Gerald Connolly

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Gayle Bevis Ewing Reed and her remarkable service to our country during World War II. Ms. Reed was one of the courageous women who served her country as a part of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) program which began in August 1943 to facilitate the war effort. She was dedicated to her dream of becoming a pilot and, despite the barriers confronting women in the aviation field, she succeeded and went on to fly PT-19s, BT-13s, and UC-78s during the war. Upon hearing of the WASP program she became determined to aid the war effort and was among the earliest women to join. Of the 25,000 who applied, she was one of those selected to undergo a rigorous training program. She earned her wings in 1943, becoming one of 1,074 women to do so. In the 17 months that the WASPs were operational, she and her fellow pilots flew more than 60 million miles in over 60,000 hours of duty providing an invaluable service for our country. Ms. Reed and her fellow WASPs were responsible for testing both new airplanes and those that had undergone repairs. They delivered planes from one destination to another and assisted with the training of other pilots by towing targets, simulating bombings and even participating in the direct instruction of male cadets. She and her fellow pilots displayed tremendous courage and bravery as their duties were strenuous, exhausting and, at times, even life threatening. Thirty-eight women lost their lives while serving our country. Women pilots faced constant gender discrimination and antagonism from male pilots who adamantly believed that women did not belong in the aviation field. On Dec. 20, 1944, Congress voted to disband the WASP program, determining that it was no longer necessary as male pilots were becoming available to fill the jobs the women were performing. Despite the end of the program, she and many other women did not abandon their love of flying. They continued to fight alongside one another to gain recognition for their remarkable contribution. In the 1970s, they became deeply involved in a campaign nicknamed the ``Battle of Congress'' to gain veteran status for their service during the war. They finally succeeded in 1977 despite continued gender discrimination. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Gayle Bevis Ewing Reed and other flyers from the WASP program who remain an inspiration for young women and men alike. She is not only a hero but a symbol of what can be achieved when goals are pursued and barriers overcome. She continues the legacy set down by generations of ambitious women by honoring her talent and maintaining a steadfast commitment to her dreams.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Lorraine Zilner Rodgers and her remarkable service to our country during World War II. Ms. Rodgers dreamed of becoming a pilot at a time when the field of aviation was dominated by men. Undeterred, she overcame gender barriers to pursue her goal. After graduating from the University of Illinois, she worked building military aircraft, using her salary and limited spare time to learn to fly. She eventually attained a private pilots' license. While pursuing her dream to fly, she learned of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) program and became inspired to join the war effort. More than 25,000 women applied and after completing a rigorous training program, Ms. Rodgers was among the 1,074 women who earned their wings. In the 17 months that the WASP's were operational, she and her fellow pilots flew more than 60 million miles. Among her many duties Ms. Rodgers tested and ferried planes making necessary repairs to military aircraft. She displayed tremendous courage and bravery as her duties were strenuous, exhausting and at times even life threatening. Thirty-eight women lost their lives while serving and Ms. Rodgers was nearly one of them. While she was completing a routine testing flight in Waco, Texas, the plane she was flying abruptly went into an inverted spin. She made every attempt to right the aircraft to prevent destroying the plane, but as she neared the ground she was forced to abandon the aircraft. She was barely able to deploy her parachute before hitting the ground as she had delayed ejecting in an effort to save the plane. After recovering from her injuries, she was informed that her plane's rudder had been cut in an act of sabotage. Although such acts were rare, they were examples of the hardships women pilots had to overcome as they faced antagonism from male pilots who adamantly believed that women did not belong in the aviation field. On Dec. 20, 1944, the same day Ms. Rodgers risked her life, Congress voted to disband the WASP program determining that it was no longer necessary as male pilots were becoming available to fill the jobs the women were performing. Despite the end of the program, Ms. Rodgers did not abandon her passion. She went on to work at the Glenview Naval Air Station and flew as much as possible. In the 1970s she became deeply involved in a campaign to gain veteran status for WASPs. Despite resistance based on gender prejudices, they finally succeeded in 1977. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Lorraine Zilner Rodgers and other pilots from the WASP program who remain an inspiration for young women and men alike. She is not only a hero but a symbol of what can be achieved when goals are pursued and barriers overcome. She continues the legacy set down by generations of ambitious women by honoring her talent and maintaining a steadfast commitment to her dreams.