Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I have got a feeling that people in this Chamber have heard more about the Eightmile River in Connecticut than they probably ever wanted to. But I want to thank Chairman Grijalva and Chairman Rahall, intelligent, thoughtful people who understand the 10 years of hard work that has taken place in the communities of Salem, Lyme and East Haddam, Connecticut, to get to this day is worth proceeding and moving forward.

There are 168 rivers in this country that have been designated as Wild and Scenic, and the Federal Government has not swept in and seized property as part of this program. This is a program which is aimed at preserving water quality and species, and it is very clear in the act that the government will waive any powers of condemnation if they are satisfied that there are zoning and wetland regulations in place which will accomplish those goals. And that is exactly the situation here.

These three towns have wetland regulations which have been on the books before the application for Wild and Scenic status ever took place which the Parks Department checked off on its box as adequate to achieve the goals of this program, and thus the statute specifically states that the condemnation powers shall not apply to this property.

When this issue came up 3 weeks ago, newspapers back home looked at it and just said the claims of the other side are just not true. And that is why the Republican Governor of the State of Connecticut, Jodi Rell; the Republican First Selectman of the Town of Lyme; the Republican First Selectman of the Town of Salem; and the Democratic First Selectman, who's a pretty good guy too, have all come out in support of this legislation because it has been a grassroots community effort, bipartisan, property owners and public officials, to make the Eightmile River part of the family of rivers in this country which have been identified as worth preserving for our children and our grandchildren.

The bill that was drafted by nonpartisan staff follows the basic legislative format that this Congress has followed in the past for Wild and Scenic status. In fact, the prior Congress which was controlled by the Republicans, the 109th Congress, proceeded on a river designation in the State of New Jersey without any of the language which is included in the motion to recommit. If it was such a big deal, why didn't the other side, when they were in control, actually adopt that language?

I think, frankly, folks, we are talking about politics here and not policy. And again I want to thank Mr. Grijalva for his strong support.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this legislation. And I also want to thank my colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his strong words in support of this measure, which again is something that people in Connecticut are watching anxiously in terms of the actions of this body.

Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record letters of support for this legislation from the Republican Governor of Connecticut, Jodi Rell; the first selectman of the town of East Haddam, Brad Parker; the Republican first selectman from the town of Salem, Larry Reitz; the Republican first selectman of the town of Lyme, Ralph Eno; and also a letter of support from the State of Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, all of whom have reviewed this legislation and have, very mindful of the situation that occurred in London, a year ago, have examined the question of whether or not this legislation opens the door to condemnation of eminent domain, and all have expressed their support for the committee bill which is before the House this evening and will be voted on tomorrow

Attorney General,

State of Connecticut,

Hartford, CT, July 19, 2007.

Hon. Joseph D. Courtney,

U.S. Congressman,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Courtney: I am writing to support H.R.

986, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act, which

designates certain areas of the Eightmile River in Lyme,

Salem and East Haddam as part of the National Wild and Scenic

Rivers System. This river is a great asset to the people of

Connecticut, and such designation will enhance efforts to

preserve and protect its beauty and environmental integrity.

The proposal also protects the property rights of land

owners within the designated areas from federal eminent

domain takings by expressly stating that the Secretary of the

Interior's authority to acquire property

in this area ``shall be limited to acquisition by donation or

acquisition with the consent of the owner thereof . . .''

Section 2(g).

The Secretary's general statutory authority under the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act to acquire land is already severely

circumscribed. The Act flatly prohibits use of eminent domain

if the lands are subject to local zoning laws that conform to

proposes of the Act. According to the Interior Department,

there have been no condemnations under this Act in the past

30 years. Nevertheless, H.R. 986 goes even further by

prohibiting the use of eminent domain by the Secretary under

any circumstance.

I commend your leadership on this critical legislation.

Very truly yours,

Richard Blumenthal.

Sure. I'd be happy to yield.

