Joe Courtney

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, salute Congressman Doggett for his effort in terms of bringing this legislation forward. As the chairman of the committee said, this is really about giving patients a fighting chance to challenge this coding, a change that happens while people are in the hospital and have absolutely no idea that they are not being treated as full part A inpatient patients at hospital facilities. The impact of being coded as observation versus inpatient may sound extremely arcane, but what that means is that at time of discharge, if a patient is medically prescribed to go to a nursing home for rehab care for a broken bone or for home health services for a heart condition, they are not covered by Medicare if they are in the observation bucket as opposed to the inpatient bucket. The inspector general's office for Medicare issued a report in 2012 that 600,000 patients across the country with long-stay hospital visits over 3 days fell into this black hole, this no man's land where, again, their doctors are telling them that they need to have rehab services so that people can walk again and deal with activities of daily living; but the price for doing that, because you are in observation status, can be tens of thousands of dollars, which is where long-term care facilities, nursing home coverage for private-pay patients, out-of- pocket patients, exist today. This bill at least gives patients the opportunity to challenge that decision. But the fact of the matter is, what we need to do is to restore the 3-day rule, which is in statute. It has been there since 1965. Observation status is something new within the last 10 years, and what we need to do as a Congress is to restore that 3-day rule, which says to a patient: If you are coded observation or if you are coded inpatient, it should not interfere with your medically prescribed course of treatment at the time that you are discharged from the hospital. That, unfortunately, is not going to be fixed as a result of this legislation. We should build on this legislation and again restore Medicare's promise, which, again, from day one, has said that medically prescribed care will be covered by the system at time of discharge from a hospital for longer than 3 days. The horror stories of people who in some instances were in hospital for 9 days with broken bones, broken hips, who, again, are staring at a 10 to $15,000 fee to be admitted to a nursing home--again, 600,000 cases in 2012. So again, we need to build on this legislation, but fundamentally, we need to restore the 3-day rule which has been in statute since 1965. We will be introducing that legislation later this week. It will be a bipartisan bill. We think we can withstand the test of any pay-fors to make sure that it allows the Medicare system's finances to stay in a stable condition. In the meantime, we should pass this legislation today. Again, I want to salute the Member from Texas for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. I appreciate that, Mr. Kline. These organizations have pledged to work with me to find ways to constructively address these issues in the days moving ahead. Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Nolan

Mr. COURTNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, nearly two decades ago, Congress created the Military Housing Privatization Initiative to improve military family housing that, in many cases, was decrepit by allowing private developers to upgrade, maintain, and operate housing communities. In the years since, public-private ventures created under this program have infused millions in private capital to improve the living conditions of military families at installations all across the country and has made a tremendous difference for our military families across the Nation. As of 2011, 193,000 units of housing have been converted under this program. Under the program, priority for housing goes first to military personnel, then to Federal employees and retirees. However, if occupancy rates drop below certain levels for a period of time, the housing can be made available to the general public. Allowing nonmilitary families with children access to this housing is an important part of ensuring the financial viability of these ventures, but it also presents unanticipated challenges to the host communities where they are located, since these properties are property tax exempt. For example, today, there are 130 civilian nonmilitary children residing at the public-private housing at Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, Connecticut. These children attend Groton public schools alongside military children residing in the same community; yet Groton receives no Impact Aid support for the cost of their education. Since their housing is property tax exempt, the host community has to absorb the entire per pupil cost for their education. While I was made aware of this problem because of the growing challenge in Groton, it is clear from discussions with Navy officials and the Groton developer that the same problem will face communities across the country that have privatized military housing, as the size and composition of our military changes in the years ahead. Under current law, local schools are eligible to receive only 5 percent of the support payments for children residing on Federal property with a parent who is not affiliated, but only if the number of children being educated equals or exceeds 1,000 or equals or exceeds 10 percent of the total numbers of students in average daily attendance. My amendment is simple. It would ensure that the number of civilian children living in property tax exempt military housing can be more adequately factored into a community's support for educating these children under Impact Aid. Since my amendment was made in order last night, I have heard recognition of the problem that I am seeking to address, but also concerns at how it would have wider-ranging impacts to this program, particularly in light of the ongoing funding challenges in Impact Aid. Throughout the day, my staff and I have had productive and thoughtful discussions with the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools and the Military Impacted Schools Association about how to address this issue that my communities and others are facing. I would note that the chairman of the committee, Mr. Kline, who also serves on the House Armed Services Committee with me, has pledged to work with my office to try and address this issue which, again, at the end of the day, is about fairness for host communities that step up and make sure that our military families have safe and good schools.

