Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Larson for yielding and, again, for offering this amendment, which has been part of a number of initiatives that we have worked on jointly together to deal with this issue.

Again, for the record, just to clarify what is going on here, a concrete quarry up in north central Connecticut,

which had been mining aggregate for foundations in homes, it turned out there was a material called pyrrhotite, which is an iron sulfide material that, over time, when it is exposed to moisture, rusts and cracks in a sickening fashion and results in the total collapse of home foundations.

The estimate is as high as 19,000 homes have had foundations using material from this quarry. As the gentleman pointed out, this has also occurred in western Massachusetts. It goes as far north, actually, as Three Rivers, Quebec, because it is a strain of pyrrhotite that runs from Canada down through New England.

This picture shows vividly the damage caused to a home in Coventry, Connecticut, where the repairs require you to lift the house, clean out the old foundation, pour a new foundation, and, again, lower the house back. It costs roughly about $200,000.

We were able to secure a tax ruling from the Treasury Department that allows individuals like this homeowner in the picture to basically deduct those losses, which, again, is some relief.

Frankly, there is more that we need to bring to the table. The gentleman's amendment would allow the Federal regulators that set up the rules for lending banks and institutions to get some flexibility for loan-to-value ratio rules that occur when there are natural disasters.

Again, in Federal natural disasters in places like Florida and Texas, there is some flexibility to allow homeowners to get a loan perhaps above the loan-to-value ratios so they can, again, basically conduct repairs to make their houses habitable again. This amendment will set up that process.

Secretary Mnuchin, as the gentleman and I know we have met with personally, would be the Department that would organize this task force that the amendment contemplates.

Again, it is something which the banking industry in Connecticut and Massachusetts has expressed a strong interest in basically allowing some relief for homeowners who, again, have poured their heart and soul into their homes to be able to recover their losses.

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. We had a similar amendment last night that was adopted by Mr. Calvert. Again, I want to thank the majority for their understanding on this issue.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, again, this is a simple amendment which would designate $300,000 within the operation of the National Park System for the New England National Scenic Trail. This is an amendment which was offered last year and was adopted by voice vote in an en bloc amendment. Again, the language is absolutely identical.

By way of background, the New England Trail was designated as a National Scenic Trail in 2009, making it one of the newest of the Nation's 11 National Scenic Trails. The trail is 223 miles long and winds through 41 communities in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Amazingly, nearly 2 million people live within 10 miles of the trail, making it one of the most accessible National Scenic Trails for one of the most densely populated parts of the country.

It was passed in 2007. Congressman John Olver, Richie Neal, John Larson, Rosa DeLauro, now-Senator Chris Murphy, and I introduced and passed the law, the New England Scenic Trail Designation Act.

Unfortunately, the trail has been woefully underfunded for the last 5 years. The trail system has received an average of $127,000 in funding, which is split three ways between the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and the National Park Service.

Of the approximately $43,000 each entity receives, the vast majority goes to facility maintenance, volunteer coordination, community engagement, outreach to youth, and the trail's landowner hosts. Impressively, much of the work that is done is supported by volunteers who put in more than 5,000 hours of maintenance activity annually.

I would just note that the managers of the trail have done their best to leverage an impressive $1.53 million in non-Federal funding in 2015. So they actually have been very efficient and creative in terms of trying to leverage and maximize the support that is, again, far below what the national park trail feasibility study recommended back in 2005, when they recommended an annual budget of $271,000.

Again, this is an amazing trail that goes through New England landscapes such as long-distance vistas with rural towns as a backdrop, farmlands, forests, and large river valleys. It also travels through colonial historical landmarks and highlights a range of diverse ecosystems and natural resources: mountain ridges and summits, forested glades, and wetlands.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their support last year.

I would urge passage of this identical amendment. It is supported by my colleagues in the region.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, silence is golden, and I yield back the balance of my time

Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this bipartisan amendment would restore $5 million to the National Park Service's Historic Preservation Fund to achieve level funding from the 2018 fiscal year.

This amendment continues the same spirit of bipartisanship that Congress displayed in 2016 when we reauthorized the Historic Preservation Fund through 2023 and that Congress displayed last year when we passed a similar amendment in this Chamber.

Since the Historic Preservation Fund's creation in 1966, Congress has allocated more than $2 billion to communities across the country to connect Americans to our history and to contribute to our sense of place.

Historic preservation projects prioritize local workers, create more jobs per dollar spent than other construction projects, and use fewer carbon emissions than building anew.

The Historic Preservation Fund includes funding for State historic preservation offices, which work with local communities to revitalize historic locations and protect American heritage. Importantly, State historic fund offices administer the historic rehabilitation tax credit, which, nationwide, has leveraged $131 billion in private investment and created 2.4 million jobs since its inception.

It is that kind of high return leverage that the Historic Preservation Fund achieves. That explains why the program received the funding level in the 2018 omnibus that Mr. Blumenauer seeks to restore.

I would note that the omnibus was a bipartisan and bicameral agreement which the chair and ranking member supported.

Again, this amendment does not seek to raise spending above the 2018 omnibus, which cleared both Houses with a healthy bipartisan vote and which was signed into law by President Trump last March.

Madam Chair, I urge passage of the Blumenauer amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment designates $100,000 in funding to the United States Geological Survey so that they can create a searchable map showing occurrences of an iron sulfide material known as pyrrhotite nationwide.