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of long overdue health care reform. We've been talking about health care reform since the administration of Harry Truman. It's time for action. Among the Jeffersonian rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the first was the right to life. And yet, today, with health costs spiraling out of control for millions of Americans, that right to life becomes more and more difficult to manage. While the need for some level of reform is clear, whatever reform the Nation agrees upon must respect the right of the individual to continue to select their own physician. Assisting some Americans in accessing health care must not come at the expense of restricting health care access to others. We cannot have a government-imposed regime. We must respect people's right to maintain control over their current health care access and health care insurance. Having said that, America currently has the most expensive health care system in the world. In 2006, we ranked first at 15.3 percent of our gross domestic product in expenditures for health care. Runner-up was Sweden with a socialized health care system. It was at 11.3 percent. On a per capita basis, we spend the most in the world, $5,267 for every man, woman, and child in America; and yet, if you look at our outcomes, we are in the middling ranks of industrialized countries in terms of outcomes. We rank 50th out of 224 Nations in the world in terms of life expectancy. As a Nation, we are spending more on health care than everybody else, but we're not necessarily getting the outcomes we need. Our challenge is to make health care costs obviously more affordable. A recent USA Today poll showed 21 percent of Americans struggling with health care costs, being able to manage it, significantly up from what it would have been a decade or 2 decades ago. Those who currently have, and like their existing health care coverage, still nonetheless often lament the rapidly increasing costs of premiums and recognize that we all pay a cost for emergency room treatment for those without health care coverage. In fact, it is estimated that that costs everybody $1,000 per capita per year because of our fellow 46 million Americans who lack health care coverage. As we debate the various proposals, Madam Speaker, for reforming health care, I would like to propose five principles that certainly will guide me and I think many others as we move forward various proposals. The first is, every child in America should have access to health care. No child should go in this country without having access to health care. We know that, for example, a child without health care who develops appendicitis has five times a negative outcome in terms of losing his or her life than a child with health insurance. That's unacceptable, it seems to me, as Americans. Secondly, nobody should be financially destroyed due to a catastrophic illness. It's challenging enough to combat a deadly medical condition, but tremendous expenses incurred can wipe out a family's savings and, indeed, cost them their livelihood and their home. Third, insurance companies should not be allowed to cherry pick, and I'm a proud cosponsor of a bill that would prescribe that. The whole point of having health care insurance is to share the risk. Previous existing conditions affect 45 percent of all Americans today, and indeed, if we all live long enough, every one of us is going to end up with a previous existing medical condition. The health insurance companies shouldn't be allow to disqualify people in that case. Fourth, we must respect the right of our fellow citizens to choose the health care insurance and provider they want. Fifth, we must move toward universality of health care coverage. Everyone in America should have access to health care in this wonderful country of ours. Ultimately, we must address health care reform for a number of reasons: to provide broader coverage for those currently uninsured; to bring down the increasingly difficult costs to businesses, especially small businesses, families, and sole proprietors; to reduce the growing strain of health care costs on our Nation's deficit; and to improve the overall health of our Nation. Fiftieth place is nothing to be proud of, Madam Speaker, and I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting a health care reform program that will reposition America as a competitive, successful, and healthy society.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Helping Active Duty Deployed Act of 2009 to help the brave men and women in our armed forces as they prepare for deployment or change of station. The Helping Active Duty Deployed Act of 2009 (HADD Act), would relieve military personnel who are deploying or changing station from onerous penalties that they currently incur for early termination of private contracts. It is unconscionable that the members of our armed forces who put their lives on the line to protect our freedom are charged early termination penalties when facing deployment or change of station. The HADD Act will make it illegal for a cell phone company to charge an early termination penalty to members of the military facing deployment or change of station. The 110th Congress provided that cellular telephone service entered into solely by the military member was not subject to an early termination penalty should the member receive change of station orders. However, many military members with families have more affordable family plans, and can still be charged early termination penalties. They are faced with two unpalatable options--continue to pay for a family plan they are no longer able to use, or pay an early termination penalty. The HADD Act will make it illegal for a landlord to charge an early termination penalty to members of the military facing deployment or change of station. Although the current Servicemember