Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in 2025, with growing global maritime threats, it is particularly important for Congress to exercise its constitutional mandate to ``provide and maintain a Navy.'' The Seapower portion of this bill accomplished that goal.

For example, the bill includes a plus-up of $5 billion to shipbuilding above the administration's request, including $1.9 billion to address glaring OMB budget request shortfalls in the Virginia submarine account. The Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee also strengthened the industrial base by replenishing last year's wage improvement authorities with 615 million new dollars to continue progress in hiring a new generation of shipyard workers in the metal trades.

For the Columbia-class program, the Navy's number one priority, the bill again fixes another glaring OMB blunder which short-funded Columbia in both the reconciliation bill and last month's continuing resolution.

The subcommittee provides Navy with contracting authority for five new Columbia subs, with incremental funding authority, eliminating the risk of a stop-work order which came close to happening because of the Columbia omission in last month's CR.

The bill also authorizes a boost to sealift, the new Marine Corps Landing Ship program with a vessel construction manager model, and the fourth Ford-class aircraft carrier.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the strong bipartisan support for allies and partners in the bill, the $400 million refill of the Ukraine Security Initiative and streamlining exports to our AUKUS partners.

Last week, the Pentagon's AUKUS review endorsed that security agreement, and this bill's massive commitment to the submarine industrial base and export reforms will keep us on track to sell three Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032 to our great ally Australia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee colleagues, particularly Chairman Trent Kelly, for their outstanding bipartisan work as well as the subcommittee staff: Phil MacNaughton, Kyle Noyes, Kelly Goggin, and Abby Snyder.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to mourn the passing of a longtime consummate public servant and friend, Connecticut State Representative Kevin Ryan. Representative Ryan died on November 23, 2025, after a courageous battle against cancer, surrounded in his final days by family, friends and political colleagues. He will be long remembered for his decades of public service and dedication to issues of public health and children's welfare.

Raised in Montville, Connecticut, Representative Ryan graduated from St. Bernard Boys High School before studying English and Biology at Villanova University. He went on to earn a Doctorate in Optometry and Public Health Certificate from the Pennsylvania School of Optometry and a Masters in Community Psychology from the University of New Haven.

Representative Ryan began his career in government service in 1985, when he was elected to the Montville Board of Education, where he served as Secretary for one year and Chairman for six years. In 1992, he was elected to the State House of Representatives for the 139th District, a seat to which he was re-elected 21 times, a powerful statement of how much the people of that district trusted and admired him. I had the honor to serve alongside Kevin for one term in the General Assembly on the public health committee, which I chaired, and we became friends for life. He had a shrewd understanding of the legislative process from day one, and a wicked sense of humor, which members from both sides of the aisle appreciated and enjoyed. At the State Capitol, during his tenure he served on the committees, which made a difference on the issues he cared deeply about--public health, environment, and appropriations.

Drawing on his educational background and passion for improving the lives of Connecticut's children, Representative Ryan also served on the Pilot Studies Committee. On this committee, Kevin helped address Medicaid administration and emergency medical services for Connecticut's youth and conducted a study on the proposed Constitutional Amendment on the Rights of Children. Throughout his career, Representative Ryan's legislative ability never faltered. Just this year, he sponsored multiple successful bills protecting workers' rights and increasing access to clean energy.

Ryan's service to the Montville community extended beyond his role as state representative. He was also a member of the Montville Public Safety Committee and Justice of the Peace and previously served as chair of the town's Democratic Committee. Kevin Ryan contributed to the Rotary, the Knights of Columbus, Moose Club, and the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, as well as the Alliance for Living Board of Directors and Eastern Connecticut Cable Television Advisory Board. He also furthered his interests in children's welfare and public safety as President of the Board of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Southeast Connecticut and Chairman of the Connecticut Nuclear Energy Advisory Council.

Representative Ryan made connections with legislatures across the country. He served as Treasurer and President of the National Conference of Legislators from Gaming States, Treasurer of the Summit of Rural and Agricultural Leaders, and National Vice President of the Council of State Governments, where he also sat on the Agriculture Committee.

Representative Ryan also benefited Connecticut's communities in his private life. He provided care at the Connecticut Visual Health Center in Bridgeport and Mobile Medical Testing Service (now known as Exemplar Health Services). He was also an Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of New Haven from 1980 until his death.

Representative Ryan earned innumerable commendations and awards, including the Distinguished State Legislature Award from the

Connecticut Psychological Association, Legislator of the Year from the Connecticut Farm Bureau, the American Lung Association's Breath of Life Award, a Public Service Award from the Connecticut Secretary of State, and Legislative Awards from the Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut. Representative Ryan was also named Champion for Community Providers by the Connecticut Community Providers Association and received a Community Service Award from the Norwich NAACP. He was a Henry Toll Fellow and a winner of the William Fitzgerald and Senator Chris J. Dodd Awards.

Mr. Speaker, Representative Ryan's loss is felt by his colleagues in Connecticut and across the country as well as his constituents in Ledyard, Montville, and Norwich. Kevin's irreverent humor and tenacious work ethic won't soon be matched. Representative Ryan championed the needs of his constituents to his last days, proving his commitment to his constituency. Despite how monumental a chasm is left by his death; I take solace in the knowledge that Representative Ryan's memory and example are survived by the countless lives he touched through his decades of service. I ask my colleagues join me in honoring Kevin's life and legacy.

Madam Speaker, as this headline from Newsweek magazine reports, a few weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Education issued probably the most out-of-touch, offensive new rule in the history of the Department, excluding nursing from its definition of ``professional occupations,'' part of its new graduate student loan program, which was created by the one big, ugly bill.

For the 4.7 million actively registered nurses and the 250,000 students enrolled in bachelor's, master's, and doctoral nursing programs across the United States, this decree that they are not professionals is both a disgraceful insult that shocks the conscience and an order which will condemn America's nurses into second-class status for Federal graduate student loan assistance.

Madam Speaker, this legal demotion is happening at a time when our country is experiencing a nursing shortage. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that we have 195,000 unfilled nursing positions in this country. The Department of Health and Human Services goes even higher. It says that it is 280,000. McKinsey & Company, a respected think tank, predicts that the shortage will grow to 400,000 by the end of this decade.

Madam Speaker, Members of this House don't really need to spend much time reading these reports to know that that shortage is real. Just go to any hospital, nursing home, or health clinic in your district, and you will hear the same thing: they are short-staffed in ERs, exam rooms, operating rooms, and on the floors. Short-staffing is bad for patients, and it is bad for nursing burnout.

Despite this blindingly obvious reality, the Education Department's designation is putting a hard cap of $100,000, with no indexing, on graduate student loans for nurses, all part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which my Republican colleagues passed in June. It is a healthcare monstrosity, which cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, cut out premium subsidies for 22 million Americans for their healthcare exchange plans, and now will suffocate the growth of our Nation's caring professions.

If you doubt my words, then maybe you will listen to the president of the American Nursing Association, the largest nursing professional organization in America. Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, the president, states: ``Nurses make up the largest segment of the healthcare workforce and [are] the backbone of our Nation's health system. At a time when healthcare in our country faces a historic nurse shortage and rising demands, limiting nurses' access to funding for graduate school threatens the very foundation of patient care.''

