Joe Courtney

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a true patriot, Mr. William ``Bill'' Scarano who passed away peacefully on Friday, March 20, 2026, at the age of 101. Bill was a proud and upstanding resident of Groton, Connecticut. In October 2024, I had the honor of interviewing Mr. Scarano for a veteran's history project and listen to stories from his military service, career as a fireman in the City of Groton, and numerous other achievements. It was an honor and pleasure to converse with him about his extraordinary service to our Nation and community. He was very down-to-earth and self-deprecating even though he was at center of some of the most pivotal moments of World War II. His life of public service deserves to be celebrated and recognized. Throughout his life, Bill dedicated himself to his family, community, and country. At the age of 18, Bill felt the call for service and joined the Navy. He was officially sworn into the Navy in 1943 and went on to graduate from Submarine School based in Groton, Connecticut. Bill was happy to learn that upon graduation, he was assigned to his first choice of assignment and stay in Groton at the Electric Boat Company. Soon after in May 1944, he departed for Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on the USS Sealion (SS-315) as a Coxwain 1. Bill completed numerous patrols on the USS Sealion, sinking Japanese naval transport ships, intercepting a Japanese convoy off the China coast, sinking a Japanese minelayer, and accomplishing other assigned duties. During his time on the Sealion, he was proud to be assigned as a bow planes man, referenced as one of the most impoltant posts of battle stations operations. Bill continued to serve in the Navy throughout WWII, traveling to Guam, Australia, the Philippines, and throughout the South China Sea until returning to San Francisco. His efforts earned him the Navy Commendation Medal for ``meritorious conduct in action . . . through his proficiency at his battle station which resulted in sinking enemy shipping totaling more than 28,000 tons and damaging over 25,000 tons''. He received numerous other military awards including the Submarine Combat Patrol Insignia (with 2 gold and one silver star); Asiatic-Pacific Theater Campaign medal (with one bronze service star); Philippine Liberation Ribbon (with bronze service star); America Area Medal, Presidential Unit Citation; Submarine Combat Insignia (with 5 stars); and the World War II Victory medal. He was honorably discharged on March 10, 1946, and soon after returned to his hometown of Groton, Connecticut. Despite his military career coming to an end, Bill continued to serve his Nation by embodying the principals of a community steward. In the same year as his discharge, Bill joined the Eastern Point Volunteer Fire Department as a volunteer fireman. Bill's service earned him numerous promotions that led to his appointment as Chief and Fire Marshall of the City's Fire Department in 1968. He served in this role until his retirement in 1985. In 1978, Bill married the love of his life Anne (Bassette). The couple happily spent 47 years together. Together, they operated the Sea Romer Cafe for nearly 30 years, serving local residents and Electric Boat workers in the Groton area. In addition to his wife Anne, Bill is survived by his three children William, Jr., Patty, Michelle and their spouses, his grandsons Michael and Tyler, and his great grandchildren Marisa and Charlie. Bill was a well-known figure in his community and enjoyed being surrounded by others. At a celebration for this 100th birthday, he received an official diploma from Robert E. Fitch High School from Groton School officials, since he had left school in his junior year to join the Navy. For over 20 years, Bill spent his mornings having coffee with other Groton locals at Buford's Family Restaurant. He was a proud lifetime member of the Italian American Citizen Club of Groton and the Groton Lodge of Elks club, and the oldest member of the US Submarine Veterans Club in Groton. Bill's over 82 years of submarine qualification also made him the longest serving member of the prestigious Submarine Veterans Holland Club, which requires over 50 years of submarine qualification. Mr. Speaker, Bill Scarano was a highly respected and valuable member of the Groton and submarine communities. His military service, passion for serving and engaging with his community, and love for his friends and family leave a long-lasting legacy. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in commemorating Mr. Scarano, to honor his life and service to our country.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4624, which I also opposed in committee along with three other members who opposed the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, a bill which radically amends the existing Muhammad Ali Act that was passed in 2000. That law established statutory protections for boxers from exploitative and unethical business practices. The committee received expert testimony from witnesses with deep experience in the legal landscape in the boxing world and warned us that this bill will strip away many of those hard-fought reforms. H.R. 4624 creates a new parallel legal structure, the so-called unified boxing organizations, which can engage in promotion, rule setting, match organization, and creation of their own titles and rankings. Under the existing law negotiated and spearheaded by the late John McCain, these functions have been required to remain separate to protect against conflicts of interest and coercive contract terms for boxers. The UBOs proposed under H.R. 4624 will replicate a model that has been extremely lucrative in other nonboxing, mixed martial arts sports worlds that operate with few legal and economic protections for fighters, leading to a long history of litigation and allegations of coercive and anticompetitive practices. This includes the use of long-term contracts, including forced arbitration, blocking fighters from bringing a lawsuit for breach of contract, and class action waivers that waive a fighter's right to be awarded damages in settlement on behalf of a group. One of the crowning achievements of the original Muhammad Ali law was the establishment of a boxer's right to a private cause of action to assert their rights, which all Americans enjoy, to seek legal redress for unlawful injuries. H.R. 4624 fails to protect these protections within UBOs. Mr. Speaker, there has been a narrative that this is something that has unified the boxing world in terms of support for this bill. I include in the Record a letter dated just a few weeks ago, February 27, 2026, from USA Boxing, the largest amateur boxing organization in America withdrawing their endorsement that they gave the bill last January. February 27, 2026. Re Withdrawal and Clarification of January 18, 2026, Correspondence. Hon. Tim Walberg, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Walberg and Ranking Member Scott: On January 18, 2026, correspondence was transmitted to your offices regarding the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624). Following review, the USA Boxing Board of Directors determined that the January 18, 2026, correspondence did not reflect a formally adopted Board position at the time of submission and was not authorized by a vote of the Board. Accordingly, the Board issues this clarification and confirms that the January 18 correspondence does not represent an official position at USA Boxing. Accordingly, the Board hereby withdraws that letter. After discussion, the Board has determined that USA Boxing will not take a position on H.R. 4624. We appreciate the Committee's attention to matters affecting the sport of boxing. Respectfully, Tyson Lee, President of USA Boxing. Mike McAtee, Executive Director/CEO of USA Boxing.