Well, again, I don't sit on the Resources Committee, on the day that this was deliberated on, but, I think clearly, and I don't want to put words in the Chairman's mouth, and he can probably answer this when maybe the microphone goes back to him, but my understanding is that basically they wanted to follow the basic statutory format that has worked in all the other designations that this Congress has taken up in the past, and where really honestly there has not been a problem of condemnation or eminent domain of the property owners. But that's the best of my knowledge.

And in conclusion, again, I'd be happy to submit an excerpt from the Eightmile River Watershed management plan, which again confirms what the zoning and wetland regulations, which ones were examined by the National Park Service and by the committee, again, the 75-foot and the 100-foot setback for wetland permits, which, again, were satisfactory in terms of triggering the anticondemnation provisions of the wild and scenic act, which, again, I think have worked without a hitch based on any data and information, facts or law that the committee staff and the committee leadership has examined.

In conclusion, I just want to thank, again, the leadership of the committee for the work that they've done on this legislation. I hope maybe this colloquy has reassured people that this is not a plan which is about trying to ram through government authority to take people's property rights away. It has been fashioned and designed in a way that accommodates people's input and participation with, again, property owners in strong support of it. Their names were submitted to the committee during the committee process. And again, I want to thank Mr. Grijalva for his leadership on this issue

adequacy of protection

An important component of the management plan development

process was determining the adequacy of existing protection

mechanisms to protect and enhance the watershed's outstanding

resource values. Determining adequacy achieves objectives:

(1) Proving that local communities meet the requirements of

Section 6(c) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act.

Section 6(c) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act states:

``(c) Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the

Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands by condemnation,

for the purpose of including such lands in any national wild,

scenic or recreational river area, if such lands are located

within any incorporated city, village or borough which has in

force and applicable to such lands a duly adopted, valid

zoning ordinance that conforms with the purposes of this Act.

The standards specified in such guidelines shall have the

object of (A) prohibiting new commercial or industrial uses

other than commercial or industrial uses which are consistent

with the purposes of this Act and (8) the protection af the

bank lands by means of acreage, frontage, and setback

requirements on development.''

Local, state and federal regulations, combined with

protected lands and physical constraints to development (i.e.

floodplains, wetlands, topography, etc.) create enough of an

existing protection scheme to make federal condemnation of

lands unreasonable and unnecessary. While no new actions are

deemed required by the towns to meet the requirements of

Section 6(c), the management recommendations in Section VI

are considered critical to the overall long-term quality of

the watershed's outstanding resource values.

At the local and state level, a number of key actions

underscore the current level of protection and the dedication

to river and watershed conservation:

Local upland review areas are in place in all three

communities. These are the areas within 100 feet of wetlands

and watercourses in East Haddam and Lyme, and 75 feet in

Salem. Municipal Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commissions

can regulate activities in upland review areas that would

likely impact wetland or watercourse function. Reviews in

upland areas may include assessing and regulating impacts

from a proposed activity on hydrologic, water quality and

ecological functions.

All three towns have adopted net buildable area

requirements in their subdivision regulations recognizing new

construction should be compatible with the carrying capacity

of the land to sustain it. In addition, Salem requires 75% of

the net buildable area be outside of the upland review area,

and Lyme requires all of the net buildable area be at least

100 feet back from wetlands and watercourses.

Local communities, working in partnership with local land

trusts, the state and The Nature Conservancy, have directly

preserved 28% of the watershed (over 11,000 acres of land),

and 25% of all river frontage within 100 feet of the 160

miles of river and stream in the watershed.

Mr. Speaker, last week, during my work period at home, my district office in Norwich was visited by a young Army enlisted man who had in one hand his orders for his fourth deployment over the last 4 years. Over the last 4 years, he did two 1-year deployments in Iraq and one 7-month deployment in Afghanistan.

In his other hand he held a bag of medication, anti-anxiety medication, including Zoloft, because of the post-traumatic stress which we got actually diagnosed from a treating psychiatrist a few days later, which confirmed that his deployments have taken him to the breaking point. That is the dirty little secret about this surge policy, which is that we've broken the ground forces of this country.

