Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, almost exactly a year ago, when the Trump administration came into office and the new Republican majority again elected its leaders, they promised to focus on the forgotten American, the middle class families that have been left behind, according to the speeches that were given at that time.

Well, there is no issue which I think resonates more powerfully with middle class families than the unrelenting rise in the cost of college and higher education.

Again, the numbers surround us: $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, according to the Federal Reserve Board.

Just a few weeks ago, some colleges and universities, the real flagships of our Nation, the Harvards, the Yales, announced that tuition, room and board now will exceed $70,000 a year.

Again, not every college charges that much, but, unfortunately, if you look historically, as those colleges and universities surpass these unfortunate milestones, most colleges follow right in the wake.

We need action and we need change in terms of making sure that that ticket to success, whether it is in science, technology, engineering, and math, for young Americans is actually going to exist, and this Congress has neglected and failed to move forward.

Just within the last month, what we have seen is the following. The IRS just issued their follow-up rules to the Republican tax bill, which clarifies that families can no longer deduct home equity loans to pay for college. So for a family who has diligently paid their mortgages, whose kid has been accepted to a college and university, who doesn't qualify for Pell grants, who has exhausted their Stafford loans, because those are capped, and who wants to actually use the equity in their house to help pay for college, they can no longer deduct the interest on those payments.

I am very much thankful to the Republican tax bill, which, again, took great care of people who earn over $400,000, whose top marginal rates were drastically cut, or corporations whose rates were drastically cut; but middle class families are, again, now being asked to bear a higher cost for college by cutting off that avenue that, again, millions of families have used over the years in terms of using their home's equity.

In addition, the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos--400 days in office and she has never stepped foot in the Education and the Workforce Committee, which I sit on--last Friday, issued a rule that basically preempted the ability of States attorneys general to issue rules and regulations to protect students and families from unscrupulous loan servicers.

Again, our offices get flooded with calls with frustrated students who graduated and, again, have loan servicers who lose documents, who lose payments. And, again, what was happening at the State level, both Republicans and Democratic attorneys general were putting into place rules and regulations to protect those people caught in these predicaments.

On Friday, the Secretary of Education, a Republican, who supposedly believes in States' rights, told those States that they will be issuing rules preempting States from protecting those people caught in these situations. Unbelievable.

Lastly, last week, the Office of Inspector General, which is a nonpartisan arm of government--its job is to look at government negligence and malfeasance and problems--issued a warning that the Republican higher education bill, which was reported out in December, the misnamed PROSPER Act, will, again, lift all the regulations on for- profit colleges, which, again, take advantage of students, overpromising skills and degrees that turn out to be worthless at the end. Again, we know about ITT Tech, Corinthian Colleges, which was shut down by the last administration because of the outrageous practices that they were involved in.

The PROSPER Act basically lifts all of those controls that the Department has over them, and it is open season in terms of students who are going to be subject to that kind of environment.

By the way, the group that is probably the most vulnerable are veterans,

because their GI Bill is so rich in benefits, those are the ones that for-profit colleges target.

Why do I know that?

Holly Petraeus, General David Petraeus's wife, who was in charge of warning veterans about these problems a couple of years ago--again, the term that she uses is that for-profit colleges see servicemembers as nothing more than dollar signs in uniforms--again, has warned us that this sector of the higher education community needs more scrutiny in terms of making sure that there is real gainful employment for people who go through these colleges, and to make sure that those colleges actually do not siphon off precious GI Bill dollars, Pell dollars and Stafford loans.

It is time for this Congress to wake up and respond to what was one of the most powerful issues in 2016 about the cost of colleges drowning middle class families. But just again in the last month, we have seen this Republican administration and this Congress go in exactly the opposite direction. We need better

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank a dedicated public servant, Richard Morris, at the time of his retirement, for his lifelong career in service of the residents of East Lyme, CT. As town fire marshal for the past 27 years, Dick has become an institution in the community, and his commitment and leadership will not be forgotten.

Dick's first foray into firefighting came as a teenager, when he began volunteering with the Niantic Fire Department. This general interest eventually became a professional career for Dick and in 1986, he became fire inspector. Over the years, Dick climbed the ladder to deputy fire marshal, assistant fire chief, and finally fire marshal in 1991. In this role he also served as emergency management director for the town, guiding residents through difficult situations, including storms and power outages.

