Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 533 I was listed as not voting. I was in the Capitol, however, and cannot explain the absence of a recorded vote. I would like to be recorded as voting ``yea.''

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. I rise in support of extending permanent trade relations to Vietnam. I do this as somebody, who as a Vietnam veteran, served in that country for almost 4 years, and who 3 years ago returned to Vietnam with the assistance of the Vietnamese Government to look for the crash site and remains of Captain Arnold Holm from Waterford, Connecticut, who went down in 1972.

We spent a week with the Vietnamese looking for the crash site, did not find it. But just this year, with continued effort, located the crash site 200 meters from the location in the jungle where my wife and I and others were looking. This legislation is about more than just economics, although the economics are important. This legislation is about working with the Vietnamese to heal the wounds of the war that ended 30 years ago.

I personally have experienced the support of the Vietnamese Government in this initiative. I know that support will continue. As a Vietnam veteran, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the closing days of the 109th Congress, Members will rise to acknowledge the departure of their colleagues. Some are retiring of their own volition while others, such as me, are leaving as a consequence of the November elections.

While my colleagues deserve all of the accolades they will receive, I would like to devote just a few minutes to the loyal and capable men and women who have made my six years here in Congress so productive and rewarding. I would like to thank my wonderful staff.

My staff has shared in every success and victory we have had over the past six years. They have also shared in the personal disruption and professional disappointment of leaving this place before our important work is done.

They are as follows:

Todd Mitchell, Chief of Staff, and my alter ego on all issues and decisions, whose steady hand and wise counsel allowed us to assemble and manage a dynamic and productive staff over the past five years;

Erik Heilman and Lise Lynam, Legislative Directors, who energetically and faithfully pursued an aggressive legislative agenda in three committees, eight subcommittees and twenty caucuses, as well as for the District Office;

Justin Bernier, Senior Legislative Assistant, whose acute insights and dynamic energy were largely responsible for saving Naval Submarine Base New London, which in turn saved Connecticut over 31,500 jobs and $3.5 billion in annual revenues;

John Goodwin, Press Secretary and Jonathan Martin, Legislative Assistant, whose hard work and respect for America's working families won me accolades as a ``pro-labor Republican'' from The Wall Street Journal;

Leigh Hightower, Senior Legislative Assistant of Mansfield, Connecticut, and Amy Pellegrino, Legislative Assistant from Westerly, Rhode Island, whose diligence and sympathy helped us to ``keep the promise'' to our veterans and improve health care for all Americans;

Meghan Curran, Legislative Assistant from Bolton, Connecticut, whose commitment to the education of our Nation's children resulted in important legislative initiatives, and whose respect for Teachers resulted in her eventually leaving our staff to teach;

Shauna Hewes, Legislative Assistant of Ledyard, Connecticut, whose persistent efforts and negotiating skills were instrumental in passing the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act;

Dan Hartnett, Legislative Assistant, who received, processed and helped answer over 100,000 pieces of mail and countless e-mails so that our constituents were never out of touch with their Congressman;

Emily Cantin, Scheduler of Marlborough, Connecticut, who ran a tight but happy front office, and kept me on time and on message through many busy weeks in Washington, DC;

Will Cox, Staff Assistant of Mystic, Connecticut, whose cheerful demeanor and helpful habits made every visitor to the Washington Office feel welcome and important;

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, I thank the Chair, and I rise in support of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which is a bill that brings good news to our men and women in uniform and especially good news for the U.S. submarine force and to the American shipbuilding industry.

The conference report before us contains $400 million in spending authorization to begin the construction of two fast attack submarines in the year 2009 and also expresses a sense of the Congress that the attack submarine force should not drop below 48, the stated requirement of the U.S. Navy to meet its critical missions.

Because of submarine shortfalls, the Navy is on track to meet only 54 percent of the submarine mission days requested by the U.S. combatant commanders. We need to do better than 54 percent. This legislation puts us in the right direction of doing better, and we will do better.

My colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee understand this reality, and I would especially like to thank subcommittee chairman, Roscoe Bartlett from Maryland, and the ranking member, Gene Taylor from Mississippi. These two gentlemen probably have more knowledge about American and global shipbuilding than anyone else in the Congress. I would also

like to thank my colleague from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who for the last 4 years has worked with me in a bipartisan fashion on these issues and is the co-chair with me on the Congressional Submarine Caucus.

