Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, 12 days ago, the eyes of the world were focused on the beaches of Normandy, France, to observe the 75th anniversary of the D-day invasion. It was a solemn moment to rightly honor the sacrifice and courage of the combined Armed Forces of the Allied Powers, who, from that moment, launched the final, decisive assault that eventually destroyed the Axis Powers' murderous stranglehold on Europe and Asia.

Mr. Speaker, another 75th anniversary surrounding the epic effort to save democracy will occur in 4 days, this Saturday, June 22. On that day 75 years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, more commonly known as the GI Bill. That landmark measure would provide both college tuition and a stipend for returning servicemembers who, as FDR said at the time, ``have been compelled to make greater economic sacrifice and every other kind of sacrifice than the rest of us.''

Even though the war would rage on for another year, leaders in Washington wisely recognized that millions of young soldiers, sailors, and airmen would soon be returning back into civilian life; and for their sake and for the sake of a healthy postwar economy, creating this educational pathway made tremendous sense.

In the 75 years since the GI Bill was signed into law, it is now recognized as one of the most successful pieces of domestic legislation ever enacted. The postwar economic boom and the blossoming of the American middle class have both been attributed, in part, to the GI Bill.

Many renown Americans, including Bob Dole, Johnny Carson, Harry Belafonte, William Rehnquist, and Clint Eastwood, were beneficiaries of the GI Bill.

Economic studies have shown that, for every dollar the government spent on the GI Bill, our economy saw nearly $7 in return of additional economic output in tax revenues from income growth.

Despite its stellar performance, the relative strength of the GI Bill deteriorated in the late 20th century. By 2008, it was clear that tuition assistance and living stipends had not kept pace with the rising cost of a college education.

As a freshman Congressman in the House Armed Services Committee at the time, I heard from returning Iraq and Afghan vets who were forced to choose between dropping out of school or shouldering the burden of daunting student loans. To fix this decline, we passed the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which was signed into law by George Bush on June 30, 2008.

The updated law boosted tuition to match the cost of a 4-year public university in servicemembers' home States and increased the living stipend to keep faith with the original law. It also allowed GI benefits to be transferred to a spouse or dependent child, a groundbreaking change which transformed the value of military service for families.

After the bill signing, I flew to Iraq in late 2008 for a committee visit and vividly recall being surrounded by soldiers bursting with questions about when and how the new law would be implemented. Since then, it has become clear that the transferability of the GI Bill has been an enormous morale booster and a valuable incentive to enlist and remain in service.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Trump Department of Defense announced a new policy last July which would arbitrarily cut off servicemembers with more than 16 years of service from transferring their Post-9/11 GI benefits to eligible family members. We were told at the time that the Department viewed this as a shrewd cost-cutting measure.

However, revoking transferability breaks our commitment to our most dedicated and seasoned servicemembers and their families. In addition, in a tight, lean labor market, it remains

critically important to attract and retain the best qualified individuals for military service.

I believe it sends exactly the wrong message to some of our most seasoned servicemembers who may have married late in life or started their families later, to make them ineligible for incentives, to continue their service to our Nation.

Two weeks after the Pentagon released this policy, 83 of my colleagues in the House joined me in a letter that I wrote to Secretary Mattis objecting to this change and calling for its reversal. So far, DOD has refused to budge.

Mr. Speaker, I have some good news to report today. With the cutoff due to go into effect next month, the House Armed Services Committee last week unanimously passed my amendment to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which would block the Secretary of Defense from restricting GI Bill transferability based on a maximum number of years of service.

As Congress took action 75 years ago to create the GI Bill benefit, today it is our job to restore the hard-fought modernized GI Bill of 2008. That is even more the case today at a time of an All-Volunteer Force. If a servicemember demonstrates that they are ready, able, and willing to continue their service to our Nation, we should uphold our end of the commitment.

To paraphrase President Roosevelt's words 75 years ago when he signed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, protecting transferability today ``gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our Armed Forces that the American people do not intend to let them down.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Norwich Superintendent of Public Schools, Abby Dolliver, on a career in education spanning 33 years, including 25 in the city of Norwich. Her history of passionate leadership is rooted in a lifelong dedication to public service and has positively impacted the lives of countless students, faculty, and administrators.

Her commitment to Norwich Public Schools began in 1986 as a social worker. Abby assumed the role of Director of Student Services and Special Education in 2007 before her appointment to the position of superintendent in 2010. Her tenure has been marked by an enthusiasm for inspiring leadership in others and utilizing the unique qualities of those she oversees. As superintendent, Abby is proud of developing internal committee structures to encourage a greater sense of engagement among faculty. She regards helping to create a strong team and surrounding herself with talented, experienced members of the school community as her greatest accomplishment. Though major challenges included tighter budgets, the closing of three elementary schools, and the restructuring of the city's middle schools, Abby maintained an unwavering devotion to the needs of her students. In the midst of that turmoil she actually implemented innovative, successful magnet programs using state and federal resources to keep Norwich public education healthy and high quality.

