John Larson

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 522, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 487, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a Patient's Bill of Rights. I had hoped, however, that an amendment version of Connecticut's Patient's Bill of Rights could have been considered. Unfortunately, the debate here has been hamstrung by the rules of the House, which makes it nearly impossible to have a policy debate on the issues, and prevents amendments from being offered that would enable the legislative process to respond to the primary concerns of patients. In Connecticut, the Legislature demonstrated that if you work in a bi-partisan manner you can write legislation that is balanced, and gets to the heart of the matter, which is the protection for the patent, and thus, provide the care that is needed. Moreover, what most people don't understand is that under current law, HMOs can already be sued. The vote today should be about a Patient's Bill of Rights, but in many respects it is about the tactical differences between various partisan proposals. I remain committed to the fundamental principle that has guided me, which is that doctors and patients should determine how patients are treated and cared for, not bureaucrats. I have always tried to level the playing field for patients, and so has Connecticut. The HMOs should be held accountable and liable for their actions without opening a Pandora's box of unlimited litigation. Companies in my home state of Connecticut have operated under the Connecticut law and are to be commended for their compliance. Connecticut has demonstrated that it can work. Managed care is not without its problems, and we will need to work toward the goal of improvement. Fortunately, there are many fine people who represent the insurance industry who are working every day toward the goal, so that we can improve the health care delivery, control costs, and help the patient and family in time of need.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, as Congress continues to debate next year's budget, America continues to face two mounting problems: a growing information technology worker shortage, and a persisting ``digital divide'' between the information rich and the information poor. Reports estimate that there are approximately 350,000 unfilled technology jobs available in America, a shortage that threatens the future growth of the sector that is responsible for driving America's unprecedented economic success. Clearly, the demand for highly-skilled information technology workers vastly outweighs the supply. Further confirmation of this problem came in the Department of Commerce's July report entitled, ``Falling Through the Net,'' which highlighted a persisting ``digital divide'' characterized by a disparity of race, gender, wealth, and geography. It is, thus, with the intention of focusing public attention on these two problems, that I lend my support today to the first national ``Techies Day'' being held today. Its goal is to reverse these trends by inspiring more of America's youth to enter science and technology fields. To mark this day, the Association for Competitive Technology, an alliance of Information Technology businesses, will bring technology professionals to the Kids Computer Workshop in Washington, D.C., an after-school technology program that works with underserved kids in the District. By showing youth that technology careers are within their reach, these ``techies'' will bridge the gap for kids who find themselves on the wrong side of the ``digital divide'' and begin to reduce America's information technology workforce deficit. Mr. Speaker, if the private sector is recognizing its role in bridging the gap between the information ``haves'' and the ``have- nots,'' I believe Congress should recognize its role too. It is my hope that through efforts such as Techies Day, Congress will realize that it can, and should, make a difference.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Thank you very much, Representative Etheridge, and thank you for your leadership and again for putting forward this very important hour to discuss this issue. As you have already recognized, school buildings across this Nation represent about a $2 trillion investment in brick and mortar, and it is an asset we cannot overlook. While I am as disappointed as several are that we have not been able to address fundamentally the issues of education in this session, I believe that this issue is going to be driven forward, ironically not by the Congress, ironically not by educators, but by businessmen. It is the Commerce Department that most recently issued a report, a very startling report, called ``falling through the net.'' In that report, what they found is that the gap, the so-called digital divide, is increasingly growing worse along the lines of race, gender, geography and wealth. What that means in this Nation is that at a time when the economy is surging and roaring forward, that there is not the pipeline of well- trained, well-educated individuals to come forward and fill the jobs that will continue to fuel this great economic growth that we are experiencing. So we fundamentally have got to address issues. As was pointed out by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), there are important things that have to be done with respect to modernizing our schools. But as we modernize the schools as well, it is equally as important that we make sure that they are technologically sufficient. The people who came before not only the Committee on Science and Committee on Commerce, the business community projected that currently we have about 350,000 jobs that are going unfilled because we do not have people that are coming out of our public school system that are digitally fluent and competently trained. The problem is a huge one, and it is one where this Nation and