This legislation crafted by Mr. Skelton, whose number one focus as chairman of the Armed Services Committee is always about raising and maintaining an armed force that can protect our national interest, is desperately needed, primarily for the people who have borne the disproportionate share of this war, which is the people who serve in our uniform and their families.

It is easy for us to talk about commitment in this chamber. It's time to stand up for the real people who are sacrificing for that commitment.

Thank you, I want to salute you for organizing this Special Order tonight on the very day where this new Congress rose to its constitutional duty and stood up for the American people who made a watershed historic change last November in terms of expecting us as Members of Congress to lead the way to a new direction in Iraq. The vote again today followed a succession which all of us here as new Members have been part of. I think it is fitting that we are here to discuss that change as the people who really made a difference in terms of changing control of this body.

The vote today was, as members of the Armed Services Committee and Ms.

Shea-Porter knows this, was all about what has happened to the military readiness of this country.

Chairman Skelton is a passionate believer that this war has almost destroyed the ground forces of this country, the Army and the Marines. This was driven home to me during the July 4 recess. A young man, Army- enlist soldier, came to our district office. In one hand, he had his orders for redeployment, his fourth redeployment to Iraq. He had been to Iraq for two 1-year stints, and an additional stint of 7 months in Afghanistan. So over 4 years, 2 year and 7 months, he has been in a combat zone and barely been home for any rest time.

In his other hand, he had a bag filled with prescription medicine for anti-anxiety conditions. Zoloft was one of his prescriptions, which is a very serious medication for that type of condition. Yet we have a situation where he is being sent for the fourth time back into a combat zone. Luckily, our office was able to arrange for him to be seen by a psychiatrist, and a report was prepared which showed that he had full- blown post-traumatic stress, and we are making arrangements with the Army to ensure that he is not sent back into that situation.

But that is the dirty little secret about this surge policy, that we are forcing people who are not physically fit because they are not getting adequate rest time at home and, in many cases, who are mentally ill and being sent back into combat zone because of the taxing of our Armed Forces. It has reached the point where they have no other choice but to try and send people who again are well outside any normal guidelines in terms of rest, training and equipment which the Army has set up.

This bill today which we voted on and passed by an ever-increasing margin with each succeeding vote here, is an attempt to say as a Nation and as a Congress, which has the constitutional duty to raise the Armed Forces, that we have a duty to change course in Iraq to ensure that we have Armed Forces that are capable of addressing the real national security interests of this country.

Certainly being in the middle of a civil war in Iraq is not consistent with the national security interests of this country.

As Congresswoman Shea-Porter pointed out today, the front page of the Washington Post has pointed out that al Qaeda now has reached the level of strength that it had before the events of 9/11, that there are training camps in Pakistan that have been allowed to flourish because our eye was taken off the ball with the invasion of Iraq when we should have finished the job in Afghanistan back in 2002 and 2003.

We are now in a situation, as Mr. Arcuri just said, we are, in fact, as exposed and as vulnerable as this country was at the time of September 11 because of the outrageous, misguided policies of this administration.

This bill, which we voted on today, which sets out a very measured, responsible policy that will change course in Iraq, I think answers all the questions of the doubters and the cynics that we don't have an answer for what happens after a change of course that occurs in Iraq. This is not about Vietnam revisited where people are going to be evacuated in helicopters.

This bill lays out a responsible plan for real change in Iraq that addresses the need to approach this problem on a regional basis in the Middle East and reintroduces a diplomatic measure that has been sorely lacking in terms of this administration's policy over the last four- and-a-half years.

So, again, I think as new Members who are part of the new majority that have helped revive life in this branch of the government, which was a near rubber stamp over the last 4 years, it is important that I think we are here tonight to reemphasize what took place here in this chamber and to restate our mission to keep faith with the voters that took place last fall and make sure that we have a real change in policy in Iraq.