Finally, I want to thank Ranking Member Ike Skelton who works in such a fine bipartisan fashion and our chairman, Duncan Hunter, who comes from the city of San Diego with a great shipbuilding tradition and who has also visited my part of Connecticut. We have a shipbuilding tradition as well right in Connecticut, the submarine capital of the world. That is what we call it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. In concluding, he referred to his $89 a month and the loan sharks. When I was in as a private, I made $68 a month. The loan sharks were out there. So the legislation to get them off the backs of our soldiers is welcome news.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have already heard many good words about this legislation, and I would like to associate myself with those words.

Quite simply, this legislation represents many years of effort between two States, New York and Connecticut; between the House and the Senate; and, of course, a bipartisan effort by Republicans and Democrats.

The Long Island Sound is a unique estuary, with economic and environmental assets. It generates about $6 billion annually to the regional economy and is a cherished environmental resource for over 28 million people who live within 50 miles of the shore.

Four generations of my family have enjoyed Long Island Sound, and we have lived on Long Island Sound. And yet with the increase in population, with land development, and other pressures, some of the assets of this unique estuary are being lost. And that is why this bipartisan legislation has been introduced.

It originally passed the Senate a couple of years ago in a somewhat different form and then Senator Lieberman and I reintroduced it last year at the beginning of the 109th Congress. I have worked with Chairman Pombo, I have worked with subcommittee Chairman Gilchrest, and my colleagues across the aisle to make sure that the language of this bill respects property rights but also allows us to use science-based mechanisms to identify properties that can be acquired and preserved and protected for future generations.

Again, we don't infringe on property rights because the bill seeks to create and does create, we believe, a purely voluntary process to protect important sites along the sound.

The committee that we are creating is advisory in nature and has no authority to seize lands or to mandate action on private property. It simply recommends sites and allows an administrator to allocate funds to purchase or enter into legal arrangements to secure these properties. The legislation provides for transparency and accountability and is responsible, in a fiduciary manner, for the dollars that are authorized by the law.

I thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support of this wonderful piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5160, the ``Long Island Sound Stewardship Act of 2006.''

I want to thank Chairman Richard Pombo and Chairman Wayne Gilchrest-- as well as their capable staff--for their leadership and work on this important legislation. I also would like to thank my co-chair of the Long Island Sound Caucus, Representative Steve Israel and the rest of the caucus for their work to promote the importance of Long Island Sound.

The Long Island Sound is a unique estuary with economic and ecological importance to the region and to the Nation. The Sound contributes approximately $6 billion annually to the regional economy and is a cherished resource for the 28 million people living within 50 miles of its shores. The Sound is heavily used for recreation and for commerce by residents of Connecticut and New York as well as numerous visitors from across the country each year. This treasure deserves our utmost support.

Senator Lieberman and I originally introduced the Long Island Stewardship Act (LISSA) in the 108th Congress. H.R. 5160 is the product of bipartisan cooperation among legislators from Connecticut and New York and local groups that have been working together to protect the Sound. Without infringing on private property rights of local landowners, the bill seeks to create a purely voluntary process to protect important sites along the Sound through the creation of the Long Island Sound Advisory Committee. Chaired by the director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Long Island Sound Office and comprised of representatives from Federal, State, and local governments and nongovernmental organizations, the Committee will assess potential stewardship sites along the coast and work to preserve them.

To ensure private property rights, the Committee was made advisory in nature and would not have the authority to seize lands or to mandate action on private property. Instead,

the Committee would be required to recommend sites for stewardship and submit its findings to the EPA Administrator. The Administrator would then allocate funds to purchase relevant property rights or enter into binding legal arrangements that ensure the value of the sites is maintained in accordance with the Committee's recommendations.

In an effort to provide maximum transparency and accountability, the EPA Administrator would then be required to produce a bi-annual report that assesses the status of the Long Island Sound and that notifies the public of the program activities. To maintain the bi-state partnership, the Committee would be required to exert due diligence to ensure that it recommends an equitable distribution of funds between Connecticut and New York.