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

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, as one of our closest allies, the nation of Australia has stood steadfast with the United States as we tackle issues of great importance to both nations. Like any strong friendship, our bilateral relationship requires that we collaborate and exchange ideas. I have been fortunate to work with Ambassador Kim Beazley to foster commerce between Connecticut and Australia, and have had the pleasure of hosting the Ambassador in my home state. And for many years, I have continued learning about Australia's goals and priorities by hosting a series of intelligent, dedicated, and curious young professionals in my office through the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program. The program places 15 students of Australia's best and brightest students in internships in Congressional offices, federal agencies, and committees to lend an able hand to office operations, learn about American government, and serve as what they often call themselves: Unofficial Ambassadors. I would be remiss not to note that this important relationship would not be possible without the dedication of Mr. Eric Federing, who year after year shepherds a new generation of Australian students into our nation's capital. Over the course of its 16 years, the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program has brought an impressive 170 students from 10 Australian universities to the United States Congress. This year I was privileged to have Sally Knowles-Jackson join our office from the University of Melbourne where she is studying to be a lawyer. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Sally for her hard work and dedication. Curious and positive, she quickly adjusted to the fast-paced life of a Congressional office and eagerly took on the tasks and responsibilities of her position. While in the UniCapitol program, she has had the opportunity to meet with officials from the Australian Embassy and the UN, attend briefings and hearings, meet with White House officials, members of the DC media, and learn the ins and outs of the Capitol building's historic halls. Sally has been able to learn not only about life in D.C., but also about our constituents back home in Connecticut. When she returns to Melbourne next week it is my hope that Sally will bring with her an understanding of the American legislative process, knowledge of Washington, DC, and an appreciation for the enduring friendships our two nations have maintained. Mr. Speaker, I would like to once more thank Eric, Sally, my colleagues who have also hosted their own Unofficial Australian Ambassadors, as well as the nation of Australia for sharing in this truly one-of-a kind experience. I look forward to welcoming future Uni- Capitol Washington Internship students into my office.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I hate to throw cold water on the last colloquy, but I think it is important to note as we debate this bill, which never had the benefit of a public hearing or a single subcommittee hearing, is that the Federal mandate for annual testing does not change as a result of this law. What does change regarding that testing requirement is that the dedicated funding stream, which Congress at least had the decency to pass back in 2002, that is eliminated. What you are doing is you are maintaining a mandate and you are eliminating the funding to pay for that mandate for testing. What we are ending up with, for all the talk about reducing the Federal footprint, is that we are doubling down on the Federal requirement that States have to have annual testing in schools, which every Member in this Chamber has heard about in loud protest over the last 13 years. What this shows is that when the process is broken--and it was broken in this case, no committee-subcommittee meetings, no hearings, rushing it to the floor on a hyperpartisan basis, not one single Democratic amendment was accepted at the committee during markup, that is what you end up with, is a deformed bill, which should be defeated. I urge in the strongest terms possible a ``no'' vote. Let's go back and do this the right way.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. The fact of the matter is that this marketplace, which now has more carriers, is now providing lower rates, saving close to $90 million from last year's rates than the year before.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, what we are being asked to do here today is to stop that progress, to take away that coverage to young adults that today get it through their parents' plans, to take away the prescription drug benefit, to take away from seniors the relief that they are getting for lifesaving medications, and to tell those individual and small group plans that are purchasing it--this year, again, we have 70,000 reenrollments of the 75,000 enrolled last year, and we have 30,000 new that have enrolled this year in that plan. We have cut the uninsured rate in a State like Connecticut that has embraced the law down to 4 percent of its population. You are telling folks like me to blow it up, get rid of it, and you have no plan, even though your caucus made a promise a year ago to the American people that they would provide a plan, and they never came through with it. Reject this bill.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, almost exactly a year ago, the Republican majority held a retreat where other Members met and they set their agenda for 2014. After that retreat, the leadership issued a statement promising, with a solemn promise, that the House Republicans will rally around and pass an alternative to ObamaCare this year. That is about 4 years after the law passed, but at least you can give them some credit that they were going to move forward in 2014 with an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. That was last winter, and winter turned to spring, spring turned to summer, summer turned to fall, fall turned to winter, and we never had a vote in the House on the alternative, the promised alternative to ObamaCare. Maybe the committees took action, the committees that this proposed bill is lateraling this issue off to. Did we have a committee vote on Education and the Workforce, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce? No. Did we have hearings on an alternative that was promised by the majority caucus a year ago on an alternative to the Affordable Care Act? No, no hearings, no markup, no vote, no bill. Here we are today with the majority once again throwing out a promise: Trust