Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chair, this, I think, is a very modest amendment, which just simply seeks to restore a cut to the existing 2017 level of support for the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, which is a program which has been around for quite a while. It actually was reauthorized in the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, which was a great bipartisan success for K-12 education.

And again, this program provides support for magnet schools all across the country. There are 4,340 magnet schools in the U.S. 3.5 million students benefit from magnet programs, which again, are administered by local school districts and utilize a variety of academic themes such as STEM, Language Immersion, Career and Technical Education, Visual and Performing Arts, just to name a few.

Again, it is a strategy which also provides a regional structure to the student population and promotes diversity. It has done great things in terms of Connecticut in terms of ending racial isolation. Again, unfortunately, the magnet schools have sort of seen a steady sort of decline from 10 years ago in terms of Federal support for it, and this amendment really is just basically saying enough. I mean, we should, again, restore an amount, which I indicated is very modest, of $1.1 million to this account, and offset and paid for.

And again, I think it just will allow a lot of school districts and communities to continue the great work that they are doing with magnet programs.

I want to conclude my initial remarks by, again, thanking the chairman and also Congresswoman Lee for their kind remarks about my colleague and neighbor from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, who lost her mother, Luisa DeLauro, a 103-year-old amazing woman.

We all marvel at Rosa's energy and passion, but if you have ever met Luisa, you would understand where it came from because she was an amazing woman, just a great inspiration for her daughter who, I think, made her so proud in terms of the great work that she has done in the Congress.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. Chair, again, briefly, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I would just note, though, if you go back 10 years ago, the disparity between charter school funding at the Federal level versus magnet schools was two to one in favor of charters.

We are at a point today where, with this budget, it will be four to one in terms of disparity between the two. I would acknowledge the gentleman's comments that there are some areas where charter schools have provided great benefits, but there is no question that, in terms of breaking down racial isolation, magnet schools have a much better batting average, and that has been studied and reported over the years.

My daughter attended a magnet school in the Hartford area, and again, with a totally diverse population, and again, it is probably the most highly rated high school, secondary school, in the State of Connecticut, according to U.S. News and World Report.

So again, the quality of magnet schools, I think, are high in the record in terms of their goal, which is to break down racial isolation. I think it surpasses charter schools.

This amendment would leave a 7.7 percent increase in funding for charter schools. It is not an attack on charter school funding. It just simply restores last year's level of spending for magnet schools, a very modest measure.

And again, I look forward, hopefully, to working with the gentleman, but I really believe strongly that this is not asking too much to protect magnet school funding, and that is why I would ask the Chamber to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I introduced with my colleague Congressman John Larson also of Connecticut, will address a serious escalating problem in north central and eastern Connecticut. Thousands of homes there are currently at risk of collapse due to crumbling concrete foundations. A mineral identified as pyrrhotite was present in stone aggregate mined in a quarry in Willington, Connecticut, and used in

concrete to pour home foundations in at least 36 towns in the region from the 1980s through the early 2000s.

Exposure to moisture causes the pyrrhotite to rust in the foundation over time, causing the foundation walls to bow and crack, eventually deteriorating to the point where homeowners can literally see through the cracks and even remove chunks of the foundation by hand.

This is a complex issue, and our amendment is a critical step to bring assistance to the region. It directs HUD to develop applications of Community Development Block Grants to pyrrhotite-related residential damage under its antiblight programs and procedures.

It is our belief that HUD, State, local, and private sector stakeholders can develop a collaborative basket of solutions to ease the burden of homeowners and prevent damage to the broader real estate market and economy of the region.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the chairman for his remarks, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Payne for his leadership on the Homeland Security Committee and also for his hard work on this legislation, which, again, has been closely watched back home in Connecticut and on the other side of Long Island Sound, as Mr. Zeldin indicated as well, in the State of New York.

Again, I rise in strong support, with my colleague, for passage of H.R. 2182, the Plum Island Preservation Act. This has been an effort that has been ongoing since Congress, unfortunately, took, I think, a wrong turn when they enacted legislation in 2009, with the goal of trying to create funding for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Kansas; but in the process of doing that, it set up a truncated sale of this property, which really deviated from the normal GSA process of trying to exhaust other beneficial uses before putting it up for sale to the highest bidder.

Again, that has been the struggle for people on both sides of the Long Island Sound, who have been frustrated by the fact that, because Congress mandated a sale without any other options, the incredible, pristine environmental quality of this precious piece of property was basically pushed down the food chain in terms of, again, the way the Federal Government was operating.

