Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, to recognize and pay tribute to the effort of the Diageo Iraq Humanitarian Airlift Team, who in four days, covered 12,000 miles, and delivered school supplies, hygienic and food products to the children of Iraq. The Diageo Iraq Humanitarian Airlift, one of the first U.S. corporate humanitarian missions into Iraq, provided 90,000 pounds of aid and supplies to improve the health and lives of thousands of Iraqi children.

As a project endorsed by both U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Commanding General Tommy Franks, this team of Diageo employees and Ground Zero Heroes--current and former New York City Firefighters and Policemen who provided emergency services on September 11th--left for Baghdad on June 22, 2003. This humanitarian team flew from New York to Amsterdam, where they loaded a DC-8 cargo transport plane with supplies that included such things as school materials, infant formula, milk powder, rice and sugar. With temperatures exceeding 115 degrees, the cargo plane carrying these supplies touched down at the Baghdad International Airport. In a city mostly without power and water, the Diageo Iraq Humanitarian Airlift volunteers visited among thousands of small children suffering from malnutrition, severe dehydration and other illnesses at the Habibya Children's Hospital and the Pediatric ward, formerly the Saddam Pediatric Hospital. These supplies have not only helped improve the health of these children, but have offered some relief to the many troubled parents who cannot afford the basic needs for their children.

The Diageo Iraq Humanitarian Airlift, marks the second time Diageo has embarked on a humanitarian airlift. In December 2001, New York Fire Department and Police Department officers participated in the Diageo ``Ground Zero to Ground Zero'' airlift taking food and emergency relief supplies to an orphanage in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in thanking the volunteers of the Diageo Iraq Humanitarian Airlift and Diageo North America, who represent the finest and most compassionate qualities of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 338, the rule providing for consideration of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. I am again disappointed by the lip service being paid to veterans by the Republican leadership. This bill falls far short of giving the VA adequate resources to meet the health care needs of America's veterans. The Independent Budget authored by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of American, and Veterans of Foreign Wars recommended $27 billion for veterans' health care, a $3.3 billion increase over the current level. That was the nonpartisan recommendation of America's veterans, the men and women who fought and served for our Nation.

But our veterans came under attack when the President's budget only recommended a $1.4 billion increase to $25.7 billion and dared to ask certain veterans to pay a fee to enroll in VA health care and pay increased copayments. The House took a step forward when it passed a budget resolution in April that provided $27 billion in funding for VA health care, but the resolution still funded this increase by charging veterans enrollment fees and raising copayments. While, I am pleased to learn that the Appropriations Committee did not include the President's proposal to impose new fees and increase copayments, I am sorely disappointed that the Committee shortchanged veterans what was promised in the budget resolution by only providing $25.2 billion for veterans' health care.

I am equally disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order an amendment offered by Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Evans that would have increased funding for veteran's health care by an additional $1.8 billion to match the $27 billion in the budget resolution we passed in April. Additionally, the Rules Committee did not make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to increase funding above the Appropriations Committee figure by an additional $2.2 billion to $27.4 billion. Veterans need these increases to insure that they are no longer turned away from their own health care system.

This debate is yet another reason for this House to consider legislation to make veterans health care funding mandatory. Our veterans deserve better than bickering over discretionary funding. They deserve a Congress

that will live up to its pledge by providing health care to all veterans, by ensuring that it is accessible, and by fully funding the VA health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this rule that will again deny veterans the health care funding that they deserve. I have said many times before that veterans were promised by the Federal Government that for their service to the country they would be provided a lifetime of health care services, as well as their own health care service network. It is time for us to no longer say we will support our veterans, but to actually act to support our veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to a bill that would turn back the clock on the improvements made to early childhood education and development in this country.

The School Readiness Act, H.R. 2210, would turn the successful Head Start education program for disadvantaged children into block grants in eight states, including Connecticut, which would reduce accountability and ignore performance standards. It would allow states to qualify for a block grant simply by having a state preschool program, regardless of the quality, components, size or proven record of that state program. It also allows states to run Head Start programs with lower educational standards, minimal comprehensive services, less oversight and accountability and no evidence that they do a job equal to or better than Head Start.