In addition to being fire marshal, Dick is also Chairman of the board for the Connecticut Fire Marshals Association and serves as the town's harbormaster. In that position he advocated at the state and federal level for policies and funding to upgrade Connecticut's homeland security and improve training for first responders. Previously he was President of the Connecticut chapter of the International Association of Arson Investigators.

The town of East Lyme has been lucky to have Dick and I'm confident he will find new ways to contribute to the community for years to come. I ask my colleagues to please join me in wishing him a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the latest achievement of the University of Connecticut Women's Field Hockey team. On Sunday, November 19, 2017, the UConn women celebrated a 2-1 win over the University of Maryland in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Division I Field Hockey championship. The victory marked the 23rd straight win of the Huskies' historic undefeated season.

The championship is the fifth in UConn field hockey history, and caps the sixth perfect season in all of NCAA field hockey history. The team's senior class is also the most successful in the school's history, with a record of 87-6 and a pair of national championships.

The victory was Coach Nancy Stevens' third championship title. Stevens, who is field hockey's winningest coach, has brought much success to UConn. In the past five seasons alone under Stevens, UConn has won three of those five national championship titles.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please join me in congratulating the University of Connecticut Field Hockey team on yet another successful season. May their win be an example to all, that with hard work, dedication, and passion, greatness is within reach.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Shimkus for yielding. Again, I am here tonight to join a bunch of my colleagues to speak in strong support of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017, which Mr. Shimkus has skillfully guided through the Energy and Commerce Committee, again, a 49-4 vote on a committee which basically is challenged, in many instances, with other issues from healthcare and energy policy, you name it.

It is really just an amazing accomplishment on his part dealing with one of the thorniest, toughest issues, which, again, has been out there for 30 years, which is, again, how we, as a nation, deal with the tons of nuclear waste that is now piled up and accumulating in over 100 communities around the country.

Again, I represent the Second District of Connecticut, the eastern half of the State, which has two operating nuclear facilities. One has been decommissioned, the old Connecticut Yankee facility, which sits very close to the Connecticut River. Again, it has been closed for over a decade. The plant itself has been cut up, dismantled. It is now pretty much, you know, just overgrown with vegetation. But still sitting there is dry cask nuclear spent fuel rods, which, again, are being patrolled every single day, literally, as we are here tonight, by heavily armed guards, which makes perfect sense, because, as has been said by other speakers, again, this is still very dangerous material, and again, very close to one of the largest bodies of waters in new England, the Connecticut River.

We also have the Dominion nuclear power plant in Waterford, Connecticut, which today is in full operation. Over 45 percent of the energy consumed in the State of Connecticut is generated at Dominion. It is about 15 percent of New England, because, again, it provides a supply for the rest of the region that is there, and again, this is a plant that goes back decades.

We are also the home of the Groton sub base, which is a base where, again, we have 15 attack subs that are deployed there. Again, the Groton sub base was where the USS Nautilus was launched 62 years ago. Admiral Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy, actually designed that first sub, which was christened by Mamie Eisenhower.

Again, that sub was built 5 years after the first lightbulb was powered by nuclear power as a nation; again, a pretty amazing accomplishment that Admiral Rickover was able to build and launch a nuclear submarine, something which the folks at the Navy at the time told him wouldn't happen for 75 years. Yet, today, the nuclear force, both in terms of submarines and carriers, are the backbone, again, of our away team, the U.S. Navy.

So, again, we have a lot of history and experience with the fact that we have got really smart capable people who do amazing things in terms of providing the energy needs but also the national security of this country. But, as has been said, again, a byproduct of that is that nuclear waste which we thought 30 years ago was going to be dealt with with the decision that Congress made to dispose of nuclear waste in a central facility in Nevada that, again, ratepayers have paid year in and year out, $40 billion, as was mentioned earlier, but today is still immobilized.

So, again, Mr. Shimkus' effort, in terms of trying to not just restart the process but also to reform it, again, is such an extraordinary effort that really we, as a House, should really take advantage of and move on a bipartisan basis to enact.

This is not your father's Yucca Mountain bill that Mr. Shimkus got through. It made some changes for fairness in terms of ratepayers. It also created more transparency so that local stakeholders in Nevada will have an opportunity to really help make decisions and see and understand the technology that is being employed there.

It also set up an interim process, which, again, if it is over decades, which it is still going to take, that we can at least start moving material out from these over 100 sites situated all across the country, which is so important in terms of reducing costs and reducing national security risk.

His proposal, I think, deserves great support and, frankly, congratulations that he has been able to take this on.

