Joe Courtney

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. We had a town hall meeting in my district, talking about the Medicare program. We had Dr. Rebecca Andrews--she's a primary care doc at the University of Connecticut Health Center--and she was talking about the new annual screening coverage where she had one of her patients who was kind of a big husky guy, kind of. They used to kind of razz each other. But she had 45 minutes with him. She did the soup-to-nuts checkup. She ordered a urine test, which she normally wouldn't with the old system. She found a tiny, microscopic spec of blood, or they did at the lab, which they were a little concerned about. She called him back in, did a follow-up. It turned out he had bladder cancer. Because they were able to detect it so quickly because of that annual checkup and the cancer screening tests that are now covered under Medicare, it was a day surgery, in and out, a really very nonintrusive event that cost a fraction of what it would have been if he had not had that checkup to detect that cancer early. And she had at least two other patients, because of the new Affordable Care Act annual checkup, where they detected cancer and again were able to intervene at a low cost compared to what it would have been if it had been a full-blown case.

Mr. COURTNEY. If I can just sort of finish, the point is that we were talking about two programs right now that did not create the deficit issue that is facing this country. We had two massive tax cuts for the super-rich. We have two wars that haven't been paid for and a prescription drug benefit which was passed during the last administration which was never paid for, which we dealt with in the Affordable Care Act to offset that. The Trustees report says that we've got 100 percent solvency through 2024, 90 percent solvency through 2045, and 100 percent solvency for the Social Security system until 2037.

Mr. COURTNEY. Right, and thank you. Because there was so much, almost, fear language surrounding this debate in terms of whether Medicare is bankrupt, whether Medicare is going broke, whether Medicare is running out of money, it's important for people to go back and read the trustees' report, which was just issued a few weeks ago. It is a report that is issued on an annual basis. It has been since 1966 when Harry Truman was the first Medicare beneficiary to sign up for the program with his wife, Bess; but it has had its ups-and-downs over the years. The report that just came out said that Medicare is fully solvent, can pay all of its bills through 2024 and that it can pay 90 percent of its bills through 2045. Now, there is no question that, compared to last year's report, there was some deterioration in terms of that projection, but the trustees were careful to point out the fact that that slippage in terms of some of the years of lost solvency was due to the economy and due to payroll tax collection. It had nothing to do with overuse or certainly nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act. In fact, they said the opposite, which was that the Affordable Care Act actually extended the solvency of the Medicare program by a factor of 8 years. Thank God we had passed that legislation, because we really would almost be bumping up into a cliff at this point if we hadn't done it. But again, I think it's important for people to remember that, going back in time to 1970, the Medicare solvency report that came out for the trustees projected 2 years of solvency as to when it was going to hit that tipping point. When Ronald Reagan was President in 1983 and came to the Congress, seeking an increase in the debt limit to avoid default, Medicare solvency was half of what it is today. So the fact is that it has had its challenges. As you point out, there are good ideas about using bulk purchasing, and there are good ideas about revisiting the subsidized insurance program in terms of the size of the insurance company subsidies. We can deal with that 10 percent shortfall between 2024 and 2045 without butchering the program. That really is, in my opinion, the wolf in sheep's clothing surrounding this debate in that somehow people are using solvency reports as an excuse to basically eliminate the guaranteed benefit. Again, it is our duty as Members of Congress to make sure that we protect for the next generation the benefit that our parents enjoyed and that pushed out solvency from age 70 in 1965 to age 78 today. That is a Medicare success, and we cannot go backwards as a Nation.

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. I want to thank Congressman Garamendi, who did great service as the insurance commissioner in the State of California. He understands these issues intimately. I think this is really a generational gut check for our country in terms of whether or not this attempt to butcher Medicare, one of the most successful programs in American and world history, is going to succeed or not. John described very powerfully the public wards in the public hospitals and the third-tier status that seniors had prior to 1965. Kaiser Permanente actually did a study in terms of just reminding us of what this country faced when President Johnson signed that legislation on Harry Truman's porch step. At the time Medicare passed, only 50 percent of seniors over 65 in America had health insurance of any sort whatsoever. Part of it was class. Part of it was the underwriting rules. But part of it is, just as Mr. Garamendi said, age is a factor which carries risk. And there is no insurance company that evaluates risk within its own book of business that can really take all comers when you're talking about a population of 65 and up. Life expectancy was 70 in 1965. So we passed Medicare, and what happened is we created a guaranteed benefit. The genius of Medicare is that we pooled the risk, and we actually made an affordable system financed through payroll taxes, premiums. The system has had its ups and downs financially over the past 45 years. The fact of the matter is we now have a life expectancy of 78 in this country. It has worked. We have also alleviated the crushing out-of-pocket costs that seniors faced in 1965, and we have elevated the status of people in that demographic in a way that the private insurance market just was totally incapable of doing it. Last year, we passed the Affordable Care Act, which modified Medicare