Mr. Speaker, the use of Federal dollars requires careful scrutiny. My bill would authorize $25 million annually for 5 years to advance this important initiative. This figure represents a reduction from an initial draft of the bill during the 108th Congress, at the recommendation of Senate and House committee chairmen. And if we consider the precedent for Federal funds authorized and appropriated for estuarine ecosystem restoration programs elsewhere in the country, we'll find $25 million to be an appropriate amount. This is especially true when one considers the cost of real estate in the Long Island Sound region.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for bringing this legislation before the House. I am gratified to have the support of my colleagues in passing this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 971, to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric plants in my State of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding time; and I also thank the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Barton, for his leadership and work on this important legislation.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has approved licenses for three hydroelectric plants in Connecticut. Unfortunately, due to reasons beyond their control, Summit Hydroelectric has been unable to begin construction on these approved projects. The delays have been caused by regulatory changes and lease negotiations with the State of Connecticut.

We know that section 13 of the Federal Power Act requires that the construction of a licensed project begin with 2 years from the date the license is issued. FERC is authorized under the law to extend this deadline upon a finding that such extension is ``not incompatible with the public interest.'' FERC did provide a one-time extension, but more time is needed, and that is why we have this legislation before us here tonight, to enable these projects to go forward.

Like two other operational hydroelectric facilities located in my district in eastern Connecticut, these facilities will benefit local communities by adding historical value, because many of the dams are of historic nature, increasing property tax revenues to the town and providing for economic stimulation.

In addition, the facilities would significantly reduce trash and pollution in the rivers. For example, one such facility is estimated to remove about three tons of trash each year from the rivers through the screening process. Each of these facilities will remove 36 tons a year of sulfur dioxide pollution, 15 tons per year of nitrogen oxide pollution, and 5,000 tons a year of carbon dioxide pollution. So these facilities are not only important to generate electricity, they are also important to clean up the rivers and to clean up the air. In addition, they will all include fish ladders that are beneficial to our native salmon migration.

Finally, Madam Speaker, we know that increasing renewable energy sources has never been more important. Hydropower serves to help lessen our dependence on imported oil, which is paramount to increasing our Nation's security and reducing pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 65.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 444) extending the thanks of Congress and the Nation to the Defense POW/Missing Personnel office, the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command of the Department of Defense, the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, the Air Force Life Sciences Equipment Laboratory, and the military departments and to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for their efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting of all Americans unaccounted for as a result of the Vietnam War, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

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

I am honored to rise in support of H. Con. Res. 444, recognizing the difficult, demanding and essential work of the Defense/POW Missing Personnel Office, or DPMO, and all the others devoted to bringing home fallen U.S. servicemembers. DPMO makes sure that none of our men and women in uniform are forgotten or left behind on the field of battle.

This Friday, we will observe National POW/MIA Recognition Day, and I am pleased that passage of this resolution will send a message of sincere thanks to all who remain dedicated, vigilant and loyal to unaccounted for Americans.

Although he cannot be here with us tonight, I would like to recognize my colleague and fellow Vietnam veteran Congressman Lane Evans, who was a cosponsor of this resolution and a fellow member of the House Armed Services Committee. My good friend from Illinois also shares with me co-chair responsibilities on the United States-Vietnam Congressional Caucus which we established several years ago. Congressman Evans is retiring at the end of this Congress, and I thank him for his friendship and for his service. He is a former marine, and he has been a great friend to members of all the branches of service. I say to him tonight, Lane, Semper Fi.

This resolution tonight is especially meaningful to Connecticut's Second District. In June 1972, CPT Arnold Holm of Waterford, Connecticut, was shot down over the central highlands of Vietnam. Captain Holm and the two members of his flight crew, PFC Wayne Bibbs and SP4 Robin Yeakley, were officially listed as missing in action.

Numerous searches for the crash site of their helicopter were unsuccessful, but the dedicated individuals of the DPMO did not give up. Just a few weeks ago, nearly 35 years after the helicopter was shot down, the field team in Vietnam appears to have located Captain Holm's crash site. I cannot tell you what this means to his wife Margarete Holm and to the family. It brings a sense of closure that is indescribable to anyone who has not experienced the profound emotions of personal loss that goes with having a family member as missing in action.

