Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my dear friend Susan Ross, who is stepping down from her role as President and CEO of the Fairfield County Community Foundation, a position she has held for the last 15 years. Since 1992, the Fairfield County Community Foundation has promoted philanthropy to build and sustain a vital and prosperous community where all have the opportunity to participate and thrive. Susan became the President and CEO of the Foundation in 1996 and, along with her first-rate staff, is responsible for the Foundation's increasing visibility, growth and relevance to donors and the community.

Fairfield County includes populations of immense wealth as well as communities of significant challenge, disenfranchisement and poverty. Susan's tireless efforts to educate and to bridge these communities have proven invaluable and have changed many lives for the better. During her tenure, the Foundation has awarded more than $115 million in grants. Last year alone, the Foundation gave away 782 grants in Fairfield County totaling roughly $6.4 million.

Under Susan's leadership, tens of thousands of Fairfield County children, adults and families have had the opportunity to achieve their potential. Susan's leadership and tenure at the Fairfield County Community Foundation embody the right answer to that ancient question: ``Am I my brother's keeper?''

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered today by the gentleman from New York. At its core, this amendment is simple, but its impact is significant. The bill we are currently debating contains a provision that would arbitrarily limit UASI eligibility for 2012 to areas within the country deemed to be the top 10 high-risk cities. If passed as it is, this bill would reduce the number of communities eligible for UASI grants by more than 50 cities, many of them named by my colleague from Wisconsin, among them, the Bridgeport/Stamford metropolitan area, which includes the majority of the cities and towns in my district.

I strongly support this amendment, which removes the language from the bill that illogically restricts UASI funding to just 10 cities. Since its creation in 2003, the intent of the UASI program has been to enhance regional preparedness in and around major metropolitan areas, and to assist participating jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection, response, and recovery.

Setting an arbitrary limit on the number of locations eligible to receive funding under this program is contrary to the intent of the program and contrary to our efforts to address the growing and evolving threats of homegrown terrorism. Moreover, this restriction is dangerous. Localities with the highest risk of being attacked are often not the locality where those attacks are being planned and can be stopped.

In my district, the loss of UASI funding would completely derail a major interagency communications project. In addition, much of the counterterrorism work underway in Fairfield County has been implemented in phases. A reduction in funds at this point will effectively waste the work that has already been done.

The risks to my constituents are very real. My district's proximity to New York City not only increases the

likelihood of a terrorist attack, but also increases the potential that someone in our area will plan an attack with the intention of inflicting the attack on New York City. We have seen this time and time again.

After local law enforcement officials from Fairfield County helped to capture Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber last year--Faisal Shahzad who had operated in my district--it is unfathomable to think that their work would be deemed nonessential in the fight against terrorism. And just 2 weeks ago, on May 19, a Bridgeport resident accused of making and selling pipe bombs was arrested after allegedly attempting to sell eight of these explosive cylinders in the Bronx.

While we can all agree that shared sacrifice is required to bring our Federal deficit under control, I cannot support cuts to a national security program which has proven to be not just effective, but also essential to our safety. This is a time for our communities to stay vigilant. Without the proper resources, our communities cannot maintain the proper level of readiness and cannot ensure that they are properly secured.

I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of my amendment to H.R. 1540. The underlying text of the National Defense Authorization Act calls for the shift of certain inherently governmental functions, currently being performed by contractors, to civilian employees within the Department of Defense.

My amendment is simple. It requires that any cost savings achieved by this transfer be used for deficit reduction. I'm going to say that again. Any cost savings associated with shifting work from contractors to civilian employees will get used for deficit reduction.

Reaching the debt limit last week was a stark reminder of the consequences of ballooning spending throughout the Federal Government, including defense spending. Committing cost savings to deficit reduction is the first step toward returning to a fiscally sustainable budget. By reducing

the deficit with identified savings from the Department of Defense, we will help to ensure that we have enough to invest in education, infrastructure, and job-creating priorities that we all share while cutting spending to reduce the deficit.

This is a smart and fiscally responsible amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the argument of my colleague from Virginia, he is saying that by taking away money for the purposes of debt reduction from the DOD that we will be disincentivizing action, which we all know to be the right thing to do here.

So let me just toss out a couple of facts.