Pyrrhotite is a material that has, unfortunately, shown up in concrete quarries in New England and Canada. When it is mixed into the aggregate poured into the foundations of homes, over a period of time, because it is an iron material and exposed to moisture, it actually rusts, expands, and cracks, basically causing a catastrophic collapse of the foundation.

In Connecticut, there are estimates that as high as 19,000 homes that have been infected with pyrrhotite material. It spread into western Massachusetts and three rivers in Quebec. The whole community of thousands of people have been devastated by the presence of this material.

The Trump administration and the Treasury Department actually recognized last November a property casualty loss tax guidance that allows homeowners who basically have to spend about $200,000 to repair their homes--because they have to lift the house, pull out the old foundation, and pour a new foundation--to claim it as a property casualty loss deduction.

Last month, Dr. Ben Carson from HUD came up and did a tour of these homes. It is a devastating occurrence, and it has potential nationwide consequences.

The United States Navy actually has a bidding process out right now through its SBIR program to come up with a testing mechanism. They calculate that they basically own about 300,000 structures throughout the United States. They want to have a system for testing for the presence of pyrrhotite.

I brought a picture, which shows the effects of the catastrophe. This is a home where the house was lifted. The material of the foundation is so badly compromised that the contractor can actually pull it apart by hand, it is that serious.

This amendment would allow the United States Geological Survey to create a searchable database nationally that would allow us to identify this. The Office of Congressional Affairs contacted our office and indicated that they do have the capacity to develop a national pyrrhotite map, but it is not in their current plan. This amendment, which is also supported by Mr. Larson from Connecticut's First District, would direct that priority.

Madam Chair, I urge passage of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for his consideration of this amendment. It is a very serious problem and much appreciated in the New England area. I thank the ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for her support as well.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, the Clerk has an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning, I first of all want to salute both Mr. Young and Mr. Huffman for their hard work on this legislation, which is very contentious and requires a lot of interests to be balanced. Again, hopefully, as the process moves forward through the next Chamber, we will get to that sweet spot for good policy for our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment at the desk is a simple amendment, which creates a 5-year, industry-based pilot trawl survey for the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. Such a program would follow the model industry-based trawl surveys used in the Pacific Northwest under NOAA's supervision that have been a great success.

The reason I am offering this bipartisan amendment with Congressman Lee Zeldin from New York is that NOAA trawl surveys have been seriously hampered by a string of mechanical and performance problems with NOAA's ship Henry B. Bigelow over the last 2 years.

For example, from August 2017 to March 2018, Bigelow missed several trawls while in its shipyard for chronic propulsion problems. Even when the Bigelow is operational, one-third of its trawls are not performing, and these bad trawls generally have yields that are 67 percent lower than when it performs properly.

These problems are unacceptable, given the critical importance of that data to accurately calculate catch limits on the East Coast, which, as we have heard, is a highly contentious issue.

In addition to the Bigelow's gear issues, the vessel is too large for near-shore studies. It draws a lot of water and cannot enter shallow littoral areas to trawl. Because of that, NOAA already contracts with the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program, NEAMAP, to survey shallower areas. NEAMAP contracts industry vessels outfitted with peer- reviewed NOAA gear for near-shore surveys, proving that surveying can be done on industry vessels.

I want to emphasize that this pilot program contemplated in the amendment will be a pilot program coordinated with NOAA, the councils, and industry. While we don't dictate a specific framework, we recommend that the pilot mirror the NEAMAP survey, which the executive directors of both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils have described as the gold standard of cooperative, collaborative fisheries surveys.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a responsible initiative to solve a real-life problem using a trusted precedent in the Pacific Northwest and under the careful supervision of NOAA and fisheries experts.

I want to thank the Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel for bringing attention to the trawl gaps that are happening on the East Coast and working with my office to craft this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of one of Connecticut's most dedicated public servants, Mr. Wayne T. Vendetto, Sr. Mr. Vendetto passed away in February, and I would be remiss not to take a moment to reflect on his years of dedication to his hometown. He was a patriot, a first responder, a democrat, a family man, and above all, a community servant.

A native of New London, CT, Wayne graduated from New London High School in 1962. In addition to his career at Sears, Roebuck & Co., he was a Connecticut State Marshal for 40 years.

Wayne honorably defended his country in the Connecticut National Guard and as a reservist. He also protected his neighbors as a volunteer firefighter and foreman at the former F.L. Allen Hook and Ladder Company No. 1 for 10 years, and was president of the New London Firemen's Association. In this capacity Wayne became famous for hosting the association's convention and parades, considered to be the biggest and best in the state.

Wayne was also active in local politics. He served on the New London Board of Education for 10 years and eventually became a

city councilor, deputy mayor, and then mayor. All his life he remained active in the Democratic party and was respected by both republicans and democrats.

Unsurprisingly, Wayne was a family man, affectionately known by his relatives as ``Poppy.'' He was a father to Dana and Wayne, grandfather to Alexandra, Cole, Wayne, Attilia, and Connor, and great-grandfather to Gianni. Being one of six children himself, he left this earth as the proud great uncle to 59 nieces and nephews. Coming from such a big family, it was only natural that Wayne treated all of New London as his extended family, which was made evident through his extensive community service. He volunteered at the New London Senior Center, Catholic Charities, the American Cancer Society, the Hospice Fundraising Board, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation, just to name a few. Wayne was also a member of the New London Lodge of Elks and the New London Police Community Relations Committee.