I would note that the country of Finland has actually started to move forward with their own waste disposal site, the Onkalo Peninsula Depository, which a country that is very progressive in terms of a lot of its policies, but that have shown that the technology is there to safely deposit nuclear waste in a way that has real confidence and is moving forward. We should do it, too.

Again, H.R. 3053 is, I think, the roadmap for this country to deal with this problem in a way that is safe, is transparent, and will reduce costs for ratepayers all across the country.

I look forward to seeing a vote take place very soon on the floor of the House. And then, frankly, I look forward to a bill signing ceremony at the White House, where Mr. Shimkus

should certainly take a front row seat for his great work.

Mr. Speaker, may I just make one last point to really underscore that?

Mr. Speaker, I am on the Armed Services Committee, and we are in the midst of moving forward with a 355-ship Navy.

If you look at the force architecture that is going to be in that growth, it is almost all concentrated in submarines and carriers. The fact of the matter is that the challenge of waste disposal for our national defense and national security is going to be with us for many, many years.

To comment again, the gentleman's proposal is a way for us to deal with that and strengthen our Navy and our national defense.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House Chamber on Thursday, February 15, 2018, due to official business in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on roll call no. 80, on the passage of H.R. 620--legislation that I strongly oppose. This bill would prevent Americans with disabilities from getting their day in court when their right to access is violated. In the twenty-eight years since the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, people with disabilities have made important gains in access and inclusion to public buildings, schools, workplaces, and businesses. The ADA is a fundamental part of American civil rights law; like many of our other civil rights statutes, it depends on voluntary compliance and private rights of action for its enforcement. Shifting the responsibility for compliance to persons with disabilities undermines the spirit of the law and the structure of civil rights statutes more broadly.

H.R. 620 requires a victim of discrimination to provide specific notice of the ADA violation to a business, and then allow 120 days for the business to make ``substantial progress'' toward remedying the violation. The bill does not define substantial progress, further weakening the business's incentive to comply, and loosening enforceability of the ADA, in turn allowing discrimination against persons with disabilities to continue. While some egregious portions of this bill were removed during floor consideration, including the requirement that a claimant name the specific section of the ADA violated before even notifying the business, its underlying purpose remains clear: making it harder for persons with disabilities to fight for their day in court.

As members of Congress, it is our duty to promote the welfare and dignity of all of our constituents, particularly those who have spent so long on the outside looking in. We ought to defend and strengthen the ADA, reforming it where needed and building on its successes, rather than dismantling its efficacy and closing our legal system off from those who need it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the IRS and the Department of the Treasury issued a ruling which was good news for folks who live in north central and eastern Connecticut as well as western Massachusetts. In a nutshell, what the IRS did was extend a property casualty loss deduction for homeowners who had foundations built over the last 20 years from material from a quarry which contained a metal substance called pyrrhotite which, when exposed to moisture over time, spiderweb cracks and, in fact, the houses are subject to full collapse.

I have here a photograph which shows, again, a contractor who was repairing one of the foundations of an affected home which shows, again, how fragile the concrete foundation becomes as a result of this condition.

Last year, the IRS issued a ruling that said that homeowners who make the repairs--which can cost up to $150,000 to $200,000 because, again, you have to lift the house, pull out the old

foundation, pour a new foundation, and relower the house on top of it-- would at least be able to get a deduction under an IRS deduction provision that goes back decades, the property casualty loss provision, which was good news.

Unfortunately, in the tax bill which was signed into law by President Trump in December, one of its most boneheaded provisions actually narrowed the scope of the property casualty loss to only those property cases which happened in an area that has been declared a federally declared disaster, which, again, because this, so far, FEMA has ruled is as a result of a manmade product, concrete, does not qualify for that FEMA designation.

Thankfully, we have some outstanding people at the IRS, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury David Kautter, who, again, looked at the tax bill that was signed into law and basically issued the ruling on Tuesday that allows, at least for the next 3 years, homeowners to claim this deduction, again, using an amended return for 2017, as a way of getting the full benefit before the tax bill steps in in 2020 and eliminates this avenue of relief.

This was a provision which never belonged in the tax bill. It affects a much broader cross section of Americans, not just folks from homes with crumbling foundations who are not in declared disaster areas.

I know that members on the House Ways and Means Committee, particularly Congressman Richie Neal, are very focused in terms of trying to fix this really harmful provision that provides almost zero tax savings to the Federal budget but causes huge harm to homeowners like the ones in Connecticut and western Massachusetts.

Again, Congressman Neal, Congressman Larson, and I have been working with the IRS over the last 19 months to get this safe harbor for homeowners to be able to get the benefit of this provision.

