Joe Courtney

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2020, a measure which sets policy for the folks who wear the uniform of this country. The U.S. Congress has actually passed a defense authorization act every year for the last 57 years. This year, if we all continue to work together, we can make it 58 years running. Again, this is a measure which sets everything from military pay--a 3.1 percent pay raise for the military, the largest pay increase in the last 10 years--to setting the ground rules for military acquisition, whether it is recapitalizing our Navy or buying the new F-35 planes for the Air Force. It is a large, sprawling bill which covers, again, all aspects of U.S. defense policy for the upcoming year. Included in this measure was an amendment that I offered for which, on Friday evening, the Iraq and Afghan Veterans of America issued a strong statement of support in the wake of passage of the bill. What my amendment did is it offset a policy decision that was made in July of 2018 by the Trump administration which cut off the ability of long-serving members of the military to transfer their GI Bill educational benefits to a spouse or dependent. Again, the IAVA, which TIME Magazine has described as the most important organization representing a new generation of veterans--what my amendment did was it eliminated what IAVA described as a shortsighted policy change announced by the Department of Defense in July 2015, which would have limited transferability to servicemembers with less than 16 years of Active-Duty service and excluded servicemembers who had served for nearly the entirety of the war on terror. In 2008, we changed the GI bill, recognizing, again, that we have an all-volunteer force and that the GI Bill, which goes back to Franklin Roosevelt signing it 75 years ago, had deteriorated over time. We restored the value of the educational benefit, and we created, for the first time, the ability of a servicemember to transfer, on a one-time basis only, the educational benefit to a spouse or child. Again, what this did was it took the burden of those who were serving particularly long periods of time in our military at great economic sacrifices the ability to at least take one family member's educational benefits for higher education. Again, my amendment, which was part of the bill that passed last Friday night, would restore the full intent of the Congress in 2008 and reverse the Trump administration's decision to cut off that transferability, which was issued last July. Again, we still have work to do. We have a conference to build with the Senate, and we, obviously, have to get it to the President for signature. We have done it for 57 straight years, and we should make it 58 this year by passing the 2020 NDAA bill. Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, there are also things happening over at the U.S. Department of Education regarding higher education which are of great concern. On Thursday, the American Federation of Teachers filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Washington, D.C., basically asking the court to rule that the Department's foot-dragging in terms of discharging student loan debt through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program has got to come to an end. In 2007, we passed the College Class Reduction Act which set up a mechanism for those who serve in critical public service occupations, such as teaching, nurses, doctors, police, prosecutors, social workers, veterinarians, and people who work in nonprofit organizations. If they make their student loan payments consistently over a 10-year period, under the College Class Reduction Act, they could apply for a discharge of the balance of their student loan, recognizing that these are people who are going into occupations for which the payment of student loan debt can be too onerous. So, 2007 was the year that this program was supposed to kick into effect. As the Government Accountability Office determined, since that period--and these are our figures from 2019--7,555 borrowers have submitted applications to have their loans discharged. Only 864 have been approved, and only 516 borrowers, less than 1 percent, have had their loans forgiven. Again, the loan servicers working for the Department of Education, as determined by GAO, are giving bad information and are not crediting the monthly loan payments that teachers and nurses and others have been faithfully making, relying on this program. They built their employment history around the opportunity, knowing that that student loan debt could be discharged. Again, what we are seeing are shocking figures from the Department of Education that have not followed through and implemented this law. Not a great surprise to those of us on the Committee on Education and Labor because the Trump administration, for the last 3 years, has submitted budgets that would eliminate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. We have to change this administration's policies toward higher education. We did it on Friday, and we have to do it with public service loan forgiveness to reward the good guys, the people who are out there doing critical work for our Nation.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, again, I just want to join my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), and I look forward to working with him in the conference committee to make sure that that question is resolved. Both of us understand the issue and, again, I look forward to a satisfactory result, which would make the real gist of the amendment move forward, which is to make sure we have cable ship capacity to protect our Nation.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. As chair of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, I believe this bill invests in critical priorities for our Nation in a new era of great power competition. On seapower, we responsibly scrubbed the portions of the President's budget request under our jurisdiction and identified savings that allow us to smartly provide for the ships, aircraft, and capabilities our Nation needs. This bill authorizes a $22 billion shipbuilding budget to construct 11 battle force ships, including three Virginia-class submarines, three Arleigh Burke destroyers, one frigate, one LPD amphibious ship, one T- AO oiler, and two salvage and rescue ships. Also, this bill will statutorily reverse the administration's baffling decision to cancel refueling the carrier USS Harry S. Truman, which would have squandered $538 million of sunk costs already paid for by the American taxpayers. Additionally, on sealift, we translated the urgent testimony from leaders at MARAD into real action by legislating a long-term reauthorization of the Maritime Security Program, creating a new tanker security program to secure our military's fuel supply, and establishing a new-build domestic sealift vessel program. This bill also provides strong support for our projection forces, including the KC-46 tanker, the B-21 long-range bomber, and the B-52 re-engining program. Outside of seapower, the full committee worked hard to improve quality of life for servicemembers and their families. I am pleased that my amendment at committee is included in this bill, which reverses last year's callous DOD order blocking longer term servicemembers' ability to transfer their GI Bill benefits to eligible dependents. This mark would not have been possible without the work of my friend and ranking member, Rob Wittman; our subcommittee staff, Phil MacNaughton, Dave Sienicki, and Megan Handal; and all our subcommittee members, particularly our new members, and their contributions to this year's bill. Overall, I am confident that the bill we will vote on later this week, which had significant bipartisan input, will meet the pressing needs of the sea services and protection forces and provide a historic boost of quality of life that our All-Volunteer Force deserves. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation when it comes to a vote Friday.