This legislation is the first step in the process of completely dismantling a very significant early childhood education program by turning it into a block grant initiative for states without requiring them to live up to any Head Start performance standards. The bill diverts funds from local programs to state governments while at the same time relieving states of the responsibility to meet the current federal performance standards that have made Head Start so successful. This change will result in reduced performance standards, accountability and oversight, ending the Department of Health and Human Services review process and weakening the program.

Mr. Chairman, Head Start is one of the most evaluated federal programs, and research concludes that Head State works. Children who attend Head Start exceed national norms in vocabulary, early writing, letter recognition and social behavior, and they enter school better prepared than low-income children who do not attend Head Start. Head Start students are less likely to need special education services, are less likely to repeat a grade, are more likely to graduate from high school and are less likely to commit crimes during adolescence.

For nearly 40 years, Head Start has successfully served millions of children through comprehensive services to ensure they are ready for school. The efforts to dismantle this program is little more than an ideological exercise cloaked in rhetoric about collaboration with states and improving outcomes. It is an unjustified and unnecessary experiment on a successful program that is less about real policy and more about advancing an ideological crusade. It will end up doing harm to the children of this country and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the lifelong dedication of Special Agent William M. Yokow, who after 27 years of service retired earlier this month from the United States Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation.

As a member of the IRS Criminal Investigation, Special Agent Yokow has been instrumental in protecting the American public from financial crimes. Beginning his career in 1978 under the IRS Intelligence Division, Bill served 16 years in the Hartford Post of Duty and later transferred to the New Haven Post of Duty. He has been responsible for numerous high-profile convictions and has repeatedly proven his commitment to the law enforcement community. In cooperation with the FBI, Special Agent Yokow was essential in obtaining a conviction in the well-known ``Santa Claus'' armored car robbery of more than $1 million and helped the Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division, U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the conviction of a $26 million excise tax fraud conspiracy relating to the illegal importation of ozone depleting chemicals. Over the years, Bill has not only demonstrated his leadership as an on-the-job instructor and mentor to Special Agents in training, he has also volunteered for special assignments, including service at the 2002 Winter Olympic Games held in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Bill's hard work and dedication has earned him the Director's Award for Outstanding Achievement in Law Enforcement, as well as a Certificate of Commendation by the Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental and Natural Resources Division. Special Agent Yokow has also received a Juris Doctorate from the Quinnipiac School of Law and is eligible to practice law before the State of Connecticut Superior Court, U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. District Court.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in thanking and honoring Special Agent William M. Yokow for his service to the state of Connecticut and the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2357. This legislation was originally drafted to establish standards of care for veterans seeking health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown- Waite) for introducing this legislation that, when introduced, would have ensured that veterans receive health care within thirty days of their initial request for appointments at VA facilities or if the VA could not meet this requirement, allow veterans to receive care at non- VA facilities. In its original form, this legislation closely resembled a bill that I first introduced in the 107th Congress and reintroduced in February. Like the bill the gentlewoman from Florida introduced, the 21st Century Veterans Equitable Treatment Act, H.R. 890, would establish standards for appointments at VA facilities and allow veterans to receive care at non-VA facilities if the VA was not able to meet its obligation. Additionally, my legislation recommends the used of ``smart card'' technology to expedite reimbursements for services and reduce complicated paperwork.

As you may know, the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans recently released its final report and found that due to the number of veterans seeking access to the VA and Department of Defense health care system, those with service- connected disabilities and indigent veterans have been faced with diminished access to care. I agree with the Task Force that this situation is unacceptable and concur with one of their recommendations that ``VA facilities should be held accountable to meet the VA's access standards for enrolled Priority Groups 1 through 7 (new). In instances where an appointment cannot be offered within the access standard, VA should be required to arrange for care with a non-VA provider, unless the veteran elects to wait for an available appointment with VA.'' The bill introduced by the gentlewoman from Florida, as well as my legislation, was created to accomplish this.