us. In 180 days, we will have an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. Well, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in the last year, millions of Americans have moved on. Parents are insuring their kids through the Affordable Care Act up to age 26. There are Members in the majority who take advantage of that very provision to provide coverage for their children under the Affordable Care Act that they seek to repeal here today. Millions of seniors see their prescription drug costs cut because of the Affordable Care Act because of the leftover of the Republican prescription drug bill which led this outrageous doughnut hole that threw 100 percent of the cost of medications to seniors who were paying monthly premiums. Yes, we saw the startup of exchanges, both at the State level--like my State in the State of Connecticut--and the Federal exchange, which have enrolled millions of Americans in affordable plans. This year, the Affordable Care Act in Connecticut, we had submissions by the insurance companies to participate in 2015. Did we see reduced competition? Did we see less of a free marketplace? No, we saw more competition. We have more insurers who are offering the product through the exchange in 2015 than in 2014. Did we see rates go up? Mr. Speaker, I am going to enter into the Record a record from the Connecticut State Insurance Department which shows that rates went down--down--for individual plans and for small group market plans. State of Connecticut Insurance Department 2014 Connecticut Insurance Rate Filings For On/Off Exchange 2015 Policies Individual Market Requested and Approved Changes Aetna Life Insurance Co.: --Requested Change: 9.4% --Approved Change: 4.60% --Effective 1/1/2015 Celtic Insurance Company: --Requested Change: 0.00% --Approved Change: -6.50% --Effective 1/1/2015 ConnectiCare Benefits, Inc.: --Requested Change: 12.8% --Approved Change: 3.10% --Effective 1/1/2015 ConnectiCare Inc.: --Requested Change: -21.50% --Approved Change: -21.50% --Effective 1/1/2015 ConnectiCare Insurance Co.: --Requested Change: 1.40% --Approved Change: 1.30% --Effective 1/1/2015 UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co.: --Requested Change: 0.00% --Approved Change: -9.30% --Effective 1/1/2015 Golden Rule Insurance Co.: --Requested Change: 0.00% --Approved Change: -6.91% --Effective 1/1/2015 HealthyCT, Inc: --Requested Change: -8.60% --Approved Change: -8.50% --Effective 1/1/2015 Time Insurance Company: --Requested Change: 25.00% --Approved Change: 6.00% --Effective 1/1/2015 Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company: --Requested Change: 15.23% --Approved Change: 8.82% --Effective 1/1/2015 Anthem Health Plans: --Requested Change: 12.5%, --Approved Change: -0.10% --Effective 1/1/2015 UnitedHealthcare Life Insurance Company: --Requested Change: 0.00% --Approved Change: -9.20% --Effective 1/1/2015 Average Requested Change: 3.85% Average Approved Change: -3.18% Estimated savings for consumers in Individual Market: $79,099,427 Small Group Market Requested and Approved Changes Aetna Life Insurance Co.: --Requested Change: 5.90% --Approved Change: 5.90% --Effective 1/1/2015 Anthem Health Plans: --Requested Change: 6.00% --Approved Change: 4.40% --Effective 1/1/2015 HealthyCT, Inc*: --Requested Change: -13.40% --Approved Change: -13.40% --Effective 1/1/2015 UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co.*: --Requested Change: 2.50% --Approved Change: 2.50% --Effective 1/1/2015 ConnectiCare Inc.: --Requested Change: -1.40% --Approved Change: -5.00% --Effective 1/1/2015 ConnectiCare Insurance Co.*: --Requested Change: 7.00% --Approved Change: 7.00% --Effective 1/1/2015 Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare of CT: --Requested Change: 2.80% --Approved Change: -12.00%, --Effective 1/1/2015 HPHC Insurance Co.*: --Requested Change: -3.40% --Approved Change: -9.40% --Effective 1/1/2015 Oxford Health Insurance*: --Requested Change: 10.20% --Approved Change: 10.20% --Effective 1/1/2015 Oxford Health Plans (CT): --Requested Change: 10.20% --Approved Change: 9.00% --Effective 1/1/2015 Average Requested Change: 2.64% Average Approved Change: 0.08% *CID has review authority but not approval authority over these filings Estimated savings for consumers in Small Group Market: $9,448,203 Estimated savings for combined Individual & Small Group Markets: $88,547,630

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta) for his leadership on this legislation, which has been noted. As we are standing here today, there are probably thousands of calls happening all across the country for fire suppression, for medical emergencies, for people with all types of difficulties that volunteers--people who don't have to step up and train and spend all the hours and be available at the expense of their family time and their work time--will respond to these calls. And for a lot of communities that rely on volunteers, the issue of recruitment and retention and just trying to make the environment conducive for people to make that act of volunteering is a challenge that I think all of us hear about from our volunteer fire departments and first responders all across the Nation. So when this issue of the Affordable Care Act being possibly a requirement for the shared responsibilities of employers was out there, again, I applaud Mr. Barletta for stepping up, introducing this legislation, and following up with mail to the IRS Commissioner. They did respond almost exactly a year ago, saying that the regulations would not count bona fide volunteers in terms of the 50-employee count. But as was noted, I think it is always better to have it in statute rather than rely on the whims of administrative agencies that can change with the change of administration. So again, I think this is an example of how the country really wants us to operate. Again, if you look at the Affordable Care Act, since its passage, we have worked together to eliminate the 1099 filing requirement; we have worked together to make sure that our military families, through TRICARE, would have age 26 coverage, which was left out when the bill was initially filed; and here today, we are following up again with an example of commonsense fixes to the legislation, which is what I think the country really is looking for. I would also note that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has legislation to restore tax exclusions which were on the books a number of years ago to help volunteer fire departments use property tax exemptions and equipment donations that had been treated as income by the IRS in past years.