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment numbered 35 to Division A of H.R. 3055 to direct the National Institutes of Standards and Technologies to establish standards for pyrrhotite in concrete aggregate. Pyrrhotite is a mineral that unfortunately has been mixed into concrete aggregate and is widespread in concrete foundations and residential commercial municipal buildings in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and parts of Quebec, Canada, that after exposure to moisture, causes the material to premature crumbling and collapse because of rusting. Estimates are as high as thousands of structures in the New England region are affected with crumbling foundations, causing catastrophic losses to homeowners and municipalities. By establishing standards for pyrrhotite content, NIST could mitigate the problem from occurring in other areas, or at least reduce the costs of mitigation. Right now, any level of pyrrhotite is considered a cancer on a property and makes it unmarketable. This amendment would allocate $4 million from the NIST general operations funds towards pyrrhotite research, which my office and others have been discussing over the last year. The amendment would require NIST to research the best testing methods for pyrrhotite detection, as well as to develop a pyrrhotite risk rating scale. This amendment would utilize the world's leading researchers to mitigate the cost of this problem. In addition, my amendment requests that NIST work with leading academic institutions in this area to expedite this research process--including expediting the procurement process for obtaining concrete samples, should NIST need to utilize core samples containing pyrrhotite to conduct this research. I urge adoption of this en-bloc package, and I want to thank Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Serrano for their kind support for this measure.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment to protect Plum Island, which is being offered by Mr. Zeldin of New York, myself, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, and Tom Suozzi, who also represents a portion of Long Island. Plum Island is a unique ecological treasure situated between eastern Long Island Sound and the Connecticut shoreline. It is the home of over 200 bird species and countless rare plant species, including the northernmost known extent of the blackjack oak species. Our amendment today is simple. It prevents the General Services Administration from using Federal dollars for sale or marketing activities related to Plum Island. In 2008, over a decade ago, Congress mandated the public sale of Plum Island, with proceeds intended to partially offset a new Bio and Agro- Defense Facility in the State of Kansas. This law dictated that GSA must sell the island to the highest bidder. Transferring it to another Federal entity or nonprofit was not an option, which is normally the way that property such as this is disposed of in other cases. The statutory requirement enacted in 2008 was flawed and short- circuits the GSA's usual process of finding potential other Federal uses for the land or nonprofits to take custody of the land before an auction. My colleague from across Long Island Sound, Congressman Lee Zeldin, and I have introduced several measures to slow down or block the sale of Plum Island, which has been strongly supported by environmental and conservancy groups on both sides of Long Island Sound. In the past several Congresses, the House has voted unanimously to help our effort only to, unfortunately, have it stall in the Senate. We have worked with Congresswoman DeLauro, also, to have language included in the Homeland Security appropriations bill that may come up later this summer that would further prevent the sale of Plum Island. We have been working in a bipartisan manner to save this ecological treasure, Plum Island, for over a decade. Mr. Chair, this amendment would help protect this ecological treasure from overdevelopment and destruction, and I want to thank the ranking member and Mr. Quigley for their support in allowing this matter to make it through the Rules Committee. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge all Members to support this amendment, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 11 of this month, the House Education and Labor Committee reported out legislation, H.R. 1309, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Healthcare and Social Service Workers Act. Mr. Speaker, this is a culmination and a milestone of a 7-year process that began in 2013. Like many Members of Congress, I have been hearing about stories of rising violence in emergency rooms, ambulances, and treatment facilities to nurses, doctors, and nurses aides that showed a disturbing trend. One such case was Helene Andrews, a registered nurse from Danbury, Connecticut, who was assaulted multiple times during her career. Shortly before she retired, while she was dispensing medication to a patient, she was thrown to the floor and her pelvis was shattered. In 2013, former Congressman George Miller of California and I requested a report from the Government Accountability Office to dig deeper to determine how pervasive this violence is and what strategies are at our disposal to reverse this trend. The report, which was completed in 2016, found that workers in healthcare facilities experienced substantially higher rates of nonfatal injuries due to violence in the workplace compared to workers overall. Between 2006 and 2016, there was a 70 percent increase in violent incidents that occurred in healthcare and social service workplaces that resulted in employees being away from work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, healthcare and social service workers are nearly five times more likely to suffer a serious injury from workplace violence than workers in other settings. Up to 30 percent of hospital workers report being assaulted at work. For employees in psych hospitals, that number is drastically higher. Nearly 50 percent of emergency room physicians have been physically assaulted at work, and 80 percent report that this violence affects patient care. Despite these alarming statistics, we know that violence against this workforce is, in fact, grossly underreported. Many medical professionals are discouraged from reporting incidents, fear further stigmatizing patients, or are just told: ``Move on. Shake it off. It is part of the job.'' Mr. Speaker, during the course of work on this legislation, we actually heard from the Cleveland Clinic in northeast Ohio, which is one of the largest healthcare networks in America. The CEO of Cleveland Clinic, Tom Mihaljevic, gave his 2019 state of the clinic address, where he described that there is a national epidemic of violence against healthcare workers, especially in emergency room departments. Last year alone, nearly 30,000 weapons were confiscated from patients and visitors in that healthcare network. At the time we did the markup, one of the members of our committee actually expressed disbelief that, in fact, that statistic was accurate. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter I supplied to Congresswoman Foxx at the end of last week citing Mr. Mihaljevic's report, which was a YouTube that is easily found, as well as an article from Modern Healthcare, which quoted this amazing and astonishing statistic. Congress of the United States, 2nd District, CT, June 21, 2019. Rep. Virginia Foxx, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member Foxx: During our June 11th mark up of H.R. 1309, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act you questioned the veracity of a statement I made regarding the high number of weapons confiscated from patients and visitors at the Cleveland Clinic in 2018. The number I cited, 30,000, is indeed alarming. It is also accurate, and further evidence that health care and social service workers require enforceable protections to limit potential violence against them at their place of work. During the mark up, you asked publicly that I verify this statistic, so I would like to share with you two resources which confirm that 30,000 weapons were confiscated from the Cleveland Clinic's Northeast Ohio facilities in 2018. In Cleveland Clinic CEO Dr. Tom Mihaljevic's 2019 ``State of The Clinic'' address from February 27, 2019, he states: ``there is a national epidemic of violence against health care workers, especially in emergency departments . . . last year alone, nearly 30,000 weapons were confiscated from patients and visitors.'' You can view the address here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOr2UqlNzuY Additionally, a March 11, 2019 Modern Healthcare article entitled ``Healthcare workers face violence `epidemic' '' cites Dr. Mihaljevic's address and reports that ``In 2018, the clinic confiscated a staggering 30,000 weapons from patients and visitors in its system in the Northeast Ohio region.'' The article can be read here: https://tinyurl.com/ y5thhm4r Given your understandable alarm upon hearing that the tens of thousands of employees working at these facilities face daily exposure to violence, I would welcome your support of H.R. 1309. As you know, violence against this workforce is on the rise. Both Democratic and Republican OSHA Secretaries believe an enforceable standard is the best way to reverse this trend, and this legislation will ensure that happens in a timely manner. Thank you, Joe Courtney.