I want to thank the folks at IRS and Treasury for their ruling on Tuesday that at least allowed another 3-year window for people who are totally innocent victims who, because of the way insurance policies are structured, cannot, in most instances, get property casualty loss coverage for this type of loss to at least be able to soften the blow with this deduction.

Mr. Speaker, included in the bipartisan budget agreement which passed at 5 o'clock in the morning last Friday was a provision that did not receive a great deal of attention but actually will provide a great deal of relief, particularly for America's seniors. In particular, it reduced and narrowed the size of the doughnut hole for seniors who use the Medicare part D prescription drug program.

As many may recall, in 2003, when the Medicare prescription drug benefit was first created, it had a doughnut hole that basically said that seniors who signed up for Medicare part D after $2,000 of benefits for prescription drugs covered under the law would then have to pay a full 100 percent deductible until their prescription drug costs reached $5,000. It was like buying a car, making a monthly payment, and then after 2,000 miles having to get out and walk for the next 3,000 miles until you again hit the trigger for the doughnut hole to kick back in for coverage.

When we passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, we started the process of narrowing that doughnut hole, again, by 50 percent in year 1. It was again up to 35 percent in 2017, and the bill that passed on Friday night will actually do the final step to eliminate the doughnut hole entirely in 2019.

The really impressive part of that provision is that narrowing is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer. The pharmaceutical companies are the ones who will have to bear the brunt of narrowing that cost so that seniors will again have huge savings in the scope of thousands of dollars because of that provision.

Again, this is an example of where the bipartisan work that was done on that budget bill actually resulted in a very concrete, tangible benefit for America's seniors. I think that will be welcome news for those who are bearing the high cost of prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House Chamber on Tuesday, January 30, 2018, recovering from a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted: No on roll call no. 47, on ordering the previous question to provide for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 695; No on roll call no. 48, on agreeing to the resolution (H. Res. 714) to provide for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 695; No on roll call no. 49, on the motion to concur in the Senate amendments with an amendment to H.R. 695; and Yea on roll call no. 50, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended,

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House Chamber on Monday, January 29, 2018, recovering from a medical procedure. Had I recorded my vote, I would have voted:

``Yea'' on roll call no. 45, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, S. 534, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act;

``Yea'' on roll call no. 46, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, H.R. 1457, to establish requirements for use of a drivers license or personal identification card by certain financial institutions for opening an account or obtaining a financial product or service, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank two outstanding civil servants, James and Diane Luddecke, at the time of their joint retirement, for their many years of service to the people of my hometown, Vernon, CT. The couple has been employed in the town Finance Department for over 30 years; James as the finance director and Diane as a budget analyst.

Their diligent work managing the town's finances during often challenging times is a model of professional and nonpartisan civil service that has always been focused on the public good. Jim's leadership extended beyond the town with his active participation in the statewide Finance Officer Association, providing good counsel to his colleagues from other municipalities and to the General Assembly about ways to efficiently modernize finance systems.

During their long service, the finance office was transformed from manual, hard copy bookkeeping to a digitized, data analytical system that might have overwhelmed many of us. Instead they both embraced change and made sure that Vernon taxpayers and public officials had the benefit of 21st century technology, providing efficiency and savings.

In addition to being the Finance Director, Jim wore many other hats in his tenure with the town government. He was first appointed to the town's Fine Arts Commission and has been a part of the Computer Authority Study, the Data Processing Advisory Board, and the Study Committee for School Renovations Bond Referendum over the years. In 1989, James was appointed town treasurer. Eventually he became the liaison to the Capital Improvement Committee.

Diane, who was hired in 1985 during the Herbst administration, has been the lead in her office managing most projects and overseeing day to day operations. She has served under 11 mayors, and her smart, cheerful competence was instrumental in carrying out the mission of the Finance Department.

On a personal note, I have been friends with both Jim and Diane for many years, having been the law partner of Jim's uncle, Leo Flaherty, for 20 years. I have always admired their lively intellect, great sense of humor, mutual support for U Conn basketball--men and women, the Boston Celtics, and deep passion for the town of Vernon's unique, diverse community and amazing history.

Jim and Diane deserve all the accolades they will receive in the coming days as they end this chapter in their lives. I fully expect however, that after recharging their batteries they will find other ways to contribute to the community they love, and we will be better off for it. I ask my colleagues to please join me in thanking James and Diane for being model citizens.