Civil Relief Act permits members to legally terminate a residential lease, it does not exempt them from early termination penalties. Conversely, existing law expressly prohibits early termination penalties for terminating a motor vehicle lease. The HADD Act will make it illegal for institutions of higher education to retain the unused portion of tuition a member of the military was forced to forgo due to deployment or change of station. Military personnel should receive a tuition refund if they are deployed mid-semester. The 110th Congress passed the expanded GI Bill, expressing its support for our veterans. I cannot believe that we would implicitly discourage their education during their years of service for fear that their tuition expenses may be lost if they are called upon to actively serve their country. The HADD Act will fix this disparity. Madam Speaker, the HADD Act has the endorsement of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and I will introduce a copy of their letter into the record. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting our men and women in uniform, and outlaw the practice of penalizing our military for their service to our country. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of American HADD Act Letter of Support (By Patrick Campbell) May 8, 2009. Hon. Gerald E. Connolly, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Connolly: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is proud to offer our support for the Helping Active Duty Deployed Act of 2009 (HADD). The Servicemember Civil Relief Act must continue to be modernized to ensure that our men and women in uniform are focusing on their missions overseas and not bureaucratic morass back at home. Over 500,000 National Guard and Reservists have been deployed since 9/11 and nearly 1/5th of those are currently enrolled in college. Without federal protections these servicemembers who are deployed mid academic term face a patchwork of refund procedures which are confusing and inconsistent. HADD will require colleges to refund tuition paid by the servicemember for courses they could not complete due to a deployment. This legislation will also allow servicemembers who have cell phone contracts on a family plan to suspend their service while they are overseas. While I was in Iraq, I was required to pay a monthly fee to my cell phone provider in order to keep my cell phone contract current. I spent five hours of my first day back from Iraq in a Cingular Wireless store just trying to get my service restored. It took me over 7 months for the whole issue to get resolved and required filing a complaint to the FCC and switching service providers. If we can be of help in securing passage of this bill, please feel free to contact me. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Patrick Campbell, Chief Legislative Counsel.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my friend from Colorado. I rise in support of the underlying legislation, and I thank my friend from Colorado for his passion on the subject. We know that if we can deter teenage smoking, we can deter a lifetime of health risks and health costs. I must confess, Madam Speaker, some concern about accepting the Senate provision here. There were other provisions in the House bill that I passionately supported that protect our Federal workforce, and I specifically refer to the provision allowing the counting of sick leave for retirement and allowing those who are under the Federal Employment Retirement Service to re-employ, pick up where they left off. These are important provisions, Madam Speaker, because the Federal workforce, as we look out to the future, is going to be challenged with a brain drain. The baby boom generation is going to be retiring. As many as 40 percent of the current workforce will be retiring over the next decade. In order to attract talent for the future Federal workforce, we need more flexible work rules; we need to provide more amenities for that workforce. I was disappointed that the Senate, on an amendment by Mr. DeMint of South Carolina, dropped those provisions from this bill that were carefully crafted from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform here in the House, and I hope we can revisit those issues in the future. But the underlying bill with respect to tobacco is a very important bill. And, again, I thank Mr. Polis from Colorado for his leadership and passion to the subject.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an upcoming anniversary that is significant to our national security and history. This Sunday, June 14th, members of the Active Duty Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard will celebrate the United States Army's 234th birthday. The celebrations began this morning with the annual Department of the Army cake-cutting ceremony at the Pentagon. There is also an Army Birthday Ball and events for children, such as book readings. Celebrations like this will take place at garrisons and communities around the world. One of these communities is Virginia's Fort Belvoir, where the Army is building a National Museum of the United States Army supported by the Army Historical Foundation. For too long the United States Army has been our only service that does not have a comprehensive place where its proud heritage can be shared with the American public. The National Museum of the United States Army will serve this purpose. More than 30 million men and women, including many members of Congress, have served in the oldest and largest of our armed forces. Since the founding of the Continental Army of the United States in 1775, the selfless service and personal sacrifices of our Soldiers has been woven into the fabric and culture of this great country. I encourage my colleagues to take June 14th, 2009--the occasion of the Army's 234th birthday, to let our Soldiers know that they have our thanks and our appreciation and that a great Army deserves a great National Museum.