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is obviously not limited just to the State of Ohio. We know these incidents are preventable. Since 1996, OSHA has published voluntary guidelines that recommend commonsense preventative measures that employers can take to reduce the risk and severity of violent incidents, and that is what our bill does. It basically requires, through OSHA, that there be a violence prevention plan in healthcare settings. It is not one size fits all. It recognizes that some facilities are different from others. But, in fact, there has to be a way to train staff to understand patient risk, to understand ways to deescalate violence, and a way to design workforces to reduce the incidence of violence. In addition, it requires that there be a reporting mechanism to OSHA when these incidents occur. Today, in a hospital, if there is a slip and fall, it must be reported; if there is a chemical leak, it must be reported; but if a nurse is punched, kicked, or spit at, that is not required to be reported, and that is what our bill will do. The legislation was reported out with a favorable report. We have 187 cosponsors of the legislation. It is bipartisan, and it will be brought up this summer for final action. We have waited far too long to protect the caregivers, the people in the caring professions which every American relies on and depends on to be healed, consoled, and cared for. Yet it is clear from the GAO report that they are being subjected to incidents of violence which, again, are totally unacceptable and which hinder their ability to do their mission. It is time to pass H.R. 1309. Again, I applaud the support from the emergency room physicians, the emergency room nurses, and the American Nurses Association, as well as a host of other groups that are affiliated with our healthcare delivery system. Let's protect the caregivers. Let's pass H.R. 1309.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Serrano for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise in support of amendment No. 35 to direct the National Institute of Standards and Technologies to establish standards for pyrrhotite in concrete aggregate. Pyrrhotite is a mineral that, unfortunately, has been mixed into concrete aggregate and is widespread in concrete foundations in residential, commercial, and municipal buildings in Connecticut and Massachusetts and parts of Quebec, Canada, that, after exposure to moisture, causes the material to prematurely crumble and collapse because of rusting. Again, estimates are as high as thousands of structures in the New England region, causing catastrophic losses to homeowners and municipalities. By establishing standards for pyrrhotite content, NIST could mitigate the problem from occurring in other areas, or at least reducing the costs of mitigation. Right now, any level of pyrrhotite is considered a cancer on a property and makes it unmarketable. This amendment would allocate $4 million from the NIST's general operations toward pyrrhotite research, which my office and others have been discussing over the last year, and would require NIST to research best testing methods for pyrrhotite detection as well as developing a pyrrhotite risk rating scale. This amendment would utilize the world's leading researchers to mitigate the cost of this problem. I urge adoption of the en bloc, and again, I want to thank Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Serrano for their kind support of this measure.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, 12 days ago, the eyes of the world were focused on the beaches of Normandy, France, to observe the 75th anniversary of the D-day invasion. It was a solemn moment to rightly honor the sacrifice and courage of the combined Armed Forces of the Allied Powers, who, from that moment, launched the final, decisive assault that eventually destroyed the Axis Powers' murderous stranglehold on Europe and Asia. Mr. Speaker, another 75th anniversary surrounding the epic effort to save democracy will occur in 4 days, this Saturday, June 22. On that day 75 years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, more commonly known as the GI Bill. That landmark measure would provide both college tuition and a stipend for returning servicemembers who, as FDR said at the time, ``have been compelled to make greater economic sacrifice and every other kind of sacrifice than the rest of us.'' Even though the war would rage on for another year, leaders in Washington wisely recognized that millions of young soldiers, sailors, and airmen would soon be returning back into civilian life; and for their sake and for the sake of a healthy postwar economy, creating this educational pathway made tremendous sense. In the 75 years since the GI Bill was signed into law, it is now recognized as one of the most successful pieces of domestic legislation ever enacted. The postwar economic boom and the blossoming of the American middle class have both been attributed, in part, to the GI Bill. Many renown Americans, including Bob Dole, Johnny Carson, Harry Belafonte, William Rehnquist, and Clint Eastwood, were beneficiaries of the GI Bill. Economic studies have shown that, for every dollar the government spent on the GI Bill, our economy saw nearly $7 in return of additional economic output in tax revenues from income growth. Despite its stellar performance, the relative strength of the GI Bill deteriorated in the late 20th century. By 2008, it was clear that tuition assistance and living stipends had not kept pace with the rising cost of a college education. As a freshman Congressman in the House Armed Services Committee at the time, I heard from returning Iraq and Afghan vets who were forced to choose between dropping out of school or shouldering the burden of daunting student loans. To fix this decline, we passed the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which was signed into law by George Bush on June 30, 2008. The updated law boosted tuition to match the cost of a 4-year public university in servicemembers' home States and increased the living stipend to keep faith with the original law. It also allowed GI benefits to be transferred to a spouse or dependent child, a groundbreaking change which transformed the value of military service for families. After the bill signing, I flew to Iraq in late 2008 for a committee visit and vividly recall being surrounded by soldiers bursting with questions about when and how the new law would be implemented. Since then, it has become clear that the transferability of the GI Bill has been an enormous morale booster and a valuable incentive to enlist and remain in service. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Trump Department of Defense announced a new policy last July which would arbitrarily cut off servicemembers with more than 16 years of service from transferring their Post-9/11 GI benefits to eligible family members. We were told at the time that the Department viewed this as a shrewd cost-cutting measure. However, revoking transferability breaks our commitment to our most dedicated and seasoned servicemembers and their families. In addition, in a tight, lean labor market, it remains critically important to attract and retain the best qualified individuals for military service. I believe it sends exactly the wrong message to some of our most seasoned servicemembers who may have married late in life or started their families later, to make them ineligible for incentives, to continue their service to our Nation. Two weeks after the Pentagon released this policy, 83 of my colleagues in the House joined me in a letter that I wrote to Secretary Mattis objecting to this change and calling for its reversal. So far, DOD has refused to budge. Mr. Speaker, I have some good news to report today. With the cutoff due to go into effect next month, the House Armed Services Committee last week unanimously passed my amendment to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which would block the Secretary of Defense from restricting GI Bill transferability based on a maximum number of years of service. As Congress took action 75 years ago to create the GI Bill benefit, today it is our job to restore the hard-fought modernized GI Bill of 2008. That is even more the case today at a time of an All-Volunteer Force. If a servicemember demonstrates that they are ready, able, and willing to continue their service to our Nation, we should uphold our end of the commitment. To paraphrase President Roosevelt's words 75 years ago when he signed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, protecting transferability today ``gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our Armed Forces that the American people do not intend to let them down.''