Wayne Vendetto was a man who was constantly giving back. In this day and age, we'd be hard-pressed to find a public servant more involved or dedicated than him. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please join me in recognition of this selfless servant. I know his loss will be felt deeply throughout the New London community for years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all state very clearly that, in my opinion, both the chair and ranking member are strong supporters of our Navy and of a strong national defense, and any push in terms of these amendments is not a criticism of them at all in terms of the great work that they and their staff do putting forward a Defense Appropriations bill.

Again, very quickly, this amendment really just is an opportunity to try to take advantage of the savings that my friend, Mr. Wittman, described.

Block buy purchases have been tremendously successful. The last block contract for Virginia class, the Block IV, the PEO of submarines, Dave Johnson, was always very proud of the fact that we got 10 submarines for the price of 9 because of using the advantages of bulk purchases, which anyone who shops in Costco knows exactly what he was talking about.

Again, that is a fact, that we achieved great savings by using the block buy purchase mechanism. So I certainly strongly support Mr. Wittman's efforts here.

Again, I note that the $49 million that Mr. Visclosky talked about is in the amendment that is fast approaching, but it was not to cut the program; it was talking to the Navy, a recognition that the change orders that occurred in the last carrier, which is first in class, will not occur to the same extent. So we are really just talking about excess change orders, which, again, as the learning curve improves for carrier production, the Navy and the Armed Services Committee calculated would produce that kind of savings without inefficiencies and without doing harm to the carrier program.

So, again, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for supporting Mr. Wittman's amendment. I look forward to working together in terms of both committees to try to achieve the goals of a strong 355-ship Navy.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan, straightforward amendment that funds long-lead materials to boost construction of Virginia-class submarines to three per year, starting in 2022.

This amendment comes in response to the adamant, persistent warnings of our combatant commanders in testimony before Congress--Admiral Harris of the Pacific Command and General Scaparrotti of the European Command--that submarines are their number one unfilled priority.

This appropriations bill, unlike the NDAA, which passed 351-66, unfortunately, does not give the Navy the tools to answer that demand signal.

Here is the reality: Today, the fleet has 52 subs. The two per-year build rate in this bill will result in a drop to 42 submarines in 2028, as shown on this chart from official numbers straight from the Navy, because subs are aging out faster than the two-per-year build rate can replace.

My amendment does answer the demand signal of the COCOMs, raising the build rate to three per year at the earliest possible window, based on Navy analysis of industrial base capacity that was submitted to Congress last February.

Mr. Chairman, right now, in real time, the next 5-year block contract is being negotiated, which will determine the Nation's submarine construction until 2023. If this amendment fails, Members should be crystal clear that our Nation cannot get that time back to magically add subs later. It takes 5 years to build an attack sub, and this year's bill coincides with block negotiations in a make-or-break moment.

The offsets to pay for this amendment were part of the NDAA that a bipartisan majority of us just passed on May 24 and do not--I repeat, do not--cut a single ship or plane from the base bill, despite some of the claims that are flying around regarding this amendment.

In particular, a last-minute DOD letter out yesterday about out-year impacts is pure speculation. We will talk about this more later.

I am proud to say that my amendment is supported by some of America's most distinguished Navy officers, the last two CNOs, Admirals Roughead and Greenert; the former Fleet Forces Commander, Admiral Robert Natter; and the former Commander of Sub Forces, Admiral Michael Connor; as well as the Navy League and the metal trades of the AFL-CIO.

Mr. Chairman, they understood the urgency expressed by other COCOMs. Now the question is whether Congress will rise to the challenge they threw down.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from Admiral Greenert, Admiral Roughead, and the two most recent CNOs, Admiral Natter and Vice Admiral Connor.

June 2018.

Hon. Mac Thornberry,

Chairman, House Armed Services Committee.

Hon. Robert Wittman,

Chairman, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Hon. Adam Smith,

Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee.

Hon. Joe Courtney.

Ranking Member, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommitee.

Dear Chairmen Thornberry and Wittman, and Ranking Members

Smith and Courtney, Thank you for your leadership in passing

another timely and insightful NDAA for 2019. In my opinion

your respective committees have led the way in Congress in

proposing strategic and coherent defense related legislation.

I want to pass along my belief in the importance of this

bill's provision regarding the expansion of our undersea

capabilities--particularly the submarine fleet.

During my 40-year career, including my tenure as CNO, our

Navy ``owned'' the Undersea domain. Navy's superiority in the

undersea domain has been unchallenged, predominantly due to

the excellence of the submarine force. This is no longer

assured. Real threats are emerging--fast.

Our industrial base builds the finest submarines in the

world. Combatant Commanders consistently request a robust

submarine presence. And, the demand for submarine presence

has grown even more since I retired in 2015. Navy's recent

Force Structure Assessment, embraced by the Executive and

Legislative Branches, validates a need for 66 submarines. The

need is real and urgent. However, without near term

additional legislative action our fleet is on track to reach

41 attack submarines by 2029. This will leave our future

civilian and military leaders woefully short of a key

platform to meet emerging challenges in the undersea (and

surface) domain.

The House 2019 NDAA recognized that sustaining an SSN build

rate of two-per-year would not arrest, and reverse, the

decline in the undersea fleet. Authorizing additional

resources for increased SSN production, specifically

preserving the option to use available industrial capacity in

2022 and 2023 to reach a three-per-year build rate, is

exactly the kind of thoughtful and tangible legislative

action, and messaging, we need. Again, your respective

committees are leading the way. As Congress continues its

work on defense authorization and appropriation in the near

term, I would urge your colleagues to see the opportunity and

flexibility inherent in this option--and support the plan

laid out in the 2019 NDAA passed by the House.