and made some important improvements and changes. We now have annual checkups covered. We now have cancer screenings. We now have extended prescription drug benefits. And one of the things that the Republicans claim, in trying to sell this measure with snake oil, frankly, is that somehow people who are 55 and above today will not be affected by the passage of the Ryan plan. In fact, we know that if you look at that plan, it cancels all of those new benefits in year one. So seniors who now--hundreds of thousands--have gotten their annual checkups in the last 8 or 9 months since the new benefit kicked in, cancer screenings that kicked in, prescription drug assistance that's now providing health for seniors in the doughnut hole, all of that would be canceled today, and any prospective change that is proposed in this system, which again, starting for individuals 55 and under, now will be left in a private insurance market with a totally inadequate voucher, as Mr. Garamendi said. Again, that's where the real butchering of Medicare takes place. But there is no question for anyone who's listening tonight that if you are a senior citizen on Medicare, the false claim that you are somehow insulated from this measure because of the fact that you're already in the program, that is something that people have got to recognize and understand. That new benefits that are making this a smarter, more effective program are going to be canceled in year one if this measure, God forbid, ever is enacted.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor Paul H. Protzenko of Enfield, Connecticut. Paul was killed on July 9, 2011, when his vehicle was attacked by small arms fire in Afghanistan, where he was training local officers on crime scene investigation techniques and police tactics. Born in Agawam, Massachusetts, Paul had been a proud resident of Enfield of many years. Paul served as a Sergeant in the U.S. Army for 6 years and went on to serve for 22 years as a Connecticut State Trooper First Class. After retiring from the force in 2009, Paul selflessly decided to serve his country in Afghanistan by employing his talents and expertise in law enforcement to help local officers protect their communities and take charge of their future. Paul's life can only be described as a life of service to others. His passionate love for his country and community afforded him two life- saving medals as a trooper and an additional medal while serving in the military. In Enfield, Paul was a communicant of St. Adalbert Church. Outside of his professional life, he stayed active as an avid martial artist, marksman, and skier. Neighbors and friends remember Paul as a standout figure in the community who--whether in uniform or not--always sought to keep the people around him safe. Above all, he was devoted to his family. Paul will be deeply missed by his wife, Lyse; his three children Jennifer, Anthony, and Matthew; his parents; and his grandchildren. We must always remember those who dedicate their lives to serving this great country. Paul made the ultimate sacrifice for us and we will always remember and honor him for it. My thoughts and prayers are with his family, his neighbors, and his brothers on the state police force. I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning the loss and honoring the life of this courageous man, Paul H. Protzenko.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my sincerest congratulations to Ms. Kathleen Ledwidge and Mr. Walter Johnsen, who brought home the silver medals last Thursday from the Special Olympics World Games in Greece. Connecticut's Second District is honored to recognize the extraordinary sailors, Kathleen and Walter, who hail from Mystic and Stonington, respectively. The very first time Walter and Kathleen sailed together was at the Special Olympic Games in Athens this year. Walter, who is only 15 years old, was partnered with Kathleen and they placed second, only points behind a team from Austria. While this may have been their first opportunity to sail together, these two have become lifelong friends who will sail the waters of the world for years to come. Spike Lobdell, President of the Stonington Harbor Yacht Club Sailing Club, said that every Tuesday afternoon, Walter, Kathy, and many other athletes attend training where their lessons not only improve their sailing skills but also their lives. He said that their goal is to teach life skills and that beyond their silver medals in the top bracket, ``Kathy and Walter are even more impressive off the water.'' As we know, the Special Olympics began its remarkable tradition more than forty years ago when founder Eunice Kennedy Shriver recited the oath that is still said today: ``Let me win, but if I cannot win let me be brave in the attempt.'' Since those sacred words were first spoken, 3.1 million athletes from 185 countries have participated in the Games, including the 12,000 who participated in Greece this year. It is inspiring to witness such talent from individuals in Connecticut. It takes significant courage to represent your State and your country and I would like to commend them and their fellow athletes for their bravery. The Special Olympics will always serve as a reminder of the importance of giving everyone a chance to be themselves in a world where it is sometimes difficult to do so. As President Barack Obama recently said, the ``Special Olympics, as a champion for people with intellectual disabilities, teaches our nation--and our world--that no physical or mental barrier can restrain the power of the human spirit.'' We have seen that spirit in the accomplishments of these two sailors. I ask that my colleagues join me in offering our sincerest congratulations to our brave and talented athletes, Ms. Kathleen Ledwidge and Mr. Walter Johnsen.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, in 1983 President Ronald Reagan said the following: ``The full consequences of a default--or even the serious prospect of a default--by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.'' Thank goodness Congress had the good sense to listen and pass a higher debt limit with no conditions at a time, by the way, when Medicare solvency was far worse than it is today, and then did it 16 more times during the Reagan Presidency. Today, we have the head of the national Republican Party, Reince Priebus, saying yesterday, don't worry, the government will find some other way to pay its bills. That is dangerous nonsense. It is time for the Republican Party to stop playing Russian roulette with the American economy and American families. Let's pass a clean debt limit and move on to growing the U.S. economy and creating jobs.