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Anthony Applewhite of Boy Scout Troop 1577 on being promoted to the rank of Eagle Scout. Fewer than 2% of all scouts have mastered the skills necessary to achieve this honor. Anthony's achievement of this rank is even more extraordinary because, at the age of just 13, he is one of the youngest Eagle Scouts ever in the 100 year history of Boy Scouts of America. For his Eagle Scout Service Project, Anthony designed, planned and managed the construction of a picnic area at The Kings Chapel in Clifton, Va. This picnic area was completed efficiently and now is enjoyed by community members as well as the children who attend the The Kings Chapel pre-school. This is just a recent example of Anthony's scouting achievements. Anthony also was recognized for his leadership and service in his Boy Scout Troop with membership in the Order of the Arrow, the National Honor Society of Scouting. In addition to his success within the Boy Scouts, Anthony is an Honor Roll Student at Rocky Run Middle School. He excels in science, math and technology and would like to attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Anthony plans a dual career of game designer and neurosurgeon where he can utilize many of his impressive abilities. Anthony's scholastic abilities were highlighted when he captained his Odyssey of the Mind teams for the creative problem solving competitions. He also enjoys travel soccer as well as the violin. Anthony has set many short- and long-term goals for himself ranging from continuing his involvement in the Scouts where he hopes to be selected to attend the 2010 National Jamboree and the 2012 World Jamboree to a career in the medical and technological fields. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Anthony on being one of the youngest Eagle Scouts in scouting history and in wishing him the very best in what promises to be a very bright future. I would also like to ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our thanks to Anthony's family, friends and troop leaders for the support that they have given Anthony which has allowed and encouraged his development as a fine young citizen.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker, and I rise in support of H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance Cooperation Act, and I congratulate our chairman, Mr. Berman, for his leadership. This bill is a national security bill. It authorizes military assistance to help Pakistan disrupt and defeat al Qaeda and insurgent elements, including the Taliban, and requires that the majority of such assistance be focused on critical counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts. Additionally, the bill requires that all military assistance flow through the democratically elected Government of Pakistan. The legislation includes accountability measures for military assistance, including a requirement that the Government of Pakistan demonstrate a sustained commitment to combating terrorism. The bill aligns Pakistan's defense goals with ours by conditioning military aid. Specifically, the bill provides $400 million a year in military aid on the condition that Pakistan cooperate in dismantling nuclear supply networks and fighting terrorist groups. The bill will not provide funding for Pakistan to build its forces on the eastern border with India, as the real threat lies on the western border. To this end, the bill would bar the use of foreign military financing to buy or upgrade F-16 fighter jets with the exception of money to finish a 2006 deal. I understand the concerns about Pakistan's commitment to fighting terrorism. I myself have concerns about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and its past history of proliferation. This is why, at my request, the report language accompanying this bill specifically mentions the A.Q. Khan proliferation network as a source of concern in the United States and that representatives of the United States must have access to him because they have not interviewed him. Pakistan, Mr. Speaker, is a key partner in South Asian security. Clearly, recent events in the Swat Valley demonstrate that stability in the region is not just an American concern. We must move ahead with clear expectations and goals, as this bill enumerates, to ensure that U.S. aid is being used in the most effective manner possible. Ultimately, this will benefit both the Pakistani people and U.S. strategic interests. This bill, H.R. 1886, does that; and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Absolutely. And the bill takes care, where there are trade-sensitive and energy-intensive sensitive industries, to give them a transition period of time, in some cases a very generous transition period of time in which to get themselves competitive again.