This resolution gives thanks to all of those who have worked to bring home America's POWs and MIAs. It reaffirms our commitment to our fellow Americans who have earned the right to be called heroes.

Americans are unique in this regard because we never leave our own behind. It is part of our national character that we do not write off those lost in defense of our Nation, no matter where they are, no matter how long they have been lost.

The U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory located in Hawaii has an important mission. Their task is to search for, recover and identify the remains of servicemembers, certain civilian personnel and allied personnel unaccounted for from World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War and all other conflicts. DPMO has brought home and identified hundreds of previously unaccounted for servicemembers, which is a costly and dangerous assignment. Americans, Vietnamese and others have lost their lives in search of their lost brothers, but we continue to support their mission because their work is a critical element of who we are.

DPMO's mission is critical to the military families who live with ambiguity and await closure. By continuing the search, we honor their service and their sacrifice.

I have already shared the story of Captain Holm. I have another. Robert Dumas lives in Canterbury, Connecticut. For more than 50 years, he has been searching for his brother Roger, who was a POW in Korea. He has been to Washington, D.C., more than 100 times and has met with Members of Congress and anyone else who might be able to help him uncover the fate of his brother. Bob Dumas promised his mother on her deathbed that he would never abandon the effort to find his brother, and he has kept his word. That is what this resolution is all about, keeping our word to those who have served and to their families.

Men like Roger Dumas, Arnie Holm and millions of others throughout our Nation's history have put their lives on the line for us. Some of them never returned and the fate of the others remains uncertain, but we owe it to them and to their families to try to bring them home.

The governments of Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia and other Nations throughout Southeast Asia also deserve our thanks. They have been instrumental in the search for missing U.S. servicemembers. In many cases, Vietnamese soldiers and officials have risked and lost their lives in the pursuit of American POWs and MIA remains.

When I put my dog tags on over 40 years ago, I noticed that they did not give any indication of my political affiliation, and when you visit the graves of our heroes at nearby Arlington Cemetery you will notice the same thing. None of the markers identify the soldiers' political affiliations. We do not wear the uniform of our country as members of a political party but as Americans. We do not continue to search for our missing servicemen and women as members of a political party but as Americans.

We will continue to support the efforts of the DPMO all around the world because these efforts are important. We will never give up the work, the hope or the commitment, and I ask all of my colleagues to join in support of this important resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to close by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, who serves with great distinction on the House Armed Services Committee, serves our country in a bipartisan fashion, for his contribution and his cooperation on this resolution here tonight

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last year I introduced duty suspension legislation for high-quality woven cotton shirting fabrics that are not currently produced in the United States. Today, after receiving valuable input from the International Trade Commission, ITC, and the National Council of Textile Organizations, NCTO, I am happy to reintroduce a slightly revised version of this legislation.

The high-quality cotton fabrics affected by this legislation are used in the domestic production of fine men's and boys' dress shirts. Unfortunately, several American companies that produce these shirts are being unfairly penalized by tariffs on the cotton they must import for this purpose. But because this type of cotton is not produced domestically, these tariffs protect no American interest.

What's more, Canada has eliminated its tariffs on this type of imported woven shirting fabrics, and under a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, Canadian shirt makers can export large quantities of these shirts to the U.S. duty-free. This further puts U.S.-based shirt manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage.

Last year, following a request for public comments by the House Ways and Means Committee on all tariff relief trade bills, the NCTO raised a concern about the scope of fabrics that could conceivably be covered by my original bill, H.R. 1945. In addition, the Ways and Means Committee requested technical comments on all tariff relief bills from the ITC.

Because this legislation was never intended to cover other cotton fabrics--and to alleviate any perceived concerns about the scope of the bill--I have adjusted the language in the bill to specifically list the affected fabrics by number. This will make it perfectly clear that the bill only covers men's and boys' cotton shirting fabrics. In addition, the bill has been adjusted to reflect minor technical corrections suggested by the ITC.

I am proud to say that this newly revised bill has gained the approval of NCTO. Therefore, it is my hope that this legislation will serve as a strong demonstration of continuing House support for these duty suspensions, which are also included in companion legislation that has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense tariff relief measure that will yield positive benefits for American companies, workers and consumers.

100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HOLY SAVIOUR CLUB OF NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the National Association of State Veterans Homes (NASVH) and the 119 state-veterans' homes they represent for their contributions to caring for our Nation's military veterans.