Congress, quite frankly, has had its head in the sand, and we have to wake up. As I suggested earlier, I think it is going to be the business community that drives this issue, because primarily they are concerned about that workforce in the future. But what the Commerce Department's report also demonstrated is this huge gap that exists between those who have access to information and those who do not. In a digital economy we cannot afford to leave anyone behind. That gap has grown worse in the midst of this great economy and has grown worse, especially for those children in our rural communities and in our cities. We have got the ability, we have the technology. What we have lacked is a universal ubiquitous plan to make sure we are delivering technology in the classroom. We have proposed legislation in the Committee on Science that is going to address this issue. We hope desperately that it gets taken up on the floor, because it is so important that we come up with the most efficient means of making sure that fundamentally the transmission of voice, video and data in a classroom can be integrated into daily lesson plans and into the curriculum. As a former schoolteacher myself, I know the importance of making sure that we are more diagnostic in our approach to teaching, that we are able to be more prescriptive in terms of what children's needs are, and ultimately that the goal of every teacher is to individualize instruction. But if we do not have the basic tools that are going to be necessary to compete in a global economy, then shame on us for having our heads in the sand and not making sure that we are making the kind of fundamental changes within our schools that we need to move forward. We cannot do that, as you pointed out on several different occasions, without well-trained teachers. We have proposed legislation, several of us here, to make sure that we provide tax incentives for teachers, teachers who are willing to go out and spend the extra money to purchase a computer on their own, a laptop, so they can go home and incorporate that into their daily lesson plans; a tuition tax credit for teachers that will go back and get the kind of education that they need to be technologically up to par with their 5th grade students; and, of course, providing incentives for business as well, so that they, when they buddy up with school systems, when they buddy up with fellow teachers, for the hours that they put in, they receive a particular tax credit. Fundamentally, it is recognizing that we need to retool our schools. We all know what happened in the automobile industry when we did not retool. We lost. We lost ground, we lost in competition, we lost market share. This is far more important than an automobile industry. This is our future growth. These are our future students. To compete in the global economy, we have to make sure that these students are well-trained. Every economist worth his salt has said look, when you are dealing with this economy, knowledge and currency, knowledge translates into currency, and information will provide the growth in the future. We have to retool our schools. We have to retrain our students. One way that I believe that we can, and this is going to take time, and I think most of us understand that, is as we are rebuilding and refurbishing schools and making sure they are technologically up to speed, as we are retraining our teachers we need, according to Secretary Riley some 2 million teachers over the next 10 years, we also have to make sure that we make as part of this culture, part of this information culture, our youngest students. We have called for the creation of a youth technology corps to be a part of the arm of VISTA, to be part of AmeriCorps, to serve this country starting in the fifth grade, to put a civic face on technology but having at that very young age kids become imbued with the responsibility of service, service to their fellow students, helping them with the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, helping elderly people who are shut-ins or in nursing homes send e-mails to their sons and daughters and their grandchildren. There is a higher calling here and it is one where if we integrate and take a look at these issues from a universal perspective, this Nation is going to be better served. I am also reminded as well, at the end, and I think it is something that served me well and I know many of my colleagues have talked about this, there is no piece of legislation, there is no technology, that reads to a child at night, that tucks them in, that offers them the kind of nurturing and help that a loving and caring parent can. Beyond that, there is a responsibility, fundamentally, that resides with this Congress. There is no State, there is no community, that has the wherewithal technologically to provide universal, ubiquitous service to all of our children. We have that responsibility. We created a national highway system. Surely we can create a national information superhighway system. I thank the gentleman so much for the opportunity today to speak. [From the Hartford Courant, Sept. 21, 1999] Closing the Digital Divide in Our Schools (By John B. Larson) The nation's economy is surging to unprecedented levels. The productivity of small business start-ups, driven by technology and American ingenuity, is bursting with entrepreneurial capital and the creation of unparalleled wealth. Yet amid the euphoria, there is growing concern about the alarming trend of limited access to the benefits of this ``digital'' economy. In its July report ``Falling Through the Net,'' the Department of Commerce confirmed these fears about the information haves and have-nots, citing a persisting ``digital divide'' between the information-rich and the information-poor--a divide characterized by a disparity of race, gender, wealth and geography that grows disturbingly further apart. The great irony of this technology