Abby's background as both a social worker and lifelong resident of Norwich has enabled her to better understand the diverse perspectives of more than 3,500 students who speak over 25 different languages. Her legendary father, Stanley Israelite, instilled in her a devotion to public service that was focused on the best interests of Norwich's children. Abby describes the Norwich school district as ``student- driven with kindness as the focus.'' The city of Norwich has benefited greatly from this history of dedication, and I am confident Abby will find new ways to serve the community for years to come. I ask my colleagues to please join me in wishing her a happy retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life and deeds of Michael Koskoff, Esquire, a champion for civil and criminal justice who passed away on April 24, 2019. Michael resided in the state of Connecticut, where his law practice achieved the highest level of success for his clients in courtrooms all across America, because his intelligence, creativity, and high ethical and moral standards.

Michael was a unique attorney. His family has been part of the trial bar over multiple generations, but also he was the scion of a family of stage performers. Some were actors, singers and musicians. His father, Theodore, was both his law partner and an accomplished cellist. ``We're show people,'' Michael once explained. He won record settlements in Connecticut negligence and malpractice cases by coupling skills he had acquired in training to be a Shakespearean actor with a lifelong antagonism toward corporate greed. He also pioneered the use of vivid courtroom videos delivered in a documentary format.

For example, in 1979, Mr. Koskoff persuaded a jury in Danbury, CT, to award his client $1.8 million in a wrongful-death case--Connecticut's first verdict of more than $1 million in such a suit. In 1999, jurors awarded $27 million for what he had demonstrated was a bungled heart operation at Yale-New Haven Hospital, which left a 29-year-old man permanently blind and brain-damaged. At the time, it was the biggest personal injury verdict in the state's history. In a medical malpractice case that became the subject of a book, Damages: One Family's Legal Struggles in the World of Medicine by Barry Werth, a couple represented by Mr. Koskoff settled for $6.25 million in the early 1990s nine years after their baby, who had severe cerebral palsy and developmental disabilities, was born at Norwalk Hospital in Connecticut. (The child's twin brother had been stillborn there). In his book, Mr. Werth described Mr. Koskoff's courtroom techniques as ``raw theater.'' ``Koskoff liked to depend on his own `visceral and instinctive reality' of what was happening in a courtroom--was a witness nervous? arrogant? appealing? unappealing?--to decide how best to keep the drama fresh,'' Mr. Werth wrote. ``He also liked to keep the other side's experts off balance by not letting them know what to expect of him. If he met them, he might like them, and that would dull his attack.''

Madam Speaker, in addition to his successful practice, Michael had a rich family life. He married Rosalind Jacobs in 1963 and had four children--two daughters, Sarah Koskoff, an actress and screen writer, Juliet Koskoff a lawyer in New York, and two sons Jacob Koskoff a screenwriter who collaborated with his father on the feature film ``Marshall,'' a rendering of a criminal trial Justice Thurgood Marshall handled as an attorney in 1941. His other son, Joshua, is a partner in Michael's firm who just last month prevailed in a groundbreaking case against the gun manufacturer Remington Arms--a case that was brought by the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting.

Madam Speaker, Michael Koskoff brought to life the promise of American ideals of fairness and justice for ``the little guy.'' With all of his success though, he never ``put on airs'' with people he met. He was generous with his time and support for his colleagues in the legal profession, the arts, and political causes devoted to a better community and nation. His presence will be sorely missed by those who had the privilege to know him, including myself. However, it is safe to say his memory will never be forgotten.

I would ask the House to please join me in extending deepest condolences to Michael's wife Rosalind and his family for their loss.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Gabe Lipman of Norwich, Connecticut. For 35 years, Gabe has dedicated herself to the education of our state's children as an art teacher in the Norwich Public School District. Thanks to her, generations of students have learned the value of art in our lives and discovered their own creative talents.

Throughout her professional life Gabe has worked to improve the circumstances of others. While that work was rooted in the classroom, it was by no means confined to it. Empowering her fellow teachers through late-night contract negotiations, serving as a contributing member of the Norwich Arts Center, and volunteering in the community have been a central part of her career. After a lifelong commitment to a single course, it is worth reflecting on the value of this undertaking.

Art and education, taken together, are a virtuous combination that elevate our children. Using this combination with her dynamic and engaging teaching style, Gabe has steadily enlarged the cultural opportunities for her students. Every one of us has had a teacher that has had a profound impact on our life's direction. For all the students who were lucky enough to be in her classroom, Gabe was one of those teachers. The ripples Gabe has cast across the community will never be completely comprehended. But I can assure you this, they are extensive and will continue moving outwards for years and decades to come bringing exuberance and brilliance wherever they land.