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from Top Rank boxing CEO Robert Arum, who again criticized this bill for the damage it is going to do to boxers' legal rights, and states that a UBO is deemed in compliance with such provisions simply by virtue of being recognized as a UBO. December 3, 2025. Re Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act. House Education and the Workforce Committee. Washington, D.C. Dear Committee Members: My name is Bob Arum and I am the chairman and founder of Top Rank, Inc., a leading boxing promoter operating since 1966. I am writing to you all regarding the proposed Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (the ``Amendment''). The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the subsequent Muhammad Ali Act amendment (collectively the ``Ali Act'') instituted a series of regulations intended to protect fighters from exploitative and unethical business practices. By way of example, the Ali Act in its current form: (1) Prohibits promoters from entering into coercive contracts with fighters (See Ali Act Section 10(a)), which serves to prevent a fighter from being forced to sign a long- term contract with a particular promoter as a condition precedent to securing a fight with an opponent under contract to that same promoter; (2) Creates strict disclosure rules that compel promoters to disclose to fighters the compensation they have contracted to receive from the fighter's match, which provides fighters with transparency regarding the revenue generated from their bouts and serves as a tool that allows fighters to negotiate fair market value for subsequent bouts (See Ali Act Section 13(b)(1) of the Ali Act); and (3) Establishes a firewall between promoters and managers, which helps ensure that managers represent the interests of their fighters and do not serve as agents of promoters at their fighters' expense (See Ali Act Section 17(b)). The Amendment strips away these and other protections for fighters set forth in the Ali Act for any fighter that signs with a newly created Unified Boxing Organization (``UBO''). Specifically, the proposed Section 24(a) of the Amendment states that a UBO is ``deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this Act if the UBO meets the conditions of this section with respect to--(1) each boxer under contract with the UBO; and (2) each professional boxing match organized by the UBO.'' As presently drafted, the conditions required for an entity to qualify as a UBO do not include the protections for fighters set forth above. A UBO is not prohibited from entering coercive contracts with fighters, is not required to provide financial disclosures to fighters, and is not subject to the rule establishing a firewall between managers and promoters. It is not subject to any of the protections created for fighters in the Ali Act. Instead, a UBO is deemed in compliance with such provisions simply by virtue of being recognized as a UBO and complying with the requirements for UBOs. This is incredibly problematic and entirely unjustifiable. Put simply, there is no reason for Congress to actively remove these protections for those fighters who choose to sign with a UBO, and there is no reason for a UBO to be exempt from complying with these protective measures. Proponents of the Amendment have hailed that it will create greater opportunities for fighters outside the current sanctioning body system, enhance health and safety benefits, and improve fighter pay. The Amendments can achieve those ends without exempting UBOs from the protections for fighters set forth in the Ali Act. Proponents have also stated that the bill does not change the existing provisions of the original Ali Act. This is misleading at best. As stated above, the Amendment exempts UBO's from the existing provisions of the original Ali Act by deeming the UBO in compliance with such provisions so long as it adheres to all UBO requirements. Fighters who benefited from those protective provisions will no longer do so if they participate in the UBO system. That is a fundamental change to the underlying Ali Act and to the many protections granted to fighters therein. There is likely a version of this bill that achieves the stated aims of its proponents without harming fighters who participate in the alternative UBO system. Indeed, such a change to the presently drafted Amendment could be easily accomplished--UBOs should be forced to comply with those portions of the underlying Ali Act that protect fighters to be deemed in compliance with the overall Act and to maintain their standing as a UBO. There is no sound reason to reject such a proposed change, which serves only to ensure that previous protections for fighters carry over into the new alternative system the Amendment seeks to create. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if you have any further questions or if Top Rank can provide any additional information. Sincerely, Robert Arum, Chief Executive Officer, Top Rank, Inc.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly problematic and entirely unjustifiable. Put simply, there is no reason for Congress to actively remove these protections for those fighters who choose to sign with the UBO, and there is no reason for a UBO to be exempt from complying with these protective measures. Mr. Speaker, lastly, Patrick English, who testified before the committee, rebutted the myth that boxing is dying. Mr. Speaker, cable is dying, but boxing is signing very lucrative contracts with streaming services.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not have consensus support from those its proponents claim. Again, as has been stated by Ms. Omar, I join with her in calling on the Senate to continue to work on this bill and focus on the achievements of Senator McCain in terms of protecting boxers' rights that are at risk with this legislation. Again, I would ask for Members to oppose this bill when the time comes up for a vote.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, as this headline on the whiteboard proclaims, we in New England received welcomed news on Friday that, after years of hard work and massive investments by both the private sector and the government, a new, reliable source of energy for our electrical grid was officially turned on. This project, known as Revolution Wind, will add 700 megawatts that will power over 350,000 homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut. At a time of tight supply and rising energy costs, adding hundreds of megawatts and electrical capacity is an obvious way to reduce costs, rather than just offloading the burden onto energy users. This project is locked into a 20-year contract price of 9 cents per kilowatt-hours at a time when the average price from other sources to the region's grid is 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Obviously, this is a beneficial response and solid solution to addressing New England's and our Nation's high-cost economy. Even more significant is the fact that this power source is not at the mercy of the global fossil fuel markets that have skyrocketed the cost of home heating oil and gas at the pumps since the start of the war in Iran 16 days ago. Today, home heating oil in Connecticut is $5.10 per gallon, up from $4.28 per gallon just last week and $3.74 per gallon a year ago. Gas at the pump is going for $3.65 per gallon. It was $2.90 per gallon 1 month ago. Mr. Speaker, the men and women who have been hard at work at the State pier in New London, Connecticut, for the last 6 years, transforming a decrepit, underutilized dock into a state-of-the-art port that can handle massive cargo carriers, delivering enormous towers, blades, and the nacelles that connect the towers and the blades. Sensors are mounted on the nacelles to detect wind speed, which then moves blades into the wind to maximize output. It is ingenious. Union operating engineers, electricians, and laborers kept this project moving forward, despite the persistent, hostile obstruction of the Trump administration's Department of the Interior, which issued two illegal halt work orders in 2025. The Department's orders were soundly rejected by Federal district courts in Washington, D.C., and Virginia. The Department's unfounded claims that Revolution Wind posed a national security threat were decisively and swiftly dismissed given the fact that the Department of Defense, in consultation with the Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard, thoroughly examined this project and issued a permit in December 2024. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter dated December 13, 2024, from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, who found that this project ``would not have adverse impacts to DOD missions in the area.''