enterprise is that it's running out of a vital fuel source: skilled workers. American corporations are now in the position of asking Congress to help import a work force from foreign countries. Congress needs to reinforce a crucial pipeline for this needed fuel so that our technological enterprises can feel secure in their ability to grow. That pipeline has been and continues to be public education. Unfortunately, the pipeline is clogged because our policies are floundering with piecemeal, patch-worked solutions instead of a solidly constructed plan. We cannot meet the demands of a digital economy with inadequate infrastructure, untrained teachers, resistant universities, indecisive government and a private sector that thinks donating its old computers is the solution to the problem. Congress must recognize a fundamental need to rethink how we deliver education in our classrooms. It needs to light up the desktops of our students and the blackboards of their teachers, and provide students with the training and skills they need to be contributing members of our future work force. Specifically, it needs to bring the information superhighway into our schools and libraries, giving students the opportunity to participate in the global economy. For this opportunity to be seized by Congress, it will take more than a 30-second sound bite. It will require a long-term plan. Congress must forge a new alliance of the nation's talented technological sector and leading academic and government agencies, to develop a strategic plan with appropriate implementation benchmarks. The information infrastructure needed for classrooms and public libraries must be examined to ensure that it provides the most efficient and cost-effective results. Yet, we must also realize that while a high-tech education system is critical, it won't work without trained professionals. As a parent of three and a former teacher, I understand that no act of Congress ever reads to a child at night, tucks him in or offers him the kind of nurturing growth that comes from caring parents. Similarly, no piece of technology can replace a highly trained teacher. There can be no high-tech without high touch. According to U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley, over the next 10 years, this country will need 2 million new teachers. These new teachers must be digitally fluent and prepared to integrate technology into their daily lesson plans and curriculum. Our colleges and universities must be prepared to provide this outcome, and Congress must be prepared to provide incentives. These incentives would include tax credits for equipment purchases, tuition credits to acquire new skills and incentives for business to buddy with teachers and adopt schools. The third component of how Congress can integrate high-tech learning into our society relates to creating a civic culture that will encourage young people with computer talent to share their knowledge with their community. The best way to make that happen will be through a youth technology corps. A national tech corps starting in the fifth grade and continuing through high school will be of technological service to peers and adults and expose young people to the importance of community service, learning the important lesson that serving is as important as being served. Congress has a responsibility to leave no one behind in the digital economy. It must provide the opportunities needed to help Americans attain personal and financial security in a global economy. It can make this happen, or it can be remembered as the Congress that squandered an unprecedented educational moment.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I can add no more to the gentlewoman's eloquence.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my esteemed colleague from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). The amendment provides funding for grants to children's hospitals to train pediatricians. This amendment incorporates the provisions of H.R. 1579, the Children's Hospitals Education and Research Act of 1999. It was one of the first bills I cosponsored on becoming a Member of this body. This amendment greatly affects the 59 independent children's teaching hospitals across this Nation. Although these hospitals represent less than 1 percent of all hospitals in the Nation, they train over 5 percent of all physicians, 29 percent of all pediatricians and most pediatric specialists. The Connecticut Children's Medical Center is located in the center of my district and is one of these hospitals that desperately needs this graduate medical funding for their education programs. I have heard from many of my constituents and work closely with the staff at the medical center, its president, Larry Gold, and Eva Bunnell who is a tireless advocate on behalf of the children of our great State of Connecticut. As a parent of three children, I understand the importance and necessity of this funding. This amendment would authorize annual funding for 2 years and provide a more equitable, competitive playing field for independent children's teaching hospitals. I wear this pin today, which is the Connecticut Children's Medical Center's logo. It represents an open-armed child made of colorful blocks. A 8-year-old from the hospital said the logo looks like a kid ready to give a hug. We cannot turn our backs on the Nation's children and the care they deserve, and aside from the hugs they richly deserve, they need funding. Without this funding, these independent hospitals, which care solely for children, will find it hard to operate to the best of their ability. I commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her tireless work on behalf of children in the State of Connecticut and across this Nation. She has done so since she was a member of the Connecticut State Senate. I rise in support of this amendment today and urge our colleagues to join us.