The State Veterans' Home program is a partnership between the Federal Government and the States that provides the bulk of VA-supported long term care services to veterans and their families. I have seen firsthand the importance of this partnership and the quality of services that State homes provide because I am privileged to have one of these homes in my State of Connecticut, at Rocky Hill.

Connecticut's first veterans' home was founded on July 4, 1864, and was known as Fitch's Home for Soldiers and Their Orphans. Benjamin Fitch, a philanthropist from Darien, established the home for Civil War veterans and for children whose fathers were killed in that war. The complex of buildings included a hospital, chapel, library, residence hall, and administrative facilities. At the time, it represented one of the Nation's earliest commitments to our veterans. From 1864 to 1940 the Fitch Home served the needs of hundreds of orphans and thousands of men who served their country in various wars. The Fitch home became the Connecticut State Veterans hospital in 1940 and relocated to its current location in Rocky Hill.

Today, 476 veterans ages 23 to 95, representing all major U.S. conflicts dating back to World War II, are residents at Rocky Hill. Recently, Rocky Hill received a nearly $22 million grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs to construct a new State veterans care facility and to make infrastructure improvements at the campus. I am proud of Rocky Hill's long history of providing quality long-term care services for our veterans and I am pleased with the government's commitment to supporting their efforts.

Rocky Hill is just one example of the 119 State-operated veterans' homes located across the country. These homes provide nursing home care in 114 locations, domiciliary care in 52 locations, and hospital-type care in five of their homes. Combined, the State veterans' homes presently provide over 27,500 resident beds for veterans, of which more than 21,000 are nursing home beds.

This resolution not only recognizes the value of State veterans' homes, but also the

critical role of those people who represent and staff the homes. In 1954, administrators and senior staff of State veterans' homes around the country joined together to form an all-volunteer, non-profit organization to promote the common interests of the homes and the elderly, disabled veterans that they serve. The organization, the National Association of State Veterans Homes, has been and continues to be in the forefront of developing and supporting new methods and models for providing long term care services to elderly veterans, such as hospice care, respite care, Alzheimer's care, and adult day health care. I commend the organization for their strong commitment to ensuring that State homes receive the tools they need to provide the best care possible for America's heroes.

I would also like to commend and thank all of the individuals who work in the State homes system for providing such a vital service to those men and women who have worn the uniform of our Nation. I believe the work that these individuals do helps us fulfill the promise laid out long ago by President Lincoln, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.'' They have dedicated themselves to provide the best care possible for our elderly and disabled veterans, and we in Congress must equally dedicate ourselves to ensure that they continue to receive sufficient support and resources from the Department of Veterans Affairs to maintain that quality of care.

H. Con. Res. 347 honors the invaluable work of those who staff State veterans' homes, the important role of the National Association of State Veterans Homes, and affirms the support of Congress in the continuation of the State Veterans' Home program.

I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of State veterans' homes for their role in caring for our Nation's aging and disabled military heroes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to today to talk about the Charles W. Morgan--built in 1841 and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1966--she is the only surviving wooden, square-rigged commercial vessel still remaining from the Nation's great age of sail. The Morgan is a treasured symbol of America and Connecticut, and the cornerstone of Mystic Seaport's collection. The Morgan is an icon of an industry that fueled the early American economy.

After her whaling days ended in 1921, the Morgan was preserved and exhibited in South Dartmouth, Massachusetts, until 1941 when she came to Mystic Seaport. Today, the Charles W. Morgan dominates the Museum's waterfront. Preserved afloat in her natural element, much as she appeared during her active whaling career, the Morgan is a featured part of the Mystic Seaport visitor experience. Through the years millions of visitors have climbed onboard the Morgan to experience, first-hand, the living and working environment of a large 19th-century wooden whaling vessel.

On Saturday, July 15, I will visit Mystic Seaport to help celebrate the restoration, preservation and renewal of the Charles W. Morgan. A program of restoration and preservation on the Morgan began in 1968 and continues to the present day. The Charles W. Morgan's past restoration at the Henry B. duPont Preservation Shipyard at Mystic Seaport helped define the standards of maritime preservation and historic vessel documentation as practiced today, worldwide. This preservation work has been recognized with numerous accolades, including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's National Historic Preservation Award in 1992 and the World Ship Trust Millennial International Maritime Heritage Award in 2000. The Morgan was also included on the Connecticut Freedom Trail in 1997.