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I think all of New England and the mid- Atlantic States owe a huge thanks to Judge Royce Lambeth, the Reagan appointee who lived up to his oath and twice asserted the power of the judiciary, a coequal branch of government, to rein in the administration's ludicrous, harmful abuse of executive power. As our economy is reeling today from the oil and gas aftershock of the war in Iran, the news this weekend that offshore wind can provide a reliable, affordable source of energy that is produced in America and for American energy consumers is hopefully going to force a reconsideration of the attack on renewable energy by this administration and, unfortunately, my colleagues in the House who have legislatively crushed this industry, depriving American consumers of an affordable source of home-grown energy. Wind power alone will not solve our energy demands, but 700 new megawatts surging into New England is undeniable proof that our Nation's innovators, our building trades union, and the merchant mariners are up to the job to power our country in the 21st century.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the people of Denmark and Greenland for their quick professional evacuation last Saturday of a U.S. submariner on board the USS Delaware 7 miles off Greenland's coast. The submariner was experiencing an acute medical problem that required immediate hospital care. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of representing the Connecticut submarine base where the USS Delaware and its crew are homeported. In the north Atlantic, our subs have conducted joint NATO patrols in the waters off Greenland, Iceland, and the U.K. for many decades which benefits U.S. Homeland Security. It is a team effort and Denmark's response to a U.S. sailor in distress is a powerful example of how the NATO alliance is not just based on words but rather meaningful deeds. Mr. Speaker, for some reason, there has been deafening silence from our Commander in Chief and Navy leadership to publicly thank Denmark for its act of friendship on Saturday. As the Representative of the USS Delaware's home port and ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, I will publicly tell the people of that nation that your caring response to one of our sea servicemembers in distress is deeply appreciated and will be long remembered.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take a moment to honor an extraordinary public servant and pay special tribute to Ronald O'Rourke for his 42 years of service to Congress and the American people as a Specialist in Naval Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, or CRS. Mr. O'Rourke began his service with CRS on January 17, 1984, and retired on January 31, 2026. Mr. O'Rourke is a foremost expert in naval affairs, whose writing draws admiration and attention from Congress and defense journalism alike. Throughout his career at CRS, he regularly briefed Members of Congress and their personal staff, committee staff, and testified before congressional committees on topics pertaining to naval and defense policy. The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces most recently received Mr. O'Rourke's testimony in March 2025, where he spoke to the state of U.S. shipbuilding. His tenure at CRS provided him insight into many iterations of the U.S. Navy, from the shipbuilding slump of the Post-Cold War era to the modern reinvigoration of the U.S. maritime industrial base. Mr. O'Rourke wrote many reports for Congress on various issues relating to the Navy, Coast Guard shipbuilding, the shipbuilding industrial base, China's naval forces and other foreign navies, U.S.- China strategic competition in the South and East China seas, U.S. defense strategy, defense acquisition policy including block-buy contracting and multi-year procurement, the international security environment including the U.S. role in the world, and the Arctic. Mr. O'Rourke's annual publishing on Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding is a touchstone of his contributions to this institution--and is a personal favorite of mine. He has presented at CRS's New Member Seminar, an orientation for new Members of Congress in Williamsburg, Virginia, regularly participated in CRS's annual defense budget seminar for congressional staff, and presented at various other CRS programs. Mr. O'Rourke has been repeatedly recognized for his expertise, professionalism, and dedication to public service. In 1996, he received a Distinguished Service Award from the Library of Congress for his service to Congress on naval issues. In 2010, he was honored under the Great Federal Employees Initiative for his work on naval, strategic, and budgetary issues. In 2012, he received the CRS Director's Award for his outstanding contributions in support of the Congress and the mission of CRS. During his tenure at CRS, he has mentored numerous colleagues on various aspects of defense policy analysis, from serving as a critical source of institutional memory on past debates to hosting brownbag lunches on ways to organize written products. In 2017, he received the Superior Public Service Award from the Navy for service in a variety of roles at CRS while providing analysis of benefit to the Navy for a period spanning decades. He is the author of several journal articles on naval issues and is a past winner of the U.S. Naval Institute's Arleigh Burke essay contest. Mr. O'Rourke is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Johns Hopkins University, where he received his B.A. in International Studies, and a valedictorian graduate of the University's Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, where he received his M.A. in the same field. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee for 19 years, I have had the privilege of working with Ron, who was always available to answer any inquiry and share his deep historical knowledge of our Nation's sea services. On behalf of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the American people, I express deep gratitude for Mr. O'Rourke's contributions during his more than four decades at CRS. Along with his family, friends, and colleagues, I thank him and wish him and his wife Mary Fitch all the best in retirement.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the extraordinary career of Bob Canova as he prepares for retirement after a long and storied career at General Dynamics Electric Boat. In January 1981, at the age of just twenty years old, Robert ``Bob'' Canova began a career at General Dynamics Electric Boat that would ultimately span forty-five years of technical excellence and unwavering service. Beginning in an era of traditional drafting--using lead pencils, French curves, and Mylar sheets--Bob evolved alongside the industry, mastering mainframe programming and modern computer-aided design. His work on the piping systems and subsafe mapping for the Trident, Seawolf, Virginia, and Columbia Class submarines has been vital to the United States Navy and the protection of our Nation for nearly half a century. Bob's legacy is equally defined by his fierce advocacy for his colleagues in the MDA-UAW Local 571. At the age of twenty-three, he stood as a lone voice in a contested NLRB case during a protracted 1983 to 1984 strike. Representing himself against formidable legal opposition, he secured a landmark ruling that protected the voting rights and seniority of 1,800 strikers, a victory that remains a milestone in labor history. Throughout his tenure, Bob served in nearly every leadership capacity at Local 571, including Treasurer and President. His dedication to his craft and his members led him to earn a degree in Labor Studies from the University of Connecticut while working full-time, ensuring he could negotiate with the highest level of tactical and legal expertise. His final term as 2nd Vice President concluded with the historic May 2025 contract, which secured transformative wage increases and retirement credits for the next generation of shipbuilders. Bob also was deeply involved in local and national politics, which I personally witnessed and benefited from. He was instrumental in lining up support for candidates like myself, from both the UAW and the Town of Stonington. He faithfully joined me at the factory gates early in the morning during election season to greet fellow workers and listen to their concerns. As Bob retired on January 30, 2026, we honor a man of profound integrity who spent forty-five years mentoring others, strengthening the union, and ensuring the excellence of the American submarine fleet. This legacy of dedication began at Electric Boat, where he not only built a career but also his life in meeting his wife, Carol. Now married for 31 years, they share a beautiful family with their daughter, Nicole, and son-in-law, Nicholas. We celebrate his transition to a new chapter of service as a volunteer with the United Way of Southeastern Connecticut and his alma mater, Norwich Free Academy.