Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of the Price Gouging Prevention Act, and I commend Congressman Stupak for his leadership on this issue.

In eastern Connecticut, where I come from, the price of gas has reached its highest level in history, $3.26 today, up 31 cents from a month ago, and more than $1 since February.

The Government Accountability Office reported on Tuesday that the increasing gasoline prices have cost consumers an extra $20 billion this year, and we are only in May. That is a tax on consumers. It is a tax on small businesses. It has a ripple effect all throughout our economy.

And this is not just about driving over Memorial Day weekend. This is about whether or not energy prices are going to cripple the ability of this economy to grow and thrive and prosper.

It is time to put accountability into the system. The Stupak bill is not price controls, it is a system to make sure that the price is a fair one and is justifiable according to market conditions. Those are the tools that we are giving to the Federal Trade Commission.

Madam Speaker, in 2001, when President George Bush took office, the size of the United States Navy consisted of 315 ships and submarines. Today, the size of that Navy has fallen to 276 ships and submarines. Despite this shocking decline and the damage, the damage, that it has done to our shipbuilding base in this country, the President continued to propose a shipbuilding budget this year which will continue that deterioration.

If his shipbuilding plan continues, for example, the size of our Virginia-class attack submarine fleet will fall below 40 submarines, starting 7 years from now, and will stay there for 15 years. That is far below what the Navy has warned us is an acceptable level for a submarine fleet to meet its mission request.

I rise in support of this Defense bill because it will stop the decline that has occurred over the last 6 years of America's Navy and will invest $588 million in an advanced procurement for a Virginia- class attack submarine and stop the bathtub effect of the decline of the submarine production schedule which the President proposed.

Madam Chairman, I applaud Chairman Skelton and Chairman Taylor for their efforts to restore the size of our Navy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Pay Veterans First Act (H.R. 2922), introduced by my colleague from New York, Mr. Hall.

When most people think of a ``bonus,'' they think of a financial incentive given to reward exceptional work done above and beyond the call of duty. It is typically recognition of the long and countless hours of hard work put in to get the job done. It is something you earn, not something you receive in return for lackluster performance.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Vietnam War, retired General Colin Powell outlined the Powell Doctrine, which stated simply that any future military action should include ``massive force and a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement.''

As we now know, from the very start of military operations in March 2003, President Bush fought the war in Iraq with an inadequate number of troops and never had an exit strategy, but simply believed the ideologues in the White House that Iraq would blossom into a self- governing democracy. On every score, his policy ignored the Powell Doctrine.

The President's veto on Tuesday of this week failed the test of the Powell Doctrine again. He rejected the plausible exit strategy outlined in the Iraq supplement, namely, a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq's civil war 15 months from now, and instead reembraced his own policy of endless entanglement.

The people of this country deserve more than the political spin contained in the President's televised veto. We need to see his own plausible exit strategy, and, frankly, we need to see it from those who voted to sustain his veto, as General Powell put it. But, even more important, our soldiers and their families who are bearing the brunt of this war deserve a President who heeds the lessons of past military mistakes, not one who keeps repeating them.

Madam Speaker, last week Steve Donahue, a longtime community leader and friend from my district, passed away. I want to take this opportunity to honor his life, mourn his passing and pray for his wife and four children.

Steve was beloved by his friends and neighbors. As the longtime Chief of the Pawcatuck Fire Department, he commanded an abounding level of respect among his colleagues and community, and touched the lives of hundreds.

Steve was a young man of only 48 years. Although I wish that he had more time to spend with us, Steve certainly made the most out of what time he had. It is difficult to find someone in Pawcatuck who doesn't have anything but flattering things to say about Steve.

Hundreds of people from the community came to pay their respects at Steve's funeral last Saturday. He was a man of great integrity who made friends everywhere he went.

Today I join my colleagues in Congress to celebrate Steve's life and to pray for his wife Mary Lynne, and their four children. Steve, we will miss you.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congressman Sestak's amendment which flushes out, I think, the direction that this bill is taking, which is to try and improve the quality of teachers by mandating bachelor's degrees and associate's degrees over a very short period of time.

For a lot of the teachers in the Head Start program, though, this still begs the question, which is, how do you pay for it?

Higher education costs have gone up 40 percent over the last 6 years, and unfortunately the prior Congresses took no action to raise the size of Pell Grants. And we have obviously taken

some steps towards reducing the cost of interest rates under the Stafford Student Loan program, but for many teachers, the challenge of paying for higher education costs, in Connecticut the average salary for Head Start teachers is $24,000, and the Sestak amendment goes right to the heart of trying to make this new requirement affordable. I believe it is totally germane and central to the intent of this Head Start reauthorization bill. This amendment belongs there, and I strongly urge the Members to support passage of the Sestak amendment.