Our undersea superiority is being challenged. The recent

acknowledged loss of intellectual property (Sea Dragon) is a

recent example. I urge the Congress to embrace this unique

opportunity presented by the House 2019 NDAA. Our security

depends on this sort of bold and innovative action.

Sincerely,

Jonathan W. Greenert,

Admiral, USN (Retired).

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank Mr. Visclosky and Ms. Granger for the courtesy and, again, having parity in terms of the time. I realize this is an extraordinary situation. They have a lot of folks who want to take the opposite position, but this is a really good comity in terms of the field.

Mr. Chair, having been pretty close to this issue over the last 12 years, I would like to add just a little bit of perspective in terms of this initiative which, again, started at the Seapower Subcommittee.

The last two times block contracts were being negotiated was in 2007 and in 2012. In both instances, the Congress plussed up the budget for submarine construction exactly the same way we are doing it in this amendment: by funding long-lead materials; advanced procurement; purchase of a reactor, which will be built in Ohio, by the way. That gave the Navy the tools to increase their block buy.

It was done, incidentally, over the objection of the Department of Defense. I was there with Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young who, again, decided to override that objection at the time. That is when we went from one- sub-a-year to two-subs-a-year production.

In 2012 we had a similar situation where the White House, the Obama administration, only requested nine subs in the next block contract, the block 4. Again, the two committees working together boosted that block authority in appropriations to get to 10 a year. Again, that was over the objections of the Department of Defense.

I realize we are going to hear a lot from my colleagues, my good friends, about Mr. Shanahan's letter that objects to my amendment. I would just say that that is not the first time we have heard that. Luckily, we have leadership in Congress which withstood those arguments. Otherwise, we would be in a worse predicament than we are today.

Again, follow past precedent. The 23 bipartisan amendment cosponsors and I strongly urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank both the chair and the ranking member for the time they have allotted.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of my friend, Connecticut state representative and lifelong dairy farmer, Mr. Jack Tiffany. We lost Jack this past February, and I'd like to take a moment to reflect on the life of this dedicated public servant, who spent thirty years representing the 36th district of Connecticut.

John J. Tiffany II, or ``Jack'' as we knew him, was a native of Lyme, Connecticut. The valedictorian of the Old Lyme High School class of 1950 went on to earn a Bachelor of Science in dairy production at the University of Connecticut. He then served his country in the Army Corps of Engineers before finally settling into his life as a dairy farmer, a tradition he carried on like the seven generations of Tiffanys that came before him.

Jack got his start in local politics when he was elected to the Lyme Board of Selectman.

Not long after, he sought higher office in the Connecticut General Assembly and won his seat in a special election. He also served as chairman of the Lyme Board of Education for several years. Jack was extremely well-respected by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and was known across the state for his hard work, candor, and exemplary character. I had the chance to see Jack's fine work up close and in person during the time I held the state legislative seat from the town of Vernon from 1987 to 1994. We were from different parties, but that didn't mean a thing in all of our interactions. It was truly an honor to serve with him, and his example is an important one for all of us in public office.

Jack never lost sight of the challenges that Connecticut dairy farmers face. Each morning, before traveling to Hartford, he rose to do the farm chores. He once declared on the floor of the Connecticut General Assembly, ``I am a dairy farmer by birth, I am a dairy farmer by education and I am a dairy farmer by choice.'' Even after leaving the General Assembly in 1992, he continued to advocate for farmers. He was a lifelong member of the Lyme Grange and several other agricultural associations.

In addition to being a great public servant, Jack was a loving husband, father, and grandfather. He is survived by his wife Susan, their children Hannah and John, as well as their grandchildren Erica and Lauren. He will be dearly missed by his friends, family, and the Lyme community at large. I ask my colleagues to please rise in recognition of Jack's lifetime of service. May we all look to him as an example of honesty, humility, hard work, and stewardship.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Takano for yielding and for his hard work on the Veterans' Affairs Committee to bring this important milestone for Vietnam veterans to the floor today. And I also want to thank Chairman Roe for the hard work that obviously went in in terms of the markup process, the negotiations with all the different members, and to make all the pieces fit together; and your colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Walz, who, again, was a partner through that process; Mr. Valadao, who is, again, the lead sponsor as well. Again, this is a real team effort.

There were 330 cosponsors to this bill, which, frankly, there are not a lot of bills that you can really say that about. Obviously, there were some impediments that we had to sort of work our way through. This was good, hard work, real legislating, that brought this measure to the floor.

As has been said, back in 2001 the VA ruled against a Navy veteran, Mr. Jonathan Haas, who served on the ammunition ship USS Mount Katmai off the coast of Vietnam, in his attempt to get Agent Orange benefits using the presumption that, again, extended to folks who served on the ground forces. Again, the foot-on-the-ground rule was used by the VA to deny Mr. Haas his claim; and, again, it has acted as an obstacle ever since.

In the 112th Congress, a Blue Water Vietnam Veterans Act was introduced in 2011. Didn't pass. In the 113th Congress, a similar bill was introduced, and it didn't pass. Again, in the last Congress, the 114th, in 2015, we had another measure which was introduced and didn't pass.

Yes, we are here today, for the first time ever, to address this grave injustice--which uses a very arbitrary, technical rule that defies common sense--and open a path for folks who served in the U.S. Navy, our sea forces, to make sure that they get equal treatment in terms of getting the care that they need and, frankly, that they have earned.