Well said.

Madam Speaker, ANA is doing more. They have organized a petition drive because this rule goes into effect next July. As of the middle of last week, they had 180,000 signatures, and that will grow.

Madam Speaker, it definitely will grow in the coming days. Every Member of this House--and I will be one of them--should write to the Department of Education saying that this rule makes no sense in terms of the healthcare system today and, also, is an insult to the people who go through extensive training, testing, and certification before they are allowed to practice their caring profession.

While we are at it, we should also help the other professions which were excluded by the Department of Education: physician assistants, physical therapists, audiologists, speech-language pathologists, architects, accountants, advanced degree educators, social workers, dental hygienists, and occupational therapists.

This proposal by the Department of Education is madness, and Congress should actually do more than just support the regulatory process in terms of reversing these rules. We should also go back and revisit the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and recognize, again, what our healthcare sector is telling us: We are risking the financial solvency of institutions all across America, and, again, we are damaging our

future in terms of getting young, motivated people to join the healthcare professions.

Mr. Speaker, after months and months of President Trump insisting that his tariffs are not paid by Americans, insisting that tariffs don't drive up prices, insisting that there will be no exclusions on exemptions from his liberation day tariffs that he imposed back in April, on Friday afternoon the White House very quietly released a statement that they, in fact, are exempting and carving out tariffs for a number of goods, which were blindingly obvious were going to be costing more because we do not produce any of those goods here in this country.

Included in his order are coffee, tea, fruit juices, tropical fruits, spices, bananas, oranges, and tomatoes. Obviously, if you talk to anybody who has been in a grocery store lately, the prices for all of those products have gone up by large margins, again, in the wake of the April tariffs that were put into place.

Coffee is up 19 percent. Bananas are up 7 percent. Oranges and lettuce are up 3 and 4 percent.

Again, it was so clear to anyone who was actually connected to the real world that grocery prices were going up and that we had to take steps to carve out exemptions for the sake of American consumers, our working families, and the middle class.

It was amazing to see how the President, in October, was actually giving speeches where he said prices have come way down and that we have gotten prices way down for groceries. That is the mentality which is in that White House. Again, these were tariffs that he imposed unilaterally without consulting Congress.

The question, though, is whether it is good that again there is going to be some price relief for some of these items, which never should have been tariffed to begin with. It begs the question about the rest of the economy that is getting harmed by tariffs.

The National Association of Home Builders announced after the tariffs were announced that it would raise the average cost of a new home by $11,000 because of the fact that so many parts and pieces that go into new home construction are imported. That is just a reality in our economy.

When we talk about the cost of living and affordability, if anything is close to maybe groceries, it is the cost of housing in terms of rents and getting new construction restarted.

What about that, Mr. President? Why don't we also look at what is clearly happening in our economy right now and provide relief for the American people who are groaning under the high cost of living?

The President has to look no further than the conservative Tax Foundation, which again is a right-of-center economic think tank. Its analysis is that, by October, tariffs have raised retail prices on all goods by nearly 5 percent relative to their pretariff trend line.

Instead of solving high inflation, the Trump tariffs have continued it and, in some instances, increased it. This includes a 6 percent increase for imported goods and 4.3 percent for domestic goods because a lot of our domestic goods incorporate items that, again, are imported from overseas.

The fundamental problem here is that this President believed in his mind that he himself had the power to impose these tariffs. Let's be very clear. A tariff is a tax on imported goods. It is a tax.

I am from New England. Remember the Boston Tea Party? It was about a tariff on tea that the British Government was trying to force the American colonists to pay.

A case was argued just a couple of weeks ago before the U.S. Supreme Court, where, again, the plaintiffs powerfully stated that the President did not have the authority to impose those taxes back in April. That is an Article I, Section 9 authority in the Constitution for the Congress.

For the sake of reestablishing the checks and balances in our country and for the sake of the American economy, where issues like tariffs, which require a lot of analysis, are very complex, and require Congress to be part of that decisionmaking--in fact, we are the decisionmakers, according to the Constitution--those tariffs should be struck down. We should go back to basics, which is that when we deal with tax policy, it is the power of Congress that prevails in terms of making those kinds of decisions.

The harm that has been done to the economy, the middle class, and working families because of the Trump tariffs, which, again, were just unilaterally and indiscriminately imposed against some countries that we actually have trade surpluses with, has to be rolled back.

There was an admission on Friday by the administration that their tariff policy has failed, and it is time for Congress to stand up and do its job to rebalance our economy.

Mr. Speaker, there are many flaws in the hastily written Senate Republican Continuing Resolution, before us today. The most egregious is the Continuing Resolution's failure to ``continue'' tax credits for health insurance which have been on the books for 4 years, right at the same time 24 million Americans are enrolling for 2026 insurance coverage in the ACA health exchanges. For millions, the abandonment of premium assistance will result in increases of 100 percent, 200 percent, and even higher. A couple in Enfield, Connecticut, in their 60s, who visited with me last week with their premium notice, are looking at an increase from $300/month to $2,449/ month. The only way they can pay that is to draw funds from their retirement 401k, triggering tax penalties on top of the increased out- of-pocket costs. My office heard from many other constituents with similar shocking increases, whose stories are attached to my written statement.

I also want to alert Members of the House that this new continuing resolution (CR) released this past Saturday November 8, 2025, which funds the government to January 30, 2026, has a serious gap in funding for the Columbia-class submarine program. This program, which has been referred to as the ``number one acquisition priority'' of both the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense, is building new ballistic submarines on a very tight schedule to replace the aging fleet of Ohio-class submarines, who have been on patrol starting in the 1980's. The first two submarines--USS District of Columbia and USS Wisconsin--are under construction and fully funded with appropriations approved by prior Congresses. The third, USS Groton SSBN 828 is ready to start construction, subject to Congress approving the funds.

For this CR, The Navy requested an anomaly for full fiscal year 2026 Columbia program funding to Congressional leadership to keep this program on track. In past years, this has been a normal request in order to make sure production stays on schedule, regardless of late passage of the full Navy budget. Astonishingly, Mr. Speaker, the Senate continuing resolution refused the Navy's request and Columbia program has zero additional funding. This is not a minor bookkeeping concern. The absence of a set aside, or anomaly, to fund construction of SSBN 828, will create serious risk of a halt work order to the production schedule of the Nation's most critical defense program.

The legislative chaos of the last two months, with the House shut down at the Speaker's behest, has suffocated the normal communication and negotiation that would address glaring harm, such as the cut off of health insurance subsidies and steady funding of the Navy's shipbuilding budget. There is a better path, Mr. Speaker, which is to have our chamber exercise its independent constitutional role and protect both the health care and national security of our Nation. Reject this budget and fix these glaring flaws. I include in the Record the following written statements from my constituents:

Kristin McShane--Norwich

My name is Kristin McShane and I live in Norwich CT. My

husband and I own a martial arts school. We buy our health

insurance through the state health exchange and on average

pay $850 a month for insurance. We got a letter the other day

that our rates will be increasing a lot due to ACA rates

expiring. On top of high monthly premiums, we have high

deductibles and many things are not covered. We also pay for

all vision and dental expenses out of pocket as they are not

covered and out of pocket coverage is even more than that.