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Norwich Superintendent of Public Schools, Abby Dolliver, on a career in education spanning 33 years, including 25 in the city of Norwich. Her history of passionate leadership is rooted in a lifelong dedication to public service and has positively impacted the lives of countless students, faculty, and administrators. Her commitment to Norwich Public Schools began in 1986 as a social worker. Abby assumed the role of Director of Student Services and Special Education in 2007 before her appointment to the position of superintendent in 2010. Her tenure has been marked by an enthusiasm for inspiring leadership in others and utilizing the unique qualities of those she oversees. As superintendent, Abby is proud of developing internal committee structures to encourage a greater sense of engagement among faculty. She regards helping to create a strong team and surrounding herself with talented, experienced members of the school community as her greatest accomplishment. Though major challenges included tighter budgets, the closing of three elementary schools, and the restructuring of the city's middle schools, Abby maintained an unwavering devotion to the needs of her students. In the midst of that turmoil she actually implemented innovative, successful magnet programs using state and federal resources to keep Norwich public education healthy and high quality. Abby's background as both a social worker and lifelong resident of Norwich has enabled her to better understand the diverse perspectives of more than 3,500 students who speak over 25 different languages. Her legendary father, Stanley Israelite, instilled in her a devotion to public service that was focused on the best interests of Norwich's children. Abby describes the Norwich school district as ``student- driven with kindness as the focus.'' The city of Norwich has benefited greatly from this history of dedication, and I am confident Abby will find new ways to serve the community for years to come. I ask my colleagues to please join me in wishing her a happy retirement.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life and deeds of Michael Koskoff, Esquire, a champion for civil and criminal justice who passed away on April 24, 2019. Michael resided in the state of Connecticut, where his law practice achieved the highest level of success for his clients in courtrooms all across America, because his intelligence, creativity, and high ethical and moral standards. Michael was a unique attorney. His family has been part of the trial bar over multiple generations, but also he was the scion of a family of stage performers. Some were actors, singers and musicians. His father, Theodore, was both his law partner and an accomplished cellist. ``We're show people,'' Michael once explained. He won record settlements in Connecticut negligence and malpractice cases by coupling skills he had acquired in training to be a Shakespearean actor with a lifelong antagonism toward corporate greed. He also pioneered the use of vivid courtroom videos delivered in a documentary format. For example, in 1979, Mr. Koskoff persuaded a jury in Danbury, CT, to award his client $1.8 million in a wrongful-death case--Connecticut's first verdict of more than $1 million in such a suit. In 1999, jurors awarded $27 million for what he had demonstrated was a bungled heart operation at Yale-New Haven Hospital, which left a 29-year-old man permanently blind and brain-damaged. At the time, it was the biggest personal injury verdict in the state's history. In a medical malpractice case that became the subject of a book, Damages: One Family's Legal Struggles in the World of Medicine by Barry Werth, a couple represented by Mr. Koskoff settled for $6.25 million in the early 1990s nine years after their baby, who had severe cerebral palsy and developmental disabilities, was born at Norwalk Hospital in Connecticut. (The child's twin brother had been stillborn there). In his book, Mr. Werth described Mr. Koskoff's courtroom techniques as ``raw theater.'' ``Koskoff liked to depend on his own `visceral and instinctive reality' of what was happening in a courtroom--was a witness nervous? arrogant? appealing? unappealing?--to decide how best to keep the drama fresh,'' Mr. Werth wrote. ``He also liked to keep the other side's experts off balance by not letting them know what to expect of him. If he met them, he might like them, and that would dull his attack.'' Madam Speaker, in addition to his successful practice, Michael had a rich family life. He married Rosalind Jacobs in 1963 and had four children--two daughters, Sarah Koskoff, an actress and screen writer, Juliet Koskoff a lawyer in New York, and two sons Jacob Koskoff a screenwriter who collaborated with his father on the feature film ``Marshall,'' a rendering of a criminal trial Justice Thurgood Marshall handled as an attorney in 1941. His other son, Joshua, is a partner in Michael's firm who just last month prevailed in a groundbreaking case against the gun manufacturer Remington Arms--a case that was brought by the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Madam Speaker, Michael Koskoff brought to life the promise of American ideals of fairness and justice for ``the little guy.'' With all of his success though, he never ``put on airs'' with people he met. He was generous with his time and support for his colleagues in the legal profession, the arts, and political causes devoted to a better community and nation. His presence will be sorely missed by those who had the privilege to know him, including myself. However, it is safe to say his memory will never be forgotten. I would ask the House to please join me in extending deepest condolences to Michael's wife Rosalind and his family for their loss.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Gabe Lipman of Norwich, Connecticut. For 35 years, Gabe has dedicated herself to the education of our state's children as an art teacher in the Norwich Public School District. Thanks to her, generations of students have learned the value of art in our lives and discovered their own creative talents. Throughout her professional life Gabe has worked to improve the circumstances of others. While that work was rooted in the classroom, it was by no means confined to it. Empowering her fellow teachers through late-night contract negotiations, serving as a contributing member of the Norwich Arts Center, and volunteering in the community have been a central part of her career. After a lifelong commitment to a single course, it is worth reflecting on the value of this undertaking. Art and education, taken together, are a virtuous combination that elevate our children. Using this combination with her dynamic and engaging teaching style, Gabe has steadily enlarged the cultural opportunities for her students. Every one of us has had a teacher that has had a profound impact on our life's direction. For all the students who were lucky enough to be in her classroom, Gabe was one of those teachers. The ripples Gabe has cast across the community will never be completely comprehended. But I can assure you this, they are extensive and will continue moving outwards for years and decades to come bringing exuberance and brilliance wherever they land. Colleagues, I ask you to please join me in extending your gratitude to Ms. Lipman for her commitment to our nation's youth. I thank Gabe for her 35 years of service, and wish her best of luck in the next endeavor.