Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate the Voices of Freedom choir at the University of Connecticut on their 50th anniversary.

Voices of Freedom is a unique ensemble of approximately 80 or more students that provides personal elevation and enlightenment of the gospel and spiritual music of the Black experience church.

Gospel music promotes a spirit of hope. Music has healing power, and the existence of this choir on this campus at this time is more important now than ever.

I also extend heartfelt congratulations to the Voices of Freedom not only on celebrating 50 years of ministering through music at the University of Connecticut, but a special congratulations to their director, Reverend Lisa Clayton, who is celebrating 27 years leading the choir. Reverend Lisa Clayton's steadfast leadership has been key to the success and longevity of the Voices of Freedom Gospel Choir.

I thank them for all they do to elevate the importance of stories through song.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Honoring our PACT Act, which upholds the promise we made to servicemembers that we would care for them if they became sick or wounded while fighting to protect this country.

This legislation recognizes the full range of military toxic exposure that servicemembers have faced.

This monumental package also includes my bill, the Palomares Veterans Act, which would remove barriers to benefits and compensation for those veterans who responded to one of the largest nuclear disasters in history.

Over 55 years ago, a B-52 bomber collided with aircraft over the Spanish village of Palomares, causing radiation exposure to more than 1,600 U.S. airmen who had no protection when they responded to the crash.

Decades later, many of these airmen are suffering and dying from health conditions that likely came from radioactive material. But the VA still does not count Palomares as a radiation risk event or provide these veterans with benefits or disability.

My bill, the Honoring our PACT Act, would address this, ensuring these veterans get the healthcare and benefits they deserve and ensuring their surviving spouses and children are eligible for benefits.

The job of Congress is to appropriate funds, yet whenever we want to help people, my Republican colleagues say no. If we are not willing to support our veterans, what are we willing to support?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. There are serious votes, and then there are messaging votes. A messaging vote is designed for attack ads.

That is exactly what we saw on the floor yesterday. The motion to recommit, a parliamentary action, has been turned into a dishonest attack and framed as a vote against the security of Israel.

I am a Democrat, and I remain firm in my commitment and appreciation for Israel's legitimate right to self-defense, and I remind everyone again that the motion to recommit just sends the bill back to committee.

According to the memorandum of understanding between Israel and the United States reached in 2016, for fiscal years 2019 through 2028, the United States is expected to provide $500 million every year for missile defense. That has not changed.

Funding for the Iron Dome was never in jeopardy. In fact, President Biden has pledged to replenish the Iron Dome funding system, and Congress will approve it following the correct legislative action.

A motion to recommit is a procedural vote that sends a bill back to committee. That is all it does. My Republican colleagues have shown time and time again that when we have to take actual votes, they vote against Israel.

Mr. Speaker, on July 1 the Appropriations Committee voted on H.R. 4373, which contains the bulk of Israel aid, $3.3 billion in security assistance. Every Republican voted ``no.''

On July 13, the Appropriations Committee voted on H.R. 4432, which includes $500 million in missile defense. Every Republican voted ``no.''

So let's be honest about what is happening here. We have consistently voted to support our allies in Israel.

I end by saying, being pro-Israel and expressing concern for Palestinian rights are not mutually exclusive. I will continue to challenge myself and my colleagues and ask the difficult questions in an effort to work toward a solution. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, l rise today to voice my opposition to Amendment No. 97/No. 188 of H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America Act.

This amendment was included as part of an en bloc which l supported, however, I do not support this amendment. During my time in Congress I have been an ardent supporter of high-speed rail, building rail capacity and improving existing infrastructure in Connecticut, the Northeast, and across the country. Unfortunately, I do not believe this amendment and the specific compact it seeks to create are the best path forward for rail in my state, the region or the country. The INVEST in America Act presents us with an opportunity to make a once in a generation investment in our transportation systems and infrastructure, and in rail in particular. I am concerned that proposals like this take away from our ability to implement comprehensive, fully vetted plans, that are free of redundancies.