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the U.S. House of Representatives--and the House Armed Services Committee--bid farewell to one of its most invaluable, talented, professional staff experts: Mr. John Phillips MacNaughton, Jr. At the end of January, Phil, as he is known, completed 30 years of public service to our Nation. That service began as a plebe entering the U.S. Naval Academy in 1996, continued as a naval aviator who flew missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as missions all over the world, and then transitioned to Capitol Hill, where he worked as a staff member at the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs and finally as a director on the Armed Services Committee. As so many in the Navy and Congress can attest, our country benefited from his experience, knowledge, judgement and wisdom at every post he was assigned to. He retired from the U.S. Navy Reserve holding the rank of Commander and received well deserved commendations and medals for his outstanding service. Mr. Speaker, as both the Chair and Ranking Member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee to which Phil devoted much of his time on the Hill, I had the privilege of seeing up close his work in action. The Seapower Subcommittee has a long tradition of bipartisan success, thanks in large part to Phil's ability to rise above partisan squabbling and work with Members and staff from both sides of the aisle. When Phil first came to the committee, Congressman Ike Skelton, the 14th Chair of the Armed Services Committee, took him under his wing and gave him an education on how to successfully navigate the sprawling annual task of passing the National Defense Authorization Act. He could not have learned from a better teacher. At Seapower, Phil diligently followed the north star of the Constitution's mandate in Article One, Section 8, Clause 13, that ``Congress shall provide and maintain a Navy''. He recognized, as did the founders, that the United States is a maritime Nation and ensuring a strong fleet is essential to our success and national security. During his time, the National Defense Authorization Act plussed up Navy shipbuilding every year above the budgets submitted by Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump 1.0, Biden, and Trump 2.0. Programs at the high end of complexity, such as the Columbia and Virginia class submarines, and at the lower end, like supply ships and the maritime training ships, all grew because of Phil's work. In 2023, Phil was at the epicenter of what could be described as the pinnacle of his Congressional service, namely, passing the AUKUS legislative authorities which brought that critical security agreement for Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. to life. Operating under a very tight legislative timeline, Phil tirelessly worked with House and Senate committees--many outside of the Armed Services Committees--as well as the Pentagon, State Department and the Embassies of Australia and the U.K. to ensure that all necessary legal authorities fell into place when the measure was signed into law in December 2023. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Kevin Rudd from Australia described Phil's work as follows: Mr. MacNaughton played an integral role in drafting and shepherding through the groundbreaking AUKUS authorizing legislation in 2023. Over the course of his time working with our Embassy, he has shown deep expertise and incredible work ethic to help take AUKUS where it is today. He has helped to strengthen the bilateral relationship between our countries and advance our Alliance collaboration at a critical strategic moment. He is a much-valued friend of Australia. H.E. Dr. Kevin Rudd AC, Australia's Ambassador to the United States. As Phil departs, it can truly be said that his work here on Capitol Hill made a difference, and over time as subs and ships are launched, and our alliance with Australia and the U.K. deepens and grows, he can look back with great satisfaction for time well spent. To him, his wife Micki, his children Cooper, Jack, and Parker: I wish them all the best on their next chapter in life and thank them sincerely for being part of Phil's amazing work on behalf of our Nation.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Brian Anderson, who is retiring from AFSCME Council 4 after more than two decades of service to the hard-working state employees who provide critical services to the people of the state of Connecticut. The story of Brian Anderson is the story of the Connecticut labor movement itself--one defined by grit, persistence, and an unshakeable belief that every worker deserves to have their labor treated with dignity and fairness. Brian's journey didn't begin in the halls of power, but on the manufacturing floor. It was there that he learned the true value of a day's work, a perspective that stayed with him when he returned to Central Connecticut State University as an adult to turn his passion for justice into a career in public policy. For over 20 years at AFSCME Council 4, Brian has been more than a Legislative Associate; he has been the shield and the sword for 30,000 public service workers. His career is marked by ``impossible'' victories. Brian stood at the forefront of the fight to gain full collective bargaining rights for Connecticut's public sector employees at both the state and local level. In particular, he fought to ensure that those who give the ultimate sacrifice, are never forgotten, securing the Fallen Officer Death Benefit Fund and restoring PTSD workers' compensation for those on the front lines. From the quiet rooms where he drafted life-changing legislation to the public forums where he spoke truth to power, Brian's impact is everywhere. He led the charge to ban private prisons, ended the era of captive audience meetings, and stood as the ultimate sentry over the pensions and retirement security of municipal and state employees. Beyond the bills passed and the elections won, Brian is regarded as a ``giant among men'' because of his character. He has been a mentor to a new generation of advocates and a leader who fought for better pay and safer conditions for every member of AFSCME, regardless of political party. As a member of the Connecticut Democratic Party's State Central Committee, Brian mentored political new-comers and veterans alike with an inspired passion. He threw himself into campaigns at the federal, state and local level, knocking on doors, making phone calls, and poll standing until the final minutes of election day cheerfully and tirelessly. I personally am grateful for his help in all of my campaigns for Congress-particularly in 2006, when I was first elected by a margin of only 83 votes. He never sought any personal benefit, instead he sought only to make our world a better, fairer place for all. Today, we honor Brian Anderson--not just for the laws he helped write, but for the lives he helped change. He remains a principled leader whose voice carries the weight of history and whose heart remains firmly, and forever, with the working class.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, President Trump hosted a meeting at the White House with all the major oil company executives and members of his Cabinet to talk about Venezuelan oil. During the televised gathering, he veered off topic and rambled on one of his pet peeves, wind power. In addition to his usual complaints about how aesthetically ugly wind turbines are, he added another new, startling criticism to his repertoire, mainly that Europe and the U.S. are suckers for allowing China to sell us wind turbine parts while at the same time China doesn't even use wind power in its own country. Here is exactly what he said: ``All you have to do is say to China, how many windmill areas do you have in China? So far, they are not able to find any. They use coal, and they use oil and gas and some nuclear, not much. But they don't have windmills. They make them and sell them to suckers like Europe and suckers like the United States.'' Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is, as this headline yesterday from Forbes magazine states: ``China Does In Fact Have Wind Turbines, A Lot Of Them.'' Forbes, of course, is hardly a leftwing, anti-Trump media outlet. As its article accurately reports, not only does China's wind industry exist, but it is huge. According to the International Energy Agency, which has been tracking energy production by country for decades, China not only manufactures wind equipment but also enjoys the largest wind production in the world and today has twice as much new wind power under construction as the rest of the world combined. The wind turbines are sited both onshore and offshore. Ironically, one of the oil executives who was in the room on Friday, from Conoco, is an investor and partner in a wind project in Bohai Bay, China. Mr. Speaker, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being accurate and 1 being false, President Trump's comments deserve a score of minus 10. China is not scamming Europe and the U.S. on wind power. It is, in fact, the most aggressive domestic user and builder of wind power in the world. I raise this point, Mr. Speaker, not to play gotcha--although this is a pretty embarrassing gotcha--but rather to remind the House that, right now, in real life, the Trump bogus attack on wind power, for no good reason, is destroying good American jobs and cutting off an abundant supply of new energy, which our economy and American electricity ratepayers desperately need. For example, a couple of weeks ago, for the second time, the administration issued a decree terminating five offshore wind projects, many of which are close to completion and which were supported by billions of dollars of private investment and years of permitting approval. Together, these projects will bring in thousands of new megawatts of power to consumers in New England, New York, and Virginia. Trump's halt work order cited vague, nonspecific national security concerns as justification for this antiworker, anti-ratepayer, and antigrowth decree. Luckily, Mr. Speaker, we have a government of laws. Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth here in Washington struck down this frivolous decree so that crane operators, laborers, and electricians can get back to work this morning to create a modern and robust energy grid for the 21st century. Judge Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, thoroughly reviewed the record of the New England-based Revolution Wind offshore project and correctly determined that the Department, in fact, did not find a national security problem but instead specifically issued a written finding a year ago that Revolution's turbines ``would not have adverse impacts to DOD missions.'' Mr. Speaker, you may recall, last September, the House debated an amendment to the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, where there was an attempt to create a statutory bar to offshore wind based on national security reasons. The House voted to reject such a straitjacket on wind power and instead rely on the experts at DOD to judge each project on the facts and science. By the way, Mr. Speaker, just for the record, the turbine blades and components in the Revolution Wind project are not made in China. Up in New England, we pride ourselves on not, in fact, being suckers. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the administration's unfounded, irrational attack against wind power to stop. Contrary to what the President said, the rest of the world, including China, is aggressively pursuing this abundant source of power. For the United States to intentionally deprive American building trade workers of good-paying jobs and deprive our national grid of much-needed energy supply makes no sense. The best way to cut electricity rates for consumers is to expand the energy supply. As the rest of the world recognizes, wind has to be part of that solution. Mr. Speaker, the only suckers in this area are policymakers in Washington who are spouting off blatantly false narratives about the value of wind energy.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the chamber today. Had I recorded my vote, I would have voted No on Roll Call No. 352, Clyde amendment No. 1 to H.R. 4776; No on Roll Call No. 353, Roy amendment No. 5 to H.R. 4776; No on Roll Call No. 354, Roy amendment No. 6 to H.R. 4776; Yea on Roll Call No. 355, motion to recommit on H.R. 4776; Nay on Roll Call No. 356, passage of H.R. 4776 the SPEED Act; Yea on Roll Call No. 357, motion to recommit on H.R. 1366; Nay on Roll Call No. 358, passage of H.R. 1366; Yea on Roll Call No. 359, motion to recommit on H.R. 845; Nay on Roll Call No. 360, passage of H.R. 845; Yea on Roll Call No. 361, motion to recommit on H.R. 498; and Nay on Roll Call No. 362, passage of H.R. 498.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the chamber today. Had I recorded my vote, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call No. 343, No on Roll Call No. 344, Yea on Roll Call No. 345, Yea on Roll Call No. 346, Nay on Roll Call No. 347, Yea on Roll Call No. 348, Nay on Roll Call No. 349, Yea on Roll Call No. 350, and Nay on Roll Call No. 351.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the chamber today. Had I recorded my vote, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 340, H.R. 4371, and NAY on Roll Call No. 342, H.R. 3632.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the chamber today. Had I recorded my vote, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call No. 335, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 284, and Yea on Roll Call No. 336, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3187.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Lieutenant Commander Jarrett Crossgrove, United States Navy, during his outstanding service as a legislative fellow in my Washington, D.C. office this year. Throughout 2025, Jarrett played a vital role in supporting my work on the House Armed Services Committee and representing the proud Navy community both active duty and retired--in eastern Connecticut. As Ranking Member of the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, which has the solemn, critical duty of overseeing much of our Nation's Navy, Marine Corps, and various Air Force programs and policies, his experience and perspective were instrumental to me and my office's work. Every year, the Department's legislative fellowship program brings highly talented individuals to Congress who provide invaluable benefits to Members of the House and Senate focused on national security issues. Officers like Jarrett bring real-world experience from their time in the classroom at the various military academies and training schools, as well as experiences from their time serving on active duty. This year, as our subcommittee actively worked to boost our Nation's critical shipbuilding programs in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, with a particular focus on ensuring full funding in our Virginia and Columbia-class submarine programs, Jarrett provided real life experience and informed judgement in the research and drafting this complex legislation. Jarrett also seized initiative in a variety of areas beyond naval affairs that benefit eastern Connecticut. He participated in meetings with Navy and Marine Corps leadership, toured General Dynamics Electric Boat Shipyard to view ongoing construction of our Block V Virginias and first-in-class Columbia submarine, and visited Naval Submarine New London where he served in the past to discuss ongoing installation and submarine force operations. Jarrett utilized his experience as an Engineer on USS SANTA FE (SSN763) and as Executive Officer on USS ALABAMA (SSBN 731) (GOLD) to provide invaluable insight into naval reactor issues, submarine maintenance and sustainment capacity, and vital personnel issues. Lastly, he engaged in persistent communication with the embassies of Australia and the United Kingdom to facilitate various engagements in my office and around Capitol Hill and, most importantly, leveraged those relationships as Congress and the Navy continue their strong support of the trilateral AUKUS security agreement. Jarrett's work ethic, diligence, intelligence, and first-hand experience as a Submarine Officer made an immediate benefit and memorable impact on my office and subcommittee staff. He was also an energetic, affable colleague to my entire congressional staff, willing to help in small ways and big ways to serve the constituents of Connecticut's 2nd Congressional District. On a personal note, we both share a passion (some might call it an obsession) for the great game of golf, and dissected all 2025 major championships, particularly Rory McIlroy's victory at the Masters. Aside from submarines and sports, his curiosity and thoughtfulness on issues outside of his Navy portfolio was much appreciated by the whole team, and myself and staff will be friends with Jarrett for life. After his Junior Officer tour aboard USS Topeka (SSN 754), tour as an engineer on USS Sante Fe (SSN 763), on shore duty in Guam, and Executive Office tour on the USS ALABAMA, I am thankful for his family's tremendous sacrifice to our Nation and for landing in the District of Columbia for the current phase of their life. Though Jarrett's presence will be deeply missed by both my personal staff and Seapower staff, I know he will be an incredible leader and asset to the U.S. Navy during his upcoming command tour. Mr. Speaker, as has also been the case for each of his predecessors that my office has had the opportunity to host, I have benefitted greatly from Jarrett's training and background. This recurring process that the fellowship program fosters and strengthens civilian-military understanding for future leaders of the greatest military in the world, which I believe is a necessary component of a strong democracy. Our Nation is best served at sea and here onshore by officers and leaders of the highest caliber, like Jarrett. He embodies such qualities and has a promising career ahead in continued service to our Nation, and we owe him much gratitude. I ask that the House join me in wishing LCDR Jarrett Crossgrove, his wife Tiffany, and their two children, Audrey and Emily, the best of luck in their next life chapter.