Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Raymond R. Elliott of Canterbury who passed away on February 5, 2011. Ray served his country honorably in the Vietnam War and continued to serve his community in various capacities throughout his life.

Ray was a past Commander at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #10004 in Jewett City. Whether it was volunteering to work in the kitchen before a dinner or recognizing other veterans for their service, Ray was always ready and willing to give back. He regularly volunteered to drive disabled veterans to their appointments within the Veterans Affairs system and even oversaw the program for some time. In 2007, I had the honor of meeting Ray and working with him to help coordinate the van driving program. I will always remember the compassion and good humor Ray brought to this basic yet essential task.

While deeply dedicated to helping his fellow veterans, the scope of Ray's service within the community was much broader. He volunteered as a mentor at the Windham Center School, coached Willimantic Little League baseball and softball, and was an avid fan of UCONN athletics.

As a beloved husband, father, grandfather, veteran, coach, and mentor, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ray Elliott's life of service to his country and community.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman from Florida's amendment. And as a fellow member of the House Armed Services Committee, I just want to share at least some of the ad nauseam length of input that we have had at the Armed Services Committee over the last 2 or 3 years talking about this issue.

We have had the benefit of hearing from the warfighters, the heads of the various branches that are dealing with this program, whether it's the Marines, the Navy, the Air Force, and they have repeatedly, over the last 2 or 3 years, stated that there is no justification for this wasteful spending which, again, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have also supported.

On the Seapower Subcommittee, which I serve on, Admiral Roughead, the CNO, head of the Navy, talked about the disastrous operational impact that having two engines would have in terms of our aircraft carriers. As he stated: ``One can look at a carrier and see a very large ship, but when

that ship is deployed, we have things packed in almost every nook and cranny in order to provide that reliability and responsiveness. So having to stock two different types of engines is just not practical for us.''

It would be totally unrealistic to have a situation where the F-35B and the F-35C, which are the planes which will land on our aircraft carriers, have to fly in with two separate engines that would require two separate systems of maintenance and repair. And the notion which was stated earlier by one of the prior speakers that they are somehow interchangeable--well, if we're going to have interchangeability, then we may as well just have one engine system which is, in fact, what we have today in terms of the F-18 Super Hornets which land on aircraft carriers every day of the year. It is one engine supplier which provides the engines for those Super Hornets, GE, and good for them. And as Admiral Roughead said, he really doesn't care which engine it is, but the Navy needs to have only one system in order for them to be operational on the 11 aircraft carriers that today make up a key component of our national defense.

One person on the committee sort of suggested the fact that, well, maybe a way to solve that problem would be to have GE aircraft carriers and Pratt & Whitney aircraft carriers which, again, kind of I think highlights the absurdity of the notion that you are going to have two separate engine systems on these vessels on which every square inch is precious.

Mr. Chair, we have heard a lot of talk about competition. I'm sure there is going to be lots of rebuttal about the fact that there was a competition which led into the selection of the Pratt & Whitney engine. But what I would just end with is that competition is one thing; redundancy and waste is another.

We do not have two of everything in terms of our procurement systems. We did not have two engines for Blackhawk helicopters. We did not have two engines for F-18s or our ships. We don't have two nuclear reactor systems for our submarines, for our aircraft carriers. We don't have two separate engines for our destroyers.

The fact of the matter is you have to make decisions sometimes in order to achieve efficiency, and that's where we are today with the F- 35 program. The notion that we are going to add $3 billion to production costs by having a separate alternate engine and all of the rippling effects of operational headaches which Admiral Roughead eloquently described before the Armed Services Committee is just not something that our military can afford today.

We have reached a tipping point in terms of our military budgets. We have got to focus on effective, efficient use of resources to help the warfighter and to advance our national security. And having a bloated, wasteful system of an alternate engine, which is the way The Washington Post described this program, is not the way to achieve that goal.

I strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to pass this amendment for a cost-effective, efficient use of our resources for our national defense.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Congresswoman DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate my remarks with Congresswoman DeLauro's eloquence. Bill Ratchford was a giant in Connecticut politics. He

served as Speaker of the House in the State legislature. As a former State legislator myself, I saw firsthand the legacy that he left behind in terms of a civil but progressive agenda that he advanced in the State of Connecticut, which, as a Member of Congress for three terms, he continued that work, again, particularly focusing on the emerging issues of the aging in our country, which as a demographic is growing. He was really just someone with great vision in terms of the need to make sure that we had a society that was prepared to deal with those issues.

Mr. Speaker, as we grapple with the challenge of civil discourse in our democracy, Bill Ratchford, in my opinion, is the perfect, almost iconic example of what a legislator and a public servant ought to be. He cared deeply about the issues that he campaigned and advocated for, but he also was someone who studiously respected his opposition and believed passionately in civil discourse and debate. Again, I think that legacy, probably above all, is the most powerful one that he leaves behind us; and, frankly, we would all do well to follow his outstanding example.

Mr. Speaker, in 1986 over 66 percent of America's employers provided retiree health insurance. In 2009, that number had collapsed to 29 percent. What the health care bill did was use a tried and true method of setting up a reinsurance program that we use for flood insurance, terrorism insurance, and to insure the nuclear energy industry.

This fund, which will cost-share and cost-spread the high claims of older 55-plus Americans, is a program that employers have stampeded into. Over 4,700 employers have entered into this program. Over half the Fortune 500, many whose corporate logos are right here--something that Coke and Pepsi and AT&T and Comcast can come together on--are voting with their feet because this is a program that works.

Mr. Speaker, public employers are also taking advantage. This map shows yellow States who have not entered the program. If you notice, no yellow States have not entered the program. All 50 States with Republican governors and Democratic governors have entered into this program, States who are suing the Federal Government to overturn the health care bill--they know a program that's going to work to make sure that their health care costs are going to be controlled and spread. This means that police officers, teachers, people working in corporations who are 55 and up can retire with confidence, opening up opportunities for young Americans which clearly the prior system was not going to allow.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will blow up this program, which employers who are voting with their feet say will work. That is not creating jobs. This program creates jobs. It lowers costs for employers and provides an avenue for young people to have a future in this country.

We should vote ``no'' on this legislation. Let's grow America's economy. Let's preserve the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.

Thank you, Mr. Welch.

In actually following the Congresswoman's comments about Texas' participation in various parts of the program, I wanted to focus for a minute on one of the really strong pro-employer provisions of this bill.

We heard a lot of talk on the floor today about job-killing health care laws. I mean, the fact of the matter is, since President Obama signed the measure into law in March, over 1 million private sector jobs have been created in this country. I would contrast that to the day he was sworn into office, January of 2009, when the U.S. economy had lost 800,000 jobs in 1 month alone. So, clearly, you know, on just a simple data basis, this claim really doesn't pass the test of the facts.

One of the pro-employer measures which Texas is now participating in, along with the other 49 States, is a provision called the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. In 1986, over 60 percent of America's employers had a retiree health insurance plan so that people hitting age 55 or 60 could retire, and their benefits would be extended. In 2009, that number had fallen to below 30 percent.

What this bill did is it created a reinsurance fund, which is like a government backstop for private employment-based health insurance plans, similar to the same type of reinsurance plans that we have for terrorism insurance, flood insurance, and the nuclear energy industry. These are types of property and casualty coverage which would never be written in this country if the government did not act as a backstop. We set up a similar fund and basically opened the doors to employers across America who had, again, employees who were over age 55.

What have we seen?

Over 4,700 employers have enrolled in this program. Over half of the Fortune 500 companies in America have signed up for this program. I mean, you can just go down the list: GE, General Dynamics, Coca Cola, Pepsi, AT&T, Comcast, Ford, GM, Walgreens. The list goes on and on.

