Joe Courtney

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, today's vote on H.R. 1309 is an important milestone in what has been a 7-year process of getting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to effectively act to protect the healthcare and social service workforce from skyrocketing rates of violence. Sadly, in America today, nurses, doctors, social workers, EMTs, and nursing assistants are more likely to be the victim of on-the-job violence than any other sector of our Nation's workforce. This violence comes in the form of assaults, kicking, hitting, choking, and spitting from patients and residents and clients or those who may accompany them. It affects a worker's sense of safety at work. It contributes to burnout, absenteeism, high workers' compensation costs, and stress. Tragically, it can also lead to death. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, healthcare and social service workers are more than five times as likely to suffer a serious injury from workplace violence than workers in other settings. And this chart, which shows the red line of healthcare workers versus other sectors in the U.S. economy vividly, powerfully demonstrates the data that is coming into the Department of Labor on this issue. In psychiatric hospitals, that number is drastically higher. In a recent survey, nearly 50 percent of emergency room physicians report having been physically assaulted at work, and 60 percent of those who have these occurrences said they happened in the past year. As this graph shows, these numbers are on the rise. The incidents of violence in the workplace have increased 80 percent over the last decade. Since OSHA has not effectively addressed this emergency, this bill is necessary to ensure that a standard is issued and enforced in a reasonable period of time. Using past precedent, the bill calls for an interim final standard within 1 year and a final standard within 42 months. The public comment and rulemaking process is preserved in the development of the final standard. Very simply, the standard required by the bill would require that covered employers, such as hospitals and psychiatric facilities, develop a workplace violence prevention plan that is tailored to the specific conditions and hazards present at each workplace. It is not a one-size-fits-all requirement. Madam Chair, developing a plan is not rocket science. For over 20 years, OSHA has published voluntary guidelines on violence prevention that include commonsense measures, such as training staff about how to identify high-risk patients, share the information with coworkers, not be alone, and ways to de-escalate threats. We know from the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation that these measures work, and the problem is, though, that there is no consistent enforceable standard to ensure their application, and that is precisely what this bill does. While we will never eliminate all risk or stop every violent attack, research on the measures in this legislation have been shown to substantially cut the incidence of serious injury from workplace violence. The nurses, doctors, social workers, and EMTs who care for us in our times of crisis and need deserve to have these protections soon, not in 7 years and not in 20 years, as is likely if we fail to pass this legislation into law, leaving OSHA rulemaking to its own dilatory, almost comatose, devices. I would like to thank the large coalition of healthcare professionals, their organizations, and union representation who have diligently fought for these protections for years; the subcommittee chair, Alma Adams, of the Workforce Subcommittee on Education and Labor and Chairman Bobby Scott for their leadership; also, Richard Miller and Jordan Barab, our committee staff, who have done amazing work, as well as Maria Costigan from my personal office, who have just worked night and day for years to try and get us to this point. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, September 6, 2019. Hon. Bobby Scott, Chair, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Scott: I write concerning H.R. 1309, the ``Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act,'' which was additionally referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. In recognition of the desire to expedite consideration of H.R. 1309, the Committee on Energy and Commerce agrees to waive formal consideration of the bill as to provisions that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee takes this action with the mutual understanding that we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that the Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues within our jurisdiction. I also request that you support my request to name members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to any conference committee to consider such provisions. Finally, I would appreciate the inclusion of this letter in the report on the bill and into the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 1309. Sincerely, Frank Pallone, Jr. Chairman.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, the gentleman is absolutely right. The Obama administration took too long to move on this. Again, I, along with George Miller, requested the GAO study back in 2013. The results came in, in 2016. He is right. The first regulatory step didn't take place until January 2017, on the way out the door. But we are 3 years into this administration, and they are not setting the world on fire in terms of addressing this issue. That panel, which you described, to call it a baby step is an overstatement. It is a baby crawl, in terms of this process. Again, we have seen the track record-- 22 years, 19 years, 17 years--to get a standard out. Our healthcare workforce cannot wait that long. That is why H.R. 1309 should proceed without the Byrne amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, again, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but certainly with great respect for the proponent. I actually supported making this amendment in order because I have such high regard for the gentleman. However, this amendment, essentially, Madam Chair, guts the bill. The essence of this bill is to say to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, who has been studying this issue since the 1990s and has issued commonsense guidelines--that again, Ranking Member Foxx has touted as an example of how this isn't a real problem that we need to