Unfortunately, during markup of this legislation in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, this

provision was removed from H.R. 2357. The bill that we are debating now would no longer ``establish standards of access to care for veterans seeking health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs'' as is indicated by its title but instead authorizes the Secretary to hire chiropractors and makes certain Filipino World War II veterans living in the United States eligible for VA health care. I am very disappointed that this critical issue in veterans' health care access and element of the President's Task Force recommendations is not being voted on by the House today. However, I am encouraged to hear of the possibility that the Committee will hold a hearing on this very important issue when we return from the August recess. I wholeheartedly support further debate and would look forward to testifying before the Committee.

While disappointed that the appointment standards for the VA have been stripped from this bill, I am pleased that this legislation will give the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to hire chiropractors. Congress has passed legislation numerous times to ensure that veterans have access to chiropractic care and I hope that this bill will clear any final hurdles that have prevented veterans from receiving this type of care.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting this legislation that is a small, yet important, step to meeting our commitment to those Americans who made the sacrifice to serve their nation in the armed forces. As future veterans face combat in Iraq, we in Congress must live up to our pledge by providing health care to all veterans, by ensuring that it is accessible, and by fully funding the VA health care system. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for additional legislation to meet these goals so that we may return to this floor in the near future and step closer to meeting our promise.

Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, I yield to the distinguished chairman to explain the purpose of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, I rise in support of the resolution reported unanimously by the Committee on House Administration to dismiss this frivolous election contest

against our colleague from Hawaii Ed Case.

Representative Case won a special election with 44 candidates on the ballot on January 4, 2003, by an overwhelming margin; and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) for the bipartisan cooperation that has been demonstrated throughout this process.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), to explain the purpose of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, I rise in support of this resolution reported unanimously by the Committee on House Administration, dismissed as a frivolous election contest against our colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) was reelected with 66 percent of the vote.

Again, I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) for his fair-handed and fair-minded bipartisan cooperation that has been demonstrated throughout this process.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), the sponsor of the concurrent resolution, who has worked so hard over the years to make this placement of the statue a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I again would like to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota for his very vivid and historical explanation of what, for sure, is going to be yet another treasure we will be able to add to Statuary Hall. President Kennedy was fond of saying that a people reveal an awful lot about themselves in the monuments and the memorials that they create. The residents and citizens of North Dakota can stand justifiably proud today by the enactment of this piece of legislation; and, clearly, all Americans will be enriched as they get to pass through Statuary Hall and look at this outstanding monument to this truly great American.

Mr. Speaker, I support House Concurrent Resolution 236, which would authorize the use of the Capitol rotunda on October 16, 2003, for a ceremony to unveil the statue of Sakakawea, the Shoshone Indian guide, translator and diplomat who helped to guide the Lewis and Clark expedition of exploration, for display as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection.

This will be North Dakota's second statue for the Statuary Hall Collection, completing its allotment of two which are permitted for each state and bringing the total of the collection to 98. The statute is a replica of the bronze statue by Chicago artist Leonard Crunelle which has stood on the grounds of the state capitol in Bismarck, North Dakota, since 1910. The

Joint Committee of Congress on the Library approved the inclusion in the statue of Sakakawea's infant son, Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, on her back, though he will not be mentioned on the descriptive plaque. Normally, a statue accepted for the Collection can depict only one individual.

Sakakawea was captured by Hidatsa Indians in 1800, when she was about 12 years old, and was given the name by which she is known historically, which translates as ``Bird Woman'' in Hidatsa. There have been several different versions of the spelling. The original statue depicts Sakakawea looking westward toward the lands being explored. There was no image of Sakakawea available for the original statue, so a Hidatsa Indian, Mink Woman, served as the model.