Again, all 50 States have enrolled for their State employee health plans, including States that are suing the Federal Government to try and blow this law to smithereens.

The fact of the matter is is that they're voting with their feet in terms of whether or not this is a good law or not. If this was not a good program, they wouldn't enroll in it. But they understand that stabilizing early retiree health benefits is a way of making sure that people who are 55 years old and are teaching or police officers or working in corporate America are going to retire, and that will create elasticity in the labor market so that young Americans can actually fill those positions. I mean, this is even truer in terms of physical labor occupations. And again, Taft-Hartley plans, laborers, iron workers have all signed up for this reinsurance program, again, as a way of stabilizing 55- to 65-year-old Americans' health benefits and creating more opportunities for younger Americans so that people will follow that natural path of retiring.

When you take that measure and combine it with the small business tax credit--$40 billion of tax relief for small employers--this is a pro- jobs, pro-employer law. And again, quick example, I was at a roundtable on health care in my district. There was a family doctor that was there who was talking about the new Medicare changes and how excited she was about getting tools to better serve her clients. And she said, I'm getting killed on my own employee health plan, it's like $14,000 a year for four or five employees. And I said, well, did you check out the small business tax credit? She said the small business what? So she went on that tax calculator--it's smallbusinessmajority .org--and called me back a couple of days later. She's going to save $4,000 on her health insurance premium because of that tax credit.

By passing this law today, the Republican majority raised the taxes of small businesses all across America at exactly the same time that today they are figuring out their tax returns for 2010. I was a small employer before I came to Congress a short time ago. That's what you do in January and February, you start pulling your papers together to do your taxes. And they just voted today to blow up that tax credit to help the real job creators in America's economy.

And quickly to conclude, I'm glad you mentioned teachers because as we now begin a great debate in our country about trying to reform America's schools, the one thing I think everybody agrees is getting young teachers who understand technology, who are enthusiastic, that young students can identify with a little better than some of the older teachers that are in the classrooms. We want them in the classrooms. But older teachers who are afraid that they're going to lose their benefits if they retire are going to continue to work for their benefits. And this fund, this reinsurance fund is a way of trying to loosen the labor market and get new blood in occupations all across our economy.

Thank you, Mr. Welch, for your great presentation.

Madam Speaker, the horror of Saturday's bloodshed in Arizona, the senseless loss of life, and the cowardly attack on Gabby Giffords has for many Americans raised the question of whether we as a Nation have lost our way. Many wonder, if an act so benign as Gabby's effort to listen to her neighbors in the Eighth Congressional District of Arizona can be the target of such violence, whether there is hope and a future for our democracy.

One voice from our recent past suggests there is still hope for that fragile ideal. On April 4, 1968, Senator Robert Kennedy spoke in Indianapolis, Indiana, shortly after the slaying of Martin Luther King at a time when political violence wracked our Nation. This is what he said:

``We have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond these difficult times.''

He then said, ``My favorite poem was Aeschylus, and he once wrote, `Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.' ''

He concluded that what we need in the United States is not division. What we need is not hatred. What we need is not violence and lawlessness. It is love and wisdom and compassion toward one another.

Gabby Giffords' work at that Tucson shopping mall on January 8 and all those present and all those victimized by a coward's bullets were affirming Senator Kennedy's vision that peaceful dialogue and understanding is the true calling of the American people, not division and violence.

As one who entered Congress with Gabby in the class of 2006--a tight- knit group that has met every Wednesday over the last 4 years--it has been an honor to watch her on the Armed Services Committee, advocating for the Air Force and for military families. Even during the lame duck session, she was a leader in enacting the GI Bill Patch, which will make sure that the Guard and reservists will not be left out from the GI Bill's educational benefits. She is an extraordinary person this country needs if we are going to overcome the many challenges that we face today.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support passage of this resolution, which is an affirmation that we will not surrender our way of life to the forces of lawlessness and hate.