Mr. LARSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker on rollcall numbers 448, 449, 450, and 451, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on each.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1402, which would require the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the new Federal Milk Marketing Order proposal known as Option 1-A. As you know, the 1996 Farm bill mandated the Department of Agriculture to reform the Federal Milk Marketing Orders, which determine the price of most dairy products. In response, USDA issued two proposed reforms, known as option 1-A and option 1-B. During consideration of this rule, USDA heard directly from more than 200 members of this body supporting the implementation of option 1-A. Their Final Rule published on March 28, 1999, noted that the 4,217 comments received since the change was proposed, more than 3,500 of them were in support of option 1-A. We are here today because despite clear and overwhelming support for option 1-A, USDA has chosen to move forward and implement a plan that would devastate small dairy farmers throughout the country. The proposal put forward by USDA would specifically cost dairy farmers in my district more than $360,000 per year, representing a loss of 66 cent per hundredweight on class I fluid milk and a loss of 24 cents per hundredweight on class III milk. In Connecticut, and in most of New England, our dairy farms are small family run businesses, and vital to our region's economy. In New England, we have even banded together to form the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, twice approved by this body, to foster this shrinking industry and to address the unique problems of dairy production in the region. Protecting these small family businesses has also been an integral part of protecting open space and local communities' conservation and environmental reclamation programs. Many other states in the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Southwest have followed New England's lead and begun ratifying their own compacts. If USDA moves forward and implements option 1-B, few if any of these dairy producers would survive. I have heard repeatedly from other members and the USDA that there was overwhelming support among dairy producers for their reform proposal in their recently conducted referendum. But I have also heard from the dairy community that they felt cornered into that vote, forced to support the Federal Order system at the risk of termination rather than the proposed change. So I rise in support of this bill, to protect small American farmers, and in support of the Stenholm/Pombo amendment, which would clarify language about forward contracting for dairy producers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and oppose any poison pill amendments that may be offered as attempts to prevent fair and meaningful dairy reform.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very important legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and our great leader the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their hard work in putting together this important piece of legislation, important to the needs of the men and women in uniform. As a freshman, I was honored to serve on the conference committee with Members of the Senate. The bill before us is maintaining a commitment made. The bill before us, as eloquently stated by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) makes this truly a year of the troops. We have heard their needs. We have addressed them. This bill provides our soldiers with a 4.8 percent pay increase, improves retirement benefits, and increases housing allowances for our military families. Most importantly for me, this bill and this committee has recognized the important and necessary role of the F-22 fighter in the Air Force Modernization and Readiness program by fully authorizing the Air Force request for $1.8 billion in procurement funds. The authorization of the F-22, of course, is also supported by Defense Secretary Cohen, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and most important to me, by truly the Jedi warriors of this Nation, the men and women of the United States Air Force. I want to commend my colleagues on the committee again, especially the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairmans Spence) and our great leader the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their strong leadership and bipartisan drafting of an excellent piece of legislation that addresses personnel, readiness, and the modernization needs of 21st century Armed Services and has truly made this a ``year of the troops.''

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to draw attention to our nation's growing digital divide. The nation's economy is surging to unprecedented levels. The productivity of small business start-ups, driven by technology and American ingenuity, is bursting with entrepreneurial capital and the creation of unparalleled wealth. Yet amidst the euphoria, there is growing concern about the alarming trend of limited access to the benefits of this ``digit'' economy. In its July report, ``Falling Through The Net,'' the Department of Commerce confirmed these fears about the information ``haves'' and ``have nots'' citing a persisting ``digital divide'' between the information rich and the information poor. A divide characterized by a disparity of race, gender, wealth and geography that grows disturbingly further apart. The great irony of this technology enterprise is that it's running out of a vital fuel source: skilled workers. American corporations are now in the position of asking Congress to help import a workforce from foreign countries. Congress needs to reinforce a crucial pipeline for this needed fuel so that our technological enterprises can feel secure in their ability to grow. That pipeline has been and continues to be public education. Unfortunately, the pipeline is clogged because our policies are floundering with piecemeal, patch-worked solutions instead of a solidly constructed plan. We cannot meet the demands of a digital economy, with inadequate infrastructure, untrained teachers, resistant universities, indecisive government, and a private sector that thinks donating its old computers is the solution to the problem. Congress must recognize a fundamental need to rethink how we deliver education in our classrooms. It needs to light up the desktops of our students and the blackboards of their teachers, and provide students with the training and skills they need to be contributing members of our future workforce. Specifically, it needs to bring the information superhighway into our schools and libraries, giving students the opportunity to participate in the