Mr. COURTNEY. Unfortunately, those tax exemptions expired. And I know, again, the gentleman--and I am sure with bipartisan support--is going to introduce measures to bring those back and, again, allow these departments that are struggling to retain and recruit to have the tools so that they can make it easier, rather than having to file 1040s and drive people crazy around tax filing time for things like boots and coats and a property tax exemption being treated as taxable income. So again, I look forward to the passage of this legislation with the huge bipartisan margin that we saw last year; and given the administration's response to our entreaties, again, I fully expect that there will be a bill signing ceremony at the White House, assuming it gets through the Senate. Again, with that, I would urge passage.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to remember one of eastern Connecticut's most generous, caring, and devoted citizens, Stanley Israelite. Stanley passed away this past December at age 89 and leaves behind an enduring powerful legacy in his native Norwich and throughout Connecticut. I ask the U.S. House to join me in expressing condolences to his wife, Linda Hershman; and his four children, Michael Israelite, Abby Dolliver, Mindy Wilkie, and Jon Israelite. After his passing, a memorial service was held at Beth Jacob Synagogue, which was the scene of an overflow crowd of people from all walks of life. His longtime boss, former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd; Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman; State legislators; mayors and former mayors; small business owners; labor union leaders; and his neighbors and friends from the city he loved, Norwich, Connecticut, were all in attendance. Senator Dodd delivered a stirring eulogy filled with humor and passion, describing Stanley's amazing life of service. As Senator Dodd related, Stanley dedicated his life to helping others. After starting his career in his family-owned jewelry store, he uncovered his true passion, assisting members of his community with any problem, anytime, after intervening with a family in crisis. He left the business, and after holding a variety of human service and business advocacy positions in Norwich--and earning citizen of the year and citizen of the decade awards in the 1960s--went on to work for Chris Dodd. Stanley ran his constituent service programs, beginning in 1974 with Dodd's election as Second District Congressman, the seat that I now have the honor to hold, and later as State director to Senator Dodd after Chris' election to the Senate in 1980. Stanley remained a fixture in Connecticut politics, known for his consummate dedication to helping constituents get the help they needed. He spent decades ensuring that Connecticut citizens received help from the VA, Medicare, and Social Security; solved thorny immigration problems; helped small business owners get their feet under them; and then doggedly pushed forward projects to improve local communities. Today, one of the projects he spearheaded, an industrial park in Norwich that never would have been realized without Stanley's efforts, now bears his name, the Stanley Israelite Norwich Business Park, renamed in his honor in 2005. In 1995, Stanley was recognized as U.S. News and World Report's 12 Indispensable Americans. For all the awards and honors that his community rightly bestowed on him throughout his career, Stanley, himself, valued the thank you notes that he received from grateful constituents above everything. In 1995, he explained to a reporter from The New London Day that the highest honor in the Dodd office was to post a constituent thank you letter on the office refrigerator. ``That is our glory,'' he said. ``If you are on the refrigerator, then you have done a good job.'' Stanley's personal mantra--which he instilled in his colleagues, friends, and family--was always, ``Don't forget the people.'' After a lifetime of service to his community, the people he helped and everyone who had the privilege to know him will certainly never forget him.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I had an amendment, which is being shut off today, which I think actually really addresses the problem. Under the structure of the employer mandate that came out of the Senate, when an employer goes from 49 to 50 employees, the employer is taxed for 20 employees. Again, that is a cliff. There is just no denying that fact. When the House passed the Affordable Care Act, we had a smooth, gradual, incremental increase based on payroll which, again, did not create a cliff. My amendment would simply say that the exempt number of employees before the tax kicked in would be raised from 30 to 49, so that when an additional employee was hired above the 50 threshold, there would be a tax, there still would be an incentive, but there would not be a cliff. Unbelievably, the committee just totally refused to allow this amendment to be considered. It was a strike-everything substitute amendment because the underlying bill does not accomplish the ends that its sponsors claim--and the CRS has verified that--but in fact, the Small Business Majority, which represents a large contingent of small employers across the country, endorsed my amendment. Madam Speaker, sadly, under this rule--which, again, just completely shuts off any ability for Members to do their job, represent their district, come up with ideas that are well-founded in independent analysis--we are not going to have that opportunity. I will submit a copy of the amendment which is not going to be discussed and the statement of support from the Small Business Majority in the Record. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. ___ Offered by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and both underlying bills, particularly the misnamed Save American Workers Act. I would like to just cite very quickly from the Congressional Research Service, which is one of the gems of quality, neutral, nonpartisan analysis for this body, which took a look at this bill and said very clearly: Changing the cutoff from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per week would not eliminate the incentive for employers to shift more workers to part-time status and could actually provide a greater incentive for firms not to offer health insurance to their employees. In theory, changing the definition of a full-time worker to 40 hours a week would shift, not eliminate, the incentive for employers to reduce workers' hours. Additionally, more employers could be inclined to shift more workers to ``part- time'' status under a 40-hour definition because the disruption to their workforce is smaller from 40 to 39 hours per week than 40 to 29 hours per week. I will submit this report for the Record. Change the Definition of ``Full-Time'' to 40 Hours Per Week Multiple bills introduced in the 113th Congress propose changing ACA's definition of ``full-time'' from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per week. Proponents of this revision argue that the current, 30-hour per-week definition is unusually low compared with ``traditional standards'' of a full-time worker in many industries, thus increasing employer's calculations and compliance costs. In addition, proponents of the revision argue that the 30-hour definition encourages employers to reduce the number of hours allotted to each worker (thereby reducing their pay) in order to reduce the number of ``full-time'' workers and reduce their compliance costs with ACA (or the size of their employer penalty, because the penalty is only based on full-time workers). Note, as discussed below, that the incentive for firms paying the penalty could be eliminated by imposing the penalty to apply to FTEs. As shown in Table 3, 2012 Census data indicates that the majority (67.8%) of workers usually work 40 hours or more per week. The average work week for people who typically work ``full time'' is 42.5 hours per week--more than the 30-hour definition of an ``FTE'' in ACA. However, the data in Table 3 does not provide much behavioral insight into the responses of firms to ACA, as they were collected prior to the initial measurement period for ACA's employer penalty that began in January 2013.