Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, in 2011, former Secretary Robert Gates, as he was departing office, gave a speech at the West Point academy in which he said:

In my opinion, any future Defense Secretary who advises the

President to again send a big American land army into Asia or

into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined,

as General MacArthur so delicately put it.

I think Secretary Gates spoke for the entire country in terms of that sentiment, which, after a long, bitter experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, speaks to the weariness that many feel today in terms of those conflicts, and, certainly, with the motion that is before us this afternoon, it still rings in people's ears. I think it is important therefore to sort of measure what we are voting on with what Secretary Gates, I think, so accurately stated.

The motion before us is to provide for title 10 authorization to allow the U.S. military to train and equip forces in Saudi Arabia to take up arms against ISIL. I checked with the Congressional Research Service yesterday to determine how many title 10 operations over the last 3 years have been conducted by the U.S. military. In 28 countries all across the world, the U.S. military has been involved in training and equipping operations, from the Philippines to Yemen to Poland.

For those who argue that what we are about to engage in is a slippery slope or that this authorization somehow broadly confers on the administration the ability to conduct a land invasion or a large military force, the fact of the matter is that the long and broad experience of title 10 that we have tells us exactly the opposite. In fact, what title 10 seeks to do is to stand up indigenous forces in those nations of allies to avoid what Secretary Gates warned about in 2011, which is to, again, not get this country involved in a large land invasion.

Madam Speaker, one healthy thing has occurred over the last few days, which is that folks on both sides of this measure, I think, have come to the realization that we as a Congress need to be engaged in terms of these types of decisions.

To their credit, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Smith have fashioned a resolution which requires by December 11 our revisiting this motion, to have regular reporting from the Department of Defense, and it requires us, I think, at some point, to take up the broader question of authorization of military force, reaching back to 2001 and 2002, in terms of limiting the scope, which, again, has been supported by this administration and which we have discussed in the House Armed Services Committee. It is also to focus on what exactly is the end game for our efforts in Syria and Iraq.

Again, the measure that is before us today, though, is simply about title 10 authorization between today and December 11. I think people should not overthink and overstate the consequences of this vote. What it provides is for America to stand up with regional allies and European allies to begin the process of degrading and, ultimately, destroying a barbaric force, which threatens stability both in the Middle East and, ultimately, America's national interests.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

Again, Mr. Polis, I think, very powerfully stated how this majority once again is denying a free and open amendment process, or even a limited amendment process, with this totalitarian version of debate.

I also want to speak in opposition to the underlying bill. We heard a lot about skyrocketing premiums. I come from a State where a Governor actually embraced the Affordable Care Act. What we saw just a few days ago, with the new premiums that are released for 2015, was reported on by Kaiser Family Foundation, which is the gold standard for health care reporting in this country, is that the State of Connecticut is actually going to see a 4 percent reduction in the plans sold through the Affordable Care Act exchange. My friend from Colorado is one of the real lucky States. They are looking at a 15 percent reduction in terms of their silver plans that are sold through the exchange.

Again, this chart which we have prepared for today shows that, rather than skyrocketing premiums, what we are seeing in State after State after State in terms of premiums for next year is that there are either reductions or very modest increases.

The bill that we are going to be voting on later today would actually damage the progress that is being made in a lot of these States because it basically expands plans that protect discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, which was, sadly,

what the insurance market looked like before the Affordable Care Act was passed. It, again, allows cherry-picking plans that picked healthier populations as opposed to what we are seeing with the plans that have been implemented and now are high-functioning.

256,000 people enrolled through the exchange in the State of Connecticut last year, far shattering all the projections that HHS had set forth, because we had a high-functioning Web site--kudos to Governor Malloy--but also because people voted with their feet; that when they actually got the facts and had a chance to look at the coverage that was being offered and the price that it was going to cost, they, again, shattered all the projections. And we are poised to move forward again next year.

In the small group market, what we are seeing is that since the enrollment ended for the individual market, the shop exchange, as the small market is called, tripled in terms of small businesses in the State of Connecticut that enrolled, with protections so that people with preexisting conditions, who are born with diabetes, or arthritis, are not going to be shut out of the market, which these old plans that the Cassidy bill seeks to enshrine and enlarge did under the provisions of that legislation.