Again, I think it is important to recognize--and my colleagues from New York, Mr. Donovan and Mr. Zeldin, understand this--this still is the most densely populated area of America. The boat traffic, the maritime traffic that flows through Long Island Sound, again, is the busiest in the country. And to have a piece of property that is this precious and this pure--which Mr. Zeldin visited, and I think he can attest to that personally, and I have sailed past it--is really an opportunity that really we just cannot possibly allow to go to a developer that would make that quality forever lost.

So this legislation, which stops the 2009 process in its tracks, has GAO step in and do a full complete analysis across the board in evaluating all options. In particular, the options of preserving this unique environmental asset is the right move for our country, and, again, it will be to the benefit of generations to come.

Again, I want to congratulate Mr. Zeldin for his persistence. Again, we did get it through the last Congress, the 114th.

I think getting this done early in the 115th Congress will hopefully allow us the opportunity to get some bandwidth in the Senate's floor schedule to finally get this to the President's desk, and, again, forever protect an asset for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge strong support for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, last February, President Trump had CEOs from America's largest manufacturers to come and talk about progrowth tax policies. Instead of talking about taxes, what they really talked about is the real need out there, which is to close the skills gap in this country and get the job training out there so that people can get hired.

USA Today reported the next day with the headline: ``U.S. factory CEOs to Trump: Jobs exist; skills don't.'' In the 2017 budget, the bipartisan budget, Congress listened, and we appropriated robust funding for apprenticeship programs, for youth job training programs, and for adult, older incumbent job training programs.

Incredibly, a few minutes ago, the partisan Republican budget cut apprenticeship grants to zero, from 95 million from last year to zero. Mr. Speaker, better skills means better wages and better jobs. We should be investing strongly in job training programs so that people will have a future for themselves and their families.

We should listen to the job creators in this country. We should listen to the people back home, and we should reject this Republican budget which incredibly turns the clock back so that we can fill the job openings that the Labor Department says now total almost 6 million jobs in this country. Close the skills gaps. Invest in job training.

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed two votes during a vote series on July 12, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted:

Aye on Roll Call No. 351, on the Carbajal motion to recommit the Gaining Responsibility on Water Act (H.R. 23) with instructions to the Committee on Natural Resources; and

No on Roll Call No. 352, on passage of the Gaining Responsibility on Water Act (H.R. 23)

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment that is offered by my good friend from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

I would just note that this is an amendment that has been around the last couple Congresses, and the intent clearly is to carve out a larger exemption from the longshoremen's act which is a law that goes back to 1927.

I would note that if that is the intent, the language of this amendment actually is kind of like legislating with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel because by carving out a larger exemption for recreational vessels above or beyond 55 feet long, basically there is a whole series of Coast Guard rules and regulations that have been enforced by the Coast Guard for many years that this amendment, unfortunately, is going to sweep up and undermine, including the rules related to alcohol on board vessels, waste management, Coast Guard inspection categories, vessel sales to non-U.S. citizens, tonnage taxes, and safety management systems.

The Coast Guard is out there every single day making sure that these rules which really protect our ports and make sure that particularly foreign, large, super yachts are paying their fair share, in terms of the costs of environmental protection, and boating safety is enforced. That is, again, what this amendment will undermine.

That is why last year the Coast Guard issued a statement pointing out the fact that because of the broad sweep of the language of this amendment, it is really undermining some key missions that the Coast Guard has been doing for decades for the American people.

So I would note that, at the outset, obviously there is, I think, another

issue which is just as significant which is undermining the longshoremen's act which goes back to Calvin Coolidge. It recognizes the fact that the folks who are engaged in longshoremen activity but also shipyard construction are engaged in a very high-risk type of occupation.

The longshoremen's act was a recognition that State workers' compensation systems, because of the fact that they varied up and down in terms of protections, really required a Federal minimum standard. That is really something that has obviously withstood the test of time over the last 90 years.

Again, if you look at the data, people who were involved in shipyard work, their risk of injury is much higher than many other occupations.

I am a proud Representative from a district that has the second largest employment level in shipbuilding according to the American Shipbuilding Association, and these folks are dealing with processes, equipment, and parts that, again, really are much higher risk than even aerospace or other forms of manufacturing.