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Darrell Stark, 92, of Stafford Springs, Connecticut. Mr. Stark, a veteran of the Army's 31st Infantry Regiment and former prisoner of war of the Empire of Japan in World War II, recently returned from a historic trip to Japan he and six other former POWs, accompanied by their family members, were guests of the Japanese government last month on a trip of reconciliation and remembrance. Mr. Stark was 17 when he joined the Army in 1941, and was immediately sent to the Philippines where he was assigned to a heavy weapons company as a weapons carrier and runner. He participated in the defense of the Bataan peninsula, where despite disease, lack of supplies and obsolete weapons, he and his fellow defenders were able to fight the Japanese to a four-month standstill. Despite their efforts, however, Bataan was surrendered on April 9, 1942. Mr. Stark was taken prisoner and over the course of the next three years was held in various prisons and camps in the Philippines, forced into labor and suffering extremely harsh and difficult conditions. After being liberated in September 1945, Mr. Stark returned home for treatment, eventually settling in Connecticut where he worked for the Department of Corrections and spoke often to students about his role in in the defense of the Philippines. Between October 11 to 20, Mr. Stark and six of his fellow POWs were guests of the Government of Japan as part of the fifth American POW Friendship delegation to visit Japan. This delegation included members of the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy, and Marines who fought in the Pacific Theater of World War II. Their trip was part of an ongoing reconciliation process that began in 2010 when the Japanese government delivered to the first American POW delegation an official Cabinet- approved apology for the damage and suffering these men endured. As part of the delegation, Mr. Stark was able to travel to his former POW camp in Yokkaichi near Kyoto. The managers of Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha (ISK), the company that controlled the camp, not only received him warmly, but honored him. ISK is now a multi-national chemical company with operations in the United States and one of only a handful of companies that have apologized to POWs forced into labor. This once in a lifetime trip for Mr. Stark was made possible through the hard work of many people, including the U.S. State Department and the Government of Japan. While coming to terms with the past is undoubtedly difficult for our American survivors and the Japanese people, it is my hope that our two nations will continue to work together to sustain and improve efforts such as this to provide reconciliation with our shared history, provide closure to our POWs and their families, and build stronger relations for the future.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Marine who has long known that fighting for the men and women with whom you served does not stop after no longer wearing the uniform. Edmond Clark, of Madison, Connecticut, is being inducted into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame this week for his tireless advocacy and representation of veterans in the courtroom. A Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam War, Edmond applied lessons learned from his service in the classroom. He returned to school and earned a law degree to assist his local veterans community. Often working pro-bono, Ed represented numerous veterans to assist them with legal and personal challenges. He advocated for veterans in numerous scenarios: collecting money they were due for their service, challenging unfair home and apartment evictions, and facilitating entry into mental health and substance abuse programs, amongst many other issues. Ed's record of community service is also notable. He is a former member of the Board of Directors for the Charter Oak State College Foundation, an organization that identifies scholarship funding for students with gaps in their tuition assistance. Ed also served as the President of the Connecticut Association of School Business Officials which facilitates communication between school administrators to share their ideas. An active supporter of eastern Connecticut's youth community, Ed serves as the Executive Director of the Tri-Town Giants Football Club, head coach for a middle school girl's interscholastic basketball club, and mentors middle school mock trial and debate teams. This commitment to service of all levels of our community makes Edmond Clark a fitting addition to the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame. Congratulations to Ed Clark, who is more than deserving of this honor as a veteran who has found so many ways to serve.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night in Hartford, Connecticut, at the State capital, there will be a solemn annual event, where 10 veterans are inducted into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame. This is a ceremony which dates back to 2005 in which 10 veterans are honored by the State of Connecticut. One of the 92 veterans that are on the rolls is President George Herbert Walker Bush who hails, of course, from the State of Connecticut. Again, it honors not only their service, where they wore the uniform of our Nation, but also for their work after they left the service, to help the over 200,000 veterans that reside in the State of Connecticut. For the Second Congressional District of eastern Connecticut, it is a particularly proud night because six of the 10 hail from the Second District. I would argue that this is no coincidence. This is the home of the largest operating military installation in New England with the Groton Submarine Base and, as was recently described by the Hartford Courant, had the highest concentration of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, again, because of the great patriotism and sense of duty that I think is a part of the fabric of that great part of our State. I would like to briefly describe these six gentlemen and have their names entered into the Record. Edward Francis Atkins, known as Bud, from Oakdale, Connecticut, served 40 years in the Navy. A former submariner, he