Connecticut lawmakers applaud Pratt & Whitney contract agreement

CONNECTICUT (WTNH) — State lawmakers commend Pratt & Whitney union members' new contract agreement Tuesday following a nearly month-long strike with the company.
The agreement was confirmed by a spokesperson with Pratt & Whitney, who said Connecticut IAM employees voted to ratify a revised new contract offer, marking the end of the strike.
Pratt & Whitney union members approve new contract, strike concludes
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) showed her support for the resolution in a written statement.
'I am glad IAM Locals 1746 and 700 and Pratt & Whitney reached a resolution. When workers fight together, their unions can achieve outcomes that reflect their true value. These highly skilled workers fuel our state economy and contribute to our national defense, and this new agreement means all parties can move forward with renewed stability. I will always stand with workers fighting for fairer wages and strong benefits.'
For weeks, union members endured rain, cold and long nights as they negotiated a new contract. The previous one expired on May 4, when strikes began.
'Connecticut's skilled machinists have a long history of making the most advanced and reliable engines in the world at Pratt & Whitney, right here in East Hartford and Middletown,' State Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) said. 'I am glad to see an agreement for better wages and benefits that honors their work, as well as a firm commitment from RTX to grow its workforce in Connecticut. I applaud the 3,000 machinists who courageously stood up for the dignity of work during this strike and congratulate IAM leadership and RTX on successful negotiations for a new contract agreement.'
Striking points in the negotiations included higher wages and pensions for younger workers.
Sen. Stephen Harding (R-Conn.) said this shows how unaffordable the state can be for employers and their employees.
'Pratt & Whitney and its workers are part of the backbone of Connecticut's economy. This strike showed how unaffordable Connecticut is for both job creators and their employees. Gov. Lamont: Senate Democrat leadership's priority legislation is to give taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits to striking workers. A veto threat from you would be very helpful, because that anti-business bill essentially tells companies to not do business in Connecticut. These strikes will continue to happen in the future unless and until we turn Connecticut's anti-job creator policies around. Republicans at the State Capitol continue fighting to lower energy costs, lower taxes, defend our government spending caps, and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in state government.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time​ Magazine

8 minutes ago

• Time​ Magazine

Senate's Byrd Rule Upends Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'

She wasn't elected and she doesn't cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump's legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors, MacDonough in recent days has significantly shrunk the size of the President's sweeping tax-and-spending package known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions considered 'extraneous' to the federal budget in the kind of legislation Republicans are trying to craft. One of the main GOP provisions the parliamentarian said did not satisfy the Byrd Rule was a measure to push some of the costs of federal food aid onto states, sending Republicans back to the drawing board to find the billions in savings that provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to bar non-citizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more difficult to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. MacDonough could issue additional guidance this week. The spate of rulings from the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump's tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress. Republicans have been scrambling for months to secure enough votes for Trump's megabill, which centers on extending his 2017 tax cuts and delivering on several of his campaign promises, such as boosting border security spending and eliminating taxes on tips. Support for the package has softened this month as more Republicans warn that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit without further spending cuts. But the parliamentarian's latest rulings will force Republicans to either strip those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to keep them in, a nearly impossible hurdle given that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that some of the provisions have little business in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make big changes to how the federal government spends money but, under Senate rules, isn't allowed to substantively change policy. MacDonough's rulings came about after days of behind-the-scenes meetings between her office and Senate staff. They illustrate the often-overlooked power of Senate procedure—and the person tasked with interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington's ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats. Now, the parliamentarian's rulings may force Republicans back to the drawing board just as they were hoping to finalize their legislative centerpiece. Here's what to know about the rejected measures. What is the Byrd Rule? The Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, is a procedural constraint named after the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia to prohibit 'extraneous' provisions from being tacked onto reconciliation bills, which are fast-tracked budget packages that allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The rule makes it so that every line of a reconciliation package must have a direct and substantive impact on federal spending or revenues. Provisions that serve primarily policy goals—rather than budgetary ones—are subject to elimination by a parliamentary maneuver known as a point of order. Whether a point of order is sustained is ultimately made by the parliamentarian, who is essentially the Senate's umpire tasked with providing nonpartisan advice and ensuring that lawmakers are complying with the Senate's rules. Parliamentarians often face backlash during the budget reconciliation process, when they determine whether policy proposals comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule. What's been cut so far? MacDonough's rulings have invalidated a number of headline-grabbing GOP provisions, including a plan requiring states to pay a portion of food benefits—the largest spending cut for SNAP in the bill. The SNAP measure, which the parliamentarian said violated the Byrd Rule, would have required all states to pay a percentage of SNAP benefit costs, with their share increasing if they reported a higher rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. Some lawmakers warned their states would not be able to make up the difference on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government, and could force many to lose access to SNAP benefits. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that he's looking for other ways to cut food assistance without violating Senate rules. Another rejected provision would have zeroed out $6.4 billion in funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, effectively shuttering the agency. The bureau was created by Democrats as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the financial crisis as a way to protect Americans from financial fraud. Republicans have long decried the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said the GOP plan would have left Americans vulnerable to predatory lenders and corporate fraud. The Senate parliamentarian also blocked a GOP provision intended to limit courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt by requiring plaintiffs to post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary injunctions or imposing temporary restraining orders against the federal government. Democrats hailed that decision by the parliamentarian, noting that it would have severely undermined the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach. Senate Democrats 'successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. MacDonough also nixed provisions to reduce pay for certain Federal Reserve staff, slash $293 million from the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Research, and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is tasked with overseeing audits of publicly traded companies. Each of these proposals, she ruled, either lacked sufficient budgetary impact or were primarily aimed at changing policy, not federal revenues or outlays. MacDonough also rejected language in the bill drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would have exempted certain infrastructure projects from judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The rejected proposal would have allowed companies to pay a fee in exchange for expedited permitting, a move Republicans argued would streamline bureaucratic delays. Also disqualified was a measure to repeal the Biden Administration's tailpipe emissions rule for cars and trucks manufactured after 2027. MacDonough ruled that the environmental provisions were either insufficiently tied to federal spending or failed to meet the Byrd Rule's strict thresholds for inclusion. Are the parliamentarian's rulings final, or could they be overturned? The parliamentarian's decisions could, in theory, be overturned. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has the authority to ignore her ruling by calling for a floor vote to establish a new precedent—essentially overruling the Senate's referee. Parliamentarians have been ignored in the past, though it is quite rare. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored the parliamentarian's advice as the Senate debated filibuster rules. MacDonough has been overruled twice before: in 2013, when Democrats eliminated filibusters to approve presidential nominees, and in 2017, when Republicans expanded the filibuster ban to include Supreme Court nominations. But Thune has signaled he has no intention of going down that path this time. 'We're not going there,' the Senate Majority Leader said on June 2 when asked by reporters about overruling MacDonough. Thune could also fire the Senate Parliamentarian and replace her with one willing to interpret the rules more in line with how Senate Republicans view them.