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It would increase the Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance budget by $808 million in 2012. This number is not a random number that was just picked out of the air. This number represents the difference between the tax revenue collected through the harbor maintenance tax and the amount of money that is actually being spent out of the harbor maintenance trust fund for the purpose of maintaining and dredging America's harbors. Again, for some listeners it might be helpful to understand that in 1986, the Congress passed a harbor maintenance tax, which is a tax--it is really a user fee--on imported goods coming into America's harbors all across this country, East Coast, West Coast, all across the coastlines of the United States of America. The purpose of that tax was to create a fund to dredge harbors so we would have passable waterways. Again, we have heard over and over this afternoon, that is good for the U.S. economy. What has happened since 1986 is the revenue collected through the harbor maintenance tax has gone up at a steady rate. It has gone up 13 percent just in the last year because there are a lot more imported goods coming into this country, but the funding for actual dredging has plateaued. It has been at a level pace so that today, we have a budget which calls for using only 53 percent of the harbor maintenance taxes collected for the purposes of dredging America's harbors. This would be like having only 53 percent of our gas taxes being spent on surface transportation in this country. If motorists saw only 53 percent of gas taxes being actually used to maintain roads in this country, there would be a revolution, because there is a promise in terms of Federal gas taxes that it will be used to maintain surface transportation. Well, that was the equivalent idea under the harbor maintenance tax passed in 1986, that it would be used to invest and reinvest in America's harbors. Because we are, in fact, diverting year in and year out hundreds of millions of dollars out of the harbor maintenance tax away from its intended purpose, we have what we have seen here this afternoon. We have heard from Members from Massachusetts, from New York, Louisiana, South Carolina, and New Jersey. I can chime in from Connecticut. We have about $113 million of dredging that is underfunded from Bridgeport all of the way to Stonington. And I know the gentleman from New Jersey is familiar with the fact that we are on the silty side of Long Island Sound. Again, we have a Navy base which requires dredging to keep our attack submarines going in and out of New London. But we also have a maritime economy that depends on having these Federal waterways dredged. The budget that we will be passing this year, whether it is the President's budget or whether it is the one that the subcommittee has reported out, is clearly inadequate in terms of making sure that our waterways are passable. As we have heard from other Members, because of the increase in terms of imports, whether we pass these new free trade agreements or not, the expansion of the Panama Canal is going to double the amount of imports brought in by sea into this country, and we have a system that is clearly inadequate in terms of dealing with that challenge. Now there is legislation pending before the Congress. I am a cosponsor with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany). It is called the RAMP Act. It is an acronym for Restore America's Maritime Promise Act, which is a grandiose title, but it is true. We need to make sure that these harbor maintenance taxes are being directed to their intended purpose when that tax was created in 1986. What the RAMP Act will do is basically cordon off this tax revenue so that it is used for the intended purpose that Congress meant when it was passed in 1986. What that will do is it will take pressure off this subcommittee's budget year in and year out. Again, it will deal with this problem that has worsened, as the subcommittee chairman mentioned, because earmarks are now a thing of the past in terms of dealing with dredging projects. What it will do is create a stable flow of money into the Army Corps of Engineers harbor maintenance dredging fund so that all of these projects that we have heard about this afternoon--again, from one end of the country to the other--are actually going to be paid for. We have over 100 bipartisan cosponsors. The Transportation Committee had a hearing this past Friday, and it does appear from Mr. Mica that they are going to move forward in terms of adopting the RAMP Act as part of the transportation authorization bill. This amendment, again, puts a spotlight on the fact that only 53 percent of the harbor maintenance tax revenue is being used for its intended purpose, and that is the reason why I have offered this amendment. I suspect it will be subject to a point of order. But again, I think it is important for people to realize there is a way out of this problem that we face: Pass the RAMP Act.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, when former President Harry Truman and his wife, Bess, were officially enrolled as the first Medicare beneficiaries on July 1, 1966, only 50 percent of America's seniors could afford private health insurance. The high risks associated with covering America's over-65 population made seniors basically uninsurable. That all changed 45 years ago last week when Medicare was established as a guaranteed benefit, providing a basic level of care for seniors regardless of income or illness. From the beginning, Medicare has proven resilient, adapting to rapid changes in medicine and surviving in wartime and peace, economic boom times and in recession. Despite some alarmist claims, Medicare has faced more difficult financial challenges in the past than the ones it faces today. Preserving Medicare's guaranteed benefits for future generations is our solemn duty, and we must stop the push for vouchers, which will ruin America's middle class. On the 45th anniversary of this landmark program, we must rededicate ourselves to protecting Medicare as a guaranteed benefit for tomorrow's seniors, not butchering it with a voucher program or using it as an ATM for the top 2 percents. Happy birthday, Medicare. If we stay true to our values, you will have many happy returns.