Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the new Republican majority has decided that today we will read the United States Constitution, which I guess is a good thing. But like every other American, I can and do read it for myself. In fact, I did it this morning and came across

the phrase ``promote the general welfare.''

Next week, the new Republican majority will put forward a bill to repeal health care reform; to tell seniors, go back to a world where you can choose between your prescriptions and your food; to tell our children, go back to a world where an insurance company can deny you coverage because you had the misfortune to be born with a disease. That is what they are doing next week.

Listen hard, listen hard today to those words, ``promote the general welfare.''

Madam Speaker, what does the Congress owe the American people? I think it owes a young man or a young woman who will put on the uniform of this Nation and agree to sacrifice his or her life the right to serve. The Republicans, all but a handful of courageous Republicans, disagree.

I think that it owes a child who was brought here by their parents from a country they don't know, who speaks a language they don't speak, the opportunity to serve, to get a degree, to ultimately become an American. The Republicans disagree.

But I know, Madam Speaker, that we owe those brave responders who went to the site of 9/11 and risked their health and risked their lives to serve others in this Nation's moment of pain, we owe them health care. The Republican Party disagrees. And it is to the shame of this institution and it will be to the eternal shame of the Republican Party if they do not allow us, after helping the banks, after helping the auto companies, after helping Americans, if they do not allow us to help the volunteers of 9/11.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the Senate amendments to H.R. 6523.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point every day to look in The Times at that black box, usually on page 7 or 8, that lists the names of those young men and women who have given their lives in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, it struck me, as we go into Christmas, that there were seven names on that list--six of them under the age of 25. Two of them, Ken Necochea and Derek Simonetta, were only 21 years old. I wonder if they'd ever bought a drink in a bar or in the country in which they were serving. On the front page of The New York Times: U.S. Intelligence Offers Dim View of Afghan War.

I say all this because this time last year I was in Afghanistan, watching the good work that these young men and women are doing-- building roads, building markets, building a nation--and reflecting on the fact that this is a nation that, for 1,000 years, has spit out foreigners as sport.

As we go into Christmas and I think about the kids in my city of Bridgeport, whose schools have leaking roofs, whose highways are crumbling, whose rails are coming apart, I wonder, Mr. Speaker: Is it not time that we start rebuilding this Nation, not one that seems to not want us there?

Mr. Speaker, imagine you wake up one morning to discover that the U.S. Government will be sending you under duress to Guatemala or Mexico or the Ukraine. You don't speak the language; you have never visited. These places are as foreign as foreign can be, but you are being deported because of the crime of a parent.

That's inhumane. It's also dumb economics. The CBO tells us that the DREAM Act, if we pass it, will cut the deficit by $1.4 billion.

It's dumb for our security. Secretary of Defense Gates says that passing the DREAM Act would be to the advantage of military readiness and recruiting.

We can do these things. We can fix these things. We can create a more humane, secure, and economically prosperous Nation by passing the DREAM Act today.

Mr. Speaker, in 1857, just down the hall, the Supreme Court, which met in this building at the time, decided Dred Scott, in which they said that a black American was not entitled to the rights of the Constitution promised to all men. The good news is that over the years this institution has done the right thing--civil rights legislation, any number of things--to expiate that sin, but 17 years ago this body passed legislation which discriminated against our soldiers that said if you are gay, you can't serve your country; that regardless of how much we spent to train you, regardless of how critical your expertise is to keeping this country safe, you cannot serve your country.

A report came out yesterday which indicates that there is, at most, a negligible threat, a negligible problem if we get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now is the time to fix that sin of 17 years ago and say to gay Americans that if you're patriotic enough to serve this country, we welcome you in the armed services.

I urge the Senate to act to repeal this act and to really get us closer to our founding creed.

Madam Speaker, today this House will take up the question of whether we should extend the temporary unemployment insurance programs currently in place. If this House chooses not to do that, 2 million Americans will go into the holidays wondering not whether they will just have a holiday meal, but whether they will have a meal at all.

But let's set aside what is probably the most important thing that each and every one of us should think about, which is those people and how the holidays will look for them. Let's talk history for a second.