Mr. Chairman, I think what we ought to do is stick to the Coast Guard definition of what a recreational vessel is because that has been on the books for many years, and it is something that I think all of us should listen closely to in terms of evaluating this amendment.

I think also we should recognize that we can build a great American shipbuilding sector in this country for commercial and recreational vessels, but we should not do it on the backs of worker protection.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who is a colleague from another great shipbuilding district and also the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Smith for yielding and compliments to him and Chairman Thornberry for the outstanding work, again, that the two of them have collaborated on to keep this really massive undertaking on schedule. It is really a very truncated schedule this year, but they both did it. Again, it is kudos to both of them in terms of their leadership skills.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 2018 NDAA. Front and center in our deliberations in the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee on which I serve with Chairman Wittman, who is in his first term and did an outstanding job, was the build-up of our Navy fleet which has been a multiyear process of strategic planning.

In December of last year, the prior Navy secretary, Ray Mabus, who served in the prior administration, released an updated force structure assessment that laid out the requirement for increasing the Navy's fleet from 308 ships to 355.

Then, in January, Navy officials outlined a plan to get us on a construction plan to get us on a path to a larger fleet. In early May, the chief of naval operations emphasized that ``time is of the essence'' in growing the Navy.

The stage was set to get started on the larger fleet. That was why so many of us were surprised on May 23 and disappointed when the White House sent over basically a 308-ship budget for a 355-ship fleet.

I am proud to say that, on a bipartisan basis, we have done much better in this bill than the budget that came over. Among other things, the bill explicitly makes it the policy of our Nation to achieve a 355- ship Navy. We add five additional ships in 2018, for a total of 12, to get us moving to the larger fleet that the prior administration and the new administration know that we need.

One area I am particularly proud of is the area of undersea forces. Reflecting the urgent testimony of our combatant commanders, our panel once again led the way in forging an aggressive but realistic plan to grow our submarine fleet.

To achieve this, our bill authorizes multiyear procurement authority for 13 Virginia class attack submarines for the next 5 years. Not only would this keep us at the two-a-year level we have been on for the last few years, but would go even further by reaching a three-submarine build rate in the coming years.

The seapower portion of the bill does much more to support a range of priorities on the seas and in the skies, far too many to itemize here today.

I will just say that I am proud of the bipartisan contribution of all of our subcommittee members into the product before the House today, and, again, Mr. Wittman for his first year as subcommittee chairman.

In particular, I want to highlight the work of our subcommittee staff in

helping us craft the bill. I am joined here today by one of my staff, Stephen Clement, who has been working with us, but he is going to be moving on to better things. I want to publicly thank him for his outstanding work in terms of helping us get to the place we are here today.

In closing, I would urge my colleagues to support the Defense Authorization bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support on reauthorizing the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, which really should be just called the JOBS Act. As we have heard from Members all across the country, Members are hearing the same thing from their employer community, which is jobs exist, but skills don't.

What this bill does is it connects people to that job market in response to the fact that the 21st century market is dynamic and changing, and this bill really gets it in terms of getting to that point.

In May, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that there are 5.9 million job openings in the U.S. economy; a record high since they even started collecting that data. So our job as Members of Congress is to update the law and update these programs to align

it with the Workforce Investment Act, which was passed in 2014, and the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was passed again in the last Congress.

This will be the final piece of the puzzle, which will, again, make sure that millions of Americans will have the opportunity to have good- paying jobs that they can support themselves and their families. In sector after sector, whether it is IT, whether it is healthcare, whether it is advanced manufacturing, all are going to benefit from this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate both of the sponsors for their great work on this, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, today, as we near Memorial Day, I rise to honor SPC. Jacob D. Martir, for his honorable service to our nation and his ultimate sacrifice during the early days of the Iraq War.

Jacob was a native of eastern Connecticut, growing up in Willimantic and Norwich. A former student of Norwich Free Academy, he enlisted in the United States Army in 2000 at the age of 17. Joining the armed services was his lifelong dream. Nearing completion of his first tour in the Army, he reenlisted for four more years in 2002, despite the added risk of serving after 9/11.

In March of 2004, Jacob deployed to Iraq with Alpha Troop, 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. On August 18, 2004, while patrolling in Sadr City, one of Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods throughout the war, Jacob was tragically killed by small arms fire. His sacrifice, coming four months after the tragic ``Black Sunday'' in which eight soldiers were killed in Sadr City, was part of a years-long effort to clear the area of Iraqi insurgents. He was 21 years old and left behind a loving mother, Lydia Gutierrez, and five siblings. For his courageous service, Jacob was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star, and he was buried with full military honors at Maplewood Cemetery in Norwich.