It's hard to have so much of our monthly income going to

medical bills and insurance. We haven't been told exactly

what our increase will be but we are going to have to make

cuts to other parts of our lives to afford them. It's not

right or fair to give very earthly people tax breaks while

increasing necessary expenses for average hard working people

who are barely getting by. I can't remember the last stress

free day we have had because of the increasing costs of

everything but most especially healthcare.

Caleb--Norwich

As a small business owner in Connecticut, I am writing to

share my deep concern about the potential loss of the health

insurance exchange and the premium tax credits.

For business owners like me, the ACA marketplace (the

exchange) is often the only way to get affordable health

coverage. The tax credits are not just a small help--they are

essential. Without them, many of us, our families, and even

our employees would not be able to afford health insurance.

Losing this system would negatively impact our business. It

would mean facing impossible choices between our health and

our livelihood. It makes it harder to run a stable business,

stay productive, and provide for our families.

We are counting on you to protect the health insurance

exchange and the tax credits that make coverage possible.

Please oppose any efforts that would take away this critical

support for Connecticut's small business community.

Lee--Mystic

She and her partner buy their insurance through the

exchange and she's expecting their premium to go from $700 to

approximately $2,500 per month. Her partner left a higher

paying job last year to take a different role without

insurance, and now they aren't sure if they can make it work.

Anonymous--Clinton

I won't be able to afford insurance next year without the

ACA. I work for a small business that can't afford to offer

benefits. At 54 I will go without coverage and hope I stay

healthy.

Anonymous--East Haddam

I am a widow who resides with my 23-year-old son who just

graduated from college in May '24. He is, and has been,

seeking full time employment in the criminal justice field. I

have a full-time and part-time job. My full-time employer

does not provide medical insurance. Both my son and I are on

a medical/dental insurance policy which I purchased through

Access Health CT. Due to our household income, we qualify for

tax credits. Even with these tax credits, I am currently

paying close to $700/month for our insurance. I know that I

cannot afford a monthly premium upwards of $1000!

It is a well-known fact that health insurance premiums in

the United States are ridiculous! Our healthcare system is

broken, now it will become unaffordable! it is a sad

statement when other countries medical programs far surpass

the United State of America!

Jill--Niantic

Current plan is no longer available. New Bronze Anthem plan

($6k deductible) but without dental or vision. Premium is

$1,384.15 which is a 14% increase. Premium tax credits are no

longer available, leading to a monthly premium of $1,384.15

(258% increase) however, also need to add in a dental plan

with premium of $23.56 so final monthly premium for 2026 will

be $1,407.71.

Versus 2025 premium of $386.90 means the premium increase

is $1,020.81 every month (264%) which is $12,249.72 for the

year or 13% of our annual income. Additionally, under

the new plan available, copays have been changed to co-

insurance and I've lost vision insurance.

Anonymous--Enfield

Currently paying $295.70 per month for 2 adults. Going up

to $2,449 per month.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would have our Nation turn its back on the brave people of Ukraine in their greatest hour of need by cutting off all military assistance.

As we stand here today, Russia's illegal invasion, which is now in its fourth year, is intensifying to the highest levels of the war, despite all of the oily, phony, happy talk coming from Vladimir Putin about seeking peace.

On Saturday, Russia launched the largest drone assault of the war, with 805 drones and 13 cruise missiles, killing 5 people and hitting the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The Tuesday before, a glide bomb killed 23 Ukrainians. Just last night, Russian and Belarusian drones made 19 hits in sovereign Polish airspace, scrambling NATO F-35s and F- 16s to fend off civilian casualties.

It was Ukraine's air force that alerted their neighbors in Poland to these blatantly illegal incursions, demonstrating Ukraine's commitment to protecting not only their own population but the rest of Europe.

If this amendment were to pass, it would cripple not only Ukraine's legal right to defend itself but also our NATO Treaty allies.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3838 as it came out of committee. The bipartisan tradition of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee continued this year under the leadership of my good friend, Chairman Trent Kelly, to ensure maximum support for our sailors, airmen, and marines.

I would note our job was made much more difficult by the ridiculously late submission of a budget by the budget office, which they then split and mangled by disregarding input from the sea services. Nonetheless, we overcame that challenge with this year's mark.

The bill includes my bipartisan table amendment which authorizes an increase in the Virginia-class submarine program by $1 billion. This plus-up was needed to address a serious Virginia-class program budget office shortfall and will ensure full authorization of two Virginia- class submarines in fiscal year 2026.

Madam Chair, today, a total of four Virginia-class submarines are slated to be delivered in 2025 and 2026. This bill's plus-up will grow the industry's backlog of work to 21 boats so we can overmatch our adversaries' nuclear fleets and fulfill our AUKUS commitments to sell three subs to Australia in 2032, 2035, and 2038. Mr. Kelly and I visited there in August and saw firsthand that nation's investment in their navy in anticipation, and we must act to keep up our end.

Further, the bill includes incremental funding authorization for the Columbia-class submarine program to avoid disruption of the Navy's most critical shipbuilding priority. Our mark directs investment and support for uncrewed and autonomous maritime platforms that are here to stay as part of our Navy's fleet of warships.

Procurement stability for shipbuilding and our maritime industrial base has never been more important, and passage of this NDAA will achieve that.

Madam Chair, fiscal year 2026 will mark the 65th consecutive NDAA, if signed into law. This legacy is one of bipartisanship and compromise.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support a bill that can be passed in a closely divided Congress and stay focused on the core mission of Congress to provide a strong national defense. That is what we did in committee. Under Mr. Smith's and Mr. Rogers' leadership, the bill passed 55-2. The men and women in uniform deserve no less than that example with final passage of this matter.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I represent the State of Connecticut, which today is the site in southern New England of an offshore wind energy project that is 9 years into the process, 80 percent complete with offshore wind turbines already installed. Forty-five out of 65 turbines are in the ground and have gone through exhaustive permitting, including the Department of Defense, in terms of making sure that this project will proceed safely and securely in an area where we have the largest military installation in New England, with the New London Submarine Base and Coast Guard presence there.

There is no question that this issue of radar interference was exhaustively investigated with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Air Force, and NORAD. All of them were brought into the permitting process.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter dated December 2024, which states clearly that the Department of Defense has found that construction of the Revolution Wind project would not have adverse impacts on DOD missions in the area.

Office of the Assistant

Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, December 13, 2024.

Reference: Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study

Number: 2021-WTE-2881-OE and 23 associated structures

Ms. Whitney Marsh:

;rsted, Providence, RI.

Dear Ms. Marsh, Thank you for your participation in the

Mitigation Response Team to assess and overcome military

impacts from your proposed Revolution Wind project off the

coast of Squibnocket Beach in Chilmark, Massachusetts. In a

letter dated October 27, 2021, the Department of Defense

(DoD) described the potential impacts to military operations

for the project.