I'd like to yield now to Congressman Ellison from the State of Minnesota who's again part of this new majority here in Congress.

One day last week, this past week, in Hartford, Connecticut, General Eric Shinseki came and spoke the to World Affairs Council in Hartford. He, speaking of courage, was the chief of the Army at the outset of the Iraq war, was asked the question by the Armed Services Committee, how many forces it would take to secure Iraq after the invasion. He said, hundreds of thousands of troops.

As we all know, what happened to him was that because the neoconservatives to dominated the administration at the time didn't want to hear that type of reality; instead, they were wedded to this view, that you could win the war on the cheap.

He was bounced out of the Army, after an incredibly distinguished career, decorated combat veteran in Vietnam, one of the people who did an incredible amount of work to bring our Armed Forces back after the debacle of Vietnam.

He spoke to the World Affairs Council on Monday and talked about what happened in the wake of Vietnam in terms of our Armed Forces, that the disillusionment and, you know, just the negative fallout that occurred in terms of people enlisting in the Army, departing well before their planned careers were going to actually come to fruition, caused great damage to the Armed Forces that took decades to recover, and that we as a Nation had finally gotten to a point where we had

not just people at the top level but also at the middle levels of the Army who had really gotten a strong, competent force back into place. His concern is that this war in Iraq is going to result in the same damage as an institution to the Army and the Marine Corps.

We are seeing it in terms of people departing the service, the mid- level officer corps. We again saw another example where the Army failed to hit its recruiting goals last month.

This bill today that we voted on was all about trying to repair the damage that has been done to the military readiness of this country, and General Shinseki, who I think will go down in history as a prophet in this country, as hopefully somebody who still has service to give to this Nation, maybe in a new administration some time or in some other role, is reminding us that we are at grave risk.

Again, the quality people, I know we saw it in Iraq when we went and visited, just wonderful, wonderful people serving in uniform in Iraq, helpful, smart, independent minded. But right now they are trapped in a policy by the administration that is basically telling them that their service is just being used in a way that shows no respect for their own wonderful qualities.

It is one of the main, most important reasons that this bill today that we voted on has got to get passed and signed into law. We have got to keep chipping away with vote after vote over the next few weeks or so to make sure that the gathering numbers we are picking up on these measures are going to get us to the point where real change is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure.

I come from the district in Connecticut that's the home of the University of Connecticut, Eastern Connecticut State University, three community colleges, Conn. College, Mitchell College. We are the higher ed district of the State of Connecticut. New loan assistance and aid through grants in the amount of $130 million will be coming to Connecticut as a result of this measure being passed, which, again, is great news for my district.

Frankly, this bill is about something more than just parochial priorities, which are very important to my district. It's also about the change of direction that this new Congress is keeping faith with with passage of this legislation.

When I campaigned last year as a challenger in the closest race in America, the decision of the last Congress to take $12 billion out of the higher education account and use it to raise interest rates on student loans for the

purpose of making sure that the Paris Hilton stratum of American society was going to get their tax cuts was a perfect symbol for how out of touch the prior Congress was with the needs of America.

Passing this legislation will keep faith with the voters who had the courage to vote for change.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Morgan McGinley on his retirement after four decades of service to the citizens of southeastern Connecticut as a writer and editorial page editor for the Day in New London, Connecticut.

Morgan began his distinguished career at the Day in 1965 and has been the editorial page editor since 1982. His accomplishments and contributions over the years have been recognized by his colleagues with awards from the New England Press Association, the New England Associated Press Executives Association and the Connecticut chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. He was the first recipient of the James A. Clendinen Professorship of Editorial and Critical Writing at the University of South Florida in 1999 and in 2001, received the Yankee Quill Award for his career-long contributions to the betterment of New England journalism.