It is appropriate that the statue be placed in the Capitol at the time of the bicentennial of the beginning of the Lewis and Clark expeditions, for which Sakakawea served as a guide from 1804 to 1806, traveling to the Pacific Ocean and then back through North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the distinguished chairman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and his remarks. I would like to commend as well the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for all their efforts and hard work with respect to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation enhances the ability of the Smithsonian to modernize its operations and to improve the level of services it provides for the American people. The Smithsonian clearly is a national treasure, and this simply will enhance its opportunity and its capability to continue to provide the American people with the greatest treasures on Earth.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2195, the Smithsonian Facilities Authorization Act, which authorizes a number of Smithsonian construction projects, and provides authority to the Secretary of the Smithsonian to make management improvements through more effective use of contracts and buy-out authority. The bill was introduced by Representative Regula and cosponsored by Representatives Sam Johnson of Texas and Matsui, our three members of the Smithsonian Board of Regents from the House of Representatives.

This legislation is very similar to a bill scheduled for passage at the end of the 107th Congress, but which was pulled back because of some last-minute confusion as the House was considering dozens of bills by unanimous consent. There was no opposition and it should have been enacted into law at that time. The legislation is not controversial and I urge speedy passage without amendments.

H.R. 2195 was referred to the House Administration Committee as the primary committee, with an additional referral to Transportation and Infrastructure, which also supports the bill. It is my understanding that the Senate is prepared to take up this legislation promptly if the House acts favorably here today.

Among its key provisions, section 2 of the bill would authorize $2 million in FY 2003, $10 million in FY 2004, and necessary sums in fiscal years 2005 through 2008 for the planning, design and construction of ``Pod 5'' at the Museum Support Center in Suitland, Maryland, to house the National Collections, which are biological specimens currently stored in approximately 365,000 gallons of alcohol in the National Museum of Natural History on the National Mall. It is estimated that it will take roughly three years to build Pod 5, of which 20 months would be actual construction.

Section 3 would authorize the Smithsonian to use private funds to construct improvements, including a new roof, for the courtyard of the Patent Office Building. The building houses the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the National Portrait Gallery. The Smithsonian will organize a national design competition using trust funds under its control, to plan and design the new roof. The building itself is expected to reopen in 2006.

Section 4 would authorize the secretary to enter into contracts for the acquisition of property and services pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. Section 5 would authorize the Secretary to establish a program for making voluntary separation incentive payments for employees, to better manage its workforce.

Section 6 is sense of Congress language commending the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History for establishing the month of April as Jazz Appreciation Month.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the life of the renowned actress, Katharine Hepburn. Ms. Hepburn, who was admired by generations young and old, died Sunday, June 30th, 2003 at the age of 96.

Ms. Hepburn will be long remembered not only for her half-century career, but also as a role model paving the way for women in the motion picture industry. Born, Katharine Houghton Hepburn on May 12, 1907 on Hudson Street in Hartford, Connecticut, Ms. Hepburn went on to attend her mother's alma mater at Bryn Mawr College, where she appeared in several college theater productions. Although her father was skeptical about his daughter's pursuit to be an actress, he soon relented and gave her $50 to travel to Baltimore for the audition that started her career.

Even in her early years as an actress Ms. Hepburn was known as an ``opinionated performer'' and often meddled in all aspects of movie making, frustrating directors and filmmakers. Her on screen talents won her four Oscars for best actress, twelve nominations and leading roles in such films as ``Little Women,'' ``Bringing Up Baby,'' ``The Philadelphia Story'' and the ``African Queen.'' In the days of her declining health she became ever more popular with the opening of ``Tea at Five.'' This successful one-woman show, which was dedicated to Ms. Hepburn's career, opened last year at the Hartford Stage Company and has gone on tour, recently opening in New York City.