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. If my colleague would yield, because the point you've both been making about the need for that competitive edge for American industry is really underscored by the various American companies that, in fact, have endorsed this legislation. Let's just take the automotive sector. Ford, Chrysler, GM, John Deere, Caterpillar have all endorsed this legislation. There's a reason for that. They understand that to stand still with existing technology is not going to cut it. They're going to continue to lose market share, and they're going to lose to foreign competition. If I may, I'd just like to read into the Record some of the other companies, especially in the energy sector. And the reason I want to read these names into the Record is because so often we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, this is going to destroy American business as we know it. Well, that would come as news to the following list of companies who've enthusiastically endorsed this specific bill. Duke Energy, coal, by the way, represents 75 percent of Duke's portfolio. American Electric Power; Edison Electric Institute; Exelon; PG&E Corporation; FPL Group in Florida; Entergy; Austin Energy; Constellation Energy; Seattle City Light; Public Service Enterprise; P&M resources in New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich; Shell Oil; Conoco; BP America; Entergy Energy; GE; Alcoa; Dupont; Dow Chemical; Johnson & Johnson; Rio Tinto; Siemens; National Venture Capital Association. These are American companies that understand the point you were making a little bit earlier, Mr. Polis, that to stand still is to lose ground; and that actually, we have an enormous opportunity here to regain America's competitive edge, create jobs and, once again, lead the world in innovative technologies and techniques. But we've got to make that initial step. This bill creates that framework.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I am so pleased to join my fellow Green Dogs to talk about the subject. I couldn't help but pick up, if I may, to our friend from New York, Mr. Tonko, the point he was making about the power of research and development, R&D dollars, in innovative technology. Let's just take the potential power of the advanced battery research. What could that do? Well, in the automotive industry, advanced lithium batteries, for example, could get you plug-in hybrid vehicles that get an average equivalent of 100 miles per gallon. If every vehicle in America got an average of 100 miles per gallon, you would almost wipe out the need for any imported oil in the United States of America. It is not science fiction. It is around the corner, but it needs an extra investment. It is an investment with an enormous potential return that would more than return dollars to U.S. taxpayers and, of course, contribute to the economy. Similarly, advanced battery research is desperately needed to essentially bring the solar industry in the United States to that next step. What we lack in solar right now is the ability to really store the sun. And if we could have a breakthrough, and, again, it is not rocket science, it is not science fiction, if we could have a breakthrough in advanced battery research so that we can extend storage capacity, so on sunny days we can store that energy on overcast days, especially in climates that aren't as warm as, say, the Southwest where our friend Mr. Heinrich comes from in New Mexico, we could absolutely transform the solar industry and make it a practical either supplement or alternative for households and businesses all across the United States. What could that do in terms of job creation and reviving the manufacturing sector of the United States? An almost endless return on a very wise investment of dollars.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. And if I might interject just one thing, Mr. Polis, because when you said that, I am reminded of what we went through just 1 year ago this very summer, where the volatility of the price of gasoline really hit the pocketbook of the average American consumer. You want to talk about cost--it affected people's choices. If affected whether they could take that vacation. It affected their commutes. It affected discretionary travel in terms of shopping or seeing movies or even seeing friends and relatives because the cost of gasoline had become almost prohibitive for so many of our citizens. That's the cost, too, if we do nothing.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Polis, right on message, I visited a company in my district the other day that manufactures microchips. That market is very cyclical. And the manufacturing capacity in the United States has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk. They had a factory they had to close in the Midwest. They are retrofitting, and they are going to make solar panels at this factory should we pass this bill. They are waiting for this bill to pass, and almost overnight they are going to start to manufacture solar panels.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Would my colleague yield just for a moment on that? Because this same study that Mr. Polis and I are referring to, I just want to read a paragraph that addresses the very point you're making, Mr. Tonko. It says, In total, the energy-efficiency provisions of H.R. 2454 could reduce U.S. energy use by 4.4 quadrillion BTUs by 2020. These energy-efficiency savings are more than the annual use of 47 of the 50 States, including your home State of New York. Moreover, such savings will avoid 293 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, the equivalent--this is astounding--of taking 49 million automobiles off the road every year. By 2030, these energy efficiency savings go to 11 quadrillion BTUs, accounting for about 10 percent of projected U.S. energy use that year. This is incredible. And that's what you're getting at, that there are other efficiencies that can be achieved by this bill that, by the way, also will lead to innovation, job creation, and savings for consumers we haven't even calculated. Mr. Heinrich.