Morgan's service to the journalism industry has also furthered the cause of protecting our Nation's critical first amendment rights. His work as the chairman of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of information and as a

board member of the Foundation for Open Government in Connecticut helped to foster the public's right to an open and responsive government. In 2001, the Connecticut Council on Freedom of information awarded Morgan the Stephen A. Collins Freedom of Information Award. He also promoted diversity in newspaper publishing as a member of the Task Force on Minorities in the Newspaper Business. His commitment to the responsibility of the media has been felt in the State of Connecticut and beyond for decades and his contributions will resonate for years to come.

Morgan's passion for his job and dedication to the vital role of our Nation's print media has been of great service to the citizens of Connecticut. I ask all my colleagues to join with me and my constituents in thanking Morgan McGinley for his service and wishing him the best in his new endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, want to commend Mr. Sarbanes for his superb summary of this legislation and the context in which it occurred and was introduced this year with the full support of the Connecticut delegation on a bipartisan basis, the Republican Governor of Connecticut, Jodi Rell, who was supporting the bill, and the Connecticut State legislature, which also passed a resolution in support of this measure. I also want to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young for helping us bring this bill to the floor and also in particular subcommittee Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop for helping this bill through subcommittee and raising important issues, which, as has been pointed out, strike particularly close to home since the City of New London, which was a party to the Kelo case, was the locus of that decision and obviously caused great concern about property rights all across the country.

This bill, however, though, I believe is a balanced bill which represents more than 10 years of hard work by local citizens and elected officials to protect this important river and its intact watershed. The Eightmile River takes its name from the distance between its mouth at Lake Hayword to the Connecticut River and Long Island sound. It is unique in that it is a virtually free-flowing river over its entire run. The entire 62-square-mile watershed has a large forest cover and excellent water quality and is home to diverse fish populations and rare species. It is quite rare for a river of this size to be intact throughout its entire watershed, especially in areas so close to the coast of Long Island Sound and in such a densely populated State as the State of Connecticut.

After securing the go-ahead for a wild and scenic river study approved by this Congress in 2001, local officials and advocates decided early on to base the study on a watershed approach, rather than looking at specific areas of the river.

The wild and scenic study identified six outstanding resource values including its watershed ecosystem, natural communities, and cultural landscape. It concluded that the 25 miles of the meandering Eightmile River should be recommended for designation as ``scenic'' under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

A management plan was approved by the three towns of East Haddam, Salem, and Lyme. And as I mentioned earlier, the General Assembly in Connecticut also joined in support for that management plan. And I will enter into the Record letters submitted by the First Selectmen of Salem and East Haddam, again bipartisan letters of support for this measure dated within the last about 48 hours or so.

Selectmen's Office,

East Haddam, CT, July 6, 2007.

An Act Concerning Designation of the Eightmile River

Watershed within the National Wild and Scenic River

System.

Hon. Joseph Courtney,

Congressman, Second District,

Norwich, CT.

Dear Congressman Courtney: Thank you for your time and

efforts in this important matter. I am writing to reassure

you that the citizens and elected officials of East Haddam

are overwhelmingly in favor of Wild & Scenic designation.

Over ten years ago my predecessor, along with the First

Selectmen from Lyme and Salem signed the Eightmile River

Watershed Conservation Compact. That inter-municipal

agreement represented East Haddam's commitment to a regional

project that our town has participated in and endorsed

widely. The Compact states: ``We understand that 1) land use

in our towns is the key determinant to the health of the

Watershed's natural resources; 2) a healthy watershed

ecosystem is consistent with our town goals of promoting a

healthy community, preserving rural character, and nurturing

suitable economic growth.''

This broad view of the Eightmile River Watershed including

its rural character, economic well being and intact natural

resources has led to a heightened awareness and concern for

this fragile system by a broad spectrum of town residents.

Over the 12 years of East Haddam's participation in the

Eightmile work, I have heard of only a small number of

individuals who oppose the project. We have overwhelming

support from the business community and private citizens

alike. In fact, our river front landowners are some of the

strongest advocates--they deeply understand the risks that

unchecked development and sprawl will have on the river in

their own back yards. The town has also taken measures to

protect much of the open space in the watershed area.