If you look at some of the other countries that have dealt with this issue, like the Royal Navy of Australia, they have actually shown that folks who served in the Royal Australian Navy in Vietnam, one of our great allies during that conflict, actually had a higher incidence of cancer than folks who served in the land forces.

So it is high time that we move forward with this measure, again, with all the grassroots support across the country with all the VSOs. Paul Dillon, a retired master chief petty officer who served in the U.S. Navy, who is from Gales Ferry, Connecticut, is watching like a hawk this measure, as are many of his colleagues who served in that era.

I think they are going to feel some measure of confidence that the system actually listened to the external pressure that has built up year in and year out since 2001 to restore justice in the VA system, to make sure that those who served on the seas are treated the same way as those who served on the ground in that conflict.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge passage of this measure and, again, congratulate the hard work of those on the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, June 7, the Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions, announced that: ``After careful consideration and with the approval of the President of the United States,'' his lawyers joined the State of Texas in Federal Court in a lawsuit to strike down standing provisions of the Affordable Care Act that protect patients from being denied health insurance coverage because of preexisting medical conditions.

This stunning announcement was made despite the fact that Congress has not, and I repeat, has not repealed this part of the law, which is right here, page 1 of the Affordable Care Act, and despite the fact that President Trump and the Republican leaders have repeatedly promised to leave this section of the law alone.

The President, in his 2017 State of the Union said: ``First, we must ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions have access to coverage.''

Speaker Ryan: ``We are on a mission to make sure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare, especially those with preexisting conditions.''

The Representative who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that writes healthcare laws stated: ``We've talked about the protection for those with preexisting illnesses for the last year, and we're not going to budge either.''

Thursday's announcement by President Trump's Attorney General to attack preexisting condition protections as unconstitutional, and the deafening silence over the last 5 days in the wake of that announcement from GOP leaders in the House, shows that all those heartfelt comments and words were nothing more than crocodile tears.

From day one, the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act with no meaningful replacement, and last week's latest attack, shows this President and his political allies in Congress just plain don't care about the millions of Americans who struggle with medical conditions that they have no control over.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is not just a Washington, D.C., political squabble. It is not just a courtroom battle between lawyers. It goes to the heart of whether we, as a Nation, will join the rest of the developed world to treat all Americans for disease, accidents, and chronic illness in a fair and just manner.

Here are the facts. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, up to 133 million Americans have conditions that insurance companies, using the old rules of medical underwriting, defined as preexisting conditions, conditions like diabetes; cancer; high blood pressure, which I have; epilepsy; MS; Parkinson's; stroke, to name just a few. Again, this is the list that insurance companies use to screen people for whether or not they would actually deny them coverage at all, no matter how big a subsidy or no matter how much money you had to pay.

Last year, during the debate on repeal, I heard from constituents in my district who benefited from the Affordable Care Act protections, like Michelle from Killingworth who said: ``Before the ACA, I tried to buy affordable health coverage, but I was turned down by major insurance companies due to preexisting conditions.''

Patricia from Old Saybrook: My adult daughter has a chronic disease that costs over $10,000 every 6 weeks to treat. Our insurance is a godsend.

Richard from Killingworth, a 63-year-old former educator who sustained TBI in an accident and was treated for prostate cancer: ``Thankfully, due to the Affordable Care Act, I have been able to access healthcare that I need.''

Michele from Preston, she and her husband rely on ACA coverage.

This decision by the Attorney General last Thursday cannot and must not stand, and the voters in November will remember if this body does not act to protect people, their health coverage, for preexisting conditions.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.

I want to begin by thanking the chair and ranking member of the full committee for their leadership in getting this bill to the floor and their commitment to regular order.

The bill before us has already gone through several rounds of bipartisan input, from the thousands of individual requests from members of the House Committee on Armed Services to more than 420 amendments and more than 14 hours of debate at full committee markup, to more than 560 amendments submitted from the whole House for potential debate this week.

I believe that this commitment to regular order is one of the main reasons, when we pass this bill this week, it will be the 58th year in a row that the House has passed a defense authorization.

I also salute my friend and colleague, Chairman Rob Wittman, for his inclusive and bipartisan approach to his role on the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

This year's mark continues a multiyear, bipartisan effort by the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces to push the Navy to explore options to build up important capabilities. To that end, the bill before us recommends 3 additional battle force ships above the 10 ships in the President's request.

It also continues the National Security Multi-Mission Vessel program to ensure that future mariners at our State maritime academies have new, American-made training ships and follows on last year's work on the subcommittee to recapitalize the Ready Reserve Force.

This bill also builds on the work our subcommittee has done to ensure that the Navy and industry have the resources to expand our undersea force. The need and rationale for a larger force of 66 fast attack submarines was laid out in the Navy's 2016 Force Structure Assessment, which was based on a thorough analysis of strategic challenges that are emerging in the maritime domain.

This year, and for the second year in a row, the committee heard blunt and powerful testimony from both Admiral Harris of Pacific Command and General Scaparrotti of European Command that their requirements for submarines are not being met by our current force structure and warned that the expected decline in the undersea fleet carried unacceptable risk for the country.

Last year, the Committee on Armed Services responded to these warnings by including authorization to procure additional submarines in our mark--authority that was eventually carried to the final NDAA and this year's omnibus.

Navy officials have recently testified before the subcommittee about their intention to use this new authority to provide options for additional submarines in the next 5-year construction contract. Therefore, this year, the NDAA will make a downpayment on two additional submarines by providing authorization to fund the long-lead materials necessary to take advantage of industrial base capacity in fiscal years 2022 and 2023.

