Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as the Republican Chairman of the U.S.- Vietnam Caucus here in the House, I rise today to welcome His Excellency Phan Van Khai, Prime Minister of Vietnam.

I am delighted to be here to celebrate this historic occasion--the first official visit of the Prime Minister of Vietnam to the United States Capitol here in Washington, DC.

Thirty five years ago I served in Vietnam as a soldier. Two years ago I returned to that country searching for the remains of a fellow soldier from my district, Captain Arnold Holm, who was shot down in Thua Thien Province in 1972. Although we never found his crash site or his remains, the Vietnamese Government and people were extraordinarily generous and helpful as we searched.

And while we did not find the crash site of Captain Holm, we did find something else of great value. We found Americans and Vietnamese of courage, good will and generous spirit who believed the time had come to heal the wounds of war. As Senator John McCain said last night, we found people who were willing to forget the pain of the past and move forward as friends to build a better future for all our people.

When I returned from my visit to Vietnam I joined my friend and colleague Lane Evans to create the U.S.-Vietnam Caucus. The purpose of this caucus is to build constructive relationships between our two countries; to search for and recover the remains of soldiers of both countries; to develop tourism and trade; to promote educational exchanges; and to build better relations between our people.

Sir Winston Churchill once remarked, ``The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty.'' I am an optimist. While there is much work left to do, today is a day of optimism--a day to celebrate the progress we have made so far and a day to let that progress encourage us as we walk together towards an even better future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program.

The Community Services Block Grant provides the core funding for our local community action agencies, allowing them to address the problems that leave individuals in poverty.

Through job skills and employment programs, through educational opportunities for young children like Head Start, and through nutritionally sound programs like WIC, community action agencies work to make their community a better place to live and to offer opportunities for the economically disadvantaged to be successful and break the chains of poverty.

This Congress has continually demonstrated its support for CSBG. In fact, the Conference Agreement on the FE 2006 Budget Resolution added $600 million to maintain CSBG funding at its current level and the letter I circulated with my colleagues, Representatives Phil English (R-PA) and Brian Baird (D-WA) in support of level funding for CSBG garnered 122 bipartisan signatures.

Yet the bill we are considering today cuts CSBG funding in half. At a time when demands on our community action agency services from the working poor, older Americans, and families struggling with unemployment continue to increase, it is essential that Congress maintain its commitment to CSBG.

In my home state of Connecticut, this 50% reduction in funds to CSBG will result in a serious reduction of social services to our most vulnerable communities, reduction in services assisting families moving from welfare to work, and will seriously impact our community action agencies' ability to leverage other community dollars. The Thames Valley Council for Community Action in New London County, for example, generates and leverages $27 in other resources for every $1 funded under CSBG.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear the CSBG dollars are a smart investment for this Congress and are essential to our nation's most vulnerable

citizens. While my colleagues and I intend to withdraw our amendment today, I thank the distinguished Chairman for the opportunity to debate this important issue here today and I look forward to working with him to increase funding through the remainder of the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably delayed in my return to Washington, DC from an official visit to Kings Bay, Georgia and was unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 274 to 282.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 274, an amendment offered by Mr. Royce; ``yea'' on rollcall 275, an amendment offered by Mr. Fortenberry; ``yea'' on rollcall 276, an amendment offered by Mr. Flake; ``yea'' on rollcall 277, an amendment offered by Mr. Chabot and Mr. Lantos; ``yea'' on rollcall 278, an amendment offered by Mr. Pence; ``nay'' on rollcall 279, an amendment offered by Mr. Gohmert; ``nay'' on rollcall 280, an amendment offered by Mr. Stearns; ``yea'' on rollcall 281, the Lantos/Shays substitute; and ``yea'' on rollcall 282, final passage on H.R. 2745.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 4, the Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag desecration.

Our flag is the strongest symbol of America's character and values. It tells the story of victories won--and battles lost--in defending

the principles of freedom and democracy. These are stories of men and women from all walks of life who put their lives on hold to serve our Nation. Many of those brave Americans never returned home from distant battlefields. The flag reminds us of the sacrifices they made at Gettysburg, San Juan Hill, Iwo Jima, Normandy Beach, Korea, Da Nang, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places where America's men and women in uniform placed honor and duty above self. These Americans had a powerful symbol uniting them--the American flag. The American flag belongs to them as it belongs to all of us.