Thanks again for your time and attention to our pristine

Eightmile Watershed.

Sincerely,

Brad Parker,

First Selectman.

Madam Speaker, it's an honor to welcome today Reverend Wade A. Hyslop, Jr., from New London, Connecticut, to lead the House in prayer this morning.

If he looked comfortable in the podium today, there is a reason for that. For 10 years he served in Connecticut as the deputy speaker of the House of Representatives, someone with whom I served as a colleague on the Human Services Committee and have seen up close the work and impact that he has had in the City of New London and across the State of Connecticut.

He is joined today by his family, who is here, his wife, Jessie; his three children; his son, Bertram, who is a sergeant major in the U.S. Army, serving today in Washington, DC, but also served our country in two deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, Wade leads a congregation, the Trinity Missionary Baptist Church in New London, Connecticut, which I have had the opportunity to visit a number of times. It is an energetic, warm congregation, which is clearly being led by a wonderful person whose impact has been felt, not only in that congregation, but the City of New London and the State of Connecticut.

Again, it's a pleasure to welcome him here today and get us off to a good start.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 189, a resolution that will honor the veterans of the Vietnam War in eastern Connecticut and across our country by calling for the establishment of a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.''

As we know all too well, the Vietnam War was a painful and turbulent period in our Nation's history. Our military involvement there from 1965 to 1973 came at a time of great upheaval and change that divided our Nation. By the end of the war, more than 58,000 members of the Armed Forces had given the ultimate sacrifice. Much has rightfully been done to honor these lost heroes in the 30 years since the end of the war, including a breathtaking memorial not far away from this Capitol on our National Mall.

However, thousands of our troops came home after serving our country in Vietnam

only to be barraged by anti-war and anti-military sentiments rising from the deep and conflicting passions over our involvement in the conflict. As a result, thousands of young men who served our Nation were denied the welcome home they deserved--a painful memory that I hear about even today when I speak with Vietnam veterans.

Today, 30 years after they returned home, those dark days of war still haunt the veterans of Vietnam. Yet, I have been amazed by the strength and dignity of the Vietnam veterans community in eastern Connecticut. Since the end of the war, these proud men have been unmatched in taking care of their own and supporting one another. This past April, over 100 eastern Connecticut Vietnam veterans gathered once again in Norwich, CT for the 7th Annual Vietnam Veterans Day Commemorative Ceremony. I was proud to join them for the ceremony and to honor their service and sacrifice.

Regardless of what one thinks about our involvement in a military conflict, there is no doubt that any American who wears our Nation's uniform deserves a hero's welcome when they return home. That is why I am proud to support the resolution before us today, which expresses the sense of the House that there should be a day set aside every year on March 30 to honor the service of our Vietnam veterans by establishing a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.'' I sincerely hope that this simple resolution will provide our Vietnam veterans with the recognition they have so long deserved.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mel Olsson on his retirement after more than three decades in service of our country's defense and the men and women who build the submarines that protect our national security.

Mel began his career at Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut as a pipefitter apprentice in 1961. After decades of work at EB, Mel was eventually elected in 1990 as President of the Marine Draftsmen's Association, MDA-UAW Local 571. Serving as MDA President until 2003, Mel served on a number of negotiating teams, and was chief negotiator for eight successful contract negotiations with Electric Boat and Computer Sciences Corporation.

Mel has not only ably represented his colleagues in Local 571, but he has also been a community pillar in eastern Connecticut by serving in state and local organizations. Mel served on the Board of Directors of the United Way, is a member of the Work Force Investment Board, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Charter Oak Federal Credit Union. In addition, Mel is the former Chairman of the Electric Boat Community Services Committee, and is a member of the Stonington Democratic Town Committee.