mentors students at the Naval Submarine School. Bud is a respected leader within the submarine force and a command master chief petty officer, retired, and for the last 4 years has been on the selection panel to identify outstanding sailors who are the best of the best in the submarine force. He is now heading up the Groton Subvets chapter which, again, helps the 8,000 sailors that live in that community. He will be hard at work at Thanksgiving, serving meals to make sure that those sailors have some of the comforts of home while they are serving their Nation. Samuel Baez of Waterford, Connecticut, served as a Navy chaplain during Vietnam, conducting the memorial service in Da Nang for the first Marine casualties of the war. Those seven names are still memorialized on the first panel of the Vietnam Memorial here in Washington. Since he retired, he has continued to counsel veterans around the world and serves as a counselor and parental sponsor to Coast Guard cadets who are attending the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. Edmond Clark of Madison, Connecticut, served our Nation in Vietnam as a marine, and after earning his law degree, he has provided legal assistance free of charge to help veterans receive the benefits they receive through their service. It is not well-known that the VA caps legal fees at $10 for any veteran who challenges a disability ruling. Mr. Clark has brushed aside that restriction and, again, represented veterans free of charge to make sure that they get the benefits they deserved. Maurice Collin of Coventry, Connecticut, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran, served as a veteran service officer in the Office of Advocacy and Assistance in the Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs. He was selected to serve as acting commissioner for a period of time. Since his retirement from State government, he has continued to contribute his time to veterans. He provides volunteer driving assistance to disabled veterans in eastern Connecticut to their medical appointments and supervises the clothing donation program at the Newington VA hospital. Robert Getman of Old Lyme, Connecticut, will be inducted posthumously today. He served 30 years in the Coast Guard. After his retirement in 1984, he went on to serve as the director of the Veterans Home in Rocky Hill, and for 10 years, he worked vigorously to rehabilitate, educate, and place veterans into careers. Finally, Gerry Wright of Bolton, Connecticut, my neighbor, served two tours in Vietnam in the Army and later, as a member of the Army National Guard, served in Operation Desert Storm. Since retiring in 1999, Gerry has been everywhere, helping veterans all across Connecticut. He devotes his time to various veterans service organizations helping veterans in many ways, collecting care packages for Connecticut servicemen overseas, and he has faithfully attended every sendoff and welcome home ceremony for the Connecticut National Guard at the Hartford State Armory over the last few years. The hard work of these men, combined with their unfailing dedication to service, even after leaving the military, exemplifies the greatest attributes of the American spirit. Because of their continued service, the few that stand out in particular are well-deserving of being honored tomorrow at the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame. I want to thank them for their commitment to improving their communities and the lives of their fellow veterans. At a time of an all-volunteer service, it is critical that we have folks like these out there making sure that this Nation respects and honors and provides all the assistance to the 1 percent of the people who stand up to defend our Nation.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of an extraordinary Marine Corps veteran from my Congressional District, Mr. Maurice ``Mo'' Collin, who this week is being recognized for his lifelong efforts to ensure our nation's promises to our veterans. Mo's service and advocacy for his brothers and sisters in arms has never wavered and has continued decades past his time in the Marine Corps. After returning home from the Vietnam War, Mo has devoted his life to ensuring that veterans get the services and support that they need. Mo's career of distinction began with serving in the Marine Corps in the Vietnam War and then transitioning to duty as a Veteran Service Officer, devoting his work to advocating for veterans after they return from combat. His positivity and commitment were unshakable, and he rose to the position of Supervisor of the Office of Advocacy and Assistance with the Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs and later to serve as the Acting Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs. Mo's experience, personality and commitment to the well-being of the veterans in his community made him uniquely qualified for these demanding jobs. As evidence of his selflessness, Mo has said that service to other veterans has helped him handle the mental and emotional stresses that military service can impose on the men and women who serve. Mo now encourages all veterans to take advantage of services available to them after admitting his initial reluctance to seek out help for the Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder from which he suffered. Mo continues to volunteer at the Newington, Connecticut VA Medical Center, as a driver for the Disabled American Veterans and as a Veterans Liaison for the West Haven VA Medical Center. His induction into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame is the latest in a string of stirring achievements, motivated by the selfless desire to ensure that those who have served our country are well taken care of when they return home. On behalf of my colleagues in House, I thank Mo Collin for his service to his state and his nation and to congratulate him on his induction into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I pause to honor Mr. Robert T. Getman of Old Lyme, Connecticut, a distinguished Coast Guard veteran from my district who is posthumously being inducted into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame this week. Mr. Getman began his career as a 1954 graduate from the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, and served in the Coast Guard for 30 years before retiring in 1984. Retirement was no vacation for Mr. Getman however, as he was appointed and served 10 years as the Director of the Connecticut Veterans home in Rocky Hill, ensuring that Connecticut veterans had the care, rehabilitation, and education they deserved and needed. Mr. Getman's time at the Veterans Home saw an increase in numbers of veterans served over previous years, and his passion for helping others shone with each case he oversaw. Mr. Getman was known by those close to him for his passion for education. He believed that an educated community was one of the most successful strategies for growth and prosperity. Further building on his commitment to public service, Robert was elected to the Old Lyme Board of Education, where he extended his passion for service from the military to the civilian sphere. Mr. Getman also served as a member of the Harbor Management Commission, volunteered