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, about 6 months ago, this country went through a historic election that shattered records that go back almost 100 years. It was the largest voter turnout for a midterm election since 1914. It elected a new majority in the House of Representatives by over 10 million votes. If you drill down below those top lines, what you will see is that the biggest driving issue for American voters, who turned up in record numbers last November, was, in fact, the issue of healthcare. If you drill down even further, what you will find is that the cost of prescription drugs was the biggest concern that people had about the security and stability of their healthcare. And why not? Recent polling by Kaiser showed that 79 percent of Americans feel that prescription drug prices are unreasonable. Eighty percent believe that pharmaceutical company profits are to blame. One-third of Americans said they haven't taken their medications as prescribed because they have trouble affording it. Again, the stories, in terms of the disparity of pricing in the U.S. versus other parts of the civilized, developed world, are just rampant. Obviously, we pay the highest prices here in this country, and the next highest country, Switzerland, pays 25 percent less than U.S. patients do for comparable medications. This week, the new majority in the House of Representatives is going to be taking up H.R. 987, the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act, which we will be voting on either Thursday or Friday. This bill, which listened to patients all across the country and stakeholders who have been trying to endure these ridiculous costs, will do a number of things. Number one, it will end pay-for-delay, which will prohibit brand-drug manufacturers from paying off generic companies that produce a competing generic drug. In other words, they are maintaining their exclusivity by paying off generic manufacturers, which are designed to create a stronger marketplace and lower prices for American patients. It also ends the practice of parking by generic drug companies. Again, once you apply to the FDA for a generic drug, you can get 180 days where you exclude anyone else, any other generic manufacturer, from competing with a similar medication. The FDA has estimated that these practices cost American patients $3.5 billion in higher drug costs every year. We will be voting this week, finally, to stand up to special interests, to listen to what experts and people who are close to this market are telling us about ways of trying to widen the marketplace to create more competition, and to, ultimately, lower the drug costs for American patients that are killing State Medicaid budgets and are also killing employer-based health plans. If you listen to what they are saying, that is where the cost driving is the most acute. This past week, in the State of Connecticut, Attorney General William Tong announced a new lawsuit against generic manufacturers, which was profiled on ``60 Minutes'' last Sunday night. Mr. Tong demonstrated how they have smoking-gun evidence of price- fixing amongst different drug companies. Forty-four States are joining Connecticut in that effort. It is time, whether it is the legislative branch of Congress or whether it is a different branch, in the court systems, that we start holding drug companies accountable. The vote that is going to take place this week keeps faith with that historic turnout last fall to make sure that we are going to get real action to address the issue of healthcare. Relief for Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, we are also voting this week on H.R. 299-- it will be this evening--the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, which will finally eliminate a 17-year barrier for people who served in the sea services during the Vietnam conflict and who are being denied access to VA benefits for the scourge of Agent Orange illnesses. Again, this is a process that has taken forever. We passed this measure in the last Congress by unanimous vote. It was blocked from consideration by two Senators last December. Congratulations to Mark Takano, our new House Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman, for bringing up this bill immediately in the new House of Representatives, to make sure that we get this long-overdue justice for people who served in the Vietnam conflict taken care of. Veterans service organizations that have been relentless in their advocacy for blue water Vietnam veterans, such as The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, AMVETS, MOAA, and Military Order of the Purple Heart, are supporting this legislation. It is going to be important for us to get this bill passed out of this Chamber and force the Senate to do the right thing and provide justice for those who served in that conflict and who are still suffering from cancers, from heart disease, and from skin ailments because of exposure to a chemical that they had absolutely no idea was unsafe.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chair, after 2 years of the Trump administration trying and failing in Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they have gone to plan B. Plan B is to use the administrative agencies, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the court system as a way of trying to accomplish what they could not accomplish through the House and the Senate in the 115th Congress. Today, we are dealing with one of those efforts, which was an order that was issued in October of last year, issuing new guidelines for State waivers from the Affordable Care Act, repealing the ObamaCare guardrails that made sure that patient protections would not be affected by such waivers--for example, protecting people with preexisting conditions; the elimination of lifetime caps on health insurance; and the protections that were built in for essential health benefits that defined real healthcare, not the cheap healthcare that was being sold before the ACA was enacted. An intervening event occurred since last October. We had an election. It was the largest midterm turnout since 1914. We had a new majority that was elected with a plurality of 10 million votes, larger than any flip election in the past, any wave election in the past. The number one issue from the voters was healthcare and protecting their patient rights to affordable and comprehensive benefits. Mr. Chair, we are here today debating an issue that the patient groups that represent people with chronic illnesses, with expensive illnesses like cancer, have stepped up across the board, saying vote for this legislation to overturn the Trump order that they are trying to get through but that they cannot get through the U.S. Congress. Vote for this bill.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to spotlight that, a couple days from now, the House of Representatives will be voting on H.R. 986, which is an act protecting Americans with preexisting conditions. Again, this is a measure to reverse a decision that was made last October by the Trump administration. It was an administrative guidance in the Department of Health and Human Services which basically opened the doors for States to submit waivers from the Affordable Care Act's protections for patients, which, almost universally, are supported by the American people. For example, in the law, it banned the use of preexisting condition exclusions by insurance companies both for individuals applying for insurance and for those who actually got insurance but then had their bills denied because of preexisting conditions. With the stroke of a pen, in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act abolished that practice by insurance companies, which basically was a discriminatory practice for people, again, who, through no fault of their own, had medical conditions which they could not control. It also eliminated lifetime limits. In other words, insurance companies capped the amount of medical bills that they would pay, so somebody with a cancer or a serious chronic condition would run into those caps and basically be in bankruptcy land. And lastly, it established essential health benefits, which were defined by the Institute of Medicine, not a political organization, based on what, in fact, health insurance should cover, for example, behavioral health, maternal and child benefits, et cetera. This decision by the Trump administration last October basically knocked out the guardrails in the ACA waiver process, which, again, every observer and commentator said would open the door again to