Jacob's life is a reminder of the greatest American values. His call to serve was instinctive and unrelenting even through a time of great danger. At just twenty-one years old, he marched bravely into one of the most dangerous places in the world to defend and serve his nation and protect his fellow soldiers.

I would ask my colleagues to join me in solemn remembrance of Jacob Martir and his family, and thanking them for Jacob's service to eastern Connecticut and our nation.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1808 to amend and improve the Missing Children's Assistance Act.

Mr. Speaker, again, it is an honor to stand with my friend, Mr. Guthrie, in bipartisan support of this legislation which, again, makes some important changes to the existing law for the Center for Missing & Exploited Children, as my friend said, a program which was created in 1984. Sadly, it has not finished its mission.

Again, the FBI reports every year there are about 460,000 reports of missing children, and despite the best efforts of programs which NCMEC has operated over the many years, which include hotlines and public information campaigns, again, this is still a scourge which afflicts many families all across the country in Republican, Democratic, rural, suburban, and urban areas.

Again, this bill will basically update and modernize the language of the act

to recognize that there are new forms of threats and risks to minor children, such as human trafficking and online predators.

So it does three essential things:

Number one, it incorporates new terminology to align the law with these new threats, which I mentioned above, and strengthens protections for children at risk.

Number two, it clarifies that NCMEC is a nonprofit entity, which is an issue that has been ensnared in the courts. And, again, Congress' passage and enactment of this bill will clarify this critical issue.

And, lastly, it clarifies that NCMEC is a resource that provides technical assistance not just to law enforcement, but to families, community groups, schools, and the public at large.

Mr. Speaker, this last aspect of the bill is critically important. Last year, Congress passed Public Law 114-184, which President Obama signed into law, the Recovering Missing Children's Act. It was a measure which I cosponsored with Mr. Paulsen from Minnesota.

This bill actually gave State and local police another tool in terms of recovering missing children. Incredibly, the Tax Code prevented State and local law enforcement from getting access to tax returns from adults who actually had abducted children.

So, incredibly, those adults were claiming these children, who were in their illegal custody, as a tax credit and a tax exemption, but State and local officials were barred by privacy provisions in the IRS code from actually accessing that information. So, on the one hand, you had one arm of government out looking for children and you had another arm of government who knew exactly where they were based on the tax returns which were filed.

Again, NCMEC is in the process of trying to disseminate this new tool, which an audit of the IRS demonstrated that there are roughly 2,000 tax returns a year where adult individuals are actually claiming children as a tax deduction, obviously, with their residence and identity included.

So, again, that is just another example of why we need to update and modernize the law.

I would just indicate on a personal level, my wife, Audrey, is a pediatric nurse practitioner. She works at the Children's Medical Center in Hartford, Connecticut. She is involved in a specialty clinic that helps children of sex abuse and human trafficking. She said that NCMEC is a frequent flier in their office. In the really important work that she and her colleagues do, they constantly use NCMEC as a way of trying to assist law enforcement in terms of helping children who are in these situations of human trafficking and who have been victims of online use of images, which is about as low a depraved activity that is out there right now. So, again, the work of this center, I can attest to from a personal level, is extremely important.

This legislation will update, modernize, and give tools to make sure that all of the good guys out there--the local State police and the folks in the healthcare sector--can really do everything they can to help families in this really terrible, horrific situation.

So, again, I applaud my colleague from Kentucky for his great work, as well as Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott for bringing this legislation forward. It passed unanimously in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a city which has been really challenged with this issue. I know she has been doing great work and has very powerful thoughts and arguments to make today regarding this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and a strong proponent of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), an outstanding member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

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

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

In summary, we have heard again a very broad-based bipartisan chorus of voices in support of this legislation. Again, like in committee, hopefully, all of us will stand together to support this really important update to making sure that families get all the help, and law enforcement get all the help, that they need to eliminate the scourge of this problem.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Mr. Yale Cantor from Ellington, Connecticut for his lifetime of public service, and I enthusiastically endorse his enshrinement on the Ellington Wall of Honor.