I also note that this shipbuilding plan was based on the 2016 Force Structure Assessment and is not tied to the Nuclear Posture Review. The shipbuilding plan is about platforms; the posture review is about armaments. Its call for low-yield nuclear weapons is a profound departure from our existing strategic defense, and I want to associate my remarks today with Mr. Smith regarding that issue.

This bill and the committee report also include several provisions which I sought in committee, including additional support for our Procurement Technical Assistance Centers, continued support for DOD impact aid, and ensuring that our troops receive imminent danger pay in a timely matter.

Finally, I want to highlight the hard work of the staff for their tireless effort to put together the Seapower sections of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I thank Dave Sienicki, Bruce Johnson, Phil MacNaughton, and Megan Handal. None of this is possible without the countless hours they put in and the invaluable expertise they provide us.

Mr. Chair, I again thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for a productive and collaborative process that has led to, I believe, an excellent product here today.

First of all, I want to thank Congressman Perlmutter and Congressman Huffman who have been, again, diligent in terms of coming to the floor on a regular basis to push back against what is clearly a pretty coordinated, concerted effort to discredit the Mueller investigation. It is really pretty disturbing on many levels, fundamentally because it is an attack on institutions within our country which we all took an oath to uphold and defend.

The rule of law is, frankly, one of the fundamental pillars of this country in terms of being a free society. When you have folks who, again, are holding public office going beyond just disagreements of opinion regarding actions that all of us as public officials have to be held accountable for, but really to attack the institutions themselves, which is clearly the drumbeat of criticism of the Mueller investigation and where it is headed, is something that really we need to speak out and push back against.

Again, the 1-year anniversary is, I think, a very important moment to step back and reflect in terms of where this investigation started and where it is today.

Again, if you go back a year ago and look at the reaction that greeted this appointment from, again, Republican leaders, Newt Gingrich, Robert Mueller is a superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity.

Speaker Paul Ryan: ``My priority has been to ensure thorough . . . investigations are allowed to follow the facts wherever they may lead. . . . The addition of Robert Mueller as special counsel is consistent with this goal, and I welcome his role at the Department of Justice.''

Senator Cory Gardner:

Robert Mueller had an incredible reputation.

Senator Orrin Hatch:

I commend the Department of Justice for bringing an

independent voice to help clarify this situation.

The list goes on and on. And again, why not? I mean, Robert Mueller is somebody who has a record of service to this country going back to when he was a marine in Vietnam. He led a rifle platoon, was wounded, received a Purple Heart as well as the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and two Navy Commendation medals for his military service.

He went on, obviously, to become a distinguished legal practitioner. He was appointed by President Bush to be the head of the FBI and did such a great job that, after his 10-year term, the U.S. Senate extended his term 2 years by a vote of 100-0.

So when you are talking about somebody who has really earned a reputation for being, really, a pretty conservative prosecutor, both in terms of his time as a U.S. attorney and also in terms of his term as head of the FBI, we are dealing with someone who is beyond reproach, frankly.

And as was pointed out by Mr. Perlmutter, the decision came down at the Washington, D.C., district court by Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson in a 37-page opinion which, again, pushed back very powerfully about the notion that somehow he has strayed from his mission that the Department of Justice gave him.

Again, her decision, just in case after case, points out that the indictment of Manafort fell perfectly within the charge that he was given by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rosenstein, which, again, is to investigate other issues that ``may arise from the investigation.''

Again, in the case of Manafort, we are talking about somebody who was squarely within the intelligence community's conclusion that the election was basically under attack from Russians. Manafort's connections to Ukrainian interests, which clearly were sort of on the Russian side of Ukrainian politics, is just an obvious place for the special counsel to pursue.

Again, as you point out, the number of indictments, the number of convictions, clearly show that this is not a fishing expedition, it is not a witch hunt. It is a serious prosecution whose every-step-of-the- way actions have been ratified by the courts and also ratified by the appointing authority, Mr. Rosenstein.

It is time for all elected officials to step back and let this process proceed. Again, the forensics on this in terms of just the endorsements to Mr. Mueller's credibility and experience and knowledge in this area scream out for all of us to respect the rule of law and let this investigation proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for holding this event on the 1- year milestone of the Mueller investigation.

Mr. Speaker, real briefly, again, as I mentioned earlier and the two gentlemen have alluded to, we are talking about an effort to discredit the Mueller investigation that I think, really, as all Americans, we really should be concerned about the questions about whether or not our court system is truly fair, whether or not the FBI, the leading law enforcement agency of this country, is corrupt, which is, again, some of the language that has been sort of tossed around by the President's defenders. The harm that does in terms of really basic institutions in this country is something that I just think you can't treat as normal political discourse. We are talking about real long- lasting harm to the country.

Right now there are FBI counterterrorism agents who are hard at work, literally, as we are standing here on this floor, keeping this country safe. They are involved in investigations of mass shootings. You see the FBI jackets when these events happen, and they were in Connecticut when Sandy Hook took place.

I would just say, from a personal standpoint, my parents both served in the FBI. My dad was a G-man back in the day, and my mother actually was a clerical worker there. That is how they met, actually. So I guess you could say I was born under the watchful eye of the FBI.

But the fact of the matter is that he was somebody who was very proud of his service. Again, it was during World War II. His job was actually tracking fifth columnists in the U.S. who were looking to cause sabotage to critical facilities in the country.