As a result of discussions between ;rsted and the U.S. Air

Force and a resulting mitigation agreement signed by the

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and

Environment on November 4, 2024,

the Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting

Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) has found that construction of

the Revolution Wind Wind project, with no more than 65 wind

turbines up to 873 feet above sea level and no more than two

offshore substations up to 228 feet above sea level, would

not have adverse impacts to DoD missions in the area. The

Clearinghouse has entered a determination of ``No Objection

with Provision'' for this project via the Federal Aviation

Administration's (FAA) Obstruction Evaluation/Airport

Airspace Analysis system.

Our response to the FAA included a notification that

additional structure proposals or an increase to the current

maximum structure height may present an adverse impact. We

encourage you to engage DoD prior to any proposed expansion

or height increase.

If you have any concerns, please contact Ms. Robbin Beard,

Clearinghouse Deputy Director.

Sincerely,

Steven J. Sample,

Executive Director, Military Aviation and Installation,

Assurance Siting Clearinghouse.

Mr. Chair, this is documentary proof that the concern that is being raised with this amendment is something that is already part of the permitting process.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management signed off on the project. Again, we are about $4 billion into the project. The Trump administration, on August 22, put out a halt work order, citing national security concerns, with not a single bit of detail.

We have union jobs, laborers, operating engineers, and longshoremen who are now totally in limbo in terms of whether or not the good work that they have been doing, in compliance with a Federal permit on a project that has been paid for, is going to be suspended by issues that don't exist in terms of the process.

This issue is covered. Having this amendment pass would add an additional layer of delay on this project.

Time is the enemy in terms of these working families having their job security at a time when our labor market is eroding.

The project will also bring lower energy costs to southern New England.

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

Mr. Chair, NORAD and FAA examined this issue. It was raised about radars. There was a software upgrade that all parties agreed upon would mitigate and solve this problem, and that is why they issued this order permitting this project.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner), my good friend.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, on August 22, the Trump administration, with absolutely no warning, issued a halt work order to an offshore wind project off the coast of southern New England that has been in the works for 9 years.

The developers of this project have invested close to $4 billion, employed thousands of workers, and installed 45 out of 65 wind turbines that the Federal Government permitted in 2023.

As of August 22, 80 percent of the project is complete, and 100 percent of the turbine foundations have been placed on the ocean floor.

When the turbines are turned on, 704 megawatts of power will be transmitted by cable to Rhode Island and Connecticut. That is enough electricity to power 350,000 homes--400 megawatts to Rhode Island and 304 megawatts to Connecticut.

The wind power contracts approved by both States at a guaranteed rate will over time save money for ratepayers, particularly during cold, winter months, and will add to the grid at a time we all know demand for electricity is going to increase.

Incredibly, the Department of Energy's halt order was one-page long and cited nonspecific, vague ``national security concerns'' as the reason to suddenly eliminate good jobs and a plentiful supply of affordable electricity.

Despite repeated requests from the operators, the two States, and the congressional delegations, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, BOEM, has provided absolutely no description or detail of what exactly are the national security concerns that at this late hour could possibly justify such a drastic action.

The closest thing to an explanation came in a CNN interview with the Secretary of the Interior a few days ago, who cited ``radar interference'' and possible swarm attacks from undersea drones at the wind farm as potential threats.

Madam Speaker, here is the thing: During the yearslong permitting process, BOEM meticulously investigated all national security concerns, and its 2023 Record of Decision approving the project specifically had a section on national security. It specifically addressed the issue of radars which was resolved to the satisfaction of the Department of Defense and NORAD.

Madam Speaker, I have a letter from the Department of Defense dated December 2024, which states that the Department ``has found that construction of the Revolution Wind project . . . would not have adverse impacts to DOD missions in the area.'' I include this letter in the Record.

Office of the Assistant

Secretary Of Defense,

Washington, DC, December 13, 2024.

Reference: Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study

Number: 2021-WTE-2881-OE and 23 associated structures.

Ms. Whitney Marsh,

;rsted, Providence, RI.

Dear Ms. Marsh: Thank you for your participation in the

Mitigation Response Team to assess and overcome military

impacts from your proposed Revolution Wind project off the

coast of Squibnocket Beach in Chilmark, Massachusetts. In a

letter dated October 27, 2021, the Department of Defense

(DoD) described the potential impacts to military operations

for the project.

As a result of discussions between ;rsted and the U.S. Air

Force and a resulting mitigation agreement signed by the

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and

Environment on November 4, 2024, the Military Aviation and

Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse)

has found that construction of the Revolution Wind Wind

project, with no more than 65 wind turbines up to 873 feet

above sea level and no more than two offshore substations up

to 228 feet above sea level, would not have adverse impacts

to DoD missions in the area. The Clearinghouse has entered a

determination of ``No Objection with Provision'' for this

project via the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)

Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis system.

Our response to the FAA included a notification that

additional structure proposals or an increase to the current

maximum structure height may present an adverse impact. We

encourage you to engage DoD prior to any proposed expansion

or height increase.

If you have any concerns, please contact Ms. Robbin Beard,

Clearinghouse Deputy Director.

Sincerely,

Steven J. Sample,

Executive Director, Military Aviation and Installation

Assurance Siting Clearinghouse.

Regarding the swarming undersea drones, Revolution Wind has a contract with ThayerMahan, a maritime company that installs and operates undersea surveillance technology using sonar rays and pickets to keep watch and detect malign activity. They protect wind farms today. They protect oil rigs today. They protect U.S. maritime ports today with the finest technology.

Madam Speaker, Secretary Burgum and his staff at BOEM should review its own prior investigation on national security and actually meet with the developers and undersea experts in Connecticut and Rhode Island to learn about the thorough, comprehensive investments and systems that were developed with the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure the safe, reliable operation of the wind farms.

Madam Speaker, this halt work order needs to be overturned quickly. As we heard on Friday, the U.S. labor market is weakening, and we know the cost of electricity is going up.

Leaving Revolution Wind in limbo with thousands of jobs on the line is completely unacceptable.

It is no secret that the President doesn't like wind power, but this project has been permanent, paid for, and is 80 percent finished. Leaving the halt work order in place is hurting working families and electric ratepayers.

Lawsuits have been filed, and the U.S. Government and taxpayers are going to pay dearly for this uncalled for about-face on a project that the government approved 2 years ago.

The better path is to quickly lift the order, meet face-to-face with the developer and the Governors of Rhode Island and Connecticut to end this chaos and get the operating engineers, the longshoremen, the laborers, and the electrical workers back on track to finish the job that today is 80 percent finished.

That is not a partisan statement. That is simple common sense.

Madam Speaker, after an extraordinarily lengthy recess that Speaker Johnson ordered at the third week of July, Congress is finally back in session with a huge to-do list.

If there was any benefit in terms of having Members back home, though, it was an opportunity to go out and listen to what is on people's minds. Townhall meetings and community gatherings offer, again, Members of Congress a chance to listen to people in terms of what they care about the most.

I had a number of those events, in Mansfield, Colchester, and Old Saybrook, Connecticut, with very packed rooms. The issue that was of most concern was H.R. 1, what President Trump calls the one big, beautiful bill.

While Congress was away, the Congressional Budget Office had a chance to finally zero in on final numbers in terms of the impact of H.R. 1, the one big, beautiful bill.