Mr. Speaker, last October, President Trump loudly proclaimed that the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, was ``virtually dead.'' He said it was finished, it was gone. This was after the pummeling that this law had been taking over 2017 in the unsuccessful effort by the Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Again, last October was a critical moment, because enrollment was about to commence for 2018's policy year, and the Trump administration announced that they were going to cut in half the time that people would have an opportunity to go out and learn about rates, to talk to get enrollment help, and also to sign up for different plans. They also cut the marketing budget by 80 percent and eliminated funding for folks at the State level to actually provide face-to-face assistance. So it all looked pretty grim back in October in terms of what that would result in in terms of enrollment for 2018.

Well, as a famous resident from the State of Connecticut, Mark Twain, once infamously said: Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

Yesterday, the Connecticut exchange, the Connecticut Access Health Exchange, announced their enrollment numbers for 2018. Rather than going down, even though they were only able to enroll people in half the time there was in 2016, and even though they had no budget in terms of trying to actually promote and advertise, their enrollment went up. It went up by 3 percent in terms of the number of people who signed up for Anthem Blue Cross plans, for ConnectiCare plans, and for Medicaid plans.

Again, it was done because of this amazing grassroots, organic effort by libraries, by community health centers, by human service agencies, by hospitals that went out and took on the task of getting the word out that, in fact, the Affordable Care Act was still alive and that people would have access to affordable health plans. Sure enough, it resulted in an increase in health plans.

Interestingly, the young invincibles, the young enrollees that everybody predicted were going to abandon the program because the enforcement of the mandate was going to be relaxed by the IRS actually had a very strong, healthy number.

Coming from a State that is known for its insurance history--it was the insurance capital of the world--the fact of the matter is that getting those young enrollees, those young members to sign up for these plans, in fact, portends well for 2019 and beyond.

This morning, The Hill newspaper reported that for ObamaCare insurers, actually, their financial prospects are looking much better for 2019 because the system has stabilized.

Now, again, there is still work that could be done. There is a bill, H.R. 3748, a Medicare buy-in, which would allow people 50 and up to voluntarily sign up for Medicare, again, using subsidies if they qualify or paying the full cost, which would still be 40 percent less than the plans that are on exchanges throughout the country for people 50 and up. It would not affect the deficit, and, in fact, arguably, it would strengthen the Medicare trust fund because you would get a younger population into the Medicare Program.

So there is work that we can do that is optional, voluntary, in terms of trying to provide more choices for individuals out there; but, clearly, what happened yesterday in Connecticut and throughout the country in terms of enrollment figures, that despite the active efforts by the Trump administration to undercut and sabotage this law, in fact, shows that the law has a life of its own, that, in fact, people are voting with their feet in terms of still trying to get access to the critical needs of every human being and every American, which is access to healthcare.

I want to particularly congratulate Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman, who spearheaded this effort in Connecticut and yesterday stated: This just shows how valuable the Affordable Care Act is to thousands of residents in Connecticut; also, Jim Wadleigh, the director of the exchange, who, again, was not distracted or demoralized by the comments coming out of the White House but still plunged forward and still persistently and determinedly went out and made sure that people got the real information, the real facts, the real news so that they could, in fact, take an opportunity to protect themselves and their families from the inevitable problems of sickness and accident, that every American and every Member of Congress enjoys through their health benefits, for every resident in the State of Connecticut.

It is time for us to stop the attack in terms of a program that has provided millions of Americans coverage and opportunity to healthcare. We should work together on bills like H.R. 3748, a voluntary, deficit- neutral attempt to try and strengthen and provide cheaper alternatives for people 50 and up and small businesses. That is the way forward, not this persistent, nonstop hyperpolitical, hyperpartisan attack

on a bill that has made a huge difference to millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Kansas (Mr. Estes) today and rise in support of H.R. 3759, the Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage Family Caregivers Act. I want to congratulate all the cosponsors of this bill for their good work in terms of bringing this forward, and, again, it looks very promising that it will be passed and signed into law shortly.

Mr. Speaker, the number of Americans over the age of 65 is expected to reach 70 million by 2030, roughly doubling the number that existed in 2005. As those Americans age and require assistance with their daily routines--taking medication, getting dressed, cooking, and attending medical appointments--family caregivers will step in to make sure that their loved ones are safe and cared for.

This is difficult work. For an adult child, caring for an aging parent can quickly become a full-time job. Between juggling appointments, understanding medications, helping make informed medical decisions, a caregiver's own priorities can take a backseat. Most caregivers have jobs of their own, and many care simultaneously for an aging parent as well as their own children.