Colleagues, I ask you to please join me in extending your gratitude to Ms. Lipman for her commitment to our nation's youth. I thank Gabe for her 35 years of service, and wish her best of luck in the next endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, about 6 months ago, this country went through a historic election that shattered records that go back almost 100 years. It was the largest voter turnout for a midterm election since 1914. It elected a new majority in the House of Representatives by over 10 million votes.

If you drill down below those top lines, what you will see is that the biggest driving issue for American voters, who turned up in record numbers last November, was, in fact, the issue of healthcare.

If you drill down even further, what you will find is that the cost of prescription drugs was the biggest concern that people had about the security and stability of their healthcare. And why not?

Recent polling by Kaiser showed that 79 percent of Americans feel that prescription drug prices are unreasonable. Eighty percent believe that pharmaceutical company profits are to blame. One-third of Americans said they haven't taken their medications as prescribed because they have trouble affording it.

Again, the stories, in terms of the disparity of pricing in the U.S. versus other parts of the civilized, developed world, are just rampant. Obviously, we pay the highest prices here in this country, and the next highest country, Switzerland, pays 25 percent less than U.S. patients do for comparable medications.

This week, the new majority in the House of Representatives is going to be taking up H.R. 987, the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act, which we will be voting on either Thursday or Friday. This bill, which listened to patients all across the country and stakeholders who have been trying to endure these ridiculous costs, will do a number of things.

Number one, it will end pay-for-delay, which will prohibit brand-drug manufacturers from paying off generic companies that produce a competing generic drug. In other words, they are maintaining their exclusivity by paying off generic manufacturers, which are designed to create a stronger marketplace and lower prices for American patients.

It also ends the practice of parking by generic drug companies. Again, once you apply to the FDA for a generic drug, you can get 180 days where you exclude anyone else, any other generic manufacturer, from competing with a similar medication.

The FDA has estimated that these practices cost American patients $3.5 billion in higher drug costs every year.

We will be voting this week, finally, to stand up to special interests, to listen to what experts and people who are close to this market are telling us about ways of trying to widen the marketplace to create more competition, and to, ultimately, lower the drug costs for American patients that are killing State Medicaid budgets and are also killing employer-based health plans. If you listen to what they are saying, that is where the cost driving is the most acute.

This past week, in the State of Connecticut, Attorney General William Tong announced a new lawsuit against generic manufacturers, which was profiled on ``60 Minutes'' last Sunday night.

Mr. Tong demonstrated how they have smoking-gun evidence of price- fixing amongst different drug companies. Forty-four States are joining Connecticut in that effort.

It is time, whether it is the legislative branch of Congress or whether it is a different branch, in the court systems, that we start holding drug companies accountable.

The vote that is going to take place this week keeps faith with that historic turnout last fall to make sure that we are going to get real action to address the issue of healthcare.

Relief for Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans

Mr. Speaker, we are also voting this week on H.R. 299-- it will be this evening--the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, which will finally eliminate a 17-year barrier

for people who served in the sea services during the Vietnam conflict and who are being denied access to VA benefits for the scourge of Agent Orange illnesses.

Again, this is a process that has taken forever. We passed this measure in the last Congress by unanimous vote. It was blocked from consideration by two Senators last December.

Congratulations to Mark Takano, our new House Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman, for bringing up this bill immediately in the new House of Representatives, to make sure that we get this long-overdue justice for people who served in the Vietnam conflict taken care of.

Veterans service organizations that have been relentless in their advocacy for blue water Vietnam veterans, such as The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, AMVETS, MOAA, and Military Order of the Purple Heart, are supporting this legislation.

It is going to be important for us to get this bill passed out of this Chamber and force the Senate to do the right thing and provide justice for those who served in that conflict and who are still suffering from cancers, from heart disease, and from skin ailments because of exposure to a chemical that they had absolutely no idea was unsafe.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, after 2 years of the Trump administration trying and failing in Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they have gone to plan B. Plan B is to use the administrative agencies, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the court system as a way of trying to accomplish what they could not accomplish through the House and the Senate in the 115th Congress.

Today, we are dealing with one of those efforts, which was an order that was issued in October of last year, issuing new guidelines for State waivers from the Affordable Care Act, repealing the ObamaCare guardrails that

made sure that patient protections would not be affected by such waivers--for example, protecting people with preexisting conditions; the elimination of lifetime caps on health insurance; and the protections that were built in for essential health benefits that defined real healthcare, not the cheap healthcare that was being sold before the ACA was enacted.

An intervening event occurred since last October. We had an election. It was the largest midterm turnout since 1914. We had a new majority that was elected with a plurality of 10 million votes, larger than any flip election in the past, any wave election in the past. The number one issue from the voters was healthcare and protecting their patient rights to affordable and comprehensive benefits.

Mr. Chair, we are here today debating an issue that the patient groups that represent people with chronic illnesses, with expensive illnesses like cancer, have stepped up across the board, saying vote for this legislation to overturn the Trump order that they are trying to get through but that they cannot get through the U.S. Congress. Vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to spotlight that, a couple days from now, the House of Representatives will be voting on H.R. 986, which is an act protecting Americans with preexisting conditions.