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Would my colleague yield on that point, because that's such a good point you're bringing up, Mr. Polis, because we hear from the other side, seemingly deliberate misinformation on the floor of this House. And the figure constantly cited is a little over $3,100; this is going to cost everybody $3,100 a year. The opposite is true, as you just indicated. There's a new study the American Council for Energy Efficient Economy just issued that says that the Federal energy efficiency provisions in this bill will, in fact, save $750 per household by 2020, as you indicated, and $3,900 per household by 2030. So maybe our Republican colleagues just have their numbers inverted. I might point out that that magical figure of $3,100 per year that they cite, and derive this bill as a cap-and-tax bill, not a cap-and- trade bill, is based on a study done by an MIT professor--a rather obscure study. And interestingly, that professor, the author of that study, has written the Republican leadership of this body objecting to the use of this study, saying they vastly overstate any potential costs that in fact might accrue to consumers. And it is based on faulty analysis as well. The provisions of this bill are carefully drafted so that any increase in utility costs, for example, that aren't already protected by the provisions in the bill would not be allowed to be passed on to consumers. It is patently false. And talk about not reading the bill; clearly our friends on the other side of the aisle either haven't read the bill or choose to ignore the facts therein. But there are carefully crafted provisions that not only protect consumers, but as our colleague, Mr. Polis, indicated, and as this recent study indicates, will in fact save, not cost, consumers hundreds of dollars--and ultimately thousands of dollars--every year.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I might add to the point you're making, Mr. Polis, in my State of Virginia, for example, we have a gubernatorial election going on right now, and one of the candidates, the Republican nominee, has talked about drill now, right off the shore of Virginia. Maybe that makes sense; maybe it doesn't. But the wind power potential off the shore of Virginia dwarfs any estimates of what possible oil and gas reserves there might be offshore and could create jobs and could actually make Virginia an enormous net exporter to the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic of a renewable source of energy forever.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Boy, are you right, Mr. Polis. You know, I listen sometimes to the rhetoric of our friends on the other side of the aisle, and they never talk about that. They never talk about the fact that the cost of inaction to the automotive industry is the utter collapse of any automotive manufacturing capacity in the United States. They don't talk about the challenge of power generation. They don't talk about the extraction industries. They don't talk about what it means to any other kind of manufacturing capacity. For that matter, technology today, the industry that dominates my district, the information technology industry, is dependent on a reliable source of energy. And they understand that reliable source of energy needs to be, if we are going to stay competitive with foreign competition in the technology sector, a renewable source of energy.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. And to the point you're making, Mr. Heinrich, and yours, Mr. Polis, the legislation specifically addresses the steel and cement industries and provides them a very generous transition through the year 2025. Thereafter, the President could still extend that transition should he or she decide it's warranted. And if he or she decides it's not, it's phased out, but on a maximum of 10 percent per year. So it is a very generous set of circumstances to make sure that our domestic steel industry and our domestic cement-producing industries have the requisite period of time in which to make this transition.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Energy and Commerce legislation that addresses greenhouse gas emissions. We have heard a lot of fear-mongering here on the floor of the House of Representatives and a lot of misinformation trying to scare voters and consumers into believing that somehow their taxes are going to go up. That is not true. As a matter of fact, this is a carefully crafted bill that provides lots of exemptions to energy-intensive industries to trade to vulnerable industries that will really make a difference in people's lives. But, frankly, to stand still is to lose, and that is why so many companies, like Johnson & Johnson, ConocoPhillips, have endorsed this legislation. Energy-intensive industries have endorsed this legislation because they know that if we are going to move forward and stay competitive as a country and if we are going to protect the interests of our consumers and the environment, we need a new platform. This bill provides that. I support the legislation, urge my colleagues to do so too, and not to listen to fear-mongering.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Shelter House, Inc., and more particularly the contributions that its volunteers make in service to our community. Shelter House and its outstanding volunteers serve Northern Virginia by coming to the aid of some of those most in need of support and assistance. Volunteers are critical in helping Shelter House achieve its mission of breaking the cycle of homelessness by providing crisis intervention, temporary housing, training, counseling, and programs to promote self sufficiency. Shelter House is a community-based, non-profit organization. It was formed in 1981 when several ecumenical groups came together to better serve low-income individuals and families. Shelter House operates two shelters, the Katherine K. Hanley Family Shelter and the Patrick Henry Family Shelter, which provide temporary housing for families in our community who find themselves homeless. In addition, Shelter