Fact No. 1, Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has identified the debt of this country as perhaps the single largest strategic threat to the security of the country.

Fact No. 2, in DOD, we are talking about people who, if anywhere in the government are dedicated to doing the right thing by all of us, sacrificing for the good of this Nation, and their leader said that the single largest strategic threat to this country is our debt, how can you make an argument against this amendment? Think about the words of Admiral Mullen.

The argument seems to me to be an insider Washington argument, which is if you take away their cheese, they're going to be angry. They won't do the right thing because you're taking away their cheese.

I will stop speaking, but I will just ask my colleague from Virginia whether he believes in the context of what Admiral Mullen said about deficit reduction and the debt and whether he really believes that the DOD will do the wrong thing here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, all I've got to say about that is, wow. Here we are talking about the DOD and what we should do with savings found in the DOD, and the gentleman from Virginia is bringing up stimulus and TARP and $800 billion, which has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand, a mechanism that is used all too often by the other side.

The gentleman mentions the Constitution. Nobody in this room is saying that we shouldn't adequately fund the Department of Defense. That's not what this is about any more than this is about TARP or stimulus or any of the other things that my colleague spoke about.

The Constitution also says that it is this body--this body--that will determine how funds are spent. My colleague from Virginia is saying that extra money at the DOD that is saved in a mechanism that we all agree makes sense, that it should be a slush fund, if you will, that the DOD should decide how they use that. The Constitution of the United States is very clear. That's our job.

Nobody is saying that we should underfund defense; that is not what this is about. And I am delighted that the gentleman takes such great pride in having voted against the stimulus and the TARP, which by the way, I would say the day after Chrysler has repaid its government loan 6 years early, the gentleman might revisit his point on that, but that is not what this is about.

This is about good government and deficit reduction and abiding by the spirit of the Constitution that says we decide how money is used, not the agencies.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a thrill and an honor this morning on this propitious day in which a joint session of the United States Congress will be addressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel to introduce and welcome our guest chaplain of the day, Rabbi Jeremy Wiederhorn. Rabbi Wiederhorn is a friend, he is the spiritual leader of The Conservative Synagogue of Westport, and has been so since 2008. Prior to doing that, he gave service in Henderson, Nevada, for 8 years. He is a leader in the community and in his synagogue. He is also true to the ministry dictated by his and so many of our faiths, including, over time, having led and mobilized his community to send an emergency mission to Israel in response to the missile strikes from Hamas in Gaza.

It is a real honor. I know Rabbi Wiederhorn has served as an important leader in Westport and throughout Fairfield County. He has served as a friend to me. I would say that in addition to his spiritual guidance, he introduced me to cholent, which for this Presbyterian was a new experience. I think I thank him for introducing me to that part of his history and culture, if not exactly for the culinary experience.

Welcome, Rabbi Wiederhorn.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the police officers who have dedicated their lives to serving the people of Norwalk, Connecticut.

Since its formation in 1913, the Norwalk Police Department has improved the quality of life for generations of citizens. Its officers' vigilant protection of the city's residents and their property has formed the foundation of public peace, order and tranquility that has allowed Norwalk to prosper.

Every day, Norwalk's police officers take on the responsibility of keeping the city safe. It can be a dangerous job. Five times in its history, the Norwalk Police Department has suffered the loss of one of its own in the line of duty. Sergeants Frank S. Stratton and Nicholas W. Fera, and Officers Sherrald Gorton, Marco Carias and Matthew Morelli each lost their lives in service to the community they sought to protect. We are forever indebted to them, and I join the people of Norwalk in honoring their memory today.

We also remember the retired officers of the Norwalk Police Department who passed away this year. All who serve today carry on a proud tradition inherited from those who wore the uniform in days gone by. We commemorate their service and we celebrate their lives.

Every officer deserves our praise. Their daily work makes it possible for each of us to enjoy the benefits of liberty, secure in the knowledge that our neighborhoods and places of business are safe. The dedication of Norwalk's officers to preventing crime and educating the public has spared so many families from experiencing unnecessary tragedy. And their collaboration with residents and business owners has promoted a sense of shared responsibility that makes the city an example to other communities nationwide.

To every officer who has served Norwalk with pride in years past, and every officer serving today, I offer my gratitude. And to the families of those men who gave their lives in the line of duty, I express the eternal thanks of a city, a state and a nation that can never say ``thank you'' enough.