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in 2025, with growing global maritime threats, it is particularly important for Congress to exercise its constitutional mandate to ``provide and maintain a Navy.'' The Seapower portion of this bill accomplished that goal. For example, the bill includes a plus-up of $5 billion to shipbuilding above the administration's request, including $1.9 billion to address glaring OMB budget request shortfalls in the Virginia submarine account. The Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee also strengthened the industrial base by replenishing last year's wage improvement authorities with 615 million new dollars to continue progress in hiring a new generation of shipyard workers in the metal trades. For the Columbia-class program, the Navy's number one priority, the bill again fixes another glaring OMB blunder which short-funded Columbia in both the reconciliation bill and last month's continuing resolution. The subcommittee provides Navy with contracting authority for five new Columbia subs, with incremental funding authority, eliminating the risk of a stop-work order which came close to happening because of the Columbia omission in last month's CR. The bill also authorizes a boost to sealift, the new Marine Corps Landing Ship program with a vessel construction manager model, and the fourth Ford-class aircraft carrier. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the strong bipartisan support for allies and partners in the bill, the $400 million refill of the Ukraine Security Initiative and streamlining exports to our AUKUS partners. Last week, the Pentagon's AUKUS review endorsed that security agreement, and this bill's massive commitment to the submarine industrial base and export reforms will keep us on track to sell three Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032 to our great ally Australia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee colleagues, particularly Chairman Trent Kelly, for their outstanding bipartisan work as well as the subcommittee staff: Phil MacNaughton, Kyle Noyes, Kelly Goggin, and Abby Snyder.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mourn the passing of a longtime consummate public servant and friend, Connecticut State Representative Kevin Ryan. Representative Ryan died on November 23, 2025, after a courageous battle against cancer, surrounded in his final days by family, friends and political colleagues. He will be long remembered for his decades of public service and dedication to issues of public health and children's welfare. Raised in Montville, Connecticut, Representative Ryan graduated from St. Bernard Boys High School before studying English and Biology at Villanova University. He went on to earn a Doctorate in Optometry and Public Health Certificate from the Pennsylvania School of Optometry and a Masters in Community Psychology from the University of New Haven. Representative Ryan began his career in government service in 1985, when he was elected to the Montville Board of Education, where he served as Secretary for one year and Chairman for six years. In 1992, he was elected to the State House of Representatives for the 139th District, a seat to which he was re-elected 21 times, a powerful statement of how much the people of that district trusted and admired him. I had the honor to serve alongside Kevin for one term in the General Assembly on the public health committee, which I chaired, and we became friends for life. He had a shrewd understanding of the legislative process from day one, and a wicked sense of humor, which members from both sides of the aisle appreciated and enjoyed. At the State Capitol, during his tenure he served on the committees, which made a difference on the issues he cared deeply about--public health, environment, and appropriations. Drawing on his educational background and passion for improving the lives of Connecticut's children, Representative Ryan also served on the Pilot Studies Committee. On this committee, Kevin helped address Medicaid administration and emergency medical services for Connecticut's youth and conducted a study on the proposed Constitutional Amendment on the Rights of Children. Throughout his career, Representative Ryan's legislative ability never faltered. Just this year, he sponsored multiple successful bills protecting workers' rights and increasing access to clean energy. Ryan's service to the Montville community extended beyond his role as state representative. He was also a member of the Montville Public Safety Committee and Justice of the Peace and previously served as chair of the town's Democratic Committee. Kevin Ryan contributed to the Rotary, the Knights of Columbus, Moose Club, and the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, as well as the Alliance for Living Board of Directors and Eastern Connecticut Cable Television Advisory Board. He also furthered his interests in children's welfare and public safety as President of the Board of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Southeast Connecticut and Chairman of the Connecticut Nuclear Energy Advisory Council. Representative Ryan made connections with legislatures across the country. He served as Treasurer and President of the National Conference of Legislators from Gaming States, Treasurer of the Summit of Rural and Agricultural Leaders, and National Vice President of the Council of State Governments, where he also sat on the Agriculture Committee. Representative Ryan also benefited Connecticut's communities in his private life. He provided care at the Connecticut Visual Health Center in Bridgeport and Mobile Medical Testing Service (now known as Exemplar Health Services). He was also an Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of New Haven from 1980 until his death. Representative Ryan earned innumerable commendations and awards, including the Distinguished State Legislature Award from the Connecticut Psychological Association, Legislator of the Year from the Connecticut Farm Bureau, the American Lung Association's Breath of Life Award, a Public Service Award from the Connecticut Secretary of State, and Legislative Awards from the Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut. Representative Ryan was also named Champion for Community Providers by the Connecticut Community Providers Association and received a Community Service Award from the Norwich NAACP. He was a Henry Toll Fellow and a winner of the William Fitzgerald and Senator Chris J. Dodd Awards. Mr. Speaker, Representative Ryan's loss is felt by his colleagues in Connecticut and across the country as well as his constituents in Ledyard, Montville, and Norwich. Kevin's irreverent humor and tenacious work ethic won't soon be matched. Representative Ryan championed the needs of his constituents to his last days, proving his commitment to his constituency. Despite how monumental a chasm is left by his death; I take solace in the knowledge that Representative Ryan's memory and example are survived by the countless lives he touched through his decades of service. I ask my colleagues join me in honoring Kevin's life and legacy.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, as this headline from Newsweek magazine reports, a few weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Education issued probably the most out-of-touch, offensive new rule in the history of the Department, excluding nursing from its definition of ``professional occupations,'' part of its new graduate student loan program, which was created by the one big, ugly bill. For the 4.7 million actively registered nurses and the 250,000 students enrolled in bachelor's, master's, and doctoral nursing programs across the United States, this decree that they are not professionals is both a disgraceful insult that shocks the conscience and an order which will condemn America's nurses into second-class status for Federal graduate student loan assistance. Madam Speaker, this legal demotion is happening at a time when our country is experiencing a nursing shortage. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that we have 195,000 unfilled nursing positions in this country. The Department of Health and Human Services goes even higher. It says that it is 280,000. McKinsey & Company, a respected think tank, predicts that the shortage will grow to 400,000 by the end of this decade. Madam Speaker, Members of this House don't really need to spend much time reading these reports to know that that shortage is real. Just go to any hospital, nursing home, or health clinic in your district, and you will hear the same thing: they are short-staffed in ERs, exam rooms, operating rooms, and on the floors. Short-staffing is bad for patients, and it is bad for nursing burnout. Despite this blindingly obvious reality, the Education Department's designation is putting a hard cap of $100,000, with no indexing, on graduate student loans for nurses, all part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which my Republican colleagues passed in June. It is a healthcare monstrosity, which cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, cut out premium subsidies for 22 million Americans for their healthcare exchange plans, and now will suffocate the growth of our Nation's caring professions. If you doubt my words, then maybe you will listen to the president of the American Nursing Association, the largest nursing professional organization in America. Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, the president, states: ``Nurses make up the largest segment of the healthcare workforce and [are] the backbone of our Nation's health system. At a time when healthcare in our country faces a historic nurse shortage and rising demands, limiting nurses' access to funding for graduate school threatens the very foundation of patient care.'' Well said. Madam Speaker, ANA is doing more. They have organized a petition drive because this rule goes into effect next July. As of the middle of last week, they had 180,000 signatures, and that will grow. Madam Speaker, it definitely will grow in the coming days. Every Member of this House--and I will be one of them--should write to the Department of Education saying that this rule makes no sense in terms of the healthcare system today and, also, is an insult to the people who go through extensive training, testing, and certification before they are allowed to practice their caring profession. While we are at it, we should also help the other professions which were excluded by the Department of Education: physician assistants, physical therapists, audiologists, speech-language pathologists, architects, accountants, advanced degree educators, social workers, dental hygienists, and occupational therapists. This proposal by the Department of Education is madness, and Congress should actually do more than just support the regulatory process in terms of reversing these rules. We should also go back and revisit the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and recognize, again, what our healthcare sector is telling us: We are risking the financial solvency of institutions all across America, and, again, we are damaging our future in terms of getting young, motivated people to join the healthcare professions.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, after months and months of President Trump insisting that his tariffs are not paid by Americans, insisting that tariffs don't drive up prices, insisting that there will be no exclusions on exemptions from his liberation day tariffs that he imposed back in April, on Friday afternoon the White House very quietly released a statement that they, in fact, are exempting and carving out tariffs for a number of goods, which were blindingly obvious were going to be costing more because we do not produce any of those goods here in this country. Included in his order are coffee, tea, fruit juices, tropical fruits, spices, bananas, oranges, and tomatoes. Obviously, if you talk to anybody who has been in a grocery store lately, the prices for all of those products have gone up by large margins, again, in the wake of the April tariffs that were put into place. Coffee is up 19 percent. Bananas are up 7 percent. Oranges and lettuce are up 3 and 4 percent. Again, it was so clear to anyone who was actually connected to the real world that grocery prices were going up and that we had to take steps to carve out exemptions for the sake of American consumers, our working families, and the middle class. It was amazing to see how the President, in October, was actually giving speeches where he said prices have come way down and that we have gotten prices way down for groceries. That is the mentality which is in that White House. Again, these were tariffs that he imposed unilaterally without consulting Congress. The question, though, is whether it is good that again there is going to be some price relief for some of these items, which never should have been tariffed to begin with. It begs the question about the rest of the economy that is getting harmed by tariffs. The National Association of Home Builders announced after the tariffs were announced that it would raise the average cost of a new home by $11,000 because of the fact that so many parts and pieces that go into new home construction are imported. That is just a reality in our economy. When we talk about the cost of living and affordability, if anything is close to maybe groceries, it is the cost of housing in terms of rents and getting new construction restarted. What about that, Mr. President? Why don't we also look at what is clearly happening in our economy right now and provide relief for the American people who are groaning under the high cost of living? The President has to look no further than the conservative Tax Foundation, which again is a right-of-center economic think tank. Its analysis is that, by October, tariffs have raised retail prices on all goods by nearly 5 percent relative to their pretariff trend line. Instead of solving high inflation, the Trump tariffs have continued it and, in some instances, increased it. This includes a 6 percent increase for imported goods and 4.3 percent for domestic goods because a lot of our domestic goods incorporate items that, again, are imported from overseas. The fundamental problem here is that this President believed in his mind that he himself had the power to impose these tariffs. Let's be very clear. A tariff is a tax on imported goods. It is a tax. I am from New England. Remember the Boston Tea Party? It was about a tariff on tea that the British Government was trying to force the American colonists to pay. A case was argued just a couple of weeks ago before the U.S. Supreme Court, where, again, the plaintiffs powerfully stated that the President did not have the authority to impose those taxes back in April. That is an Article I, Section 9 authority in the Constitution for the Congress. For the sake of reestablishing the checks and balances in our country and for the sake of the American economy, where issues like tariffs, which require a lot of analysis, are very complex, and require Congress to be part of that decisionmaking--in fact, we are the decisionmakers, according to the Constitution--those tariffs should be struck down. We should go back to basics, which is that when we deal with tax policy, it is the power of Congress that prevails in terms of making those kinds of decisions. The harm that has been done to the economy, the middle class, and working families because of the Trump tariffs, which, again, were just unilaterally and indiscriminately imposed against some countries that we actually have trade surpluses with, has to be rolled back. There was an admission on Friday by the administration that their tariff policy has failed, and it is time for Congress to stand up and do its job to rebalance our economy.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, there are many flaws in the hastily written Senate Republican Continuing Resolution, before us today. The most egregious is the Continuing Resolution's failure to ``continue'' tax credits for health insurance which have been on the books for 4 years, right at the same time 24 million Americans are enrolling for 2026 insurance coverage in the ACA health exchanges. For millions, the abandonment of premium assistance will result in increases of 100 percent, 200 percent, and even higher. A couple in Enfield, Connecticut, in their 60s, who visited with me last week with their premium notice, are looking at an increase from $300/month to $2,449/ month. The only way they can pay that is to draw funds from their retirement 401k, triggering tax penalties on top of the increased out- of-pocket costs. My office heard from many other constituents with similar shocking increases, whose stories are attached to my written statement. I also want to alert Members of the House that this new continuing resolution (CR) released this past Saturday November 8, 2025, which funds the government to January 30, 2026, has a serious gap in funding for the Columbia-class submarine program. This program, which has been referred to as the ``number one acquisition priority'' of both the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense, is building new ballistic submarines on a very tight schedule to replace the aging fleet of Ohio-class submarines, who have been on patrol starting in the 1980's. The first two submarines--USS District of Columbia and USS Wisconsin--are under construction and fully funded with appropriations approved by prior Congresses. The third, USS Groton SSBN 828 is ready to start construction, subject to Congress approving the funds. For this CR, The Navy requested an anomaly for