House offers transitional housing services throughout Fairfax County. As part of the effort to stop the cycle of homelessness, the services provided by Shelter House continue even after individuals enter permanent housing. Individuals, organizations, and businesses dedicate their time, money, and wherewithal to help Shelter House succeed in its efforts to end homelessness in Fairfax County. These relationships are critical assets to Shelter House and a leading cause for its successes. Shelter House has recognized the specific contributions from its partners and volunteers and named the following recipients of its 2009 Volunteer Awards: Ending Homelessness Award: Lord of Life Lutheran Church; Youth Volunteer Award: Simrun Soni; Unsung Hero Award: Mary Joyce; Special Events Award: Jack and Jill of Northern Virginia; Friend of Shelter House Kids Award for the Patrick Henry Family Shelter: Ira Kirschbaum; Friend of Shelter House Kids Award for the Katherine K. Hanley Family Shelter: Ron Koch; Community Partner Award for the Patrick Henry Family Shelter: Interior Redesign Industry Specialists, National Capitol Area; Community Partner Award for the Katherine K. Hanley Family Shelter: Clifton Community Women's Club; and Community Champion Awards: Miller and Smith; Junior League of Northern Virginia and Capital One. The outstanding efforts of the above-mentioned individuals and organizations merit special recognition, but one must acknowledge the impact of all Shelter House volunteers who work to provide secure and structured environments for families and connect them with the supportive services they require. These volunteers help make Shelter House one of the most effective organizations in the battle to end homelessness by empowering families to reach their full potential. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude for the efforts of these volunteers and their colleagues at Shelter House. The selfless commitment of these individuals provides enumerable benefits to Northern Virginia as a community as well as life-changing services to the individuals in need.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the illustrious chairman of our committee, who has done so much hard work in moving forward U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in support of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. President Obama has redefined the playbook and raised expectations for America's engagement in the global stage. As we all know too well, the U.S. is involved in two theaters of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defeating extremist militants will require the proper diplomatic resources, and as Secretary Gates has stated in both the Bush and Obama administrations, we cannot win these wars by sheer force alone. To this end, the bill authorizes funding for 1,500 new Foreign Service officers. It strengthens the Peace Corps by making it U.S. policy to double the number of volunteers and by authorizing $400 million in fiscal year 2010 and $450 million in fiscal year 2011. It requires that the President conduct an 18-month strategic review of defense trade controls beginning not later than March 31, 2010, to determine the effectiveness of current export regimes. According to the Defense Department, the Department of State's mission is critical. On July 15, Secretary of Defense Gates said, ``Truly harnessing the full strength of America requires having civilian institutions of diplomacy and development that are adequately staffed and properly funded.''

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as a Congressman from Virginia, also a coal-producing State, I wish to rise to address the current economic recession. We need to spur investment and create new jobs, and we need to act now. An essential part of that effort is the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This legislation, unlike some of the statistics we've been hearing lately, recently approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would reduce greenhouse gas pollution and create lots of clean energy jobs, including in the coal sector, and make polluters pay for the greenhouse gas pollution they're emitting right now. Last week, the United States Climate Action Partnership, known as USCAP, hosted a congressional briefing to discuss the business reasons for passing legislation to reduce global warming pollution. The USCAP is a coalition of many American businesses who support the legislation, including especially in the energy sector. They include Alcoa, BP, ConocoPhillips, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Exelon, General Electric, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, NRG Energy, Shell, and Siemens. Environmental groups are also members. Many of these companies have built billion dollar companies through the extraction, processing, or sale of carbon-intensive fossil fuels. For example, most of BP, Shell and ConocoPhillips' business is in oil exploration and production. Duke Energy produces 75 percent of its electricity from coal. Manufacturers such as GE, Alcoa, and Dow consume a great deal of electricity and would be negatively affected by higher energy prices. They support this bill. These businesses worked for 2 years with environmentalists and Members of Congress to develop a blueprint for legislative action that laid out a plan to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, create jobs, and spur investment in renewable energy. This blueprint for legislative action formed a foundation for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on a bipartisan vote I might add. At its briefing, USCAP members emphasized the importance of the American Clean Energy and Security Act in spurring innovation and economic