accelerate, but the fact of the matter is, we incorporate those guidelines in the underlying bill with a real deadline, 42 months. That has precedent. Congress has done this before. OSHA is an act of Congress, and we have accelerated deadlines for bloodborne pathogens back in the late 1990s, gave them a 1-year deadline or a 6-month deadline to implement a standard, again, for HIV, hepatitis B, and C, in healthcare. And thank God. We are a safer country because Congress stepped in and set a deadline for OSHA to act. We did it for hazardous waste materials. We put a deadline to make them act. Without a deadline, what we are stuck with is OSHA's atrocious record of getting rules out in a timely fashion. Beryllium, 18 years it took; silica, 19 years. If you inhale silica, you suffocate and get cancer; confined spaces in construction, working in trenches, 22 years. And, yes, yesterday, the Trump administration, for the third time, scheduled a preliminary panel with the SBREFA panel, having canceled the prior two. We are 3 years into this administration, and still, to this date, nothing actually has happened other than notices, which so far have just been canceled over and over again. Madam Chair, while we were here on the floor, one of the most credible voices on this issue, which is the American College of Emergency Physicians--when these unruly, agitated patients with the heroin and opioid crises and behavioral health crises are coming through the doors, they are the ones who are really at the front line, along with the nurses and their assistants. They urge legislators to oppose the Byrne amendment that would eliminate the deadline for OSHA to issue a standard. The reason they give is that, in 2018, they did a survey of emergency physicians all across America who reported being physically assaulted while at work, with 60 percent of those assaults occurring within the previous year. This is happening in real time, and it is accelerating. The trajectory is something that we cannot wait for OSHA to basically go back and reinvent the wheel that they have already issued in terms of guidelines about how to reduce risk in workplaces. That is why, in addition to other issues in this amendment that eliminate the whistleblower protection, as well as the interim final standard, which, again, incorporates OSHA's already preexisting rules, that I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Let's move forward, and let's do it in a timely fashion for America's healthcare and social services workforce. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Ms. Finkenauer), one of our great new freshmen.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just note that this is a bipartisan effort. There are 227 cosponsors in the House, 8 Republicans. And again, we have had lots of engagement, accommodated a number of the issues that came up at the public hearing process. Again, I would just note that I appreciate the fact that the ranking member spoke highly of OSHA's volunteer guidelines, which I have in my hand here. Those are actually incorporated into the bill language for the interim final standard. So we are working exactly with the guidelines that she endorsed. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), an early advocate of this measure.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, again very quickly, the mandate costs that CBO scored, the $1.7 billion, that is spread out over 200,000 facilities, if you read their note closely. If you do the math, we are talking about a $9,000 cost per year for facilities. That, in my opinion, in terms of protecting their workforce, is not a high price to pay to make sure that the people who work there are safe. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, and I want to thank her for moving this bill this calendar year.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, just really quickly, it is true, yesterday that notice went out scheduling that panel. I would just note, that is the third time the department has sent out such a notice, and they have canceled the prior panels. We will see whether or not it actually happens in January. We are in the third year of this administration, after a GAO report, again after statistics and hearings, where we have asked questions of the department to move on this, and frankly, we are talking about adopting OSHA's own guidelines in the interim standards. This is not some farfetched, radical proposal. It is their own recommendations about how you can safely and effectively reduce workplace violence. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a great member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the chair of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I would just note for the Record that Mr. DeSaulnier and Chairman McGovern deserve great credit because this is basically an open rule. There were eight amendments which were offered to the Rules Committee, and all eight amendments were made in order, including a Republican amendment, which is somewhat in line with Dr. Burgess' comments from Mr. Byrne from Alabama, who is on the committee. Again, I would just say this shows that the Rules Committee was serious last January when they said we are going to have a new era of bringing down the number of closed rules as much as possible. This is a perfect example of it. In fact, Politico this morning wrote a story saying that this is actually the first bill to come to the floor that was a completely open rule that accepted every amendment that was offered by Members. I don't know if that is true, but certainly it is true that all amendments were made in order with the rule that is presented. I guess sometimes you sort of wonder: When do people take ``yes'' for an answer in this Chamber? Again, Mr. Byrne can have ample opportunity to make his arguments. I look forward to opposing it on the floor as I did in committee. And again, to me, it seems like a rule that all Members should really support. So again, just to begin with Mr. DeSaulnier's description of the problem--and, again, Dr. Burgess certainly did not quibble about the fact that this is a real problem that we are talking about. In 2013, former Congressman George Miller and I asked GAO to look at this problem. They took 3 years to study it. They used Bureau of Labor statistics, Justice Department statistics, they did surveys, and they found, in fact, that we have a really very scary problem in terms of the 