Critics of the amendment say it interferes with freedom of speech. They are wrong. It does not interfere with freedom of speech. Americans have access to public television; they can write letters to the editor to express their beliefs; they can speak freely at public forums; they can share their views with listeners by calling into radio stations. I meet with constituents everyday in order to best represent their interests in Washington. Americans can stand on the steps of their own City Hall or on the steps of our nation's Capitol to demonstrate their cause. Protecting the American flag from desecration does not deprive any American of the opportunity to speak clearly, openly and freely.

Let us be aware that it is speech, not action, that is protected by the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers protected free speech and freedom of the press because in a democracy, words are used to debate, persuade and to educate. A democracy must protect free and open debate, regardless of how disagreeable some might find the views of others. Prohibiting flag desecration does not undermine that tradition.

In 1989, in the case of Texas versus Gregory Lee Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that a state flag protection statute was unconstitutional. The court was in error. It was not the thoughts or opinions expressed by Mr. Johnson that the Texas law restricted but the manner in which he expressed his thoughts and opinions. Mr. Johnson was free to speak his mind without fear of censorship. That freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment. But desecrating the flag is not speech; it is action and action is not protected. For example, an individual is free to speak about the need for America to conserve its environment, but the individual would not be free to express those thoughts by destroying oil derricks. There is la difference between action and speech.

The proposed amendment would protect the flag from desecration, not from burning. As a member of the American Legion, I have supervised the disposal of over 7,000 unserviceable flags. But this burning is done with ceremony and respect. This is not flag desecration. More than 70 percent of the American people want the opportunity to vote to protect their flag. Numerous organizations, including the Medal of Honor Recipients for the Flag, the American Legion, the American War Mothers, the American G.I. Forum, and the African American Women's Clergy Association all support this amendment.

All fifty states have passed resolutions calling for constitutional protection for the flag. In the last Congress, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this amendment by a vote of 298 to 125, and will rightfully pass it again this year.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.J. Res. 4 and ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important resolution that means so much to so many.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc amendments. I would like to draw particular attention to one portion of the en bloc amendments that deals with space-available travel, space- available, or space-A travel for certain military personnel.

One of the benefits of serving in the U.S. military is that you are allowed to access available spaces on military aircraft flying around the country or, indeed, flying around the world. It is a benefit that we extend to our active duty servicemembers, to some of the Guard and the Reserve. But if you happen to be a retired member of the U.S. Army reserve or a retired member of the Guard, not yet 60 years old, you are not eligible for space-A, or space-available travel.

What my amendment does is extends to those members of our Guard and Reserve who are retired but under 60 years old the benefit of allowing them to go on space-A travel for themselves and for their dependents. This would affect all branches of service, for those Guardsmen and those retirees from the U.S. Army and other branches of the Reserve. This eligibility is cost free. After all, the airplanes are flying. They have empty seats. So why should we not extend this privilege to those retired members of our Guard and Reserve?

I think that in recent years, we have come to understand and respect the fact that members of the Guard and the Reserve are stepping up to the plate when it comes to deployments in the war against terror. The least that we can do here in this body, in this amendment, is extend to them the privilege of space-available travel when they retire.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), for his leadership on this important undertaking.

In simplest terms, this amendment simply delays the process of realigning and closing bases across our country until certain events take place and certain reports are submitted to Congress by the Department of Defense. And there are several important reasons why this should take place.

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, we are at war. We are at war. We have troops abroad fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should focus all of our energy on supporting these troops in the field. We should not be distracted with the complicated burden of realigning our whole military base structure here at home.

In October of 2003, I went to Iraq and learned that our troops were desperately in need of armor on their vehicles. One month later, the Secretary of the Army wrote to me and said getting armor into the field was a ``top priority.'' A top priority, and yet today there are tens of thousands of vehicles in theater that are still not armored. We should be spending our time, Mr. Chairman, and our money on this life- threatening problem and not wasting time and energy and resources on realigning and closing bases.

Second, the strategic environment in which we are trying to operate is changing. The threats from North Korea, from China, from Iran are rising while we are still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do we know what the future basing requirements will be? We do not. We do not. The quadrennial defense review, the last one we did, is September 2001. The next one due is later this year. The quadrennial defense review will answer the questions that we need answered before we can decide what our basing needs are going to be.