We, as Mr. Polis said, need to roll up our sleeves and talk about ways that we can improve the law. This is a huge, terrible step backwards, which, for all these States which are seeing rate reductions for 2015, would be lost.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee and having the honor to serve under Mr. McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, I would like to just share a couple of thoughts, having sat through the hearing with Secretary Hagel where he was held accountable that day, he was asked very probing, difficult questions about a very difficult decision, which was happening at Mach speed, when an opportunity--a small window of opportunity opened up to recover an American soldier held in captivity by the enemy.

When the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act, including the 30-day notice, the administration put up a big red warning flag saying that article II of the U.S. Constitution, which empowers the President to be the Commander in Chief, conflicted with that section, and they reserved their rights to continue to act pursuant to the Constitution.

Now, any first-year law student--frankly, almost any high school student who takes American history--knows that a constitutional provision trumps a statute, that when there is a conflict of law between a constitutional provision and a statute, the Constitution prevails.

The President, as Secretary Hagel laid out in excruciating detail when he was asked about the sequence of events which led up to the decision that was made, again reviewed through the Justice Department their authority.

Realizing that again there was no plan B, there was no plan C to get Sergeant Bergdahl out of captivity, there was no Special Forces sort of ready to rev up and go in and free him, the fact of the matter is that it was this or there was nothing and that, exercising his rights under the Constitution, they moved forward and freed Sergeant Bergdahl, which apparently everybody agrees with the outcome, they are just upset with the fact that the President's interpretation of the law is different than the committee.

So where are we with this resolution? Is there a remedy? Is anybody proposing to do anything other than just sort of issue what I think is just a political polemic criticizing the President for his actions?

This resolution is a nullity in terms of any effect or impact that it actually has in terms of the President's actions. He is not being held to account by impeachment, which probably there is a lot of talk on the Internet when this was all taking place, but that is not happening.

So it is just really we are filling up space here on the floor of the House when we have so many other pressing issues. At the end of the day, it is not going to change the events. It is not going to change the two sides in terms of their interpretation of what happened here one iota.

Mr. Speaker, again, I understand that people had an honest disagreement about the way the statute was interpreted and implemented, but what I will just say to you is that that is an honest disagreement that happens and has happened in American history over and over again.

We should move on. We should let the military do whatever disciplinary proceedings they are going to do with Sergeant Bergdahl.

We should let the military act as they deem appropriate in terms of Sergeant Bergdahl's actions in the Middle East, but the fact of the

matter is it is Secretary Hagel who came before this committee as a wounded warrior from the war in Vietnam, an impeccable military history--in my opinion, one of the most outstanding individuals I have had the privilege to meet in Washington, D.C.--testified honestly and sincerely. He took his hits before the committee.

Let's move on. Let's accept his explanation. Disagree with it if we honestly feel that he acted improperly, but the fact of the matter is he acted pursuant to the Constitution. It is time for this Congress to focus on real issues that have a real effect on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to shine a spotlight on an American star for vastly different reasons to which she is accustomed. Deana Martin, an accomplished singer, actor, author and performer in her own right, as well as the daughter of the legendary Dean Martin, will be performing for the people of Enfield at the request of the Lady of Mt. Carmel Society and the local Chief of Police, Mr. Carl Sferrazza.

On August 2nd, Ms. Martin, as a special guest of the community, will be visiting seniors at the Enfield Senior Center to talk about her experiences watching and performing with her father. She will also stop by the Felician Sisters, Our Lady of the Angels Convent to bring her performance to those who would not otherwise have the opportunity to see it.

In addition to performing her music, Ms. Martin will also be speaking on her best-selling book, ``Memories Are Made Of This'' in which she tells her father's story through her own eyes. The book's name is a reference to her father's work that captures the essence of their relationship.

Thanks to Ms. Martin's participation, this annual tradition of a proud Connecticut town will be a unique experience filled with music and storytelling from a legendary American family. I thank Ms. Martin for her wonderful musical work, and her service to this local community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 138th anniversary of the founding of the Revenue Cutter School of Instruction, the predecessor of today's Coast Guard Academy, on July 31, 1876.

On that day, the Academy's first training exercise was held aboard the two-masted topsail schooner Dobbin, with a class of nine cadets. The class boarded the Dobbin in Baltimore, Maryland, for a 2-year training mission led by Captain John Henriques. Training aboard the ship emphasized seamanship and navigation, as it still does each summer when cadets still sail onboard the Coast Guard Barque Eagle.

Today, the Coast Guard Academy, located in New London, Connecticut, since 1910, is the home to a corps of nearly 1,000 cadets, 200 of whom graduate each year.