15 million healthcare workers who go to work every single day: They are five times more likely to be the victims of intentional assault than any other sector in the U.S. economy. And what is most alarming is the trajectory is going up. This is not a problem which is sort of level normal operations. It is something that is actually getting worse. There is no secret why it is getting worse. The heroin-opioid epidemic and the behavioral health problems that exist out there in society make every ambulance call that EMTs are going out for an overdose, every emergency room patient who is coming through the door, every rehab patient who is going into a facility for treatment, all of these now are high-risk situations. And, yes, there are some hospitals that have taken proactive steps. They have used the OSHA voluntary guidelines; they have looked at the Joint Commission on Hospitals, which has endorsed those guidelines and has, again, written strong advocacy in favor of having a national standard for this problem out there for many workers. And that is why we need to act. Again, just so we are clear, OSHA, in 2017, as the Obama administration was leaving, put it on their regulatory agenda. They took too long.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to stipulate they took too long. Since the Trump administration has taken over, in 34 months, they have not held one hearing in terms of stakeholder input. Yes, they scheduled two small business reg review hearings, canceled both, and they have not rescheduled. So, 34 months into this administration, there is nothing happening. This bill, fundamentally, is about Congress, as it did with bloodborne pathogens, which addressed a crisis in hospitals back in the 1990s and early 2000s--which a Republican Congress, by the way, supported--put a deadline on OSHA to get a rule in place. We are a safer country because Congress took that action. That is what this bill does. It is 42 months, by the way, in terms of the deadline for the rule and it is 1 year for the interim rule. We accommodated Republican objections in the committee, made sure everybody gets a comment period on the interim rule, and we also carved out doctors offices, dentists offices, anybody who is not part of the healthcare facility. We shrunk the scope of this bill to healthcare facilities 200,000, which is going to reduce the mandate.

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, the cost per facility, which Dr. Burgess referred to, which was reduced because of the reducing of the scope of the bill, is $9,000 per facility per year. So when we talk about the healthcare sector and how much money gets spent in it, how many patients come through the door--and these are not the small independent practice doctors offices. These are healthcare facilities. The fact of the matter is it is $9,000 a year for 2 years, then it goes down to $3,000 a year in terms of cost and expense. What is the benefit? Lower workers' comp cost, less absenteeism, and trying to improve the morale of the people who are doing the right thing in this country in terms of providing care for those who need to be healed, consoled, and cured. We need to pass this bill. Again, we made Mr. Byrne's amendment in order, but we need to reject that amendment which throws it back to OSHA, whose batting average is really a disgrace in terms of getting rules through the process.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, November 8, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that the new Medicare part B premiums starting in January 2020 will increase by $9.10 a month, a 6.7 percent increase over last year. In dollars and cents, this means that premiums will go to $144.60 a month, up from $135 a month. As seniors know all too well, that $144 will be deducted automatically from their Social Security checks, which is a bitter pill given the fact that Social Security itself is slated only to rise by 1.6 percent starting January 1. Very simply, that $9-a-month increase for millions of seniors will chew up a large part of any COLA that they can possibly receive starting in January. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to footstop that point about the fact that the Social Security system's COLA, which is tied to general inflation in the economy, is going up 1.6 percent; whereas, the Medicare part B premium, which is tied to healthcare costs, is going up 6.7 percent. This is something that we know is endemic throughout the healthcare system. In the State of Connecticut, the Department of Insurance increased commercial insurance rates, that went up again above inflation, and identified the fact that prescription drug cost was the primary cost driver. The Center for Medicare Services last Friday, when they announced the Medicare part B premiums, also confirmed the fact that it is prescription drug costs that are driving that 6.7 percent increase. The increase in prescription drug costs that Medicare paid from 2018 to 2019 was 10 percent, and they are projecting that it is going to go to 10.10 percent in 2020; thus, we have a $9 increase coming up in terms of people's premiums. This is not going to come as a great surprise to the American people. If you go back to last year's election in 2018, the exit polls showed that the number one issue that people cared about and were concerned about and wanted Congress to act on was healthcare costs--more specifically, prescription drug costs. That was an election that had the largest voter turnout since 1914 in a midterm election and elected a new majority with a 10-million-vote plurality. So, that is the context that we are in right now, at a moment where this Congress, and particularly the House of Representatives, is poised to take up H.R. 3, which is the Lower Drug Costs Now Act. And in the midst of all the media focus on impeachment, it is important to know that the committees that have cognizance over healthcare--the Ways and Means Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Education and Labor Committee, on which I sit--reported out basically the same version of H.R. 3. And it is, again, a matter of just a couple of weeks for the Congressional Budget Office to finish scoring the bill that we are going to take up that measure for a vote. What does it do? It basically unhandcuffs the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies. By law, they have been prohibited, with what is called the noninterference clause, from negotiating