Substantial restoration work is underway to ensure the Morgan's survival as an authentic 19th-century wooden vessel. The next phase of the Morgan's restoration will focus on an eight-foot band around the vessel's waterline. Mystic Seaport estimates that this 2\1/2\ year project will address the Charles W. Morgan's major structural needs for the next 20 years.

As my colleagues from Mississippi and gulf coast region may be aware, Mystic Seaport's Preservation Shipyard and the Charles W. Morgan have made national headlines recently due to the Museum's efforts to salvage live oak from the devastated Gulf Coast region. Residents of four coastal Mississippi cities can take some comfort from knowing that centuries-old trees uprooted during the storm will be used to restore the Morgan's frame, backbone, and stem and stem posts. By helping to keep the Morgan ``alive'' for future generations, these extraordinary trees will continue to touch the minds and hearts of Museum visitors, perhaps for centuries to come.

As many of you may know, Mystic Seaport--the Museum of America and the Sea is a leading national center for maritime research and education, with over 18,500 members and 1,500 volunteers. On average 300,000 people visit Mystic Seaport each year, and over 1.4 million more access the Museum's resources electronically via the Web site, www.mysticseaport.org. The Museum is the nation's fourth largest history museum and is considered to be one of the finest maritime museums in the world. Seventeen waterfront acres are devoted to floating exhibits, exhibition galleries, demonstrations, and educational programming. The Museum's facilities include a 19th century New England coastal village, a new 41,000 square-foot Collections Research Center, a 70,000-volume research library, a planetarium, four national historic landmark vessels, and a working preservation shipyard.

The Charles W. Morgan is being restored ``famously'' at Mystic Seaport's preservation shipyard, and I am honored to help Mystic Seaport celebrate the restoration and preservation of Charles W. Morgan, now in its 3rd century under sail.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit for the Record a column that appeared in The New London Day on July 9. It was written by Glenn Sulmasy, an associate professor of law at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and a noted expert on national security law. The title of the op-ed piece is ``A New Kind of Law in a New Kind of War.''

America is not at war with a traditional enemy, but a network of civilians who swear allegiance to radical Islam. Consequently, the various laws that have historically governed international conflicts do not seem to fit well with our current situation. Nevertheless, we have spent a lot of time discussing the present and future conditions of the combatants in our custody. In his column, Glenn Sulmasy offers a series of recommendations providing a framework for this important debate. He makes an especially compelling case for a National Security Court system.

America's critics do little more than attack the current system. While such criticism is important, it is not always constructive. We need to think of new ways to handle the detention and adjudication of enemy combatants.

In the book In Time of War, which details President Roosevelt's treatment of eight Nazi saboteurs in 1942, Pierce O'Donnell argues that our enemies ``would forcibly impose their nihilistic, totalitarian ideology on society through violence and intimidation. That is precisely why this just struggle--characterized as a war on terror-- should not be tainted by compromising our historic respect for justice, constitutional liberties and international law.''

As we take steps to defend America from a terrorist threat, we cannot lose sight of the values we are defending. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to take a few minutes and read Glenn Sulmasy's column, which outlines a new kind of law for a new kind of war.

[From the New London Day, July 9, 2006]

Guantanamo Bay: New Kind of Law for New Kind of War

(By Glenn Sulmasy)

Last week, in Rumsfeld vs. Hamdan, the Supreme Court

decided that the military commissions for the jihadist

detainees in Guantanamo Bay are not lawfully constructed. I

disagree. However the realities of maintaining international

support and ensuring domestic consensus on fighting the

global war demands we look for alternatives for detaining and

trying jihadists. Regardless of how the Court decided in

Hamdan, the commissions have failed.

The Court has forced the opponents of military commissions

to offer legitimate solutions. The best solution available is

the creation of a National Security Court system.