The Coast Guard Academy produces almost half of the service's corps of commissioned officers and has graduated distinguished leaders such as Thad Allen, Bob Papp, and the present commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Paul Zukunft, who lead our Coast Guard and serve the Nation. Today, it is led by the first woman officer to lead a United States military academy, Admiral Sandra Stosz.

As a cochair of the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus and the representative of Connecticut's Second District, home to the Coast Guard Academy, I am honored to recognize its distinguished beginnings and the longstanding traditions of leadership and excellence which continue to serve our country.

Mr. Speaker, 9.5 million Americans are unemployed. America's roads and rails are crumbling. College graduates are saddled with $1 trillion in debt that they can't refinance. Ukraine and the Middle East are on fire. And what does the Speaker have lined up for us in the final 3 days before his 5-week recess for August? He wants us to pass a resolution to sue the President for actions he doesn't like. Mainstream legal experts have said repeatedly this lawsuit is both ludicrous and dangerous, but what it mostly is is wasteful.

The Speaker's shutdown cost the American economy $24 billion. The 50 ACA repeal votes have cost $79 million. The DOMA lawsuit lined pockets of lawyers at $500 an hour, billable hours.

We should cancel the recess. We should go to work in terms of addressing the issues of jobs in this country. We should stop lining the pockets of politically connected lawyers. Let's stand up for the middle class. Let's fix America's infrastructure, and let's get this country moving again and skip the lawsuit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep gratitude to pay tribute to a colleague, a friend, and a trusted deputy, Jenny Contois, who retired last month after serving seven and half years as my District Director in Connecticut's Second District.

Even more than a traditional District Director for a Member of the House, I considered Jenny to be a Co-Member of Congress. Whenever I was called to Washington for legislative duty, I had unshakable confidence in Jenny's abilities to handle all challenges in Connecticut. Jenny's executive experience, honed over 15 years as First Selectwoman of Colchester prepared her to lead my Connecticut office and to expand her area of responsibility from one town to 64 towns of the Second District.

Jenny combined a passionate commitment to public service with an unshakable determination to solve problems that lay before her. When it came to finding a loan for a struggling small business, securing a rural development grant for a town in need, badgering a recalcitrant federal agency to fulfill a previous obligation, or begging and borrowing to get an Army Corps boat to dredge a coastal harbor, Jenny's tenacity was unparalleled and her success rate unmatched.

At no time did Jenny shine brighter than during a crisis. Whether in the aftermath of a winter storm that left residential and commercial power lines down or in the wake of a summer storm that brought extensive flooding to our shores, Jenny rose to the challenge time and time again. Immediately after a blizzard or tempest hit, Jenny would work by my side to rally fellow municipal leaders and emergency responders to expedite the assessment and repairs. After the storms subsided, she worked painstakingly with families and businesses to help them secure the recovery funds and assistance they so desperately needed.

She accomplished all of this with a winning smile and a hearty laugh. By the time that her seven and a half years as District Director had concluded, Jenny in many ways had evolved from the First Selectwoman of Colchester to the First Selectwoman of eastern Connecticut.

This weekend, Jenny's many colleagues, friends, and family will celebrate her service to the Second District of Connecticut at a gathering in her hometown. Jenny will spend her duly earned retirement with her beloved husband Frank, her daughter Amy, and her latest arrival, her grandson Jack.

I will miss Jenny's day-to-day counsel and friendship in the future, but I am heartened and grateful to remember her invaluable assistance in launching my new office almost eight years ago and achieving the success we had together.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting one of eastern Connecticut's finest, Jenny Contois.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, July 20th marked the 40th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus. At this time, the need for reunification becomes even more apparent.

Although negotiations between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots have been occurring since 2008, the two sides have been unable to reach an agreement that would reunite the country. Both sides must come to the table and discuss key status issues, including the right to return, future governance structures, and the citizenships status of Turkish settlers. As a member of the European Union, a united Cyprus can act as a stable and democratic strategic partner for the United States in a volatile region.

Unfortunately, while these unsuccessful negotiations have been taking place, many Greek Cypriots face continued discrimination and obstruction. A number of Greek Cypriots have been unable to return to their homes in northern Cyprus, and their property is often illegally confiscated and sold without their consent. They live in fear of the Turkish military troops that still occupy the island and are unable to determine the fate of those who have been missing since the 1974 division. Greek Cypriots are denied access to religious sites and a number of important sites have been looted and destroyed. The discovery of gas fields off the coast of the island has been complicated due to territorial disputes between the communities. It is unlikely these issues will be resolved unless a final resolution is agreed upon by both sides.