As we look towards the future of rail in the United States, we must be sure that we partner with state and local transit authorities, and stakeholders. We must also be sure to consider and mitigate the climate and environmental risks that stem from these projects.

Congress must advance a bold vision for our Nation's infrastructure, and I look forward to the INVEST in America Act passing the House. I hope the Senate will quickly begin working on this vital issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the officers who gave the ultimate sacrifice and have fallen in the line of duty.

My husband, Detective Milford Hayes, has been on the job for 25 years. I know all too well the risk officers accept when they take this role. I have lived the anxiety of not knowing if my loved one would return home from a shift. I have watched my husband put on his dress blues and attend the funerals of fallen officers and mourn in the weeks and years after that. Over the past year, I have borne witness to the difficulty caused by growing mistrust between police departments and the communities they serve.

In addition to honoring officers this week, we must commit to rebuilding that trust and to providing them with the necessary funding they need to safely and equitably protect themselves and our community.

This is not a binary choice. Yes, we have systemic racial and social injustices that must be addressed. Yes, accountability needs to be addressed.

But on this day, in these remarks, during National Police Week, I ask my colleagues to join me in committing to supporting all of the good officers that are out there, to ensuring officers have clear national guidelines regarding use of force, to providing access to diversity training, and to ensuring departments have necessary supports to serve communities with underlying social challenges.

This will protect both police officers and the communities they serve from unnecessary violence. This will also attract new officers to the profession.

I ask that we honor fallen officers by committing to action. We must provide the necessary guidelines, training, and social services required to support our communities and to guarantee the safety of law enforcement.

We must ensure that my husband and every officer makes it home to their families safely.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call your attention to National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day, which takes place annually on April 9th. This day honors the men and women who fought two battles, one in combat and another in enduring untold brutality by our enemies.

April 9th is also the 79th anniversary of the start of the infamous 1942 Bataan Death March in the Philippines. Invading Imperial Japanese forces forced more than 80,000 American and Filipino soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to walk 65 miles up the Bataan Peninsula in the tropical heat without food, water, or medical care while subjecting them to beatings, bayonetting, and beheading. Thousands died.

One of my constituents, Daniel Crowley of Simsbury, Connecticut, is a survivor of the Battle of Bataan. A member of the U.S. Army Air Corps, he was sent to Bataan in December 1941 after Japan destroyed the military airfields in the Philippines. He was part of the United States Army's Provisional Air Corps Infantry Regiment and fought in the historic Battle of the Points on the Peninsula.

Daniel avoided the Bataan Death March by swimming from Mariveles on Bataan through three miles of shark-infested and mined waters to the fortress island of Corregidor. There, he became part of the 4th Marines Regimental Reserve who fought a dangerous and desperate shore defense until Corregidor fell to Japan on May 6, 1942.

He was one of 300 Prisoners of War sent to build an airstrip on Palawan Island for the Japanese Army. Today this site serves as the Philippine Air Force's Antonio Bautista Air Base. Daniel was fortunate to be transferred off the island before the December 14, 1944 Palawan Massacre where the 150 Prisoners of War remaining on the island were doused with aircraft fuel, set afire, and machine gunned to death.

Instead, Daniel was shipped to Japan aboard a ``hellship'' to be a laborer in two copper mines: one owned by Hitachi Ltd. and the other, Ashio, owned by the Furukawa Company Group. He labored alongside Japanese and conscripted Korean miners as well as Allied and American Prisoners of War from the United States, United Kingdom, Singapore, Hong Kong, Dutch East Indies, Norway, Australia, and China.

After liberation in September 1945, Daniel returned home to Connecticut. He raised a family and became a storied salesman for Northwestern Mutual.