The global war on terror has created ambiguities in both

the laws of armed conflict and how best to fight this new

war. The asymmetric threat of international terror, the lack

of a clear national enemy, the problems with the military

commissions in Guantanamo Bay, allegations of torture and the

recent constitutional issues surrounding wiretap efforts of

the National Security Agency all highlight the lack of an

appropriate body of law to govern this new conflict. Nowhere

is this ambiguity more evident than in the United States'

handling of detainees.

The ``enemies'' in this war are men and women who fight not

for a nation but for ideology, do not wear standard military

uniforms and, as doctrine, flout the laws of war. These new

``warriors'' have created extreme difficulties since they are

not conventional prisoners of war (regardless what the recent

ruling has asserted) and thus (with all due respect to

Justice John Paul Stevens) the Geneva Conventions simply do

not apply to them. Adjudicating their status and crimes has

become increasingly chaotic. It initially appeared that the

military tribunals (currently referred to as military

commissions by the Bush Administration) would provide the

appropriate venue for handling the prosecution of the

detainees. But now, over four years later, there has not been

a completed prosecution. More than 500 detainees remain in

Guantanamo Bay and supposedly another 450 are being held in

Afghanistan.

As this problem grows, the U.S. needs a new approach. Our

own federal courts system, the standard courts-martial system

and other traditional methods, won't work. A healthy,

bipartisan debate on ``what'' to do next is critical. This is

a new war, one that mixes law enforcement and warfare, and

does not fit neatly in either category.

A national security court apparatus needs to be legislated.

As Congress begins to debate (as ordered by the Supreme

Court) how to handle jihadists' violations of the laws of

war, policymakers must achieve both the reality and

appearance of justice.

Clearly, many issues need to be hammered out regarding the

composition of the court.

The court would be a hybrid of the military commissions and

our own federal trial system.

The jihadist would be afforded limited rights, including

right to counsel and be detained and tried on military bases

within the United States. The law would allow the death

penalty. The hearings would be closed with the exception of

observers from Human Rights Organizations (for example,

Amnesty International, the International Red Cross and the

U.N. Human Rights Watch.) The U.S. Department of Justice

would provide prosecutors and administer over the program.

International concern over Guantanamo is detracting from

our ability to provide guidance, counsel and policy in this

and other arenas. A blue-ribbon commission, created by the

president with bipartisan support from Congress, should

immediately be formed to address questions as to proper

detention, adjudication, intelligence gathering, terrorist

surveillance and other legal issues associated with the

threat of international terror.

The National Security Court, a natural outgrowth of the

military commissions, affords an opportunity for U.S. policy

makers to respond forcefully and effectively to calls for a

way out of the Guantanamo issue.

The Hamdan decision has pushed us in this direction. The

military commissions are no longer a viable option.

Rather than offering no solutions and merely attacking the

existing structure, policy makers need to emerge with fresh

ways to look at the proper detention and adjudication of the

jihadists.

It is time to regain the initiative, and reaffirm our

leadership in the humane prosecution of those who would

undermine the ideals of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to represent Connecticut's Second District, which is home to many historical sites, including Mystic Seaport, which is known as the Museum of America and the Sea.

Since the 1600s, the Mystic region has been a center of shipbuilding. The Golden Age of America's maritime enterprises was between 1784 and 1919. During those years more than 600 ships were constructed along the Mystic River. One of those ships was the Charles W. Morgan and I rise today to commend Mystic Seaport and those citizens who came forward years ago to ``purchase shares'' of that wonderful old ship so it could be preserved and restored for public display.

From 1841 to 1921 the Charles W. Morgan traveled the seas in pursuit of profit. Certain voyages lasted four years and her adventures took her and her crews to the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. After 37 voyages the ship had earned her shareholders more than $1 million.

In 1941, Mystic Seaport acquired this proud ship and by he 1970s it was clear that restoration was required to protect it from the corrosion of time and the elements. As was the case during its voyages, private citizens again came forward to buy shares into the ship and today the investment in the Charles W. Morgan has once again paid great dividends. On July 15, Mystic Seaport will celebrate the history and survival of this magnificent vessel, which is the last surviving wooden whaleship in America.

On July 15, descendants of the ship's crew members and those who participated in the ship's refurbishment will gather at the seaport to celebrate the Morgan and its wonderful history. This is a milestone in our maritime history and for my district. The restoration of the ship will continue and its history will continue to be shared. The next generation will have the opportunity to visit this living museum which tells tales of adventure and of America's relationship with the sea.