Yale has been on Ellington's Democratic Town Committee for over 60 years, and has served as a mentor to generations of residents who have sought to become involved in local government. His decorated career includes more than a decade as Democratic Town Chairman, being named a Justice of the Peace, a year on the Board of Selectmen, membership and chairmanship of the Human Service Commission, and more than 20 years on the Hockanum Valley Community Council, where he also served as president. In the town of Ellington, Yale is always ready to get involved in improving the community, and he created a large local footprint and legacy due to his efforts. Yale also had a long record of service as a teacher, and improving quality and access of education at all levels is one of his abiding passions.

During his years of service, Yale had a major personal hand in launching the campaigns of many distinguished public officials from the state of Connecticut, including my predecessor Sam Gejdenson, who served 20 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. I too can attest to Yale's political legacy. When I began my political career as a candidate for state representative in the town of Vernon in 1986, Yale was right there to give me wise counsel and support. In every campaign since for the General Assembly, Lieutenant Governor and U.S. Congress, Yale has always been there, loyally supporting my efforts. He is a true blue friend and a passionate advocate for democracy, fairness and civility. Those qualities are exactly what our nation needs today.

I would ask the chamber to please join me in congratulating Yale and his family for all they have done in Ellington, Connecticut and the nation over the years.

Mr. Speaker, all across America over the last 2 or 3 weeks has been an exciting time for a lot of young Americans and families as graduating seniors in 4-year programs and 2-year programs are receiving their degrees and beginning, obviously, a new, exciting stage in their life.

Unfortunately, there is still, though, a cloud over a lot of those folks in terms of what they face in the near future and the long-term future and many others who graduated in recent years, which is the high cost of student loan debt. The Federal Reserve has calculated that over $1 trillion of overhang exists in the U.S. economy because of student loan debt: an amount greater than credit card debt, an amount greater than auto debt, and at rates that far exceed any of those forms of consumer debt, including mortgages for homes.

The Federal Government, in the meantime, is out selling bonds as a borrower to people who buy Treasury bonds, 10-year notes. This morning's rate, which I checked before coming down here, the rate that the Federal Government is going to pay as borrower, is 2.3 percent. Well, as many, I think, listening here, Mr. Speaker, know, the fact is that student loans carry much higher rates of interest, particularly legacy debt that goes back 5, 6 years ago when, again, the rates for Stafford student loans, which are the publicly financed loans through the Federal Government, and certainly private loans that banks give to students that are on an unsecured rate can sometimes exceed 8, 9, 10 percent.

So tomorrow, I and many others are going to be introducing legislation called the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which will allow folks who carry the student loan debt not to get their debt forgiven, but to allow them to actually refinance down to 3.76 percent, which was the interest rate last year that the Federal Government offered for Stafford student loans.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that that will put about $50 billion into the pockets of young people all across the country who, because of student loan debt, are being inhibited in terms of getting married, starting a family, starting a business, and getting out of their parents' house. There is just all kinds of, I think, inhibitors that student loan debt creates for young people, millennials, all across the country.

Again, I want to emphasize the bill that I will be introducing tomorrow with 61 cosponsors is not debt forgiveness. It just simply does what any middle class family does in a low-interest rate environment, whether it is with a home mortgage or credit cards, to just simply get their rates down to a proportionate level with, again, the rest of consumer debt that is out there in the economy.

Simultaneously tomorrow, Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts will be introducing exactly the same bill, so we will have bills in the House and in the Senate. Last year we had 182 cosponsors on a similar piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the Speaker never allowed the bill to be brought to the floor for debate. But it is a new Congress; it is the 115th Congress that was sworn in last January.

This problem, I will just submit, Mr. Speaker, exists in Republican districts and Democratic districts, rural districts, suburban districts, urban districts. This is an opportunity to lift a debt burden from, again, the very folks that we really want to assist and help as they begin a new phase, a new chapter, in their life, and they should not have the albatross of high student loan rates hung around their neck. Hopefully, this will be the year that we will move forward on this measure, which is fully paid for--it does not add to the Federal debt--and just, again, allows young people and families the opportunity to do what they do with all other forms of consumer debt.

So it is the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. Hopefully, anyone listening to this will call their Members to tell them to get on this bill. And I would urge, Mr. Speaker, all of us on both sides of the aisle to deal with an issue that really is a bread- and-butter, kitchen-table issue

all across America, that, again, at this special time when students are graduating, we can do a really positive thing to help students and families all across America.