But caregivers are not only providing care for older Americans or even younger Americans with developmental disabilities. They also serve those who have served our country.

I recently met with a caregiver from my district, Jessica, who cares for her husband, a veteran who suffered serious traumatic brain injury during the battle of Fallujah. Her experience managing her husband's complex medical needs while also raising their children goes to show that ensuring caregivers are supported is a national priority.

The bill under consideration today would recognize the contribution that family caregivers make toward the safety and health of older Americans. It would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and maintain a strategy to support family caregivers by establishing an advisory body to bring together caregivers, older adults, persons with disabilities, veterans, employers, and State and local officials. This advisory council would make recommendations for how to support, assist, and engage family caregivers.

Caregivers are needed to help Americans live independently in their homes and communities for as long as possible. In my home State of Connecticut, there are 459,000 family caregivers who provide an estimated $5.9 billion in unpaid care, annually. Supporting older and disabled Americans through caregiving and ensuring caregivers are equipped to take on this important role benefits all Americans. Evidence has shown that, when caregivers are supported, patients delay placement in a nursing home, continuing with lower-cost, long-term support in the home for much longer periods of time.

Caregiving is foundational to our long-term care system in the United States. This legislation is an important step to ensure this work is recognized and supported.

Again, as the gentleman pointed out, the Commission on Long-Term Care, which was actually created by this body in 2012 as part of one of the budget bills that passed that year, was a group of stakeholders from all across the country, in various sectors, that came together and issued a report that, unfortunately, I don't think has gotten the focus and attention it needs with the demographics that our country is experiencing right now: the aging of our society.

However, this is one of those recommendations for which signs of intelligent life appeared in Congress, and we are taking up their call for passing legislation like the RAISE Act.

So again, I want to congratulate all the sponsors for coming together, and I am looking forward to sending this bill to the President for his signature.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a cosponsor of the bill, a former member of the Education and the Workforce Committee; and even though she has migrated to other committees, her heart still is with the mission of the Education and the Workforce Committee, which is obviously shown by her cosponsorship of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the sponsors of this legislation and also just note that the Elizabeth Dole Foundation is a strong supporter. This is a group that has been formed to help wounded warriors in terms of getting the caregiving help that they need from other family members who are sometimes overlooked in terms of our country's appreciation for those who wear the uniform of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I call for support for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in appreciation of the sentiment that is expressed in the resolution. However, I just feel that the content of this resolution, if it is examined closely, particularly in juxtaposition with the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was the K-12 reauthorization signed into law almost exactly 2 years ago on December 10, 2015, a bipartisanship measure--Congressman Kline, who was the Republican chairman of the House Education Committee, was at the White House with his counterparts from the Senate at the bill-signing ceremony--if people go back and read that, they will see that actually the road map and the pathway to achieve the goal of this resolution was actually laid out by folks from both sides of the aisle in terms of boosting authorized funding for K-12, particularly for low-income students, raising the authorizing for title I schools, which has been the workhorse of the Federal Government in terms of trying to help target resources for kids who come from distressed sectors and areas in terms of urban areas and rural areas, and also had many voluntary permissive authorizations for STEM.

Now, if anything, this resolution understates the scope of the demand that is out there for computer science and for STEM skills. There is not a sector in the American economy, from agriculture, where the gentleman comes from in Kansas, farmers are out there using STEM skills every single day in terms of food production. It exists in manufacturing.

I come from a district that is a shipbuilding district. We are in the process of boosting submarine production up in Groton, Connecticut. The metal trades workers are out there using computer

skills on the shop floors to make sure that that precision manufacturing happens accurately.

Certainly, financial services up in Hartford, Connecticut, the home of insurance companies like Travelers and The Hartford, they just started a couple years ago the Insurance and Finance Academy, which is a magnet school that brings in Travelers, Smith Barney, and The Hartford to collaborate with the public school system to make sure that kids, particularly low-income kids, from Hartford, Connecticut, are getting the opportunity to learn about things like finance, banking-- giving them those skills--which are intrinsically connected to computer science.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there is great appetite in the private sector for public-private partnerships. I would stipulate to that and again argue that, in fact, the resolution almost understates what is out there.

What is missing is the public investment, which ESSA authorized, whether it was title I, whether it is funding to boost teaching skills in the STEM area. We try to give permissive authority to school districts to find math teachers, science teachers, computer science teachers, engineering folks and their curriculum, which every school district is crying out for. There isn't a Member in this body who isn't hearing about that back home.