Mel and his wife, Dorothy, reside in Mystic and have been married for forty-two years. They are the proud parents of their daughter, Alyssa.

Mel retired as a Piping Design Tech at Electric Boat on May 31, 2007, after thirty-six years of remarkable service. The men and women of UAW/ MDA 571 and Electric Boat will miss his leadership and vision inside the gates at EB, but I know they will join me in saluting Mel Olsson and his outstanding and unique career in eastern Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bishop- DeLauro-Courtney amendment.

It's unfortunate that it's necessary for the United States Congress to intercede into a pending matter before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. However, despite repeated warnings from independent, scientific, and public safety analysts that this application for a floating liquid natural gas facility in Long Island Sound needs more investigation, FERC has refused every request for more time to study the implications of this facility in one of the most populated areas of the United States.

The need for more time was highlighted again just a few weeks ago with the release of a 43-page report by the Government Accountability Office that looked at the public safety consequences of a terrorist attack on a tanker carrying liquid natural gas. GAO reviewed what would be the effect of a liquid LNG spill and explosion.

The bottom line: more research is needed. Experts disagreed on what would happen if there was a cascading failure of an LNG tanker, and GAO recommended that the Department of Energy study this issue more thoroughly.

GAO's report should settle the question of whether applications such as Broadwater should proceed. If DOE determines from an expert opinion that a cascading failure would cause a hazard beyond 1 mile, then this application is fatally flawed, literally. At some point it is incumbent on the Congress of the United States to act upon the recommendations of the GAO, which is an agency funded and created by us as an independent branch of government.

When GAO says that it is premature to conclude that LNGs are safe in populous areas of our Nation, then we have an obligation to act on that advice. This amendment accomplishes that goal. I strongly urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Colonel John P. Swift of Enfield, Connecticut, who retires from the Connecticut Air National Guard on Sunday, June 24, 2007, after nearly 26 years of service to our Nation.

Since graduating from the United States Air Force Academy in 1981, Colonel Swift has worked closely with the A-10 Thunderbolt or, as it is more commonly known, the ``Warthog.'' His post-academy education and service took him to Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Louisiana and even the United Kingdom before he landed back in Connecticut. In 1989, he began his career with the Connecticut Air National Guard as the Operations Plan Officer for the 103rd Fighter Group at Bradley International Airport in East Granby, Connecticut.

From there, he worked his way through the ranks until reaching his current position as Commander of the 103rd Fighter Wing in February 2006. As Commander, Colonel Swift has lead more than 1000 men and women of the 103rd Fighter Wing and overseen all aspects of base operations, including aviation, maintenance and support operations for the Wing's A-10 aircraft. In his most recent roles, he has worked closely with his colleagues in the Connecticut National Guard and the Connecticut congressional delegation to help see the 103rd Fighter Wing through a period of change and transformation.

His leadership, his passion for his job and his dedication to the mission of the Connecticut Air National Guard will be greatly missed. I ask all my colleagues to join with me, the men and women of the Connecticut National Guard, and the people of Connecticut in thanking Colonel Swift for his service and wishing him the best in his new endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Reverend Edmund M. O'Brien, a resident of Connecticut's Second Congressional District, who is celebrating his 50th year as an ordained priest.

Devoting his life to the service of others, Father O'Brien has faithfully tended to the people of Connecticut as a pastor, teacher, principal, and friend.

Father O'Brien was ordained on February 2, 1957, after completing his education at the St. John Seminary in Boston. Over the past 50 years, he has served as a dedicated pastor and educator to many Connecticut congregations. Currently, he is pastor of St. Adalbert parish in Enfield and director of the parish school.

He once said of his profession, ``a teacher affects eternity.'' As a counselor and consummate supporter of his students, Father O'Brien embodies the compassionate, nurturing, and dedicated values characteristic of our Nation's greatest educators.

A die hard fan of the celebrated Boston Red Sox, Father O'Brien is well-known for delivering score updates to his parishioners when a game has been inconveniently scheduled during a mass celebration.