Thirdly, closing bases costs billions of dollars. Not millions of dollars, billions of dollars. The Department of Defense cannot close or dispose of a property until it is properly cleaned up, but the investment of these cleanup dollars takes dollars away from our troops. That is wrong.

Fourth, I hope that our troops overseas will not be there forever. I look forward to when they come home. But when will they come home? Who knows? Where will they go when they come home? Who knows? As for the Guard and the Reserve, we do know that many of them will no longer have a Guard or a Reserve center when they get back.

For example, in my State of Connecticut, where I served for many years as a Reserve officer, they are recommending closing three Reserve centers and realigning the Air Guard's A-10s out of Bradley Field. Why is this good for morale of returning troops? It is not. Why does this help build the force and contribute to readiness of those Guard and Reserve forces still in this country? It does not.

I know from my own service as a member of the U.S. Army Reserve that the location of the drill center contributes to reenlistment and readiness. This is why we need to slow this process down and take a closer look.

Fifth, I represent the Naval Submarine Base New London located in Groton, Connecticut, the submarine capital of the world. Working with our friends around the country, we design, develop, build, maintain, base and deploy the best submarines in the world. The synergy between those who design and build submarines and those who drive them is critical to our national security.

One of the BRAC principles requires ``access to logistical and industrial infrastructure capabilities optimally integrated into a skilled and cost-efficient industrial base.'' This synergy is just what we have between this submarine base and Electric Boat, which designs and builds these submarines. Yet the Department of Defense is violating its own principles for BRAC in making a recommendation to close the base.

Close the submarine base in Groton is kind of like taking cars out of Detroit. Decisions of this magnitude require time and study, and yet the Department of Defense has delayed release of vital data in support of their decision, making it impossible for us, the defense communities, to respond to these decisions in a timely manner. I still do not have the data that was used in their decisions, and yet the BRAC committee will be going up to Groton New London on the 31st of this month. We need additional time, Mr. Chairman, to make reasonable judgments.

We, as Members of Congress, have the responsibility under article 1, section 8 to provide for the common defense. Let us accept these responsibilities. Let us support the Bradley amendment.

Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and the gentleman from Mississippi for all the hard work that they have done to bring this authorization bill to the floor. I fully intend to support the bill as I did in committee, but I would like to take a moment at this time to discuss a concern that Members have, like myself, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), and ask for the chairman's commitment that the committee will pursue these issues.

We have heard from the Department of Homeland Security employees and their representatives regarding their concerns with the final personnel regulations that the Department issued in February. Some of these provisions in the regulations are troubling. They limit collective bargaining rights, and they appear to reduce due process standards for employees of the Department. Both of these issues were specifically addressed in the Homeland Security Act that created the Department, and my concern is that the regulations promulgated following that act do not adhere to the requirements of the act to maintain collective bargaining rights.

I would ask that the committee provide its members with the opportunity to question appropriate administration officials about these regulations, as well as to provide employees and their representatives the opportunity to give us their views.

Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that if we find these regulations do not follow the mandate of the original law or do not promote fairness and efficiency, that the committee will review these regulations and consider making appropriate changes to the regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), for being such a great leader on this new committee, for being bipartisan, and for being an advocate for a safe and secure America.

Unfortunately, I rise in option to this amendment, the Thompson substitute, not so much because of what it does, but because of what it fails to do.

My reading of the amendment suggests that it does not incorporate many of the provisions of the Homeland Security Authorization Act that passed unamended and by voice vote in the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, of which I am the chairman.

For example, personnel flexibility, such as bonuses for the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, so we can attract the best and brightest young people into this Department to engage in good productive intelligence activities, you cannot have good intelligence activities without good people. And those personnel flexibilities are lacking. I do not see any provision requiring that the office of information analysis receive all terrorist threat information from components within DHS, which goes to the heart of information sharing.

One of the great tragedies of 9/11 is that so many components of our government did not share information; and perhaps if they had, we could have avoided that tragedy.

I do not see any recommendations with regard to the color-coded homeland security advisory system, which so many of us feel is confusing to the American people, and which we recommended be more risk-based, regional, and focused so that people have a legitimate picture of what the risks may be on any particular day when there is an alert.