global economy. In order for this opportunity to be seized by Congress, it will take more than a thirty second sound bite. It will require a long term plan. Congress must forge a new alliance of the nation's talented technological sector and leading academic and government agencies, to develop a strategic plan with appropriate implementation bench marks. The information infrastructure needed for classrooms and public libraries must be examined to ensure that it provides the most efficient and cost effective results. Yet, we must also realize that while a high-tech education system is critical, it won't work without trained professionals. As a parent of three and a former teacher, I understand that no act of Congress ever reads to a child at night, tucks him in, or offers him the kind of nurturing growth that comes from caring parents. Similarly, no piece of technology can replace a highly trained teacher. There can be no high tech, without high touch. According to U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley, over the next 10 years, this country will need two million new teachers. These new teachers must be digitally fluent and prepared to integrate technology into their daily lesson plans and curriculum. Our colleges and universities must be prepared to provide this outcome, and Congress must be prepared to provide incentives. These incentives would include tax credits for equipment purchases, tuition credits to acquire new skills, and incentives for business to buddy with teachers and adopt schools. The third component of how Congress can integrate high-tech learning into our society, relates to creating a civic culture that will encourage young people with computer talent to share their knowledge with their community. The best way to make that happen will be through a youth technology corps. A national tech corps starting in the fifth grade and continuing through high school, this youth technology corps will be of technological service to its peers and adults, and expose young people to the importance of community service. Learning the important lesson that serving is as important as being served. Congress has a responsibility to leave no one behind in the digital economy. It must provide the opportunities needed to help Americans attain personal and financial security in a global economy. It can make this happen, or it can be remembered as the Congress that squandered an unprecedented educational moment.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (H.R. 417). First, I would like to commend my colleagues, Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin T. Meehan, for the extraordinary amount of hard work they put forth to bring this bill before us today. It is a testament to their diligence and tenacity that they have successfully defeated the obstacles that have been placed in the way of this important legislation. I believe that it is time to change the nature of today's political campaigns. Working people are losing their voice in the political process, and losing faith in their officials because their vote is being drowned in a sea of negative attack ads. These reforms would tighten the campaign finance laws to keep outside groups from running sham ads, and reduce the impact of obscure, faceless groups and their money on our elections. I believe that this bill is a bipartisan effort to restore faith in our Government, which is why it is one of the first bills I co-sponsored. I have been in politics for many years and I know that too much money is spent in political campaigns, and real people are losing their voice in elections. We need to bring campaigns back to the basics so that big money influences are put in check, and unregulated ``soft'' money is taken out of politics. Many people are distrustful of the political process, and rightfully so. They don't vote in elections because major outside groups and parties have too much leverage. This reform bill is a bipartisan effort to restore faith in our Government and open up the political system. This measure aggressively targets the big money in politics and brings campaigns back to the people. These reforms are responsible, logical, and best of all, workable within our current system. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Shays-Meehan bill and vote against the many ``poison-pill'' amendments that have been allowed to be offered today.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD Appropriations bill, H.R. 2684, that we are considering today has many shortcomings that prevent me from voting for it in its present form. The major agency that takes the largest cuts in the bill is NASA. Total appropriations for FY 2000 under the bill are $1 billion, or 7% less than the FY 1999 level. These cuts, I believe, would jeopardize the future of our space research programs, including programs directed at solving problems here on earth, that are pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge about our universe. These cuts to NASA's budget are being made despite recent legislation passed by the House, which I supported, that authorized higher levels of spending than those being proposed by Congress. The VA-HUD Appropriations bill also fails to fund any incremental housing vouchers and would impose a 5% cut in the critical Community Development Block Grant program. According to HUD, the overall cuts would result in an estimated 156,000 fewer housing units for low-income families, at a time when their housing needs are at all-time high. As a result of these cuts persons with AIDS and 16,000 homeless families would not receive vital housing and related services. In addition, 97,000 jobs would not be generated in communities that need them. If passed by the full Congress, I believe these cuts would have a devastating impact on families and communities nationwide. In addition, the AmeriCorps program is cut $435 million from the FY 1999 level, in effect, terminating the program. AmeriCorps, the domestic Peace Corps, engages more than 40,000 Americans in intensive, results-driven service each year. AmeriCorps members are tackling critical problems like illiteracy, crime and poverty. They have taught, tutored or mentored more than 2.6 million children, served 564,000 at-risk youth in after-school programs, operated 40,500 safety patrols, rehabilitated 25,179 homes, aided more than 2.4 million homeless individuals, and immunized 419,000 people. In Connecticut, more than 1,200 residents have served their communities through AmeriCorps. Mr. Chairman, we all know that AmeriCorps helps solve critical problems in an effective way. It creates $1.66 worth benefits for each $1.00 spent. And for every full-time AmeriCorps member, 12 regular and occasional unpaid volunteers are recruited and