insurance companies using the practice of preexisting condition exclusions. For those who maybe have forgotten what that looked like, I have beside me here a chart which includes a brochure, which Humana insurance was using back in 2009 when it was selling health insurance. Again, it is touting great news for people who buy their own health insurance, new, flexible health coverage. However, if you read the fine print, it went on to say that there is important information about preexisting conditions for these conditions which would not be covered: AIDS/HIV, alcohol or drug dependence, cancer, COPD, connective tissue disorder, Crohn's disease, diabetes, emphysema, heart attack or stroke, hepatitis, inpatient emotional or mental illness, organ or tissue transplant, or ulcerative colitis. Just in case maybe you survived that litmus test, it does go on to say: ``This list is not all inclusive; other conditions may apply.'' That is what health insurance looked like before 2010: People who, in good faith, were paying premium dollars for coverage, whether they were individuals, small businesses, or large employers, suddenly found, with the fine print back in those days, medical underwriting was excluding people from getting the coverage for the health insurance they thought they were buying. Also, the rude awakening of people who had insurance suddenly having their bills reversed--again, in good faith, depending on insurance companies--to pay for an operation or for a hospitalization or a doctor's visit. This country turned the page in 2010. It is time to, once and for all, say that those practices are a thing of the past. Our bill this week, H.R. 986, will restore those patient protections which the Trump administration's executive order, last October, reversed. Hopefully, the people in this Chamber will listen to the universal support for these patient protections all across the country, Republicans and Democrats--the polling shows it is off the charts--and support this bill and block this executive order which would turn the clock back for American patients and America's healthcare system.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Captain Paul A. Whitescarver, who retires this week from a nearly 40-year career of service to our nation in the United States Navy. Captain Whitescarver has served as the 51st Commanding Officer of our nation's ``first and finest'' submarine base, Naval Submarine Base New London since December 2015. His leadership at the base will without question have a lasting impact on its operations and readiness for years to come. In his three and a half years as its Commander, he oversaw several significant environmental and energy upgrades which have helped to continue modernization of the facility, including innovative microgrid and fuel cell projects leveraging homegrown Connecticut technology to provide standalone power to the base. This effort was so successful that the Department of Energy recognized it with a 2018 Federal Energy and Water Management award. Another tremendous accomplishment under his tenure was the completion of Superfund site cleanup. It is great to see the resolution of this significant undertaking which was recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Captain Whitescarver's leadership throughout this process has shown his drive to go above and beyond to improve the base. Captain Whitescarver has substantially raised the military value of the base with his work and proven its enduring mission well into the future. He laid the groundwork for the future expansion of pier capacity as our submarine fleet continues to modernize and grow towards its overall goal of 66 attack submarines. He spearheaded the pier 32 project for which we are now seeing funding in this year's defense budget and expect it to be funded by Congress so that the project can commence on time. Many of the new boats constructed in the coming years will be stationed in Groton, and without Captain Whitescarver's efforts, the base would not be as prepared to accept them as it will be once these projects are completed. At the same time, it is important to recognize that Captain Whitescarver's impact extends beyond the base, reaching the citizens and businesses in the surrounding community. He oversaw Connecticut's Submarine Century, the yearlong celebration of the 100th anniversary of the submarine force in 2015 and 2016, demonstrating strong support in his consistent participation at events and collaboration with local officials. He projected a positive image for the Navy in a critical time for recruitment and promotion of our military and particularly our submarine force. As if he did not have enough to do, he also managed the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the Navy installation which would eventually become Submarine Base New London. This milestone underscores how the base has effectively adapted over time to meet the needs of the Navy, and we thank Captain Whitescarver for his role in ensuring the base continues to be equipped to handle our future needs as well. A particular highlight of mine working with Captain Whitescarver over the last few years was his April 2018 engagement at Asnuntuck Community College in Enfield, which he himself attended in 1989. His presence and poignant words to students, faculty, and staff reinforced the belief that our community colleges are stepping stones to any number of highly successful careers. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring Captain Whitescarver, and his wife Katie, for their service to our nation and in wishing them `fair winds and following seas' as they move on to their next steps.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise with great sadness to honor the life of Connecticut Superior Court Judge Kevin P. McMahon of Niantic, Connecticut who died too young at the age of 68 on February 18, 2019. Madam Speaker, when news of Kevin's passing became known all across the state, there was an enormous outflowing of tributes and praise for the man described as ``The People's Judge'' for his amazing service in the criminal courts for over twenty-five years. He presided over big cases and small cases with great skill, displaying a warm and caring personality that balanced courtesy and adherence to the law with compassion for all who appeared before him. He had a sharp, delightful sense of humor and the court staff in every region he sat were professionally loyal to him because he treated them all with kindness and respect. He believed strongly in sharing his knowledge with his colleagues on the bench. He was an instructor at the Connecticut Judges' Institute and fellow judges often sought his advice on cases. Kevin was the president, and lone member, of the Black Point Judges Association, a position he was honored to hold. His knowledge of the law, his sense of humor, and, most importantly, his sense of fairness governed his decisions and made him a great judge. Kevin was the past president of the New London/Washington County Providence College Alumni Club. He mentored students from Providence College, many of whom shadowed him during his time on the bench. The college honored him by presenting him with the Faithful Friar Award, and he was a season ticket holder for Providence College Basketball for many years. Kevin spent summers at Black Point Beach at his family's summer home. Eventually, Patti and he became year-round residents. He was a member of the Black Point Association for many years. Kevin loved being a part of the beach community and over the years skillfully captained an array of powerboats. He was an avid reader and a serious student of history. Kevin was a sports enthusiast, as a loyal fan of the New York Giants, the Boston Red Sox, Boston Celtics and had great admiration for Tom Brady. Kevin was also a devoted husband to the love of his life Patti McMahon and they had many happy years together at Black Point Beach which they made their permanent home. Patti is a highly skilled paralegal who worked for one of the premier law firms in Hartford-- Riscassi and Davis--and their shared experience in the legal profession made them the perfect couple. Mr. Speaker, I had known Kevin for many years when we were interns at the Hartford Superior Criminal Court back in the 1970s. I knew from the first day we met that he was a special person whose sharp mind, quick wit, and infectious sense of humor stood out immediately. He was born to be a judge and it was wonderful to watch someone find the perfect spot on the bench to express his talents to the fullest. Mr. Speaker we live in a time when cheap politics and cynical journalism constantly seek to delegitimize the importance of a strong, respected, independent judiciary. Kevin McMahon's life and record are the best rebuttal to this corrosive, dangerous trend. All who came in contact with him could believe in the honesty and goodness of our judicial system by observing the grace and integrity of his service. His example will be one for the ages. Colleagues, please join me in expressing the condolences of the chamber for his friends and family--particularly his beloved wife Patti.