Madam Speaker, this morning, the American public woke up to news accounts that the Trump White House and Republican leadership in Congress is going to again this week make another attempt to try and repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy gave a speech in Texas a few days ago on Saturday where he promised that this is the week that the Republicans will repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

For those of us who were in the Chamber here just a short time ago in March when the first attempt was made to butcher the healthcare system with the so-called American Health Care Act, what we saw was the culmination of a process that was hyperpartisan starting in January in which the committees rushed through a piece of legislation without even giving the Congressional Budget Office a chance to analyze the cost and the impact in terms of the uninsured rate in America.

And then finally, as the hour approached when a vote was scheduled to

take place, the facts caught up with the legislation. The Congressional Budget Office determined that 24 million Americans would lose their health coverage, that the Medicare trust fund would be weakened because of the raid on the trust fund by reducing a Medicare tax surcharge for millionaires; and it would reduce the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by 4 years, a program that is revered and probably the most popular insurance program in America in which, again, collection of healthcare stakeholders from all across the country, the American Hospital Association, the nurses, the doctors, the March of Dimes all came out universally opposing this measure.

And finally, the Quinnipiac poll showed what the American public thought of this bill. They came out with a poll that showed only 17 percent support in the American public for the Republican healthcare bill. Again, the Quinnipiac poll comes from my State, the State of Connecticut, and was very supportive and friendly in terms of its polling data in terms of the Trump campaign last year, so it is certainly not a partisan poll.

So why are we revisiting a measure which was so universally denounced and despised? Well, there has been a new amendment that has been offered in an attempt, again, within the confines of the Republican majority, to try and win votes to pass this bill this week.

Again, they have a majority with roughly 240 seats. They need only 216, and that is really what has been the focus of the majority leader in terms of trying to line up a vote this week.

The amendment, the so-called MacArthur amendment, again, revisits some of the issues, which, again, some of the more conservative members of the Freedom Caucus were complaining about, and what it proposes to do is basically give States the ability to wipe out essential health benefits--in other words, the basic patient protections that were built into the health insurance law 8 years ago.

It does nothing in terms of trying to ameliorate the impact of the Medicaid cuts, which is the program for low-income and working Americans, which the ACA expanded and has done great work in terms of reducing the ranks of the uninsured. That is the measure which we now have before us this week.

Well, once again, the stakeholders who have to live with this have weighed in with their thoughts. This is what the American Hospital Association said:

``The amendment proposed this week would dramatically worsen the bill.''

Again, it is a bill that was so unpopular, poorly drafted, and not ready for prime time that the Speaker pulled it from a vote on March 24.

The American Hospital Association, which is the largest trade association for hospitals in America--they represent thousands of hospitals--have said that, in fact, this makes it even worse.

By weakening the essential health benefits--and I come from Connecticut. We know a little bit about insurance in that State. What we know is, if insurance companies can redesign healthcare plans, the essential health benefits will be the first to go. The ones that will be the first to go will be maternity care, behavioral health, and emergency coverage because those are the most expensive items that are included within the health insurance plan. I would say, well, that is true. On the other hand, those are the essential benefits that families need.

Look at what has happened since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2007 to infant mortality, for example: because of the Medicaid coverage, 57 percent of the live births in America are now women--and particularly young women--who get the benefit of Medicaid coverage. So they get prenatal care. They get the help that they need to make sure that a healthy delivery occurs. That is why infant mortality rates have been coming down in this country since the Affordable Care Act passed.

To allow States to eliminate or give insurance companies the ability to eliminate maternity care, again, is just going exactly in the opposite direction. A goal all Americans support is to reduce infant mortality and to promote healthy live births.

The American Hospital Association was joined by the American Medical Association, which is the largest trade group which represents physicians all across the country, and came out against the bill.

America should listen. The people in Congress should listen. We should not take up this bill. It is time for a true bipartisan process to improve America's healthcare bill.

Let's not vote on this this week. Let's listen to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Captain James Dick for his more than 30 years of faithful and dedicated service to the U.S. Navy and our country.

A 1987 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and 1993 graduate of the Naval Postgraduate School, Captain Dick served as an engineering officer on the USS San Jacinto (CG 56) where he completed three deployments to the Persian Gulf. In 2000, he returned to shipboard life aboard the USS Klackring (FFG 42) as executive officer. In this tour, he oversaw a crew of more than 200 sailors as they circumnavigated South America as part of their UNITAS XLI exercises with other foreign navies. In 2005, Captain Dick assumed command of the USS Ramage (DDG

61). While in command, his crew supported both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Under his leadership, the Ramage earned recognition as Self-Sufficient Ship of the Year for the Atlantic fleet, saving the Navy over $200,000.