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning with a question, which is: What are we doing? What are we doing here? Like all 434 of my colleagues, I just spent 2 weeks at home listening to my constituents, and I heard one message: Do everything you can. Don't let a second go by. Work to restore jobs in this country. Improve the economy.

And I get down here on Monday, and what did we do this week? We voted in this Chamber to eliminate funding for school-based health centers, funding for kids who don't have any other way to see a doctor. Today, thanks to the Republican majority, we will vote to try to scale back the right of women to have access to reproductive health care. And later on this week, we are going to take up measures that will keep the gravy train flowing to the oil companies, the $4 billion in our taxpayer money that goes to companies like ExxonMobil, which last week reported $10 billion in profits. I'm glad ExxonMobil is making money, but you know what? They don't need ours.

So what are we doing? When is the Republican majority going to get serious about the one thing that my constituents care about--jobs?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the mentors and high school students participating in the ACE Mentor Program, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.

ACE brings together nearly 6,000 volunteers in the integrated construction industry to mentor more than 10,000 students in 32 States each year. Most of the high school students in this program come from disadvantaged backgrounds. ACE matches teams of these young men and women with volunteers in the construction industry, creating career and education pathways for disadvantaged youth.

Each year, leading companies in the construction industry contribute an estimated $22 million in volunteer time to this program. Connecticut-based companies providing volunteers to ACE include the EMCOR Group, United Technologies, and Lane Construction.

I applaud the volunteers, students, and companies involved in the ACE Mentor Program, and I'm encouraged by their commitment to create jobs and improve young lives.

I thank my good friend from New Jersey for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment at the desk. This amendment addresses the FAA's redesign of the airspace over New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia with noble motives to actually improve our air travel. But the fact of the matter is that the redesign was badly implemented from the start and used flawed procedures. Plans for this redesign have moved forward without proper and appropriate input from stakeholders and without regard to the parties who are most affected, notably, many of our constituents.

As planes have been rerouted to fly over southwestern Connecticut upon descent into New York's airports, my constituents have begun experiencing unnecessary and unprecedented noise levels. A day does not go by that I don't hear this concern from my constituents.

I have joined with my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to call upon the FAA to simply study alternatives. We know that there are good alternatives. This should be done prudently and carefully. Families who have moved to my district to find a quiet refuge are now faced with the prospect of daily disturbances. Alternatives must be considered before any more action is taken.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a sad duty: to honor the life and service of Private First Class David Richard Fahey, Junior, who was killed in the service of our Nation. He was born only 23 years ago in Norwalk, Connecticut. On February 28, his life was taken from us in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

I never had the honor of meeting David Fahey, but I've read the remembrances of his family and friends as they mourn his passing and celebrate his life. I learned that he was a young man who was blessed with a singular sense of humor--David was always ready to cheer up others with a joke or a prank--and I learned that he was a man of faith who would spend hours comforting friends in need. David Fahey was a man who put the needs of others first, so it is no surprise that he chose to serve his country as a soldier and MP.

Today, on behalf of the people of Connecticut and the Nation, I thank PFC David Richard Fahey, Junior, and I offer our perpetual gratitude for his legacy of service and commitment to the defense of all that we cherish.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on one amendment to H.R. 1. I wish the Record to reflect my intention had I been able to vote.

Had I been present for rollcall No. 125, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, there are smart cuts and there are dumb cuts. The majority's continuing resolution, the reception it has received, suggests that it's full of dumb cuts. It has been rejected by pretty much everybody. Outright rejection to concerned hilarity is how it's been greeted by investment banks, by economists, by people who think about this stuff.

But there is something worse than a dumb cut, and that's a counterproductive cut. In a misguided effort to reduce the number of abortions in this country, the Republican majority zeroed out title X funding for Planned Parenthood.

I have a Planned Parenthood office down the hall from my congressional office in Bridgeport. I see women coming through there mainly to learn about birth control, to be responsible about their reproductive lives, to be tested for STDs.

Remember, 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's activities is abortion. There are estimates that zeroing out title X, which the majority has done, will cause 400,000 more abortions in this country. That's counterproductive, it's wrong, and I would urge this House to reject a very bad idea.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Holt amendment.