lower drug prices. The VA system has been negotiating prescription drug costs for decades, and, in fact, they get a much better price for veterans in America than the folks who, again, are covered by Medicare. So that noninterference clause is going to be scaled back. DHS is going to be able to negotiate the 250 highest brand-name drug costs tied to an international price index--because America pays the highest drug costs by far. The next highest country is Switzerland, and they pay 25 percent less than we do here in the U.S. Again, what do those savings mean in terms of folks on Medicare? Already CBO has told us, for people on part D, which is the outpatient prescription drug benefit, they, again, will see a reduction in the out-of-pocket costs, which today are unlimited in terms of any copayments that they are paying for medications. That will be capped at $2,000. I have a constituent up in Killingly, Connecticut; she is a retired teacher. She has AFib. She is on Medicare part D. It has been a great help to her. But those copayments, because the AFib medication is so expensive, cost her $13,000 a year. That will be brought down to $2,000 a year if we pass H.R. 3, and that is just one example of the benefits--$350 billion in savings to Medicare over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Again, this is a program, Medicare, which is slated to go into negative territory, according to the trustee, starting in 2026. We are giving a $350 billion lifeline to Medicare to make sure that it is an enduring program moving forward in the future. That is why organizations like AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, and the Small Business Majority are supporting H.R. 3. It is time to sit up and pay attention to what just happened last week to Medicare and pass H.R. 3 for America's patients and seniors.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight an important development in my district. On Sunday, October 6th, the estate of the renowned civil rights activist, lawyer, and judge, Constance Baker Motley, was designated as a heritage site on the Connecticut Freedom Trail. The Connecticut Freedom Trail is a state designation which recognizes carefully selected sites that celebrate extraordinary African Americans whose lives have greatly expanded the circle of freedom and opportunity for all Americans. Judge Motley, an icon of civil rights advancements and justice for all, kept a home away from home in the town of Chester, part of Connecticut's Second District, for 40 years. It is important that we recognize this historic site because of the extraordinary life and legacy of Judge Motley. Born and raised in New Haven, CT, Judge Motley was a first generation American, the child of Caribbean immigrants. At an early age, a local philanthropist offered to fund her college education, after hearing her speak at a community event. After graduating from New York University, she attended Columbia Law School at which point she joined the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund. As a contemporary of great civil rights activists like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, and Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Motley helped litigate most of the defining civil rights cases of the era, including the landmark Brown v. Board of Education. After a successful career as a lawyer and activist, she became the first female African American New York State Senator. Then, in 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed her to the federal district court for the Southern District of New York, making her the first black woman to serve on the federal judiciary. There, she spent the next 40 years shaping the legal landscape of the 20th century and even became the court's Chief judge. It was during this part of her life that Judge Motley often escaped to her Chester home with her family. I'd like to thank the Chester Land Trust and the greater Chester community for embracing Judge Constance Baker Motley's legacy by preserving her home and estate. I'd also like to thank the Motley and Coleman families for being so supportive of this endeavor. We honor Judge Constance Baker Motley's life and legacy by inducting her historic home into the Connecticut Freedom Trail. Colleagues, I ask that you please rise and join me in acknowledging this special occasion and the incredible woman we have to thank for it.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, on Friday this week, September 20, our country will be welcoming the top official of the country of Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who will be arriving in Washington, D.C. It is an important event, I think, for both countries, because this alliance between our two countries is so deep and the bond is so strong. The times that we are living in are so critical in terms of, again, just reaffirming all of the work that our two countries do together in so many ways, whether it is in terms of our military alliance, intelligence, trade, our cultures in terms of everything from movies to literature to music. Again, it is a deep and rich bond between our two countries. Mr. Speaker, during the August break, we had a bipartisan group, a number of us, who actually went to the country of Australia for a joint Members of Parliament/Members of Congress conference that took place in Perth, Australia. There were about a dozen Members, bicameral and bipartisan. I can tell you that the prognosis is very good in terms of the connection between our two countries. As I said, the integration of our two militaries could not be deeper and more connected. Again, it is a relationship that goes back to World War I, when U.S. troops, the first group that arrived in the expeditionary force in World War I, actually fought under an Australian general, John Monash. Obviously, that carried through during World War II, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. In Vietnam, they were our ally, one of the few that actually fought with our country during that conflict; and, obviously, in the Middle East, Australian troops have been part of, again, operations, to this day, between the two countries in terms of the fight against ISIS and others. When we were in Australia, again, the situation that I think is most urgent and something I really think all of us need to pay attention to is that the environment in the Indo-Pacific region is changing dramatically. We now have a leader in the country