We want to solve that problem. A resolution like this is certainly not going to get in the way of that, but what we need to do is make sure we fund the authorizations that, on a bipartisanship basis, we passed in 2015.

Unfortunately, if you look at the budget that came over from the White House back in May, the White House proposed a 13.5 percent cut to the Department of Education, elimination of all Federal funding for K- 12 teacher professional development, and afterschool programs, which I was up at one of them, the 21st Century Learning After School Program in Norwich, Connecticut, a distressed municipality. They had kids, after school, working on their computer skills, their math skills, their science skills to give them the chance to keep up with their grade level and to be school ready when they go into high school.

Again, the big one was the cut to title 1, which, as I said, is the workhorse making sure that low-income kids actually have funding levels that at least come somewhat close to their counterparts in more wealthy parts of the country in wealthy school districts. So, again, this resolution is not certainly going to be a negative, but it certainly misses the opportunity that we really should be focused on as Members of Congress for bolstering the public side of the public-private partnership.

As I said, the private sector is speaking loud and clear that they are looking for these skills and actually stepping forward like companies like General Dynamics at the shipyard that I described in southeastern Connecticut or The Hartford and Travelers up in the capital city of the State of Connecticut.

What we need to be doing is match them in terms of our commitment to make sure we are funding magnet school programs, again, title 1 programs, that help the 90 percent of kids who are in public schools so that we actually are going to achieve the goal which this resolution sets forward.

So, again, I certainly commend the sentiment of the sponsors of this, but it leaves out, really, what I think is the real question of the day, which is whether or not we are going to step up as a nation and truly fund public-private partnerships to boost computer science skills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this resolution is a sentiment that is hard to dispute or argue, but, unfortunately, it is just that, a resolution that really, beyond sort of expressing a goal, an aspirational goal, doesn't move the ball forward in terms of actually implementing what I think this resolution seeks to do, which is to make sure that school districts--every school district--particularly those with low-income kids from urban areas and rural parts of the country, have the resources which the Every Student Succeeds Act signed into law 2 years ago and laid a pathway out for us to achieve, but, unfortunately, because of the funding levels that have not come close to the authorized levels, we are falling short.

I couldn't agree more with the speakers, the proponents of this, that what is at stake here, really, I think, pervades almost every priority and every sector of our country's economy and our national policy.

In 1958, when the Russians fired Sputnik, then-President Dwight Eisenhower stepped forward and advocated the National Defense Education Act because he recognized that, from a national security standpoint, having a national policy to make sure that there are adequate resources out there for our Nation was really central to our national defense. That triggered, again, a revolution in American education, whether at the higher education level or even at the elementary level; and following that lead in 1965, we passed the ESEA Act, which funded, for the first time, title 1 that gave resources to low-income districts.

That commitment has deteriorated. It has deteriorated over the last 6 years with budgets that have underfunded this program. If you really took title 1 in terms of the full measure of eligibility for low-income students and school districts, we are funding it at about half of what the real need is out there for those types of school districts.

So, again, hopefully maybe this resolution will be an awakening for people in this Chamber, particularly as we are on the verge of taking up the 2018 budget, that funding education is as important to our economy and is as important to our national defense, frankly, as any other part of the Federal budget, because that gives us the tools to succeed as a nation, not just in 2018, but in many years forward.

So, again, I certainly am friends with some of the sponsors of this resolution. I salute the sentiment that was offered when this was introduced just a week or so ago, but, frankly, it falls short of the true commitment that we need to make as a Congress to fund and give the resources to make sure that this aspirational goal is achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed one vote during a vote series on November 30, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted: No on Roll Call No. 645, on the question of agreeing to the resolution (H. Res. 635), providing for consideration of H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017; and H.R. 1699, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my dear friend and colleague, the late honorable Donald C. Pogue. Judge Pogue passed away peacefully last October and his absence is felt by all who knew him.

Born in Macomb, Illinois in 1947, Don graduated magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1969 and earned his juris doctorate and masters of art in philosophy from Yale in 1973. Following graduation, he began his legal career representing labor unions at his firm, Kester, Pogue & Gould, in Hartford. During his fifteen years of practice, Judge Pogue lectured on labor law at the University of Connecticut School of Law, assisted in teaching Harvard Law School's program on negotiation and dispute resolution for lawyers, and chaired the Connecticut Bar Association's Labor and Employment Law Section.