Katharine Hepburn is a beloved American who will be greatly missed by the nation, her family and Hollywood.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a group of young constituents of mine in the First Congressional District. They are the first graduating class of the Connecticut International Baccalaureate Academy in my hometown of East Hartford. I would also like to specifically recognize one of the graduates, Alix Prinstil, for the extraordinary speech he gave at the graduation exercises, which I also had the honor of attending. Alix's words and the sentiments he expressed are of lasting value to the school and indeed to our entire education system in Connecticut. I am proud to insert his remarks into the Record today and again offer my sincerest congratulations to the Class of 2003.

Graduation Exercises

(Oration by Alix Prinstil)

So we've finally arrived at this day: Our High School

Graduation Ceremony. Since I was in about 3rd grade, I

dreamed about what it would be like at my high school

graduation. This speech, as a matter of fact, was for the

most part written in my mind for the past . . . let's see,

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to join my colleagues from Ohio, the gentlewoman and the gentleman from the Buckeye State, as we talk this evening. And as my colleagues have eloquently expressed, I want to associate myself with their remarks.

I think Roosevelt said it best of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle: The Republicans seem frozen, frozen in the ice of their own indifference. Their indifference to what this proposal will mean to the elderly. The hypocrisy of having this much-needed benefit not take effect until 2006 shows the indifference of Members having to return to their districts and go to senior centers and telling them that the much-waited benefit that they so desperately need will not be there for another 3 years. We can afford trillions in tax cuts, but we cannot afford to put into effect a program that will benefit them.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has pointed out this evening, the most galling thing for seniors and for Members of Congress, several on the other side of the aisle who have recognized the importance of using the full faith and credit of the United States Government to leverage the cost of prescription drugs, at the end of the day, this is a cost issue. When we think about it, what we have done is asked our senior citizens to subsidize not only all the private plans in the United States of America and all the programs that are available to Federal employees, but basically all the programs available around the globe because pharmaceutical companies have stated that while those prices can be fixed, the only prices in the industrialized world that are not are those that are imposed on the backs of those who can least afford them, the seniors of the United States.

All this lip service to the Greatest Generation ever is dashed when we talk about the hypocrisy of making a program available 3 years from now. For someone in my district who has to make the choice between the food they put on their table, heating and cooling their homes, and the prescription drugs that they need to take, we have turned them into refugees from their own health care system. They have to board buses and go to Canada in order to get the drugs at a price that they can afford. We are a better Nation than that. The indifference of the other party to the needs of these elderly, the indifference in their proposal.

I come from the insurance capital of the world. The HMOs are not going to cover a program that is actuarially infeasible to make a profit on. To have a program that is full of the so-called doughnut where we know that the elderly will fall into this hole, and the programs could be pulled at any moment with no specific guarantee, none of the entitlements that are under the Medicare system. And the further indifference, to try to delude the elderly into thinking their plan comes under Medicare by creating a new subsection which basically defers responsibility to the future and to companies that are unwilling to write the prescription drug benefits.

I applaud the gentleman for being down here night after night. When I go to my district, my constituents ask why are the Democrats not saying anything? And as the gentlewoman from Ohio said, it is because all of the deliberations are taking place behind closed doors, and what can and cannot be said will be determined after midnight upstairs on the third floor with no member of the press present, with no C-SPAN cameras covering what goes on in the Committee on Rules, and that will ultimately determine the fate of seniors and whether or not Democrats will be able to put their proposals side by side and have them voted up or down.

I thank the gentleman for waging this fight. I fear we will have to take this fight to the streets in order to get our point across.