Again, there are always, in every organization, instances where there are bad apples. But the fact of the matter is, as an institution, in terms of law enforcement, these agents are out there every single day protecting this country; and to attack not just an individual decision but an institution is, again, the real sort of level that we are watching happen here with the pushback on the Mueller investigation, and it is just totally unacceptable.

As I said, on the 1-year anniversary, it has proved its credibility, the Mueller team, in terms of concrete, real results. And the courts and, as I said, the Department of Justice have repeatedly reconfirmed and reaffirmed the rationale for the creation of the Mueller investigation and the fact that it is operating totally within the mission and charge that was given.

So I think it is important for all of us to continue to raise our voices and defend the rule of law and institutions that are out there to protect our Constitution and our democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act.

Next to me is a picture of Haddam Neck, Connecticut, which is a pristine part of the State where the Connecticut River and the Salmon River come together. Where the circle is on the photograph, there are 43 casks of spent nuclear power uranium rods that, again, today, pretty much cordon off that whole area. If you drove up in a car, you would be met by a platoon of heavily armed security guards who, for good reason, have to patrol that area every single day because of the dangerous material that is stored there. That has been the case for over 20 years.

It costs Connecticut ratepayers $10 million a year, again, for a site that should be long overdue for renovation and access to folks from all over the world because of its rich archeological and historical area.

This bill provides a way out for this area, along with 120 other sites across the country, where host communities have been saddled with storage of spent nuclear fuel because of the fact that this country has been unable to come together with a coherent policy. This bill provides a way out.

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the proponents on both sides of the aisle for getting us to that place.

Waterford, Connecticut, is also home to Dominion, a nuclear power plant with a similar situation that, again, is long overdue for change.

I also just want to note, as the Representative from Groton, Connecticut, the home of the nuclear Navy--it was where the Nautilus was first launched in 1956--we have, as a country, been transporting spent nuclear fuel for aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines for decades by land and by sea safely and efficiently, and the notion that we can't do this for our civilian nuclear power facilities is, frankly, just demonstrably untrue.

We can do this, and this bill provides, as I say, a mechanism for an interim storage that is sensible, that is logical, and is bipartisan. Again, I congratulate the proponents and strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this measure later this morning.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, at the House Armed Services Committee, Secretary James Mattis applauded the bipartisan collaboration and demonstrated political courage for lifting the spending caps of sequestration so that the military readiness of this country could catch up with the huge demands that are happening in terms of our national security.

I cite that reference this morning because, in looking at this balanced budget constitutional amendment, a FOX News reporter described the effect of this is that ``a balanced budget requirement would be sequestration amped up on a cocktail of anabolic steroids and fiscal fentanyl.''

If people worried about the U.S. military over the last 4 years since the Budget Control Act was passed because of sequestration, they should not vote for this balanced budget amendment because it is not only a straitjacket, it is a straitjacket with a constitutional lock that would freeze Congress' ability to provide the resources to defend our Nation.

Again, just look at the sequence of what happened in terms of sequestration and the damage it did to our country, and listen to what that FOX News analyst said that it would do to our national defense and to our country's ability to address its basic needs and kill Social Security and Medicare, which will be the target if this ever were to pass.

Mr. Speaker, today, April 11, 2018, is a special day in southeastern Connecticut. It marks the 150th anniversary of when the State of Connecticut and the city of New London conveyed a deed of gift to the U.S. Navy that today still stands as the Naval Submarine Base New London, which has had a glorious, distinguished career in terms of our national defense.

Again, on that date in 1867, when the deed was signed and given to Gideon Welles, who was the Secretary of the Navy at the time, himself a native of the State of Connecticut, Glastonbury, Connecticut, it was the result, again, of an effort by one of my predecessors, Congressman Augustus Brandegee, who got an authorization and an appropriation through the Naval Appropriations bill in 1867 that set up this conveyance.

Congressman Brandegee was a distinguished Member of this body. He was a strong supporter of abolition. He voted in favor of the 13th Amendment, and he was somebody who was a frequent friend of President Lincoln at the time. They rode horseback together in the morning, and he was a very strong ally of the President.

After that deed of gift was signed, the Navy base was a coaling station that provided a way station for Navy ships in New England waters to again get refueled. It also was a place that Civil War Navy ships were stored in the wake of that conflict.

Again, fast-forward to 1915. That is when the Navy actually designated that base as a submarine base. It was a timely event because, very shortly thereafter, with the U.S. involvement in World War I where U-boat activity, obviously, was the driving force for why the U.S. got into that conflict, the submarine base in New London became a critical part of our effort in terms of that conflict.

Moving forward, even from 1915 when the first G-boat subs arrived at the Navy base in World War II, as Admiral Nimitz, who headed up our efforts particularly in the South Pacific, stated frequently in the wake of Pearl Harbor: It was, in fact, the submarine force that really held the line against the Japanese onslaught that took place in that area.

The Groton base was a site where a lot of the submarines that were part of that conflict actually took on that struggle; again, tragic and catastrophic losses. Nonetheless, I think most historians, particularly in the Pacific region, will affirm it was, in fact, the submarine force that was critical in terms of holding the line, particularly in 1942 and early 1943.

After World War II, the Groton base played another huge role in our national defense with the development of the nuclear Navy. Admiral Hyman Rickover developed the USS Nautilus, which was launched in the 1950s. That all took place in Groton and New London, Connecticut. Electric Boat was the shipyard where the Nautilus was built.