On January 4, 2021, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont proclaimed ``Pacific War Heroes Day'' in Daniel's honor. After 76 years, Daniel, 98, finally received his long-denied Combat Infantryman Badge, a Prisoner of War Medal, and his previously unknown 1945 promotion to Sergeant in a ceremony held at the Air National Guard Base outside Hartford, Connecticut.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring now Sergeant Daniel Crowley for his extraordinary service to our country fighting tyranny and oppression. His and the more than 200 American Prisoners of War of Japan from Connecticut have a history we must never forget.

Madam Speaker, this amendment would allow employers to self-audit compensation disparity. Asking the same employer, who may be engaged in pay discrimination, to self-police their wage practices is a blatant conflict of interest.

Rather than actually incentivizing equal pay, as Ms. Stefanik would claim, this amendment gives employers the tool to hide evidence of pay discrimination and delay any resulting lawsuit and accountability by 3 years. The very idea behind this provision is insidious. It presumes that employers should be given loopholes to avoid liability after breaking the law. Employers do not need a workaround to guard against these types of lawsuits. Their best defense is simple: do not engage in wage discrimination.

In fact, this amendment actually creates another means for employers to discriminate on the basis of sex by preserving a vague standard for employer defense when accused of wage discrimination. Unlike Ms. Stefanik's proposed amendment, H.R. 7 makes clear that the ``any factor other than sex'' employer defense must be bona fide, job-related, and required by business necessity.

Employees must be judged by their education, training or experience instead of their gender. As women drop out of the workforce in historic numbers due to the pressures of COVID-19, we have a responsibility to take every precaution to ensure they do not face discrimination when they return to the workforce.

The Paycheck Fairness Act ensures all workers will get equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender. It will prohibit employers from paying women less simply because another employer paid them less in the past. It helps to oppose pay discrimination with more speed and transparency, and allows women to fight pay injustices they may experience. The Paycheck Fairness Act fixes a systemic injustice that women have suffered.

This amendment would only water down this landmark civil rights and labor legislation. Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' to this amendment and stand up for equity.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the American Rescue Plan.

I was sitting in my office listening to debate, and I was thrilled to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak up about reopening schools. These are words I have been waiting a year to hear. I immediately looked up H.R. 682 to read it, and I was so disappointed that this bill offers no support, no assistance, and no funding for school reopenings.

The American Rescue Plan, on the other hand, invests in helping K-12 schools reopen safely and addresses learning loss in the classroom.

The bill provides nearly $130 billion to help schools take the steps recommended by the CDC to ensure students and educators can return to the classroom safely.

This includes repairing ventilation systems, reducing class sizes, implementing social distancing guidelines, purchasing PPE, and hiring support staff to address students' well-being.

Madam Speaker, as someone who has spent over a decade in the classroom, I can tell you that this is what every teacher in America is looking for, this is what every parent is looking for, and this is what is necessary to reopen schools safely--not just in communities that are largely Democrat but also in Republican communities. All of our children will benefit from the provisions of this bill.

The bill also sets aside 20 percent for long-term learning loss to get our kids from behind screens and back into the classroom by providing comprehensive after-school programs, summer learning programs, extended schooldays, reengaging students who have been absent from remote learning, and hiring counselors and nurses to care for students' emotional and physical well-being.

I am thrilled to see part of my own legislation included in this bill, the Save Education Jobs Act, which will not only make sure that we are not laying off support staff and personnel to meet our students, but to make sure that there are not budget cuts in light of the catastrophic shortfalls that are expected as a result of this pandemic.

I am so proud to be a part of a body that came up with this legislation that gives America's schools exactly what they need, gives America's children the support that is necessary, and reopens our economy by investing $130 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution on behalf of my constituents in Connecticut's Fifth District.

The statements made by the Representative from Georgia have amplified horrific and deeply dishonest rhetoric and empowered and mainstreamed fringe conspiracy theories about school shootings. Giving any Member the platform to spread dangerous rhetoric only rewards and normalizes this behavior, places already vulnerable groups in danger, and further traumatizes survivors.

There is no place in this House for a Member that trivializes these events or refuses to publicly disavow her own words or apologize to those affected.