mobilized. AmeriCorps is, indeed, effectively preparing young people for the future and strengthening local communities. As a result of program cuts, however, a great number of important projects that foster involvement and learning in technology by children and adults, will go unfunded. One of these is Project FIRST (Fostering Instructional Reform through Service and Technology Initiatives), whose role it is to increase access to technology and its educational benefits in the nation's least-served schools. Another way AmeriCorps is involved with technology is through TechCorps, a national non- profit organization that is driven and staffed primarily with technologically proficient volunteers. However, if funding is not restored, TechCorps will not receive AmeriCorps/VISTA volunteers to bring this program to underserved, low-income communities. I believe these programs are important, because even though American technology is propelling the nation's economy to unprecedented heights, growing concern remains for those who are not benefitting from his prosperity. For those left behind by the advancing technology, the divide growing between the ``haves'' and ``have-nots'' is increasing at an alarming rate, as demonstrated by the Department of Commerce in its July, 1999 report, ``Falling through the Net.'' These AmeriCorps programs bring technology to underserved populations and address weaknesses in our economy, such as unequal access to technology, teacher training, and evaluation. However, I do not believe AmeriCorps is essential just because it can help close the ``digital divide.'' It is essential because it exposes young people to the ideal of serving their community and their nation. Colin Powell has succinctly captured this idea of community service by stating, ``For some of our young people, preserving our democratic way of life means shouldering a rifle or climbing into a cockpit or weighting anchor and setting out to sea. for others, it means helping a child to read or helping that child to secure needed vaccinations or it means building a park or helping bring peace to a troubled neighborhood or helping communities recover from natural disasters or reclaiming the environment.'' Harris Wofford, former United States Senator and now head of the Corporation for National Service, echoes Powell's thoughts, ``Our country needs more . . . patriotism. AmeriCorps encourages and inspires this patriotism on the home front.'' Finally, a quote by Vaclav Havel, I believe, explains the need to have an AmeriCorps, ``This dormant good will in people needs to be stirred. People need to hear that it makes sense to behave decently or to help others, to place common interest above their own, to respect the elementary rules of human coexistence. Good will longs to be recognized and cultivated.'' This, I believe, is the essential value of national service, and by extension, of AmeriCorps. Serving is as important and rewarding as being served. Mr. Chairman, I believe the cuts in this bill would move America in the wrong direction. Despite unprecedented economic prosperity, there are significant unmet needs in our nation's communities and in our science and research programs. We should not cut programs that meet vital housing, economic development, and research needs. I will strongly oppose this bill because it fails to meet our responsibilities to war veterans, to provide relief and recovery after natural disasters, to provide service to the community, to protect the environment, to help to meet housing needs, and to undertake essential research that will greatly the American public. We can do better, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the amendment. I am here to address what is a very serious issue of national security raised by cutting the F-22 and the virtual elimination of the number one priority of the United States Air Force. Let me first acknowledge and thank the leadership of the Committee on Armed Services and the fine job that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) have done. I commend them for their mark on the F-22. I am proud to be a member of this committee. The issue of cost associated with this program is one the committee addressed and requires the Secretary of the Air Force to report their continuing efforts to meet mandated spending caps. I am heartened as well by the actions of the Senate Committee on National Security, the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Defense Department, and the Clinton administration, all who support the F-22 for the strategic importance, air superiority, and dominance it supplies our troops who most recently demonstrated their brave actions and won the war for us in Kosovo. Let me also acknowledge the great respect that I have for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and other members of the Subcommittee on Defense who have felt this program was too costly to continue because of budgetary constraints and cost overruns. I rise this afternoon without malice and ask these fine appropriators who are headed to conference to hear the concerns not only of legislators, but from the guys in the front lines, the men and women who put their lives on the line, the ones who we ask to fly in harm's way. Their first concern is the Nation they protect and the comrades they fly with. They know little of politics, of budget caps, and conference committees. They only know they have a job to perform. They are given orders, and they execute, and in Kosovo, that was over 30,000 sorties without a single life lost. They are the heroes. They are this Nation's Jedi warriors. And in gratitude to their service, we are preparing today to cut the only program that guarantees their air dominance. While trying to persuade them that retrofitting the F-15 is the answer for the future. I visited several of these pilots at Langley Air Force base. I told them how proud I and all of the Members of Congress were of their effort. They asked them why we are cutting the F-22 and stressed their dismay at how counterproductive it is to try to bolt on technology to the F-15. To quote Major Jay Tim, we would get only one-third the capability of the F-22 at 90 percent of the cost it will take to retrofit the F-15. Another young warrior said, rather painfully, how many of us coming home in coffins will it take for Congress to understand how important tactical superiority and advanced avionics are to the pilots who carry out these missions. Their classified presentations were even more vivid, and it seems incomprehensible to them and frankly, to me, that knowing our enemy's capability we will place our troops in harm's way of enemy-constructed death zones of the 21st Century with 20th Century technology. We talked all year long about