All of the work on open-source intelligence, which I believe is so critical to strengthening our intelligence capabilities nationally, I do not see them in there. And so it does not appear to me to address some very fundamental issues relative to the intelligence piece of the Department of Homeland Security which we are trying to build.

On this basis, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reluctantly urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute.

(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks at this point in the Record.)

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security for entering into this colloquy regarding a very important issue.

As was the case last year, the administration's budget for fiscal year 2006 proposes to transfer funding for the Coast Guard's research and development program to the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate. The Department has justified this proposal by suggesting that such a transfer would reduce duplicative programs within the Department and would increase cooperation between agencies. Now, if the Coast Guard R&D program consisted purely of research related to homeland security, I might be able to understand such a transfer. However, Coast Guard R&D supports research and investigations into methods and procedures to improve the service's ability to carry out many of its traditional missions.

At this time, I would ask the chairman if it is his understanding that the Coast Guard's research, development, test and evaluation program will continue to sponsor research to support the service's traditional missions.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness to address this important issue.

When the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, this Congress ensured that the service's unique multi-mission character would be retained. We must maintain the Coast Guard's ability to carry out its many missions, including search and rescue, illegal drug and migrant interdiction, fisheries law enforcement, and protecting the maritime security.

Tomorrow, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will mark up H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, which authorizes funding for the Coast Guard's R&D program within the Coast Guard budget.

So I ask the chairman if he will work with me and my colleagues to find a solution to ensure that the Coast Guard retains control over the direction of this funding.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with me on this matter. I am satisfied we will be able to work this out.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record statements by the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); and the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), in support of this issue.

Offered By: Mr. Simmons

Amendment No. 8: Page 19, line 1, after the dollar amount

insert ``(increased by $24,000,000)''.

Page 40, line 19, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $24,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding For the First Responders Act of 2005, and I commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Ranking Member Thompson) for their bipartisan leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.

On September 11, our first responders answered the call of duty, risking their lives to save countless Americans from attack. Their heroic service and sacrifice will be remembered forever.

Following 9/11, the first responder community worked hard to help us craft this legislation. We also received input from the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families for a risk-based approach to managing homeland security dollars.

Today's bill follows a logical approach by allowing and rewarding up- front planning at the State, local, tribal, and regional levels. We provide a risk-based management structure to direct the use of these dollars so that they can move quickly to where they are most needed.

Mr. Chairman, I am reminded that the 9/11 Commission Report called on us to respond to that tragedy with a commitment to ``create something positive, an America that is safer, stronger, and wiser.'' The bill before us today honors this obligation. It frees critical resources to first responders who need them for training and equipment. This makes us safer. It encourages regional cooperation and teamwork across town, city, tribal, and State lines. This makes us stronger. Finally, it targets our greatest risks and vulnerabilities which undoubtedly makes us smarter.

As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. It is the product of a uniquely thoughtful process with support from across the aisle and across the country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 16, 2005, I had the privilege of honoring members of the famous Doolittle's Raiders, who held their annual reunion this year in Mystic, Connecticut, which I am proud to represent in this House.

On December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor, the United States was attacked by Japan. On April 18, 1942, the United States struck back directly at the enemy. On that day, Lt. Col. James Harold Doolittle and his co- pilot, Richard Cole, and their comrades-in-arms conducted their heroic raid.

On April 16, I was joined by many others at the Mystic Liberty Pole to honor these men and their courage. During the observance Boy Scout Troop 76 raised a ceremonial flag and a plaque was dedicated by Stonington First Selectman William Brown. It was my honor to present the Raiders with a congressional coin and a citation.

The air raid was the first strike against the Japanese mainland. It was a relatively small action, only 16 bombers dropping 32 bombs over five cities. But it elevated America's morale because it demonstrated that we had the ability to strike back. However, the raid was not without cost. None of the 80 combatants landed safely after the raid. Eleven crews had to bail out over China, three into the water, one crash-landed and another landed in the Soviet Union where the crew was held captive.