I want to thank Congressman Sestak for offering this important amendment today. It would provide concrete assistance for early childhood educators in Connecticut and around the country to attain their bachelors degree. As you know, the Head Start bill before us increases teacher qualifications--half of teachers nationwide have a BA by 2013 and all new teachers have at least an associate's degree beginning in 2009.

This amendment also provides a strong incentive for students to enter the field and for established early childhood educators to remain in the field. Loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 is contingent upon at least 3 years service in a Head Start facility. Too often, our best and brightest educators are forced out of the profession because the salaries cannot keep up with individual and family economic demands.

In Connecticut, where the median Head Start salary is approximately $24,000, going back to school to attain a higher degree to satisfy the new teacher qualification requirements would be an economic hardship.

While I am pleased to say that Connecticut met the national goal of having at least 50 percent or more of its teachers having an associate's degree in early childhood education by the year 2003, the financial burden to now attain a bachelor's degree will be high.

We all know that college costs are rising and the last thing we want to do is encourage more debt. That is why I am so supportive of this amendment.

The need for committed, enthusiastic, and qualified Head Start teachers is on the rise. In Connecticut, there are more than 25 Centers serving more than 8,000 children. Poverty levels in many parts of the state are rising. Children receive valuable educational enrichment in Head Start programs, ensuring that they are on the path to educational success in elementary school and beyond. We cannot afford to leave children unprepared and we cannot afford to lose our best and talented teachers either.

This amendment provides the incentive to enter or remain in the early childhood education field and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a remarkable individual and policeman, Raheem Carter. After a bout with cancer, died this past Friday while serving in the New London Police Department within my constituency in Connecticut.

Mr. Carter was a leader in the Groton/New London community. Carter was the starting quarterback for three years at Fitch High School, and he also captained the track team. An extraordinary athlete, Carter set the career touchdown passing record in the Eastern Connecticut Conference. He shined as a field general, and in 1999, alongside his twin brother Rashaad, he led Fitch to its first championship in over 23 years.

Carter not only prospered on the field, but he surmounted obstacles off the field too, Despite growing up in a challenging neighborhood, Carter excelled in school, following the guidance of his mother who raised three children on her own. Carter attended Central Connecticut University until he received a full scholarship to attend the University of Rhode Island, where he graduated in 2005 with a bachelor's degree in sociology.

From there, Carter went on to attend Connecticut State Police Academy. It was there in December 2005 when a tumor was found in his abdomen. Due to his illness, Carter spent the majority of his first year as a police officer treating his cancer with chemotherapy. Known for his incredible strength, Carter was able to temporarily beat the disease securing enough time to train under New London Police Lt. Margaret Ackley.

Carter was known as a ``gentle soul and courageous spirit'' with ``more heart for the job than anyone Lt. Ackley had ever seen.'' He was a leader throughout his community seen as ``someone who cared more about others than about himself.'' Johnny L. Burns, pastor of his church, described him as ``an exceptional man in every aspect of the word who in the 25 years he lived touched so many lives.

Today I would like to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Mr. Raheem Carter. He will be greatly missed by everyone whose lives he touched.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor and privilege to celebrate the life of Sol LeWitt, one of America's greatest artists and a resident of Connecticut's Second District. Sol died last week on Sunday, April 8, 2007.

Sol lived a distinguished and accomplished life. After earning his Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Syracuse University, and bravely serving in the Korean War, Sol spent much of his early life studying art at the New York City School of Visual Arts and working at the Museum of Modern Art. While in New York, Sol began what would later become a flourishing and influential career as an artist.

Sol is best known for his work with drawing and sculpting two and three-dimensional works. His exhibitions have been shown all over the world in the most prestigious of museums, including the New York Museum of Modern Art, Chicago Museum of Contemporary Art, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, Whitney Museum of American Art in New York, Gemeentemuseum in The Hague, and the Krunsthalle in Switzerland. He is frequently referred to as one of the country's most prolific artists and as someone who has helped shape the modern art movement.

Given all of Sol's significant life accomplishments, he was an exceptionally humble man who was loved by those around him. His wife Carol was especially devoted, and is an exceptionally caring and compassionate individual.

I rise today to salute the life and accomplishments of Sol LeWitt and join Members in praying for his family. He will be missed by all.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 202, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, it was Presidents' Day weekend when The Washington Post story broke with the appalling and embarrassing story about the conditions under which our soldiers were living within the military health care system. I think as Americans, nothing could be more shocking and embarrassing than the notion that our own soldiers were isolated within the outpatient services of the military health care systems, in conditions with rotted walls, holes in the ceiling, mold growing. And I would give Mr. Skelton and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee all the credit because on March 8 the Armed Services Committee held a hearing, looked at the flaws that existed in the system and have come out with this legislation, which will do a lot to make sure that people will not be alone and isolated, with more case managers, with advocates that will be there, and a 1-800 emergency hotline to make sure they won't be, again, alone and isolated.