of China, Xi Jinping, who has declared himself President for life and who has openly and brazenly basically signaled that he is prepared to disregard all international rules-based order, which has really been the foundation of that region since the end of World War II, whether it is maritime law, where, again, they are building islands totally in violation of maritime law, or whether it is a claim of the Nine-Dash Line, which is a territorial claim far out into the South China Sea and the East China Sea. Again, what is happening there is egregious. It is harmful in terms of safe passage and open lanes of maritime traffic in the region. They obviously are engaged in an unprecedented military buildup, again, developing missile technologies that put surface ships of both countries and others in the region at great risk. So we have a lot of work to do. Rare earth minerals, which, again, China dominates. They have a virtual monopoly. Everything from our cellphones to aerospace and maritime equipment require the use of that. Western Australia, in particular, has deep deposits of rare earth minerals, and it is time for our two countries to work together to create a different supply chain that does not rely totally on the country of China to make that happen. What we also heard was that the best way that our country can move forward is to really, I think, point to what makes us most attractive in the world today, which is our embrace of democracy, free speech, openness, and generosity. Again, those are policies which we heard loud and clear from our colleagues in the Australian Parliament that they are looking to America, which has been the leader since the end of World War II, to promote, that type of international rules-based order. That is really the question of the day for this administration, which is in a go-it-alone trade war with China. Again, they have got the symptom right, which is that China's behavior is egregious and malign, particularly in terms of the trade practices that they engage in, but the question is: How do you push back? How do you execute a policy that should be multilateral, collaborative with our allies, to make sure that the World Trade Organization actually has real teeth in terms of enforcing egregious violations that China has been engaged in in terms of intellectual property and government involvement in terms of trying to capture different markets like solar panels and many, many others? So, again, I just want to say to our friends in Australia that they are welcome in this country. We look forward to, again, a very rich and strong alliance moving forward. The coequal branch of our government in Congress is part of that message and part of that policy. Again, we look forward to many years of productive work together based on common values as well as common interests and, obviously, the embrace of democracy for the region and for the rest of the world.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Allison F. Stiller, who is retiring from the Department of the Navy after more than 30 years of faithful civilian service to our nation, culminating as the Principal Civilian Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development & Acquisition, ASN(RD&A), for the past four years. Ms. Stiller's contributions to the Department of the Navy have been numerous. Her responsibilities include oversight and policy for Navy and Marine Corps research, development, and acquisition programs for shipbuilding, aviation, space, weapon systems, ground vehicles, munitions, and communication systems. This portfolio includes oversight of more than 100,000 people with an annual budget in excess of $50 billion as well as hundreds of technical developments and procurement programs for the Department of the Navy. Ms. Stiller served as the acting ASN(RD&A) from January through July 2017, and leads the Department's Senior Executive Acquisition Corps. She is also the proud ship sponsor for USS Mississippi (SSN 782). In performing her duties as Deputy to ASN(RD&A), Ms. Stiller regularly appeared before the House Armed Services Committee and the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, which I chair, consistently offering valuable insight and testimony and enhancing Congressional understanding of the programs under her purview. She has been a true advocate for the Navy, and I can attest that my colleagues and I very much appreciated and benefited from her expertise. Ms. Stiller entered the Senior Executive Service in January 2004. Prior to her current position, she served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ship Programs. In this capacity, she was responsible for executive oversight of all naval shipbuilding and associated weapon systems programs, major ship conversions, and nuclear ship refuelings, as well as the maintenance, modernization and disposal of in-service ships. During her tenure, 96 ships and submarines were placed under contract and 70 ships and submarines were delivered to the operational Fleet, representing approximately 25 percent of today's operational battle force. Ms. Stiller has served in a number of shipbuilding acquisition positions throughout her career where she led in the development and procurement of complex ship programs in multiple phases of the acquisition life cycle. She served for four years as the Deputy Program Manager in the Amphibious Warfare Program Office, responsible for design, development, acquisition, and fleet introduction of amphibious ships and landing craft. Ms. Stiller also served as Director for Naval and Commercial Construction in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ship Programs where her responsibilities included oversight of amphibious and auxiliary ship construction and conversion programs, as well as shipbuilding industrial base matters. During her tenure, Ms. Stiller helped develop and promote initiatives that focused the nation's shipbuilding industry towards commercial viability. Ms. Stiller also served as Acquisition Manager in the early phases of the Virginia Class Submarine Program, as well as division director in the Seawolf Submarine program during the design and early construction phases of that program. Ms. Stiller holds a BS in Systems Engineering from the University of Virginia and a MS in Engineering Management from Virginia Tech. She is also a graduate of the John F. Kennedy School of Government's Senior Executive Fellows Program at Harvard University and the Defense Systems Management College. Throughout her career, Ms. Stiller's leadership and performance has been recognized by numerous awards including the Presidential Rank Award (Distinguished and Meritorious) and the Department of the Navy's Superior and Meritorious Civilian Service awards. I am proud to recognize Ms. Stiller, and I thank her and her family for her honorable service to our nation. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Ms. Allison Stiller `fair winds and following seas' as she concludes a distinguished career of public service.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the career of Jerry Fischer, a dedicated servant and defender of the Jewish community, who retired as executive director of the Jewish Federation of Eastern Connecticut on June 30, 2019, after leading the Federation since 1984. Jerry lives in the state of Connecticut, where he has acted as a strengthening and unifying force for the state's Jewish community for thirty-five years. Jerry is, and always has been, a bastion for the preservation and prosperity of Connecticut's Jewish constituents. In his final year-end report, he told the Jewish Federation's board of directors that the goal his three-decade career was ``to bring acts of loving kindness into the community and the world.'' Native to Washington Heights, at 17 years old Jerry made the journey from New York City to Israel, where he spent a year, eventually making the decision to join the Israeli army for the Six Day War of June 1967. He cited this decision as a response to the Holocaust, the genocide that brutally murdered 6 million of his own people. His childhood in Washington Heights places him in one of the epicenters of the civil rights movements; Jerry took this experience and his time in Israel to create a career of leadership based in compassion and justice. Determined to push the Jewish community and the world forward, rather than back, Jerry stood up in the face of Holocaust skeptics and deniers and began the Encountering Survivors program, which brought Holocaust survivors and their family members face to face with high school students so that their stories of persecution and survival may live on through younger generations. In one such case, Jerry recruited 91-year- old Rae Gawendo, a Jewish refugee who arrived in Connecticut in the wake of the second World War, and, with the help of the Jewish Agricultural Society, started a chicken farm with her husband Jacob. Gawendo was sent from the Vilna ghetto to the Klooga work camp in 1942, where she was forced to work in a sawmill that processed the very logs used to bum Jewish bodies. She first spoke about her nightmare at a Holocaust commemoration arranged by Jerry Fischer, who later orchestrated meetings of small groups of students in her home, who listened with rapt attention as she recounted the truth of her life-- before, during, and after the war. Through interactions like these, Jerry created lasting, crucial bonds between generations that solidified his place among the country's leaders in indisputably preserving the memory of the Holocaust. Madam Speaker, Jerry has also been a positive voice in Southeastern Connecticut moral and social life, promoting solidarity with other religious communities. Every Martin Luther King Day he has marched with Bishop Watts of the Shiloh Baptist Church and hundreds of other shivering members of the New London County community to an ecumenical observance of Martin Luther King's life and legacy. He has organized public forums to discuss the Middle East conflict, and has been a voice of moderation, supporting a two-state solution as a path to peace. He has led thousands of Eastern Connecticut residents on trips to the Middle East, and his fluency in Hebrew and encyclopedic knowledge of the Holy Land educated all of his guests on the wonder and deep spiritual history of that region. I personally experienced that a few years back when he took me through Jerusalem and was equally conversant on the Wailing Wall, Dome of the Rock, and the Stations of the Cross in a spellbinding tour that I will never forget. He also rescued me from an unscrupulous vendor in the marketplace who tried to overcharge me for some religious souvenirs I naively almost overpaid for. Thanks again Jerry. Jerry has also been there to support the community in sad and tragic moments. After the sickening mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 2018, Jerry joined local rabbis, ministers, imams and priests to deliver a message of love and resolve to end senseless hate and gun violence in the media and at public events. He is a quintessential leader for all of us in Eastern Connecticut and we have been blessed by his grace and wisdom. Madam Speaker, although Jerry is stepping down as Executive Director, he plans to continue to be an active member of the Jewish community. In an editorial detailing the highlights of his career, The New London Day wrote, ``He and his wife Christine will remain in the area, and we suspect his mitzvahs--his acts of loving kindness--will continue, because that's who Jerry Fischer is.'' I would ask the House to please join me in extending our deepest gratitude to Jerry for his years of service and dedication to the Jewish community.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Neal for his leadership managing this bill on the floor. As Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, his advocacy is a powerful message to the House to pass the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act. I also want to thank Ranking Member Brady and Rep. Mike Kelly for their bipartisan efforts in support of this bill, defying the polarized politics that far too often dominates the health care debate. Madam Speaker, this bill today comes with the support of a more than 650 health care stakeholders who, over the last ten years, have joined together to repeal the 40 percent excise tax on higher premium health plans scheduled to go into effect in 2022. This tax was a late add on to the Affordable Care Act and has been rattling around in the federal tax code ever since, never having actually collected a penny of revenue, but nonetheless casting an statutory shadow over 180 million Americans' health plans--we know in real life from HR administrators and employee representatives it has added pressure to shift coverage into higher deductible health plans. As the Commonwealth Fund recently reported, the numbers of Americans who are