Again, this is a measure to reverse a decision that was made last October by the Trump administration. It was an administrative guidance in the Department of Health and Human Services which basically opened the doors for States to submit waivers from the Affordable Care Act's protections for patients, which, almost universally, are supported by the American people.

For example, in the law, it banned the use of preexisting condition exclusions by insurance companies both for individuals applying for insurance and for those who actually got insurance but then had their bills denied because of preexisting conditions.

With the stroke of a pen, in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act abolished that practice by insurance companies, which basically was a discriminatory practice for people, again, who, through no fault of their own, had medical conditions which they could not control.

It also eliminated lifetime limits. In other words, insurance companies capped the amount of medical bills that they would pay, so somebody with a cancer or a serious chronic condition would run into those caps and basically be in bankruptcy land.

And lastly, it established essential health benefits, which were defined by the Institute of Medicine, not a political organization, based on what, in fact, health insurance should cover, for example, behavioral health, maternal and child benefits, et cetera.

This decision by the Trump administration last October basically knocked out the guardrails in the ACA waiver process, which, again, every observer and commentator said would open the door again to insurance companies using the practice of preexisting condition exclusions.

For those who maybe have forgotten what that looked like, I have beside me here a chart which includes a brochure, which Humana insurance was using back in 2009 when it was selling health insurance. Again, it is touting great news for people who buy their own health insurance, new, flexible health coverage.

However, if you read the fine print, it went on to say that there is important information about preexisting conditions for these conditions which would

not be covered: AIDS/HIV, alcohol or drug dependence, cancer, COPD, connective tissue disorder, Crohn's disease, diabetes, emphysema, heart attack or stroke, hepatitis, inpatient emotional or mental illness, organ or tissue transplant, or ulcerative colitis. Just in case maybe you survived that litmus test, it does go on to say: ``This list is not all inclusive; other conditions may apply.''

That is what health insurance looked like before 2010: People who, in good faith, were paying premium dollars for coverage, whether they were individuals, small businesses, or large employers, suddenly found, with the fine print back in those days, medical underwriting was excluding people from getting the coverage for the health insurance they thought they were buying.

Also, the rude awakening of people who had insurance suddenly having their bills reversed--again, in good faith, depending on insurance companies--to pay for an operation or for a hospitalization or a doctor's visit.

This country turned the page in 2010. It is time to, once and for all, say that those practices are a thing of the past.

Our bill this week, H.R. 986, will restore those patient protections which the Trump administration's executive order, last October, reversed. Hopefully, the people in this Chamber will listen to the universal support for these patient protections all across the country, Republicans and Democrats--the polling shows it is off the charts--and support this bill and block this executive order which would turn the clock back for American patients and America's healthcare system.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Captain Paul A. Whitescarver, who retires this week from a nearly 40-year career of service to our nation in the United States Navy.

Captain Whitescarver has served as the 51st Commanding Officer of our nation's ``first and finest'' submarine base, Naval Submarine Base New London since December 2015. His leadership at the base will without question have a lasting impact on its operations and readiness for years to come. In his three and a half years as its Commander, he oversaw several significant environmental and energy upgrades which have helped to continue modernization of the facility, including innovative microgrid and fuel cell projects leveraging homegrown Connecticut technology to provide standalone power to the base. This effort was so successful that the Department of Energy recognized it with a 2018 Federal Energy and Water Management award.

Another tremendous accomplishment under his tenure was the completion of Superfund site cleanup. It is great to see the resolution of this significant undertaking which was recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Captain Whitescarver's leadership throughout this process has shown his drive to go above and beyond to improve the base.

Captain Whitescarver has substantially raised the military value of the base with his work and proven its enduring mission well into the future. He laid the groundwork for the future expansion of pier capacity as our submarine fleet continues to modernize and grow towards its overall goal of 66 attack submarines. He spearheaded the pier 32 project for which we are now seeing funding in this year's defense budget and expect it to be funded by Congress so that the project can commence on time. Many of the new boats constructed in the coming years will be stationed in Groton, and without Captain Whitescarver's efforts, the base would not be as prepared to accept them as it will be once these projects are completed.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that Captain Whitescarver's impact extends beyond the base, reaching the citizens and businesses in the surrounding community. He oversaw Connecticut's Submarine Century, the yearlong celebration of the 100th anniversary of the submarine force in 2015 and 2016, demonstrating strong support in his consistent participation at events and collaboration with local officials. He projected a positive image for the Navy in a critical time for recruitment and promotion of our military and particularly our submarine force. As if he did not have enough to do, he also managed the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the Navy installation which would eventually become Submarine Base New London. This milestone underscores how the base has effectively adapted over time to meet the needs of the Navy, and we thank Captain Whitescarver for his role in ensuring the base continues to be equipped to handle our future needs as well.