It was being written over and over again and changing up until the final minutes, but they finally got some clarity. What they determined was that the number of people who will lose their health insurance coverage because of H.R. 1 is 10 million, 7.5 million people on Medicaid and another 2 million people who get their insurance through private health plans on the exchange.

They also calculated the debt impact in terms of H.R. 1 because of the massive giveaway to billionaires and the top 1 percent of this country. They determined that the bill is going to add $3.4 trillion to America's deficits between 2025 and 2034.

The debt service on that additional debt is an additional $718 billion. That is just pure interest. It has no value in terms of services or programs that actually help the American people.

Because of that debt figure, the bill triggered another law called paygo, the pay-as-you-go law, which was passed in the 1990s to put pressure on Congress not to pass legislation with that big of a deficit impact. Unfortunately, the majority ignored the paygo rule.

What CBO told us on August 15 is that will trigger automatic cuts to other programs. That is the way the paygo law was designed to create some deterrent on Congress from excessive deficit spending.

Madam Speaker, the Medicare program, the program that helps people over the age of 65, will take the hit of 4 percent across the board. It will be a $45 billion paygo cut because of this measure.

In addition to those numbers, we are also hearing from the groups who are going to be impacted. Madam Speaker, in this morning's Connecticut press, there is a story titled: ``What worries CT hospital leaders about Trump's Big Beautiful Bill.''

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the article from the CT Mirror.

[From CT Mirror, Sept. 2, 2025]

What Worries CT Hospital Leaders about Trump's Big Beautiful Bill

(By Katy Golvala)

Connecticut's health care leaders and state officials have

been warning for months about the potentially devastating

impacts of President Donald J. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill

Act on access to care for millions of Americans.

Nearly two months after the law's passage, hospital

executives here say there are critical details still unknown

that make it difficult to determine exactly how it will

impact providers and patients.

``My best guess is it's not going to be good for hospital

providers and health care in general,'' Vincent Capece,

president and CEO of Middlesex Hospital, an independent

hospital located in Middletown, CT. ``There's going to be

less money available, but exactly how much and how that all

works out when the dust settles is really hard to

calculate.''

The law makes several changes to Medicaid, known as HUSKY

in Connecticut, that are projected to kick anywhere from

100,000 to 170,000 residents off the program in the next

decade. It also impose new limits on the amount of Medicaid

funding states can collect from the federal government

through what's known as the ``hospital provider tax.''

Those are just some of the policies that could spell

trouble for a hospital's bottom line.

Health care researchers predict the law's major components,

some of which aren't slated for implementation until 2027 at

the earliest, will pose the greatest challenge to rural

hospitals and those that serve a large share of Medicaid

patients. Hospitals that aren't performing well financially

might also be less poised to absorb potential revenue hits

that the law's measures could bring.

The Connecticut Mirror spoke with hospital executives from

around the state about how they're approaching major pending

federal changes.

Most of the hospital leaders who spoke for this article

said it's still too early to consider scaling back services

in response to the federal cuts.

Ben Wade, chief strategy officer at Stamford Health, said

he's hopeful they'll be able to manage costs without reducing

access to services.

``We have not identified any programs at this time for

closure,'' Wade said. ``We don't plan to do that.''

However, leaders at small community and rural hospitals

acknowledged that they may have to scale back the

availability of certain services.

``It's not necessarily cutting programs,'' Kurt Barwis, CEO

of Bristol Hospital, said. ``It's starting to look critically

and strategically at ``How do I retool these programs to

accomplish the same thing but at a lower cost?' ''

Barwis said he's established partnerships with larger

hospital systems, like UConn Health and Hartford HealthCare,

and expects to do more of these in the future.

Kyle Kramer, CEO of Day Kimball Hospital in Putnam, said

service changes are ``inevitable'' at rural community

hospitals like his, where they must always think about

whether there is enough demand for a particular service, he

said.

``There has to be a high enough level of volume to maintain

that proficiency,'' Kramer said. ``And if it becomes a

service that is too expensive to offer, we've got to think

about, `Okay, is this something that we should partner with

somebody else who has larger scale to provide it?' ''

While the federal changes directly impact people who get

coverage through Medicaid and state-based exchanges, the

ripple effects will be felt by everyone, health care leaders

warned.

``The impact goes far beyond those who lose coverage. Our

entire health system and every community we serve will feel

the effects. Reduced services, longer wait times, staff

reductions, and the potential closure of programs and

facilities,'' Daniel Keenan, vice president of government

relations at Trinity Health of New England, stated in emailed

comments.

Keenan pointed to emergency rooms as an example. When

people don't have coverage, they turn to emergency

departments for basic care, resulting in crowding, service

delays and staffing issues that impact the entire system, he

said.

The changes could drive UP costs for people with private

insurance, as well.

Leaders at both Stamford and Middlesex hospitals say the

reductions in government Medicaid payments will likely force

them to negotiate increased payments from commercial

insurers, which could result in higher premiums for those

with private coverage.

``We will need to think about the upcoming commercial

insurance negotiations that we have to make sure that we have

the resources that we need to cover our expenses,'' Wade

said, adding that if insurers and employers don't opt to

absorb these costs, they will end up hitting people's

premiums.

One of the big areas of uncertainty lies with the hospital

providers tax, several hospital executives said. The provider

tax is an arrangement that allows states to increase the

amount of federal Medicaid dollars they get from the federal

government by collecting taxes from hospitals and then

redistributing those funds back to the facilities. The

exchange counts as Medicaid spending by states and entitles

them to extra reimbursements from Washington.

The federal budget bill decreases the ``safe harbor

limit''--or the rate at which states can tax hospitals--from

6 percent to 3.5 percent by 2031, with a phased-in reduction

beginning in 2028.

Even though the new limit won't take effect for several

years, federal waivers for the tax rate will pose an issue as

soon as next year, when the current provider tax agreement

between the state and hospitals expires. In advance of a new

agreement, approved by the legislature this year and slated

to take effect in July 2026, Connecticut will have to reapply

for a federal waiver to tax the hospitals above the safe

harbor limit in order to go ahead with its plan to increase

hospital taxes by $375 million.

In the past, states have been permitted to apply for

waivers to tax hospitals at rates exceeding the safe harbor

limit. Connecticut, for example, taxes hospitals at the

maximum

6 percent for inpatient revenues, but received a federal

waiver to tax outpatient revenues at slightly over 10

percent, said Paul Kidwell, senior vice president at the

Connecticut Hospital Association. It's unclear whether the

federal government will continue to grant such waivers, he

added.

``It's a big question mark,'' Kidwell said. ``We're

proceeding as if we can continue, with the knowledge that we

need more information from CMS in order to be certain.''

Capece, CEO at Middlesex Hospital, said the tax change

could be the biggest financial disruptor for his hospital,

even more so than changes to Medicaid eligibility.

``The risk really lies with regard to the provider tax

issue,'' Capece said. ``It's a huge amount of money.''

Barwis, of Bristol Hospital, called the expiration of the

agreement at the end of this fiscal year a looming ``day of

reckoning'' for Connecticut.

``Will [the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services]

grant a new waiver to keep it at 10.5 percent? Or will CMS

say, `No, no, no, we're not going to grant this waiver again.