On behalf of the people of eastern Connecticut, I want to express our awe and reverence to the examples of human courage and excellence which Gabby Giffords and the other victims in Tucson displayed to the world last Saturday.

Mr. Speaker, despite repeated warnings yesterday from groups as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Ironworkers, the Laborers, the American Trucking Association, even the Motorcycle Riders of America, Republicans adopted a new rule which allows Congress to tamper with the transportation authorization fund and the highway trust fund. And despite the protests from the majority that it wasn't doing it, yesterday, UBS-PaineWebber put out a stock advisory that transportation construction companies were being downgraded because of the damage that the Congress did yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the transportation and construction sector of our country is in a depression. There is 25 percent unemployment. The last thing this country needs is to tamper with the highway trust fund. And yesterday, that's what the new majority did.

The Democrats will fight to restore the transportation authorization fund, make sure that America has the transportation system that it needs, and get people back to work in the hardest-hit sector in the American economy.

Amendment 24, passed by Congress August 27, 1962; ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1: ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in the Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.''

Section 2: ``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Thank you, Mr. Yarmuth, and I appreciate the fact that you are putting the spotlight on this issue which is really extraordinary in terms of what's just happened in the last 24 hours.

As you know and as Congresswoman Edwards knows, the real workhorse infrastructure transportation funding in this country is the highway trust fund. That is a mechanism which was set up by the Congress. It has a dedicated revenue source, gas taxes, and since 1998, there has been a rule which the Congress has operated under which says that the 5-year transportation plan authorized by the Congress cannot be tampered with by a bill that's brought to floor of the House. If it is, then that bill is ruled out of order. And the purpose of that is to make sure that the transportation plan, which is done on a 5-year increment, has sanctity, has consistency so that State DOT's like yours in Kentucky or Maryland or Connecticut can actually move forward on multiyear projects which, of course, most road construction, bridge construction falls into that timeline.

Well, you know, this has been the operating rules of the House since 1998. Yesterday, the Republican rule which was adopted astonishingly rescinded that protection in terms of procedure for the transportation trust fund, again, the mechanism which ensures that States get appropriate funding for highways.

So a coalition grew up over the last 3 days, including Laborers' International Union, Ironworkers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking Association, the Motorcycle Riders of America, people who actually care about making sure that our roads and bridges have the adequate support to make sure that, again, as a growing country we are going to be able to move people and goods from one place to the other in appropriate fashion.

By the way, our competitors around the world are moving past us at Mach speed in terms of their transportation infrastructure investment.

Nonetheless, this coalition warned the new majority that this new rule was going to upset, again, the consistency which transportation funding requires. The new majority went ahead with that rule, adopted it, claims that they, in fact, were not doing that to the transportation trust fund, but interestingly, the markets say otherwise.

UBS-PaineWebber issued a downgrade to transportation construction companies on the Wall Street stock exchanges, and their stocks declined yesterday in the wake of the adoption of this rule. And again I, earlier today, submitted press accounts that describe, in fact, the sequence of what actually happened.

We are talking here about a sector of the U.S. economy that's not in a recession; it's in a depression. The construction trades right now are looking at unemployment rates of 25 percent. Rather than shrinking and inhibiting the transportation and infrastructure of this country, we should be investing in it. And let's be very clear here. There is not going to be any private investment that's going to fill the gap that's being created by undercutting the sanctity of the highway trust fund.

The fact of the matter is this is done through public dollars, and every generation going back to, really, Jefferson has understood that this is essential to have an economy that can actually thrive and grow. And as I said, we have now left the highway funding of this country subject to the whims of the annual appropriations process. That is not the type of horizon in which planning can actually take place at State DOTs, and it doesn't surprise me that the folks in Kentucky have contacted you. The people at DOT in Connecticut have certainly done the same, and all across the country. Again, management, labor, public sector groups that care about highways, they are just incredulous, particularly at this time with the weakness of this economy, that this House has adopted that type of rule.