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, this morning about 800,000 Federal employees from the 25 percent of the government that had been shut down for the last 35 days finally were allowed to go back to work and perform the amazing service that they do for the American people in a whole host of different agencies. All of us heard from such great Americans coming from our districts, and certainly in the Second District of Connecticut, in eastern Connecticut, was no exception. So, for example, Clark Chapin, who is the head of the Farm Service Agency at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who, again, for 35 days was unable to work on the different farm programs that are so important to eastern Connecticut farmers, particularly in the dairy sector with the new dairy insurance program, his frustration in terms of not being able to get that program up and running, again, was palpable when I talked to him about a week or so ago. We also have the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, where, again, that was the one branch of the military that was shut down because they don't reside in the Department of Defense. They are in the Department of Homeland Security. Even though, as Admiral Carl Schultz, who is the Commandant of the Coast Guard, pointed out on national television, there are Coast Guard cutters serving in Bahrain in the fifth fleet side by side with the U.S. Navy patrolling the territorial waters of the Persian Gulf in the Straits of Hormuz in about the most hazardous waters in the world. Their Navy counterparts were certainly being paid, but the Coast Guard sailors and officers were not. In addition, we have got Coast Guard cutters over in the Indo-Pacific region doing work in the Straits of Taiwan, again, highly contested waters. The unique skills that coastguardsmen and -women bring to that particular type of patrol is essential to our country's national defense and national security policy. They, again, are just a couple of examples. Constituents in the State Department serving overseas in hazardous duty areas--the FAA, the TSA, the IRS, Commerce--this morning, I heard from one of the Commerce employees. She went to work this morning. The payroll system was flooded with folks trying to submit their timecards, and the system crashed. They are still trying to sort that out so that people will get not only their paycheck on Friday, but also retroactive payments. Last Thursday, again, hours before the settlement finally was reached and the announcement was made from the White House, I held a telephone townhall meeting. We had 8,000 listeners from all across the district and, again, a very vigorous debate, and there was definitely disagreement about whether there should be a wall on the southern border or no wall. But what there was universal agreement about was that shutdowns are wrong, that shutdowns should never be used as a tool or leverage to force a policy provision and cripple, again, the working lives of people who, again, are patriots for this country, but also the taxpayers who rely on the programs and services that they provide. That is why, again, it was astonishing to see in The Wall Street Journal, over the weekend, that President Trump gave an interview where he said another shutdown is ``certainly an option.'' Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything as a nation over the last 35 days, it is what those 8,000 folks who participated in my telephone townhall articulated over and over again: This should not be used as leverage to force an issue through the Congress. It should go through normal and regular order. We have a conference committee from the House and the Senate, from both parties, that will begin their work over the next couple of weeks or so to resolve the dispute. There is overlap. There is agreement in terms of boosting border security. But no one should be putting down as markers that we are going to again disrupt the lives of these Americans once again just as they are starting to finally get back into the office and get the work done for the American people. Instead, what we should be doing is voting, as we are tomorrow, on H.R. 790, which is to overturn President Trump's executive order of December 28 canceling the pay increase for non-DOD employees. Again, some of the very same people whose lives were turned upside down over the last 35 days are also going to lose their pay increase based on the President's executive order. The bill we are going to vote on tomorrow, H.R. 790, is going to overturn that executive order and give those folks the same pay raise as folks in the Department of Defense: 2.6 percent. These are people who, again, provide essential public services for the people of this country. If nothing else, it was a learning experience over the last month about how vital that work is in terms of air travel, national defense and military policy, as well as agriculture and processing of tax returns at the height of the tax season. Let's vote on measures that are going to restore and heal this country over the damage that was done over the last 35 days and take shutdowns off the table. It is time for shutdown politics to come to an end.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Thomas H. Dooley, a prominent attorney and businessman from Vernon, CT, who passed away on January 6, 2019. Born in 1934 to Lawrence and Lauretta Dooley, Tom was raised in Middletown, New York and graduated from Clarkson University in 1956 with a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration. He subsequently joined the U.S. Army, serving his country for two years before beginning his career with the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company as an assistant claims examiner. Soon thereafter Tom enrolled at UCONN School of Law where he was editor of the UCONN Law Review and a Starr Fellow. Tom graduated in 1964 and became a partner at Flaherty & Dooley Law Firm. Tom eventually returned to Connecticut General Life Insurance, this time as an Assistant Counsel in their legal department. Eventually he moved into a management position becoming Second Vice President of Group Insurance Operations. Then, in 1985 he became Executive Vice President of CIGNA and President of Connecticut General. Tom did not slow down after his retirement in 1992. He became Executive-in-Residence at the University of Hartford and taught at Manchester Community College and Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute Graduate Center. He also chaired Connecticut's Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board from 2010 to 2011 and was trustee emeritus at his alma mater, Clarkson. Tom was not just a businessman and attorney; he was also a public servant. He was the attorney for the town of Vernon for several years as well as a town council member and deputy mayor in our hometown of Vernon. He even served in the Connecticut General Assembly from 1970 to 1974. Madam Speaker, on a personal note, I had the privilege of knowing Tom Dooley for many years since I practiced law with his former partner Leo Flaherty for over twenty years. Leo and Tom remained good friends after Tom left their partnership and because he was such a talented lawyer, all of us in the firm frequently looked to him for advice on thorny legal issues, for which he was happy to provide well-thought out and sound advice. Tom's two terms in the Connecticut General Assembly from Vernon's 56th Assembly District preceded my own election to that seat which I held from 1986 to 1994. I can attest to the fact that his outstanding legacy and reputation at the state Capitol still resonated years after his departure. His record of ethics and professionalism in the practice of law and public service in the political arena is an example that all should emulate. Lastly his devotion to his beloved wife Antoinette and all their children and grandchildren who are leading successful lives is another life achievement that will ensure his memory will live on. Tom Dooley made eastern Connecticut a better place, and we are all better off because of him. I ask my colleagues to please join me in honoring Tom's life and memory and expressing our deepest sympathies for his family and friends.