In 1989, Don was appointed Commissioner of Connecticut Hospitals and Healthcare by Governor O'Neill, and then Chairman by Governor Weicker. In 1994, Don became a judge in Connecticut's Superior Court and was appointed to the U.S. Court of International Trade by President Clinton just one year later. There he led the Court's Long Range Planning and Budget committees. In 2010 he became

Chief Judge and served as a statutory member of the Judicial Conference of the United States Courts. Don assumed senior status in 2014. In addition to being a great lawyer and judge, he was also a devoted husband, father, and grandfather and an active member of his community. He served on the Board of Connecticut Hospice and volunteered there for over a decade.

Mr. Speaker, I came to know Don Pogue during his time as chair of the Hospitals and Healthcare Commission, from 1989 to 1994. I was a state representative at the time, leading the Connecticut General Assembly's Public Health Committee. It was a time of great change in healthcare. Working with Don, we created one of the first children's health insurance programs in the country and initiated cutting edge reform to lower healthcare costs. Don was a brilliant public servant who was always the smartest guy in the room. Despite that, he was an extremely courteous gentleman who always was focused on helping the people of the state, particularly the less fortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please join me in remembering Dan's life and work. His public service serves as an example to all who hold public office to stay focused on the people who vested their trust in us. Although Don is deeply missed, we take comfort in knowing his commitment to justice left the world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about a positive, encouraging decision that occurred last week for the State of Connecticut that was issued by the Under Secretary of the Treasury, David Kautter. It concerned a terrible problem that has swept through the State best known as crumbling foundations.

Due to some outstanding journalism that took place over the last couple of years by a TV reporter by the name of George Colli, Jr.; Hartford Courant editorial writer Carolyn Lumsden, who did a series on this problem; and Journal Inquirer's Eric Bedner, who has been consistently reporting on this issue, it came forward and was flushed out to the public that a quarry in north central Connecticut was supplying aggregate concrete for homes over the last 30 years that contained a material known as pyrrhotite.

Pyrrhotite is a metal substance which, when it is exposed to moisture over a period of time, oxidizes or rusts and creates a sickening spider web cracking that ultimately compromises the foundation on homes. Estimates run as high as 19,000 homeowners who unknowingly have this form of concrete that threatens probably their family's biggest asset, namely, their home.

As you can see in this picture, this is an example of a home in Coventry, Connecticut, where the home was lifted with a house jack and the contractor, Don Childree, was actually able to remove the concrete by hand. That is how compromised and unstable the home was because of this terrible problem.

This picture shows an example of a condominium project that was completely jacked up for the repairs, which involved jacking up the house, removing the old foundation, pouring a new foundation, and then lowering and reconnecting the condominium to the new foundation.

For a homeowner of a rather average-size house, we are talking about repairs that total as much as $150,000 to $200,000. In some cases, it almost surpasses the family's value in their home.

It has set off a wave of litigation and claims against property casualty insurers, with mixed results. The property casualty policies, in many cases, require only coverage for a sudden collapse as opposed to something that happens over a period of time.

It is devastating for the homeowners who are affected by this. It affects about 40 communities in north central and eastern Connecticut.

On Wednesday, the Treasury Department issued a ruling extending the property casualty loss Tax Code provisions to allow these homeowners to take a deduction for their loss. This was a 19-month process which took place, from my office, with an outstanding staffer, Beata Fogarasi; from Congressman John Larson's office in the Hartford area with an outstanding staffer by the name of Sylvia Lee; and with Under Secretary Kautter, who issued the ruling that will provide safe harbor for people who have suffered a loss to be able to claim that on their tax returns.

We had the support of the departing IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, as well as the National Taxpayer Advocate, who endorsed this request last year under the prior administration--two administrations working with Members of Congress, presenting the facts and the law and getting a decision which, actually, is a positive move forward for homeowners who are in this affected region.

It showed the interplay of the free press, of the organizing that took place, and the Connecticut Coalition Against Crumbling Foundations, led by Tim Heim from Willington, Connecticut. Organized homeowners did rallies, did town halls, brought their case forward, and it resulted in real change. The needle moved to allow people much- needed relief.

We have more work to do. As Winston Churchill said: ``This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning.''

The decision the day before Thanksgiving by the Treasury Department

gave great hope to these homeowners that, actually, the system can work, and that is probably the most powerful emotion that people took away from the decision that took place on Wednesday.

We are going to continue to move forward to help people, middle class, hardworking people who pay their bills, have invested in their life's biggest asset, their home, to make sure that they are protected and they get help.