An eastern Connecticut newspaper, The Day, wrote about the sacrifices made by Doolittle's Raiders. The newspaper said, ``The history books recount how eight Doolittle Raiders were taken captive by the Japanese and how four were released at the end of the war. But they don't talk about the conditions the airmen endured, locked alone in tiny cells, their only contact with the outside world the tray of slop that was shoved through the door every day. If you want a sense of what it was like, lock yourself in your bathroom for two years and nine months, retired Lt. Col. Chase J. Nielsen told about 1,000 high school students who gathered Friday in Leamy Hall at the Coast Guard Academy. `You eat like a pig, and you live like one,' Nielsen said.''

This is the story of men who demonstrated heroism of inconceivable dimension. They took action against an enemy whose military machine was spreading across the Pacific. Not only did the Raiders' bold attack rally American spirits at home, it struck fear into the Japanese Imperial High Command, forcing them to redeploy troops back to the homeland. This helped turn the tide of the war and led to our eventual victory.

It was appropriate that we gathered at the Mystic Liberty Pole. It is a place of patriotism and public spirit. We honored those patriotic and public spirited men because they volunteered so many years ago to put their lives on

the line for the liberty we all enjoy today. If not for their sacrifice, our world would be a far different place.

May God bless them all for what they did, keep them in good health, and may God Bless America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 748, the ``Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.'' I do this because I believe this is bad public policy that will hurt young women.

Most young women today readily involve their parents in a decision to end a pregnancy. They do this because they come from loving homes where there is healthy communication and support, not because there is a law requiring them to do so.

Unfortunately, some young women come from homes where these support structures are not in place. Some young women come from families with absentee parents, or abusive parents. This is an unfortunate reality.

Rather than ensuring healthy communication between parents and their teenage daughter about the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy, this bill may isolate these young women even further. This bill may cause a young woman to either delay care, when the risk of complications from an abortion will be greater, or cause her to avoid going to a doctor in the first place and consider unsafe alternatives.

By attempting to legislate on family dynamics, this bill puts the health of young women from troubled homes in jeopardy. I cannot believe we want to do this.

In discussing this issue, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatricians, and the Society of Adolescent Medicine have joined together in a letter opposing this bill. They say:

The potential health risks to adolescents if they are

unable to obtain reproductive health services are so

compelling that deference to parental involvement should not

stand in the way of needed health care for patients who

request confidentiality.

The American Medical Association has also weighed in on the consequences of parental notification:

Because the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may

be driven to desperate measures to maintain the

confidentiality of the pregnancies. They may run away from

home, obtain a ``back alley'' abortion, or resort to self-

induced abortion.

Surely we do not want to support legislation which has such adverse consequences for young women.

Mr. Chairman, many years ago I had the honor to work with Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). In his classic work, The Conscience of a Conservative, Goldwater wrote:

Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his

society, is responsible for his own development. The choices

that govern his life are choices he must make: they cannot be

made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human

beings.

He went on to say:

The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of

achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that

is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The

Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of

freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible

for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the

exercise of his freedom.

And he concluded:

Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty

in identifying the day's overriding political challenge: it

is to preserve and extend freedom.

Finally he said that:

Throughout history, government has proved to be the chief

instrument for thwarting man's liberty.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a prime example of government inserting itself into the lives of our people, invading their privacy, and thwarting their liberty. This is unacceptable.

I urge a vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Victims of Crime Week and to introduce legislation to help crime victims and their families.

The Victims of Crime Act, or VOCA, was a tremendous victory in the fight to aid those affected by crime. It established a trust fund composed of criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalty fees and special assessments collected by the U.S. Attorney's Offices, U.S. Courts and Federal Bureau of Prisons. These dollars come from federal criminals, not from taxpayers.

Money from this fund is used for a variety of services such as crisis intervention, emergency shelter, emergency transportation, counseling, and criminal justice advocacy. There are approximately 4,400 agencies that depend upon VOCA to provide services to 3.6 million crime victims a year. Currently, VOCA is the only federal program that supports services to victims of all types of crimes including homicide fatalities, domestic violence, child abuse, drunk driving, elder financial exploitation, identity theft, rape, and robbery. These services are essential to helping people cope with their victimization and move on with their lives.

Sadly, a spending cap was installed on the VOCA trust fund. In fiscal year 2005, over $800 million was deposited into the fund. Due to the spending cap, only $620 million will be distributed to the states this year. While the balance of VOCA sits unused, state crime victim assistance programs struggle to remain fully funded. My legislation, the ``Victims of Crime Fairness Act'' would eliminate this spending cap and direct the money toward its original intention, helping victims of crime.