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Arthur Jerbert of North Stonington, Connecticut. As we approach the 1-year anniversary of his passing, it's important for this House to remember Art's remarkable service to our Nation and his community. Art was a member of the Greatest Generation, entering the U.S. Navy during World War II, serving in the submarine force for 20 distinguished years. His career in the Navy included time aboard one of the subs that executed the ``wolf pack'' attack strategy in the Sea of Japan. That strategy was instrumental in asserting allied naval supremacy in the Pacific, an essential ingredient to final victory. During the conflict, he earned the Bronze Star and after the war rose to the rank of commander, retiring in 1962. After leaving the Navy, Art applied his talents to improving the quality of life in southeastern Connecticut. He taught math to high schoolers all across the State, he coached little league, served on the North Stonington Board of Education, and became Ledyard's first mayor in 1971. What an amazing guy. Art is deeply missed by his loving wife, Marilyn; his children; grandchildren; and great-grandchild. His example of human excellence and service is an inspiration for us all today and for generations to come.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and mourn the loss of Arthur Henri Jerbert of North Stonington, Connecticut. As we approach the one year anniversary of his passing, and in such close proximity to Independence Day, it is important for this House to remember Art's remarkable service to our nation and his contributions to his community. Art was a member of the ``Greatest Generation'' and entered the U.S. Navy during World War II serving in the submarine force for 20 distinguished years. His career in the Navy included time aboard one of the submarines that adapted the highly-coordinated, ``wolf pack'' attack strategy in the Sea of Japan. That strategy was instrumental in reasserting allied naval supremacy in the Pacific--an essential ingredient to final victory. During that conflict, he earned the Bronze Star for valor in combat and after the war rose to the rank of Commander, retiring in 1962. After leaving the Navy, Art applied his talent and energy to solving problems in his community and improving the quality of life in southeastern Connecticut. He coached Little League baseball, served on the North Stonington Board of Education, and became Ledyard's first mayor in 1971. He educated and empowered young people as a popular math teacher at schools across eastern Connecticut including Norwich Free Academy and Griswold High School. Arthur is deeply missed by his loving wife Marilyn, his children, grandchildren, and great grandchild. His example of human excellence and service is an inspiration for us all today and for generations to come.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Vincent Leo Diana, Sr., an accomplished attorney, loving husband, veteran, and dear friend. Vincent, a resident of Manchester, Connecticut, passed away on May 27 at the age of 81. Vinny was a proud Connecticut resident with deep roots in the community. Born in Manchester in 1930, he went to the Nathan Hale School, graduated from Manchester High in 1948, and from Hartford's Trinity College in 1952. After Trinity, he went on to attend law school and was admitted to the Connecticut Bar in 1955. For the next two years, Vinny was on active duty in the U.S. Air Force, entering as a Second Lieutenant. He served his country and as a Judge Advocate, spending most of his time in Tokyo, Japan. When Vinny left the Air Force as a Captain, he returned to practicing law. A talented and accomplished attorney, Vinny was a man of character and one who used his skills for good outside of his law office at Diana, Conti, & Tunila. Vinny served as a Master and Trial Referee for the Superior Court and was a member of Hartford County's Legal Aid Board. He was also active in the Hartford Country Bar Association, where he was a Director for 25 years. In 2005, Vinny was honored by the Manchester and Hartford Bar Associations for his 50 years of service in the region. On this point I can personally attest to his finely honed legal skills, diligent representation of his clients, and his ethical standards. As a young attorney years ago, I watched Vinny in court handle his advocacy with skill and compassion. He was one of the giants of the Bar in Hartford and Tolland Counties in Connecticut. Vinny cared very much about his friends and colleagues in Manchester, demonstrating this commitment through leadership of important causes and organizations in town. He was Chairman of the Board for Dyslexic Children, a director of the Girl Scout Committee, and an instrumental player in getting fluoride added to the Manchester water system. He helped young people learn practical management skills as President of the Manchester Jaycees, ensured opportunity for local students as a founding member of his town's Scholarship Foundation, and even chaired the reunion committee for Manchester High's Class of 1948. He was a lifelong Republican and member of Manchester's Republican Town Committee for 50 years. Vinny was also a spiritual man who, as one might expect, put in many years of faithful service to his parish. In 2009, Hartford's Archbishop, Henry J. Mansell, awarded him the St. Joseph Archdiocesan Medal of Appreciation for his work. With all the dedication and devotion Vinny put into each aspect of his life, he saved most of it for his loving wife Gloria, his seven children, and 22 grandchildren. I know of few men who gave as much to their country, profession, congregation, community and family as Vinny did. His lifetime of service will live on for generations in the countless people he helped along the way. I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning the loss and celebrating the life of Vincent Leo Diana, Sr.