at the Coast Guard Academy Museum, and provided spiritual ministry and tutoring to inmates at the prison in Niantic, Connecticut, always seeking to help others help themselves and never giving up on the power of education to improve a community's strength. For his tireless commitment to serving his country, his community and for always seeing the opportunity for growth and improvement, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Robert Getman for his extraordinary service and his induction into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent whose lifelong service in our nation's military is truly breathtaking. Our men and women in uniform are regularly called upon to sacrifice large spans of time away from family, usually with limited contact and in dangerous conditions. In few jobs within the military is that truer than for our submariners, who can spend months at a time without even seeing the light of day, yet Master Chief Petty Officer Edwin F. (Bud) Atkins of Oakdale, Connecticut has partaken in a total of twenty patrols, spending time attached to nine different submarines. Bud first enlisted, not as a sailor, but as a soldier in his native Wisconsin National Guard in 1949. He then joined the Navy in February, 1954 and attended Basic Submarine School before reporting to the USS Wahoo (SS 565). After this first assignment, he briefly left the active service and joined the Naval Reserve, before returning to active duty. He then reported to the USS Congor (SS 477) followed by the USS Corsair (SS 435) to take part in the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959. Upon completion of that tour, he took part in thirteen strategic patrols during which he became a ``plankholder,'' a member of the first crew aboard a commissioned naval vessel, on the USS Sculpin (SSN590), USS Daniel Webster (SSBN 626) and the USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN 657). In 1969, he returned to staff duty at the submarine base in Groton, Connecticut to become the leading instructor in Advanced Nuclear Weapons, educating a new generation of submariners in the details of their unique craft. In June of 1973, Bud reported to the USS Kamehameha (SSBN 642) to lead his first patrol as Chief of the Boat, the highest ranking enlisted personnel on a submarine. He then led six more over ten years assigned to the submarine's Gold crew. Upon completing his final patrol with the Kamehameha, Bud returned to Groton as Staff Command Master Chief for Submarine Group Two. Already with more than twenty-five years in the Navy, Bud's desire to serve never died. In continuing his naval career, Bud reported to precommissioning units for both the USS Michigan and USS Alabama (SSBN 731), serving as Chief of the Boat for both. Following commissioning of the Alabama, Bud served as the Group Command Master Chief for Submarine Group Nine, one of the Navy's highest enlisted positions, before retiring in March 1988 after forty years of service. A life member of the U.S. Submarine Veterans, a Holland Club Member, and former Base Vice Commander of the Groton Base U.S. Submarine Veterans, Inc. Master Chief Atkins' service still hasn't fully ended. Not only is he an active member of the Connecticut veterans community, he also still serves as a Captain in the Second Company of the Governor's Foot Guard, a unit that, while largely ceremonial, is still officially part of the Connecticut military. While Bud's service is incredible in both its length and its profound impact on numerous ships of the U.S. submarine fleet, the sacrifice of his family must be recognized as well. He is married to the former Frances Somers of Amherst, Wisconsin, with whom he has two children. I wish Bud the best in his induction into the Connecticut Veteran's Hall of Fame this week.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, when deployed abroad our men and women in uniform face some of the most challenging, and adverse conditions possible--often staring down death or forced to cope with the loss of friends and comrades in arms. To help deal with such trauma, servicemembers frequently rely on the men and women of the chaplain's corps to provide spiritual, emotional and mental guidance through these tough times. This week, Samuel Baez, of Waterford Connecticut, is being inducted into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame for his lifelong commitment to helping both active soldiers and veterans find meaning, purpose and religious guidance while in and out of uniform. In 1962, while deployed to Vietnam, Sam led the memorial service for the first operational deaths of a group of Marines in DaNang. The names of these seven soldiers are now engraved on panel one of the Vietnam War Memorial Wall in Washington, DC. Despite seeing such horrors during wartime, Sam continued to serve the military community, veterans, and civilians long after retiring from service. He traveled the world and helped counsel individuals of various backgrounds and religious faiths. Sam was able to translate his experiences in war to help orphans and the elderly both at home and abroad. Today, Sam remains active in the veterans community, serving as both a chaplain, counseling individual soldiers and veterans, as well as frequently guest speaking to larger groups at a variety of events. Sam and his wife have also opened their home to cadets from the Coast Guard Academy in New London as parental sponsors to provide respite from the rigorous academic environment on campus and to augment their educational experience. For his tireless devotion to supporting the mental and emotional well-being of American service members, I am proud to recognize Samuel Baez and wish him the best during his induction into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in America's veterans we regularly see many of the most prized attributes of American spirit. Our men and women in uniform are frequently called upon to create innovative solutions to complex problems in the most dangerous of environments. Through such harrowing experiences, our veterans develop skills and knowledge that frequently lead them to find new ways to continue serving and supporting their communities long after they take off the uniform. Few exemplify these qualities more than First Sergeant Gerald B. Wright (Ret.), who will be inducted into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame next week. I have known Gerry for over 15 years, during which time I have witnessed his dedication to service both in and out of uniform. A tireless advocate for service members, their families and veterans from all branches and components of our Armed Forces, Gerry's advocacy and devotion to those who have served demonstrates the qualities that make him a revered member of his community, state and nation. Gerry first enlisted in the U.S. Army in October 1968, and was deployed to Vietnam less than a year later. He served with the 19th Combat Engineers Battalion, 18th Engineering Brigade where he was responsible for road work, mine sweeps, security, and reconnaissance. In 1970, he was attached to the Seventh Special Forces Group, before returning to the United States to attend Pathfinder School, becoming an expert in land navigation. After completing his