Captain Dick transitioned from being a surface warfare officer to serving as an exceptional navy acquisition professional in 2008. In this capacity, he served as Program Manager for the Sea Warrior Program, as an International Programs and Foreign Military Sales expert, and most recently within the International Fleet Support and Ship Transfer Directorate. Captain Dick's tireless efforts supporting the U.S. Navy's foreign military sales endeavors have helped to ensure America's timeless values of freedom and democracy extend beyond our borders, around the globe.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Captain James Dick for his lifetime of dedication and service to the U.S. Navy and the country. We thank him for his sacrifice, his commitment, and his countless efforts to preserve peace at home and spread freedom abroad.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most powerful moment on Inauguration Day when the President gave his speech was when he reminded his supporters and the people who were assembled there that there were too many in America who were forgotten by the Federal Government; and that it was his promise that he would, in fact, remember them in terms of how he developed policies and programs during his time as President. It is a message which obviously he used quite effectively on the campaign trail. I think personally it is what propelled him into the White House.

Fast forward to where we are today, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to really square that rhetoric with the budget, which was submitted a couple of weeks ago by the Trump administration. The one agency which probably has the closest connection to rural America, that part of the country which he was addressing in his comments on Inauguration Day, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was cut by 20 percent in terms of what came over from the White House.

Again, that was the third largest hit of any Federal agency of the entire Federal Government, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It does so much in terms of helping farmers, small town America, and rural America in terms of dealing with the challenges which, again, I think, were just a huge, powerful undercurrent in last November's election.

In particular, the budget proposes eliminating completely the USDA Rural Development for drinking water and wastewater programs, which, again, for so many communities, is desperately needed.

Again, the property tax base of small town and rural towns across the country really cannot, by themselves, pay for sewer plants, pay for drinking water upgrades. I know because I come from one of those districts.

Even in Connecticut, the eastern half of the State, the Second Congressional District is small town, rural America for which the USDA Rural Development programs have been the lifeblood of making sure that community facilities and, again, a decent quality of life are possible.

So, for example, in towns like Vernon, Connecticut, where I am from, the Bolton Lake sewer plant was just finished a couple of years ago through USDA Rural Development. In the town of Putnam, $28 million over just the last couple of years, they just built a new fire station, the north Putnam fire station, with USDA Rural Development.

Stafford, Connecticut, there was a sewer plant upgrade. Windham, Connecticut, there was a new community health facility, which was a community facilities program, through USDA Rural Development. There were projects in Thompson, Connecticut, $2.4 million for water and sewer; Brooklyn, Connecticut, $1.3; Killingly, and the list goes on and on.

This budget, let's be clear, doesn't just give this program a little haircut or tailor it back. It eliminates it. It eviscerates this type of help which, again, rural communities, with their own resources, are incapable of accomplishing on their own.

Mr. Speaker, a budget is more than just a collection of numbers. It is a statement of your priorities. It is about what is important to you as an executive or as a legislator, and this budget fails that test for rural America, for the forgotten Americans which the President addressed on Inauguration Day.

I am confident that, in this Chamber, there is potential for a bipartisan group of Members to push back on this type of really just backwards budgeting and backwards priority.

Again, in terms of what my father told me a long time ago: Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is. Put your budget where your rhetoric is.

On that score, this administration has failed that test. It has also failed it with the Sea Grant program for fishermen in America. Again, 90 percent of seafood that is consumed in this country is from overseas.

Even though we are a great maritime country, the Sea Grant program helps

fishermen deal with all the complexity of the maritime domain in terms of regulations. I have seen it in Connecticut.

Again, my district borders on Long Island Sound. We have seen shellfish growers coming back to life because of the Sea Grant program administered through the University of Connecticut Avery Point Campus that has given these really hardworking, inspiring entrepreneurs the tools that they need to again give America a domestic seafood industry. It is just ridiculous when you look at the disproportion of imported seafood that is consumed on the tables of Americans all across the country.

Later today, 100 House Members, on a bipartisan basis, will be releasing a letter of support for the Sea Grant program. Congressman Zeldin, Republican from Long Island, and myself led that letter. Again, this is where our focus ought to be in terms of this country.

If you really care about making America great again, it is about giving people out there in the great heartland and in the coastal sections of this country the tools that they need to grow, thrive, innovate, and succeed. This budget fails that test.