Mr. Speaker, there are men and women on both sides of the aisle whom I strongly disagree with, colleagues who have made statements that have deeply offended me. Yet, I have never believed we should remove them from committees on this body.

But today is different. We are forced to make this motion, not because of a disagreement in values or opinions, but because the Republican Conference has refused to take any actions addressing dangerous comments made by a Member, comments which have no place in common discourse and cannot be given a platform to be amplified.

While I remain respectful of the voters in Georgia, we have a responsibility as a body to hold our own Members accountable, and I would vote in the same way if a member of my own caucus had committed the same infractions.

No Member of Congress should promote conspiracy theories or sow doubt about the validity of tragic mass casualty events like Sandy Hook, Parkland, and others. No parent should ever

have to invite a Member of Congress to visit their child's grave or touch the bullet-riddled clothing that their child wore to prove that their death actually happened.

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of this House always tells Members to vote our district. Today, I vote as an act of conscience in defense of my district. I vote for the babies who left for school 8 years ago and never returned home, and the teachers who died trying to protect them.

Today, I will vote for millions of educators who stand bravely before students while they lead lockdown drills and whisper quietly to them while sheltering in place that school is still safe.

I will vote ``yes'' on this resolution for the parents and the communities who want real debate that produces real solutions for keeping schools and communities safe.

Mr. Chair, I was unable to be present for votes on June 13th due to an unavoidable personal conflict.

Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 295; YEA on Roll Call No. 296; YEA on Roll Call No. 297; YEA on Roll Call No. 298; YEA on Roll Call No. 299; YEA on Roll Call No. 300; YEA on Roll Call No. 301; YEA on Roll Call No. 302; YEA on Roll Call No. 303; NAY on Roll Call No. 304; YEA on Roll Call No. 305; YEA on Roll Call No. 306; YEA on Roll Call No. 307; YEA on Roll Call No. 308; YEA on Roll Call No. 309; YEA on Roll Call No. 310; YEA on Roll Call No. 311; YEA on Roll Call No. 312; YEA on Roll Call No. 313; YEA on Roll Call No. 314; YEA on Roll Call No. 315; YEA on Roll Call No. 316; YEA on Roll Call No. 317; YEA on Roll Call No. 318; YEA on Roll Call No. 319; YEA on Roll Call No. 320; YEA on Roll Call No. 321; and YEA on Roll Call No. 322.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

It is fitting that H.R. 987, a bill that would protect the progress of the Affordable Care Act, should include language that would reinforce the Federal navigator program, which provides outreach, education and enrollment assistance to consumers looking to buy health insurance.

This administration has slashed funding for Federal marketplace navigators in recent years, with some States facing cuts near 96 percent, undermining the exchanges and hindering the ability of consumers to choose the insurance plan that works best for them.

My background in education makes it hard for me to understand why we would ever want to eliminate tools to help educate the public about how to access healthcare. It is even harder for me to understand why we would want to limit this critical funding just to States that operate within the Federal marketplace.

Residents in States like California, New York, Minnesota, and Connecticut deserve to have the same opportunity as people throughout the rest of the country to learn about their healthcare options, to learn how to sign up for coverage, and to learn how this coverage will work.

And so my amendment would open navigator funds to State-run marketplaces, so that my home State of Connecticut, and the 11 other States that operate a State-based exchange, could benefit from this funding.

The Affordable Care Act helped more than 20 million Americans sign up for health insurance. People of color experienced some of the largest gains in coverage under the Affordable Care Act, finally reducing longstanding racial disparities.

But in recent years, my own State's exchange, Access Health CT Exchange, experienced a marked decrease in enrollment with communities of color; a worrisome sign that the progress that has been made in healthcare coverage with the passage of the Affordable Care Act may be slipping through our fingers.

Cutting funding to the navigator and outreach programs represents underhanded attacks on the people that need healthcare the most. It is part of this administration's subtle strategy to roll back the protections of the Affordable Care Act by reducing healthcare access as a last-ditch effort.