A particular highlight of mine working with Captain Whitescarver over the last few years was his April 2018 engagement at Asnuntuck Community College in Enfield, which he himself attended in 1989. His presence and poignant words to students, faculty, and staff reinforced the belief that our community colleges are stepping stones to any number of highly successful careers.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring Captain Whitescarver, and his wife Katie, for their service to our nation and in wishing them `fair winds and following seas' as they move on to their next steps.

Madam Speaker, I rise with great sadness to honor the life of Connecticut Superior Court Judge Kevin P. McMahon of Niantic, Connecticut who died too young at the age of 68 on February 18, 2019.

Madam Speaker, when news of Kevin's passing became known all across the state, there was an enormous outflowing of tributes and praise for the man described as ``The People's Judge'' for his amazing service in the criminal courts for over twenty-five years. He presided over big cases and small cases with great skill, displaying a warm and caring personality that balanced courtesy and adherence to the law with compassion for all who appeared before him. He had a sharp, delightful sense of humor and the court staff in every region he sat were professionally loyal to him because he treated them all with kindness and respect. He believed strongly in sharing his knowledge with his colleagues on the bench. He was an instructor at the Connecticut Judges' Institute and fellow judges often sought his advice on cases. Kevin was the president, and lone member, of the Black Point Judges Association, a position he was honored to hold. His knowledge of the law, his sense of humor, and, most importantly, his sense of fairness governed his decisions and made him a great judge.

Kevin was the past president of the New London/Washington County Providence College Alumni Club. He mentored students from Providence College, many of whom shadowed him during his time on the bench. The college honored him by presenting him with the Faithful Friar Award, and he was a season ticket holder for Providence College Basketball for many years.

Kevin spent summers at Black Point Beach at his family's summer home. Eventually, Patti and he became year-round residents. He was a member of the Black Point Association for many years. Kevin loved being a part of the beach community and over the years skillfully captained an array of powerboats. He was an avid reader and a serious student of history. Kevin was a sports enthusiast, as a loyal fan of the New York Giants, the Boston Red Sox, Boston Celtics and had great admiration for Tom Brady.

Kevin was also a devoted husband to the love of his life Patti McMahon and they had many happy years together at Black Point Beach which they made their permanent home. Patti is a highly skilled paralegal who worked for one of the premier law firms in Hartford-- Riscassi and Davis--and their shared experience in the legal profession made them the perfect couple.

Mr. Speaker, I had known Kevin for many years when we were interns at the Hartford

Superior Criminal Court back in the 1970s. I knew from the first day we met that he was a special person whose sharp mind, quick wit, and infectious sense of humor stood out immediately. He was born to be a judge and it was wonderful to watch someone find the perfect spot on the bench to express his talents to the fullest.

Mr. Speaker we live in a time when cheap politics and cynical journalism constantly seek to delegitimize the importance of a strong, respected, independent judiciary. Kevin McMahon's life and record are the best rebuttal to this corrosive, dangerous trend. All who came in contact with him could believe in the honesty and goodness of our judicial system by observing the grace and integrity of his service. His example will be one for the ages.

Colleagues, please join me in expressing the condolences of the chamber for his friends and family--particularly his beloved wife Patti.

Mr. Speaker, this morning about 800,000 Federal employees from the 25 percent of the government that had been shut down for the last 35 days finally were allowed to go back to work and perform the amazing service that they do for the American people in a whole host of different agencies.

All of us heard from such great Americans coming from our districts, and certainly in the Second District of Connecticut, in eastern Connecticut, was no exception.

So, for example, Clark Chapin, who is the head of the Farm Service Agency at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who, again, for 35 days was unable to work on the different farm programs that are so important to eastern Connecticut farmers, particularly in the dairy sector with the new dairy insurance program, his frustration in terms of not being able to get that program up and running, again, was palpable when I talked to him about a week or so ago.

We also have the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, where, again, that was the one branch of the military that was shut down because they don't reside in the Department of Defense. They are in the Department of Homeland Security.

Even though, as Admiral Carl Schultz, who is the Commandant of the Coast Guard, pointed out on national television, there are Coast Guard cutters serving in Bahrain in the fifth fleet side by side with the U.S. Navy patrolling the territorial waters of the Persian Gulf in the Straits of Hormuz in about the most hazardous waters in the world. Their Navy counterparts were certainly being paid, but the Coast Guard sailors and officers were not.

In addition, we have got Coast Guard cutters over in the Indo-Pacific region doing work in the Straits of Taiwan, again, highly contested waters. The unique skills that coastguardsmen and -women bring to that particular type of patrol is essential to our country's national defense and national security policy.

They, again, are just a couple of examples.

Constituents in the State Department serving overseas in hazardous duty areas--the FAA, the TSA, the IRS, Commerce--this morning, I heard from one of the Commerce employees. She went to work this morning. The payroll system was flooded with folks trying to submit their timecards, and the system crashed. They are still trying to sort that out so that people will get not only their paycheck on Friday, but also retroactive payments.