I was moved to come to the floor because I was stunned that in their deregulatory zeal, in their ideologically driven desire to shrink the size of government, the Republican majority would choose to leave the American consumer unprotected.

I represent a lot of American consumers and I know that they don't really understand derivatives. I know that they don't really understand the concept of systemic risk, of credit-default swaps, many of the difficult things that we sought to regulate in Dodd-Frank. But they sure do understand what it means to open up that credit card bill at the end of the month and see hundreds of dollars of charges that they didn't anticipate.

Millions of Americans now understand what it is to have a mortgage blow up on them, a mortgage that if we were all honest with each other we would recognize none of us really understands our own mortgages. Millions of Americans now know what it is to see interest rates hop up on a mortgage and to lose their homes. Of all the things that the Republican majority could choose to gut, that they would choose to leave the American consumer to be prey to predatory practices is unconscionable.

Madam Chair, we don't allow toasters that will burn your house down. We don't allow cars that will blow up. But evidently the Republican majority would allow mortgages that would blow up your house or other financial products that would bring an American family to its knees.

I've heard the counterarguments. I heard the gentleman from Georgia stand down there and say that this is an expansion of government spending. What the gentleman from Georgia didn't say is that probably the most politically unpopular bit of spending we've seen in the last several years was hundreds of billions of dollars requested by a Republican President and a Republican Secretary of the Treasury to bail out the financial industry. I'll say it again. Republicans requested the bailout. That was a terribly expensive thing to do. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will help prevent that in the future. It's a good investment.

I've heard arguments about czars. I must say, I've talked to tens of thousands of my constituents and nobody is saying that czars are a problem in the United States of America today. I'm hearing a slightly better argument, but one that I don't accept as a former banker, that we are separating consumer protection from safety and soundness. As a former banker, I will say that those are not separate concepts, that when you have bank customers defaulting on their mortgages, when you have bank customers running up credit card debt and being subject to fees that they can't possibly repay, you stick a knife into the safety and soundness of that bank or whatever institution that we are talking about.

I will yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

That is correct.

Reclaiming my time, this country has long had a history of the examination of the safety and soundness of our banks. And what we are saying now is that we will assist and support the safety and soundness of our banks by keeping the customers of those banks from defaulting through good consumer protection.

So I support the Holt amendment and think this is terribly, terribly important to American families and the safety and soundness of the system.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have on this side spoken tonight at some length about a dangerous and poorly thought out effort on the part of the majority to underfund and gut the financial services regulatory apparatus that was established in the 1930s, which, yes, failed us in the last couple of years. And let's be clear: There is a legitimate tension between the amount of regulation which creates stability and confidence in a system and that which puts undue burden on the vigor of the private market. But this effort is wrong-headed.

Let's look at the SEC. The mission of the SEC is to protect investors. The notion that we should gut the funding of the SEC is anti-free market, it is anti-jobs and it is anti-growth, because we must protect those investors who take their savings and write a check and put it in the mail to a company in some town they have never visited, in a fund that they don't fully understand, because they know that there is a cop on the beat.

The families who write those checks, that is not just money. That money is a college education, it is a secure retirement, and they do it because they have faith. They have faith that there is a cop on the beat, that whoever takes that check is closely watched, that they are responsible and prudent. This is the fundamental aspect of our vigorous economy--that families and pension funds invest. We have efficient and vigorous capital markets because of faith.

Let's look at the lessons that have been learned in the last couple of years. It wasn't that the SEC was somehow complicit in what happened.

Yeah, they fell asleep at the switch. They didn't perform any better than a myriad of other organizations. But, if anything, the lesson is that the SEC was outgunned, underfunded, and needed help. And the effort of the majority now is to further underfund and gut that agency. It's particularly wrongheaded because the SEC pays for itself. In fiscal year 2012, the SEC will be budget-neutral. Why do this? Why risk the faith of the investors that are at the very heart of our system?

We hear a lot about uncertainty; there's so much uncertainty. Imagine the uncertainty for American families and pension funds and savers and small businesses if they need to send that check without knowing that there's a cop on the beat.

Mr. Speaker, we've seen this movie before. When the SEC was established in the 1930s, the Republicans at the time said this would be the end of capitalism. It would be the end of the free market. It would crush the U.S. economy. Instead, putting in place a well-balanced and vigorous regulatory apparatus led to 60 years of the most aggressive and intense economic growth human history has ever seen-- because people had faith in the system.