The fact is that the Congress of the United States has never cut unemployment insurance benefits when unemployment was anywhere near where it is today. In fact, following the 2001 recession, the Republican-controlled Congress maintained temporary unemployment insurance until the unemployment rate fell below 6 percent, well below where we are today.

Let's do something else. Let's talk economics. Every Member of this House knows that the most important thing we can do right now is to help this economy recover: Jobs.

Financial institutions that look at this stuff tell us that if we allow unemployment insurance to go away, it will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy; a number of banks estimate half a percentage point of GDP. We must renew unemployment benefits.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, September 29, 2010, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote number 564. Had I been available, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, a week ago the City of Bridgeport lost a friend, spiritual leader and powerful force for good in the community.

Bishop Kenneth H. Moales, whose humble origins in Father Panik Village public housing foreshadowed little of his lifelong leadership, dedicated his life to shepherding the souls and improving the worldly conditions of some of the least fortunate people in Fairfield County.

I worshipped in his church just 3 weeks ago, and the ministries of the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit and his presence among his flock reminded me of the saying of St. Francis of Assisi when he said, ``Always preach the gospel. Sometimes use words.''

The bishop was an accomplished musician, and his choirs enriched those who heard them and those who sang in them.

At one time or another, the bishop was contributing to just about every civic institution in Bridgeport, from the police to the YMCA.

Mr. Speaker, we will miss Bishop Moales, but we celebrate a life well lived. And we take confidence in the fact that, as of last week, the music in heaven got a whole lot better.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to support the Latham Amendment to the Transportation, Housing & Urban Development Appropriations bill. I support this amendment in lieu of the very similar amendment I sponsored to cut unnecessary and duplicative programs in an effort to save taxpayer dollars.

As the economy begins its recovery, it is critical that we begin to get our fiscal house in order. Our nation's deficit grows larger every day; our national debt now tops $13 trillion.

Earlier this year, I stood before you and called for serious and smart reductions in spending.

I committed to opposing any spending that would not lead to at least a one percent total cut in the budget, excluding entitlements such as Medicare, veterans' pensions, and Social Security. According to last year's budget numbers, a cut of this size would save approximately $12 billion in just one year.

Going above and beyond that promise, and frustrated with the current approach to deficit spending, I joined three of my house colleagues in introducing 4 bills, each highlighting specific programmatic cuts that together would save $70 billion over the next ten years.

While small, across the board, percentage cuts on spending bills as many of my colleagues in the House support is one way to begin to reduce our overall spending, I believe that now is the time to bring specific ideas to the table. This prospect is not easy, and must be done carefully and thoughtfully.

To that end, I joined with a group of colleagues similarly committed to cutting spending and drafted an amendment that would have put in place a number of these types of cuts. However, it became clear that my amendment did not have the support it needed to pass. The Majority party was unwilling to make the tough choices to cut spending, and the Minority party refused to support an amendment offered by the opposite party.

The intent of the Latham Amendment mirrors the intent Peters Amendment. The cuts in this amendment are also in the spirit of the recommendations set forth by the Administration. In his budget proposal, the President worked with the Secretaries of each federal agency to determine which programs work and which programs don't work. They worked to determine which programs need more funding to reach their intended goal, and which programs must be reorganized and even in some cases terminated because they are ineffective or duplicative.

We must listen to our cabinet secretaries, those with the most acute knowledge of the inner workings of their agencies, and fund their programmatic needs while cutting funding for programs that they deem either ineffective or complete in achieving their intended purpose.

Cutting budgets is never easy. Vulnerable people who need assistance depend on our help. Forward-thinking investment is critical to long- term prosperity. Of particular importance to me are housing programs-- programs that I have dedicated a significant portion of my career to improving and creating. I support these programs in principle and am committed to ensuring their functions remain fulfilled. However, in these situations where duplicate, inefficient, and nonexistent programs are still receiving funding, we must take action and make cuts, both to protect taxpayer dollars and to protect the populations these programs are intended to serve. I am also acutely aware of the struggles of those in the transportation industry, especially in Connecticut, where the unemployment rate continues to grow. I intend to continue to look for ways to spur job creation while bringing down our federal deficit.

The federal budgeting process should reflect an effort to make cuts where alternative programs--public or private--could work better; make investments in areas, like education and infrastructure, the will fuel future prosperity; and change programs where efficiencies can be achieved.