Last Thursday, again, hours before the settlement finally was reached and the announcement was made from the White House, I held a telephone townhall meeting. We had 8,000 listeners from all across the district and, again, a very vigorous debate, and there was definitely disagreement about whether there should be a wall on the southern border or no wall.

But what there was universal agreement about was that shutdowns are wrong, that shutdowns should never be used as a tool or leverage to force a policy provision and cripple, again, the working lives of people who, again, are patriots for this country, but also the taxpayers who rely on the programs and services that they provide. That is why, again, it was astonishing to see in The Wall Street Journal, over the weekend, that President Trump gave an interview where he said another shutdown is ``certainly an option.''

Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything as a nation over the last 35 days, it is what those 8,000 folks who participated in my telephone townhall articulated over and over again: This should not be used as leverage to force an issue through the Congress. It should go through normal and regular order.

We have a conference committee from the House and the Senate, from both parties, that will begin their work over the next couple of weeks or so to resolve the dispute. There is overlap. There is agreement in terms of boosting border security.

But no one should be putting down as markers that we are going to again disrupt the lives of these Americans once again just as they are starting to finally get back into the office and get

the work done for the American people. Instead, what we should be doing is voting, as we are tomorrow, on H.R. 790, which is to overturn President Trump's executive order of December 28 canceling the pay increase for non-DOD employees.

Again, some of the very same people whose lives were turned upside down over the last 35 days are also going to lose their pay increase based on the President's executive order. The bill we are going to vote on tomorrow, H.R. 790, is going to overturn that executive order and give those folks the same pay raise as folks in the Department of Defense: 2.6 percent. These are people who, again, provide essential public services for the people of this country.

If nothing else, it was a learning experience over the last month about how vital that work is in terms of air travel, national defense and military policy, as well as agriculture and processing of tax returns at the height of the tax season.

Let's vote on measures that are going to restore and heal this country over the damage that was done over the last 35 days and take shutdowns off the table. It is time for shutdown politics to come to an end.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Thomas H. Dooley, a prominent attorney and businessman from Vernon, CT, who passed away on January 6, 2019.

Born in 1934 to Lawrence and Lauretta Dooley, Tom was raised in Middletown, New York and graduated from Clarkson University in 1956 with a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration. He subsequently joined the U.S. Army, serving his country for two years before beginning his career with the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company as an assistant claims examiner. Soon thereafter Tom enrolled at UCONN School of Law where he was editor of the UCONN Law Review and a Starr Fellow. Tom graduated in 1964 and became a partner at Flaherty & Dooley Law Firm. Tom eventually returned to Connecticut General Life Insurance, this time as an Assistant Counsel in their legal department. Eventually he moved into a management position becoming Second Vice President of Group Insurance Operations. Then, in 1985 he became Executive Vice President of CIGNA and President of Connecticut General.

Tom did not slow down after his retirement in 1992. He became Executive-in-Residence at the University of Hartford and taught at Manchester Community College and Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute Graduate Center. He also chaired Connecticut's Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board from 2010 to 2011 and was trustee emeritus at his alma mater, Clarkson.

Tom was not just a businessman and attorney; he was also a public servant. He was the attorney for the town of Vernon for several years as well as a town council member and deputy mayor in our hometown of Vernon. He even served in the Connecticut General Assembly from 1970 to 1974.

Madam Speaker, on a personal note, I had the privilege of knowing Tom Dooley for many years since I practiced law with his former partner Leo Flaherty for over twenty years. Leo and Tom remained good friends after Tom left their partnership and because he was such a talented lawyer, all of us in the firm frequently looked to him for advice on thorny legal issues, for which he was happy to provide well-thought out and sound advice. Tom's two terms in the Connecticut General Assembly from Vernon's 56th Assembly District preceded my own election to that seat which I held from 1986 to 1994. I can attest to the fact that his outstanding legacy and reputation at the state Capitol still resonated years after his departure. His record of ethics and professionalism in the practice of law and public service in the political arena is an example that all should emulate.

Lastly his devotion to his beloved wife Antoinette and all their children and grandchildren who are leading successful lives is another life achievement that will ensure his memory will live on. Tom Dooley made eastern Connecticut a better place, and we are all better off because of him. I ask my colleagues to please join me in honoring Tom's life and memory and expressing our deepest sympathies for his family and friends.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to commemorate Navy Petty Officer MMN3 Benjamin Edward Norman who tragically lost his life in a weather-related car accident on December 31, 2018.

Ben was born October 4, 1998 in Manchester, CT to Sam and Teresa. Having moved to Coventry as a teenager, Ben graduated from Coventry High School in 2016. Soon thereafter, Ben, an accomplished Eagle Scout, enlisted in the U.S. Navy. His service was just beginning to take shape in recent months when he was selected to serve in the prestigious Nuclear Propulsion Training Program, a demanding assignment that requires high intellect and diligent work habits. Last year I had the opportunity to meet Ben and his father Sam, and Ben was excited to begin this new mission that would have taken him to the most advanced naval platforms in our nation's fleet.