The simple fact is that brokers do not always serve these communities. There is an urgent need to reinforce and expand outreach programs to make sure that we are reaching people in all zip codes, of all demographics.

State-based exchanges are already doing their part to be flexible, to invest

in outreach, and to partner with all communities. Access Health CT even expanded their open enrollment period this year after the Texas v. United States decision was unveiled in December. The exchange knew that it had to combat misinformation--that the Affordable Care Act was still intact, despite the Texas decision--and that people could still sign up for coverage.

State-based exchanges need all the help they can get to support these efforts.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. Chair, I want to point out that an estimated 90 million Americans still have low health literacy. These people are disproportionately lower-income Americans, elderly Americans, and Americans with low English proficiency.

There is a clear need and urgency for the Federal Government to help these people in States that operate State-based exchanges, and there is precedent for my amendment. My State exchange has received roughly $3 million for the In-Person Assister program from the Federal Government.

The bottom line is that the rules of the road have changed since changing the requirement to provide healthcare coverage to all Americans. There has never been a greater need to shore up programs that make certain working Americans, especially underserved populations, are protected and insured; that people in all communities know what their options are and know when and how to access these benefits.

I strongly support H.R. 987. I think that my amendment will make it even better.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the leader of this important bill.

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

``Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated--including some associated with the Trump campaign--deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long- term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.''

Volume I, page 10.

``The President and his personal counsel made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to `flip' and cooperate with the government.''

Volume II, page 131.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 57 State teachers of the year from around the country who have convened in Washington.

These educators illuminate what is working in our education system. Their unique and important achievements fill me with pride and inspiration about what teachers can do for our communities when we put students first.

I welcome these outstanding teachers to Washington this week and to Capitol Hill this Thursday as part of a celebration of excellence.

I would like to congratulate the 2019 National Teacher of the Year, Rodney Robinson, who is a committed advocate for all his students and has made it his mission to bring a voice to the voiceless and to those who feel unseen or undervalued by their communities.

Mr. Robinson has been teaching social studies for 19 years to students at Virgie Binford Education Center inside the Richmond Juvenile Detention Center, teaching some of our Nation's most vulnerable students.

Every student deserves a high-quality, equitable education. Mr. Robinson and all these educators work every day to fulfill that promise to their students.

Equity and empowerment are at the core of Mr. Robinson's work and should also be at the core of our work here at the Federal Government.

I also want to thank the Council of Chief State School Officers, or CCSSO, which, since 1952, has focused on excellence in public education. They are the oldest and most prestigious national honors program for teachers, and their work to celebrate and elevate the voices of teachers should be commended.

It is, likewise, our job as Members of Congress to continue to elevate the profession of teachers, elevate the voices of students, and work together to make sure their dreams are recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the idea of using Federal funds to arm teachers. This issue has haunted me from the moment it was first discussed after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School to more recently when it was revisited after the Parkland shooting.

Seventy-three percent of teachers do not want this. More than 60 percent of parents do not want this. And the majority of students do not want this.

Since 1999, in 225 incidents of school campus gun violence, armed personnel failed to disarm a shooter 223 times.

I came to Congress from the classroom. As a teacher, I would never want the responsibility of securing a firearm in a school. I understand how this would drastically change the school culture and make it feel more like a prison.

As the wife of a police officer, I understand the training that is involved with the responsibility of owning a firearm, and I know that school districts cannot manage that. I could never imagine explaining to a parent that it was my firearm that accidentally injured their child.

I recognize that many local school communities are still trying to decide where they fall on this conversation, yet I cannot overstress the point that Federal funds should not be diverted from student learning outcomes to arm teachers.

This is why, today, I have introduced a resolution to prohibit the use of Federal funds to arm teachers.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for votes on March 11th due to unavoidable travel delays. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 119; and YEA on Roll Call No. 120.