My state of Connecticut loses almost $5 million a year due to the VOCA cap. This money could make all the difference in thousands of people's lives. In a letter to me, Connecticut's State Victim Advocate James Papillo wrote, ``The programs funded by the VOCA fund benefit crime victims in Connecticut through direct financial support and crime victim support services. These funds help crime victims when they most need it. Given the substantial reduction in the amount of funds available to the states caused by federal earmarks, and the real need for increased services to crime victims in Connecticut, it is clear that removal of the cap is necessary to ensure that Connecticut will be able to meet the needs of crime victims.''

The Victims of Crime Fairness Act is common sense legislation. I ask my colleagues to join me in helping victims of crime by eliminating the VOCA fund spending cap.

Mr. Speaker, on April 2005, a milestone was reached by one of eastern Connecticut's finest waterfront establishments when Essex Island Marina celebrated its 50th anniversary.

A half century ago Louis Schieferdecker, the son of a German immigrant, made a small investment that would end up becoming an eastern Connecticut institution. Mr. Schieferdecker bought Essex Island in 1955 and created a tradition of service and a successful business that his family owns and operates today. Essex Island Marina began as a boat yard with several slips; today it is one of southeastern Connecticut's most picturesque places. Lou Schieferdecker had a dream and he pursued it with a positive attitude and a determination to make it work.

During the first 10 years of operation the marina added to its services and amenities and also increased the number of docks. The family installed a swimming pool, built the deck and added game rooms, a snack bar and a convenience store.

But for the Schieferdecker family the most important part of the marina is not the dock or any of the amenities or services they provide; it's the people who come and enjoy the experience. In the words of the family, ``Today we see it when the grown children of past guests bring their children to share the experience. In the last 49 years a 13 acre island has been transformed from a place to `dock your boat' to a place where memories are made.''

Boaters have responded to the beautiful facility. In 2004 the readers of ``Offshore Magazine'' named Essex Island Marina the second ``Most Welcoming Destination'' in the entire northeast and voted it number one in the northeast in the ``Favorite Marina For A Weekend'' category.

Building a successful business and generating the kind of loyalty and appreciation expressed by the readers of ``Offshore Magazine'' are not the result of being lucky. It's the result of working long hours to achieve a dream and always maintaining a commitment to do nothing less than your best. For 50 years the Schieferdecker family has been devoted to the boating public and the boating public has returned that dedication to the Schieferdeckers and Essex Island Marina. I congratulate this hard working family and Essex Island Marina for the first 50 years and I am delighted that they are part of our eastern Connecticut family.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the ``Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,'' a vitally important bill that will provide much-needed federal resources to improve the highways and infrastructure in all fifty States.

Highway and transit spending is a critical investment in national security and essential to our country's economic welfare and way of life. This is especially relevant at a time when our economy is losing more than $78 billion annually due to highway congestion. Mr. Speaker, Americans waste more than 3.6 billion hours in traffic delays, and thousands of Americans die each year due to substandard road conditions.

Further, this highway bill will create millions of quality, high- paying jobs across America and thousands in my home state of Connecticut. At a time when too many Americans are either unemployed or ``underemployed,'' such construction and infrastructure work will contribute significantly to the quality of life for many working families.

I look forward to a healthy debate on the details of this bill, but there is no question that the overall benefits of this bill will be felt by every American family. When they use our improved and safer highways to get to work, school, church, vacation, or just home, Americans will appreciate the investment we will make with passage today of this legislation.

I know that my constituents in Connecticut's Second District will especially appreciate the investment made under this bill. The measure we will pass today includes $45 million for high priority projects for towns across the Second District. Whether it is the resources to finally get construction of Route 11 moving, to build Vernon's intermodal center, to make improvements to Enfield's South Maple Street bridge, or any of the other projects included, TEA-LU delivers for eastern Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, in 1956 the 84th Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law the Federal Aid Highway Act to promote and invest in the interstate highway system. This law created jobs, stimulated the economy, led to new revenues that reduced our

Nation's debt, and brought life-changing improvements to the way Americans lived, worked, and played.

Nearly 50 years later, we must follow the same vision and courage that President Eisenhower and the Congress displayed then and once again invest in America by passing legislation to improve our Nation's highways and infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 60, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have vote ``aye.''