In February, with help from the United States, the negotiation proceeded when leaders of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots reached an agreement regarding the language of the ``joint declaration,'' which identifies the goals both sides hoped to reach by the end of the negotiations. Negotiations have resumed since the ``joint declaration'' was established and must continue until there is a consensus on the final status of the island.

Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Cyprus in May underscored U.S. support for negotiations and the importance of Cyprus as a key partner in the region. The United States must uphold its commitment to helping the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots reach an agreement regarding the reunification of their country. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing continued support for the people of Cyprus as negotiations continue.

Mr. Speaker, southeastern Connecticut last Friday suffered a terrible loss with the sudden passing of Bob Hamilton, a long time military affairs reporter for the New London Day.

Over the years, Bob covered the Groton sub base and earned a well- deserved reputation for accuracy, intelligence, and fairness. And that is the reason why the U.S. Navy selected him as the first reporter to be on a combat submarine in the opening days of Operation Enduring Freedom, when the opening salvo of tomahawk missiles brought down the Taliban regime.

In the last few years, Bob has been director of communications at Electric Boat shipyard, and was part of the team effort to boost submarine shipbuilding that resulted in the largest contract in the Navy to build Virginia class submarines, at two submarines a year.

Again, he passed away suddenly last Friday, leaving his wife, Kathryn, and three children, a terrible loss.

I would ask the Chamber to join me in expressing condolences to Kathryn, and salute the great example that Bob set in terms of good journalism, great advocacy for the national defense, and for being an outstanding human being.

Madam Speaker, unless Congress acts, on September 30 the Export-Import Bank will go out of existence. This is a government program that has been around for 80 years--since Franklin Roosevelt-- helping businesses export products and create jobs in America.

Last week, Congressman John Larson and I joined the largest Chamber of Commerce in the State of Connecticut, along with three small exporting businesses, pleading with Speaker Boehner to please bring up a bill to extend the life of the Export-Import Bank, which has happened routinely on a bipartisan basis over the last 80 years.

Madam Speaker, I want to make two points. Number one, this program does not cost the taxpayers money. Last year it returned $1 billion to the Treasury. Secondly, our largest competition--China and Germany--are doubling the sizes of their export-import programs because they understand that that is a way to grow their economies and to take away jobs and customers from our country, from America.

Please, Mr. Speaker, listen to the 850 business groups all across the country, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Bring up the Export- Import Bank reauthorization for a vote, and let's get this economy growing again.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan consensus bill, and I want to congratulate Mr. Tierney for his steadfast work going back years, in terms of getting this to this point here today.

I also want to congratulate the members from across the aisle who, in agreeing to this bill, rejected the sequester level of spending, which was in the original bill that was passed earlier this session.

That sequester level of spending was going to handcuff job training efforts, so that we could not, in fact, achieve the goals that this bill will, in fact, get us to when it passes later today.

For example, the bill allows the employer support to go to 75 percent for on-the-job training and 20 percent support for incumbent worker training. Allowing that support to rise will give employers the flexibility and the opportunity to give new workers the skills that they need for advanced manufacturing and high-skilled jobs that they can't take that risk on for people with the cost that it would bear.

This bill gives them that support and that help, but it is because we rejected the unrealistic sequester levels, which the Ryan budget and which the original bill incorporate.

Now, let's do it for cancer research. Let's do it for law enforcement. Let's do it for homeland security. Let's get rid of sequester, and let's allow this economy and this country to get the resources it needs to grow and thrive for its middle class.

Madam Chair, as ranking member of the subcommittee on Workforce Protections that has jurisdiction over this issue, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan.

Earlier this year, Chairman Walberg and I raised bipartisan concerns with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP)'s enforcement activity with regards to TRICARE participants. Under the OFCCP's 2010 directive, there was very real concern that any hospital that participated in TRICARE would be considered to be a federal contractor under the OFCCP's jurisdiction. While I support the mission of the OFCCP, I shared the concern of many that application of the agency's contracting rules could disrupt the vital mission of providing quality health care for our active duty servicemembers, retirees and their families.

To this end, as a conferee on the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act, I supported language clarifying that a TRICARE health care provider was not a federal contractor or subcontractor. Despite the clear congressional intent in that language, and the withdrawal of the 2010 directive that is the subject of this amendment, our recent hearings in the Workforce Protections subcommittee on the subject showed there was still a great deal of misunderstanding over the reach of OFCCP into TRICARE providers.