I thank the gentlelady from California for that question.

If you look at when these regulatory bodies were established in the 1930s and you look at the volatility and the growth that happened in the next 60 years, volatility was way down and growth was way up, and the American middle class took hold because they had confidence in the system. They knew that their investor dollars would be protected.

Then we began in the early nineties, policymakers from both sides of the aisle, to dismantle that regulation, to take the referee off the field. And so we find ourselves where we are today--uncertainty, a financial crisis meltdown--at the very moment when the technology, the flash trading, the complicated securities are bewildering in their complexity.

Now is exactly the wrong time to be gutting the SEC. We do that and people lose their confidence.

The average investor, the mom and pop, the widows and orphans funds, they're not necessarily financially sophisticated. They need somebody looking over the shoulder of those that are selling them stock, selling them bonds.

The institutional investors that you're talking about, of course, in many instances, are exempt from regulations by the SEC. They're deemed to be sophisticated, so they can participate in private placements. They can use 144(a) or reg D to make investments.

But our individual investors who are so important to this economy need somebody looking over their shoulder and protecting them from snake oil salesmen and deception and poor disclosure.

In a more complicated and sophisticated financial world, the SEC must be faster. It must be more efficient. It must hire people who really understand the markets. It must be more robust, and it should be held accountable. One thing it should not be and cannot be is underfunded and weak, which is what the proposal of the majority would do to it.

Madam Speaker, tonight the President of the United States will stand in this Chamber and discharge his constitutional obligation to address the State of the Union for the Congress. I understand that many of my colleagues will be sitting together in a bipartisan way, and I think that's a good thing. What I really hope, though, is that we get commonsensical about where we are tomorrow, that as we talk about the economy, we agree that we should cut regulations which serve no purpose but to stifle industry, but that we should not attack the rules which keep our air clean and our water drinkable.

We can and we must reduce the deficit and get our fiscal house in order, but do not try to persuade the American public that we can fail to invest in schools, in railways, in highways, and in networks that will provide economic prosperity for decades to come.

I'm glad my colleagues are going to be sitting together in this Chamber tonight. What I really hope is that tomorrow we are standing together behind commonsensical changes that will make this economy strong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the recent passing of a constituent, humanitarian, and friend, Robert C., Bob, Macauley, who recently passed away of natural causes at the age of 87.

In addition to being a beloved husband and father, Bob Macauley was a tremendous activist and patron. As a veteran, businessman, and philanthropist, Bob dedicated his life to helping others.

His first ventures into philanthropy began during the Vietnam war, with the founding of the Shoeshine Boys Foundation to support orphaned Vietnamese children. In 1975, he mortgaged his home to charter the first jet of what became known as Operation Babylift,

rescuing babies injured in a plane crash as Saigon fell. Bob then became involved in the Covenant House, which grew with his support and guidance from a small outpost in New York City to one of the largest privately funded childcare agencies in the U.S.

However, it was after meeting with Pope John Paul II that Bob fully realized the potential of his efforts. After raising $1.5 million in aid for Poland at the Pope's request, Bob recognized that what he had done for Poland, he could do for people in need worldwide. This effort became AmeriCares, a humanitarian organization that has delivered more than $10 billion in medicines, medical supplies, and aid around the world and across the United States. Bob served as CEO of the organization until 2002, and as chairman until his death.

Mr. Macauley has been widely recognized for his philanthropic endeavors. He was the recipient of many humanitarian awards, including the President's Volunteer Action Award, the Cross of Grand Officer of the Order of Malta, the Caring Award, the Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award, the FREDDIE Award, and the Jefferson Award for Lifetime Achievement, and has received honorary doctorates from Fairfield University, Siena College, Saint Michael's College, and Saint Lawrence University. He has been featured by ABC News as ``Person of the Week,'' and has been the subject of numerous profiles by major media outlets such as NBC Today and People magazine. His biography, written by Bill Halamandaris, is entitled ``His Name is Today.''

Bob's activism and generosity to the global community should remind us all of what the actions of one person can do. While he did not work alone, we all have him to thank for making the world a better place. His charity should be admired and his citizenship should serve as a model for us all.