You need to go down to 6 percent.' And how will that affect

hospitals in the state of Connecticut?'' Barwis said.

At least some Connecticut hospital leaders hope the most

potentially damaging effects of the bill could get scaled

back or repealed before they go into effect.

Wade, who oversees strategy at Stamford Health, said

there's a chance that, if Democrats take control of Congress

in the midterm elections, some of the changes could be

``pushed off or unwound entirely,'' he said.

``We're still doing a lot of advocacy at the federal level

because this is still a moving target,'' Wade said.

Kramer, who heads up Day Kimball, agreed that there's still

time for things to change. Capece from Middlesex said he,

too, is ``cautiously optimistic.''

CHA's Kidwell is less convinced the law could be scaled

back but, he said, he's grateful to be facing these federal

changes in a state that wants to help as many people as

possible keep their health coverage.

``We all have this goal of making sure as many people stay

insured as possible and that compliance with federal rules is

not so onerous that people fall off because of paperwork,''

Kidwell said. ``I don't think that's the same in other states

where they might have a different motivation.''

Madam Speaker, again, this journalist went out and interviewed hospitals across the State. This included urban, rural, and suburban hospitals. What all of them are reporting is that the hit of $1 trillion of Medicaid is going to ripple through the system and cause impact for everybody who relies on those critical services.

Daniel Keenan from Trinity Health Of New England, Saint Francis Hospital of Hartford is one of their big members. I was born there a number of years ago. He stated: ``The impact goes far beyond those who lose coverage. Our entire health system and every community we serve will feel the effects. Reduced services, longer wait times, staff reductions, and potential closure of programs and facilities.

``Keenan pointed to emergency rooms as an example. When people don't have coverage, they turn to emergency departments for basic care, resulting in crowding, service delays and staffing issues that impact the entire system.''

That affects everyone, and it will spill over into other people's employment-based insurance premiums, which the article goes through in great detail.

Madam Speaker, President Trump the other day said he actually doesn't think he wants to call the bill the One Big Beautiful Bill Act anymore. As he said, it was good for getting it approved, but it is not really good for explaining it to people. People have figured out enough in terms of deficit impact, taking away people's health insurance coverage, and the impact on services, particularly in the hospital sector, which they warned us about before the bill was passed. Yet, the majority and the White House turned a deaf ear.

We have a lot of work to do when we get back into town, starting tonight. Again, what would be nice is if all of the Members who had townhalls--and I know Republicans heard about this as well as Democrats--recognized that this bill is not the Ten Commandments.

Madam Speaker, we have the ability and the legal authority to make changes and listen to the people who are warning us that it is actually going to harm the American people, and there is nothing beautiful about it.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House of Representatives will be taking up H.R. 4275, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2025. That is legislation that updates and codifies changes and reforms to America's oldest continuous maritime service, the Coast Guard. It is actually called the first fleet because technically, actually the Coast Guard is older than the U.S. Navy.

This bill contains many good, bipartisan provisions that are addressing many of the challenges that the Coast Guard faces every day, whether it is drug interdiction, obviously doing the work in terms of our coastal, littoral regions of the country, and making sure we have safe passage of commercial and civilian maritime activity.

Included in this bill is a provision to reach out to our great ally Finland to update and modernize our icebreaker fleet. Our Polar Star large icebreaker is now 50 years old, and it is long past due, particularly with the challenges in the Arctic with Russia and China, to make sure we update and modernize our Coast Guard and icebreaking fleet.

This bill also contains a long overdue provision to reform the Coast Guard statutes regarding protecting victims of sexual assault and harassment both within the Coast Guard service and also the Coast Guard Academy. I represent New London, Connecticut, which is home to the Coast Guard Academy that is an outstanding institution that builds future leaders for the Coast Guard. It actually has a large international contingent of allies such as Iceland and Pacific Island nations that come to learn at the cutting edge institution in terms of coastal activities that are there.

Like all the military academies, there has been a shadow of, unfortunately, activity regarding female cadets over the years that have had to put up with totally unacceptable conduct and forcing them into almost an impossible position in terms of reporting this activity over the years.

The bill includes a safe-to-report policy, which will protect members reporting sexual assault. Again, sometimes incidents occur where there may be minor misconduct issues where both the victim and the perpetrator are involved, and that risk of being punished for those minor misconduct has really inhibited people to come forward and report sexual assault. This is an issue which was the subject of exhaustive hearings at the Oversight and Government Reform Committee over the last 8 years. Our dear, late Congressman Elijah Cummings conducted many of those hearings. There were brave whistleblowers that came forth, such as Dr. Kim Young-McLear who is now a retired commander from the Coast Guard. She testified before that committee and talked about, again, some of the hard experiences that she went through.

Other military academies, such as West Point and Annapolis, have actually adopted safe-to-report policies, and tomorrow's bill will get the Coast Guard Academy in line with those institutions.

This bill also extends the safe-to-report policy to the entire Coast Guard personnel, the entire service. That was done administratively by the last Commandant of the Coast Guard, Linda Fagan, who, again, I think was very focused in terms of making sure that the safe-to-report policy was going to be in place to eradicate activities that really harm the readiness and effectiveness of the Coast Guard.

Women Coast Guard officers are some of the finest, most talented people who are doing the important work of the Coast Guard, and we need to make sure that there is a statutory structure in place to make sure that with this type of activity, people will be able to report it and get a remedy and a response, in some cases punishment to, again, make sure people are not hindered because of this unacceptable conduct.

Tomorrow when we take up this bill, those brave women who came forward to testify and report their experience--and sometimes watched their dreams and their careers end because of the fact that they were subjected to unacceptable pressure and retaliation for reporting--will see that by law that is now going to be a thing of the past. It is long overdue, and, again, I just want to take a moment to publicly thank Commander Young-McLear and her colleagues for having the courage to step forward and make sure that the Congress is aware of this situation and will end it in the passage of tomorrow's bill.

Mr. Speaker, this week we are going to be taking up legislation on H.R. 672, an act to establish new ZIP Codes for certain communities.

This measure is aimed at fixing problems in about eight communities all across the country where the post office's ZIP Code allocation system has just completely fragmented these towns and cities because of the proliferation of ZIP Codes that have occurred and been implemented in some of these towns.

It is a bipartisan bill. I am one of the bipartisan cosponsors. I represent one of those towns, which is Scotland, Connecticut, in eastern Connecticut.

Scotland, Connecticut, is a community that was established back in the 1700s. It was incorporated in the 1800s. It is a small town. The last census was 1,576 people. There are 625 residents in the town.

Mr. Speaker, it is almost hard for people to believe me when I tell them this, but it has six ZIP Codes in a community with 1,500 people. It creates havoc in terms of people doing their ordinary business through the post office.

First Selectman Dana Barrow of the town of Scotland described in a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform:

``Due to the town's ZIP Code configuration, Scotland residents face daily frustration with packages being misdelivered, service providers being unable to find their properties, and digital ordering or registration systems refusing to accept their address information. But the issue goes beyond inconvenience. People have paid taxes to the wrong town and sent their children to the wrong schools. Town party committees and voluntary associations cannot effectively reach residents by mail. Public health statistics seriously understate the burden of disease in our town, and other survey data also misrepresent us. A high percentage of absentee ballot applications that we were required by law to send out . . . were returned--not because the people weren't in town, but because the USPS computer scanning system rejected their addresses. The situation is clearly damaging to us individually and as a community.''