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing and honor the life of William P. Powers. Bill, a long-time resident of Niantic, Connecticut, passed away peacefully on May 29, 2011. Bill's desire to give back to his country and community was without bounds. We are fortunate that he chose to spend his life protecting our nation, teaching our young people, and working tirelessly to ensure a good life for the people around him. Following the death of their father, Bill and his brother were raised in New Haven by their mother and her extended family. After graduating from high school, Bill went to work at High Standard Manufacturing Co., which made deep hole drills, and eventually .22 caliber pistols and repeating rifles, during World War II. Bill's impressive work ethic, revealed at a young age, afforded him a life full of rich and diverse experiences. In New Haven, he bused tables of Yale's famous Berkely College dining hall, delivered telegraphs for Western Union on his bicycle, and even worked a maintenance job for the city's railroad. When war erupted and gripped the nation, Bill enlisted in the U.S. Navy. When his number was called up in October of 1942, he trained as a pilot, flying the well-known ``Privateer'' patrol bomber. He was stationed in Kearney, California. When the war ended, Bill enrolled at Columbia University on the GI Bill. He kept himself busy as a student and worked as a waiter at the Drake Hotel, where he crossed paths with famous singers and songwriters like Frank Sinatra and Cole Porter. Education was a lifelong passion and pursuit for Bill. After graduating from Columbia, he took a job back in Connecticut, this time in East Lyme's Niantic village where he would live for nearly 60 years. He served as principal of the Flanders, Niantic Center, and Great Neck schools in eastern Connecticut. He knew not only the name of every student in his schools, but also an interesting fact about each one of them. While ensuring that his students had a safe and productive place to learn, Bill pursued more education of his own, earning a Master of Arts and Sixth Year degree from UConn. He also led a group of his colleagues as the President of Connecticut's Elementary and Middle School Principals' Association. It is not surprising that when Bill's time as a professional educator came to a close, he put his signature passion and hard work into making his state and community a better place. For a period, he spent several years in Connecticut's General Assembly as legislative aide for his son, Senator Mark H. Powers, and also as a popular messenger in the senate. He even spent some time as an investigator in the New London Public Defender's office and was a respected and beloved Justice of the Peace. Bill was also an active member of American Legion Post 128. Bill's contributions as a U.S. Navy veteran, an educator, and civic leader could easily fill three lifetimes, but he packed it all into one. I admire his desire to make education a lifelong experience and his commitment to preserve his deep Connecticut roots. He will be dearly missed by his state, his community and most of all by his loving wife, Jane, and five boys, William Jr., Mark, Joseph, Richard, and Thomas. I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning the loss and celebrating the life of William P. Powers.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, Bloomberg News released an analysis, district by district around America, of the highest concentration of 45- to 54-year-olds. The reason they did this analysis was to see and focus on where the impact of the Republican Medicare plan would land the hardest. In the top 10 districts which they identified, the headline of this article, which obviously is Bloomberg News, a nonpartisan news service, was: Medicare Cuts Would Hit Republican Lawmakers. Nine out of the top 10 districts in America with that highest 45 to 54 concentration are Republican districts. The 10th is the Second Congressional District, which I have the honor of representing in eastern Connecticut. Now, some may ask why was Bloomberg looking at the population of 45- to 54-year-olds? Well, the Ryan Medicare plan radically alters the Medicare program, starting in 2022, for people who today are 54 years old or younger. Starting with that age group, Medicare will no longer be a guaranteed benefit, but instead will be a voucher plan where Americans will be given an $8,000 payment and told, Good luck. Go out and buy insurance. The Congressional Budget Office has already analyzed what that means to someone aged 54 today in terms of out-of-pocket costs. In fact, it would double the out-of-pocket costs for those 54 and below, in year one, who enroll in the Medicare program. Over time, we have an analysis which shows what the true out-of-pocket costs would be for 55-year-olds with a normal American life expectancy. It would raise their out-of- pocket costs--these are additional costs--by $182,000. So for anybody who is out there today who is in that age group, you'd better start saving up because you're going to need a lot more retirement assets just to keep level with what an American who turns 65 today gets under the Medicare program. We have heard a lot from just, again, one of the speakers a few minutes before, who was just making comments about Medicare's going broke and that people 65 and up are going to be protected in terms of their Medicare. Wrong. The Ryan Republican plan would immediately cancel new benefits for seniors today, that they have started to enjoy, starting in January: annual checkups, cancer screenings, smoking cessation. I had a town hall back in Norwich, Connecticut, just a couple of days ago where I had a young primary care doctor who was talking about the fact that the new annual check-up has allowed her that extra time to spend with patients, and she has detected three cancers because of the fact that she now has the tools to do her job smartly and efficiently. The Ryan Republican plan would cancel that annual check-up coverage, which the Affordable Care Act kicked in in January, along with cancer screenings and along with smoking cessation--all smart, preventative, wellness-oriented care which will save the Medicare program money, again, for people 55 and younger. This chart shows how the out-of- pocket costs grow exponentially. I see some young folks up in the audience there. If you're 15 years old, your out-of-pocket costs are going to be $711,000 higher than a 65-year-old's today who is entering the Medicare program. What this Ryan plan really amounts to is just simply a cost shift to patients and families. It does nothing