I do think, as Mr. Hunter indicated, probably the biggest problem that is facing returning soldiers right now is the transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs. In the State of Connecticut today, the waiting period is over 600 days for over 2,500 veterans in the State of Connecticut trying to get their claims processed. And in section 10 of this bill, which will require a physical transfer of the files, the medical records of people leaving the Department of Defense system into the VA system will make sure that we are going to make a dent in reducing the length of time, which literally is threatening people's mortgage payments, their credit rating, and it is inexcusable that people who have served this country are being treated this poorly.

There was an amendment offered by myself on the Armed Services Committee which will also include State Veterans Affairs departments in that handoff because we have many benefits, property tax benefits, educational programs, preferential hiring within our State, like many other States, which returning veterans should be included and informed of immediately. I want to thank the chairman for including that language in the bill and strongly urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, the long-festering situation at Walter Reed's Building 18 is nothing short of a national scandal. I am pleased that the new 110th Congress is taking critical steps this week to investigate problems at the facility, and hold accountable leaders that allowed these conditions to deteriorate to this disgraceful state.

Last week, I met with veterans from my district to express deep concern about the lack of adequate transportation for veterans, the increasing length of time it takes for veterans to receive benefits or access health care and the stagnant funding of the VA system over the last 6 years. And they describe a system unable to cope with increasing patients at a time of war.

The challenges faced by these Connecticut veterans are emblematic of a military and VA health system swamped by the influx of wounded from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and shortfalls of funding to adequately care for them caused by the misplaced priorities of the last Congress.

In the first days of this new Congress, we took an important step to address this problem by providing an additional $3.6 billion for veterans health care, yet as my constituents related, there remain critical issues that need to be addressed as we move forward. The men and women who serve this country deserve nothing less than a health care system worthy of their service and sacrifice.

Madam Chairman, 60 days ago I was still a small employer and a member of the chamber of commerce, which I had been for 25 years. And as someone coming from that background, listening to the claims from the other side about stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot or subjecting employers to coercion and duress, I was concerned about my good friends in the small business community who are wonderful people and work every day and have control of their own lives, that somehow we were harming them.

Read the law. Section (c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees workers the right to a secret ballot election if a ``substantial number,'' only 30 percent, ask for it, is still preserved. It is not being repealed.

Secondly, this bill provides in section 2 that people who have claims of duress, coercion, fraud on the part of union organizers have an avenue, have a remedy with the National Labor Relations Board.

These cards are not the back of a napkin. There will be a process and a procedure which will be fair to employers and to workers.

What this bill is about is restoring balance in the law, which, as the chairman indicated, the facts demonstrate is hurting workers, and it is our job to restore that balance.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor Chet and Sylvia Morgan, of Vernon, Connecticut. The Morgans recently celebrated their golden wedding anniversary at the Rockville Elks Carriage House in Rockville, Connecticut.

On January 26th, 1957, Chet and Sylvia married at St. Bridget Church in Manchester, Connecticut. Fifty years later, Chet and Sylvia are still happily married, recently renewing their wedding vows at St. Joseph Church in Rockville.

Chet and Sylvia are the proud parents of three, grandparents of eight, and great-grandparents of four. One of their grandsons, Kody, is a Connecticut National Guardsman currently serving in Iraq. I know that Chet and Sylvia are especially proud of his service to our country.

On behalf of my hometown of Vernon and Connecticut's Second Congressional District, I congratulate the Morgans and wish them all the best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, today we are here, exactly 100 days after a historic watershed election in this country, in which the American people spoke loudly and clearly that they wanted a new Congress to rise to its constitutional duty and hold this administration accountable for its war policy in Iraq. The day I was sworn in as a new Member of Congress, I accepted this responsibility, and I rise today in opposition to the President's escalation of the war and in support of H. Con. Res. 63.

Make no mistake about the significance of what is happening this week. America's new Congress will go on record for the first time in opposition to the Bush administration's 4-year legacy of mistakes and misjudgments in Iraq. This will be in sharp contrast to 8 months ago when the prior Congress did exactly the opposite. That Congress lined up in lockstep with a war resolution written by and for the White House.

That resolution completely brushed over the misleading and manipulated intelligence that got us into this conflict, the strain of this war on our brave men and women in uniform, and the drain on our Nation's military readiness that is undercutting critical efforts in Afghanistan and our overall defense infrastructure. Instead of doing their constitutional duty, the 109th Congress instead just rubber- stamped the administration's rhetoric and failing policy.