32 minutes ago

Congress faces uphill battle to challenge Trump on war powers

President Donald Trump's strike against Iran will be met with pushback on Capitol Hill this week as some lawmakers argue the military action was unconstitutional. There are several bipartisan resolutions that could receive a vote in coming days that may put some lawmakers in uncomfortable positions as they consider whether Trump ignored the role of Congress in striking Tehran. It's unlikely though, at this stage, that Trump's rank-and-file Republican base will abandon him by supporting these bills. If any were to make it to Trump's desk, there likely wouldn't be enough votes to override his veto. Trump's decision to hit Iran in the stated aim of wiping out its nuclear capabilities follows a decades-long pattern of presidents taking military action and not waiting for Congress to sign off. Other examples include Joe Biden's airstrikes in Syria in 2021, Barack Obama's military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq as well as George H.W. Bush's invasion of Panama. House and Senate lawmakers are expected to receive briefings on the Iran strike on Tuesday. Trump faces bipartisan blowback Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a War Powers Resolution last week to prohibit "United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran." Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine is leading a similar Senate resolution, which could come up sometime this week as the chamber tries to move forward with a megabill to fund much of Trump's domestic policy agenda. All three appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS News on Sunday to make their case. Massie contended there was "no imminent threat to the United States" that would authorize the president to strike Iran without congressional approval. Kaine similarly said: "This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress. We should not be sending troops and risking troops' lives in an offensive war without a debate in Congress." Kaine added that he hopes Republicans push back. "I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously," the Virginia Democrat said. Khanna warned there is a possibility the strike is not a one-time occurrence. "There are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail," Khanna said on CBS. "We need to pass Thomas Massie and my War Powers Resolution to make it clear that we're not going to get further entrenched into the Middle East." Trump lashed out at Massie in a lengthy social media post on Sunday, writing the Republican congressman is "not MAGA" and that "MAGA doesn't want him" and "doesn't respect him." Trump said he'll campaign for Massie's Republican primary opponent in the next election. Congress has twice before called out Trump on his use of military force without congressional approval. In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen, which Trump vetoed. In 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. In response, Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president's ability to wage war against Iran, which was again quickly rejected by Trump. What is the 1973 War Powers Resolution? The legislation introduced by Massie and Khanna seeking to limit Trump's ability to take U.S. military action against Iran cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that the president "in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." It also states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations. Trump admin says strike was legally justified Top officials defended the military action over the weekend. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the administration "complied with the notification requirements" of the War Powers Resolution, saying members of Congress were notified "after the planes were safely out." Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio also sought to emphasize the U.S. is not at war with Iran. Trump, though, warned that more strikes could come if Iran doesn't negotiate a deal. "If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill," he said in his address to the nation on Saturday night. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a vocal supporter of military action against Iran leading up to Trump's decision, argued on NBC News that Trump has all the authority he needs under Article II of the Constitution. "Congress can declare war or cut off funding," Graham said. "We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commanders-in-chief." The administration could also cite an existing military authorization as grounds for legal justification for striking against Iran. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by Congress that authorized counterterrorism operations by U.S. military forces against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Congress passed another AUMF targeting Iraq in 2002. Both have since been cited to authorize military force in more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia due to the broad language in the resolutions. Critics have often said the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs grant the president powers to unilaterally wage "perpetual worldwide wars" and some lawmakers have been keen to repeal it -- but those efforts have all been unsuccessful.