The amendment I supported today maintains those priorities while helping put our country on a path toward fiscal sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of two brave firemen from Bridgeport, CT, did not permit me to vote today on the House floor, but I wish to share my position on the votes taken Friday, July 30, 2010.

On H. Res. 1574, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3534, Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act and H.R. 5851, Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On H. Res. 1558, the resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that fruit and vegetable and commodity producers are encouraged to display the American flag on labels of products grown in the United States, reminding us all to take pride in the healthy bounty produced by American farmers and workers, I would have voted ``yes.''

On H.R. 5901, the Real Estate Jobs and Investment Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On H. Res. 1566, the resolution recognizing the commemorating The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the National Sit-In Movement, I would have voted ``yes.''

On the motion to recommit to H.R. 5851, I would have voted ``yes.''

On the final passage of H.R. 585, Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On the amendments to H.R. 3534:

On The Rahall manager's amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On the Kind Kratovil/Heinrich/Perriello/Titus/Kissel/Arcuri amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On the Teague Jackson Lee (TX) amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On the Oberstar/Himes amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

On the Melancon/Childers amendment, I would have voted ``no.''

On the motion to recommit on H.R. 3534, I would have voted ``no.''

On the final passage of H.R. 3534, Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

On H.R. 5982, Small Business Tax Relief Act (Representatives Levin/ Murphy (NY)/Owens), I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I wonder if we aren't loose in the way we use the word ``hero.'' We sometimes call those who die unexpectedly, innocents who are killed, heroes. I wonder if in doing so we don't cheapen the extent to which the word ``hero'' must be applied to men like Michael Baik and Steven Velazquez, two firefighters in Bridgeport who gave their lives in the line of duty this weekend, two men who woke up every day and said, ``I will risk my life and my well-being for you, my fellow citizens,'' and now leave behind wives, and in the case of Michael, three children, and in the case of Steven, two children.

These were men who exemplify, I think, the best of what we mean when we say that we care about each other. And speaking as their Representative, and I hope on behalf of all my colleagues, we thank them, we thank their families, and wish them Godspeed.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 75th anniversary of the Social Security program, two things are very clear. First, the program which keeps fully half of our seniors from living in poverty must be preserved and sustained for the long run. Second, preservation of Social Security must not, cannot mean increasing the risk that we ask our seniors to take.

Already, just a year or two after financial disaster obliterated $17 trillion of American household wealth, we hear the proposals of privatization, of turning Social Security money over to the vagaries of the market. Mr. Speaker, could you imagine if that monthly Social Security check that 50 million Americans get was hammered the way retirement accounts have been hammered?

Every American who can should have private accounts that they fund with their savings. They shouldn't just rely on Social Security. But when things go wrong, they need to be able to rely on that Social Security with no risk that it disappears.

A sincere thank you to the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act. We have heard articulated today a set of very powerful arguments around security, around productivity and around cost savings for the passage of this measure.

I would like to note that I represent, like my friend from New Jersey, a district whose economic vitality is compromised by the commuting situation. Many of my constituents spend otherwise what could be productive hours looking at the taillights of other cars on 95 and on the Merritt Parkway as it runs through Connecticut.

One additional reason why the Federal Government should lead and why we should pass this act today is that the Federal Government should lead on telecommuting, on increasing not just its productivity, but increasing the productivity of the private sector in places like Connecticut, which I represent.

I am a strong backer of the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act, H.R. 2600, and a variety of other measures that will help with telecommuting. I appreciate the leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support and pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, 8 million jobs gone; $17 trillion in savings gone; Americans' faith in their system gone. Why? Because mortgages that came in 31 flavors of insanity got bought by Americans who couldn't afford them. Banks tied them in a bow and put AAA ratings on them, and then the billion dollar betting really started. The Wall Street reform bill that we have crafted addresses every one of the links in that chain of madness.

Yesterday, the minority leader called the reform killing an ant with a nuclear weapon. Mr. Speaker, I'm a human being, so I know that 8 million jobs lost and $17 trillion in savings gone is not an ant.

Mr. Speaker, I worked years in the financial services industry, so I know that this reform is not a nuclear weapon. It is a critical and essential mechanism to restore the faith of the American people in their system and the prosperity that will follow.