Opponents of today's resolution are claiming that it will damage our troop's morale. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I believe the opposite is true.

Let us be very clear about where the 20,000 new troops will come from. President Bush cannot simply dial 911 and 20,000 fresh new troops appear. This escalation can only happen by extending the deployments of soldiers already in Iraq, beyond their promised commitments, or accelerating the arrival of preexisting rotations. Upon close examination, it is clear that the impact of this surge lands squarely on the backs of our men and women in uniform who have already borne an unfair burden.

As we debate this resolution, there are nearly 1,900 men and women from my State of Connecticut, including 962 from Connecticut's National Guard, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have all honored our Nation with their service and sacrifice, and they have done all that has been asked of them and more, and their families have shown awe- inspiring strength in their absence.

Earlier this month, I was forwarded an e-mail from a constituent serving in Iraq which demonstrates the consequences of these unsustainable policies. In it he described how the morale in his unit fell when they found out that their tour was being unexpectedly extended another 4 months. He wrote:

``These guys have seen so much of the fighting here. To see the looks on these soldiers' faces was heartbreaking. A lot of these guys had plans made already with their loved ones, like weddings, trips, or family that traveled from far away to see them get off that

plane. There are children that were all excited, holding signs they made, waiting to see their fathers again only to have that shattered. How much more can soldiers like this take? These guys deserve the right to go home. They earned it.''

Letters like these demonstrate the real impact on our troops from the President's policy. And they are reinforced by the testimony I have heard at Armed Services. Over and over again, we have heard about the deterioration of our military readiness caused by overdeployment of our troops. Consider that today, as a result of the strain of the war, we currently have no active duty or Reserve brigades considered combat- ready in the Continental U.S., leaving our Nation dangerously unprepared and vulnerable if needed to respond to other global threats or domestic emergencies.

Despite the huge costs to our troops and our national defense, the President has opted to aggravate the holes in our defense with a plan to escalate the number of troops in Iraq. And for what?

Yesterday, I read the new classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. What I found in this report was the same as the unclassified version that has been reported in the press; that we have a deteriorating security situation in Iraq whose fundamental causes were identified as political, not military. This finding completely dovetails with the findings of the Iraq Study Group who came to the exact same conclusion.

Instead of absorbing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report and the National Intelligence Estimate and surging diplomacy and political solutions, the President instead has opted to escalate the war by sending 21,500 more troops into the middle of a violent sectarian conflict.

Where are the plans to equitably divide oil revenue or revisit the Iraqi Constitution which was left incomplete 2 years ago, or the push to create a real power-sharing arrangement between the Shia and the Sunni? Nowhere do we see any effort to get to the root causes of the violence. Instead, the Bush plan is more of the same, asking our brave troops to do the impossible, settling a sectarian conflict that goes back centuries in time.

President Bush has made his choice. Now it is Congress' turn as a coequal branch of government to make ours.

I firmly believe that the passage of this resolution will go down in history as the first stirrings of life from a Congress that has been in an Iraq stranglehold for 4 long years. It is an honor to be part of this history on behalf of one of the districts that had the courage to vote for change last November 100 days ago, and I will support resolution 63.

Mr. Speaker, I express my strong support for House Resolution 51 offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois. As both a Catholic and product of Catholic schools, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution which recognizes January 28th to February 3rd, 2007, as Catholic Schools Week.

Connecticut's Second Congressional District is home to nearly 30 Catholic elementary and secondary schools. From the southeastern corner of the district in Pawcatuck and Saint Michael's School, to the district's northwestern corner and the Enfield Montessori School, Catholic schools are an important part of the fabric of education in eastern Connecticut. The Archdiocese of Hartford and Diocese of Norwich deserve credit for making its schools accessible throughout the State.

As a graduate of Northwest Catholic High School in West Hartford, Connecticut, I know firsthand the academic rigor and discipline that Catholic schools demand. They provide their students with strong scholastic backgrounds and prepare them for life's many moral challenges.

Catholic schools deserve recognition for their contributions to our country. Today more than 2.4 million students are enrolled in Catholic schools, and 27 percent of those students are from minority backgrounds. Furthermore, Catholic schools emphasize strong community development and service. In my hometown of Vernon, Connecticut, students at St. Joseph School and St. Bernard school are active in the community visiting nursing homes and collecting money and clothes for the less fortunate.

I thank the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for designating January 28th to February 3rd, 2007 as Catholic Schools Week. And I thank Mr. Lipinski for offering this important resolution. The country's Catholic schools are certainly meritorious of such recognition.