to make a more efficient health care system, and that is not a solution to the problem. We also heard that Medicare is going broke, that it is going to be bankrupt in 2024. If you read the trustees' report, you will see, in fact, that it is a totally misleading comment. What the trustees reported was that there are sufficient funds in the program to cover 90 percent of the costs of Medicare and, starting in 2024, for at least another decade and a half. Now, that shortfall is a problem. We should not have a 10 percent shortfall starting in 2024, but that is a manageable problem. We can make smart, intelligent changes to the Medicare program just like we have done going back to 1965 when it was first enacted. Again, we have had, in fact, solvency reports and warnings from the trustees that were much more dire in the '70s, in the '80s, in the '90s than the report that we saw 3 weeks ago. There is no reason to scare people and panic people into butchering the Medicare's guaranteed benefit in the name of fiscal solvency for the Medicare program. We can make smart choices. We can make smart changes, but shifting the costs to people 55 and younger is not a solution to the Medicare program. It ends Medicare. Now, within families with some who are over 55 and some who are under 55, this will create two-tiered coverage. I can report to you of the Courtney Family. I'm 58 years old, so purportedly, I would get the old- fashioned benefit under the Ryan plan, but my wife, Audrey, who is a nurse practitioner--she is 51--will get the loser benefit. She is going to have to start dishing out close to $200,000 in additional costs for her retirement under this plan. So you've got two-tiered coverage even within families under the proposal that we have with the Ryan plan. We can do better as a great Nation to guarantee coverage--with a reasonable package that is smart and efficient to solve the Medicare program. We don't need the Ryan plan, which will shift costs to patients and families in an unfair fashion.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, as someone who also voted against the Wall Street bailout. I, however, would certainly disagree with the conclusion that speculation is not a factor in the price of oil and certainly the huge swing that we have seen just in the last 6 months in this country. And I would cite ExxonMobil as my validator in terms of that point. On May 14 in Forbes Magazine, hardly a Democratic left-wing publication, there was a story regarding an interview with Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, who stated that the real price with traditional supply and demand for oil and gas should be roughly between $60 and $70 a barrel, not $115 a barrel, which it was back in mid-May. And this is what the article said: that Mr. Tillerson stated that the reason it's above $100 a barrel is due to the oil majors using futures contracts to lock in current high prices and speculation that is engineered by the high-frequency trading of quantitative hedge funds. Again, traditional supply and demand, according to ExxonMobil, suggests that the price of oil and gas should be roughly $60 to $70. Well, how will the CFTC bring us back to a market that is actually connected to supply and demand forces as opposed to the market that we have today? Under Dodd-Frank, what the CFTC was given was the authority to impose position limits on noncommercial interests that have swamped the commodities trading markets of this country since Congress foolishly deregulated the commodities markets back in 2000. Today, the number of noncommercial traders in the commodities markets is twice what it was in 2000 and using virtually no money down, because the margin limits are almost nonexistent. They have basically hijacked this market so that real end-users, the people who depend on futures trading to lock in positions, whether it's airlines or back home in Connecticut whether it's oil delivery guys who are trying to figure out whether they can offer lock-in contracts for next winter, they have been basically driven from this market. In Connecticut today you cannot get a lock-in contract for next winter because of the fact that these traders now have absolutely no confidence in whether or not this market will be in any rational place 6 months or 8 months from now. So the need for the CFTC to reimpose some reasonable ``appropriate limits,'' which is what the Dodd-Frank bill empowers them to do, is the reason why their staff needs to be put into place so that we can have a market that existed back in the 1990s, our parents' commodities trading market, which was a stable market which was basically for the use of end-users and not for people who were using high-frequency trading, which the CEO of ExxonMobil cited as the cause of the swing in prices that we're seeing. And let's be clear here, folks. Supporting this budget from the majority is not about being a deficit hawk. Secretary Ray Mabus from the Navy testified before the House Armed Services Committee that every $10-a-barrel increase of oil costs the Navy, in terms of annual fuel costs, $300 million a year. If you look at what the CEO of ExxonMobil says, the Navy right now is overpaying easily on an annualized basis anywhere from $300 million to $500 million a year, and that's just one branch of the military. The Air Force uses a greater amount of fossil fuels of oil and gas than the Navy does. So if you are truly a deficit hawk, if you really want to make sure that the Pentagon, which is going to be going through some gut- wrenching decisions about whether or not to provide for the Warfighter in this country and protect weapons platforms that we need to defend this country, then we need a high-functioning CFTC to make sure that the Pentagon as well as the rest of the government at the State and local level are not overpaying for gas and oil. The taxpayer has a huge stake in making sure that this agency, the CFTC, has adequate funds to do its job because the savings to not just consumers and small businesses but the savings to the taxpayers will be in the billions and billions of dollars. It far exceeds any of the claimed savings that this budget seeks to obtain through the cuts, through the unbelievably shortsighted cuts to the CFTC in terms of being able to do its job. We should oppose this budget. We should support this amendment which is on the floor of this House.