Today, our submarine force is completely nuclear powered. We have 15 attack submarines at the Groton-New London base which are doing important work both in the European theater, in terms of Putin's much more

aggressive naval resurgent activities, as well as other combatant commands around the world.

So the wisdom of my predecessor, and certainly the State of Connecticut, to site a Navy base--a submarine base--now, today, in a place that is very strategic in terms of critical regions of the world is still paying important dividends for our national defense.

As I am standing here today, there is a ceremony that is taking place to commemorate Congressman Brandegee's vision, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles' participation, and all the great service that has taken place in the wake of that historic moment.

So to all of you up in the State and to all of the 10,000 sailors that serve at the Groton Navy Base today, I thank you for keeping this incredible legacy and important future mission alive because our national defense depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, in honor of the Sesquicentennial of Connecticut's Navy installation. On April 11, 1868, one hundred and fifty years ago today, a Deed of Gift from the State of Connecticut and the City of New London was signed, conveyed, and presented to Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, himself a native of Glastonbury, Connecticut.

The suitability of New London Harbor as a possible site for an established Navy base or depot had been discussed as early as 1799, but it was not until 1862 when a naval committee began considering possible locations for such a base. Instead of choosing a competing location, southeastern Connecticut's Congressman Augustus Brandegee succeeded in inserting language into the 1867 Naval Appropriations Act which directed the Secretary of the Navy ``to accept a deed of gift when offered by the State of Connecticut.'' Following a scouting visit by Commodore J.P. McInstry, the land along the eastern side of the Thames River, straddling the towns of Groton and Ledyard, was selected as the desired location. The local New London Navy Yard Committee, led by John Rogers Bolles, purchased all or portions of three large farms and other adjoining parcels to compose that initial gift of land.

The footprint of that nascent naval base was only 5,200 feet long and 700 feet wide, but the base slowly expanded as it served in the dry- docking of ships and then as a coaling station. Between 1868 and 1912, the New London Navy Yard supported a diverse range of missions, including berthing inactive Civil War-era ironclad warships and refueling naval vessels traveling in New England waters.

The installation's beginnings as the ``Home of the Submarine Force'' can be traced to 1900, when the Navy acquired its first submarine, USS Holland, for a sum of $160,000. In 1912, Congress rejected the Navy's proposal to close the New London Navy Yard, following an impassioned effort by eastern Connecticut Congressman Edwin W. Higgins, one of my predecessors in this office. During that debate, he stated that the ``action proposed is not only unjust but unreasonable and unsound as a military proposition'' He was right, and thankfully he prevailed in ensuring that the base remained open. New London then became the homeport for six submarines in October 1915, as well as the first ship built specifically as a submarine tender, USS Fulton, which arrived that November.

One-hundred and fifty years after its humble beginnings, Naval Submarine Base New London has grown to occupy more than 680 acres along the east side of the Thames River, with more than 160 major facilities, 15 nuclear fast-attack submarines, and more than 70 tenant commands and activities, including the Submarine Learning Center, Naval Submarine School, the Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, the Naval Undersea Medical Institute, and the newly established Undersea Warfighting Development Center.

Every day, our deployed undersea Sailors conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions along coastlines across the globe, track the movements of adversary navies, and deter threats to our homeland. While SUBASE New London has grown in size and importance, and the technology aboard submarines has evolved, the men and women who crew these vessels have constantly served with Honor, Courage, and Commitment.

In 1912, Congressman Higgins told his colleagues in Congress that ``Connecticut stands ready, as she always has, to bear her part of the burdens of the national defense.'' This remains as true today as it was in 1912 or even in 1868. My state is proud to be home of our nation's ``first and finest'' submarine base, and I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring this important milestone for Connecticut, for our nation, and for all those who serve, and

have served, at Naval Submarine Base New London.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a good friend and great public servant from North Central Connecticut, Police Chief Carl Sferrazza, who is retiring after a distinguished 38-year career with the Enfield Police Department.

An Enfield resident all his life, Carl's journey with the Enfield police department began in 1976 as an auxiliary police officer. Four years later, he was hired by the department to be a full-time member of the force. Carl started as a patrolman who experienced the nitty-gritty of police work, responding to emergency calls, enforcing motor vehicle laws, and acting as a mediator in the neighborhoods, keeping the peace. Sometimes he had to go above and beyond normal duty, earning himself three citations for heroism, one of which came after rescuing a father and his children from a house fire.

Over the years, Carl's talented work was recognized and he rose through the ranks, and eventually was promoted to Police Chief in 2005. Under his guidance and strong leadership, the police department received national accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies and joined regional public safety teams like Capitol Region Emergency Services Team and the Metro Traffic Services. These improvements are a direct reflection of Chief Sferrazza's leadership style. He sees Enfield as not just a place to go to work, but as his house, and its residents as his family. He has also implemented multiple programs such as the Citizens Police Academy and the annual awards night, strengthening the relationship between law enforcement and residents.

Chief Sferrazza's leadership does not end with the Enfield Police Department. He is the president of the Mt. Carmel Society and teaches criminal justice at his alma mater, Asnuntuck Community College. He is a devoted husband to Donnalee and father to Alex and Audra.

Mr. Speaker, Chief Carl Sferrazza has left a legacy of ``people- first'' leadership in his time at the Enfield Police Department. His footprint is large and wide on the town and will live on forever. I ask my colleagues to please rise to thank him for his decades of dedication to the people of Enfield. He has been a great example of civic responsibility to his neighbors and I know he will continue this example, even in his retirement. I wish him all the best in this next chapter.