That's right. And families make that decision to make capital investments along exactly the same lines, whether it's to fix a roof, you know, put a new driveway in, buy a house. Again, that's done through financing, debt financing. And it's, again, the way that particularly the middle class kind of deals with those challenges. But there's no question that in terms of our own country's history, going back in time, again, even to the beginning of our government, even during the Civil War when the finances of this country were completely going from almost day to day, Abraham Lincoln did not pull back in terms of the need for us to invest in rail, land-grant colleges.

Again, this was in the middle of the worst conflict in the history of this country, but yet he still saw the need for us, as a Nation, to still continue to invest in the future, and we borrowed funds. Because those types of investments, investing in people through education or investing in infrastructure comes back to benefit the economy long term, and the multiplier effect is much higher than the actual pricetag of those initial investments.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Andrew Barylski Sr., who passed away on December 8, 2010. Barylski fought for his country and survived the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. I am honored to stand in tribute to him.

Barylski Sr., a Putnam, Connecticut native, was born in 1916 and enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1938. He was stationed in an observation tower high on Oahu at Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7, 1941 when a surprise Japanese attack left 2,402 Americans dead and 1,202 wounded.

After the attack, Barlyski Sr. stayed in Hawaii and helped rebuild the island until he was honorably discharged in 1945. Barlyski often spoke of his experiences in the war, but always remained modest about his accomplishments. He was a lifelong member of the Putnam American Legion Post 13 and Veterans of Foreign Wars No. 1523.

My thoughts and prayers are with the Barylski family. Andrew Barlyski Sr. served his country and led a remarkable life. I hope that is a small comfort for his son Andrew Barylski Jr., his daughters Linda March and Gloria Ghirarduzzi and six grandchildren and seven great grandchildren as they cope with the loss of their father and grandfather.

True American heroes deserve recognition for their accomplishments. Andrew Barlyski witnessed a turning point in American history and helped rebuild a devastated island in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack. I ask my colleagues to rise with me so that we may honor Andrew Barylski Sr. and celebrate the life of a true American hero.

Madam Speaker, on April 6, 2008, something happened that has not happened since--the UConn women's basketball team lost a game. That was almost 1,000 days ago; and since that day, the UConn Women Huskies have been on a streak that may not end for a long time.

UConn's victory this past Sunday was their 88th consecutive win, tying the Division I record set by the UCLA men's team in 1974. Since the streak began, UConn has racked up two national titles for a total of seven. Since the streak began, UConn Coach Geno Auriemma was chosen to lead the 2012 Olympic team. Since the streak began, UConn has had five first team all-Americans and back-to-back Player of the Year winners, Maya Moore and Tina Charles. Maya carries now a 4.0 average and is also the Big East Scholar Athlete of the Year. Since the streak began, UConn has maintained its 100 percent graduation rate for players, demonstrating that athletic achievement and academic excellence are not mutually exclusive.

Tonight the Huskies will play Florida State for a chance to surpass UCLA's record. Good luck to them and congratulations for their amazing success and sterling example for student athletes, both men and women.

I want to congratulate Mr. Inslee and his leadership on this measure.

Madam Speaker, in a few short weeks, according to the latest news from the Pentagon, this tanker contract is expected to be awarded. Again, I don't think anyone can understate the impact over the decades that final outcome will have on the U.S. economy, particularly our aerospace industrial base.

As has been mentioned by prior speakers, the first tranche of contracts will be about $35 billion. In total, it is estimated to be about $100 billion just in manufacturing. Given the age of the existing tanker planes, the maintenance and repair work is probably another $100 billion if you look over the lifetime of this plane's existence.