Mr. COURTNEY. No, I will not yield. Not only small businesses and consumers but the taxpayer needs us to act to make sure that we have a rational oil trading market that is tied to real traditional supply and demand, which the CEO of ExxonMobil has told us is overpriced today to at least $20 to $30 a barrel.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. It is longer than certainly it was originally presented to this Congress; but the fact of the matter is this resolution, which was drafted in a partisan fashion, is so disappointing to the people who care so profoundly about whether or not the decisions on war and peace are actually going to be deliberated, debated, and voted on in a serious fashion. We are left with this truncated process that is, again, almost an insult to the people of this country.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rushed, hyper- partisan process that we are watching today on a very serious issue of war resolution. It is absolutely a given that Congress has a role to play in terms of the President's action that it should be scrutinized and that we should have the opportunity to weigh in on it. Our Armed Services Committee has been meeting on a regular basis, holding administration officials' feet to the fire on those very questions. We had a hearing yesterday. The fact of the matter is, though, just because Congress has the right to weigh in doesn't mean that we should pass a resolution for resolution sake. The batting average of Congress in terms of rushed resolutions, frankly, folks, is not very good. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was rushed through the Congress, and we know now today that historians have uncovered the fact that misinformation was presented to the Congress. The Iraq War Resolution in 2002 was rushed through this Congress with bad information. And we are now seeing today language which was drafted literally overnight being presented to the Members of this body and being asked to weigh in in a deliberative fashion. This is a polemic we are voting on. This is not a carefully balanced, bipartisan process which the people of this country and the people who wear the uniform of this country deserve. If you read the statement of policy, it is devoid of any of the lead- up to the President's decision which included a resolution by the Arab League on March 12 to impose a no-fly zone; the U.N. Security Council on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone; and on March 1, the United States Senate voted unanimously, not 51 percent, not 81 percent, not 91 percent, 100 percent in support of a no-fly zone, a Republican and Democratic bipartisan resolution calling on the President to do exactly what he is doing today. Now, again, there is no question, 70 days is a long time.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Frank Gulluni on being honored with the Tom Ahlers Systems Building Award presented by the National Association of Workforce Development Professionals on May 17, 2011. For 49 years, Frank has played a key role in the workforce development and educational community, touching the lives of countless students. In his position at Asnuntuck Community College in Enfield, Connecticut, he has been a leading force in preparing and training students for careers in our manufacturing sector. And, using his unique experience on the front lines of education, he has been a driver in our community towards finding unique ways to connect the needs of our manufacturing sector with the skills of our students. Since 2007, I have been proud to work with Frank in advancing his goals of investing in our nation's manufacturing capabilities, helping those who have lost their jobs re-train for new careers, and lay the ground work for a workforce highly skilled in advanced manufacturing of alternate energy technologies and medical devices. With his leadership guiding the way, Frank and I worked to successfully secure critical funding to expand Asnuntuck's Manufacturing Technology Center (MTC). Thanks to this initiative, new equipment and training services were developed to ensure that the MTC continues to keep pace with the emerging needs of his students and the manufacturing skills they need to fill the jobs of today--and tomorrow. I have been so impressed and excited with Frank's results. Thanks in large part to Frank's efforts, Asnuntuck Community College has secured a 90% job placement rate for its students. When I visited the MTC last November, I heard first-hand from the students that the newly expanded center allow the program to continue to grow and expand to allow more services to students enrolled both at the college and those in local K- 12 schools that partner with Asnuntuck. I also heard graduates of the program are found to be earning 40% more than their counterparts in all other industries. Mr. Speaker, simply put Frank is someone who ``gets it.'' When so many simply lament the decline of American manufacturing and the skills mismatch between the training of current workers and the needs of industry, Frank has taken action. He is a passionate believer in manufacturing and education. He truly understands the unique struggles of our laid off and dislocated workers as they seek to transition to new careers. He has built the kinds of partnerships with industries that has ensured that his students on to rewarding and meaningful careers in furthering our manufacturing sector. And, Frank has been a true leader in underscoring the unique value that our community colleges play in training the workforce of the future that will be the backbone of our nation's economy. Connecticut, New England, and our nation are no doubt better off thanks to Frank's tireless work. For that, I urge all my colleagues to join me in honoring Frank for winning the Tom Ahlers Systems Building Award.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rear Admiral J. Scott Burhoe, the 39th Superintendent of the United States Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. Admiral Burhoe will retire from the Coast Guard after more than three decades of service to our Nation. He considered his position at the Academy to be his dream job, and served as the first non-Academy graduate to lead the school in at least a hundred years. Admiral Burhoe has a strong passion for higher education. Burhoe stated on several occasions that being Superintendent of the Academy is ``the only job he wanted in the Coast Guard''. As Superintendent, he was well regarded by both the cadets and staff as being an open, honest, and caring leader with a strong vision for our Nation's ``best kept secret'' in higher education. During his tenure he raised the Academy to the number one baccalaureate college in the North as ranked by U.S. News and World Report and the school had five Fulbright and three Truman scholars. He oversaw an increase in minority admissions, growing from 12 percent minority representation at the Academy in 2008 to 24 percent in 2010. As important, he stressed the critical need for the academy to be a part of the greater New London and southeastern Connecticut communities--and under his command, cadets could be found volunteering to help residents with their taxes, cleaning up the Long Island Sound, and