morale and retention. Our pilots are the best trained fighters in the world, and they would fly anything into battle for their country, now to come home only to find cuts in their top priority in Congress, turning congressional commitment into a hollow promise for them. For them, this is not some frill. This is not some back bench item. This is their very future. Our great leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), has eloquently referred to issues that impact everyday people as kitchen table issues. Across kitchen tables of our Air Force pilots, spouses wonder why, with our surplus, why given their outstanding valor, we place their husbands and wives at risk. Across the kitchen tables in my own hometown, for the people who work at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, who wonder why, with the largest defense budget in recent memory, why they will be laid off after competing for and winning an engine contract that the Air Force assured them would be built, why is the House cutting what the Air Force assured would be their top priority. In so many ways, Mr. Chairman, this is a great defense budget, and it has done much for our troops and it has done much more the defense of this Nation. Members are going to bring home much to their districts, but for me over the break I will be sitting down across kitchen tables, on shop floors, in living rooms, trying to explain to people I grew up with, my neighbors, that their fate lies in the hands of a conference committee. It is my sincere hope that this end story will be one we can be proud of, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote for this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address a very serious issue of national security raised by the cutting of the F-22 and virtual elimination of the number one priority of the U.S. Air Force. Let me first acknowledge and thank the leadership of the Armed Services Committee and the fine job that Mr. Spence and Mr. Skelton have done and I commend them for the mark on the F-22. The issue of cost associated with the program is one the committee addressed and requires the Secretary of the Air Force to report on their continuing efforts to meet the mandated spending caps. I'm heartened as well by the actions of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Appropriation Committee, the Defense Department, and the Clinton Administration, all who support the F-22 for the strategic importance, air superiority, and dominance it provides our troops. Most recently demonstrated by those brave Air Force warriors who won the war in Kosovo. Let me also acknowledge the great respect I have for Jack Murtha, Jerry Lewis, Norm Dicks, Duke Cunningham and others on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense who have felt the program is too costly to continue given our budgetary constraints and cost overruns in the project. I rise without malice, and ask these fine appropriators who are headed to conference hear the concerns not only of legislators, but from the guys in the front lines, the men and women who put their lives on the line, the ones we ask to fly in harm's way. Their first concern is the nation they protect, and the comrades they fly with. They know little of politics, budget caps, and conference committees. They only know they have a job to perform, they are given orders, and they execute. In Kosovo that was over 30,000 sorties, without a single life lost. They are the heroes, they are the nation's Jedi warriors. In gratitude for their service, we are preparing today to cut the only program that guarantees them air dominance, while trying to persuade them that retrofitting F-15 is the answer for the future. I visited several of these pilots at Langley Air Force Base, I told them how proud I was of their effort. They asked me why we are cutting the F-22 and stressed their dismay at how counter productive it is to try to bolt on technology to the F-15. To quote Major Jake Timm, ``We would get only \1/3\ the capability of the F-22 at 90% of the cost--it will cost $41 billion to retrofit the F-15 and $40 billion to go forward with the F-22.'' Or as another young warrior said, ``How many of us coming home in coffins will it take for Congress to understand how important tactical superiority and advanced avionics are to the pilots who carry out these missions.'' Their classified presentations were even more vivid, and it seems incomprehensible to them and frankly to me, that knowing our enemies capability, we would place troops in harms way of enemy constructed death zones of the 21st Century with 20th Century technology. We have talked all year long about morale and retention, our pilots are the best trained fighters in the world and would fly anything into battle for their country, now to come home only to find cuts in their top priority fighter, turning Congressional commitment into a hollow promise. For them, this is not some frill or back bench item. This is their future. Our great leader Dick Gephardt has eloquently referred to issues that impact every day people as kitchen table issues, across the kitchen tables of our Air Force pilots' spouses wonder why with our surplus, why given their outstanding valor, would we place their husbands and wives at risk. And across the kitchen tables in my home town, people who work at Pratt & Whitney wonder why with the largest defense budget in recent memory. Why they will be laid off, why the engine they competed for and won, will not be built. Why the House is cutting what the Air Force assured them was their top priority. In so many ways the defense bill has done much for our troops and for the defense of the nation and Members will bring home much to their Districts. But for me over the break, I'll be sitting down across kitchen tables, on shop floors, and living rooms trying to explain to the people I grew up with, that their fate lies in the hands of a conference committee. It is my sincere hope that the end story is one we can be proud of. But I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about this year's Defense Appropriations bill. I would like to commend Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha on the hard work they have done to craft this legislation. For the most part, this is a good piece of legislation. It addresses the serious need to deal with pay parity for our servicemen and women with a 4.8 percent pay increase for military personnel. The bill fully funds critical submarine programs and also includes funding to study the conversion of our ballistic missile submarines to conventional weapons platforms. It funds the army's crucial requirements for advanced helicopter procurements and research and development. Finally, it contains funding to test and