second tour in November 1971, Gerry retired from active duty and returned to Connecticut to start his family and found his own business. Still fulfilling the call to serve, Gerry joined the Connecticut Army National Guard, with whom he would serve for 17\1/2\ additional years, during which he was part of Operation Desert Storm, and also led soldiers from Connecticut to Southern California to assist in constructing fencing and obstacles at our nation's border. There, he was commended by his commander for being the first rotation to not have a single heat or accident casualty due to the extreme temperatures of the region. Gerry's care for his comrades and brothers-in-arms has not shown the slightest signs of fading since his retirement from the National Guard in 1999. Gerry has consistently supported his fellow service members by storing the possessions of deploying soldiers, repairing and donating vehicles to veterans unable to afford their own, or helping place transitioning soldiers in civilian jobs, sometimes at his own business. Since 9/11, Gerry has been a regular, consistent attendee at ``Send Off'' and ``Welcome Home'' events at the Hartford Armory for Connecticut National Guard units deployed to the Middle East. In August of 2010, Gerry also completed the grueling ``Legacy Run to Reno'', a fundraiser to benefit military children who lost a parent in Iraq or Afghanistan. Gerry is an invaluable asset to eastern Connecticut's veteran community, and a shining example of every honorable quality we see in our service members. Next week, he will be inducted into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame--the latest in a long list of honors and awards for which he is more than deserving.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a friend, Marilyn Buel of Essex, Connecticut. When I was a freshman state legislator in Hartford a long time ago, Governor Bill O'Neill's Chief of Staff, Chad McCullom, called me in for a meeting. McCullom was an Irish politician straight out of central casting--a cigar-chomping, hard-bitten veteran. It was a contentious meeting, but after we worked out the issue, we shook hands and he said to me, ``the thing about this business, unlike other walks of life, is that you really get a chance to see inside of people. Sometimes what you see is not very pretty, and sometimes it can be quite inspiring.'' I recount this story because over the last 12 years, I had a chance to see inside Marilyn Buel due to our political struggles together. And what I saw was beautiful and exquisite. Twice, Marilyn stood beside me when I ran as a challenger for the United States Congress. Running as a challenger for Congress is probably one of the lowest percentage gigs you can imagine. This felt especially true when I ran the second time. It was hard to convince friends and family that I even had a chance. I remember one couple sent me a mass card when I announced, and it included a prayer to St. Jude. As the Roman Catholics in this body can attest, St. Jude is the patron saint of lost causes--which did not give me a great warm feeling about people's confidence in my ability to win this race. When I called Marilyn Buel though, her first reaction was, ``what took you so long?'' And from that point on, she immediately got to work for the next 2 years--working tirelessly on what turned out to be the closest race for Congress in the last 20 years. Marilyn was passionate about the cause and focused on making her greatest impact. In the Town of Essex where I ran and lost in 2002, the losing margin was 716 votes. In 2006, the year we won the total district by 83 votes, my losing margin in Essex was only nine. In a race that was decided by 83 votes, picking up a 707 vote swing from one race to another was a major deciding factor in my victory. Marilyn helped open the door for me in 2006, which I will never forget as long as I live. The one time in office Marilyn called me about a vote, she asked me to cosponsor a bill which would provide for more visas to Iraqi interpreters who, as the US troops were being drawn down at the end of the conflict, were being left behind. What was so telling about her request is that there was probably no one I knew who was more passionately opposed to President Bush's decision to take us into the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, her opposition to the war did not blind her to the human consequences of people who were selflessly trying to help our troops communicate in a foreign environment. Elie Wiesel famously said, ``The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.'' During my time in elected office, I have had the privilege of meeting scores of political activists dedicated to changing our nation for the better. In my experience, however, no one embodies or personifies Wiesel's quote better than Marilyn Buel. She was always trying to improve her community, state, and nation, and never expected anything in return--except to be a part of the solution to our challenges, rather than complaining or being negative. I was privileged to have the benefit of her support and will never forget it as long as I live. We lost Marilyn in August after a long and brave battle with cancer. On behalf of this entire House and my colleagues, I want to extend my deepest condolences to Dick, Elizabeth and her family for their loss. Connecticut will never be the same without Marilyn Buel.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, in 2011, former Secretary Robert Gates, as he was departing office, gave a speech at the West Point academy in which he said: In my opinion, any future Defense Secretary who advises the President to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined, as General MacArthur so delicately put it. I think Secretary Gates spoke for the entire country in terms of that sentiment, which, after a long, bitter experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, speaks to the weariness that many feel today in terms of those conflicts, and, certainly, with the motion that is before us this afternoon, it still rings in people's ears. I think it is important therefore to sort of measure what we are voting on with what Secretary Gates, I think, so accurately stated. The motion before us is to provide for title 10 authorization to allow the U.S. military to train and equip forces in Saudi Arabia to take up arms against ISIL. I checked with the Congressional Research Service yesterday to determine how many title 10 operations over the last 3 years have been conducted by the U.S. military. In 28 countries all across the world, the U.S. military has been involved in training and equipping operations, from the Philippines to Yemen to Poland. For those who argue that what we are about to engage in is a slippery slope or that this authorization somehow broadly confers on the administration the ability to conduct a land invasion or a large military force, the fact of the matter is that the long and broad experience of title 10 that we have tells us exactly the opposite. In fact, what title 10 seeks to do is to stand up indigenous forces in those nations of allies to avoid what Secretary Gates warned about in 2011, which is to, again, not get this country involved in a large land invasion.