Man faces the future armed with the past. That is why it is essential that we honor our history and preserve it. History is who we are, what we are and why we are. The Charles W. Morgan is an important artifact of American history. I thank all those who worked to ensure that it would be preserved as a reminder of America's greatness, of our historic determination to embrace challenges and our indomitable spirit to explore and to dream.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the members of the Lyme-Old Lyme, Connecticut robotics team known as the Techno-Ticks. They are Team 236 and they represent the Dominion Millstone power station.

Mr. Speaker, the United States leads the world in technology and innovation, but the only way we will maintain our leading edge is if our young people dedicate themselves to the study of science and technology. The motivated and talented students at Old Lyme illustrate that America's dominance in the future is in good hands.

The Techno-Ticks recently participated in the USFIRST robotics competition and they demonstrated great enthusiasm and proficiency. The acronym FIRST stands for: For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. The FIRST competitions began in 1989 and since then student interest has flourished. The number of teams participating has grown over the years from 28 to more than 1,100. The competition involves designing and constructing a robot and it is an exciting and practical way for young people to discover the remarkable and rewarding world of engineering and research.

These competitions are important. Engineering schools and professional societies have warned that we are not educating enough engineers and scientists. Well, that's not the case in Lyme. I visited their school and I watched the Techno-Ticks in action. They understand teamwork, they understand technology and they understand that everything they are learning today will better prepare them for the world of tomorrow. It will be a world they will help shape.

USFIRST celebrates partnerships between school systems, educators, parents and professionals in the various fields that define technically challenging problems. The students implement solutions under simulated real world pressures of time, money and resources. The teams develop decision making, project management and business skills as they solve realistic technical issues such as how to design, construct and remotely operate robotic devices to perform tasks.

They employ gyroscopic control and barrier recognition and avoidance in order to enable the robot to navigate obstacle courses, climb stairs and ramps and lift or throw objects. They also gain experience by raising money to fund their teams; by learning how to communicate with sponsors, team members and their communities; how to negotiate resource issues, and how to transport a robot and a team thousands of miles to compete in 33 regional competitions and a championship event held annually in Atlanta, Georgia. USFIRST participants learn real world skills.

These students have a passion for learning and are eager to help solve our nations' and the worlds' most pressing problems. I congratulate the Techno-Ticks on their accomplishments and encourage them to continue to pursue knowledge. The lessons they are mastering today will serve them, and our nation, in the world of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate my good friend, Bud Faye of Groton, Connecticut for his being recognized as the 2005 Connecticut Small-Business Champion by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). I have long considered Bud to be a shining example of what an American small business owner should be, so I am glad that NFIB has recognized his successful career with this prestigious award.

For 22 years, Bud has owned Pop and Mum's Restaurant-Car Wash- Laundromat and Dry Cleaning in Groton. Here, one of his proudest innovations was establishing a link between the gas dryers used in his laundromat and the hot water supply for this car wash. As a result, on a busy day he can rely on the excess heat from the dryers in use to heat the hot water for the car wash operation.

When he is not running his business, Bud is active in the community, co-chairing the Groton Business Association and the Military Community Council. He was the driving force behind the formation of the NFIB/ Connecticut Southeastern Area Action Council--a group of active small- business owners in southeastern Connecticut. Bud even worked to make computers at a local high school available so residents of a local retirement home can e-mail friends and family. These efforts have consistently helped make southeastern Connecticut a better place not only to do business, but to live.

In addition to his work in these areas, the people of Connecticut and in fact the entire nation will long be indebted to Bud for his tireless efforts to help save the Groton-New London Naval Submarine Base from closure. First in 1993 and again in 2005, Bud helped to form and lead a group of local business owners and community leaders who lobbied against the base closure plan--a plan that would have led to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and removed billions of dollars from Connecticut's economy. Bud's efforts clearly demonstrated deep local support for the base, which was an important factor when the decision was made to keep it open.

Each year, NFIB singles out a small-business owner in all 50 States for special recognition and honors them with its prestigious Small- Business Champion award. Bud Faye is a worthy recipient of this award, and I am proud to add my voice to the countless others that have thanked him for helping make Groton a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Thank you, Bud, and congratulations.