certify new ejection seat technology for the Air Force. Technology has advanced significantly in this area and we can now filed a new pilot ejection system which can protect the lives of our pilots at greater speeds and heights, as well as smaller pilots than current models. the Committee has recognized these important issues and as unfailingly addressed them. However, there is one particular part of the bill about which I have grave concerns for the continued nation. It provides no funding at all for the Air Force's F-22 advanced tactical fighter program. The F-22 modernization program is critical to the Air Force's mission to maintain air superiority in the 21st century. Since this cut was announced, I have met personally with Air Force Secretary Whitten Peters and Spoken with Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan. As a member of the Armed Services Committee I have sat through numerous classified threat briefings which demonstrate the critical need for this airplane, including several over the last two weeks specifically about the F-22. Yesterday morning I flew to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to meet specifically with members of the First Fighter Wing's 94th Squadron under the command of General Ralph Eberhart. I spent the morning talking with several F-15 fighter pilots and crew chiefs. I think what they said needs to be part of this debate. So, I'd like to break for a minute from the political rhetoric that has clouded this issue and talk to you about what our airmen and women in the trenches have to say. Simply put, after an extended and victorious air campaign in the former Yugoslavia, members of this body are about to send a clear message to our pilots that we are unwilling to spend money to save lives. I guarantee that if, god forbid, we had lost an F-15 in that conflict, we would not be standing here having this debate today. The Air Force has ruled the skies and provided air superiority for all branches of the service for over 50 years. We cannot take this for granted and be lulled to sleep by our past success. The F-15 is clearly a great airplane. But the fact is that at least 5 foreign fighters are already starting to eclipse its technological envelope. Even more dangerous is the capability of advanced surface-to-air missiles like the Russian SA10, for sale openly on the international market. I have continually heard the argument that the answer is to upgrade the F-15 fleet with more technology. I asked the pilots if this was true. They told me that you can't bolt enough technology onto the craft for it to out-class emerging fighters and SAMs. the crew chiefs were clear that most aircraft would not be able to structurally take a major upgrade. Did you know that spare parts to maintain the F-15 are so hard to get now that most squadrons ground one fully functional aircraft just to strip for spare parts? It will cost about 440 million per plane to upgrade the F-15 fleet, and there is no way to retrofit stealth technology. Spending money to upgrade the F-15 will get you an airplane with 1/3 the capabilities of the F-22 for 90 percent of the price. Survivability is the key to a successful aircraft. The ability of the F-22 to cruise faster than the speed of sound without wasting fuel and using afterburners and its stealth capabilities are the key to survivability in the next century. The best we can hope for in upgrading the F-15 is near parity in the air. No one wants to enter a situation without an advantage where another person can kill you, and I cannot have it on my conscious to know that this Congress is asking exactly that of America's pilots. Some have argued that we will maintain air superiority because we will still be flying at a five to one numerical advantage against potential enemy threats. This is a reversal to the Russian policy during the Cold War to build low-tech weapons in mass quantities on the premises that numbers would prevail. America took the initiative to provide our soldiers with the best technological equipment available, and it is under the legacy and success of that policy that we have the luxury to hold this debate today. I would not want my son or daughter to be the acceptable loss in this new post-cold war strategy. Finally, I would like to point out that, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, we dealt specifically with the cost issues associated with this program and fully funded the Air Forces F-22 request in H.R. 1401, the Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2000, which passed the House overwhelmingly on June 10, 1999. This policy was echoed in both defense authorization and appropriation bills recently acted upon in the other body. We recognized the Air Force's and Department of Defense's efforts to bring the cost of this program under control, and required the Secretary of the Air Force to report directly to Congress on their continuing efforts to meet the mandated spending caps designated for this program. I do not see significant reason barely a month later, to warrant the drastic shift in national defense policy this legislation would promote. Again, I thank my colleagues for their commitment and dedication shown in drafting this important legislation, and hope that they will remain open to continue the important debate on this issue and work with us as the bill moves forward in Conference Committee.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I want to thank him personally for the help and mentorship that he has provided me throughout the year, and especially on this issue. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his generosity with the time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying how much I appreciate the efforts especially of the gentleman from California (Mr. Chambliss) who helped put together a working group of concerned Members of Congress who I think have demonstrated this afternoon on both sides of this issue concern about national security and safety. It is my sincere hope that, as we move forward with the conference, that the conferees from the House take into consideration the concerns that have been brought forward during this debate. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank especially the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for his kindness and mentoring through this process.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the dean of our delegation.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

Mr. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 19, 1999, my plane from Hartford to Washington was delayed and I unavoidably missed rollcall votes numbered 308, 309, and 310. Had I been present in the House Chamber, I would have voted ``aye'' on all three of these votes.