. The Republican proposal I have aptly named the Marie Antoinette plan. My colleagues all recall when those in Paris were starving and the then Queen said, ``They are without bread. Let them eat cake.'' The seniors of this country have come to the capital, have plead with us to give them prescription drug relief, and our Republican counterparts are saying, ``They are in need of prescription drugs. Let them buy insurance.'' That is not the way to make sure that we protect and provide for the greatest generation ever, those individuals that have sacrificed so much for this Nation of ours. Let us get behind the American plan, not Democrat, not Republican, but the plan that allows people to live out their final days in dignity and provides them the access to prescription drugs, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) pointed out, that will not have them faced with the decision of choosing between the food they put on their table, the monies they need to heat their home, or the drugs that their doctors have recommended that they take to survive. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for putting forward this very important issue at this critical time. We have got a governor out there who is cawing how he can bring people together. I have a suggestion, call the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), call the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), two of his fellow Texans, tell them to pull this Congress together in the waning days and pass on to those seniors. This is not a bipartisan issue, this is an issue of survival, this is a moral obligation on the part of this Congress to make sure that those seniors, those citizens that have given so much need these drugs to survivor. Let us get together and make it happen. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his leadership.