That is why I deeply appreciate the personal engagement of our Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, in hearing out our concerns and taking action to address them. As the gentleman noted, Secretary Perez has already addressed this matter through Directive 2014-01 establishing a moratorium on the OFCCP's enforcement activity with regards to TRICARE participants, addressing many of the concerns raised on the floor here today. For instance, instead of a temporary one-year rider proposed through this amendment the Secretary's

directive established a five year moratorium on applying OFCCP's jurisdiction to TRICARE providers--meaning that any open OFCCP audits of TRICARE providers will be terminated and no new enforcement activity will occur during that time.

I would also note for the record that, per Secretary Perez's written commitment to our subcommittee, the OFCCP withdrew its complaint against Florida Hospital of Orlando on March 28, 2014. This case was the source of much of the bipartisan concern regarding the application of OFCCP rules on TRICARE providers. I mention this point because the gentleman cited this enforcement action in his remarks in support of the amendment, but did not inform the House that in fact this case no longer exists.

Madam Chair, I strongly believe that the Secretary's moratorium is a good faith effort to heed our bipartisan concerns and provides the time needed for Congress and the Department to take another look at this issue. With the Secretary's quick and direct response to our subcommittee's concerns on this issue, this amendment is unnecessary, and arguably a step backwards from the action already taken.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information for the record, and I look forward to continuing to work with Secretary Perez, Chairman Walberg and our colleagues on the Workforce Protections subcommittee on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, last December, in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, Warren mill, a textile mill that had been in operation for 161 years, sadly closed its doors and laid off its workers.

It was a day where many were sort of writing obituaries for the textile industry in New England, but for many, the memory and the reputation of the high quality of that factory lived on.

Fast forward to this past Wednesday, a new owner, American Woolen, closed on a deal to reopen the plant, which the looms will be humming by the end of this month, hiring back the workers whose quality workmanship, again, resurrected this industry for New England.

It was because of the combined effort of my office, which worked with the parties, to bring them together, and Governor Dan Malloy, who provided some low-interest financing, to help the transaction move forward. It all came together, so that by the end of June, 80 workers are going to be back at the looms producing wool and delivering it with a ``Made in America'' stamp, which is not just a dream, it is a reality. It is good business practice for people to invest in America's workers.

Congratulations to the workers of Warren mill in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, for setting an example of how we, as a Nation, can lead again in manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Jim Toomey of Tolland, Connecticut who a few weeks ago stepped aside from a distinguished 42 year career as a Tolland Volunteer Firefighter. When Jim entered the department in 1972, little did he know the role and operations of a small rural fire department in eastern Connecticut would evolve into a far more demanding mission by the end of his career.

In 1972, Tolland was a small rural community with a small force that focused on the traditional mission of fighting fires. In the years following as Tolland grew and the fire department, in turn, assumed more responsibilities, Jim joined the Dive Team, became an EMT, and after 9/11 integrated new Department of Homeland Security requirements for first responders.

In 2005, Jim became Deputy Chief and served with distinction until his retirement this year. A few weeks ago, an overflow crowd assembled to celebrate Jim's retirement at Maneeley's Banquet Center in South Windsor and to shower Jim and his wife Karen, their children and grandchildren with the well-deserved accolades of his amazing career. As someone who worked with Karen in my law practice for 27 years, I saw up close the long hours he devoted to the department and the sacrifice he and his family made to serve his town so diligently and competently.

I ask my colleagues in the House to join me and his fellow citizens in thanking Jim for the outstanding example of public service he set, and for all of the people and property he protected and rescued for 42 long years.

Mr. Speaker, last August, in a rare flash of bipartisan togetherness, we passed a measure that protected new student loans from doubling to 6.8 percent, but there is still much work left to be done. The $1.2 trillion of student loan overhang still haunts many who have graduated from university in prior years.

Yesterday, President Obama, with the stroke of a pen, extended the income-based repayment protections, capping at 10 percent of income the debt requirements for students who took out Stafford loans in the past, but there is still more work to be done.

Again, for many who have private student loan debts at 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent interest, they are still not getting any relief.

A few days ago, we introduced in the House the Bank on Students Emergency Refinancing Act, which will allow students with those loans to refinance down those high rates to 3.8 percent, something which middle class families do with home mortgages and credit cards.

We need to provide that assistance, particularly for young Americans who are starting out in their professional employment careers.

Let's come together as we did last August. Let's support the Bank on Students Emergency Refinancing Act. Let's pass this measure, which is a critical problem for middle class Americans.