So, for the American industrial base, the decision which the Pentagon is on the verge of announcing will have an impact decades hence, and it is extremely important for the American taxpayers that they be given total assurance that this decision is going to be made fairly and with the best interests of our country at heart.

If you would just step back and look at other weapons procurement programs, whether it is nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, the Joint Strike Fighter, the notion that those contracts, that those weapons platforms would be awarded to foreign manufacturers that receive subsidies from their governments would be just laughable; but for some reason, in this instance, the Department of Defense has just turned a blind eye to the obvious unfairness which this bid process has produced.

So, again, what this very simple measure seeks to do is to put a big red warning flag up to the Pentagon to say, when this decision is made, for the sake of the American taxpayers, subsidies that have been found to be illegal will be taken into account in the final decision.

I urge strong support for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, one of the ways that Ike Skelton's legacy will be remembered for a long time is with the $15.7 billion authorization for shipbuilding in this legislation, which will continue this country on the path towards a cost-effective goal of 314 ships, which many chairmen and people who preceded him gave lip service to; but, under his leadership over the last 4 years, we have steadily made progress reforming the LCS Shipbuilding Program and getting to two submarines a year--a goal which was set forth back in 2002 but that finally, with this authorization bill, will be achieved.

In Connecticut a few short months ago, he gave the keynote address at the USS Missouri's commissioning, which was a proud day for the State of Connecticut and the State of Missouri.

Again, his leadership in terms of getting our Navy to the level we need for our national security is something that we should all pay homage to as it will be remembered for many years to come.

Madam Speaker, Virginia Judge Henry Hudson's decision 2 days ago striking down one section of the Health Care Reform Act was about a lot less than all the noise in the last 24 hours. Despite the Virginia Attorney General's request, Judge Hudson did not strike down the whole law, and despite Virginia's request, he refused to delay its implementation.

That is good news for millions of young Americans now covered under their parents' health plans due to the health care law's age 26 dependent coverage, good news for millions of seniors in the Medicare doughnut hole who will get a 50 percent discount on life-saving medication, and good news for seniors for whom Medicare will finally cover checkups, cancer screenings and flu vaccinations.

Unfortunately, Hudson did rule against the law's system of shared responsibility for all Americans to have coverage, which would stabilize a health insurance market that has been collapsing for the last 10 years and would provide access to Americans with preexisting conditions. Fortunately, two other judges have ruled the other way, upholding the Nation's need for a stable insurance market in interstate commerce.

One thing Hudson did get right in his decision was his conclusion where he said, ``The final word will reside with a higher court.''

Thank goodness.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which I think strikes the right balance in terms of the need for our Navy to build up its Littoral Combat Ship Program but also addressing I think a lot of the problems of this program, which has been very troubled over the last few years in terms of trying to get the cost per ship down.

I'd just like to say, though, on a personal note, that the work that Chairman Taylor has done on this program going back to 2007 with a series of hearings, looking at, again, the alarming increases in cost growth has been an extraordinary contribution, not just to this Congress, but to our country. There has been no one who has been more diligent in terms of trying to look out for the American taxpayer. There is no one who, in my opinion, has been more knowledgeable about every aspect of these vessels than the gentleman from Mississippi who is departing in a few days, and who I think is going to be sorely missed by this country in terms of the amazing work that he's done as chairman of the Seapower subcommittee.

All across the spectrum, in terms of ships, he has been there trying to, again, advance this country to get to the goal of a 314-ship Navy, which has been a struggle, protecting the industrial base, from New England all the way to San Diego and, again, all the time while being open and accessible to all Members across both party lines in terms of making sure that, again, we're going to achieve those goals and make sure that our country, which is still a great maritime power, is going to have a Navy that can project our force in a way that, again, is adequate for the challenges of the 21st century.

Again, his service to this country has just been extraordinary. It has been a

privilege to serve with him over the last 4 years. Passing this legislation, I think, will be, again, another capstone to a great career in Congress. And, again, I want to thank him for his service.