underinsured as the result of high deductibles has grown by over 50 percent since 2005. Kaiser Family Foundation just reported that 31 percent of employer health plans will get hit by the tax in 2022, and that number will grow sharply soon after. Passage of this bill will stop that trend from worsening, lift the shadow that overhangs employer-sponsored plans, and give millions of teachers, factory workers, small businesses, firefighters and the like, relief. As the bill's lead sponsor, I want to foot stomp the fact that repeal of the tax does not touch the architecture of the ACA's patient protections. Repeal is completely severable from the other 440 sections of the law and leaves intact essential health benefits, and the elimination of preexisting conditions exclusions and lifetime caps to name a few. Given that those patient protections have been in full operation for the last ten years, while this ``zombie tax'' has been in a coma during that time, it is abundantly clear that the tax is disconnected from the rest of the law. Lastly, I want to underscore the CBO determination that passage will not result in any increase in the number of uninsured. There is one other concern that observers have raised, namely the impact on the national debt. Again, JCT has given a mixed report. The good news is that repeal this year 2019 will result in no budget impact in 2020 and 2021. In the following two years they estimate a loss of 21 billion in tax revenue. In the out years their projections grow exponentially, based on a theory of ``wage effect'' cause by the ``thinning'' of health plans' value and a corresponding increase in wages. To say that the ``wage effect'' theory is debatable is an understatement, and employee groups such as Wage Works, the AFL-CIO, police and firefighter groups ferociously deny the validity of the ``wage effect'' based on their real life experience at the collective bargaining table. The only remaining question a reasonable observer might ask is why has repeal taken so long? Given the initial 5-year delay in the tax's effective date in 2010, based on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's opposition and the two subsequent delays until 2022, it is true that the warning flags were up on this tax early and Congress should have acted sooner. In the Congresses that followed 2010 ACA enactment, there was ample opportunity to get this done. In the 114th Congress an identical surgical repeal bill had 188 bipartisan cosponsors. In the 115th Congress a surgical bill had 304 bipartisan cosponsors. Despite that broad based support, neither Speaker John Boehner nor Paul Ryan ever called those bills up for a vote. I know because I was the lead Democratic sponsor on every one of those measures. Madam Speaker, with 370 House cosponsors, I am hopeful an overwhelming tally tonight will send a laser-like message to the Senate to adopt this bill as soon as possible, as is.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of myself and the members of the House Committee on Armed Services, to congratulate and celebrate Mr. Michael J. Sullivan, the Director of Defense Weapon System Acquisitions for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), on the occasion of his retirement after 34 years of distinguished federal service. Mr. Sullivan's dedication to his profession, his selfless public service, and his role helping GAO meet its mission have exceeded everyone's expectations. During his time at GAO, Mr. Sullivan has been an effective thought-leader, most notably in GAO's work to expertly identify and apply best acquisition practices for product development, production, testing, and fielding for many of DOD's most complex, expensive, and critical weapon system acquisitions. Over the years, Mr. Sullivan's efforts resulted in numerous modifications and alterations to DOD's acquisition policies, processes and implementation. Mr. Sullivan significantly contribute to the development and enactment of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-23), which lead to improved acquisition outcomes and effective returns on investment of billions of dollars on behalf of the Congress and the American taxpayer. Mr. Sullivan testified numerous times before the House Armed Services Committee, expertly representing GAO's work on high profile, complex, and sensitive DOD acquisition programs including the F-22 Raptor, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, among other high-profile programs such as the B-2 Spirit, the KC-46A tanker, the B-21 Raider, the Next Generation Air Dominance concept, and numerous unmanned aircraft programs such as the MQ-1, MQ-9, RQ-4, UCAV, UCLASS, and MQ-25. He consistently delivered insightful, independent, and fact-based analyses that informed the decision-making of the Armed Services Committee made regarding many of DOD's largest and most complex acquisition programs during many cycles of the Committee during formulation of annual National Defense Authorization Acts. He has been a constant voice for good government and a force for positive change. In addition to his program oversight noted above, Mr. Sullivan has also been greatly involved in reviewing issues related to science and technology portfolio management, technology maturation and requirements development efforts, and Department of Defense tactical aircraft force structure planning and execution. We all are eternally grateful for Mr. Sullivan's contributions to oversight of national security issues and fiscal resources of the most importance to Congress and the American taxpayer. Mr. Sullivan's exceptional work and many accomplishments over more than three decades are deeply valued by me, the committee, and the Congress. We sincerely thank Mr. Sullivan and wish him the best success in all of his future endeavors after retirement.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life and service of Theodore J. ``Ted'' Plamondon, Jr. Teddy was a constituent of mine from Enfield, CT. He passed away last Tuesday at the age of 93. Ted was born and raised in Enfield. He worked as a police officer and served as Hartford County sheriff, state marshal, and town constable. Additionally, he served for 22 years in the U.S. Navy and Navy Reserve throughout World War II, the Korean War, and the war in Vietnam. Consequently, it should come as no surprise that Teddy was the biggest advocate for veterans Enfield has ever seen. He organized both the Memorial Day and Veterans Day parades every year, was chairman of the Enfield Veterans Council, and was involved with AMVETS Post 18, VFW Post 1501, and the John Maciolek American Legion Post 154. He was also instrumental in securing a new World War II monument in town. And, as if all that weren't enough, he was an active member of the Democratic Town Committee. As a testament to Teddy's popularity and how deeply beloved he was by his community, Enfield residents took turns keeping constant vigil at his bedside as he ailed. Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of knowing Ted Plamondon for over twenty years from his involvement in the court system, local politics and tireless veteran advocacy. He was outspoken, and you always knew where he stood--even if it meant ruffling feathers. Enfield, the town he loved, lost a devoted citizen whose life embodied public service. It was a privilege to know him and call him a friend. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending sincerest condolences to Ted's surviving family, for their loss.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman DelBene for her leadership managing this bill and the Ways and Means Committee for embracing it. Their advocacy sends a powerful message to the House to pass the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2019. I also thank my friend, Representative Mike Kelly, for his bipartisan support of the bill, defying the polarized politics that too often dominates the healthcare debate. Madam Speaker, this bill today comes with the support of more than 660 healthcare groups that represent millions of Americans who have joined together to repeal the 40 percent excise tax on health plans scheduled to go into effect in 2022. Madam Speaker, this tax was a late add-on to the Affordable Care Act deliberations and has been rattling around inoperable in the Federal Tax Code since 2010, never actually having collected a penny of revenue but, nonetheless, casting a statutory shadow over 180 million Americans' health plans, which we know, from HR administrators and employee reps in real life, has added pressure to shift coverage into higher deductible plans, which falls on the backs of working Americans. As the Commonwealth Fund recently reported, the number of Americans who are underinsured as a result of high deductibles has grown by over 50 percent since 2005. The Kaiser Family Foundation just reported that 31 percent of employer health plans will get hit by the excise tax in 2022, and that number will skyrocket soon after. Passage of this bill will lift the shadow that hangs over employer- sponsored plans and stop the high deductible trend from worsening. As the bill's lead sponsor, I want to foot stomp that the repeal of the tax does not touch the architecture of the ACA's patient protections. Repeal is completely severable from the other 440 sections of the law and leaves intact essential health benefits and the elimination of preexisting condition exclusions and lifetime limits. Given that those patient protections have been in full operation for the last 10 years, during which this zombie tax has been in a coma, it is abundantly clear that the tax is disconnected from the rest of the law. Lastly, I want to underscore the CBO determination that passage will not result in any increase in the number of uninsured. Madam Speaker, with 370 House cosponsors, I am hopeful that an overwhelming tally tonight will send a laser-like message to the Senate to adopt this bill as soon as possible, as is. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters from Families USA, a strong advocate for the ACA, as well as the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers, in support of the bill, and a 2009 letter signed by 188 supporters of the ACA in support of this repeal of the excise tax. FamiliesUSA, July 15, 2019. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: On behalf of Families USA, a leading national voice for health care consumers, I write to offer our support for legislation that will be considered by the full House of Representatives this week, H.R. 748, the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2019. This bipartisan legislation would repeal the excise tax on high value employer-sponsored health care coverage, also known as the ``Cadillac Tax''. At a time when almost half of our nation's families report that they are forgoing needed medical care because they cannot afford the care, policymakers should make sure that employers doing the right thing and providing high value health insurance to their employees are supported, not penalized with an egregious tax. More than 181 million people--a majority of the country-- receive employer-sponsored insurance. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) included a provision to impose a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost and high-value employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) coverage. This provision was recently delayed for a second time, until 2022. While the tax would be levied on employers, experts expect its costs largely would be shifted to employees and their families. The Cadillac Tax is built on the supposition that by exposing our nation's families to even more financial vulnerability in their health care, families will manage to bring their own health care costs down. Creating greater financial insecurity for families is not the answer. It is the primary responsibility of policy makers, the health care sector, and the government to solve the health care cost crisis. And your constituents agree. More than 80 percent of people in this nation--both Democrats and Republicans--believe it's the responsibility of the government to get control of out-of-control health care costs. H.R. 748 is an important opportunity for Congress to support high quality health care and the employers that provide it. In recent years, deductibles in ESI plans have risen considerably while costs have continued to grow. The so-called ``Cadillac Tax'' creates the wrong incentive to employers around the nation. What we need now is higher value insurance, not lower value coverage. H.R. 748 has widespread, bipartisan support, and boasts 361 cosponsors, including 199 Democrats and 162 Republicans. We urge the House of Representatives to support working families and the employers providing these families high quality health insurance and pass H.R. 748 when it comes to the floor. Sincerely, Frederick Isasi, Executive Director.