Newsweek

33 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Some of Donald Trump's Biggest Critics Defend His Iran Strikes

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Some of President Donald Trump's most vocal critics, including both Democrats and Republicans, defended his decision to strike Iran over the weekend. Why It Matters Trump on Saturday said the United States struck three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—amid Tehran's ongoing conflict with Israel. American officials have long been concerned that Iran was working to develop nuclear weapons, that Iranian officials say its program is only focused on energy production. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that Iran was not working on developing a nuclear weapon. The strikes divided Americans, as polls suggest many are skeptical of the U.S. becoming involved in the conflict. Both Democrats and Republicans raised concerns about Trump not seeking congressional authority for the strikes and whether it could endanger American troops and civilians in the region. Others supported the strikes as a means to prevent Iran from having nuclear capabilities. What To Know Some Trump critics have supported the strikes. This includes both more traditional conservatives who broke with Trump over issues like the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol or his approach to other global affairs like the Russia-Ukraine war, as well as Democrats who have cast themselves as close allies to Iran. Former Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois is among those anti-Trump Republicans who have supported the move. Kinzinger broke with Trump over the January 6 riot. Kinzinger supported former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election over Trump. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Kinzinger called the strikes a "good call by the President." "The US attack on the nuclear facilities is, in my opinion, the right call. We will see what the results are, but now the key is suppressing surface to surface missile fire, and then negotiate to end the fight with Iran," he wrote. In another post, he wrote that the military "should be used to compel diplomatic action," and that a "nuclear armed Iran would have been unacceptable." President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in Kananaskis, Canada, on June 16, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in Kananaskis, Canada, on June 16, 2025. Suzanne Plunkett-Pool/Getty Images John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser turned critic, backed the strikes in remarks on CNN. "I think President Trump made the right decision for America to attack Iran's nuclear weapons program, and I think we're on the verge of potentially seeing regime change in Iran as part of that," Bolton said. "This is a huge change in the Middle East. Decisive action is the right thing to do. I thought somebody should do it for a long time, but better late than never." Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who challenged Trump in the 2024 Republican presidential primary, said Trump deserves an "enormous amount of credit" for the strikes during an interview on ABC News. "This is against type for him. I'm sure it was a difficult decision. I think his analysis was, he cannot live with a nuclear weapon in Iran, and Israel did all of the heavy lifting," he said. Ex-GOP Governor Raises 'Great Doubts' About Trump's Iran Strikes to Newsweek Some Republican critics raised concerns about the strikes. Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who has been sharply critical of the party's shift toward Trump, told Newsweek she has "great doubts" about the decision. "I think we all agree that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon and I have to bow to intelligence reports that purportedly said they were within in a week or two of making that a reality," she said. "I can only hope that the intelligence is correct, but since this president doesn't seem to listen to his intelligence chief I have great doubts and wish he had pursued the disarmament talks further." She noted that the strikes "should not have come as a surprise to Congress," and that it could "galvanize them to finally take back some of the powers they have ceded to the president." Some Democrats Back Iran Strikes Some Democratic Trump critics also voiced some support for the move. Representative Jared Moskowitz of Florida wrote in a series of posts on X that the strike appeared to be targeted to "defend the U.S., Israel, and allies throughout the region and the world." "I've always held that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. That has been US policy throughout Democratic and Republican Administrations, and it is my hope that Iran no longer has the capabilities to continue its nuclear program. The world would be a safer place," he wrote. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland said the strikes were "essential to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon." Still, he said the threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon became "dire" due to the Trump administration's decision to end the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018. "Every American president since Jimmy Carter, regardless of party, as well as multiple generations of both Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress, articulated the bipartisan policy that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons was unacceptable," he wrote. What People Are Saying Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican and Trump critic, on X: "President Trump's decision to carry out focused strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure makes clear that the international community will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. I commend all those who executed this mission with precision and professionalism." Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who has been critical of the strikes, on X: "This is not America First folks." Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, criticized the strikes on X: "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." What Happens Next Iran has pledged retaliation for the strikes, and cities across the United States are preparing for the potential consequences. The conflict could have significant impacts for millions of people living in the region, as well as economic impacts that could reverberate back to the U.S.