mentoring children in local schools. In discussing his next steps, Burhoe told the New London Day that ``education is the key to moving the country forward, and I want to continue to be involved in it.'' It is fitting, then, that after he is relieved of command, Burhoe will serve as the 10th President of Fork Union Military Academy in Fork Union, Virginia, a college prepatory and military boarding school for young men founded in 1898. Scott Burhoe was a valuable asset to the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard Academy, the New London community and our Nation. He began his tenure at the Academy at a difficult time in the school's history, but worked tirelessly to instill a culture of character and integrity in the young cadets that will serve as the leaders of our Nation's Coast Guard long into the future. He has left his mark on thousands of cadets and played an integral part in shaping the next generation of Coast Guard officers. His passion for the service and the training of our Nation's future leaders will be missed. I ask my colleagues to join me in praising Admiral J. Scott Burhoe's commitment to higher education and the accomplishments of this remarkable leader.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chuck Appleby of Waterford, Connecticut upon his retirement as the President and Business Manager of the Central and Eastern Connecticut Carpenter's Union Local #24. For 31 years, Chuck has been an active member of Local 24, the last 11 of which he has served as the President and Business Manager. In communities across Connecticut, Chuck has led the fight for fair wages, good jobs and equal treatment for his fellow carpenters and those in the labor fight. Chuck also served in leadership positions for the Southeast Connecticut Labor Council and the New England Regional Council of Carpenters Executive Board. Chuck is also an active member of his community. From the Gemma Moran food bank to Three Rivers Community College to the Fallen Veterans Foundation and the Ocean Beach Boardwalk rehabilitation project, Chuck has volunteered his time, his talents, and his treasure to make a difference in the region. For those who know him, Chuck has always been a staunch Democrat, serving previously on the Waterford Democratic Town Committee and as a delegate to the state Democratic convention. There is not a Democratic office holder or candidate in our region that has not been helped by Chuck in his or her quest for victory on Election Day. As I can attest, he has personally crafted and assembled thousands of campaign signs in every nook and cranny of eastern Connecticut on behalf of the candidates he has supported. Most famously, Chuck has organized pre- debate rallies at the Garde Theater in New London, Connecticut, now a rite of passage for any Democrat whose name appears on the ballot in our state. Chuck's service to working families is based on a much deeper and caring basis than simply party loyalty. I will always remember Chuck's passionate speech at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast that, ``The best social program ever devised is a job--a job with decent wages and benefits!'' As our Nation grapples with the enormous challenges ranging from health care, the deficit, the environment and the strains of family life, Chuck's shrewd wisdom offers a beacon of hope and success. While Chuck may be retiring from his post as President and Business Manager of Local 24, I imagine his retirement will not be one of quiet solitude or rest. Chuck is the embodiment of the men and women who make up America's labor movement--dedicated, hard working and always looking forward to the next fight to improve the lives of the American middle class. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating my friend and great American Chuck Appleby on a lifetime of service.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Kate Swift, a recently deceased Connecticut writer who is best known for her tireless work to end sexism in the English language. Kate, a resident of East Haddam, died of abdominal cancer on May 14 at the age of 87. Born in Yonkers, NY, Kate attended Connecticut College in New London, CT. She graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1944 with a degree in journalism and spent the next two years in the Women's Army Corps serving as an information and education specialist before being honorably discharged. In 1965 she made her way back to Connecticut to enter the news bureau at Yale University's School of Medicine. She began her writing career in the 1970s with her companion, Casey Miller, also a writer, who spent some of her career working in naval intelligence. While working with Casey to edit materials for a junior high school sex education program, the two noticed the dominance of male pronouns and references to men. They changed the language in the program to give girls a more prominent role and followed up by publishing their first article on the topic of gender-neutral language. Kate's proposals gained a great deal of traction over time. Newspapers, textbooks, and public speakers continue to avoid sexist language like ``firemen'' and ``stewardess'', instead preferring more gender-neutral references. Articles by Kate and Casey have been published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and New York magazine on a wide variety of topics relating to sexism in language. Since moving to East Haddam in 1972, Kate, a sharp intellect and incredibly talented writer, simply couldn't sit still. She was an activist heavily invested in women's rights and gay rights. She was a vocal advocate for Connecticut's marriage equality legislation and worked hard to help bring about its passage into law. She served on the Council of the Rathbun Free Memorial Library, the first Town Charter Commission, as well as the committee of the Connecticut Trails Council of Girl Scouts, and the East Haddam Democratic Town Committee for seventeen years. She traveled all over the world including to China for the UN's Fourth World Conference on Women. Kate Swift, through her push to end gender discrimination in the English language and tireless activism, demonstrated that she was a true visionary. She was, in many respects, ahead of her time. Kate left her mark by forever changing how we use language and by fighting hard to root out injustice where she found it in the world. I ask my colleagues to join me in praising the efforts and honoring the life of this remarkable woman.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very briefly, I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia's amendment, which is a smart amendment. It gives the Navy the flexibility it should have to make sure that it gets the best deal for the taxpayer while at the same time providing a mechanism to preserve the industrial base. My friend from Virginia and I cochair the Shipbuilding Caucus, which is a bipartisan caucus, one of whose main goals is to strengthen and preserve America's shipbuilding industrial base, and that's precisely what this amendment will do. And again, it aligns the construction schedule with the statutory empowerment to the Secretary of Navy to achieve all those goals. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.