I am honored to pay tribute to the Reverend Edmund M. O'Brien. Father O'Brien's dedication to his faith, his community, and the children under his care has been, and continues to be, an inspiration to myself and the residents of eastern Connecticut.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in tribute of an American patriot and fallen Connecticut son. A native of Norwich, 1st Lt. Keith Heidtman was killed in Iraq on Memorial Day, May 28, 2007 while piloting a helicopter north of Baghdad.

I spent Memorial Day in Iraq with the troops and witnessed firsthand the dangers they face every minute. To later learn that the day of my visit would also be the same as Keith's passing was particularly painful.

Keith was a 2001 graduate of Norwich Free Academy where he was an all-conference

baseball player, talented basketball player, and honor student. He then attended the University of Connecticut where he participated in ROTC, graduating cum laude in 2005 with a bachelor's degree in resource economics.

After graduation, Keith joined the army. At the top of his class, he chose to attend the United States Army Aviation Warfighting Center where he became a helicopter pilot. He was deployed to Iraq in December as part of Task Force Lightning.

Keith Heidtman represents the promise of America. A talented and dedicated young man, he laid down his life to serve his country. While his smile may no longer brighten the lives of those around him, the memory of his life shall always endure. Young men and women are serving our Nation with honor and distinction every day. They are on the frontlines, defending those in need of help. There is no job nobler. Keith understood this great responsibility and volunteered for service to protect his country and its citizens, strangers and family members alike.

At his funeral, I was moved by the incredible outpouring of support demonstrated by his friends and community. Hundreds of people came to pay their respects and salute this American hero.

I recently had the chance to meet Keith's mother and stepfather, Maureen and Arthur, at their home in Norwich. After meeting them it was clear to me where Keith developed his penchant for service--his mother. As an employee for the Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Maureen has dedicated her life to helping those in need. Keith carried on her legacy in the U.S. Army where he bravely served his country and made the ultimate sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring 1st Lt. Keith Heidtman and his service to our great Nation. Keith and his sacrifice will forever be remembered by me, a mourning Connecticut, a grateful Nation, and family members who will never forget.

Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to stand in support of the Afghan Freedom and Security Support Act.

Exactly 1 week ago, I was in Afghanistan with a congressional delegation from the Armed Services Committee and had the opportunity to see firsthand both the progress and challenges that face the people of Afghanistan. It is a land of contrasts. On the upside there is a healthy political life. President Karzai, who met with our delegation, is clearly a dynamic, moderate, engaged leader who has a national government which is clearly focused on trying to move the country forward. There are clear signs of economic life. The shops were open. There was traffic. Schools were being built. Roads are being constructed, 16 percent growth of GDP over the last couple of years and a clear commitment to strengthening and building the Afghan army and police. In fact, our delegation was present at a graduation ceremony for the Afghan national police and handed out the diplomas to the young cadets who were taking on these important critical duties to Afghanistan's future.

There clearly are challenges, however. The reappearance of the narcotics trade; the resurgence of the Taliban; and the challenges in the border areas of Pakistan, which our military are fighting very bravely every day. Seven soldiers lost their lives the day that we were there because of the struggle that is still going on with the Taliban.

What is clearly needed, and this bill addresses it, is a strong, long-term commitment by this country to continue the efforts that have been made with our international allies, NATO allies, who were present also during our trip. French Marines, Scandinavian troops, Germans who are taking responsibility for control of some of the PRTs in the different provinces. And, clearly, lastly, most importantly, is the economic aid that is so critical to defeating the rise of the narcotics trade and defeating the Taliban. As one of the generals stated to us, where the roads end, the Taliban begins in Afghanistan.

Flying from Kabul to Jalalabad, we actually tracked a new road which was constructed by Chinese contractors that had heavy truck traffic and again showed that there were real opportunities in growth in that area which this bill will continue to build upon, and I applaud the chairman for his efforts and urge its unanimous passage.