What this bill does is it just simply says for Scotland and a number of other communities that have been identified by the community that basically we are going to unify a ZIP Code for those communities so they don't have to, again, experience what Scotland First Selectman Dana Barrow described.

Last night, the post office actually sent out a letter of opposition to the bill to all Members of the House Chamber. They actually had the nerve to say that passage of this bill would significantly degrade mail service in the affected communities.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine how the mail service for the people of the town of Scotland could be any worse than the situation that exists today where they have six ZIP Codes for a population of 1,500 people.

Luckily, we have Members of Congress like the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) who chairs the committee and who is bringing the bill out later this week. He has the common sense to understand that the post office needs to get their act together and go into a very finite and manageable number of communities and aggregate the ZIP Codes so that people, again, can get the services they rely on.

I am a strong supporter of the post office. It is in the Constitution. It is mandated we have a Postal Service in this country. People depend on it to get their medications, to get important documents, and to receive their monthly Social Security payments.

To have a dysfunctional system that is completely self-inflicted and man-made because of the organization of the post office is just unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, again, despite the post office's somewhat hysterical, out-of-touch opposition that they announced last night, I am here on the floor to publicly call on all my colleagues to join Mr. Diaz-Balart from the Republican side, myself from the Democratic side, and a host of other cosponsors to get this modest and obviously commonsense bill passed and sent to the Senate and then to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, today is June 24, and it is almost exactly a month ago that in this House, the misnamed One Big Beautiful Bill Act was passed in the dead of night after hours and hours of debate while the American people were asleep at home. With the rush of events that take place every single day, it sometimes gets hard to remember exactly where that stands and what is going on.

The bill is moving in the Senate, literally as I stand here in the well of the House. In the light of day over the last month or so, a lot of the rocks have been kicked over in H.R. 1 to sort of see what is in there. A lot of pretty ugly things have slithered out, including a provision to auction off some of our precious public lands out West, basically robbing those treasured assets from future generations.

There are deregulated gun silencers, which have been on the National Firearms Act since the 1930s. Who benefits from that? I am sure there are a lot of criminals that are rooting for them to be able to go out and buy tax-free gun silencers.

It increases the national debt by $5 trillion, with about $3.5 trillion in new debt with another $1.5 trillion in interest payments. It cuts taxes for American families with a yearly income above $500,000 to the tune of over a trillion dollars with a pittance for middle-class and working families. It raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion so the government can sell bonds to finance debt. Again, it is a bill that basically benefits the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos of the world.

What is really at the heart of H.R. 1 that should concern every single American is a provision that includes the largest cut in healthcare spending in American history with over a trillion dollars of cuts in the bill as it left this floor on May 22. I have here a poster next to me that talks about what the real-life impact is going to be on hospitals all across the country. It is not coming from me as a member of the minority caucus. This comes from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which has been around for 50 years and is a completely nonpartisan analyst in terms of healthcare spending and healthcare financing throughout the country.

What it did was break down State by State what the impact of this bill will be. For the State of Connecticut, where I am from, it is actually about a $9 billion cut over the next 10 years in terms of the Medicaid program, as well as eliminating the premium tax subsidies for people who get their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. That is about 15 million Americans. The hospitals, in particular, are going to take the biggest hit. As this headline says in the Connecticut press, it is about $4 billion over the next 10 years.

All of my colleagues that are here today, I encourage them to look at this analysis which shows State by State, sector by sector within healthcare spending, hospitals, physicians, and prescription drugs, in terms of the impact that this bill will have. There was a lot of hope that maybe in the Senate this bill might be fixed and addressed, particularly because it hits rural hospitals so hard. There are so many Republicans in the majority caucus in the Senate that obviously are going to feel the pain if this provision goes through.

Unfortunately, what we saw come out of the Senate Finance Committee is even worse in terms of what came through from the House. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Catholic Hospital Association, who issued a statement just a few days ago after this provision came out. They had warned them before of the devastating impact it would have, particularly on safety net hospitals which Catholics are definitely a part of all across the country. It fell on deaf ears.

Children's hospitals rely on Medicaid to a greater proportion than other hospitals because they don't have elderly patients, obviously. They are children's hospitals, and Medicare pays for a lot of those patients. Children's hospitals have no place to cost-shift, so they have uncompensated care with this devastating Medicaid cut that is going to hit every State in terms of its Federal matching funds. This is going to land on the most vulnerable in our society and the people who are delivering the care. They are not partisans. They are not approaching Congress as Democrats or Republicans. They are there as people who are doing their job day in and day out.

I visited one of those hospitals last week, Lawrence Memorial Hospital in New London, Connecticut. Over 40 percent of their patient census is on Medicaid. It is in the heart of New London, a wonderful, historic community, but it has a high Medicaid population.

Mr. Speaker, we have to stop this insane attack on healthcare that affects every single American. We have got to block H.R. 1. We got to go back and do a better job for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the extraordinary career of an eastern Connecticut stalwart public servant, Peter DeBiasi, and celebrate his retirement from Access Community Action Agency.

Peter DeBiasi's journey with Access began in March 2005, a challenging period marked by high leadership turnover and significant budgetary and staffing hurdles. Yet, it was precisely during this time of adversity that Peter's vision, dedication, and unwavering commitment to serving low-income individuals in Windham and Tolland counties truly shone. Prior to joining Access, Peter honed his leadership skills as President/CEO of the Connecticut Council of Family Service Agencies from 1999 to 2002, and as Vice President for Development and Marketing at United Community & Family Services from 2002 to 2005. This wealth of experience laid the groundwork for the transformative impact he would have at Access.

Under Peter's leadership, Access Community Action Agency has experienced unprecedented growth and made profound strides in its mission to empower individuals and families. One of his most significant legacies is the agency's pioneering work in affordable housing. What began with a single senior housing development in Willington, Connecticut has blossomed into a portfolio of over 200 units of owned or managed affordable housing, providing safe and stable homes for countless individuals.

Beyond housing, Peter dramatically improved Access's homeless services. The establishment of a 24/7 emergency shelter in Danielson, coupled with the opening of a cold-weather overnight shelter, has expanded the agency's capacity to offer immediate and vital support to those experiencing homelessness. Furthermore, Access has broadened its focus to proactively prevent homelessness by providing crucial assistance to individuals at risk, underscoring Peter's deep understanding of the complex challenges faced by vulnerable populations. His leadership ensured that Access met the growing need to address homelessness head-on.

The scale of Access's growth under Peter's guidance is truly remarkable. The agency has doubled its workforce to approximately 90 dedicated employees and has seen its yearly budget expand to an impressive $15 million. This expansion has enabled Access to deliver more comprehensive and impactful services, with affordable housing leading the way in terms of growth. As someone who worked with Peter over many years, I can personally attest to his amazing dedication and passion to achieve the goals of community action. He has a deep understanding of all the policies and criticisms that inevitably would surface over the years and he deftly and pragmatically overcame many difficult challenges. We are very lucky in eastern Connecticut to have benefited from his great work.