growth. Representatives of Dow, NRG Energy, and Shell said that without passage of this legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there simply will not be sufficient market incentive to invest in carbon capture and storage, something necessary, especially for the coal industry, Madam Speaker. Carbon capture and storage is a technology that holds tremendous promise; it is essential to more sustainable coal-generated electricity production. The minority party claims that the American Clean Energy and Security Act will hurt coal, as we just heard, but the business community, including companies that rely principally on coal for electrical generation, support this bill. The minority party claims that the American Clean Energy and Security Act will impair our ability to deploy American energy resources. Yet USCAP members, ConocoPhillips and Shell, for example, noted at the briefing that without this bill, they simply will not be able to develop the next generation of biofuels. Right now, we get most of our oil from overseas, Madam Speaker, from countries like Saudi Arabia. We must end our dependence on foreign oil. By spurring development of biofuels, the American Clean Energy and Security Act would help reach that objective while creating economic opportunities here at home. I think the business community said it best. At USCAP's recent briefing, a member representative said, ``One of the reasons that many members of USCAP are enthusiastic is because we see that it is essential for our businesses to move to a low carbon economy.'' Madam Speaker, let's unleash new investments in America. Let's produce more of our energy here at home. Let's wean ourselves off foreign oil dependency. Let us create new, clean energy jobs in America. We cannot delay economic recovery, and we cannot risk further destabilization of our climate.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman, and I also thank, Madam Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the committee and Mrs. Maloney from New York for her leadership on this very important issue. Madam Chairman, I thought we had finally identified an issue where we could count on the support of the minority party. After enduring decades of sanctimonious speeches about family values, here we are, poised to take action. H.R. 626, the Paid Parental Leave Act, would allow federally employed mothers and fathers to spend time with their newborn children without sacrificing their income. Surprisingly, the minority party objects to such a notion. In the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of which I am a member, the minority actually proposed during markup to prohibit paid parental leave being used for foster children. I can't even speculate about what the origin of that antipathy toward foster children might be; but I am reminded of a speech in this Chamber, Madam Chairman, made not so long ago by former Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay. He spoke passionately about the plight of foster children and implored Congress to ``listen to the stories of these children and the stories they tell. Study the broken system we've created for them, and help them. For God's sake, help them.'' Madam Chairman, H.R. 626 will not solve all or even most problems with the foster care system, but it will allow more Federal employees to spend more time with very young foster children. We have a wealth of data that demonstrates that this parent-child interaction is essential for the cognitive and emotional development of these children. Yet the minority party introduced amendments in the committee that would actually punish foster children. Now, here on this floor, the minority party endeavors to gut this legislation and to prevent mothers and fathers from spending time with their very young children. This bill is what real family values are all about. I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Danielle Marguerite Lyle for her leadership and commitment to the community that she has displayed in Prince William County. Since the age of 5, Danielle has been involved in community activities. She has spent hundreds of hours volunteering with local organizations and other community activities. Since then, she has volunteered with numerous organizations such as the Hilda Barg Homeless Shelter, the Arc of Prince William County, senior homes, her local church and other programs. When asked, she says that she loves helping people and the community. Danielle also knows how to take initiative and lead. She participated in the Junior National Young Leaders Conference (Jr. NYLC) in April 2009, and served as President of the Future Leaders Children's Book Club. Danielle has also been recognized for her leadership and intellectual abilities through the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth Program, George Mason University Young Writers summer and weekend workshop, and the University of Virginia Summer Enrichment Program. Along with Danielle's volunteer and leadership accomplishments, she has also received many accolades. These include many semesters on her school's honor roll and winning the Martin Luther King Jr. writing contest for the 5th grade. With all of this, she still finds time to play the violin and piano, be a member of the Creative and Performing Arts Center and participate in track and field, basketball and gymnastics. Danielle's accomplishments would be noteworthy for any person. When her current age of 11 is factored in, these accomplishments are nothing short of remarkable. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing this bright young student and applauding her commitment to volunteerism and leadership. Our communities benefit greatly from the action and dedication of citizens like Danielle.