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to commemorate Navy Petty Officer MMN3 Benjamin Edward Norman who tragically lost his life in a weather-related car accident on December 31, 2018. Ben was born October 4, 1998 in Manchester, CT to Sam and Teresa. Having moved to Coventry as a teenager, Ben graduated from Coventry High School in 2016. Soon thereafter, Ben, an accomplished Eagle Scout, enlisted in the U.S. Navy. His service was just beginning to take shape in recent months when he was selected to serve in the prestigious Nuclear Propulsion Training Program, a demanding assignment that requires high intellect and diligent work habits. Last year I had the opportunity to meet Ben and his father Sam, and Ben was excited to begin this new mission that would have taken him to the most advanced naval platforms in our nation's fleet. Ben was also on course to marry his beloved fiancee, Asia Jurkiewicz, a native of Poland whom he met during a Boy Scout exchange program in Krakow, Poland. Madam Speaker, Ben's passing is a terrible loss for Asia, Ben's family and our nation. His public-spirited approach to life and willingness to volunteer to wear our nation's uniform in the U.S. Navy pointed to a life of great accomplishment. Hopefully his memory will inspire others to follow his example. I ask my colleagues to please join me in honoring the life and memory of Ben Norman and expressing our deepest sympathies for his family and friends.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, a really sad milestone of, really, failure on day 18 of a partial government shutdown that is affecting 25 percent of the Federal Government. I am rising today to share some of the real-life stories of some of my constituents in eastern Connecticut who are affected by this shutdown, which, again, today, we are now officially 1 day past the length of the 2013 shutdown of 17 days. On Sunday, if this is not fixed and ended, it will actually be the longest shutdown in American history, surpassing the 1994 shutdown. Mr. Speaker, today, I got a letter from James of Waterford, Connecticut: I am a State Department employee assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. I have been a DOS employee since 2003. I live and work every day in a dangerous environment in support of U.S. foreign policy. In Herat, Afghanistan, in 2013, I was shot at and blown up in an attack by the Taliban on the U.S. Consulate. In Belgrade, Serbia, in 2008, I was trapped in the burning U.S. Embassy during protests against Kosovo independence while I protected and destroyed classified information. I support our government's policies in difficult environments, and I expect my government to meet their commitment to me and my family. Jeremy of Colchester, Connecticut, who works for the Coast Guard: Please work to pass a bill to fund the government, including employees' salaries of the Coast Guard, which are, again, part of the Department of Homeland Security. My family cannot go indefinitely without pay, nor should they have to. And he is absolutely right. Kate of Chester, Connecticut: I am a U.S. Department of Agriculture employee. I have been an employee of the USDA for 15 years at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. That is off the coast of Long Island Sound, where they do amazing research in terms of animal health and public health. If there is not a resolution and end to this shutdown soon, my financial situation will force me to choose which bills to pay. Robert of Stafford Springs, Connecticut, who actually works for a regional craft brewery: I depend on the ATF, the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, to approve license applications, formulas and labels for beers-- delicious beers, by the way--that we brew and sell. Every day that this passes without a shutdown ending is another potential day of lost sales. Ethan of Niantic, Connecticut, who works at the Coast Guard Academy, where they are building the leaders of tomorrow for this country. He has been part of the faculty for the last 11 years. Personally, without earning a paycheck, we will find paying for groceries, mortgage, utilities, childcare, and other essentials, nearly impossible. As the government shutdown lingers on, I become increasingly concerned how it will impact my family. Brian Krampovitas, I met with him this morning in my office. He is one of the air traffic controllers at Bradley Field in Hartford, Connecticut. They have 40 employees who are working without pay, 10- hour shifts, making sure that the planes take off and land safely. And again, the stress level, because they have no support staff, is growing more and more intense for people who are doing incredibly important work, guaranteeing the safety of this country. Again, just as a way of a recap, last week the new Congress was sworn in. Within 2 hours, we passed H.R. 21, which fully funded the American Government, which would have ended this shutdown last week, again, not with a wild spending bill but one that had already passed in the U.S. Senate with Republican votes. All Mitch McConnell has to do is bring up that bill, which they have already passed, send it to the President, and with the stroke of a pen, this would end today; and these people who, again, are doing the important work of the American people would not have to be going through the stress and aggravation while they are doing great work to protect our public safety, to represent our country overseas, and to make sure that we have leaders of the future through institutions like the Coast Guard Academy. Again, we are going to hear a speech tonight. This thing apparently is going to continue to go on. It is unnecessary, it is pointless, and it is hurting the American economy and the American people. Mr. President, sign H.R. 21. We can have a debate about border security. There are some things that both sides will agree on in terms of making sure that we get more immigration judges to eliminate the asylum case backlog, to boost enforcement of port of entry where fentanyl and dangerous drugs are coming through; and we can have a serious debate about whether or not it is sensors and drones, boots on the ground to make sure that those areas that are more remote get more protection, but lengthening this shutdown and hurting people who have absolutely nothing to do with the southern border is pointless and hurting people and hurting the U.S. economy.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Lieutenant Commander Evan Karlik, United States Navy, on his final day serving as a legislative fellow in my Washington, DC office. Evan has played a critical role this year supporting my work on the House Armed Service Committee and representing the large Navy community in Eastern Connecticut. As Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, I have the high honor of overseeing much of our nation's Navy. This year, as our subcommittee considered how best to fund important shipbuilding programs, reform Navy career paths, and review command and control of naval forces, Evan provided important insight and guidance into how our subcommittee could best provide the resources and platforms that our Sailors and Marines need to achieve mission success. Evan has also seized the initiative in a variety of areas beyond naval affairs. He spurred a review required by this year's National Defense Authorization Act into how the Department of Defense reviews and awards imminent danger pay to servicemembers deployed to dangerous locations around the world. He has also served as the staff-lead for the Friends of Australia Caucus, of which I serve as co-chair, ensuring that the ties between our countries remain as strong as ever as we celebrated 100 Years of Mateship in 2018. Evan is leaving Congress but he isn't going far. His next assignment will take him just across the river to support rolling out the Navy's fleet of F-35 fifth-generation fighter aircraft. On his final day here in Congress, I wish LCDR Karlik the best of luck in his new role, fair winds, and following seas.