As Peter transitions into a well-deserved retirement, planning to relax and enjoy time with family and friends, his impact on Access and the communities it serves will undoubtedly endure. His passion for fighting poverty has been a lifelong commitment, driven by the profound belief that poverty is difficult to experience, but does not have to be permanent. He made his life's work assisting those less fortunate and empowering them to find ways to achieve sustained economic stability.

We extend our deepest gratitude to Peter DeBiasi for his decades of exceptional leadership, unwavering dedication, and transformative contributions. His legacy will continue to inspire and guide Access Community Action Agency as we strive to build a more equitable and supportive community for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and honor Mr. Michael Price of Essex, Connecticut, for his outstanding achievements in the realm of American theatre and the arts. On June 8, Michael will receive special honors for his lifetime achievements at the prestigious 2025 Tony Awards ceremony. Michael holds the record as the longest serving Executive Director of an American theatre, leading the Goodspeed Opera House in East Haddam, Connecticut for 47 years from 1968 to 2014. The impact of his tenure on the Goodspeed Opera House has reverberated all across the world, and thus this honor is well deserved.

Michael was born on August 5, 1938, to William and Sylvia Price in Chicago, Illinois. From a young age, he was introduced to the theatre through family members who worked in the industry. Michael got a bachelor's degree from Michigan State University, followed by a master's degree from the University of Minnesota and a master's in fine arts from the Yale University School of Drama.

Michael's career included many different jobs at theatres throughout the country. Early in his career, he worked as a stagehand and electrician at the Shubert Theatre in New Haven, Connecticut. Other jobs took him around the country, serving in different roles at theatres and performances before he settled at the Goodspeed Opera House.

In 1968, Michael started as the Executive Director of Goodspeed Musicals in East Haddam, Connecticut. After years of disrepair, Michael helped rebuild the reputation of the Goodspeed Opera House as one of the best venues to develop musicals in the country. Goodspeed became internationally recognized for their distinguished performances.

During Michael's time as Executive Director, he produced over 250 classic and forgotten musicals, 100 new musicals, and transferred 19 shows to Broadway, which earned 13 Tony Awards. The Goodspeed Opera House was honored with two special Tony Awards during his reign.

Michael's valuable contributions to the theatre industry have been recognized before. He was inducted into the Theatre Hall of Fame, which honors lifetime achievement in the American theater. Michael's involvement in theatre is not limited to his time at the Goodspeed Opera House. He is also the founder of the League of Historic American Theatres and a founding member of the National Alliance for Musical Theatre. Michael currently serves on the Executive Committee of the American Theatre Wing and as a member of the Tony Administration Committee. Michael is also a board member for the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, the Johnny Mercer Foundation, the ASCAP Foundation, and numerous charitable and non-profit organizations.

Now, Michael will receive one of the Tony Honors for Excellence in the Theatre, a well deserved honor that he will share with his wife Jo- Ann, children Daniel and Rebecca, and grandchildren Ezra and Ari who have been

with him every step of the way to this special honor. The Tony Awards are presented annually to Broadway productions for exceptional performances and include special honors beyond the boundaries of Broadway.

Mr. Speaker, Michael has been an asset for the theatre community locally in Connecticut, nationally, and internationally. He spent his entire life dedicating himself to the preservation of the arts, and this award is a representation of that devotion. As a friend of Michael's for over twenty years, I can attest to his endless passion for advancing the benefits of live theatre, and for his wonderful, down to earth sense of humor. He is a caring person, always ready to help his community and people in need. He is an inspiration to all who have the opportunity to know him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in this chamber join me in adding a layer to his already permanent case, by recognizing the astonishing career of Michael Price.

Mr. Speaker, today, June 3, Congress reconvenes after a 12-day break. On May 22, the last time we were here, this Chamber was involved in a 2-day marathon. H.R. 1, the misnamed one big, beautiful bill, was jammed through in the dead of the night, as it was being written in real time, by a vote of 215 to 214.

During my time home, I held two townhalls. One was up in Tolland, Connecticut, near the border of Massachusetts. The other was down along the shoreline in Madison, Connecticut. Both townhalls were well- attended.

Last night in Madison, it was standing room only. People were bursting with questions about how a bill that can change the tax code for the next 10 years, that can intervene in terms of our healthcare system, in terms of taking away people's health coverage, can happen with no transparency and no public input.

As I said, it was being written in the dead of the night prior to the vote on May 22. This is what we know now as the dust has settled in terms of what the impact of this bill is.

In terms of healthcare, the bill is going to cut our Medicaid program, America's largest healthcare program, and extract roughly $700 billion from the system over the next 10 years.

The Affordable Care Act, subsidizes premiums, which provides health insurance for millions of Americans. Again, those premiums are going to be cut. As a result, people are going to lose their health insurance. That is not me saying that. That is the Congressional Budget Office, the neutral umpire that calls balls and strikes around this Congress who is saying that.

Again, they have calculated that 15 million Americans will lose their health insurance as a result of this measure which was passed by the majority and jammed through in the dead of the night.

In Connecticut, we have already seen what the numbers mean in terms of this bill. The Kaiser Family Foundation is not a partisan group. They have been studying healthcare trends and finance for decades. They determined that 140,000 citizens in the State of Connecticut will lose their health coverage as a result of this bill.

As the dust has settled, we now know of one thing that didn't get a lot of attention. As a result of the deficit impact of this bill, which is going to add trillions of dollars to the national debt, it is going to trigger a sequestration, an automatic cut to the Medicare system. Medicare is the system that provides health insurance for people over 65 and people on disability.

That is $500 billion over the next 10 years. Again, it is going to be a cut across the board to hospitals, to physicians, and to a whole series of medical devices and pharmacy products that are covered by Medicare.

Again, this is because of the reckless deficit spending that this bill creates. That is not me saying that. The calculation of the Joint Committee on Taxation was $3.7 trillion of new debt on top of the $36 trillion of debt that we have today.

The Wharton School of Finance, where President Trump attended school, calculated $3 trillion, as well. When they added the interest costs that are going to be paid on that additional deficit, that spending, that is going to push the number closer to $5 trillion.

Again, today the deficit is $36 trillion. We are spending $89 billion a month in terms of interest costs on the existing debt. That is larger than what we spend in the Department of Defense on a monthly basis. It is bigger than any other account in the discretionary budget of this government.

This bill accomplishes two harmful, damaging impacts to America which are, number one, 15 million people are going to lose their health insurance. We are also going to see the deficit grow by anywhere between $3 trillion and $5 trillion. For what? It is to reward the top 1 percent whose tax cuts are going to be extended and enlarged for many over the coming years, leaving working families and the poor in the dust.

We can do better than this as a nation. Again, it is not too late to stop this. The Senate is now going to take up this bill.

The external pressure is going to rise up with the American Hospital Association and with patient groups like the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, Autism Speaks, and people who represent disability groups. They are rising up now to stop this bill because of the harm it is going to cause on individuals and families all across this country.

It is time to stop this one big, ugly bill that is going to do so much damage to the American people.