Ben was also on course to marry his beloved fiancee, Asia Jurkiewicz, a native of Poland whom he met during a Boy Scout exchange program in Krakow, Poland. Madam Speaker, Ben's passing is a terrible loss for Asia, Ben's family and our nation. His public-spirited approach to life and willingness to volunteer to wear our nation's uniform in the U.S. Navy pointed to a life of great accomplishment. Hopefully his memory will inspire others to follow his example. I ask my colleagues to please join me in honoring the life and memory of Ben Norman and expressing our deepest sympathies for his family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, a really sad milestone of, really, failure on day 18 of a partial government shutdown that is affecting 25 percent of the Federal Government.

I am rising today to share some of the real-life stories of some of my constituents in eastern Connecticut who are affected by this shutdown, which, again, today, we are now officially 1 day past the length of the 2013 shutdown of 17 days. On Sunday, if this is not fixed and ended, it will actually be the longest shutdown in American history, surpassing the 1994 shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, today, I got a letter from James of Waterford, Connecticut:

I am a State Department employee assigned to the U.S.

Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. I have been a DOS employee

since 2003.

I live and work every day in a dangerous environment in

support of U.S. foreign policy. In Herat, Afghanistan, in

2013, I was shot at and blown up in an attack by the Taliban

on the U.S. Consulate. In Belgrade, Serbia, in 2008, I was

trapped in the burning U.S. Embassy during protests

against Kosovo independence while I protected and

destroyed classified information.

I support our government's policies in difficult

environments, and I expect my government to meet their

commitment to me and my family.

Jeremy of Colchester, Connecticut, who works for the Coast Guard:

Please work to pass a bill to fund the government,

including employees' salaries of the Coast Guard, which are,

again, part of the Department of Homeland Security. My

family cannot go indefinitely without pay, nor should they

have to.

And he is absolutely right.

Kate of Chester, Connecticut:

I am a U.S. Department of Agriculture employee. I have been

an employee of the USDA for 15 years at the Plum Island

Animal Disease Center.

That is off the coast of Long Island Sound, where they do amazing research in terms of animal health and public health.

If there is not a resolution and end to this shutdown soon,

my financial situation will force me to choose which bills to

pay.

Robert of Stafford Springs, Connecticut, who actually works for a regional craft brewery:

I depend on the ATF, the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, to

approve license applications, formulas and labels for beers--

delicious beers, by the way--that we brew and sell. Every day

that this passes without a shutdown ending is another

potential day of lost sales.

Ethan of Niantic, Connecticut, who works at the Coast Guard Academy, where they are building the leaders of tomorrow for this country. He has been part of the faculty for the last 11 years.

Personally, without earning a paycheck, we will find paying

for groceries, mortgage, utilities, childcare, and other

essentials, nearly impossible. As the government shutdown

lingers on, I become increasingly concerned how it will

impact my family.

Brian Krampovitas, I met with him this morning in my office. He is one of the air traffic controllers at Bradley Field in Hartford, Connecticut. They have 40 employees who are working without pay, 10- hour shifts, making sure that the planes take off and land safely. And again, the stress level, because they have no support staff, is growing more and more intense for people who are doing incredibly important work, guaranteeing the safety of this country.

Again, just as a way of a recap, last week the new Congress was sworn in. Within 2 hours, we passed H.R. 21, which fully funded the American Government, which would have ended this shutdown last week, again, not with a wild spending bill but one that had already passed in the U.S. Senate with Republican votes.

All Mitch McConnell has to do is bring up that bill, which they have already passed, send it to the President, and with the stroke of a pen, this would end today; and these people who, again, are doing the important work of the American people would not have to be going through the stress and aggravation while they are doing great work to protect our public safety, to represent our country overseas, and to make sure that we have leaders of the future through institutions like the Coast Guard Academy.

Again, we are going to hear a speech tonight. This thing apparently is going to continue to go on. It is unnecessary, it is pointless, and it is hurting the American economy and the American people.

Mr. President, sign H.R. 21.

We can have a debate about border security. There are some things that both sides will agree on in terms of making sure that we get more immigration judges to eliminate the asylum case backlog, to boost enforcement of port of entry where fentanyl and dangerous drugs are coming through; and we can have a serious debate about whether or not it is sensors and drones, boots on the ground to make sure that those areas that are more remote get more protection, but lengthening this shutdown and hurting people who have absolutely nothing to do with the southern border is pointless and hurting people and hurting the U.S. economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Lieutenant Commander Evan Karlik, United States Navy, on his final day serving as a legislative fellow in my Washington, DC office. Evan has played a critical role this year supporting my work on the House Armed Service Committee and representing the large Navy community in Eastern Connecticut.

As Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, I have the high honor of overseeing much of our nation's Navy. This year, as our subcommittee considered how best to fund important shipbuilding programs, reform Navy career paths, and review command and control of naval forces, Evan provided important insight and guidance into how our subcommittee could best provide the resources and platforms that our Sailors and Marines need to achieve mission success.

Evan has also seized the initiative in a variety of areas beyond naval affairs. He spurred a review required by this year's National Defense Authorization Act into how the Department of Defense reviews and awards imminent danger pay to servicemembers deployed to dangerous locations around the world. He has also served as the staff-lead for the Friends of Australia Caucus, of which I serve as co-chair, ensuring that the ties between our countries remain as strong as ever as we celebrated 100 Years of Mateship in 2018.

Evan is leaving Congress but he isn't going far. His next assignment will take him just across the river to support rolling out the Navy's fleet of F-35 fifth-generation fighter aircraft. On his final day here in Congress, I wish LCDR Karlik the best of luck in his new role, fair winds, and following seas.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, one of the dominant news stories on both sides of the Atlantic was the announcement by British Prime Minister Theresa May that she was postponing a much-anticipated vote on accepting a preliminary Brexit package that had been negotiated with the European Union. Her decision, unfortunately, continues the turmoil in her own party and Parliament at large about how to implement a referendum that was narrowly passed instructing her government to leave the European Union that the United Kingdom joined 45 years ago, in 1973.

As a Member of the U.S. Congress that is also divided and struggling with its own ability to execute basic functions, I have a great deal of empathy, as I am sure many of my colleagues do, with the frustration that members of Parliament and the British public are feeling today.

Fundamentally, of course, this is a domestic question for Parliament, and it would be presumptuous for elected officials from the outside to weigh in on the agreement's proposals regarding residency, immigration, visa requirements, and how healthcare coverage will be coordinated if and when the U.K. exits the European Union. However, there is one issue, in which myself and many of my colleagues from

the U.S. have a very keen interest, and I raise it today in a friendly but firm voice. That is, namely, the status of Northern Ireland under the Good Friday peace accords.

Unfortunately, Mrs. May, in her announcement yesterday, indicated that that was the one issue, that her efforts to protect the Good Friday peace accords were going to be renegotiated and possibly dismantled.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House that the Good Friday peace accords, which were signed 20 years ago last April 10, have the active and supportive involvement of the U.S. Government and the U.S. Congress.

The Clinton administration in the 1990s, at the invitation of the Irish and British Governments, named former U.S. Senator George Mitchell as Special Envoy to Northern Ireland, and he chaired the all- party peace negotiation over a number of years, which led to the Good Friday peace accords. His work, along with his successor, Richard Haass, was crucial to the success of the talks and the execution of the agreement.

In the U.S. Congress, members of a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including our colleague Richard Neal of Springfield, Massachusetts, were frequent visitors and participants during the negotiations.

To this day, Mr. Neal and bipartisan members of the Friends of Ireland Caucus, of which I am a member, continue to monitor the progress and success of the Good Friday peace accords and are deeply, deeply concerned that Brexit, if it reinstates a hard border on the island of Ireland, will undo one of the great diplomatic successes of our time.

Mr. Speaker, the successful results of the peace agreement cannot be denied. During The Troubles, which preceded the accords, more than 3,600 residents of the six counties of the North lost their lives due to sectarian violence and 763 servicemembers of the British Government and the Northern Irish Government lost their lives. To put that in perspective, 464 U.K. troops have lost their lives in the long war in Afghanistan. The economic results have also been undeniable.

Mr. Speaker, I have a little bit of experience because in 1973 and 1974, I was a student in England and spent the Christmas break in Northern Ireland visiting a fellow student in the town of Enniskillen. I took the train from Dublin to Belfast. In the border town o Dundalk, where I was asleep, I was awoken by a British soldier heavily armed, poking me to look at my backpack.

While we visited in Enniskillen, there was a bombing in the village. Looking around, it was clearly a depressed economy because of the hard borders and because of the isolation of Northern Ireland.

Fast forward, I took a trade mission from the State of Connecticut to Belfast 2 years ago, and it is a transformed city. It is thriving. It is healthy. Clearly, allowing the Northern Irish economy to participate both in the full island as well as Europe has had beneficial effects. That is why the people of Northern Ireland actually voted ``no'' on Brexit.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a point today where the British Government clearly has to make a decision about whether to preserve one of the great diplomatic successes, which provides a roadmap for sectarian violence all across the world. Diplomacy succeeded in Northern Ireland. It is imperative that those in charge there protect the hard-fought work and remember that there are stakeholders outside of England and Great Britain, including the United States Government and the United States Congress, which have skin in the game and have investment in terms of the great success over the last 20 years.

Protect the Good Friday peace accords. Protect the peace that has flowed from it. Protect the prosperity that has improved the lives of the people of Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, and the world at large.