Mr. Speaker, again I would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey, the gentlewoman from Ohio and the gentleman from Ohio for their remarks. I plan to attend the Rules Committee meeting, whenever it is called to order, to put forward an amendment, an amendment that I believe is much needed. As I said earlier this evening, I believe ultimately, Mr. Speaker, that this comes down to cost. For us to have the elderly of this country unfairly bear the cost not only of private sector plans, Federal Government plans in this country but around the globe is just flat out unfair. There is no reason why we cannot do for Medicare what the VA does for its veterans. There is no reason why we cannot have formularies, why we cannot have pricing. Those who would argue that this would amount to price fixing have to come to grips with reality, that the price is fixed. In this case it is a price that is fixed on the backs of senior citizens across our country, senior citizens who, as I said earlier, feel as though they are refugees from their own health care plan, who board buses to go to Canada to get prices that they are denied here in their own country. Every western democracy, every industrialized nation in the world has seen fit to leverage the full faith and credit of their governments on behalf of their seniors except the United States of America. The preeminent military, social, culture and economic leader in the world cannot find it within itself to provide senior citizens in this country with a benefit they richly deserve and need.

My proposal is a very simple one. It takes into account what the VA is capable to do for veterans. It takes into account what the private sector offers, what our own Federal employees are able to receive, what you would be able to get as a prescription price if you traveled to Canada, and says, take HHS, take the Department of Defense and the VA and impacted Federal agencies and have them collectively come up with a price that ultimately takes into consideration the need for research and development but also the need to come up with a fair and equitable price for the elderly. No matter what plan ultimately is conceived, if at the center of that plan we do not address the issue of cost, then we have gained nothing. And to have a plan and to be able to go back to your district and say that we propose a plan that does not take effect until 2006 when in the presidential campaign both candidates and every Member of this body, I daresay, campaigned on the fact that they were going to provide seniors with the prescription drug relief that they needed, to renege on that promise is a travesty. To be frozen in indifference, indifference to the need and wants of our senior citizens, is a sham. We have to speak out about that. Ronald Reagan said that facts are a stubborn thing and the fact of the matter is that seniors all across this Nation pay a disproportionate amount of their moneys to get prescription drugs.

My father, God rest his soul, used to say to my mother, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Pauline, who won the war? The very nations that we defeated in the Second World War provide prescription drug relief for their citizens and yet we, the greatest country on the face of the earth, cannot find the money. Oh, we have plenty of money to give to the wealthiest 1 percent of this country by way of a tax cut, but we cannot find the wherewithal to come up with a prescription drug program for the greatest generation in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Connecticut delegation to congratulate Aetna as it celebrates a milestone. On June 14, 2003 Aetna Inc. will observe the 150th anniversary of its founding.

The year 1853 was an extraordinary one for America. Our country was 77 years old and on the brink of Civil War. Despite the strife of the times a handful of leading business, civic and cultural leaders founded a company that would evolve into Aetna Inc., one of the nation's largest health care and employee benefits companies serving over thirteen million Americans with medical coverage, over eleven million group customers and eleven million dental members, all served by over a half million health care service providers.

Since 1853 Aetna has never lost sight of its customers, always striving to meet their changing needs. The people of Aetna have been inspired by the fact that what they do is truly important: helping people protect against the risks and uncertainties of life and promising to be there when needed the most.

Today Aetna is one of the nation's premier providers of health care and related benefits, dedicated to helping people achieve health and financial security. This occasion offers us the opportunity to thank Aetna for this commitment.

It is with great pleasure that we commend the employees of Aetna for their excellence and determination with which they perform their work. In its 150 years of existence Aetna has become an indispensable asset to the people and culture of Connecticut. Its contributions to both the business world and the fabric of life in our home state of Connecticut have been tremendous. It is therefore with great appreciation that we offer congratulations to Aetna on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary and wish Aetna and all those associated with it continued success for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present this morning, Wednesday, June 11, 2003, to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 252, 253, 254, 255, and 256 due to a family medical emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted:

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 257 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 265, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 258 on H. Res. 265, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes;

``Aye'' on rollcall vote No. 259 on H. Con. Res. 110, recognizing the sequencing of the human genome as one of the most significant scientific accomplishments of the past one hundred years and expressing support for the goals and ideals of Human Genome Month and DNA Day;

``Aye'' on rollcall vote No. 260 on H.R. 1320, Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act; and

``Aye'' on rollcall vote No. 261 on H.R. 2350, to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through fiscal year 2003.