full fiscal year 2026 Columbia program funding to Congressional leadership to keep this program on track. In past years, this has been a normal request in order to make sure production stays on schedule, regardless of late passage of the full Navy budget. Astonishingly, Mr. Speaker, the Senate continuing resolution refused the Navy's request and Columbia program has zero additional funding. This is not a minor bookkeeping concern. The absence of a set aside, or anomaly, to fund construction of SSBN 828, will create serious risk of a halt work order to the production schedule of the Nation's most critical defense program. The legislative chaos of the last two months, with the House shut down at the Speaker's behest, has suffocated the normal communication and negotiation that would address glaring harm, such as the cut off of health insurance subsidies and steady funding of the Navy's shipbuilding budget. There is a better path, Mr. Speaker, which is to have our chamber exercise its independent constitutional role and protect both the health care and national security of our Nation. Reject this budget and fix these glaring flaws. I include in the Record the following written statements from my constituents: Kristin McShane--Norwich My name is Kristin McShane and I live in Norwich CT. My husband and I own a martial arts school. We buy our health insurance through the state health exchange and on average pay $850 a month for insurance. We got a letter the other day that our rates will be increasing a lot due to ACA rates expiring. On top of high monthly premiums, we have high deductibles and many things are not covered. We also pay for all vision and dental expenses out of pocket as they are not covered and out of pocket coverage is even more than that. It's hard to have so much of our monthly income going to medical bills and insurance. We haven't been told exactly what our increase will be but we are going to have to make cuts to other parts of our lives to afford them. It's not right or fair to give very earthly people tax breaks while increasing necessary expenses for average hard working people who are barely getting by. I can't remember the last stress free day we have had because of the increasing costs of everything but most especially healthcare. Caleb--Norwich As a small business owner in Connecticut, I am writing to share my deep concern about the potential loss of the health insurance exchange and the premium tax credits. For business owners like me, the ACA marketplace (the exchange) is often the only way to get affordable health coverage. The tax credits are not just a small help--they are essential. Without them, many of us, our families, and even our employees would not be able to afford health insurance. Losing this system would negatively impact our business. It would mean facing impossible choices between our health and our livelihood. It makes it harder to run a stable business, stay productive, and provide for our families. We are counting on you to protect the health insurance exchange and the tax credits that make coverage possible. Please oppose any efforts that would take away this critical support for Connecticut's small business community. Lee--Mystic She and her partner buy their insurance through the exchange and she's expecting their premium to go from $700 to approximately $2,500 per month. Her partner left a higher paying job last year to take a different role without insurance, and now they aren't sure if they can make it work. Anonymous--Clinton I won't be able to afford insurance next year without the ACA. I work for a small business that can't afford to offer benefits. At 54 I will go without coverage and hope I stay healthy. Anonymous--East Haddam I am a widow who resides with my 23-year-old son who just graduated from college in May '24. He is, and has been, seeking full time employment in the criminal justice field. I have a full-time and part-time job. My full-time employer does not provide medical insurance. Both my son and I are on a medical/dental insurance policy which I purchased through Access Health CT. Due to our household income, we qualify for tax credits. Even with these tax credits, I am currently paying close to $700/month for our insurance. I know that I cannot afford a monthly premium upwards of $1000! It is a well-known fact that health insurance premiums in the United States are ridiculous! Our healthcare system is broken, now it will become unaffordable! it is a sad statement when other countries medical programs far surpass the United State of America! Jill--Niantic Current plan is no longer available. New Bronze Anthem plan ($6k deductible) but without dental or vision. Premium is $1,384.15 which is a 14% increase. Premium tax credits are no longer available, leading to a monthly premium of $1,384.15 (258% increase) however, also need to add in a dental plan with premium of $23.56 so final monthly premium for 2026 will be $1,407.71. Versus 2025 premium of $386.90 means the premium increase is $1,020.81 every month (264%) which is $12,249.72 for the year or 13% of our annual income. Additionally, under the new plan available, copays have been changed to co- insurance and I've lost vision insurance. Anonymous--Enfield Currently paying $295.70 per month for 2 adults. Going up to $2,449 per month.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would have our Nation turn its back on the brave people of Ukraine in their greatest hour of need by cutting off all military assistance. As we stand here today, Russia's illegal invasion, which is now in its fourth year, is intensifying to the highest levels of the war, despite all of the oily, phony, happy talk coming from Vladimir Putin about seeking peace. On Saturday, Russia launched the largest drone assault of the war, with 805 drones and 13 cruise missiles, killing 5 people and hitting the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The Tuesday before, a glide bomb killed 23 Ukrainians. Just last night, Russian and Belarusian drones made 19 hits in sovereign Polish airspace, scrambling NATO F-35s and F- 16s to fend off civilian casualties. It was Ukraine's air force that alerted their neighbors in Poland to these blatantly illegal incursions, demonstrating Ukraine's commitment to protecting not only their own population but the rest of Europe. If this amendment were to pass, it would cripple not only Ukraine's legal right to defend itself but also our NATO Treaty allies.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3838 as it came out of committee. The bipartisan tradition of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee continued this year under the leadership of my good friend, Chairman Trent Kelly, to ensure maximum support for our sailors, airmen, and marines. I would note our job was made much more difficult by the ridiculously late submission of a budget by the budget office, which they then split and mangled by disregarding input from the sea services. Nonetheless, we overcame that challenge with this year's mark. The bill includes my bipartisan table amendment which authorizes an increase in the Virginia-class submarine program by $1 billion. This plus-up was needed to address a serious Virginia-class program budget office shortfall and will ensure full authorization of two Virginia- class submarines in fiscal year 2026. Madam Chair, today, a total of four Virginia-class submarines are slated to be delivered in 2025 and 2026. This bill's plus-up will grow the industry's backlog of work to 21 boats so we can overmatch our adversaries' nuclear fleets and fulfill our AUKUS commitments to sell three subs to Australia in 2032, 2035, and 2038. Mr. Kelly and I visited there in August and saw firsthand that nation's investment in their navy in anticipation, and we must act to keep up our end. Further, the bill includes incremental funding authorization for the Columbia-class submarine program to avoid disruption of the Navy's most critical shipbuilding priority. Our mark directs investment and support for uncrewed and autonomous maritime platforms that are here to stay as part of our Navy's fleet of warships. Procurement stability for shipbuilding and our maritime industrial base has never been more important, and passage of this NDAA will achieve that. Madam Chair, fiscal year 2026 will mark the 65th consecutive NDAA, if signed into law. This legacy is one of bipartisanship and compromise. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support a bill that can be passed in a closely divided Congress and stay focused on the core mission of Congress to provide a strong national defense. That is what we did in committee. Under Mr. Smith's and Mr. Rogers' leadership, the bill passed 55-2. The men and women in uniform deserve no less than that example with final passage of this matter.